9-11 was NOT an inside job

[jaqeboy]

Do you have reason to believe what Cossiga says is true? Untrue?

Based upon him being an admitted terrorist and murderer, I have every reason to disbelieve his story.  Terrorists and murderers are not known for their honesty and credibility.

Do you have reason to believe that what Cossiga says was untrue, or not true, that is?

Uh, you just quoted me saying that I do have reason to believe that his story was untrue.

Namely (again, as quoted) that he is a terrorist and a murderer, by his own admission.  He belongs dangling from a lamp post, not being lauded by "Truthers."

Joe

Sorry, I may have asked the question incorrectly. Let me try another pass at it and forgive me if it seems verbose: I hear you saying that you don't find Cossiga to be credible because of his past position and actions, but what I am asking is do you have reason, ie evidence, etc. to believe that the things that Cossiga is quoted to have said are not true, or false in some way, independently of who spoke the words. You know what I'm asking? Is the information incorrect and do you have the information or reference to something that proves it's incorrect or untrue? I.e., as the title of this thread says: that it "was NOT an inside job" by the folks mentioned by Cossiga. Just wondering if you have some info independent of your opinion of Cossiga, that's all. I don't know much of him, but as I mentioned on the other thread, not at this length, it is to be expected that at some various points in time, various people who have information that is not generally known will reveal it (whistleblowers) due to conscience and courage, or other reasons, eg, the small amount of info that E. Howard Hunt told his son about the JFK assassination, which his son revealed to reporters and later posted online (audio recording).

[kola]

..um..they have you in a headlock, Joe.

i suggest you:

cry uncle.

Kola

[jaqeboy]

re Cossiga & Op. Gladio:

He is only supposed to have made the comments to one newspaper, not to five.  And that many news agencies picked up the story proves that the original newspaper claims that Cossiga made the claims, not that the claims are true.  I think it's odd that the people who have a hard time believing what government officials say about 9/11 trot out as evidence an unsubstantiated claim by a former Italian government official.  People did the same thing with the Amero and when Vincente Fox went on Jon Stewart and Larry King's shows.  I guess you could say that ex-politicians have nothing to lose, but I would disagreBe, they are still intertwined in the power structures and interests that got them into power in the first place.

I read the wikipedia article on Operation Gladio; it's a fascinating topic.  Apparently during the Cold War the NATO countries funded so-called "stay behind" forces in Western Europe who, in the event of a Soviet takeover of the country, would form the core of the resistance movement.  In Italy, the force was known as Gladio.  Apparently, this force, made up of ultra-conservative groups, committed a number of terrorist attacks (such as bombings) and blamed them on the ultra-socialist groups.  There were also allegations of CIA involvement -- which, given the US's tendency to use "extrapolitical" methods to achieve its foreign policy goals, doesn't strike me as impossible.

Alex Jones mentions Operation Gladio in Terrorstorm; The History of Government-Sponsored Terror (at about 09:00) and Webster Tarpley gives a great deal more detail on it in 9/11 Synthetic Terror; Made in USA, starting on p. 61. Tarpley was a reporter in Europe at the time and followed the Red Brigades (Brigate Rosse) and Baider Meinhof gang terror operations and explains the connections to Operation Gladio. I believe he's got numerous references in his footnotes, as well.

[MaineShark]

As I've said before, the "Truthers" are working for the government.  Some willingly.  Some simply due to extraordinary levels of gullibility.

Would you mind naming names of the ones working for the govt or pointing us to a list online?

Certainly.  Just as soon as you post a list of the names of the individuals who mined the towers with demolitions charges, without anyone noticing.

At least, in the claim that I made, I can point to exactly who gains and why (ie, undermining the notion that armed passengers could have prevented the attacks).  No "Truther" has yet to give me any credible reason why the buildings would be brought down with explosives, when they were going to collapse anyway.

