Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous

reply to post by Archirvion

The 9\11 episode got informed 14th of march 2001 before it happened.

That's fascinating, a potential bombshell. A watershed moment.

As good as 'Deepthroat' in the Watergate Nixon scandal!

IF what you say is 100% accurate, AND if you can verify and corroborate that claim, then why are you only posting it on a 'conspiracy' website?

You could be the 'Deepthroat' of the 21st century, and a great patriot. Might even make some $$$ out of it?

It would be very interesting to hear all of the details.

It's astonishing such 'dangerous nut cases' are allowed to roam free.

It's astonishing such 'dangerous nut cases' are allowed to govern free.

we can't be all like me................. dumbasses

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Archirvion

 

The 9\11 episode got informed 14th of march 2001 before it happened.

That's fascinating, a potential bombshell. A watershed moment.

As good as 'Deepthroat' in the Watergate Nixon scandal!

IF what you say is 100% accurate, AND if you can verify and corroborate that claim, then why are you only posting it on a 'conspiracy' website?

You could be the 'Deepthroat' of the 21st century, and a great patriot. Might even make some $$$ out of it?

It would be very interesting to hear all of the details.

We got info from Italy in March 2001 on 9/11.

www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by December_Rain


You have convinced me. From now on I only want the lies about 9/11... just kidding. Great article BTW, star and flag!

-rrr

[edit on 9-3-2010 by rickyrrr]

Its only normal to question something and impossible to avoid, probably. I'm not sure which 'truth' is being questioned but, experts agreed that something happened and that the professionals would take care of it. When experts agreed on this, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain. When groups are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain expecially by a non-expert (ie. someone on ats trying to make something out of nothing etc). There is a good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with expert opinion, but the opinion of experts is suuperior to owe own ONLY in their fields of expertise. For example, experts on making up conspiracies are great for entertainment, debate, learning how to argue etc. but sometimes the stuff i read on here...i mean its like someon is trying to convince me the worldwide wrestling is real, you know, not staged, and to continue arguing about it really makes no sense. I vote only for myself to move on from this. I mean truthers trying to make me think something is real. I think its like trying to convince someone that a miracle is about to happen.

So... Having a list of names of people that are in power means that these people are dangerous. I really don't see a connections with the names in the list and danger

To me it is like saying black people are dangerous and these names prove it
Al Sharpton
Jessie Jackson
Martin Luther King Jr.

It just does not make sense. These people have different beliefs than you, get over it. Personally I believe the 9/11 commmision report, but that is besides the point. You are attacking someone for what they believe. It is similar to when bigots attack minorities. It is wrong, and I would not stand for it if you did it to me. Why should they. When you marginalize someone, that is when they become dangerous.

Wow....



btw. I have proof that christians that don't believe in abortion are potentially dangerous terrorists that can murder abortion doctors or setoff bombs at abortion clinics......

PROOF!!! I tell you.

So when do we start hunting down these dangerous criminals?

Thanks for the good laugh.

At first I was getting ready to post a not so nice reply. Personally, I don't think that the commission got everything right.

I was going to point out that it's good to question your representatives and/or government officials after all that's what freedom of speech is all about.

But, then I started to read more than the title.


SO, once again , thanks for the laugh.

I've never really been active in the 911 threads until yesterday and I see this one and I have to post. I try to avoid the truthers because for the most part they fail to listen to reason. And attempt at a logical debate generally ends with "your a disinfo agent". I read all this, I almost call it nonsense, but I won't. Because the quotes are legit and quite a few are taken out of context and given a meaning that wasn't implied by the speaker.

I'll make my position known before I start this. I do not believe the US government carried out this attack. I do not believe they knowingly and intentionally allowed the attack to be carried out. If I found either of those things to be true I'd leave the country. I do think that we were given misleading information and certain items were covered up. But not for any particularly dubious purpose. To cover up a degree of incompetency in the Clinton/Bush years, but not to coverup government facillitation of the attack. And frankly I don't mind if they covered certain things up because of incompetence or for intelligence purposes. I don't want our enemies knowing that our intelligence community has become to vanilla and is borderline incompetent. I also don't mind if some of the information was concealed in order to take now legitimate action against other groups hostile to America. Now I'm going to break down some of those quotes.


