Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending?

reply to post by maxella1


How often are there drills in or close to New York by some organization? What are the chances that there is some sort of drill planned within a few days at any day of the year?

Without having an answer to these kind of questions, calling it a coincidence is based on absolutely nothing. And lets face it, you don't have the answers to these questions.

What is left is that you are confused. You confuse "People from FEMA attending to a drill" with "urban search and rescue teams". As if FEMA only has one kind of team doing just one thing: search and rescue. Can you explain to me what a team that is trained in search and rescue has to do with a biochemical attack? Can you show a source that shows that indeed a search and rescue team was attending that drill?

And we haven't even touched the subject why these conspirators would want FEMA there to be earlier. Even that does not make any sense, even if we ignore your confusion and completely impossible complicity of all those people.


In the end, we are left the the same old 911 conspiracy "facts" that have been debunked over and over.

reply to post by -PLB-


You don't understand why it is a strange coincidence that FEMA just happened to be setting up a command center for their drill ?

The hundreds of people from multiple federal agencies with equipment were immediately available was very much needed because the bunker in WTC 7 was unusable as you know.

This particular type of a drill with so many people from so many departments does not happen every day, week or even month. And tripod was the first ever.

As for search and rescue guy making a mistake ~ sure i can believe that.

So are you saying that FEMA was not in NYC for their drill before the attacks? Who than set up pier 92 ? Giuliani said that it already had the equipment set up that's why it didn't take them very long to be fully operational out of there.

Imagine that there was no pre-established FEMA command center and Giulianis bunker destroyed.. Would Giuliani still be "Americas hero Mayor" ?

And finally try to look at the whole picture now and at least be honest to yourself ... Doesn't it look like Cheney had a feeling that this command center would be not only appreciated but also necessary to make it look like the government did a great job?

reply to post by maxella1


NO! The PASSENGER MANIFESTS showed every last ONE of the terrorists, with the SOLE exception of Hani Hanjour. Quit getting stuck on the lists of the VICTIMS that were released to the media. Better yet, look up the evidence used in the Moussauri trial. They had copies of the actually manifests.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

NO! The PASSENGER MANIFESTS showed every last ONE of the terrorists, with the SOLE exception of Hani Hanjour. Quit getting stuck on the lists of the VICTIMS that were released to the media. Better yet, look up the evidence used in the Moussauri trial. They had copies of the actually manifests.

Why was there an exception?

reply to post by maxella1


It appeared at one point as if he had had a employee id or something along those lines that entitled him to grabbing an empty seat.

OP- Yes they are but they are the only ones who want that job.

2nd

reply to post by maxella1


So your theory is that the motive for the conspirators to plan that drill on that day was so that Giuliani and Cheney would look competent. I will add it to the long list of highly unlikely theories that make little sense.

And of course you know nothing about the background of that drill, who planned the date, and for what reason, so it is, like all 911 conspiracy theories, based on ignorance and a big desire for there to be an inside job.

Its fine by me that you believe this nonsense. Just don't expect others to believe it also when you don't have anything else than your opinion to back it up.

reply to post by -PLB-

And of course you know nothing about the background of that drill, who planned the date, and for what reason, so it is, like all 911 conspiracy theories, based on ignorance and a big desire for there to be an inside job.

The background of the drill? Didn't you read the links I posted for you?

Common sense and facts of coincidences that would raise red flags in ANY real criminal investigation and the desire for there to be justice ~ That's how I would put it.

And please explain to me why do you think anybody (but especially me) would desire for there to be an inside job? Do you know me well enough to know what I desire?

Its fine by me that you believe this nonsense. Just don't expect others to believe it also when you don't have anything else than your opinion to back it up.

I don't expect others to believe anything I post here. These are always my opinions only and I try to explain how I came to these opinions. A few people here changed my opinion about some things by posting information that makes sense. But I haven't seen you post anything at all by the way.

And what should I show you to back up my opinion? You do know that I have nothing to do with any investigation into 9/11 whatsoever?

