Question to truthers

little grey rabbit said:
It's not to difficult at all, in fact its precisely what I believe.

Except I tend to substitute the description religious fanatic with complete fruitloops - because a lot of these fanatics are members here and I want to use a term that will wind them up.
Click to expand...

You're saying that the members here did 911?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Well I can answer this several ways. First of all I believe all of the "terrorist acts" "they hate us" jargon, was and certainly now is greatly over hyped. If I believe 9/11 was a false flag, it is certainly not to much of stretch to believe other events were false flags as well. But of course that's not to say that these religious fanatics did not commit any terrorist act. I would never say such a thing. But I believe it is over-done, and some events in the past could be false flag events.

Next while some of these fanatics may have wanted to do this, I don't believe they had the means. Now I know what you are thinking, 19 men some box cutters, that's not really a lot of resources. But think about it, we're talking about a loose group of people that to be planning this for years. They had to go to flight training, figure out A/C security, stay close knit enough that no one would give the plans away. Seems hard for a group that is very loosely connected.
Finally and what I believe is most important, almost all horrible acts in history, committed on a big scale, were about greed and power. Now I know you can say, there's been a lot of wars fought over Religion, and there still are. But I believe that religion is only being used to brainwash individuals to fighting these wars, for the leaders of these people to gain wealth and power. If it wasn't Religion they would be brainwashed by something else. If the official story were true, what did it get them? How would the people who organized be any better off? For me it makes sense that humans have not changed and that this event was done by those who wanted more wealth and power. Which is what we see every day, a police state is closing in our rights are being stripped. 9/11 was used a pre-text to all of this.
Click to expand...

Yet those who planted the explosives are still maintaining secrecy according to you.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I was saying I believe 9/11 was a false flag, I certainly have no problem believing others were as well.


Yes I've already said so. But I will also say that they view it as self defense. They view themselves as occupied, and are fighting back. Whether this is true or not, is not that important, they view themselves like this, and are not doing these acts to spread "terror"


Actually I know of an example, where the perps actually got caught. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Please save the usual responses to examples like this. You asked a specific question I am giving a specific answer.




I just meant in general there is a lot of planning involved. They didn't just wake up September 11th and say "hey why don't we crash some planes" Where did the funding come from? Sure OBL was rich but most of his money he was cut off from him. It seems very difficult for me to believe a group of loosely based people could pull this off.


This is where I disagree, if there was a conspiracy, the people that did this were very closely connected, and very exclusive. It's quite probable that those parts that the conspirators could not directly control (i.e needed help for), they were able to use or, for lack of a better word, "trick" people into helping them. In some cases those helping them may have had no idea they were doing so, in other cases they may not have known the full extent.

Absolutely. Yes.



Was simply saying people could use this as an example of something horrible happening, for reasons other than greed and power.
I also want to add I am not against religion, in fact I consider myself religious, but doesn't mean I can't see religion is being used for bad purposes. This includes my own religion.




Well I would disagree with this on many levels. I really don't even know what their "goal" would have been. They seem intent on getting the U.S and the west in general out of the affairs of the middle east. So I guess one can argue, that given the U.S's history of not responding to attacks, the hope would have been, that the U.S. would say enough is enough and stay out once and for all. But to me this doesn't make much sense. First of all nothing like that was done before, especially not on U.S. soil. Any rational person would think there would be a response. I mean I remember in the days right after the attack, random Muslims were beat up for no reason, any rational person would reason that there would a response to it. Something they clearly would not want. AQ certainly did not (and would not have expected) to gain any wealth from the event. I suppose in a respect they would gain power, but it would be abstract, in the sense of fear. I think at some point in the planning of the operation someone would have said "you know why are we doing this? It's of no benefit to us." That would have the end of it. Which is why I believe this was done, by people who simply wanted more wealth, more power, more control, as has been the case all-through out history.
Click to expand...

Fort Sumter

Pearl Harbor
 
tmd2_1 said:
Next while some of these fanatics may have wanted to do this, I don't believe they had the means. Now I know what you are thinking, 19 men some box cutters, that's not really a lot of resources. But think about it, we're talking about a loose group of people that to be planning this for years. They had to go to flight training, figure out A/C security, stay close knit enough that no one would give the plans away. Seems hard for a group that is very loosely connected.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what "means" they had.....or continue to have.

They are only "loosely connected" in the conventional sense that WE think about a "tightly connected, well organized group". Applying OUR defintions to such group(s) is very VERY dangerous and very foolish.

Often the core "group" is only a few people (like several or few dozen), but that group is willing to work with other "groups" to accomplish their goals.....they are willing to even put aside certain differences in ideology to work together....that is one of their greatest strengths.

Most of the groups still answer to or at least acknowledge a "leadership" structure...even if they are disconnected from it for all practical purposes....they do it voluntairly.....thus they maintain the "small group" anonimity and mobility while still being a part of the "larger group".