“I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, nOW THE QUOTED PERSON STATES THAT THERE ARE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WON'T ANSWER THEM. hE DOESN'T STATE WHAT INFO WAS COVERED UP.
“I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. OK THAT QUOTE IS VAGUE AS WELL. BUT THIS PARTICULAR FELLA THINKS THE BUILDINGS WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. FROM WHAT I READ HE'S NOT A DEMOLITION EXPERT AND WAS A PENCIL PUSHER. AND IF ANYONE CAN OFFER SOME REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS A CONTROLLED DEMO, I'D LOVE IT. BECAUSE EVERYTHING I SEE INDICATES QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
“serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored) THIS IS FROM A SUPPOSED LETTER TO CONGRESS WHICH I CAN'T FIND ANY VALIDATION FOR. SO I'M TOTALLY DISCOUNTING IT.
"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job
"9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", NO OFFENSE BUT I'VE READ SOME OF STEELE'S WORK AND HE'S A BIT OUT THERE.

"The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."OK BUT A COVERUP OF WHAT? INCOMPETENCE?

an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House(confirmed here)--NOT CONFIRMED. BARELY A MENTION OF THIS GUY ANYWHERE PRIOR TO HIS BOOK WHICH CAME OUT IMO TO CAPITALIZE ON SOME OF THIS 911 NONSENSE. ZERO CREDIBILITY. BOB GRAHAM SUPPORTED GWSR'S HALFASSED WAR ON IRAQ, SLICK WILLY'S BOMBING RUNS AND W'S OVERTHROW OF HUSSEIN. IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THIS GUYS SENATE VOTES HE'S A HORRIBLE PERSON. ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION LOSES ALL OF MY RESPECT AND FORCES ME TO RECOGNIZE HIM AS AN IDIOT OR A SUPPORTER OF INFANTCIDE. EITHER OF WHICH MAKES ME QUESTION ANYTHING HE SAYS.


Someone please offer some evidence that is specific. Someone offer something other than vagueness and ambiguity on the subject. There has never been one published peer reviewed article in any scientiffic journal stating that the towers could have been a controlled demolition. There is zero credible proof that I have seen that indicates that our government carried out the attack or intentionally allowed it to happen. Nor have I ever seen a plausible explanation on how a controlled demolition could have been carried out. I will meet every piece of evidence with facts. Not some emotional response because I'm pissed off at the US government. Cmon truthers come up with something remotely credible. Just for reference I'm not blindly buying into a govt story. I've done my research, I was in manhattan on 9/11. I was in both of the twins over the weekend prior.

reply to post by grey580


I have Proof
that they lied to us about global warming. People and nations wasted millions of dollars trying to save the world fattening the pockets of those like Al Gore. When do we hunt down these liers and take them to court. What they did is like yelling bomb in a full movie theatre, yet there is no consequences for them.

People did not lose their lives, but people DID lose their livelyhood

Talk about beating a dead horse. Now 9/11 Truthers are on the same lists as those nasty muslim TERR-RISTS. Ala GWB.


Can you say Cover UP ?

Believe what you will, but the fact of the matter is that if you wanna know what is going on in our world today, simply FOLLOW THE MONEY.
'Nuff said.

So that said, whether the towers were demolished by nano thermite, micro nukes or not, the fact of the matter is that GWBush had already contacted Tony Blair about invading IRAQ well before the 9/11 event even transpired.

Research the Downing Street Memo, as well as the BUSH family ties to the OIL Industry and how they have profited from OIL since GBush Senior's hired by Dresser Industries and moving to Texas from Connecticut in the late 40's.

Look @ ARBUSTO Energy, GW's own OIL company, funded with his TRUST FUND MONEY as well as investments from a guy named Bin Laden, Osama's very own brother.

Who later mysteriously died in a plane crash I might add.

So now after the "Tragic Day" we have since occupied Oil Rich IRAQ, and have already constructed a huge 100+ acre Fortress Like Embassy there.

This huge US Embassy conveys a very clear message, and that is our very clear intent of remaining in this OIL rich nation. As long as there are OIL profits to be had.

So regardless of all of this he said, she said crap, pertaining to that day. We are solidly there, or at least Corporate American OIL is and are making tons of profits which coincidentally enough go directly to the FEDERAL RESERVE.

There's our 9/11 justification right there. All in OIL profits, and cold hard cash.

Originally posted by DrJay1975
There has never been one published peer reviewed article in any scientiffic journal stating that the towers could have been a controlled demolition. There is zero credible proof that I have seen that indicates that our government carried out the attack or intentionally allowed it to happen.

How about this for credible peer reviewed scientific journal article.

www.bentham.org...

www.journalof911studies.com...

There are tons of evidence.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by chrisrand]

I believe that the OP has shown good evidence of a cover-up of information before the 9/11 commission. However, this alone has not led me to believe it was an "inside job" without more. When 9/11 went down, everybody who could be tied to that event was scrambling to get as much distance as possible. It was all CYA and keep your job. I have no trouble believing that info was withheld or sanitized before the commission. Nobody wanted to be blamed for missing it or for failing to connect the dots.