U.S. District Court Unseals 9/11 "Inside Job" Case

I have a question for anyone who believes real planes hit the towers:


Why do you believe real planes hit the towers?


note: calling the above question "silly" is an indication of conditioning by the 9/11 perps. The same type of conditioning the perps use to trick people into believing that 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims did 9/11. People in the "truth movement" are supposed to look at evidence without making assumptions.

Why I am wasting my precious time here arguing with brick walls... From now on I'll just lurk & keep my observations to myself.

I attempted to engage "CB_Brooklyn" on the logic of his argument but instead the thread disintegrated into juvenile you-prove-it-no-you-prove-it nonsense.

OK, here's what you're up against.

All of you 9/11 truthers need to sign up for courses in logic or critical thinking, in order to avoid fallacies such as this...

Originally posted by eyewitness86
We have hundreds of ' anomalies ' that remain unexplained and those are case enough for an inside job.

You can make inferences only as far & not a step further than the evidence allows you. These anomalies which certainly defy the official explanation, do not necessarily make a case for an 'inside job'. They only suggest that the official story as promulgated by the government and media is not an accurate desription of what happened.... it is a cover-up at best. But there are manifold other possible explanations to consider along with the possibility that Bush, Cheney & the neo-con gang did it. There is in fact evidence to suggest that other governments which Bush & gang would rather protect than reveal were involved... Or perhaps other non-state actors besides but perhaps in collusion with Al Qaeda.... There could have been moles planted in key positions of the gov't/military who with forknowledge of the Vigilant Gaurdian/Warrior games would have had the opportunity to exploit the confusion in the skies. But does a group of moles make it an "inside job"? No, you might say that NORAD was hi-jacked, whether or not the planes were hi-jacked.....

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your "inside job," truthers.

reply to post by 0ivae



Sorry, but it's difficult to have an intelligent conversation while being attacked by a half dozen people. (Not you.)


Anyone interested in eyewitness information should download this MP3 of Jim Fetzer interviewing Peggy Carter from NYC911Truth:

(you can skip the first 20 minutes or so)

www.911bloglines.com...

I have really lost a lot of interest in all the debates going on about 9/11, be it CD vs Not CD, planes vs No planes, etc. I am sure that someone somewhere has brought up this theory(that's all it is, I have absolutely nothing to back this up) but would it be conceivable that they were missles disguised as planes, or encased in the hollow shell of a plane that hit the towers? That way. there would be accountability to the eyewitnesses who saw a plane, and the videos would be real?

This is just my crazy rambling, thanks for letting me get out.

Originally posted by lightworker12
Damn I'm really angry at this guy. He has all the evidence in the world to prove planes didn't bring the towers down but he's trying to claim none hit at all? I'm sorry but my father worked a mile away from the WTC (at the time) and saw it all go down. Planes did hit, planes didn't make it collapse. This guy had a real chance to inform people what really happened but he had to go ahead and make up some crazy stuff about no planes and energy weapons....crap.

I totally agree. This [snip] says NO planes hit the towers.

Umm then what were those huge phallic shaped objects with big wings on them? Hologram's ?

It is people like this that make it extremely difficult for the mainstream to take any truther serious moreover it hurts what little credibility they have via guilt by association.

I too would like something to come out of further investigation BUT lets not use up the judicial process valuable time by introducing such outlandish an idea as this.


Then when something plausible and substantially more believable is introduced, you won't have the courts looking at truthers saying cry wolf.

I think you coud sell Santa Clause being real with better results.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 26-8-2007 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
I have a question for anyone who believes real planes hit the towers:


Why do you believe real planes hit the towers?

[removed insult]

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 26-8-2007 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
[b People in the "truth movement" are supposed to look at evidence without making assumptions.

Yes but this is making assumptions without evidence. Speculation is NOT evidence Conjecture is NOT evidence. Albeit technology may exist but to have me believe that all the families of victims that were schedual to fly on those planes and no longer exist, not only makes a mockery of their deaths, IT INSULTS THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AVERAGE 5TH GRADER.

If ther were a conspiracy, it would be more plausible that the planes were real moreover the results would be the same with REAL FAMILY MEMBERS THAT DIED. That makes it much easier too btw to keep a lid on it. YOUR theory makes it so complicated so many loose ends to tie that the odds of pulling it off would be so scant it would fail.

Please,, if you really want to help truthers,,

then quit trying to help

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
I have a question for anyone who believes real planes hit the towers:

Why do you believe real planes hit the towers?

well, what evidence do you have, that there were NO planes?


[mod edit to fix quote]


[edit on 26-8-2007 by elevatedone]

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


Well, at least Fetzer is saying that video fakery is consistent with planes or no planes. If with planes, it was done to conceal the military nature of the aircraft.... But then, why put a "pod" on your faked plane if you're trying to convince everybody that it's a commercial jet?

On the DEW score, here's another lead

Has Judy Wood or anyone else considered the possible weaponization of the Hutchinson Effect?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

JFK debates have gone on for what? Almost 40 years? I can guarentee you 40+ years from now the same 9/11 debates will be going on, as no answer will EVER satisfy everyone.

I'm not sure where you get off that I'm calling anyone sheep being misguided about the truth. I'm simply stating there are so many "truths" out there that the real truth may never be known. No....it probably will be know or IS known now, but since everything is questioned and not all will be satisfied the never ending debates will continue.

ATS covering up the truth? lol
What truth?

He makes a good point and I can imagine people talking about this 40 years from now. Like a wound infected with doubt.

people at a party. One person says it's cold in here, that's true for them. Another says it's really warm in here and that is there truth. Both have different truths but the FACT is, it's 78 degrees in the room.

Had all the evidence not been disposed of and shipped out to china, made into a ship etc. I wonder, what would they have discovered. Doing that was much like Ruby killing off Oswald. It left us to our imaginations but in both cases, when you match being denied the opportunity to get that same information with something as highly unlikely as the magic bullet or wtc 7 implosion, you are going to have people saying whooa whoa whoaaaa wait a minute, not so fast. Only to hear opps sorry can't touch that or need a subpoena if you wanna see that. Then curiously have the so many asking questions about explosions. From literally hundreds of people that heard explosions to people coming out with there skin sliding off before the collapse and simply that it looked like a duck.

What did those people get?

They got NIST who didn't even investigate explosions theory, comes up with a contrary theory to the fema theory, DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH WTC7 regardless of the reason, if any of the buildings that day had a more compelling argument for CD it was WTC7 and we got JOHNSON and a myriad of excuses. I think a look into that may not change our individual truth but it might shed light on the FACT.

That it either came down in a perfectly synchronized free fall into a nice neat pile on it's own footprint where all the major support beams gave way at the same exact time on the same exact day that for the first time in history two tallest steel skyscrapers in N.Y. came down in what looked like an assembly line of explosions, the collapse which most would consider not technically feasible, to knock em down that way the day before not only took one but two that same exact way.

That on that same day another building in the wtc leased by the same guy saying pull it and following those words said we watched the building come down being pulled in on itself without a plane hitting it. This one even more uniform example, looking like a carbon copy of every CD I have seen. That it was all some cosmic coincidence.

Help me with MATH!

The odds that happen by happenstance without a Conspiracy?

Without a CD? Frankly,, it's easier to believe in the raygun theory then the theory we never got. Or that we just happend to discover two new techniques to demolish buildings using Jetplanes and ?? what was it for 7? Fires? Pffft

Gimmee a break.





[edit on 26-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
The same type of conditioning the perps use to trick people into believing that 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims did 9/11. People in the "truth movement" are supposed to look at evidence without making assumptions.

I don't think it is out of the question to have two Hijackers stand before the planes passengers, grab two girls, slit one of their throats and say anyone moves the second girl dies.

Would you be the hero?

