What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

a reply to: JeanPaul

Even if you subscribe to they knew it was coming and just let it happen idea, the idea doesn't address that somebody went beyond just letting it happen, they used it to take down buildings and cause even more deaths.

It would be like them sinking there own ships at Pearl Harbor, even ones that were never even hit by Japanese bombs.
(WTC7)

In the end they just let it happen theory is a fail too.

originally posted by: Parthin96
Go herd your sheep and leave the thinking to the big people.
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, I've heard of sheep.

I live rural but I'm an academe by nature.

Remember that Ernest Rutherford was an NZ'er. I don't think the world would have the A-bomb or nuclear power without us 'yokels'. Our grasp on biology & genetics is pretty good too.

Considering our small population, I think we punch well above our weight.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JeanPaul

Even if you subscribe to they knew it was coming and just let it happen idea, the idea doesn't address that somebody went beyond just letting it happen, they used it to take down buildings and cause even more deaths.

It would be like them sinking there own ships at Pearl Harbor, even ones that were never even hit by Japanese bombs.
(WTC7)

In the end they just let it happen theory is a fail too.

I didn't say anything about "they used it to take down buildings". Your post is nonsensical and addresses absolutely nothing.

What do you think about Richard Clarke's information?

Lets start there. Is he a liar? Do you even understand what he said?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: JeanPaul


[

Nope. We start at the beginning. We start with Richard Clarke's interview.

Where he absolutely debunks the lie that there was a lack of inter-agency communication.

Starting there, what do you think about that information? It's a 12 minute interview. Watch every minute and once you show you understand the relevance we will continue.

I'm going to walk you through my process. The same process I went through. Starting with Richard Clarke's interview, then into the Able Danger program and then into the NORAD vs FAA timeline.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Sorry I shouldn't have been so harsh. But that man had no redeeming qualities no matter what anyone believes about 911.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Sorry I shouldn't have been so harsh. But that man had no redeeming qualities no matter what anyone believes about 911.

You can believe he is a criminal/terrorist/murderer, or whatever term you want to use, and still have a rationale discussion about whether he did 911.

See, this is what a court room would have to do too, at least in theory, with a previous criminal being charged with a new crime. It's not enough to say "But several years back she did X, Y, and Z. Therefore she is guilty!"

a reply to: JeanPaul

Correct me if I am wrong but your stance seems to be the CIA knew it was coming and did nothing ?
Thus they just let it happen idea.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Oh let there be no doubt here about my opinion on the subject. He planned and had this executed by his say so.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JeanPaul

Correct me if I am wrong but your stance seems to be the CIA knew it was coming and did nothing ?
Thus they just let it happen idea.

The CIA did in fact know a major attack on America was being planned by Al Qaeda. The CIA did in fact know top level Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country many months before 9/11. The CIA did in fact withold that information from the head of US counterterrorism (Richard Clarke).

Are you disputing this?

Richard Clarke exposed this fact. He had to come up with a theory as to WHY the CIA withheld this information. Why they didn't tell him top level Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country. Why they didn't tell him they were watching them and "lost track" of them.

The only theory he could come up with was that the CIA had attempted to "turn" the Al Qaeda operatives. That they attempted to make them "assets" and failed. That part is indeed speculation, but he wasn't speculating when he said they intentionally withheld the info that top level operatives had entered the country.

The full interview is below:

youtu.be...

Watch every minute of it. He shoots down the assertion that there was an accidental lack of "interagency communication".

This interview should have been done with a MSM figurehead not two high school looking kids. It should have been on national TV 24/7 for months on end.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Sorry I shouldn't have been so harsh. But that man had no redeeming qualities no matter what anyone believes about 911.

You can believe he is a criminal/terrorist/murderer, or whatever term you want to use, and still have a rationale discussion about whether he did 911.

See, this is what a court room would have to do too, at least in theory, with a previous criminal being charged with a new crime. It's not enough to say "But several years back she did X, Y, and Z. Therefore she is guilty!"

True. But courts will allow that information if it helps determine a person's trustworthiness. Just pointing that out. (steps back to continue watching the debate)

I don't think it was necessarily Osama Bin Laden who "planned" 9/11. I think Saudi and Pakistani intelligence agencies had a hand in it. Both training the operatives and funding the operation. This was a sophisticated plan with all sorts of unanswered questions.

What was Saudi Arabia's role? How exactly we're these operatives trained? At some mom and pop flight school in Florida? I think not.In some Afgan training camp in the mountains? What's all the smoke surrounding Pakistan's ISI? Why the classified Saudi information?