This is unconventional warfare against groups that are typically small but well organized, funded, and supported. They adapt VERY quickly and will do whatever works until forced to do otherwise. They are fanatical and relentless....and use their religious beliefs as a weapon against fear of personal injury or death. They blend in with the general population and attack targets of opportunity......they are paranoid and cautious, but aren't afraid to be put in harms way for the "mission".

You have absolutely NO FREAKING IDEA what the heck you are talking about.

They were capable of pulling off the 9/11 attacks in 2001......they are STILL capable of pulling off similar kinds of attacks today.

Fortunately the people protecting you aren't a bunch of clueless conspiracy nuts....you should be thankful for that.....otherwise you would find out very quickly just how "capable" these "loosely connected" groups really are.
 
bill smith said:
On 9/11 itself I didn't think twice about it and assumed it as it was served up. Why wouldn't I ? In principle I could still believe it if the evidence really supported the narrative and there were not so many obvious flaws in the government story.
Click to expand...

How many flaws are in your "served up" conspiracy?
 
little grey rabbit said:
Except I tend to substitute the description religious fanatic with complete fruitloops - because a lot of these fanatics are members here and I want to use a term that will wind them up.
Click to expand...

Your perception has a problem...but that's your problem.
 
bill smith said:
I don't know so much about that. It's very possibly a good reason why the media has been so compliant with the government on things 9/11 in America.
Also if the media want to jump ship anytime now they will be able to imply that this is what happened in the States and publicise Operation Layon widely as a backup.
An escape route for the media all in a nice package with little bows on it.
Click to expand...

That "kitchen table judgement on a world scale" really is your style Bill. :rolleyes:
 
Oystein said:
I agree that the "they hate our freedom" is overhyped and misses the core motivation of terrorists. I expect though that terrorists at least hate something about those they target. Wouldn't you? Or what is your general assumption about what emotions motivate terrorists? Love of something maybe?
Click to expand...
It's also a quote mine.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Why_do_they_hate_us?

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
Click to expand...
Whether you agree with him or not, that four-word sentence fragment removes some seriously needed context.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Many websites, including this one. The video of wtc7, which is what I referred to in the post you quoted, looks the same on every website it is hosted on.
Click to expand...

You have concluded WTC7 was taken down by demolition, so what was the purpose/motivation of destroying WTC7?
 
MIKILLINI said:
You have concluded WTC7 was taken down by demolition, so what was the purpose/motivation of destroying WTC7?
Click to expand...
To massively increase the complexity and risk of discovery for no apparent reason, just like the rest of the conspiracy.

Seriously, what excuse would be used for the destruction of WTC 7 if debris from 1 hadn't hit it. Either they somehow aimed the debris at 7 in their already experimental and unreliable demolitions method, or the charges somehow managed to be reconfigured on the fly to simulate a largely fire-driven collapse, even after sustaining damage from debris falling on top of them, or the charges set up to look like the original thing they would've gone with happened to look exactly like the largely fire-driven collapse of the hastily-revised revised official story.

And all of those are so risky the masterminds wouldn't take those odds in the first place.
 
000063 said:
To massively increase the complexity and risk of discovery for no apparent reason, just like the rest of the conspiracy.

Seriously, what excuse would be used for the destruction of WTC 7 if debris from 1 hadn't hit it. Either they somehow aimed the debris at 7 in their already experimental and unreliable demolitions method, or the charges somehow managed to be reconfigured on the fly to simulate a largely fire-driven collapse, even after sustaining damage from debris falling on top of them, or the charges set up to look like the original thing they would've gone with happened to look exactly like the largely fire-driven collapse of the hastily-revised revised official story.

And all of those are so risky the masterminds wouldn't take those odds in the first place.
Click to expand...

Just the image of airliners crashing into buildings was more than enough shock to the country. There's really no rational reason to go further and plant explosive devices in these buildings with the risk of being caught or having the devices fail completely.
Such a vast, risky and complicated plan of the conspiracy theorists; And they only had the one chance to pull it off. Like you say, the masterminds wouldn't take those odds.
 
Miragememories said:
I concur with Bill Smith in my reaction to 9/11.

It was not at all difficult.

Like most of the general public, I was pre-conditioned to immediately believe that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist organization were responsible.

The controlled demolition collapse of WTC7 compelled me to think otherwise, and draw the conclusion that not all of the 9/11 terrorists had been accounted for.

MM
Click to expand...

AndrewBurley said:
Exactly the same for me. Only the gullible or those in denial could see wtc7 fall and think its a fire induced collapse.
Click to expand...

AndrewBurley said:
How can I know that?
Click to expand...

In your response to Miragememories, you have made this conclusion. Don't you remember writing this?
 
MIKILLINI said:
It's called research. Since you have come to the conclusion of demolition, then there has to a motivating factor/reason for destroying the building.
Click to expand...

Why would I need to know the motive to know that the building had been demolished?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom