Help! Need Some Intelligent Views From Here!

[shuize]

Their usual response is that it would be too obvious if the government killed then now.

My response would be, that is why they would have been killed long ago when the videos first started popping up on the internet.

Right. Total competence on a scale the world has never seen in executing the 9/11 conspiracy.

Followed by total incompetence in not being able to deal with anyone -- even a couple of wacky college drop-outs -- that stumbles upon the "truth."

Got it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

My first question stems from New Yorker knowledge. Maybe too complicated for troofers to grasp. Everyone in NYC gets to work (it seems) between 9:00:15 and 9:15:00. Cortlandt St. and the PATH were always busiest from about 8:50 to 9:15. (I worked in those buildings for 11 years and traversed the PATH from that station for another 10.)

If you're the omnipotent NWO, and you're already planning to knock off a few thousand citizens, why hit the first tower twenty minutes before the full complement of people would be at work. There were 55,000 people working in those towers and another half-million passing through the PATH during rush hour. What we viewed for days as a miracle (don't post this to the Paranormal boards, please) is a damning fact against the supposed evil gubmint perps! If they wanted to start a war against every country in the Middle East they could've waited until 09:10:00 and knocked off a good ten thousand more people. Why settle for 2700?
(Gruesome and I'm not really comfortable even writing it, but the type of things they'd logically believe.)

My second question is in the same vein. Why bother with the thousands upon thousands of conspirators this "plot" needed? Six bad dudes with I heart Sadaam T-shirts, some REAL C4, and take down the Hoover Dam, Washington Monument, or Statue of Liberty. On a nostalgic note, arrest them as they are spotted in a movie theater and then have an outraged bar owner gun them down in the 6th Precinct the next morning. Six dead Iraqi dudes, hand-drawn maps to the target, and traces of C4 on their clothing. A whole lot simpler.

3. Why do you only have selective sound-bites from firefighters and not hundreds of them marching with you if what you claim is true.

4. Ditto NYPD?

5. Ditto AA employees whose friends either died in the crashes (our version) or were ferreted off and shot or dropped in the ocean (their version).

6. Ditto UA employees....

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Their usual response is that it would be too obvious if the government killed then now.

My response would be, that is why they would have been killed long ago when the videos first started popping up on the internet.

i rememebr debating this with killtown at SLC, he had fame on the brain so bad he just couldnt comprehend loose change not being famous, he claimed in dylan and co were silently done away with when they started lookign into 9/11 the newspapers would read "boys mysteriously die while working on documentary that was sure to make headlines"

 

[Oliver]

It's been posted many times already:

Why would a government that is willing and able to pull off the most complicated conspiracy in history to kill thousands of its own citizens without a hitch hesitate to eliminate a couple of punk kids who threaten to expose the "truth" of its evil deeds?

In short, if what they claim is true, why are the leading LC folks still breathing?

Maybe the truthers are still alive because...













..."they" know it for sure that the troofers

have nothing against them...

Muhawawawawawa

Muhawawawawawa

 

[qarnos]

[snipped list of questions for troofers]

The LCers are trying to "debunk" these claims now in this thread

1: Why would high ranking Pentagon officials (including Donald Rumsfeld) avoid flying? Surely they would know what planes were to be hijacked and could simply avoid those

As if all the high ranking Pentagon officials knew what was going to go down - whoever asked this question knows nothing about corporate conspiracies and compartmentalization - very few knew what was actually about to happen, most didn't. What are they going to say, 'announcement to all high ranking Pentagon officials - don't book a flight on American 11 or 77 on 9/11, or on United 175 or 93. Thank you for your cooperation.' Ha!. And one other thing, where is it reported that Rumsfeld avoided flying commercially? I have never heard that - only that Ashcroft made a habit of using chartered flights for work related (and/or fishing related) trips. Not everyone knew the plan. Again, for the 50th time, the terrorist threat is partially REAL. The US gov. has been purposely fermenting it for decades. It's not all black and white, it's all fuzzy ! There are real terrorists, Muslims really are angry, and the US gov. wants it that way, they have helped and are currently trying to create exactly those conditions.

2: Why warn San Franciso mayor Willie Brown not to fly, did they forget no planes from San Francisco were part of the plan?


Again, not everyone knew the whole plan.