Heck, while we're at it why didn't any of the pilots trigger the hijacking mechanism or have the cockpit doors locked?

There's more to it than the so called "intelligence failures" but we haven't had an objective public investigation. The 9/11 commission was both a joke and they themselves were lied to.

The investigation into "Able Danger" was also a joke. So is the fact that they've "classified" Saudi Arabia's role in the attacks. Even Israeli foreknowledge has been ignored. Brit Hume did a brief story on Israeli spying/foreknowledge. Video below:

m.youtube.com...

Too many people have been willing to disregard any and all questions surrounding 9/11 as "outlandish conspiracy theories" then will post some dribble from the 9/11 commission. Which was set up to point the finger at Osama Bin Laden while also hiding the details of US intelligence and defense "failures".

All the people who failed were painted as hero's and promoted. It's a joke. I was watching Game Of thrones the other day and was reminded of 9/11. Ramsey Bolton snuck into Stanis's camp and destroyed all their food. Stains had his own guards hung because he said they were either incompetent or in on it. This is fictional entertainment of course but it reminded
me of 9/11. That the 9/11 commissions purpose was NOT to hold our own people accountable but to hail them as hero's while excusing an expansion of spying and a global "war on terror". Have them hung (fired/court marshaled)? Of course not! These people deserve promotions! Imagine Stanis Baratheon promoting the guards who failed and let Ramsey Bolton sneak by. It wouldn't make believable fiction yet this is our nations truth.

If Americans knew we had enough national defense at the time of 9/11 we would not support the expanded spying and wars. At least a couple politicians have been angered by this "confusion". Why was the head of NORAD on 9/11 promoted, then in "retirement" handed high paying jobs for defense contractors profiting from the "war on terror"? Why did the FAA say NORAD was given real time updates on all hijackings as they unfolded? On a separate line from the reased tapes? Why did the CIA lie to the 9/11 commission concerning knoedge of Al Qaeda operatives in America leading up to the attacks? Why was the senate investigation into Able Danger such a joke? There are a lot of issues most people aren't willing to confront, for fear of being labeled "conspiracy theorists". Who wants all the ridicule that comes with that label? It's much easier to just trust the 9/11 commission. To trust the Pentagon. To trust the senates inquiry into able danger. To trust the CIA.

It must feel good to think we have a 100% benevolent government invulnerable to severe malfeasance, corruption and sociopathy. All for the greater good of course. All for the greater good.

My answer to the OP's question is : almost IMMEDIATLEY!
But not on my own steam.

I left the USA to live in Spain. (I left because of GW Bush having been s'elected as potus).

**My flight from Dulles DC airport was on the night of Sept 10 2001.

Upon arrival in Spain, local time 3pm, (9am US EST), the local bar's TV showed the actual realtime moment the second plane hit the second tower.
Jetlag and all, I didn't know what was going on...but that this was BIG!

But then...A German man, in Spain, alerted me that the French knew all along that this was a US false flag.
Yep, it took the Europeans to inform us as to what was really going on.

It took me until March 2002 to be convinced that the Frenchman who called foul was right in his assumptions.
America readied itself for "Shock & Awe" in Iraq. Nothing made sense to me...Al Qaida in Iraq? Bin Laden? C'mon!
The rest is history: In the USA, it was Muslim terrorism. In Europe, it was American terrorism.

So, OK, it took me 6 months!

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Sorry I shouldn't have been so harsh. But that man had no redeeming qualities no matter what anyone believes about 911.

You can believe he is a criminal/terrorist/murderer, or whatever term you want to use, and still have a rationale discussion about whether he did 911.

See, this is what a court room would have to do too, at least in theory, with a previous criminal being charged with a new crime. It's not enough to say "But several years back she did X, Y, and Z. Therefore she is guilty!"

True. But courts will allow that information if it helps determine a person's trustworthiness. Just pointing that out. (steps back to continue watching the debate)

Fair, but then Osama also admitted I think to the other attacks in the past. Weren't the post-911 "confessional" videos seen by many experts to be fake? And we have the articles with verified interviews with him where he denies involvement.

Wasn't it true that the FBI never wanted Osama for 911 but instead only for the earlier embassy bombings and so on, because of lack of evidence for his involvement in 911?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Sorry I shouldn't have been so harsh. But that man had no redeeming qualities no matter what anyone believes about 911.