Sorry, I may have asked the question incorrectly. Let me try another pass at it and forgive me if it seems verbose: I hear you saying that you don't find Cossiga to be credible because of his past position and actions, but what I am asking is do you have reason, ie evidence, etc. to believe that the things that Cossiga is quoted to have said are not true, or false in some way, independently of who spoke the words. You know what I'm asking? Is the information incorrect and do you have the information or reference to something that proves it's incorrect or untrue? I.e., as the title of this thread says: that it "was NOT an inside job" by the folks mentioned by Cossiga. Just wondering if you have some info independent of your opinion of Cossiga, that's all. I don't know much of him, but as I mentioned on the other thread, not at this length, it is to be expected that at some various points in time, various people who have information that is not generally known will reveal it (whistleblowers) due to conscience and courage, or other reasons, eg, the small amount of info that E. Howard Hunt told his son about the JFK assassination, which his son revealed to reporters and later posted online (audio recording).

I don't have any reason to think that Cossiga's rants about Zionist conspiracies and whatnot are true.  I am not obligated to prove or disprove his claims.  As with any claim of conspiracy, given how rare actual conspiracies are, the burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim.  Cossiga is, apparently, relying on his "integrity" it support his claim, unless there is hard evidence that was not mentioned in any of the news reports?

The trouble is, terrorists don't have any integrity.

I have no reason to believe his claim.  I'd be surprised if there weren't some elements of truth in there... simply as a result of a broken clock being right twice a day, if nothing else.  But I find the overall claim set to be extremely dubious, and given the lack of hard evidence, I have no reason to believe it.  Given the extreme unlikelihood of the massive conspiracy that he describes, I have rational cause to believe his claims are untrue.  Small conspiracies can exist, but any group of appreciable size simply cannot keep a secret for any length of time.

Joe

[jaqeboy]

As I've said before, the "Truthers" are working for the government.  Some willingly.  Some simply due to extraordinary levels of gullibility.

Would you mind naming names of the ones working for the govt or pointing us to a list online?

Certainly.  Just as soon as you post a list of the names of the individuals who mined the towers with demolitions charges, without anyone noticing.

Well, I don't have a list of demo techs, since there's not a known cause for the collapse or known perps yet, hence the call for an real investigation (given that the politicized investigations/reports were flawed and biased to the desired conclusions). I was hoping I could just look up a couple of names on your list, though, since I'm curious about a couple of people. I know that's sensitive info, so maybe you don't want to publish that openly. I could come over just to look up a couple of names on your list, though, whenever it's convenient for you. I'm hoping you won't hold that information out from us, since it would be critical to know that. Thanks.

At least, in the claim that I made, I can point to exactly who gains and why (ie, undermining the notion that armed passengers could have prevented the attacks).  No "Truther" has yet to give me any credible reason why the buildings would be brought down with explosives, when they were going to collapse anyway.

I'm still puzzled why you say this about the guns, since most people in the movement advocate for armed pilots, at least, and many are for armed passengers, as well. Hmmm, maybe you have some info that I don't have. Still waiting to hear what you do have on that, since it's contrary to what I know and hear.

Sorry, I may have asked the question incorrectly. Let me try another pass at it and forgive me if it seems verbose: I hear you saying that you don't find Cossiga to be credible because of his past position and actions, but what I am asking is do you have reason, ie evidence, etc. to believe that the things that Cossiga is quoted to have said are not true, or false in some way, independently of who spoke the words. You know what I'm asking? Is the information incorrect and do you have the information or reference to something that proves it's incorrect or untrue? I.e., as the title of this thread says: that it "was NOT an inside job" by the folks mentioned by Cossiga. Just wondering if you have some info independent of your opinion of Cossiga, that's all. I don't know much of him, but as I mentioned on the other thread, not at this length, it is to be expected that at some various points in time, various people who have information that is not generally known will reveal it (whistleblowers) due to conscience and courage, or other reasons, eg, the small amount of info that E. Howard Hunt told his son about the JFK assassination, which his son revealed to reporters and later posted online (audio recording).

I don't have any reason to think that Cossiga's rants about Zionist conspiracies and whatnot are true.  I am not obligated to prove or disprove his claims.

OK, just thinking that you had something beyond what the article said. I'm anxious to hear of any follow up on the Cossiga story.

[jaqeboy]

This is so sickeningly typical of your average conspiracy theorist. When are you guys going to just admit it's a religion?

