People Who Know, And Took The Oath Are Guilty.

I was thinking that many within the civilian political & military sectors that took the oath to protect America from domestic threats are now in violation of that oath in regards to 9/11.

Yes they did not participate or support the act itself, but know they know. And does not this make them guilty and in violation of their oath to protect America from domestic threats?

At the very least they should be pushing hard for a new investigation.
The Oath is now a joke, most don't abide by it.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Friend,

911 aside,

The government has been crossing their fingers while they spoke the oath for awhile.

Our Troops? They arent fighting for the govt....

I have gotten this from more than one vet.

They fight for EACH OTHER!

Hey, listen, I'm former military and I'm searching for the true perpetrators of 9/11/2001 just as strongly as any of you.

It's clear to me that the official story is false, what's not clear to me is that this necessitates our own government being responsible.

I'm familiar with the capabilities of foreign paramilitary and intelligence groups and you'd be surprised at just how much they could do, even in the United States. If the United States paramilitary operators were capable of doing this then it's entirely reasonable to assume that foreign groups of similar levels of training could achieve similar results.

Because I served, I find it unlikely that the government would have the appropriate motivation to do this. The government is lying, but their lie may not be malicious in intent.

If you do not think that foreign interests spread disinformation and attempt to create distrust among the American people about what happened on 9/11/2001 then you are naive. Just as our Special Activities Division and other paramilitary as well as special forces and special operations and special warfare teams go out and spread disinformation in order to advance the interests of the United States of America, the USA is a huge target itself.

You are being foolish if you think that the government lying to you about something equates to the government being responsible for something, and evidence for the former, while generally disturbing, is not evidence for the other.

In my research, and I'll admit I'm very new here, I have not seen anything to suggest in any conclusive fashion that the United States government or United States special interests perpetrated 9/11/2001.

It could even be that a rogue organization within the United States government perpetrated these attacks, and that Al Qaeds was expressly invented to hide this, that the United States took care of the rogue group, but could not, for the sake of national security, reveal that this had occurred in any official form.

Stating that a rogue group within the United States successfully carried out an attack of this magnitude would in fact seem like a reasonable cause (or at least I could see it being argued as one) for hiding the truth, so to speak.

Still, I believe in disclosure, and that is why I look for the truth myself.

I hope that you can understand this viewpoint, that just because the "truther" side has a lot of momentum stating not only that the US lied, the that the US did it and how this is potentially a very dangerous combination, and how only the latter requires the former.

Just because one possible reason for the government to lie about 9/11 is that it was the perpetrator does not mean that it must be the reason, nor does it mean it's even the most likely reason.

You cannot get too riled up in fearmongering, even from the 'truther' side. That is how disinformation really works. You expose a lie of your enemy and then create a lie to go along with the credibility you have established in exposing the entity you are trying to harm.

I'm sure you know what half-truths are, I will not raise up arms against those who I believe are not out to harm us. The federal government is not designed in such a way as to make this easy to carry out, even with the gang of eight and senators and reps not being allowed to speak out against CIA activities, or black ops, or domestic ops, they must still be briefed.

With these briefings, I can assure you, some of these men would have been willing to get charged with treason to reveal such an atrocity and abuse of government power. Perhaps not only out of bravery, but out of the knowledge that should a whistleblower like that appear, the United States public would not let harm come to him regardless of the stipulations regarding the information he was releasing, regardless of how 'classified' it was, since he would be seen as someone who was truly protecting the national security, and his silence orders invalid.

reply to post by sremmos

It could even be that a rogue organization within the United States government perpetrated these attacks, and that Al Qaeds was expressly invented to hide this, that the United States took care of the rogue group, but could not, for the sake of national security, reveal that this had occurred in any official form.

Then there would have been no need to invade Afghanistan, right?

Wow! only 4 posts in and this 'thread is under close staff scrutiny'

Good job!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean me personally, I am a 'sheeple', but the huge notice by the mods reinforces my suspicions.....