You can believe he is a criminal/terrorist/murderer, or whatever term you want to use, and still have a rationale discussion about whether he did 911.

See, this is what a court room would have to do too, at least in theory, with a previous criminal being charged with a new crime. It's not enough to say "But several years back she did X, Y, and Z. Therefore she is guilty!"

True. But courts will allow that information if it helps determine a person's trustworthiness. Just pointing that out. (steps back to continue watching the debate)

Fair, but then Osama also admitted I think to the other attacks in the past. Weren't the post-911 "confessional" videos seen by many experts to be fake? And we have the articles with verified interviews with him where he denies involvement.

Wasn't it true that the FBI never wanted Osama for 911 but instead only for the earlier embassy bombings and so on, because of lack of evidence for his involvement in 911?

(Just for the record, I was only pointing out that many times police, judges, and juries do in fact look at a person's past actions or accusations in court. Otherwise there would be no distinction for "repeat offenders", and "3 strikes and you're out" laws wouldn't exist either.)

As for Bin Laden, you're right. In fact, the FBI listed Khalid Sheikh Muhammad as the mastermind for 9/11. And he was captured fairly early on & tortured. He's the guy they waterboarded more than 100 times, among other things.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No, it is not true. Osama Bin Laden is listed as a co-conspirator in KSM's indictment and the US State Department had a reward listed for Osama's capture in connection to the 9/11 attacks

Apologies again for the tl;dr post ...

originally posted by: hellobruce
How many do you want?

Why wasn't/isn't your nation's capital and Defense HQ better serviced and prepared with such defense in the event of attack on your soil?

Again, how much do you think it costs to have aircraft and helicopters with engines running 24/7 in case of some attack?

How many aircraft and helicopters does Australia have around Canberra with engines running?

Bruce, have you been following the line of questioning put to me? It's getting rather circular and making me dizzy.

I merely suggested Anacostia as a location which could be strengthened for more practical security and defense of the nation capital in the event of an attack.

I don't think Australia could ever compare with the defense budget or capability of the US, but I don't doubt that, for all the decades of Australian tax payer money invested, our immediate defensive and security response to a sudden massive attack, then or today, would likely be impotent.
I wish that wasn't so, but I think there are a lot of wasted resources for little constructive purpose/result. I have reasonable confidence in our emergency response teams - SES, Firies, Paramedics etc. - and think they are a valuable investment.
Again, I highly doubt our intelligence or surveillance industry is quite on par with the US (yet), but I certainly wouldn't put it past any one of our previous or present govt lackeys (leaders and minions below), to 'go along with' a plausible story (lie) to conceal negligence or a botched investigation/operation or because they were simply misled.

And yes, I would expect the average person to believe every bit of it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

originally posted by: jaffo
You are all over the map here. You can't seem to make up your mind whether you just want to insult the U.S. for being so stupid that we did not catch and stop the attack or whether you want to maintain that it's some conspiracy false flag thing. Just admit that you hate America and that this is just an excuse to bash us and we'll all move on with our respective lives, lol. . .

My initial comment in this thread was about that moment I began to question the Official Story of 9-11.

I recalled a few innocent passing thoughts I had on the day of the attack - like my surprise over the fact the top of the South Tower didnt simply topple off to the side, or my curiosity as to how a hijacked plane had managed to get to the Pentagon so long after the FIRST plane hit the tower.

Very little, if any of this, is what led me to question the 9-11 OS in the first place. They were just SOME of my thoughts ON THAT DAY, which I had quickly dismissed as quirky oddities (but had always included them in my recollection of events), because I went on to believe every aspect of the official narrative for a further 3 years.

This interrogation began when I was asked to justify why I would be innocently surprised on the day, about the obviously lax nature of security and defense surrounding the Pentagon.

I cant change what I thought that day because you want me to.

I feel there have been continued attempts to misrepresent the intentions of my original post.

I gave a casual answer to the OP question - Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911." My initial doubt in the original story stemmed from a better awareness of dodgy political and business relationships and activities.

When I first began to doubt, I was not looking at the event as a "False Flag", or the way the buildings fell, or whether a plane hit the Pentagon. I am not an engineer or an architect or an airline crash investigator - so while I've listened to what they all have to say, it's in these things I try not to make definitive comments.

Moore's movie set nothing in stone for me. It was simply what compelled me to look a little closer at the politics and history surrounding the event. I still didn't go very far down the rabbit hole at first, but I began to take a second look at the reasons we were once again at war in the ME.