This is your thread to tell us what really happened on 9/11. Enjoy

19 pissed-off muslims, trained and funded by former US allies, killed thousands of people, injuring thousands more, and leveled 3 buildings, damaging many more, all because the US government was too incompetent to see it coming despite numerous warning signs. End of story. That's not the "official government story," it's the conclusion drawn from all the available facts.

So, this is a statement of a belief in a conspiracy theory, one called the OCT, for short, or "official conspiracy theory", along with the note that it proceeded (rather than be stopped) because the US govt. was incompetent, which is supported by the apologies of Richard Clark ("Your government has failed you.")

What I have found in the movement is a questioning of the "conspiracy theory" because a lot of the pieces to the story don't fit well, or at all, and several politicized bodies (FEMA, the 9/11 Commision, NIST, even ASCE) have written flawed reports that seem to serve a role of "creating public myth" (Phil Zelikow's words). So, if anything, the 911 Truth movement is anti-conspiracy theory and active in de-bunking unsupported claims. It is essentially investigative in nature. The conspiracy supporters have the power, at this point, to block effective access to forensic material, though the de-centralized, distributed nature of the independent investigations seems to have a power of its own, such as when people have produced samples of materials for physical analysis. I'll report out what Stephen Jones' findings were from some recently recovered forensic material on the other list, and leave this list for those who are offering their proofs that it was NOT an inside job.

[MaineShark]

Well, I don't have a list of demo techs, since there's not a known cause for the collapse...

Certainly there is.  Aircraft crashed into a few buildings.  The mechanism of the collapse has been discussed to great extent.

...or known perps yet, hence the call for an real investigation (given that the politicized investigations/reports were flawed and biased to the desired conclusions). I was hoping I could just look up a couple of names on your list, though, since I'm curious about a couple of people. I know that's sensitive info, so maybe you don't want to publish that openly. I could come over just to look up a couple of names on your list, though, whenever it's convenient for you. I'm hoping you won't hold that information out from us, since it would be critical to know that. Thanks.

Who is "us"?

I am disinclined to believe that there are any significant percentage of liberty lovers in the "Truther" movement.  Most I've talked to are die-hard communists and other brands of socialists, who are opposed to this government, but just want to replace it with a bigger, more evil one.  After all, once the government controls every single aspect of your life, and children are indoctrinated from birth to love the State, no faked-up terror attacks to gain public support would be necessary, right?

So, again, who is "us"?

I'm still puzzled why you say this about the guns, since most people in the movement advocate for armed pilots, at least, and many are for armed passengers, as well. Hmmm, maybe you have some info that I don't have. Still waiting to hear what you do have on that, since it's contrary to what I know and hear.

Really?  Why don't you post some evidence of any significant percentage of "Truthers" calling for armed passengers....

OK, just thinking that you had something beyond what the article said. I'm anxious to hear of any follow up on the Cossiga story.

I'm anxious to learn why someone who claims to love liberty would praise the conscience of a mass-murderer...

Joe

[BaneOfTheBeast]

I've already posted what happened on 9/11--it's so obvious that I can't even begin to believe that people question the official account:

19 fundamentalist Muslim hijackers, directed by Osama bin Laden, took over 4 commercial airliners with box-cutters and, while evading the air defense system NORAD, hit 75% of their targets. In turn, WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed due to structural failure from fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville.

The 9-11 Commission found that there were no credible warnings for these acts of terrorism, and multiple government failures prevented any adequate defense.

You MUST be joking!?
- Osama Bin Laden - AKA: "Tim Osmond" - the name given to him by the CIA when he was on our payroll - along with Al Qaeda itself was a joint CIA/ISI intelligence database of mujahudeen fighters they had recruited, trained, armed and funded in the late 70s and eighties to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Which is well documented for anyone who cares to educate themselves. Not to mention he was partners with the bush family in the Carlyle Group... but you "can't even begin to believe that people question the official account"

- A champion golfer (Payne Stewart) goes off course for no more than 5 minutes and is surrounded by fighter jets ready to take him down - but yet 4 planes were allowed to go off course for a total of 2 hours and the only two planes sent to deal with it were ORDERED by Cheney to fly no faster than 300 miles an hour, even after the first two targets were hit... but you "can't even begin to believe that people question the official account"?

