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

Originally posted by subject x
Actually, the "Kool-Aid" reference dates to before Jim Jones.
It dates back to the 1960's and the habit of dispensing '___' by adding it to Kool-Aid.
This was known as "Electric Kool-Aid", and those who were "out of touch" with reality were said to have "drank the Kool-Aid"

Actually, both events are used interchangeably as the source of the idiom.

Looky.

Now that your thread derailment has been thwarted, Subject, perhaps you can answer the questions pointed to you and your crowd.

Originally posted by nick7261
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.

How about the five dancing Israelis? I know that doesn't implicate the US government but the fact that the US let them go back to Israel should raise a few red flags. Especially when they are on video stating that they were there to "document" what was happenening.

Also, why all the ommissions to the 9/11 commission report? Anything that didn't fit their preconcieved notion was thrown out and ignored. Try finding any mention to WTC 7 in that report.

I know this isn't smoking gun evidence but it should raise some red flags for people. Unless they are blind, brain washed or work as an agent. I'm not calling you Nick anyone of those.

Originally posted by vor78
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.

Then why has no one been fired for their mistake that killed 3000+ people? Instead, most of them have been promoted. That's another circumstantial evidence right there. If I made a mistake that killed 3000+ people, I think I'd have some explaining to do. Why do people accept government incompetence as an excuse?

Originally posted by PartChimp
With all due respect, I am not following exactly what your point is here. The secret service protecting the president's life is comparative to you believing the 9/11 truth-movement because... what? It is a natural reaction?

Because it's their job. It's what they're trained to do, and they have a standard procedure mapped out to deal with potentially dangerous situations. Training like this causes one to respond as if it were a "natural reaction".

The fact that there were an unknown number of aircraft hitting an unknown number of targets, coupled with the fact that W.s location was available to anyone with a TV, should have, by all rights, been seen by the secret service fellas as a potential immediate threat to the POTUS, and their standard response should have been initiated (whisking him away to a safe location).

The fact that this did not happen indicates to me that they knew the POTUS was not in danger. And that in itself is enough to make me doubt the official version.
It is not enough, however, to cause me to accept every other theory as truth, either.

As I said, this is no "smoking gun", but it makes me wonder.

I hope this clarifies my point for you, PartChimp.

Originally posted by PartChimp
The burden of proof is never on the skeptic, it is on the party that is crying conspiracy.

Actually, going by this logic, it is up to the OCTers to provide the proof of their official story. The CTers in this case are the skeptics. I believe you have it backwards.

Now, with someone making up a CT, then you are right. The roles reverse.

I have never come up with a CT scenerio (well in whole) so why do I need to show ANY evidence? It is up to the official people to prove their case to me (the skeptic).

[edit on 6/2/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nick7261
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.

How about the five dancing Israelis? I know that doesn't implicate the US government but the fact that the US let them go back to Israel should raise a few red flags. Especially when they are on video stating that they were there to "document" what was happenening.

Also, why all the ommissions to the 9/11 commission report? Anything that didn't fit their preconcieved notion was thrown out and ignored. Try finding any mention to WTC 7 in that report.

I know this isn't smoking gun evidence but it should raise some red flags for people. Unless they are blind, brain washed or work as an agent. I'm not calling you Nick anyone of those.

Griff, you raise great points. I have no doubt that the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up. Do you think it's a coincidence that Lee Hamilton was named co-Chair?

This is the same Lee Hamilton who was named co-chair, along with James Baker, of both the Iraq Study Group and the Commission to Investigate Security Lapses at Los Alamos. How does one guy get named to co-chair these three committees unless there is some agenda that's being entrusted to him?

Still, that only is evidence of a cover-up, not that the government pulled off 9/11. It could be a cover-up of incompetence, or a cover-up of foreknowledge. WTC7 could have been a separate incidenct in which the CIA and/or FBI took down the building to destroy all evidence of the foreknowledge or incompetence.

I challenge anybody who sees the videos of WTC7 and believes the official story to explain mechanically how the entire vertical support system collapsed simultaneously from the bottom of the building.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nick7261
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.

How about the five dancing Israelis? I know that doesn't implicate the US government but the fact that the US let them go back to Israel should raise a few red flags. Especially when they are on video stating that they were there to "document" what was happenening.

Also, why all the ommissions to the 9/11 commission report? Anything that didn't fit their preconcieved notion was thrown out and ignored. Try finding any mention to WTC 7 in that report.

I know this isn't smoking gun evidence but it should raise some red flags for people. Unless they are blind, brain washed or work as an agent. I'm not calling you Nick anyone of those.

Griff, you raise great points. I have no doubt that the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up. Do you think it's a coincidence that Lee Hamilton was named co-Chair?

This is the same Lee Hamilton who was named co-chair, along with James Baker, of both the Iraq Study Group and the Commission to Investigate Security Lapses at Los Alamos. How does one guy get named to co-chair these three committees unless there is some agenda that's being entrusted to him?

Still, that only is evidence of a cover-up, not that the government pulled off 9/11. It could be a cover-up of incompetence, or a cover-up of foreknowledge. WTC7 could have been a separate incidenct in which the CIA and/or FBI took down the building to destroy all evidence of the foreknowledge or incompetence.

