9-11 was an inside job

[Caleb]

Wow, lildog, so many errors in just a tiny little post.  Where to begin?

For most of the conspiracies to hold true litterally THOUSANDS had to be in on the planning and carrying out of what they think happened.

Michael Ruppert suggested about 20 people for his plan. David Ray Griffin suggests a "small A team" that is actually "in" on the plot.  Most of the work would come from people who did not know what they were doing. An example might be running an exercise (Vigilant Guardian, for example), without understanding that the A team was using it to confuse the radar screens. We'll call these people the B-team. You can't expect the A-team guys to come forward:  they have too much to lose.  You can only expect that B-team people would come forward with something that, while not quite a smoking gun, is highly suggestive. And that is exactly what HAS happened.

But to suggest Bush (the bumbling idiot who can't do much right) somehow pulled together this master plan

I don't know ANYONE who has credited George Bush with this. In fact, I tend to think he would be kept in the dark as much as possible:  why involve the one guy who has the most to lose and might decide to pull the plug on the whole operation?  Just my suspicion, but I tend to think Bush was told just enough to incriminate him, and not much more.

the thousands needed to be involved to carry it out without a single whistle blower is just insane.

Once again, DOZEN OR SO, not THOUSANDS. The rest would be "B-team" guys, many of whom HAVE come forward as "whistleblowers".  The problem with "B-team" guys is that since they aren't actually in on it in the sense of knowing it was happening and being in on the plot, you don't count them as a whistleblower. But they are, because they are coming forward with the only information they have.  For instance, the State Department official who told about the intentional plot by the Saudi Arabian embassy to intentionally allow highly questionable figures to enter the country on Visas.... There are tons of people with stories like this, but ... like I say no smoking gun because they aren't the A-team.  The A-team obviously has no reason to incriminate itself, although I suspect that if we could get Mahmoud Ahmad here facing a jury he might start talking to save his skin.

Caleb

[KBCraig]

Caleb, your "dozen or so operatives" theory is very easily disproven by the absolute, indisputable fact that wiring buildings the size of the WTC towers would take many dozens of experts in controlled demolition, months to accomplish. All the while, they'd be tearing through sheetrock and walls in big, obvious ways. So the circle of silence would have to include the hundreds who worked in the towers and escaped the attacks.

Kevin

[Caleb]

Well, here's one expert's scenario that would involve only five people in the know, KB ... http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/1/soldier1.htm

I'm not saying that is how it happened.  Truth is, I don't know. Those who buy the guvment's story like to ask people like me to explain every last little detail, while letting the guvment get away with glaring inaccuracies and half truths.  What would it be like, KB, if you held the government to the same standards as you hold those who challenge it on the issue of 9/11?

[mvpel]

... while letting the guvment get away with glaring inaccuracies and half truths.

So, I take it you've never looked at a school district budget?

Your mistake is assuming that the "guvment" even has its stuff together well enough to even have the slightest clue of what's accurate or true.

[Caleb]

You've convinced me, Mike.  The fact that local school boards are somehow inept in conclusive proof that Covert Intelligence Operations are theoretically impossible. 

[KBCraig]

I'm not saying that is how it happened.  Truth is, I don't know.

Exactly. You don't know. The only thing you know is that you don't trust or believe the government, therefore they must have been behind 9/11.

Those who buy the guvment's story like to ask people like me to explain every last little detail, while letting the guvment get away with glaring inaccuracies and half truths. 

Again, you keep throwing out this false dichotomy as a strawman: "Either you believe the government did it, or you believe the 'government version' unquestioningly."

I've told you repeatedly that the official reports are suspicious and full of hasty conclusions, but you continue to accuse me of being a government apologist when I point out the malarkey in your "government did it" nonsense. By this point, you're beyond simply ignoring my position: you're deliberately misrepresenting it to the point of dishonesty.

What would it be like, KB, if you held the government to the same standards as you hold those who challenge it on the issue of 9/11?

What makes you think I don't? I'm not arguing the official position.

And vice-versa, Caleb: what if you held Alex Jones to the same standards you demand of politicians?

Kevin

[Kat Kanning]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/#anc_QOD_060908

   Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories that indicate the U.S. government was involved?   * 14833 responses   
Yes, I believe there's evidence.
48%
   
No, that's ridiculous.
39%
   
I'm not sure.
13%
Thank you for voting.

[Caleb]

KB ...

It's quite simple, really, and anyone with knowledge of criminal investigations can tell you that the government's behavior is indicative of a guilty person.  Michael Ruppert (noteworthy because he WAS a criminal investigator) has explained this quite concisely in his book Crossing the Rubicon.

If you were an investigator, and found that one of the prime suspects was a) intentionally lying b) destroying evidence  c) silencing witnesses d) obstructing the investigation      what would be the natural conclusion?

Why won't you apply the same logic to the government?  My answer (that you didn't like) is that you have emotional reasons for not wanting to accept it: namely, that it is a horrible thing to contemplate.  But we should not let these emotional concerns keep us from objectively considering the evidence.

[KBCraig]

KB ...

It's quite simple, really, and anyone with knowledge of criminal investigations can tell you

Good thing I qualify on that front. Do you?

If you were an investigator, and found that one of the prime suspects was a) intentionally lying b) destroying evidence  c) silencing witnesses d) obstructing the investigation      what would be the natural conclusion?

The logical conclusion is that the person lying wants to lie. The wrong conclusion would be that the person lying is the guilty party, and the really wrong conclusion is that the lying party is doing so for any logical reason.

I've seen countless cases where people blatantly lie out of a sense of embarassment. Or a sense of shame that they "should have done something", but didn't. Or a desire to protect someone they believe might be guilty (but who isn't necessarily). Or, most commonly, out of a desire to make themselves look better. Or sometimes --ta-da!-- just because they're psychopaths, and they get off on making people dance to their lies.

There's a southern phrase that seems appropriate: "He'd rather walk a mile to tell a lie than cross the street to tell the truth."

I am not arguing the government position, yet you seem determined to put me in that role. Sorry. Not playing.

Why won't you apply the same logic to the government?  My answer (that you didn't like) is that you have emotional reasons for not wanting to accept it: namely, that it is a horrible thing to contemplate.  But we should not let these emotional concerns keep us from objectively considering the evidence.

Okay, so now you want to objectively consider evidence? That's quite a switch. I've been consistent in my arguments and concerns, while you've flitted about from Messianic Jew to Congregationalist "pastor"; from candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to hard-core anarchist; from Republican to Libertarian to independent anarchist.

You've consistently been a Colts fan, and I'll support you in the "Peyton v. Eli" match on Monday. Cheers! 

I don't have any "emotional reasons for not wanting to accept" your position. Yes, it would be a horrible thing to contemplate if our own government committed the 9/11 attacks, but I'm perfectly willing to examine objective evidence. Not to mention, my emotional bent is quite contrary to the government, and I'm quite distrusting of the bureaucracies (especially since I work for one). The best you've offered are distorted snippets and twisted factoids. You gleefully profer easily-countered nonsense, while simultaneously rejecting logical and obvious evidence.

The "evidence" offered by ST911, et al., is so flimsy that it doesn't merit further examination. It's rather like citing the Flat Earth Society in an argument about whether or not the Apollo program really landed a man on the moon.

We'll have a beer over this when I land in NH. I do like you. I don't like your arguments, and I really don't like ad hominem accusations.

But when we've downed a few brews while the Colts kick butt, I'm confident we'll agree that we're both working together to secure greater Liberty in NH and America.

Kevin

[Caleb]

while you've flitted about from Messianic Jew to Congregationalist "pastor"; from candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to hard-core anarchist

Wow!  Can't let you get away with that personal attack.  One, never been a messianic Jew.  A long time ago, in my youth, I flirted with some of the ideas that a Christian could keep the Torah, but wouldn't really say that qualifies me as a Messianic Jew. Perhaps you're thinking of Joey for President? In fact, on the FSP Christian forum, I have been fervently critical of the Messianic Jews, as quite some time ago I came to the realization that they are, in fact, not Christians.  They have convinced many Christians that they are just a Christian outreach to the Jews (and in fact, I believe many who are affiliated with the Jews for Jesus group are, in fact, just that), but more radical elements are Judaizers, and I have never advocated for Judaizing. As I am of Jewish ethnic extraction (though NOT of the Jewish faith), I have been recruited by Messianic Jewish groups for evangelization.

Congregationalist?  Don't know where you got that idea. Just a Christian. Eschew denominational labels.

Not that my religious beliefs are any of your business, but like Peter says, I stand ready to give a defense for those who have requested of me.

My religious affiliations went even deeper than you know, and I don't particularly care to elaborate on a public forum. If you'd care to know more, I'd be happy to discuss it in a PM.

As to my run for Congress, what can I say other than that I am still running, except I switched parties since Hodes' lead was insurmountable.  I didn't particularly care to spend $500 just to get on the ballot and face a guy with that much money. The development of the Republic of NH and the opportunity to start a new Independence Party is something that I think is worth my time, though I have maintained my affiliation with the Democrat Party.  Once again, not that its any of your business.

from Republican to Libertarian to independent anarchist.

Never been a Republican (yuck) although I have helped them in their campaigns.  Never been a Libertarian either, though I probably prefer their platform to any other.

So, now that we've addressed the ad hominem, care to get back to the issue of 9/11?

Good thing I qualify on that front. Do you?

Ruppert does, as an LAPD investigator, not as a jailer.  You can read his analysis in his books. 

I am not arguing the government position, yet you seem determined to put me in that role. Sorry. Not playing.

Well, then why don't you just ignore these threads, KB?  Frankly, you are the main person on this forum that likes to debunk other people's questions.  Whatever the answer is, it can't be complicity.  No.  That can't be.

I'm not trying to get on your case, and I thank you for your well wishes in tonights game. We will need it tonight, as this will be an emotionally charged game for the Giants.

But I do think you bit my head off needlessly.  I never attacked you, I just suggested that you have emotional reasons for your position, which in my opinion reflect a lot of fear.  You can't let a  9/11 post go by without comment.  This indicates that it is an emotional issue for you.  That's all I'm saying.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  But that's just my opinion, take it or leave it.

Caleb

[Caleb]

Here's the problem, KB, and I think this will explain it concisely:

1)  Apparantly, we both agree that the government has lied through its teeth.  It has destroyed evidence, it has obstructed justice.  It has obtained "gag orders" to silence witnesses. Since there have been so many untruths told by the government, we know have no effective way of knowing what really happened on 9/11. These untruths affect nearly every part of the story:

a) we don't know who the hijackers were
b) we don't know how the planes were hijacked
c) we don't know when the planes were hijacked, nor when or how the government responded
d) we don't know what happened to the evidence in many cases, and when we do know its whereabouts, the government has generally either destroyed it or classified it.
e) we don't know how the buildings fell.

In addition to these questions, we have other evidence that has accumulated. Among others:

a) evidence that there was foreknowledge of the attacks by 1) government FBI agents 2) Intelligence operatives 3) foreign governments, and that furthermore this evidence was ignored and attempts to investigate further were obstructed prior to 9/11

b) evidence that the US government had considered these attacks to be possible, as evidenced by their war games planning.

c) the strong coincidence of 9/11 style war games occurring on the same day: 9/11.

d) strong evidence that the government had the opportunity to respond to the attacks, and yet failed to do so. In responding to these accusations the government concealed the evidence. Specifically, the federal government lied about 1) the readiness status of fighters at Andrews AFB 2) the capabilities of Norad's radar system 3) the communication times when information relating to the hijackings was relayed to NORAD by the FAA 4) the speed and response times of fighters on alert that were dispatched.

e) strong evidence that there is an ongoing relationship between the principle suspect, Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group, and the federal government. As examples: 1) a CIA agent met with Osama Bin Laden at a hospital in the months prior to 9/11 2) credible evidence shows that Osama Bin Laden's phone lines were tapped; thus, he could not plan anything without their knowledge. 3) evidence that the US government and Al Qaeda collaborated in Chechnya in 2002, after the events of 9/11. 4) evidence that the US government has maintained strong relationships with Al Qaeda by means of Pakistani ISI agents, including the chief of Pakistani Intelligence himself.

