9/11 Truth: A Movement of Disinformation

Originally posted by Leyla
Well speaking of Flight 93 I learned lastnight that a tv station in Ohio confirmed that 2 flights landed- One was Flight 93. Now the people was shuttle to a Nasa hanger.. The other group went to FFA Headquarters. Now why on earth were those people sent to those places? I have to find the links again but it was on U tube. Hearing that I was just shocked. Where did those people go? I think their sitting in a FEMA Prison somewhere or dead. Why were there no bodies found at the crash site?

And they had to nerve to make a movie??!!

Flight 93 did not land in Ohio. It was Delta Flight 1989. Flight 93 and flight 1989 were confused by the air traffic controllers for a while becasue their flight path crossed each others. Flight 1989 landed in Ohio the pilot had called in an emergency.

Ok, Pepe....finally got a chance to look around...

the claim comes from this video, if you don't wanna listen to the whole piece (though you probably should, as well as everything from this event), you can skip forward to 55 minutes in....that's where he goes into it.

i got a litle mixed up though....in that part of the pentagon was the ONI...fetzer says there are indications that ONI was investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars rummy told congress on september 10th, 2001, that the pentagon had "lost track of"...

if you'd like, i could try to get a hold of the guy, and see if he can get me a source for the info...

Daedalus -

at long last, I appear! Sorry for the delay, had me a bit of a stay in the hospital slowing things up.

Now, to get to what you've had to say....you've missed the point, entirely. Belaboring the inconsistencies of the official 9/11 story accomplishes what? You're not going to convict anyone on the evidence, sorry. Thus my offering of a different approach, and my conjecture that the very nature of how the "9/11 Truth" movements are executed are, in themselves, disinfo and deflection. Just like the Bush hating, which obviously you're a part of.

Let's look at it this way:

Say I own a piece of fine art. In my town, I know this art dealer. He's one of the top dealers in the country, with tons of connections, and I know he could fetch a great price for my piece. One day, someone steals my fine art. The police, they tell me that a local gang of thieves stole it, and that they found some prints and even some monitored correspondence to prove this.
However, I hear that this local art dealer, he suddenly turned a huge profit, at the same time my piece of art was stolen. I also learn his uncle is the police chief. So me, I think the cops were bought. But they have evidence for their story, and the power of law behind them. Me, I just have some inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence. Now, what would I do to fight back?

Rail against the cops and the dealer, shouting out these inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence?

Or, maybe, I might try to follow the trails of the figures involved, to build a case that there is a pattern of the cops being bought, so that either a past case might break with concrete evidence, or they might be caught out in the future, once I have learned the pattern and the players well enough to anticipate their actions.

So, I think you can answer that one on your own. That being the case, isnt is amazing how the ringleaders of these movements are rabid about this ONE CASE, not the big picture, rabid about blaming the FIGUREHEAD, and not the network of criminals, and just pretty much rabid in general? Granted, some of them are just blind, hate-filled idealistic fools. But you, for instance, don't seem to be. Yet you seem to have this quasi-religious zeal about shouting out your circumstantial evidence. In essence, perpetually beating your head against the wall.

Oh, and btw...my personal take is similar to the "allowed to happen" angle. Sort of. We all know that many of our people in power are for sale. All the bribes and perks and so on, make that pretty clear. So, rather than a grand conspiracy of many, you just have bought people doing their little task. Basically, no one but a very few, the buyers, would have ever known what was going on. Far more plausible than some grand conspiracy.

Now, I do think we have traitors amongst the powerful in this country. Those who are working for our enemies, be they bought or simply corrupt from the start. I think that is where these trails from various incidences, including 9/11, Waco, OK City, etc., will eventually lead...IF they are ever followed. But I have no proof, so I simply keep that in mind, as I analyze whatever evidence and connections might come along.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Daedalus -

at long last, I appear! Sorry for the delay, had me a bit of a stay in the hospital slowing things up.

Now, to get to what you've had to say....you've missed the point, entirely. Belaboring the inconsistencies of the official 9/11 story accomplishes what? You're not going to convict anyone on the evidence, sorry. Thus my offering of a different approach, and my conjecture that the very nature of how the "9/11 Truth" movements are executed are, in themselves, disinfo and deflection. Just like the Bush hating, which obviously you're a part of.

Oh, it's so obvious, eh'?

do you even know what "obvious" means?, or are you just insane?

when did i start screaming "bush did it, he's evil, i hate him, let's string him up"?

Simple answer: i didn't.

Let's look at it this way:

Say I own a piece of fine art. In my town, I know this art dealer. He's one of the top dealers in the country, with tons of connections, and I know he could fetch a great price for my piece. One day, someone steals my fine art. The police, they tell me that a local gang of thieves stole it, and that they found some prints and even some monitored correspondence to prove this.
However, I hear that this local art dealer, he suddenly turned a huge profit, at the same time my piece of art was stolen. I also learn his uncle is the police chief. So me, I think the cops were bought. But they have evidence for their story, and the power of law behind them. Me, I just have some inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence. Now, what would I do to fight back?

Rail against the cops and the dealer, shouting out these inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence?

Or, maybe, I might try to follow the trails of the figures involved, to build a case that there is a pattern of the cops being bought, so that either a past case might break with concrete evidence, or they might be caught out in the future, once I have learned the pattern and the players well enough to anticipate their actions.

So, I think you can answer that one on your own. That being the case, isnt is amazing how the ringleaders of these movements are rabid about this ONE CASE, not the big picture, rabid about blaming the FIGUREHEAD, and not the network of criminals, and just pretty much rabid in general? Granted, some of them are just blind, hate-filled idealistic fools. But you, for instance, don't seem to be. Yet you seem to have this quasi-religious zeal about shouting out your circumstantial evidence. In essence, perpetually beating your head against the wall.

Your analogy is flawed, and doesn't even begin to compare to the 9/11 situation.

i hate to burst your bubble, but the WTC disaster was more than likely an inside job, planed, financed, and executed by a rogue criminal element working either within, or parallel to the US government.

seriously, you should read the words people have actually written, instead of seeing what you want to see.

Daedalus -
first off, calm down. Wipe the foam from your lip.

Secondly, about the Bush bit, I can go back and find and quote it, if you like. Subtlety in your opinion does not mask your opinion, and stating that I was "obviously a Bush apologist" or however you worded it, basically is stating that, because I don't rabidly blame Bush, I'm in the wrong.

My analogy is flawed...why? It's a simplification, certainly, but the gist of it is exactly the same. If not, why don't you explain the difference, and why it changes the course of action necessary?

As for the inside job bit...seriously, why don't you look at the FACTS, not what people have "said," and attempt to plot your course of action accordingly. Wild speculation, even if correct, does not further any agenda of redressing any wrongdoing. Speculation is good, in limit amounts, to find directions to explore. Speculation is not, however, actionable.

I agree with the entire premisis
however as you point out the industrial military complex (hydra) is needing a heart kill but this hydra has almost as many hearts as heads
and industrial military secrets are so compartamentalized that hardly anyone nows whats really going on...you only know whats in your department...its need to know
PS do you know the formula to pepsi?
and we are gonna find the heart of the hydra?
your correct in every aspect, 9/11 diversions...etc
the only thing I think you are incorrect about...and I wish and hope I am wrong is to kill the hydra.
but I feel the same as you...but I feel blessed to know the truth
it does not stress me or worry me, or bug me...I feel enlightened and you have enlightened me further
great post.
I am fan of this post
cheers

junglelord -
thank you. I don't know that there is any way to kill the beast. I simply was hoping to maybe inspire some of the great minds here to move towards something that can progress, that is actually doing SOMETHING, rather than just shouting out on street corners. I'd love to find all the truth and all, but, to me, you have to start with the pieces you have, and try to build something from them, one piece at a time.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Leyla
Well speaking of Flight 93 I learned lastnight that a tv station in Ohio confirmed that 2 flights landed- One was Flight 93. Now the people was shuttle to a Nasa hanger.. The other group went to FFA Headquarters. Now why on earth were those people sent to those places? I have to find the links again but it was on U tube. Hearing that I was just shocked. Where did those people go? I think their sitting in a FEMA Prison somewhere or dead. Why were there no bodies found at the crash site?

And they had to nerve to make a movie??!!

Flight 93 did not land in Ohio. It was Delta Flight 1989. Flight 93 and flight 1989 were confused by the air traffic controllers for a while becasue their flight path crossed each others. Flight 1989 landed in Ohio the pilot had called in an emergency.

That seems to be as you stated. I was glued to the tv all day and I don't recall hearing anything about flight 1989. Oi no more mysteries for me.