I challenge anybody who sees the videos of WTC7 and believes the official story to explain mechanically how the entire vertical support system collapsed simultaneously from the bottom of the building.

help me out here, in the link I posted, there are several stories about the dancing israelis and 7WTC. and the 9/11 commission...why did you dismiss it all when I posted it, but praise these things as good points when someone else posted about it?

[edit on 2-6-2007 by dragonseeker]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by dragonseeker]

Originally posted by nick7261
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.

Ok You explain me how the meteorite on 911 were created (obvisouly following the OCT) and I will wire you 100USD any time.
You wont have any explanation because there is not a single possible explanation for it. I discredited your whole theory unless you prove me wrong (and get some cash).

[edit on 2-6-2007 by piacenza]

Originally posted by PartChimp
Actually, both events are used interchangeably as the source of the idiom.

Looky.

Yes, they are used interchangeably, but it originated pre-Jonestown.
This is what I said, I think.

Now that your thread derailment has been thwarted, Subject, perhaps you can answer the questions pointed to you and your crowd.

Jeez, Chimp, relax. I'm not derailing anything.
And I can only type so fast. I tried to answer your question above.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except that with the exception of flight 77, ALL the flights were tracked for their entire flight path. And flight 77 was only off radar for SOME of the flight.

The funny thing is that we've argued this before and I could swear back then you said differently. So, if we were able to track them, why didn't we get one fighter along side any of them?

Because when I was saying that, I hadn't read the reports that they had changed transponder codes on one, and the others hadn't turned theirs off, except for 77. I found out differently later on. I made a mistake then, based on bad information, but what I said about how radar works, and how they track planes is still true.

And as I said before, and this HASN'T changed, they could only do so much with 14 armed fighters for the entire United States.

Originally posted by nick7261
Interestingly, the "kool-aid" reference comes from the Jim Jones cult in which his followers blindly believed whatever he said right to their deaths.

Off topic, but you should really look into the whole Jim Jones affair. It was a CIA operation of mind control. The CIA shot most of the people who wouldn't drink the kool-aide including a guy who was filming the whole thing. I believe the video is even out there.

Anyone who is more read up on it want to chime in?

Zaphod58

Okay and why was their only 14 planes?

Also are you now contending the hijackers would have known about the lack of planes?

Originally posted by piacenza

Originally posted by nick7261
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.

Ok You explain me how the meteorite on 911 were created (obvisouly following the OCT) and I will wire you 100USD any time.
You wont have any explanation because there is not a single possible explanation for it. I discredited your whole theory unless you prove me wrong (and get some cash).

[edit on 2-6-2007 by piacenza]

I could use the money. What meteorite was created on 9/11? What do you mean "following OCT?"



PS You might want to read this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2-6-2007 by nick7261]

Originally posted by talisman
Zaphod58

Okay and why was their only 14 planes?

Also are you now contending the hijackers would have known about the lack of planes?

Because starting in the 1990s the alert force went from 100+ planes to between 14-21. It was fairly well publicized and talked about in many aviation mags, and papers. As for knowing all they had to do was look at a military base and see no planes sitting at the end of the runway. Alert planes always sit at the end of the runway so they can start engines and just take off.

Originally posted by Griff

Then why has no one been fired for their mistake that killed 3000+ people? Instead, most of them have been promoted. That's another circumstantial evidence right there. If I made a mistake that killed 3000+ people, I think I'd have some explaining to do. Why do people accept government incompetence as an excuse?

Circumstantial evidence of what? That every level of the government is filled with incompetent idiots? Has been for decades. No disagreement there.

I fully agree, some of them should have been fired for that incompetence leading up to 9/11. And that's my point. The only thing I've seen swept under the rug has been just that: governmental incompetence. That shouldn't be ignored, but in no way, shape, form or fashion does it even come close to providing a shred of even the weakest evidence for complicity or guilt in the commission of the attacks. It does, however, suggest that they're covering their behinds for a colossal screw-up.

Griff

Not to derail this thread, but do you know off hand if the 5000 pages of secret documents have ever been de-classified on the Jim Jones incident?

Zaphod58

So your saying the mililtary openly is honest about its assests? If that is the case why is Sun Tzu ever referenced since all warfare and readiness is based on deception?

Of course the hijackers couldn't see every single military base so they wouldn't know if what was being reported was the truth.

So your thinking is that the hijackers just trusted the magazines and went for gold on that day?

Originally posted by talisman
Griff

Not to derail this thread, but do you know off hand if the 5000 pages of secret documents have ever been de-classified on the Jim Jones incident?

No idea. Maybe we should start a new thread so this thread can go back and forth about "evidence".

you know, on the net, it's all theory, but I'll say this: I'm a new yorker and right after high school I had a messenger job in lower manhattan. I've been to damn near every floor of every building that made up the WTC..and I'm just saying, especially with 7WTC, which wasn't hit by anything, there's no way fire brought those buildings down, no matter what spin they want to put on it, weakened steel, blah blah bull#. Sorry, no way. Something else brought the buildings down, and it wasn't jet fuel. Do I know what did? No. But I am convinced the official story is nonsense, and that's a start.