Originally posted by maxella1
The background of the drill? Didn't you read the links I posted for you?

Common sense and facts of coincidences that would raise red flags in ANY real criminal investigation and the desire for there to be justice ~ That's how I would put it.

What is more important is motive. The motive you come with is so extremely weak. As if you really expect me to believe that a group of conspirators were plotting a fake terrorist attack, and oh wait, they also needed to have a drill around that date so that there is a command center so that Giuliani does not look too incompetent. Right...

And the thing that is even way more important in a criminal investigation is evidence. Of which there isn't any.

And please explain to me why do you think anybody (but especially me) would desire for there to be an inside job? Do you know me well enough to know what I desire?

If not then why are you inventing or clinging on to all the completely unrealistic crazy ideas?

The reason you desire it is because of the feeling of "having figured it out" and "being awoken" gives you. You are no longer one of those sheeple that believes everything he is told. I think that feeling is addictive. If a conspiracy you believe in turns out to be all lies, then the foundation of your believe will be damaged. Therefore, anything against the conspiracy is ignored, anything in favor of the conspiracy is embraced.

At least, that is what I think drives most conspiracy believers.

I don't expect others to believe anything I post here. These are always my opinions only and I try to explain how I came to these opinions. A few people here changed my opinion about some things by posting information that makes sense. But I haven't seen you post anything at all by the way.

And what should I show you to back up my opinion? You do know that I have nothing to do with any investigation into 9/11 whatsoever?

If you don't expect me to believe what you post, then you must also agree that it isn't very believable. Because, when I post something believable, I expect others to believe it.

What you should show is evidence. That is what matters in determining what is true or not. Suggestions like operation northwood or the tripod drill are nothing but speculation. And without an analysis that goes any deeper that "but I think it is a coincidence" its worth absolutely noting.

By the way, don't take all this too personal, it is a general issue with the entire 911 truth.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by maxella1

 

Is a video game villain incompetent or pretending? Is the bad guy in a movie incompetent or pretending?

Are we powerless... or just pretending?

why do we pretend to be powerless?

they do what they want cause we let them....we actually do hold all the cards...and we can make them do what ever we want, but we must do it ourselves, as a whole....they will not encourage us or do it for us for 9-11 is and will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back with all in Washington to be effected.....they all have reasons for hiding this...

Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by maxella1
The background of the drill? Didn't you read the links I posted for you?



The reason you desire it is because of the feeling of "having figured it out" and "being awoken" gives you. You are no longer one of those sheeple that believes everything he is told. I think that feeling is addictive. If a conspiracy you believe in turns out to be all lies, then the foundation of your believe will be damaged. Therefore, anything against the conspiracy is ignored, anything in favor of the conspiracy is embraced.

At least, that is what I think drives most conspiracy believers.

no...I call it LACK of evidential support of the OFFICIAL claims.... since that is what the 'truth' movement is....asking questions and DEMANDING answers...you have NO evidence to support the claims you represent....

I don't expect others to believe anything I post here. These are always my opinions only and I try to explain how I came to these opinions. A few people here changed my opinion about some things by posting information that makes sense. But I haven't seen you post anything at all by the way.

And what should I show you to back up my opinion? You do know that I have nothing to do with any investigation into 9/11 whatsoever?

If you don't expect me to believe what you post, then you must also agree that it isn't very believable. Because, when I post something believable, I expect others to believe it.

What you should show is evidence. That is what matters in determining what is true or not.

why is there none to represent the HYPOTHESIZED claims that are the official story?

Even the official claim..."NO explosives and accelerants were used to assist" that was given years after stemming from a SCIENTIFIC investigation that did NOT investigate for them.....I, nor anyone else has to prove they were there...that claims MAKES you provide the SCIENTIFIC study where the decision originated....

....or maybe just a claim to shut people up???????

Suggestions like operation northwood or the tripod drill are nothing but speculation. And without an analysis that goes any deeper that "but I think it is a coincidence" its worth absolutely noting.

By the way, don't take all this too personal, this is a general misconception with the entire 911 truth.

Originally posted by hgfbob
no...I call it LACK of evidential support of the OFFICIAL claims.... since that is what the 'truth' movement is....asking questions and DEMANDING answers...you have NO evidence to support the claims you represent....

Ok... what claim exactly do I represent that is not supported by evidence?

why is there none to represent the HYPOTHESIZED claims that are the official story?

Even the official claim..."NO explosives and accelerants were used to assist" that was given years after stemming from a SCIENTIFIC investigation that did NOT investigate for them.....I, nor anyone else has to prove they were there...that claims MAKES you provide the SCIENTIFIC study where the decision originated....

....or maybe just a claim to shut people up???????

You do understand that you can't prove a negative, and the burden of proof is always with the person making a positive claim? If not, show me the evidence that it were not leprechauns from dimension XY that destroyed the twin towers.

reply to post by -PLB-

What is more important is motive. The motive you come with is so extremely weak. As if you really expect me to believe that a group of conspirators were plotting a fake terrorist attack, and oh wait, they also needed to have a drill around that date so that there is a command center so that Giuliani does not look too incompetent. Right... And the thing that is even way more important in a criminal investigation is evidence. Of which there isn't any.

The only things that are fake about 9/11 is the things you call evidence like the passport, red bandanna, the suitcase that didn't make it onto the plain. And the incompetence that you claim allowed the attack to succeed.

I explained to you why I find this coincidence to be strange. Now how about you explain why you find it so unbelivable that the same people who tried hard to prevent an investigation, lied about prior warnings and even destroyed classified documents just so they don't look so incompetent (that is why they did all that in your opinion right?) wouldn't prepare themselves a command center knowing that the OEM bunker would be destroyed?

If not then why are you inventing or clinging on to all the completely unrealistic crazy ideas?

You can't be serious. Lol I didn't invent the coverup, I didn't invent the unrealistic and crazy red bandana, or the passport at ground zero and the rest of the unrealistic explanations you expect me to believe.

If the suitcase story wasn't told by the Government you would be laughing at it with me right now. Just think about it for a second.

Being a New Yorker and witnessed the aftermath first hand there is nothing more I wnat to believe than that innocent people disn't die as collateral damage for a sick agenda of my own government. The very fact that you even suggest that people somehow enjoy believing that 9/11 was an inside job is disgusting and even offends me a little bit. And it is also not very believable that so many people enjoy being disrespected by your kind. Your theory that everything is a coincidencd and that it is impossible that our government had something to do with it is your personal misconception and you don't even attempt to back it up with any thing. You probably still believe that We went to Iraq to get the WMD,s and the Kuwaiti incubator babies story. Don't take it too hard but the Santa Claus isnt real by the way.

If you don't expect me to believe what you post, then you must also agree that it isn't very believable. Because, when I post something believable, I expect others to believe it.

Right you expect me to believe that it is impossible that anything other than the OS is true. I don't know if you noticed but not many people believe it.

What you should show is evidence. That is what matters in determining what is true or not. Suggestions like operation northwood or the tripod drill are nothing but speculation. And without an analysis that goes any deeper that "but I think it is a coincidence" its worth absolutely noting.

Operation Northwoods demonstrates the type of characters that run our millitary. They actually came up with idea of tricking Cuba into attacking American people. The President didn't go along with it and we all know what happened to him. Just like Bush had an idea of painting a spy plane with UN colors and provoking Iraq to attack it.
But that doesn't tell you anything about his character right? You don't see it as evidence of how twisted his imagination is right?


And as always please don't take anything personal.

Originally posted by maxella1
The only things that are fake about 9/11 is the things you call evidence like the passport, red bandanna, the suitcase that didn't make it onto the plain. And the incompetence that you claim allowed the attack to succeed.

Please cite where I am calling that evidence. Please cite where I claim that incompetence allowed the attack to succeed.

You are truly making this up as you write are you not? Never mind the facts?

I explained to you why I find this coincidence to be strange. Now how about you explain why you find it so unbelivable that the same people who tried hard to prevent an investigation, lied about prior warnings and even destroyed classified documents just so they don't look so incompetent (that is why they did all that in your opinion right?) wouldn't prepare themselves a command center knowing that the OEM bunker would be destroyed?

Maybe because they would had to let a whole bunch of other people in on their conspiracy, making it an unnecessary risk? Maybe because it sounds highly unlikely that the people who wanted to cause as much maham as possible cared about the aftermath? Maybe because without that exercise the OEM would have found another spot to base their command center?

You can't be serious. Lol I didn't invent the coverup, I didn't invent the unrealistic and crazy red bandana, or the passport at ground zero and the rest of the unrealistic explanations you expect me to believe.

If the suitcase story wasn't told by the Government you would be laughing at it with me right now. Just think about it for a second.

I don't expect you to believe that. Even I can imagine that evidence to be planted in order to make the FBI look good. Then again, it could also just be real. Since there is no evidence it was fake, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I do not at all base my believe on it. For me that evidence is rather irrelevant.

Being a New Yorker and witnessed the aftermath first hand there is nothing more I wnat to believe than that innocent people disn't die as collateral damage for a sick agenda of my own government. The very fact that you even suggest that people somehow enjoy believing that 9/11 was an inside job is disgusting and even offends me a little bit. And it is also not very believable that so many people enjoy being disrespected by your kind. Your theory that everything is a coincidencd and that it is impossible that our government had something to do with it is your personal misconception and you don't even attempt to back it up with any thing. You probably still believe that We went to Iraq to get the WMD,s and the Kuwaiti incubator babies story. Don't take it too hard but the Santa Claus isnt real by the way.

It may offend you, but that may be because you are emotionally involved with it. But it counts for any conspiracy theory. Faked moon landings, HAARP, alien cover ups etc.

I am not believing everything is a coincidence. Thats just you. I disagree its all a coincidence.

I do believe that the USA lied about Irak. To me it makes rather obvious how bad they actually are at lying. According to you they capable of faking a terrorist attack in the middle of new york, but not capable of faking WMD in a repressed third world country. Why did they mess up so badly with that rather easy conspiracy, but did the other mega complex one so flawlessly? Except to a bunch of people on internet forums who figured it out...

Right you expect me to believe that it is impossible that anything other than the OS is true. I don't know if you noticed but not many people believe it.

Still making things up as you go? I am open for all kind of theories that are in conflict with the "official story". Its just that until now they are all rubbish fantasy nonsense. Not my fault.

Operation Northwoods demonstrates the type of characters that run our millitary. They actually came up with idea of tricking Cuba into attacking American people. The President didn't go along with it and we all know what happened to him. Just like Bush had an idea of painting a spy plane with UN colors and provoking Iraq to attack it.
But that doesn't tell you anything about his character right? You don't see it as evidence of how twisted his imagination is right?

Funny thing is, I could tell you that even if I never heard of operation northwood. Why? Because I am no a moron, I don't need to see an actual plan to understand that crazy things are being plotted. Our history is full of it.

So all operation northwood proves is that people are capable of plotting crazy plans. What a revelation.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by LastProphet527

Niether...Just the incompetent people that vote them in office.

You can't blame the people when the government chooses who they get to vote for.

Whoever you vote for government wins. The people are not incompetent, just misinformed and manipulated.

Incompetence is lacking in skills which are needed to get something done correctly.

By this definition, the people are 100% incompetent.

If they weren't we wouldn't be in this situation. It would be handled correctly.

You can't scapegoat this by saying they're misinformed and manipulated.

The very fact that they're unwittingly toyed with proves incompetence to be in respect of your self and civic duties.

reply to post by -PLB-

Please cite where I am calling that evidence. Please cite where I claim that incompetence allowed the attack to succeed.

Well that's the thing... I'm not sure what you claim except that everybody is wrong and you are right.

Maybe because they would had to let a whole bunch of other people in on their conspiracy, making it an unnecessary risk?

Why couldn't they just tell a whole bunch of people that they were going to have a drill on 9/12?
You don't see the complete absence of logic in your theory they that had to tell everybody the truth?

Maybe because it sounds highly unlikely that the people who wanted to cause as much maham as possible cared about the aftermath?

Who said they wanted to cause as much mayhem as possible? Y
It looks to me like they wanted to cause mayhem in the middle east NYC was just collateral damage, in my opinion.

Maybe because without that exercise the OEM would have found another spot to base their command center?

Sure they would most definitely find another location but it would take longer and "Americas Mayor" Giuliani would not look like such a hero. You know the little problem of why he put the OEM so close to a known target and because of his stupid decision the rescue operation would be compromised. But with the FEMA command Center available for immediate use nobody really even noticed that his stupid decision caused any problems at all.

But you don't see it that way do you?

I don't expect you to believe that. Even I can imagine that evidence to be planted in order to make the FBI look good. Then again, it could also just be real. Since there is no evidence it was fake, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I do not at all base my believe on it. For me that evidence is rather irrelevant.

I''m wondering who do you think would have evidence that it was fake? And why would you give them the benefit of the doubt? Is it their track record of being honest? Or you don't think reputation is important when making a decision whether or not to give somebody the benefit of a doubt?

It may offend you, but that may be because you are emotionally involved with it. But it counts for any conspiracy theory. Faked moon landings, HAARP, alien cover ups etc.

It offends me because from what I can see you weren't there and only saw the thing on TV but you are telling me that I enjoy thinking that our Government attacked my City where I grew up and chose a career serving the public. You are telling me that I enjoy thinking that men and women who I serve with are suffering PTSD and cancer caused by the people who inspired me to start a career in the field of public safety years ago. Let me tell you something.. I had no idea that there even was a conspiracy theory for years and the day that I heard about it I was so pissed off that I lost sleep over it. But then I googled it and as much as I wish it was the way I thought it was I can't go back in time and avoid the person who told me about it.

I do believe that the USA lied about Irak. To me it makes rather obvious how bad they actually are at lying. According to you they capable of faking a terrorist attack in the middle of new york, but not capable of faking WMD in a repressed third world country. Why did they mess up so badly with that rather easy conspiracy, but did the other mega complex one so flawlessly? Except to a bunch of people on internet forums who figured it out...

The way they lied about Iraq is the exact same way they lied about 9/11. People know that they lied but nothing happens to them anyway. If they would be good at lying we would not be having this conversation right now. Just like they got caught with the WMD's but the war still went on and nobody had any consequences of lying to deal with, they got caught lying about 9/11 and as you know nobody had any consequences neither. So what's the difference?

Still making things up as you go? I am open for all kind of theories that are in conflict with the "official story". Its just that until now they are all rubbish fantasy nonsense. Not my fault.

The only rebuttal I see you make is that it's impossible that they could pull it off. Not very convincing. And when you are shown that you are wrong you just call it rubbish nonsense. And you don't even realize that you are a hypocrite.

You act like you have evidence that you are right and that other theories are wrong but you don't show your evidence, while demanding to see evidence.

So all operation northwood proves is that people are capable of plotting crazy plans. What a revelation.

But you said that it is impossible that the government plotted a crazy plan for 9/11. I'm confused...

If the people at the top are stupid or incompetent, then they are not the top.

It is sad that in order to talk about incompetence the author has to use a pattern of language that assumes that the status of leader is neccessary and perhaps should be more powerful.

In all cases, each time our "leader" has let us down, he used a power that he didn't need to have in the first place.

All of the "leaders" included in this piece should actually be custodians, watchmen, or representatives.

(This OP)^2 in case you want a reread
Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending?

Originally posted by maxella1
Well that's the thing... I'm not sure what you claim except that everybody is wrong and you are right.

So you were unsure about something and then made up all kind of assumptions? I think I see a pattern here

Why don't you simply ask what I think?

Why couldn't they just tell a whole bunch of people that they were going to have a drill on 9/12?
You don't see the complete absence of logic in your theory they that had to tell everybody the truth?

Because "they" would be the people working at OEM. So OEM is in on it? Or was there someone in the government ordering OEM to have a drill on that date? Sounds highly unlikely, so: evidence?

Who said they wanted to cause as much mayhem as ...

... But you don't see it that way do you?

Can you give an honest answer to this question: is this how you would plan an inside job yourself? Or would you call it a crazy plan because it would be way to complex and risky?

You are just desperately trying to fit all events in your conspiracy theory.

I''m wondering who do you think would have evidence that it was fake? And why would you give them the benefit of the doubt? Is it their track record of being honest? Or you don't think reputation is important when making a decision whether or not to give somebody the benefit of a doubt?

Two things, a) this particular evidence does not prove that they were the hijackers, just that they were on the planes and b) there already is overwhelming other evidence that they were on those planes.

I give them the benefit of the doubt because there is strong corroborating evidence. The evidence itself was pretty much useless. If it wasn't there, it wouldn't change anything. Yet you believe it was faked by the FBI. So, FBI is in on it too.

I lost count of how many people and organizations are in on it in your conspiracy theory. Most have little to no function, they just increase risk of exposure. But it makes a nice story, you could make a movie script of it (although I guess thats already done).

It offends me because...

...I thought it was I can't go back in time and avoid the person who told me about it.

You should read more carefully. Its the feeling that "you have figured it out", "have awoken", "are no longer a sheeple" that you enjoy. And for that you have to believe in an inside job. Doesn't mean you like an inside job.

The way they lied about Iraq is the exact same way they lied about 9/11. People know that they lied but nothing happens to them anyway. If they would be good at lying we would not be having this conversation right now. Just like they got caught with the WMD's but the war still went on and nobody had any consequences of lying to deal with, they got caught lying about 9/11 and as you know nobody had any consequences neither. So what's the difference?

The same? You think lying and doing nothing and lying and doing 911 inside job is the same? What the... So why didn't they just fake those WMD? They actually did a mega complex terrorist attack in new york according to you but couldn't just simply plant some WMD?

And if they are getting away with going to war that easily, lie about WMD and not even put effort in making that lie even a bit plausible, what was the whole point of the 911 inside job? Can't be going to war, as that only requires a lie and not actually doing anything, as demonstrated with the Iraq war.

The only rebuttal I see you make is that it's impossible that they could pull it off. Not very convincing. And when you are shown that you are wrong you just call it rubbish nonsense. And you don't even realize that you are a hypocrite.

You calling my rebuttals "not very convincing" isn't really convincing in itself. You basically just ignore them. Wonder where exactly I was shown to be wrong.

You act like you have evidence that you are right and that other theories are wrong but you don't show your evidence, while demanding to see evidence.

Not acting like it. If you want evidence for my claims, I will present it. Just ask for it, but only for claim I actually made, not claims you made up.

But you said that it is impossible that the government plotted a crazy plan for 9/11. I'm confused...

No, I did not say that. I said that the conspiracies that are posted on this forum are impossible. There is also a difference between plotting and executing. As example, deliberate negligence is very possible. But requires, you already guessed it, evidence.

reply to post by -PLB-

So you were unsure about something and then made up all kind of assumptions? I think I see a pattern here Why don't you simply ask what I think?

You are replying to a thread with a title "Are Our Leaders Really Incompetent … Or Just Pretending?" arguing that the Government is really so incompetent that it is simply impossible that they conspired to attack on 9/11. So forgive me for assuming that you believe the terrorists used the incompetence to their advantage...
You also talk about evidence that support the OS all the time, some of the evidence that we are expected to accept are the ground zero passport, the red bandana and the suitcase that was left behind. So common sense suggests that you accept these as evidence...

Why do you reply to a thread and expect me to ask you what you believe? I don't care what you believe but I care why you disagree with what I believe, so far you did not even try to explain it with anything other than repeating that what I think happened is unrealistic and impossible. Dealing with you is like dealing with a vending machine, nothing comes out until you press a friggin button... So I would appreciate it if you finally decide to state what exactly you think happened.

