That's enough for you? A government thought project?
The intel community has interns come up with theories like Northwoods everyday as thought experiments to run preparation and alternate scenarios. It's what think tanks do.
I'd be disappointed if the government didn't think of this. There is still a landslide of evidence to overcome, not to mention...
There isn't a single verifiable witness. It has been 16 years. You really think there isn't a disgruntled person who would have leaked the conspiracy? There was no Snowden leaker, no foot solider with a change of heart, no official who discovers a conscience?
Instead of concerning yourself with suppositions, look at the lack of people. It would take thousands of people to pull the conspiracy off. There has never been a covert op of that size which stayed covert.
Wait...what! The government is constantly making models about committing attacks on US citizens in order to justify invasion of a country? I don't think other countries make plans about attacking their own citizens to justify war, if they do, they are not legitimate governments.
Instead of concerning yourself with suppositions, look at the lack of people. It would take thousands of people to pull the conspiracy off. There is no way they pull this off without someone making a mistake.
Tell me how many people worked on the Manhattan Project again?
To the manhattan project response: How much faster did the Russians get the bomb before we anticipated. Those in the MP thought it would take them 10-15 years. They had it in, what, 4 years? Suspicious?
As for the first part... how naive are you? This is the whole argument for Pearl Harbor been allowed by FDR. I don't believe that one, but I'm pretty sure the Maine exploded on it's own and the US just ran with it for their own purposes.
If your country's survival depends on getting a casus belli to motivate a populace, you better think of extraneous circumstances.
Say you have intel that the Russia is going to strike our cities this year to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the overthrowing of the Czars. We know the date, and for the sake of this argument, let's say it's 100%. But Trump, who loves Putin, is specious of the intel.
Would you rather the US loses NYC and Boston to first strike nukes (potentially 60 million lost) , or, if you are the FBI, do you make a feint on a city and kill 40 citizens?
I don't want my government intending to do these things. I do want them preparing.
Also, if your argument is that there is a justified cause to 9-11 by invading Iraq/whatever, don't you think they would have put more reasonable evidence to solidify the intent?
This is where the "inside job" falls apart, because what is the intent? And even then, if the cabal Bush led could have gotten away with something so genius as 9-11, how could they so badly fuck up the 2003 war?
To the manhattan project response: How much faster did the Russians get the bomb before we anticipated? Those in the MP thought it would take them 10-15 years. They had it in, what, 4 years? Suspicious?
Please provide evidence that Russia got the bomb because the Manhattan Project was not secure.
How about Operation Paperclip? How many people kept Nazi scientists working in the states secret?
Your whole point about the size leading to a leak does not take into account that organizations have developing methods to get large projects done with only a few realizing the scale of a project. Compartmentalization is just one small technique used.
As for the first part... how naive are you? This is the whole argument for Pearl Harbor been allowed by FDR. I don't believe that one, but I'm pretty sure the Maine exploded on it's own and the US just ran with it for their own purposes
So wait you said that the intelligence agencies make models to help brainstorm defense strategies.
Operation Northwood was an attempt to provide a justification for millitary action against Cuba. Did Cuba threaten our survival? The activity of planning a 'terror campaign' in Miami area to blame the Cubans. Is not an act to justify a defensive war. It is a deception to further someones interest. That interest and the safety of the citizenry are not aligned.
If your country's survival depends on getting a casus belli to motivate a populace, you better think of extraneous circumstances.
Cuba did not pose an existential threat.
There are 3 things in classical war theory that are its causes. Fear of the population, defense of the population, or interest. This was pure interest.
Say you have intel that the Russia is going to strike our cities this year to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the overthrowing of the Czars. We know the date, and for the sake of this argument, let's say it's 100%. But Trump, who loves Putin, is specious of the intel.
The citizens through deliberative processes and proper channels decide to go to war. No president should have the ability to wage war for any reason, unless declared by Congress.
Would you rather the US loses NYC and Boston to first strike nukes (potentially 60 million lost) , or, if you are the FBI, do you make a feint on a city and kill 40 citizens?
I am not a utilitarian. The correct course is to have a deliberation by the citizenry, and the citizenry can decide whether to go to war or not.
I don't want my government intending to do these things. I do want them preparing.
We are talking about a plan where the government was going to create a spectacle to justify military action. You know, be the aggressor. Something that is prohibited by international law, and which is unethical. It is even worse than that, it shows complete disregard for international law by attempting to create a loophole to justify a war of aggression. A government that does that, is not a legitimate government.
