Nobody doubts that 9-11 was commited by government insiders anymore, right?

There's so much information available that overwhelmingly proves that people within the government were responsible for the attacks on 9-11. There aren't anymore skeptics left are there?

Fortunatly and unfortunatly there are plenty of them left.

Fortunatly there are because it keeps the others on their toes and makes them keep investigating and digging up things.

Unfortunatly because the OT supporters sometimes tend to fill threads with official story rhetoric and ridicule CTers, rather then post science and evidence for the OT and debate with CTers, but the same can be said about some CTers.



[edit on 2/6/07 by thematrix]

Originally posted by wingman77
There's so much information available that overwhelmingly proves that people within the government were responsible for the attacks on 9-11. There aren't anymore skeptics left are there?

Here's the challenge...

Just list a one piece of evidence that overwhelmingly proves that anybody in the government was responsible for 9/11 -not just that a part of the official story doesn't seem to make sense to you.

Then list the specific people in the government that are tied directly to your one piece of evidence.

Good luck.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by wingman77
There's so much information available that overwhelmingly proves that people within the government were responsible for the attacks on 9-11. There aren't anymore skeptics left are there?

Here's the challenge...

Just list a one piece of evidence that overwhelmingly proves that anybody in the government was responsible for 9/11 -not just that a part of the official story doesn't seem to make sense to you.

Then list the specific people in the government that are tied directly to your one piece of evidence.

Good luck.

I love a challenge
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

way too much info to post, so there's the link...good luck.

Originally posted by wingman77
There's so much information available that overwhelmingly proves that people within the government were responsible for the attacks on 9-11. There aren't anymore skeptics left are there?

*puts hand up*

Me !

I think the majority of US government is polarized by lobby's and the elected person does not have a inside view of the NWO or Skull and Bones.

It is a secret society so the others beside them are not in on it.

The secret government did it, not the government.

I just watched a PBS 3 hour special on Tony Blair
watch that and have some understanding of Federal Reserve, Bilderburg and watch the things that just scream out at you....
its really incredible how the questions are asked but only the secret society answers the questions.



[edit on 2-6-2007 by junglelord]

Im still not 100% convinced it was an inside job. But i am convinced that the official story is a complete lie... wait, im confusing myself now

Nope, I don't believe that 9-11 was an inside job.

I read the cases that try to prove otherwise.
All I see, is hearsay. And ambiguous statements that are interpreted to fit the "insider story".

Then, these are repeated by others, who have other "wouldn't stand up in court" evidence.
I remain unconvinced. But still open to some hard evidence.

Originally posted by dragonseeker

I love a challenge

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

way too much info to post, so there's the link...good luck.

This is a typical CT cop out. Rather than list the *one* piece of evidence that overwhelmingly proves government complicity, you link to a website filled with lots of speculation, misinformation, and some outright lies.

If there is so much overwhelming evidence that the government is responsible for 9/11, it should be easy for any CTer to simply list ONE piece of evidence that proves this, and then tie that evidence to a specific person.

I will make a bold prediction. There will be dozens of posts that follow but there won't be a single post that meets the challenge.

Name the evidence and who specifically the evidence links to the conspiracy.

P.S. For those of you tempted to type anything relating to "Silverstein" and "pull it" let me remind you that Silverstein is not part of the government, and "pull it" isn't exactly the equivalent of a bloody glove.

[removed quote of entire previous post]



Nick, there are 3 years of stories under that link, no way you gave them a thorough read in the 5 minutes since I posted...you're the one who copping out, by raising the level of "acceptable" evidence to unrealistic heights given the nature of the event. The evidence is there, you just refuse to accept it. I'm not going to play a game with you, this is way too important for that.


Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 2-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

I don't know for a fact that they did it, although it wouldn't surprise me at all.
After reading the 9-11 report (what a long, dull read) and reading as many opposing theories as I could, I'm still not convinced either way. Every version I find (including the official report) has to many holes in it to prove to me it's validity.

I do think, though, that the most telling evidence that the government was in on it was the fact that the W. just sat in that classroom with a dumb look on his face. It seems to me that if they had no knowledge of the attack, the secret service would have swarmed in and whisked him away, not knowing how many planes were involved or where they were headed, and anyone with a TV would have known where W. was right then.

If the government was not involved, I would suggest firing all the secret service guys on the spot for dereliction of duty.

Skeptics asking for evidence but forgetting that there are different levels of evidence. There is something called circumstantial evidence. The circumstances when combined can move someone to make an informed decision. A historian who doesn't have bona fide scientific evidence but still will make conclusions based on the available data and circumstantial evidence, data comes from more then one source.

Trying to pin something down to just 'one piece of evidence' is a trick skeptics play knowing full well that the power of the argument in this case lies in the overall circumstantial evidence.

I for one think that the military not being able to track the planes because their transponders were off is ludicrous at best. That is a good beginning point. But the case is circumstantial.

I also see no reason whatsoever for the 'hijackers' to have chose longer routes to their targets, for example the hijackers could have taken off from JFK, but they choose Logan airport instead, did they know they would be allowed to fly without any escort?

You would think that when they planned this, they would figure that they would be escorted, so leaving from JFK would make perfect sense.

Whomever was behind 9/11 knew that they would be able to hit their targets despite the time in the air. That alone tells me it wasn't just hijackers in a cave that knew this, but someone else is involved.



[edit on 2-6-2007 by talisman]

The reality is a thread comes up like this about every week... this will eventually turn into a war, and you will get a good 4 pages of replies. The people who believe in the official story (yes, they exist on this site) will never give in, no matter how much evidence you provide, and vice-versa.

It is a good thing we have members that believe different sides of this story, but time and time again when this issue comes up the thread turns into a war.

......and its already starting

I, for one will not participate any further, I'm not after a war, I think we have enough of those already.

. . . no longer any question, right?

Oh, I wouldn't go that far.

I have no doubt that the globalist puppet masters put the Jihadi's up to it etc. And probably were in somewhat close control of them.

May well have facilitated the demolition by prior explosives.

Who's the government?

Certainly the shadow government has been in control increasingly for 50 years. Certainly the Senate was compromised long ago and is firmly in their grip. Same key House positions.

Wouldn't trust Bush Sr any further than I could throw Kennebunkport.

But actually, Shrillery is the one who is most hostile to questions. Doesn't think serfs have the right to question HER at all. Their only use is to give her their money and blood and Shut Up and get out of her sight unless called.

You haven't seen anything like the levels of corruption and tyrannical globalist control that will rush to the fore if she gets elected.

While I'm not sure that the official story is 100% accurate, I'm not at all convinced that it was an 'inside job'.

If there's any cover-up, its that the government probably knew the hijackers were dangerous and should have arrested them prior to that event actually occurring. That's an enormous mistake itself, but its just a case of plain, old fashioned stupidity, not an inside job.

Originally posted by hikix
The reality is a thread comes up like this about every week... this will eventually turn into a war, and you will get a good 4 pages of replies. The people who believe in the official story (yes, they exist on this site) will never give in, no matter how much evidence you provide, and vice-versa.

*Sigh* You're wrong, hikix. Most of us who believe that there was no government complicity, although some of us believe our government was dumb enough to not really turn an entire eye on this mess before it happened and were blind-sided by it, would love for you to show us some proof that our government was responsible.

You have to remember which side is thriving on circumstantial (at best) evidence. Non-complicity skeptics are simply asking for some hard proof, and the truthcult mob fails to ante up every time. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic, it is on the party that is crying conspiracy.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by PartChimp]

Originally posted by dragonseeker
Nick, there are 3 years of stories under that link, no way you gave them a thorough read in the 5 minutes since I posted...you're the one who copping out, by raising the level of "acceptable" evidence to unrealistic heights given the nature of the event. The evidence is there, you just refuse to accept it. I'm not going to play a game with you, this is way too important for that.

Three years of stories does not equal evidence. And I reiterate, it is you that is copping out. If this is so important to you just list *ONE* piece of evidence that overwhelmingly *proves* that the U.S. government were the source of the 9/11 attacks, and then who specifically in the government the evidence is linked to.

And your logic is entirely back-asswards. It is the OP who raised the claim to unrealistic heights by stating that there is "overwhelming" evidence that government officials were responsible for 9/11. The height of this claim would require the evidence to support the claim.

Since you seem to believe the OP's position, just put up ONE piece of overwhelming evidence. That's really not that hard to do, is it?

I do.

I have seen nothing that convinces me. My father and my brother were both high ranking Army officers, and my brother was in the long-term planning division.

It was his office that was hit at the Pentagon. He lost friends and coworkers. The Pentagon lost years of information on future plans and developments.

If Bush or anyone else had proposed taking out the office (or any other part of the Army), there would have been a revolt in the upper ranks and we would have heard about it before the plan got into effect.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Byrd]

Originally posted by subject x

I do think, though, that the most telling evidence that the government was in on it was the fact that the W. just sat in that classroom with a dumb look on his face. It seems to me that if they had no knowledge of the attack, the secret service would have swarmed in and whisked him away, not knowing how many planes were involved or where they were headed, and anyone with a TV would have known where W. was right then.

Nothing personal, but this is a perfect example of what many CTers think is evidence.

Here's the pattern:

A person has some sort of idea what they THINK should have happened. The reality of what DID happen doesn't match what they think SHOULD have happened. They then reach this conclusion...

The REALITY is what is wrong because it didn't match what they imagined in their head should be real. 99% of all CT "theories" fit into this pattern.