My response to the OP did not outline my years of research since, nor any of the other reasons which further solidified my suspicions and doubts in the official narrative of 9-11 - neither am I inclined to - I've already mentioned (too many times) that it's a huge topic, with many branches, that's been debated to death.

It is not really me who is all over the map .... you've just been lead-astray by your own generalisations and misconceptions about what others are thinking.

I did not instigate this debate, nor tried to influence or change any minds. I very rarely post about 9-11 at all on public forums precisely because I don't know what to bloody think! I answered the OP on topic and clarified my response (too many times). I've never claimed to know what happened that day, it's simply my opinion that the official story is not the truth.

I do not hate America.
I do not blame the American people.
I do not believe "9-11 was an Inside Job".

I do believe there was prior warning of a major impending terrorist attack.
I do believe the alphabet agencies had sufficient means to convey knowledge of that prior attack warning, and to efficiently communicate an attack underway.
I do believe security procedures for major transport centres and strategic govt locations (such as DoD HQs, WH, military bases) across America would have been developed in preparation for such an attack.
I do believe there should have been more security present at important locations following the first sign of possible attack.

I do believe a network of subversive elements working inside govt depts allowed, or even helped it to happen.
I do believe these subversive elements took full advantage of compartmentalisation, ignorance, incompetency and complacency within the system.
I do believe it's possible gullible pawns were persuaded, entrapped, encouraged, or otherwise (unknowingly?) manipulated to 'carry out' the attack - whether they were willing or capable is a whole other branch.

And it just goes on and on and on, and so ....

I do believe there was political and departmental coverup of incompetency, criminal activity, as well as genuine mistakes.
I do believe the administration deliberately utilised the "shock and awe" of 9-11 to push a corporate war agenda.
I do believe some people of questionable character made a lot of money out of it and I'm sorry that I don't find them sincere.
And because of all this - and more - I find it difficult to trust what they've put forward as their Official Story. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

If this is not what you believe, that's you're prerogative.

BTW jaffo, your effort to discredit and assassinate my personal character has been duly noted.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
No, THREE military helipads in the immediate area. Only ONE has helicopters assigned to it. For good, bad, or indifferent, the United States has always considered the Atlantic and the Pacific as "defense". Our Continental Air Defenses were postured against an attack coming in from the oceans. Prior to 1989-1990, what we saw on 9/11....probably would not have been as successful. BUT, after the Soviet Union imploded, one of the first things that our politicians did, was to end the Cold War air defenses we had in place....they had other places to spend the money.

Which is one reason why no one in the government really wanted to start playing the blame game too heavily. How do you hold someone responsible when they decide that taking Defense money and spending it on Welfare (Education...etc...) is a better use of the money at the time?

Or, how do you hold a General responsible when you do not give him the funding to have comprehensive air defense?

I like these type of balanced, informative responses, which do not entirely ignore the point I'm actually making, and encourages discussion to move forward.

I hear what you are saying about reduced funding, and I've already touched on inefficient application of resources in my reply to Bruce. I think it's probably even more so the case today, but with bloating causing overwhelming strain.

But it was too big of a deal to ignore responsibilities, and kinda foolish to attempt to sweep it under the rug. Trying to do so was always going to lead to more probing questions. When people discover or sense deception, they feel betrayed and become even more distrustful of those promoting the story. As such I dont envisage another independent open investigation would do much to quell suspicion either.

Overall, I believe we need better implemented government transparency and accountability, and more viable ways to offer public input into making educated and practical decisions for our security, defense, health, environment, primary resources, and all manner of things.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: MsVen

After the fall of Soviet Union aka EVIL EMPIRE were massive cutbacks in defense outlays

Opinion was that the BEAST (Soviet Union) was dead - who was around to attack us ......

ON 9/11/2001 were 14 air defense fighters positioned at 7 bases around the US

Fighters were launched from Otis at tip of Cape Cod and Langley near Virginia Beach

Once attacks manifested themselves many other airbases *Andrews - Wash DC) , Hancock (Syracuse NY)
started preparing and launching fighters, but takes time to fuel and arm (as well as rounding up pilots)

Again aside from the 14 fighters were not a bunch of planes armed and ready on strip alert

Yes, I understand this. Again, not quite my point, but thank you, firerescue. Please see past posts and above rant.

a reply to: JeanPaul


The CIA has many layers, almost cells you could say, they don't all know what the others are doing.

So I will say yes somebody in the CIA knew, but not every person.

So my answer is no I am not disputing this.