- Then Silverstein - the guy who bought ALL the building in the WTC complex, and took out a record breaking insurance policy on them a week or so before the incident -  says on national television that he decided to have building seven demolished a feat that should have taken weeks to arrange, but that was pulled of in mere hours amidst the panic and chaos on 9/11 (maybe it was so easy because bush's brother was head of security for the complex???)... but you but you "can't even begin to believe that people question the official account"?

- A building in Madrid becomes a towering inferno for over 10 hours - never collapses. Similarily, a building in Venezuala was completely engulfed in flames for 17 hours - never collapsed. But three buildings that were over engineered -designed to sustain not one, but two airliners flying into it - not to mention, containing a bunker inside that reportedly could withstand a nuclear attack - (only 2) get hit by a plane and SMOKE for and hour or so, and then free-fall to the ground, defying Newtons law of gravity... but you "can't even begin to believe that people question the official account"?

- Titanium doesn't vaporize. Its Impossible. At least its impossible when you take into consideration that they were able to identify 184 out of 189 victims that day. Are people less flammable than titanium? And how come the hole left by this "vaporized" plane was much smaller than even just the body of the plane, nevermind the wings?
but you "can't even begin to believe that people question the official account"?
huh?

I could go on. But its so obvious.
I can't even begin to believe that people DON'T question the official account.

[jaqeboy]

Well, I don't have a list of demo techs, since there's not a known cause for the collapse...

Certainly there is.  Aircraft crashed into a few buildings [somehow 2 becomes "a few" and one that didn't have an airplane crash into it comes down anyway].  The mechanism of the collapse has been discussed to great extent.

And I take it you consider it resolved. Since the discussion continues to be controverted, I'll consider it not resolved, K? FEMA, NIST and ASCE and others don't consider it resolved even.

...or known perps yet, hence the call for an real investigation (given that the politicized investigations/reports were flawed and biased to the desired conclusions). I was hoping I could just look up a couple of names on your list, though, since I'm curious about a couple of people. I know that's sensitive info, so maybe you don't want to publish that openly. I could come over just to look up a couple of names on your list, though, whenever it's convenient for you. I'm hoping you won't hold that information out from us, since it would be critical to know that. Thanks.

Who is "us"?

forum readers, freedom lovers, seekers of truth, all your adoring multitudes, etc.

I am disinclined to believe that there are any significant percentage of liberty lovers in the "Truther" movement.  Most I've talked to are die-hard communists and other brands of socialists, who are opposed to this government, but just want to replace it with a bigger, more evil one.  After all, once the government controls every single aspect of your life, and children are indoctrinated from birth to love the State, no faked-up terror attacks to gain public support would be necessary, right?

Hence the invitation on the other thread. You're starting to sound like Jane now, froth and all. Like I've asked her: "Is this working for you?"

So, again, who is "us"?

I'm still puzzled why you say this about the guns, since most people in the movement advocate for armed pilots, at least, and many are for armed passengers, as well. Hmmm, maybe you have some info that I don't have. Still waiting to hear what you do have on that, since it's contrary to what I know and hear.

Really?  Why don't you post some evidence of any significant percentage of "Truthers" calling for armed passengers....

You're expecting some statistical analysis of a pile of affidavits of an amorphous grass roots movement, or something?? Do the survey if you'd like; the invitation is on - see for yourself!

OK, just thinking that you had something beyond what the article said. I'm anxious to hear of any follow up on the Cossiga story.

I'm anxious to learn why someone who claims to love liberty would praise the conscience of a mass-murderer...

Joe

Master-baiter -- that seems to be missing from anything I have said, hence I hope you're not expecting me to join you in your session. See you on the other thread and at the Conspiracy Cafe - I'll peek in over here to see the "proofs" of the conspiracy theory as they arise.

[John Edward Mercier]

Oh come on. There were several car bomb attempts on this complex. Were those all INSIDE jobs?
Or are we just to assume that the government is so smart that no one could pull this off under their noses?

I also asked a question on another forum. If passengers/crew were to be allowed by the airline to be armed during a flight (decompression would be kind of crappy), why wouldn't the terrorists just focus on international flights that would have the most fuel and be less likely to have armed individuals?