Your free to express your opinion in the USA.... 'as long as it doesn't conflict with what we tell you to think'

That does not mean I agree with the OP..I'm just saying...way touchy subject for "FREE THINKERS" to wanna/need to police so closely.

reply to post by Xcouncil=wisdom


Actually xc=w, every thread in this (9/11)forum is under staff scrutiny.

It's because we're usually in here debating 9/11 information to the point of mental breakdown, commonly referred to as "9/11 madness", whereas emotional response takes over the normally rational response resulting in some sort of t&c violation.

Seeing as this tends to happen a lot here, it sometimes interferes with normal debate, the mods watch every post here to make sure we all stay civilized.

So you see it has nothing to do with our free speech.


By the way, I think that unless you have first hand knowledge of actual crimes committed on 9/11, you have not violated your/any oath to our country.

Just because you were/are in the military now or during 9/11, or even in one of the alphabet agencies now or back then doesn't make you guilty of anything.

That is unless you were part of, knew about, or learned of any crimes on 9/11 and helped cover them up, even if it was simply by keeping your mouth shut.

reply to post by PersonalChoice

That is unless you were part of, knew about, or learned of any crimes on 9/11 and helped cover them up, even if it was simply by keeping your mouth shut.

Exactly my point.

Those that believe the official story are not in violation of the oath at all, ignorance is bliss. I don't blame them, nor do I expect too much from them.

Let's say your an officer in the military, and you had nothing to do with 9/11.
But you begin to see a pattern of cover-ups, and are told keep your mouth shut if you know whats good for you, that type of mentality being put out there.

With knowledge and intelligence comes great responsibilities to our fellow humans, and especially if you took an oath. That is my point.

I've posted this before but it might be appropriate to include it here in this thread. I have a suspicion that many police, firefighters and other workers of various kinds, possibly air traffic controllers, etc. were approached and cautioned by the authorities to keep quiet about what they saw or experienced in one way or another on 9/11.

It would be very interesting to know the extent of this, who these people were and where they were active on 9/11. It's possible that many breakthroughs in our understanding of that event could be enhanced by the testimonies of these witnesses, who were not perps themselves but who may have been close enough to the action, in the course of their jobs, to witness non-routine occurences that could shed light on the bigger picture of 9/11.

I'm sure there are many people out there with tidbits of knowledge, who have been cautioned by the FBI or others, possibly supervisors at work, not to talk about what they know. 9/11 was a deception. David Copperfield wouldn't want stage hands at his magic shows talking about what they see from their vantage points backstage and neither would the perps of 9/11.

These people, if they have knowledge of a crime comitted and refuse to disclose it are flirting with being charged as accessories after the fact. If found guilty they would, in most jurisdictions, be punished as if they were perps themselves.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


I agree.

I think it's safe to say, that this is the reason why not a single person was singled out, fired, blamed, reprimanded, or demoted for anything related to the entire 9/11 fiasco. If I had to guess this was specifically done to prevent anyone from talking about any crimes committed.

Better to promote, or promise and then deliver whatever certain key individuals wanted, that might have had knowledge of anything negative. Appeal to "this is whats best for the country" patriotism. Plus peer pressure from superiors.

Then they pass the Patriot Act and create Homeland security, which both surely were looked at as a veiled threat to these individuals who could now be completely monitored in secret. Throw in the common knowledge of state secrets laws, extraordinary rendition, torture, government hitman teams and the fact that everyone else seems to be keeping their mouth shut and it's no surprise no one is talking.

As crazy as that sounds(even to myself as I look at it now) it is all complete fact that these things are happening, especially during those several years after 9/11.

On top of the fact, that the couple of FBI agents that have come forward with "the tip of the iceberg" problems they had with 9/11, were totally ignored.

So if these individuals with knowledge of crimes committed on 9/11 exist, why would they talk? Will they ever? In this kind of political, social, and economic atmosphere I highly doubt it.