Because "they" would be the people working at OEM. So OEM is in on it? Or was there someone in the government ordering OEM to have a drill on that date? Sounds highly unlikely, so: evidence?

LOL that's nonsense... FEMA's Center for Domestic Preparedness scheduled a drill and sent people to NYC to set it up but plans changed on 9/11. Why would they need to know anything other than that they were getting ready for 9/12 drill? Is it really so difficult for you to understand or is the "_____ had to be in on it" all that you have left?

Can you give an honest answer to this question: is this how you would plan an inside job yourself? Or would you call it a crazy plan because it would be way to complex and risky? You are just desperately trying to fit all events in your conspiracy theory.

First I would never knowingly be a part of an inside job. But if I was investigating the crime of the century I would definitely research similar events in history and the character of people of interest. Known and proven liars have zero credibility with me and giving them the benefit of a doubt is not an option in this case. If you had been caught lying to save your ass in the past you wouldn't get the benefit of a doubt from anybody who wanted to talk to you regarding a crime.

Two things, a) this particular evidence does not prove that they were the hijackers, just that they were on the planes and b) there already is overwhelming other evidence that they were on those planes.

So you believe that this piece of evidence from United 93 proves that one of the terrorists was on the plane?

And with a straight face you're telling me that what I believe is unrealistic and impossible? Or are you laughing your ass off like I am?

I give them the benefit of the doubt because there is strong corroborating evidence. The evidence itself was pretty much useless. If it wasn't there, it wouldn't change anything. Yet you believe it was faked by the FBI. So, FBI is in on it too.

I agree it wouldn't change anything except that it raises a red flag that the evidence might be fake and if that's true we have a big problem don't you think so? And just a few posts back you stated that it is possible that the FBI would try to cover up their incompetence.. So is the FBI in on it too?

I lost count of how many people and organizations are in on it in your conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theory where so many people and organizations are in on it is yours not mine...

You should read more carefully. Its the feeling that "you have figured it out", "have awoken", "are no longer a sheeple" that you enjoy. And for that you have to believe in an inside job. Doesn't mean you like an inside job.

If you really believe what you post here I really hope that your job doesn't require you to make decisions that effect other peoples lives.

The same? You think lying and doing nothing and lying and doing 911 inside job is the same?

It seems that you forgot something very important... Click here for a brief reality check...

They actually did a mega complex terrorist attack in new york according to you but couldn't just simply plant some WMD?

I wish I knew how to help you acquire some common sense... Imagine for a second that the US gets caught planting WMD's by the whole world. There's a lot less risk and more profit to keep looking for them as long as possible or until too much damage is done for just stopping or leaving before winning

reply to post by -PLB-

And if they are getting away with going to war that easily, lie about WMD and not even put effort in making that lie even a bit plausible, what was the whole point of the 911 inside job? Can't be going to war, as that only requires a lie and not actually doing anything, as demonstrated with the Iraq war.

The point of 9/11 is to get people so scared that they would support going to war.. You know the whole "War on terror" means that our enemies don't have a country or an army with uniforms, they can be anywhere on the planet and if we don't go there they will come here. 9/11 is a perfect example and they use 9/11 to keep everyone afraid.

You calling my rebuttals "not very convincing" isn't really convincing in itself. You basically just ignore them. Wonder where exactly I was shown to be wrong.

I ignore them because you don't give any reason why you believe that it would be impossible for the government to be part of it.
You are wrong that it's unrealistic because history shows that false flags are realistic, and that it's impossible for our government to keep a secret but history shows that it was done before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident for instance took 40 years to come out...

Not acting like it. If you want evidence for my claims, I will present it. Just ask for it, but only for claim I actually made, not claims you made up.

First make a claim and then present evidence... I can't wait !

No, I did not say that. I said that the conspiracies that are posted on this forum are impossible. There is also a difference between plotting and executing. As example, deliberate negligence is very possible. But requires, you already guessed it, evidence.

I'm waiting for you to clarify what theories are impossible.. It's not the lasers from space by any chance?