[KBCraig]

- A champion golfer (Payne Stewart) goes off course for no more than 5 minutes and is surrounded by fighter jets ready to take him down

It was one hour 23 minutes before ATC contacted an F16 that was already in the area, to intercept and watch Stewart's jet.

The rest of your scribblings are just about as accurate.

[MaineShark]

[somehow 2 becomes "a few" and one that didn't have an airplane crash into it comes down anyway]

Pentagon makes three.

And I take it you consider it resolved. Since the discussion continues to be controverted, I'll consider it not resolved, K?

Controverted by whom?  Every shred of credible engineering says the aircraft crashes caused the collapses.  There are fools out there who "controvert" the notion that the planet is round, not flat.

forum readers, freedom lovers, seekers of truth, all your adoring multitudes, etc.

You get to speak for all of those groups?  Was their an election or something that I missed?

If not, then who is this "us" that you are actually entitled to speak for?

I am disinclined to believe that there are any significant percentage of liberty lovers in the "Truther" movement.  Most I've talked to are die-hard communists and other brands of socialists, who are opposed to this government, but just want to replace it with a bigger, more evil one.  After all, once the government controls every single aspect of your life, and children are indoctrinated from birth to love the State, no faked-up terror attacks to gain public support would be necessary, right?

Hence the invitation on the other thread. You're starting to sound like Jane now, froth and all. Like I've asked her: "Is this working for you?"[/quote]

As I said, that matches most whom I've talked to.  Few would even question it if someone other than Bush had been President.

Heck, how many of the "Truthers" gave a hoot when Clinton gassed and burned over a hundred men, women, and children to death?  In conversations with "Truthers" who accused me of being incapable of finding fault with the government, I mentioned that I think Clinton and his buddies should have been tried and executed for crimes against humanity, just like the government say anyone else who orders mass executions of civilians should be treated.  They look at me like I'm some loon and tell me to stop believing crazy theories, and that Clinton was just defending the country, and actually cares about people and would never do something like that, and the people inside the building lit the fire, and besides they had it coming because they had guns!

When it's someone marginally more socialist than Bush, suddenly he's a good guy, and the official story is the accurate one, eh?

You're expecting some statistical analysis of a pile of affidavits of an amorphous grass roots movement, or something?? Do the survey if you'd like; the invitation is on - see for yourself!

I have yet to meet more than a mere handful of "Truthers" who advocate anything about arming passengers.  I have no interest in driving to Cambridge to find your supposed gun-loving "Truthers."  You're the one who asserts they exist, en masse.  Gun lovers of any sort in Cambridge are a rare breed.

Master-baiter -- that seems to be missing from anything I have said, hence I hope you're not expecting me to join you in your session. See you on the other thread and at the Conspiracy Cafe - I'll peek in over here to see the "proofs" of the conspiracy theory as they arise.

I don't recall an instance of Cossiga being mentioned, in which you did not praise his conscience...

Joe

[JustUs]

Sorry, I may have asked the question incorrectly. Let me try another pass at it and forgive me if it seems verbose: I hear you saying that you don't find Cossiga to be credible because of his past position and actions, but what I am asking is do you have reason, ie evidence, etc. to believe that the things that Cossiga is quoted to have said are not true, or false in some way, independently of who spoke the words. You know what I'm asking? Is the information incorrect and do you have the information or reference to something that proves it's incorrect or untrue? I.e., as the title of this thread says: that it "was NOT an inside job" by the folks mentioned by Cossiga. Just wondering if you have some info independent of your opinion of Cossiga, that's all. I don't know much of him, but as I mentioned on the other thread, not at this length, it is to be expected that at some various points in time, various people who have information that is not generally known will reveal it (whistleblowers) due to conscience and courage, or other reasons, eg, the small amount of info that E. Howard Hunt told his son about the JFK assassination, which his son revealed to reporters and later posted online (audio recording).

I don't have any reason to think that Cossiga's rants about Zionist conspiracies and whatnot are true.  I am not obligated to prove or disprove his claims.

Sounds like a "no" -thanks for clarifying.

[Russell Kanning]

It is good to see this thread is thriving ... ya never know ... you might convince some of us that it wasn't an inside job.

[kola]

actually its quite comical.

the only left to do is throw in a couple of shovels.

the shit is deep

Kola