9/11: Where the evidence has led me so far

Originally posted by Cosmic911

No, but it implies the poster hasn't done any of his own research on the subject..

.... Simple asking for someone's sources isn't really contributing to the thread.

1. Asking for a person's sources will tell you why THEY believe as they do. Thus it is a necessity for advancing a genuine discussion on these subjects.

2. Simply asking for sources may not contribute to the thread, but it gives the OP a chance to correct a deficiency in his first post, and make a real discussion possible. An OP without sources is usually a bad one.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by OGOldGreg

 

lol see above post...it just makes you look lazy.

I'm convinced you don't even understand what he's saying

For starters, Dick Cheney and Jerome Hauer were definitely involved at the highest levels of planning and execution.
Check into common associates of those two in military positions of authority over urban warfare with a focus on sabotage of infrastructure.
Look for deaths of special forces personnel within a couple months on either side of 9/11 to find who applied the spray-on nanothermite during the times "maintenance" work was done in the buildings.
Look for common associates of Marvin Bush and Dick Cheney in the military chain of command to find who tasked a "training" mission to rig the buildings.

Not too hard.

reply to post by jlm912


This at least was a reasonable and rational argument rather than childish whining an name calling.
This is a double edged sword. As its kind hard to prove or disprove either side.

But my question is why 2004? Why this specific year and why so sure of it?

And lastly if bin laden really wasn't behind the attacks then what would he have to gain by saying he did? I guess fear????

reply to post by petrus4


You could also look to various information on Northwoods. It was proposed to involve drone technology.... in the '60s

Originally posted by petrus4
- I do not believe that Osama bin Laden was likely to have to been alive, much later than 2004.

To be fair, that's exactly what was said. Not that he necessarily died in 2004...

Originally posted by OGOldGreg
Asking for evidence of peoples claims is not evidence of a closed mind, but rather the opposite.

edit on 4/22/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: formatting

Boom roasted. Couldn't have said it any better

As I said to Eugene, Greg, I am not necessarily going to respond to a request for sources, if I believe that the person making said request is hostile.

I will also continue to maintain, that a request for sources, in my experience, in 95% of cases indicates the presence of a mentality which I prefer not to communicate with. Not because it is logical, as many of you will immediately assume; but actually because it is the opposite, and merely attempts to use the facade of logic as a mask for its' aggression, and more genuinely emotional motivation in an argument.

If the person in question requests diplomatically, and I am satisfied that the request is not made simply because they are seeking further basis from which to attack me, then I may comply with it. I am generally not going to, however, in the case of the majority of individuals within this thread, who have expressed that they consider such important.

Should the NCSTAR1 report be used as a source?

What if we wanted to know the total amount of concrete in the twin towers. Isn't that a sufficiently simple question? But is it there? It seems to be universally agreed that there was concrete in the towers.

Sources from before 9/11 say 425,000 cubic yards.

But no info from the NIST. Sources are so important.

How about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? That does not even get mentioned much less specified. In fact, when do we hear physicists asking about it. Physicists are such great sources.

psik

It's all well and good that you claim to not need sources, but have you read any other thread on this site ever?


No sources = no credibility in the world of ATS and there really is no way around that.


And in reality if the claims are so confident then there should be no reason to not want to post sources. All it will do is give you more credibility. So in essence refusing sources makes claims look even more sketchy.

reply to post by OGOldGreg


That's "begging the question," friend. I'm not aware that Bin Laden accepted responsibility for the attacks. He praised them, given, but I'm pretty sure he didn't say "I/we did it." Which would make one wonder why he wouldn't claim the infamous genius behind the attacks if he put in the obvious trouble pulling them off...

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by OGOldGreg

 

That's "begging the question," friend. I'm not aware that Bin Laden accepted responsibility for the attacks. He praised them, given, but I'm pretty sure he didn't say "I/we did it." Which would make one wonder why he wouldn't claim the infamous genius behind the attacks if he put in the obvious trouble pulling them off...

If I remember correctly he came put and said 100% that he Was behind it about 3 months after

there's evidence suggestin he was a CIA asset who's true name was Tim Osman

OBL AKA T. Osman

If you take the time to devote to watching "War by Deception" which I previously posted, this is further suggested when McCain was on a late night TV show and specifically referred to Bin Laden as "Tim" in passing...

reply to post by OGOldGreg


He denied the attacks in the video released after 911. It wasn't till a random video was found by a random person in a random house in afghanistan that "bin laden" was praising the attacks. Who found this video? Where was it found? Doesn't matter. Lol

reply to post by mayabong


Hmmm, this I did not know. The idea of him being CIA linke is a bit too far fetched for me though.

Although when he did "admit" to it, I kind of felt like something was definitely off about it. This makes a lot more sense now.

Here's the wiki article on responsibility...

Link

Here's a link on the opposite side of the argument; claiming that he was indeed responsible...

9/11 Responsibility

I urge you to examine the latter carefully. The sources that he denied it are questionable, yes, but in return, they don't really provide evidence that he claimed it. They use circular reasoning to convince the reader that he was "capable" but fail to prove he was concretely responsible or even claimed to be so....

reply to post by jlm912


And if you really look at the sourced quotes in the second link...

In the interview, bin Laden denied responsibility for the US Embassy bombings, but praised the work of his "brothers." "He told me, 'My job is to inspire, to organize people. My job is to provoke people. I'm not doing it myself, but I'm preaching so that others will do it.'

Emphasis there on My job is to inspire, to organize people. My job is to provoke people.

Here's another. I'll go ahead and integrate the bold script to show what catches my own eye...

bin Ladin: We have roused the nation and the Muslim people and we have communicated to them the fatwahs of our learned scholars who the Saudi government has thrown in jail in order to please the American government for which they are agents. ... Among the young men who responded to our call are Khalid Al Said and Abdul Azeez Al... and Mahmud Al Hadi and Muslih Al Shamrani. We hope Allah receives them as holy martyrs... Yes, we have instigated and they have responded. We hope Allah grants their families solace.

Instigating violence is not the same as initiating it... He makes it clear his "job" to "provoke" and unite (the CIA/country's "enemies," conveniently)

It's obvious psy-ops to myself, albeit I'm no expert on the subject, I'm more than certain the CIA is... ya know what I mean?

Originally posted by petrus4

As I said to Eugene, Greg, I am not necessarily going to respond to a request for sources... Not because it is logical, a... but actually because it is the opposite, and merely attempts to use the facade of logic as a mask for its' ... argument.

I'm here, caught up to the thread... There's a few links in some videos here - but we've been left in the dark. If the govt really wanted to get to the bottom of things the "official investigation" would have had teeth. Instead there's a plethera of theories with a long list of dead people, including MANY of those who have been witnesses to aspects of the bombing (?) and especially victims of wars started in the name of 911 - especially against our CONSTITUTION.

As the Dem's sometimes blame the "vast right wing conspiracy", and the Rep's sometimes blame the "vast left wing conspiracy"... consider that these are one in the same as demonstrated on the "politicalcompass.org/" graphics.

So once considering that Bushes = Obama = Romney = Clinton = Reagan = Nixon = SATANISTS bent on "Ruling this world"... the ultimate satanic dream,... and the effects... finding the bread-crumbs on the theory is still a bit elusive (eg: regardless IF the politicians are really just "satanically friendly" sold-out politician$) ... something like "The Masonic Pet Goat of 9-11 Theory" makes plausibility sense (more than 19 flunkies with box cutters). But even if its true then what can be done? Do we stand a chance? (the video gets serious after its crummy musical introduction at about 3:00):

This may be a bit off-topic, but it's in hand with a lot of the reasoning posted here. This is an interview with a proclaimed ex-CIA agent Chip Tatum who shares information which was deemed "declassified" by a judge in a suit he filed against the government, though the judge turned around and threw it out of the hearing.

Google Video Link

His body was found mangled, tortured, and nearly unidentifiable not long afterwards washed up on some shore. I don't recall the specifics, but I'd be happy to find them...

The doc is rather bland getting started, but I urge anyone interested to look past that. He essentially points out specific members of the "elite," explains his personal evidence of their involvement in the international illicit drug trade, etc. Not that it provides relative direct evidence of the topic at hand, but presents only some of the prevalent motive of the "government" to have interest in the post-9/11 events, mindset, and wars...

ETA:

This is the last interview prior to his sudden disappearance in 1998. LATEST UPDATE: Chip's tortured body was reported to have washed up on a beach in Panama in early 2007.

That's from the vid description on google. Those damned whistle-blowers, huh? If this interview/Tatum's confessions had been more popular in '97 when it was released, Bush Jr. would have had even more of a hell of a time becoming president.... not that rigging the votes as was done wasn't effective anyways...


ETA: If you don't want to sit through the full 80 minutes, at least watch the last 20. Though you'll miss the claim of Mossad agents posing as foreign nationals and how that plays into the NWO, you'll get the summary. Also keep in mind, this was in '97, folks. 4 years before that fateful morning, but the warnings were loud and clear. I was six years old in '97, and I refuse responsibility through inaction. All I can do at this point is spread the truth, and prepare to defend myself and loved ones when the time comes.