Also, if your argument is that there is a justified cause to 9-11 by invading Iraq/whatever, don't you think they would have put more reasonable evidence to solidify the intent?
Why? The State Department made it clear in 2001 that the Taliban would be held collectively responsible for any terror attack by anyone affiliated.
September 11th happened.
We invaded Afghanistan to stop the Taliban. Moreover the talk of a 'Pearl Harbor' like event was discussed by foreign policy institutes as justifying Americas dominance. They used precisely the impetus that was hoped for in Project North-Wood. People were angry and shocked, and the invasion was easy to sell.
This is where the "inside job" falls apart, because what is the intent? And even then, if the cabal Bush led could have gotten away with something so genius as 9-11, how could they so badly fuck up the 2003 war?
They did not fuck up the war. The DOD and related contractors made out like bandits.
OK. So, I don't get into fisking arguments. Nothing says a person is unreasonable then what you just did, which is
YOU ARE WRONG AND HERE IS A THOUSAND POINT BREAKDOWN OF EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID.
If you disagree with me. Fine. Just say so. But fuck this /r/atheism argument bullshit. You aren't a lawyer and this isn't a court case. You don't get to command the dialogue by countering every single sentence. Build a goddamn case with an argument, don't try to split out everything.
I have absolutely no interest in doing point-by-point mass arguments. You have opened up 15 different arguments. What are you trying to accomplish? And, more to the point, what does this have to do with the original point?
My original hypothesis was that I don't believe that 9-11 is a conspiracy because there isn't a single person who would have been on the inside who has come forward.
And at best, you roundly dismiss it with "Compartmentalization." So you skip over it because it's not of interest to you.
You ask for sources but don't source anything. You make sweeping generalizations. You misappropriate victors of a government cabal by those who are in the military industrial complex... as if that's somehow a viable source of capital. But I would have to do exactly what you have done here to even get back to the point, because you wasted 1000 words on side tangents.
No offense, I have no interest in replying further. I'm not your argument monkey, here so you can fisk everything I say.
I respect your right to disagree with me. But focus on something we can talk about, opposed to... everything.
You and I are communicating through a written medium. It's benefit is that it allows us easy reference and point by point engagement. I think using the strength of a medium is a good thing.
Your proposition: If there is a large conspiracy then someone would spill the beans is false.
This is evidenced by the Manhattan Project and Operation Paperclip.
It is also evidenced by internal mechanism of which compartmentalization is one.
I though we were discussing project Northwood. If you were not familiar with it let me source:
Proschema (plural proschemata) is the equivalent Greek term, first popularized by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War. The proschemata are the stated reasons for waging war, which may or may not be the same as the real reasons, which Thucydides called prophasis (πρóφασις). Thucydides argued that the three primary real reasons for waging war are reasonable fear, honor, and interest, while the stated reasons involve appeals to nationalism or fearmongering (as opposed to descriptions of reasonable, empirical causes for fear).
You are the correct one obviously but what a fantastic argument you just laid out. It takes a mountain of facts to dispute one bullshit sentence but you fucking laid it all out, bravo
You are confusing the nature of this written medium.
Reddit is a forum. It is intended to be a dialog.
You are talking about the point by point nature as if this was a journal, or academic seminar, or courtroom.
You are not a teacher, or more correctly, you are not my teacher. You offer unsolicited evidence (in on r/conspiracy, do you seriously think I don't know what Project Northwoods is?) and you try to control the discourse.
Your tone is clear. You don't want to talk or learn. You want to teach, corrects and disprove.
There is no chance I am going to change your opinion in any way. So, no thanks.
Do you even get the point of my post? If the person approached anyone in person like that, people would flee.
I don't think you understand how functional discourse and forming an argument works. All you get is internet boasting, where it is more important to write the point you want to make then actually converse.
Case in point, you try to smear where you see fit, when honestly, there are so, so many posts I have made in this thread that would be better served by your sweeping, grandstanding dismissal to preserve the hivemind.
But go ahead and write "cancer" as a reply more. You're the scholar we need.
My original hypothesis was that I don't believe that 9-11 is a conspiracy because there isn't a single person who would have been on the inside who has come forward.
Do you know what the world conspiracy means? You do realize that the offical story is a predetermined, pseudo-scientific, conclusive conspiracy theory right? So yes, you do believe in a conspiracy. Just because the media tells you something doesn't mean it's true.
I lived thorough Bush, who until about 20 days ago was the most I've ever hated a President. I would have loved nothing more than it to have been true.
But I can find nothing. Everything is loose ties and jumps in logic and presupposing end intentions.