Originally posted by Daedalus
I mean, Simon said on the podcast how he was surprised more people weren't talking about building 7...and he's right...noone really talks about it, and they should be....building 7 really is kinda the smoking gun of the whole day...there was no reason for it to fall, yet it did....

The smoking gun of that day was when, i saw for the first time in history a building pancake onto it self as a result of structural failure....

Not to mention that this historic day where the laws of physics temporary didn't exist not only 1 and not 2 but 3! buildings as far as i know, are the only buildings in history to pancake onto them selves from structural failure...

And people call you crazy when you bring up demolition methods as a possibility, makes you wonder some times...

Edit: My post was about how i think the official story it self is the disinformation and not the truth movement that wants to expose those who committed this awful crime.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Essedarius
I promised myself I would quit wasting time on 9/11 threads

Please go ahead and keep your promise. We won't mind, really.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by selfless]

selfless-

if you read the entirety of this thread, you will note that the main thrust is not about 9/11, but rather uses 9/11 as an example, under the assumption that 9/11 was not entirely what it was made out to be, in one way or another.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
selfless-

if you read the entirety of this thread, you will note that the main thrust is not about 9/11, but rather uses 9/11 as an example, under the assumption that 9/11 was not entirely what it was made out to be, in one way or another.

You called this thread 9/11 truth: a movement of disinformation.

Now it appears to me that from the perspective of my personal ''smoking gun'' that i shared on this thread, it's the official story that is a disinformation movement.

The context of a thread is not a dictatorship, i am well on topic here from MY PERSPECTIVE and the perspective of many others who don't buy into the official story at all.

selfless-
from what you just said, you read the title, and made a reply. Read the material and then you will see the angle I was taking, rather than just parroting the same old information.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
selfless-
from what you just said, you read the title, and made a reply. Read the material and then you will see the angle I was taking, rather than just parroting the same old information.

The tittle of the thread is the context of the thread....

Are you saying to me that because you perceive my message as not being compatible with your opening text that i am off topic?

An opinion is subjective, if you want people to just say what you want them to say and not what they perceive to be needed to be said, you should call your thread: Don't post if i don't perceive your text to be the same meaning of my opening statement.

No offense but you are sounding like a dictator.



Edit: You should know that just because you make a thread does not grant you the position of a dictator.

Now here is how opinion works,

You may have the opinion to not like my message in your thread and that is your opinion but you have no right to order me not to write what i perceive to be related to your topic from my point of view.

You may choose to ignore my post if it does not suite your agenda and that's fine but your opinion cannot transcend into an order, that's not how it works.




[edit on 14-5-2007 by selfless]

selfless-
good god...CONTEXT. Ever heard of it? It requires reading the ENTIRE STATEMENT. Really tends to clarify things.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
selfless-
good god...CONTEXT. Ever heard of it? It requires reading the ENTIRE STATEMENT. Really tends to clarify things.

con·text
n.

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

A setting, also appointed by the tittle of a thread.

Also, i read your post don't worry about that.

And what i perceive as being disinformation is the official story and that is only my opinion, take it or leave it but don't force me out because it doesn't suite you.

Peace.


[edit on 14-5-2007 by selfless]

Selfless-
the context would be the setting that follows the opening statement, ie, the surrounding information.

NO WHERE did I say that the official story was correct, or that the "9/11 truth" theories were invalid. The concept I attempted to share was one not of black and white, but of a gray area of misdirection. Misinformation isnt just about FALSE information; it can also be about the manner of presentation of true information.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Selfless-
the context would be the setting that follows the opening statement, ie, the surrounding information.

So wait, are you telling me that the tittle of your thread was not meant to be the meaning of your context? That's not how a thread tittle should work if you ask me...

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
NO WHERE did I say that the official story was correct, or that the "9/11 truth" theories were invalid. The concept I attempted to share was one not of black and white, but of a gray area of misdirection. Misinformation isnt just about FALSE information; it can also be about the manner of presentation of true information.

No where did i say that you believe the official story is correct.

But the tittle of your thread is about disinformation and my interpretation of disinformation in this case 911 is that the official story it self is the disinformation considering that, it's what makes a person to stop looking for information on the subject because they are mislead into believing lies.

Now are we clear?

As clear as mud. The title is a challenging statement, backed up and detailed by the text that follows. Thus...your attitude and approach don't really make a great deal of sense.

In any case, it is what it is, and I'd rather get back to discussion of the topic I presented.