And this is just off the top of my head, KB. There are many, many more. As you can see, many times the lies coincide with places where the truth would necessitate some version of complicity.  The Sherlock Holmes test applies:  when you have eliminated the impossible ... whatever remains ... however improbable, must be the truth.

[Kat Kanning]

Final results from that poll:

   Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories that indicate the U.S. government was involved?   * 31527 responses   
   Yes, I believe there's evidence.
58%
   No, that's ridiculous.
30%
   I'm not sure.
11%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/                     

[KBCraig]

while you've flitted about from Messianic Jew to Congregationalist "pastor"; from candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to hard-core anarchist

Wow!  Can't let you get away with that personal attack.

I apologize for bringing religion into it. It had nothing to do with the issue. And for the record, I have no problem with Christians keeping kosher, and I certainly don't have a problem with Messianic Jews (ethnic/bloodline Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah).

I am not arguing the government position, yet you seem determined to put me in that role. Sorry. Not playing.

Well, then why don't you just ignore these threads, KB?  Frankly, you are the main person on this forum that likes to debunk other people's questions.  ( . . . ) You can't let a  9/11 post go by without comment.

I let almost all of them go by without comment. I'm responding to this because you brought my name up specifically:

most of the debunking has been debunked ... but that won't stop the Kbcraig and the Lildog's of the world from clutching the debunking sites like a security blanket.  A little too scary for some of us.

So you see, the ad-hominem has been mutual. I apologize for crossing that line, because I've tried to base my entire discussion of 9/11 on facts, not wild conjecture.
Kevin

[AlanM]

Kevin,
Just curious. Have you read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education?

[Caleb]

Well, Kevin, I apologize to you for the ad hominem attack too.  I wasn't trying to demean you.  I get sick of old, worn out, debunking sites, that are based on very old information that has been discredited.

I'll give you just one example:  from the Popular Mechanics article, it says that the reason Norad didn't know where the planes were is because its radar was focused outward (into the ocean) and not inward.  It also makes a false claim (if I remember right) that Norad is prohibited by posse comitatus from monitoring domestic airspace.

This overlooks two points:  First, THE SECRET SERVICE has its own radar system that is intertwined with the FAA's, and is state of the art. Even if the Norad story were true, that doesn't explain why the secret service would not have been able to communicate with Norad, especially since they were aware of the hijackings from the very outset, according to Dick Cheney's interview with Tim Russert.

The second point that is overlooked is that it has been demonstrated that that story is false.  Norad DOES have internal radar, and is authorized to monitor domestic airspace.  In fact, they are not only "authorized", but actually required to protect UN and Canadian domestic airspace, and accomplish this on a daily basis.

So, the "debunking" has been debunked ... and yet it keeps cropping its head up.  It gets a little irritating to keep seeing the same arguments over and over again, when they have been demonstrated to be false.

I'm not willing to assign pure motives to the government.  When I observe them lying, destroying evidence, interfering in the investigation, and intimidating witnesses, I tend to feel that its not so benign, especially when the evidence that they are covering up is so damning.  Sorry, but it DOES MATTER that a CIA agent met Bin Laden in the Dubai hospital in the months prior to 9/11.  That DOES matter.  There's no way to spin that away and make it less damning.  We can ignore it, we can focus on the weakest links of the 9/11 truth movement, we can demand that those who are asking questions try to demonstrate how every little detail could be accomplished. We can post old debunking sites, but the questions remain, and in fact grow by the day.  The government's story has fallen apart. If it wants to try to regain legitimacy, it should come clean on what really happened. Until that happens, I would be remiss if I didn't challenge them on it.

But like I said, they have to explain more than just 9/11.  They have to explain their ongoing relationship with Al Qaeda, continuing even after the events of 9/11.  I'm not optimistic that they will be able to do so in a way that doesn't show that they are complicit.

Caleb