• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

Remember, guys, they're smart enough to pull off 9/11, but it took them 39 years to do so starting with Operation Northwoods or whatever SHC is implying.

You'd think with their capabilities, they would have done it sooner, but SHC's lack of historical knowledge clouds that ideas....
 
Last edited:
SpringHallConvert said:
Naturally. Details of the Northwoods plan came out over 30 years after the fact. Every notable person involved was either long dead or completely out of government. By that time, there was hardly anything left to protect, other than the reputation of the U.S. government.

This isn't the case with 9/11. That event is still highly relevant in a geopolitical, historical, and other related current events context. The government still has to a lot to protect, including former members of the government involved in carrying out the 9/11 crime.

Therefore, your meager protest is rejected.
Click to expand...
Moving goalposts. You've been crying from the rooftops about how government sources are unreliable. When it's pointed out that you use government sources, it takes you several days to actually respond to such a post with the rationalization that "everyone involved is dead or not working for the government!" (Unsupported)

Yet you have no problem accusing people who apparently don't work for the government and never have of being part of the government and ignoring their evidence because of it. I mean, Al Qaeda was formed 25 years ago. That's not so far off from 30. But you still say all the primary sources from the Soviet-Afghani War were made up.

:boggled:

The only reason you accept government sources for Northwoods is because you think can twist it around to support your argument. Government sources become reliable only when you think they support you. I'll bet you never even considered why Northwoods was good evidence and any accounts supporting 9/11 were not until I pointed it out.

And now your hypocrisy's on record.

#000063bookmark
 
000063 said:
Moving goalposts. You've been crying from the rooftops about how government sources are unreliable. When it's pointed out that you use government sources, it takes you several days to actually respond to such a post with the rationalization that "everyone involved is dead or not working for the government!" (Unsupported)

Yet you have no problem accusing people who apparently don't work for the government and never have of being part of the government and ignoring their evidence because of it. I mean, Al Qaeda was formed 25 years ago. That's not so far off from 30. But you still say all the primary sources from the Soviet-Afghani War were made up.

:boggled:

The only reason you accept government sources for Northwoods is because you think can twist it around to support your argument. Government sources become reliable only when you think they support you. I'll bet you never even considered why Northwoods was good evidence and any accounts supporting 9/11 were not until I pointed it out.

And now your hypocrisy's on record.
Click to expand...

Not really.
 
Going "all government sources are unreliable, and if it's an independent source I can just say it might be a government source" then going "oh, yeah, these government sources are fine because they support my point" is textbook hypocrisy.

Or do you think that they'll suddenly declassify the 9/11 files 20 years from now? "Yep! We did it! We murdered thousands of people and used that to start a war. You guys are cool with that, right?"
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
Or do you think that they'll suddenly declassify the 9/11 files 20 years from now? "Yep! We did it! We murdered thousands of people and used that to start a war. You guys are cool with that, right?"
Click to expand...

Careful, if you keep reveling NWO secrets, you risk being demoted to 00062. ;)
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Not really.
Click to expand...

Actually yes really.

But besides that, can you prove all the key players of Operation Northwoods are all dead as you claim? I'll need a list of all parties who were involved in writing up the plan and their aids and secretaries along with valid, non-government issued death certificates (remember, you don't trust govt sources).

Whenever you can get back to me.
 
000063 said:
Going "all government sources are unreliable, and if it's an independent source I can just say it might be a government source" then going "oh, yeah, these government sources are fine because they support my point" is textbook hypocrisy.

Or do you think that they'll suddenly declassify the 9/11 files 20 years from now? "Yep! We did it! We murdered thousands of people and used that to start a war. You guys are cool with that, right?"
Click to expand...

It fits, 911 truth uses a plan never done to support their fantasy that never happened. It is truther logic, the key element in the failure of 911 truth, along with zero evidence, lies, and other shortcomings.
 
cantonear1968 said:
True.

But it can be fun to play with them!
;)

And what makes it more fun is when they think they are the ones doing the playing!
Click to expand...

Well, at least it shows why I was wrong when I thought this forum section wasn't needed anymore. Thank FSM we only have to put up with this crap in here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom