Rogue Secret US Govt 911 Unit-Help To Keep The Governments Lies Alive

reply to post by MemoryShock

What is "crippled epistomology"?

"crippled" was, I think, intended to refer to people's noncomprehension of "epistemology" (or their mis-use of disparate facts to draw inaccurate conclusions):

www.merriam-webster.com...

And:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by weedwhacker

And what does your logic tell you about Building 7?
Fact:It wasn't hit by a plane.
Fact: It suffered minimal damage from the felled two towers (Which aren't even adjacent to it).
Fact: Yet ... it collapsed in a free-fall of concrete and steel. (And it did so within it's own footprint)
Perhaps you should review the premises (facts) you have based your 'logic' on?
Or simply remain as you are, and carry on the party line. Trusting what the msm feeds you.
If you think I want to believe there is a conspiracy with the 9/11 attack you couldn't be more wrong. I want to believe that there is truth in government and they would go out of their way to address the incongruities in 'their' truth of what happened.
Sorry it hurts your brain to read this 'hackeyed phrase' but the official story(or original story) is their explanation. What else would you call it?

Are your colleagues engineers? Or pilots?
What would a pilot know about the structural integrity of a steel and concrete building constructed to withstand a direct hit of a 707?

They should know the heat coefficient of 35 tonnes of aviation fuel when ignited. (approx 1520 deg)
How about the melting point of carbon steel? (aprox 2100 degrees sustained for a minimum of 45 seconds directly on 4 inch thick, construction grade steel beams)

And none of this happened at the bottom of the buildings, right? The explosion affected ... what, 4 or 5 floors near to the top of the structure?
The fuel flashed upon impact. And there is nothing in an office tower that would produce a sustained temperature of 2100-2500 degrees ...and again, it had to burn and melt the steel at the bottom of the building or the structure would have towered over ... away from it's footprint. Think Leaning tower of Pisa ... like that. But it didn't.

Seeing any logic here???

reply to post by weedwhacker

And my point is that "crippled epistomolgy" has always been the case and isn't a new term to be applied to the internet. In many cases, people are more informed than they have ever been.

Just because there are some errant ideas regarding any given event does not discount that there may be some relevance to the conspiracy...

"Can anyone please explain to me why the current US administration would take steps to cover up crimes by a previous Republican administration ? Is this the way politics usually works?"

This is exactly the way politics works and I'll gladly explain.

In order to protect the fraudulent two party system, from which the Democrats are currently benefiting, they would never hold the Republicans' feet to the fire on such sensitive issues. Doing so, will most certainly cause the electorate to lose faith in the entire system, thus causing a complete breakdown of the phony two party system. In other words, this would be suicidal for the Democrats.

This method of thinking also guarantees the Democrats a free pass with their less than honest dealings when the Republicans eventually take over again down the road. Anybody with half a brain can see this agreement exists between the two parties in order to protect a fake system of representation.

In addition, it is highly unlikely 9/11 was perpetuated exclusively by the Republican party. The planning of such an event must have taken years (when a Democrat was in office), and probably involved a number of players who are not even affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican parties. The argument that the Republicans are to blame is just another distraction to muddy the waters.

Let me turn the question around on you. If the Democrats and Republicans were not the same animal dressed up in a different costume, can you please explain why the current US administration would not take steps to properly investigate 9/11? Can you please explain why both parties voted overwhelmingly for the Patriot Act? Can you please explain why both parties have the same aggressive expansionist military policy? Can you please explain why both parties have spent the country into the poor house, both advocating the bailout of Wall Street and banker scam artists?

Sure, when it comes to trivial matters they disagree, giving the illusion there is a fundamental difference between the two parties. However, when it comes to the key issues which drag the country through the mud, both parties are on the same page.

For the parties, it is all about self-preservation, with the needs of the country and its citizens taking a backseat.

If a group is "charged" with a particular mission, it is, by definition, not "rogue." This is like calling someone who is in no way connected to an organization a "whistle blower." I know this sounds picky, but there are a lot of words thrown around on ATS that have totally lost all meaning.

"In fact, the very use of that hackeyed phrase "Official Story" shows quite well what I'm saying. It is a broad-brush attempt to very subtlely ridicule those who actually face facts"

You're making allegations of a broad-brush attempt, when in the same post you state the following:

"I speak in that sentence (slightly run-on as it is) to the fact of "YouTube proof" being the primary tool of so-called "9/11 Truth Movement", in general. There, of course, exceptions -- as there always are in everything."

What exactly are you doing when you state that the 9/11 Truth Movement is based on "You Tube proof"?