3: Why bother calling off investigations of al Qeada, if the gov is the guilty party anyway what difference does it make?

You forgot, Al Quada was part of it - the patsies - the evidence trail - the pipeline, the Saudis, the Pakistan ISI ... if you are planning a giant hoax, and someone goes sniffing around the perimeter of parties that are an integral part of it, you get nervous.

4: Why bother calling off investigations of Osama bin Laden's relatives?

Cause there's a lot to hide? Cause Osama's brother and his wife's brother (who got detained for sending him a lot of money) were major investors in Bush's first oil company and sat on a board with Bush's dad, for starters?? Cause they're pals with some of the people that run things and filthy rich to boot?

5: Why bother giving the White House staff Cipro when you already know they won't be sent any anthrax.

Good question.

6: Why allow 7 of your reported hijacker to be alive? Why not kill them all, or use fake terrorists?

They have too much confidence in our stupidity. So far, they have been proven right.

7: Why use planes at 1/4 passenger capacity? Your killing 3000 in the towers, whats another 100 or so on the planes.

The towers were supposed to be evacuated before the demolition. Maybe it was planned that way to put a few perps who wanted to feel like they had a conscience at ease. Maybe to minimise the possibility of a complication. Maybe killing people at an undisclosed location is a pain in the @ss and they wanted to minimise the work. I don't know. Stupid question IMO.

8: Why bother planting a passport of Satam al-Suqami in Manhattan? Surely they could come up with suspects simply by looking at the passenger manifests, then arrange to find evidence in their homes.

What are you talking about? The hijackers weren't listed on the manefests. They take the American public to be stupid, they really believe that (see: Leo Strauss). It was a hack job planning wise, carried off superbly from a technical standpoint, and depends on the clearly correct assumption that if the cover story is good, the public will eat it up. No one wants to believe that the government would do such a thing, that is why the ruse works, no mattter how outrageous and unlikely the story. Whoever posed these questions is perfect prooof of it.

9: Why use Hani Hanjour, who couldn't fly a single engine Cessna airplane, as your patsy pilot? Why not someone with more skill?

Do you really think the perps were that hands-on??? You don't know how the real world works.

10: Why would silverstein sign a 99 year lease on two buildings that are about to be destroyed? Why not allow them to be destroyed then buy the land dirt cheap?

Maybe he bought the property specifically to allow the buildings to be wired? Maybe he was compensated above and beyond the insurance settlement? I seriously doubt you'll be seeing Larry begging on the streets of NY anytime soon.

11: Why insure the buildings that are about to be destroyed for less than half what they are worth?

Source? The buildings had serious problems. I thought he made all his money back on the settlement - besides, it wasn't like he paid cash. Again, source of this information is??

12: Why even bother pulling Muslim websites on 9/10/01?

I refer to the last half of my first reply.

13: Why allow the FBI say it has "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?"

The world is messy. Not everyone is in on it. Particularly the FBI - mostly good guys (relatively).

14: Why fire a missile (or anything other than a 757) into the Pentagon and then claim it was a 757? Why not use a missile and say it was a missile, or a 757 and say it was a 757?

They wanted it to be a passenger liner, that was the idea...

"What if we crash passenger planes into buildings and blame terrorist hijackers?"
"That's great! That'll send real fear into people - any airplane, any building could be a target! Brilliant. Where were you thinking?"
"Dunnoh, WTC? Pentagon?"
"WE'RE in the Pentagon, stupid"
"No, we hit a specific spot - where you guys aren't - make you seem completely innocent, too"
"Can you do that acurately with a 757?"
"No, that's why we don't use a 757. We just tell everyone it was a 757 - we use something we can control with good acuracy - a drone"
"Sounds good to me, why don't we take out the accountants that are chasing all that lost money?"
"Excellent - go to it"

(I'm bored with this - I skipped a couple - one more)

Bored? sure...

19: If bin Laden is a CIA operative, why would he profess innocence of the attacks? Did someone forget to send him the script?

Excellent question. This is the one true mystery I can't figure out. Other than, he's using us like we're using him.

 

[shuize]

Number 6 made me laugh:

Q: Why allow 7 of your reported hijacker to be alive? Why not kill them all, or use fake terrorists?

A: They have too much confidence in our stupidity. So far, they have been proven right.

That may be the closest they've ever come to being correct.