Would you jump up out of your seat just in time to see the guy slice a smile through her juggler and / or carotid artery. Bear in mind, so far most hijackings weren't suicide mission. This assumes that the best chances they had were to sit there because it would keep her alive. Had the passengers known it was a suicide mission, THEN you might consider it as certain death is imminent.

So yeah it could have easily went down with box cutters


-=[conspiriology]=-

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

@CB_Brooklyn: Search the forum for "NIST Contradiction" - you should find a thread started by myself, with some excellent input from LaBTop. I was unaware of his research, and had little time to dig into research myself when I started that thread, but I suggest you read it.

After you've read that thread, go find NISTs FAQ on the 9/11 investigation. Then go read LaBTops thesis.

After you've read all of that (there is plenty to get your teeth into) then come back here and say no planes existed and CD wasn't the cause of the WTC1, 2 and 7 collapses.

There is my evidence - where's yours for your "no plane" theory?

[edit on 26-8-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by 0ivae



I believe the pods were used in the video fakery to distract people from the no plane issue. A perfect PSYOPS. People watch the aluminum airplane with plastic nosecone glide into steel and concrete over and over again, while looking at the "pod". So when someone suggests there were no plane crashes in the first place, people call them crazy.

It's possible missiles were used at the towers. Some people did report missiles, the NBC footage shows what might be a missile, and Rumsfeld said a missile damaged the Pentagon and "similar" damaged the towers.

Have you seen the film "Race to Zero Point"? It's on google and covers the Hutchinson effect. I use the segment on it to demonstrate that the technology to turn metal to dust does exist!!

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


I skimmed the NIST Contradiction thread and it doesn't seem to take into account any of the no plane crash or DEW evidence. The towers were pulverized, there was no standard controlled demolition. That statement is beyond theory.





[edit on 26-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

I'll remind everyone...

Stop the insults and discuss this in a civil manner.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

The importance of TV-Fakery exposure


TV-Fakery (No Plane Crashes) is the most important issue of 9/11 for the following reasons:


TV-Fakery implicates the corporate media as being the actual orchestrators of the attacks. Without the media involvement, we would never have invaded the Middle East. Yes, the Military Industrial Complex was involved also. But people would expect that in an inside job attack. They would not expect the media to be "in on it" to the extend of broadcasting fake video.

People must know the truth about the media and that they cannot be trusted for a second. It's not just a manner of twisting stories. It's a matter of broadcasting fake video to alter world politics!

[edit on 26-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
I have a question for anyone who believes real planes hit the towers:


Why do you believe real planes hit the towers?


note: calling the above question "silly" is an indication of conditioning by the 9/11 perps. The same type of conditioning the perps use to trick people into believing that 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims did 9/11. People in the "truth movement" are supposed to look at evidence without making assumptions.

I understand your frustration, and sympathize, but at the same time it would be literally impossible to look at the evidence and draw a conclusion on an event that took place for the first time.

The answer to the question at hand is of course is because it was on the news and people claimed to have seen planes hit the towers.

calling the above question silly is certainly not answering it as it was asked, proving that 'you' have an agenda. Realize it is possible to have an agenda w/o knowing it (i.e. the conditioning you mentioned).

reply to post by jprophet420


My "agenda" is to get people to look at information instead of assuming the Tee-Vee to be trustworthy.

Some people say they saw planes, but others say they saw missiles. And some saw nothing but an explosion.

The WNBC footage did not show an airplane.


Just with the above information, it's not rational to assume there "must have" been planes crashes.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

are you doin´ disInfo here?
one of those here, who try to divide and distract the community?
thats exactly their job, and I think the actual suit is a fake one of the CIA.
if you look exactly, the no-plane-and-exotic -weapon theory of Fetzer
, which is actually the one,which the case is based on, literally attacks every single argument of Dr.Jones and Griffin.
thats obvious, and dangerous.

designed to attack again.to destroy the truth movements from the inside.

With all the focus on the second tower after what happened to other one, I'm sure there is some footage or at least a photo of a missile, can anyone provide such footage please, thanks.


www.questionsquestions.net...