So, it's OK for you to use this broad brush technique on the 9/11 Truth Movement, but not OK when it's used on debunkers, such as yourself. One set of rules for you and another set of rules for "them". I get it now.

reply to post by weedwhacker

it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Here's 3 of the 10 9/11 commission members calling bs on the 911 report.
Your source is a conspiracy theory.
So all that jive you wrote, thank you for proving my point.
oldthinkernews.com...

Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,
“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.”
Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said,
“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.
In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon. As reported,
“Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.
“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration.
Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. As quoted,
“We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,” Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”

You were a schemer, but I took your little plan.....

[edit on 16-3-2010 by wylee]

reply to post by DJW001


If I may?
Rogue was not my term.
It is in the title of the video - and we are supposed to directly quote when we use hyperlinks.

And secondly, using the English lexicon .... I think the word is used with precision.
Using 'rogue' as an adjective, Dictionary.com defines it as it's third entry:
3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls.

A group may be charged or directed to do ... whatever; a mission, paint a house, etc and still operate outside of what would be the normal controls. And, as presented in the interview, that is exactly what this group is. You'll recall when the reporter asked who is this group answerable to the answer was it is answerable to no one.
By definition then, it is a rogue outfit. Yes?

reply to post by wylee


Actually, I respect Max Cleland immensely.

In reading his statements I infer them to mean that the Bush administration, et al, had cleverly (and without any morality) used the events of 9/11 to bolster the plans to "take out" Saddam Hussein --- plans that had been laid long before the terrorist attacks....all that 9/11 did was allow them to move up their agenda.

As Mr. Cleland points out, the administration dragged its feet because they were desperate to plant the false image of Iraqi involvement in the hijackers' training and financing. Bush and company were determined to invade Iraq, and since 9/11 wasn't doing it well enough for them, they invented the 'yellow cake' from Niger, and of course the "WMD" imbroglio.

No, the Bush administration did NOT need 9/11 as an 'excuse' to go into Iraq. BUT, they did think it was fortuitous, all the same. Nasty people they are, no doubt --- but not nasty enough to have planned such an event, of such magnitude, merely to invade Iraq! Allowing it to happen? Again, to purposely do that, takes a stretch of imagination.

Being arrogant and missing the clues (especially because much had been collected by the Clinton administration, and arrogant George and team were of a mindset to discount anything that Clinton touched....).

No, their folly was in being too smug.

reply to post by LatentElement


Fair enough on the first point. Generally, when one refers to a "rogue," whether an individual or an agency, one means that they are not acting on behalf of their superiors.

Why is it a stretch of the imagination?.....
Gulf of Tokin, USS Liberty, Reichstag, remember. Allowing Pearl Harbor, Sending the Lusitania into enemy waters. Any of this ringing any bells.

www.msnbc.msn.com...
U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida
White House given plan days before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, May 16, 2002 - President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.
[/quote/]

Cheney was the CEO and chairman for Halliburton from 1995-2000 which was #4 in military contracts but soon moved to #1 after 9/11. Just a co-winka-dink.
Who cares if bush's brother was in charge of security of the twin towers and his last day was 9/11/01.
Why do you believe the official story?...
Why is it so hard to believe that the Pentagon would allow this to happen?...
You believe that the gov'ment lied about Iraq's WMD, but not 9/11?....
I don't understand bro. It's history. How is America different?...

[edit on 17-3-2010 by wylee]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by wylee

 

but not nasty enough to have planned such an event, of such magnitude, merely to invade Iraq! Allowing it to happen? Again, to purposely do that, takes a stretch of imagination.

Every event of US involvement in war(s) or "police action" starting from WWI has been precipitated by a ruse to rally and sway the public to demand action.
You really should use the Internet connection you have and research the talking points as mentioned below by our learned friend, wylee:

Originally posted by wylee
Why is it a stretch of the imagination?.....
Gulf of Tokin, USS Liberty, Reichstag, remember. Allowing Pearl Harbor, Sending the Lusitania into enemy waters. Any of this ringing any bells.

Do that, for every instance mentioned ... then tell me again you cannot imagine our leaders allowing, or even planning an event that leads us to war.

And with that ...
I rest me case, Your Honor.

reply to post by LatentElement


Way off topic, but to clear up:

Gulf of Tonkin?

NO US CAUSUALTIES!

USS Liberty? "Friendly fire", mistaken identity, by the ISRAELIS, right? AND, this was the "Six Day War"....USA was monitoring, not directly involved, never became involved. So, how is it relevant?

And 'Reichstag'??? Really? Come on, and think on that for a second.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by LatentElement

 

Gulf of Tonkin?

NO US CAUSUALTIES!

NO CASUALTIES???

No? That lie resulted in more than 57,000 casualties for the US!
Including four very good friends of mine!
A 'DRAFTED' military force, by the way. Forced to go to Viet Nam and fight and die ... because of a 'non-event' - The Gulf of Tonkin.

You really should read more. Get all the facts, try not to be closed minded.
Or, is your real intent to accept ignorance and spread it around?

Also, I see you haven't responded to my other challenges posted here.

What, truth got your tongue?

This guy is more than likely in that 911 media & related information control unit. Kinda hard to deny that he says exactly what the 911 Commission derived at, as 911 was unfolding!!


[edit on 3/17/2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by LatentElement


"Other challenges" I missed.

Tonkin, though. I'm not an expert on 'Nam, but I will stick it out and say that Johnson was going to escalate the conflict any way he could, based on recommendations from the Joint Chiefs --- was not 'Nam a proxy 'cold war' with the Soviets?

I deplore the entire situation....and I'm old enough to remember it, too.

No, I think Johnson would have swung it the way he wanted, regardless. I think he believed he was doing the right thing, though only hindsight shows us how misguided it really was. (Remember, please....he was a Democrat! I find that an extremely important point to bring up, when comparing to Bush and company...)

I also recall that ther were very stupid and limiting "ROE" issues that hampered the prosecution of the conflict in 'Nam....I would blame THAT on all the needless deaths, too.

In any event, I do not see a valid comparison to the events of 11 September, 2001 --- in terms of some sort of planned Gov't complicity. It is just too outrageous, given the huge numbers of civilian casualties, and the devastation to the USA economy. Utter foolishness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hope this didn't stray from topic? Oh, and 'foolishness' refers only to how I would view the concept of such a plan...IF I were in a position of authority, for example, and was given that as an idea, that's how I'd view it, and the person responsible would have a resignation letter on my desk the next morning.



[edit on 17 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by LatentElement

 

Way off topic, but to clear up:

No, precisely ON topic. Which is: The use of a 'cover story' to hide agendas, or secrets which, if exposed, would put the Government in an untenable position. If you'll recall it was reported that a group or team have been put in place to insure the 9/11 cover story perpetuates. And that story is the very reason we went to war.

If I'm wrong, I will gladly suffer the wrath of the Moderator.

In fact, I'll ask for their judgment in this post ...

Memory Shock - (or the Moderator currently reviewing this thread) -
If you would? Please render your assessment on the above matter in question.
Thank you.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Agreed. It was a proxy war.
But the point is the Gulf of Tonkin indecent was the reason McNamara (Sec of Defense) gave for escalating military involvement.
But, there was no real incident. Do you see what I mean?
I'd like to think our leaders are righteous and would never do something so egregious ... but history has shown time and again they do not always conform to the ideal patriots we'd hoped them to be.
And, yes ... even to the point of sacrificing Americans.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by LatentElement

 

IF I were in a position of authority, for example, and was given that as an idea, that's how I'd view it, and the person responsible would have a resignation letter on my desk the next morning.

Here, Here!
Absolutely right on, my brother!
I wholeheartedly agree.
I might even add, off with their heads! lol
But projecting our sense of right and wrong onto the PTB is fantasy.
Unfortunately.

Dear Mr. or Mrs. Whacker,

I think you are suffering from Crimestop. You're welcome to beleive whatever you want but this is a conspiracy forum so maybe you have not heard of this term.
from wiki:

Crimestop is a Newspeak term taken from the novel 1984 by George Orwell. It means to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e. thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime.
In the novel, we hear about crimestop through the eyes of protagonist Winston Smith:
“The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.
He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them.”

Orwell also describes crimestop from the perspective of Emmanuel Goldstein in the book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism:
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.[1]

You seem like a nice, intelligent person and have stayed civil while I have not at times. Thank you for that. But break the chains of ignorance fellow free person, feel the free air in your lungs and realize there is a faction within are government that are pure EVIL. They hate you bro, they hate most of us, they want us in debt, sick and dependent on the system, so we will do and think as we're told.

All those time when Bush was saying, "The terrorists hate our freedoms." He is telling the truth, but b/c it's him and his gulag of bansketer and military indutrialists are the real terrorists.

Do you see how you are indirectly doing the job of the gov'ment agency this thread is about?.. And how you are indirectly promoting Cass Unstien's agenda by promoting crimespeak?
I respect you, you are a human being, this is why I'm taking the time to do it. That is a lot more than you're going to get from the power structure and in the end, we're in it together.