But we have a conspiracy at foot of a foreign government interfering with a US election but all this sub wants to talk about is Satanic child sex rings...
Hey bud, the offical story is more a conspiracy theory than anything else but each to his own. If you want to believe pseudo-scientific, predetermined conspiracies be my guest. The boys over at A&E 911 are doing real science based on facts and evidence.
Hey, if I may be so bold, in light of your rational, practical assumption, do you then accept the details of the event as we have been told? Just a quick wonder; thanks for your time!
I don't tend to believe anything the government says 100% about something of this magnitude.
Do I believe their narrative for the most part? Probably, because nothing else seems to be close in competence.
I believe a bunch of pissed off Saudis and radicalized Jihadis hickjacked a plane and crashed them into the Pentagon and Twin Towers? Yes.
Do I believe tower 7 fell on its own? Yes. I know everyone uses that and the free fall speeds as a gateway drug into this, but no. I believe that there was substantial debris and fire that hit the building from the twin towers collapsing.
Do I believe flight 93 crashed due to passengers rushing the cockpit? Probably, but it also seems highly likely it was shot down by US jets.
I think Bush incompetently overlooked the intel he was given, and if Gore was in office (or if Clintons term ended in say 03 instead of 01) that there is a 70% chance the attack wouldn't have happened. I think he was so much more obsessed with Iraq that he missed the real goal.
Is my mind closed on it? No. But until there is an insider or a leak proving more, the government narrative is close enough. Too many people stand to gain from it being revealed as a cover up to have not come forward. The absence of insider evidence or cracks opposed to a mass narrative of presupposed shady dealings is where rationale ends.
Look, I'm not gonna go point by point, because you seem to have an issue with that. I just want to ask, who would qualify as a whistleblower for you? whistleblowers
I imagine you'll claim that they aren't "insider" enough, but why would you think the people that would have that type of information would have more to gain from releasing that information? If they aren't directly gaining from it, wouldn't they have much more to lose by coming out (their life)? Do you want Cheney to come out and say it or something?
Saying the US didn't commit the attack themselves is one thing, but do you really think the official narrative is the most plausible account of the events that transpired?
A competent leak with plans and details by someone who actually has something to lose by coming forward.
Someone who actually overcomes the plausible deniability threshold to a point where real news sites would have a hard time scrambling to dismiss.
Someone who was in power who have written communications with intent, and ideally other people on the team.
No janitors who remember something on happening the weekend before. No "boy there was extra construction going on." No professor saying, I see thermite traces in the video, and there are extra explosions which might coincide with the video.
They should have functional proof, some kind of tacit connection to a person who would have stood to benefit (like a Cheney or Bush).
Ok here's a simple answer, that dude blew you away, made you look foolish and ignorant. Its called facts and everything you said he disputed with facts. Stop paying attention to every little thing I say......LMAO.
Are you 12? Do you know what functional rhetoric is?
He didn't make an argument relevant to what I said. There wasn't a cohesive hypothesis to the post. He just spouted out a bunch of viewpoints, some of which were tangential, others which were just wide ranging and pull on other much larger points.
You ask for sources and make it sound like this is supposed to be a dialogue yet you straight up yell in caps and point fingers that people are "wrong" without further justification? Telling people that just means you're not willing to listen.
And ironically, you claim you have no interest in replying further yet you continue to do so. Make up your mind.
There's a fine line between conspiracy and crackpot. Nothing of the whole truther movement holds up. From loose change to Charlie Sheen to every shitty post on here. They hold up for 80% because we all want to believe it was a big sham... then all you have to do is question the sources. You can't crowd source a conspiracy theory. At least the JFK assassination had people from K street.
It's been 11 years. The grand puppet master behind it all accomplished... what? I fail to see what it all adds up to. It's a matter of faith now.
You want a real conspiracy? The big 6 media companies are dismantling the internet because it's the last bastion on uncontrolled free speech. They appointed a lackey to head the FCC and they are going to crack down on the net.
But there won't be false flags or government feints. They are just going to tell you it's "draining the swamp" and will be good for you in the long run.
But yeah, your government is trying to take away your sources of information and they are using the whole anti elitist bent to do it?
I tried to red pill my mom with operation NW and she told me it was a fake document. I told her it came from the CIA.
We got in a fight and then I heard CNN playing from her TV a few minutes later. Almost as if they are hypnotizin people. She needed her daily programming.
I've seen a couple and this one is by far the best. I recently saw zeitgeist for the first time and I thought thier coverage of 911 was a very good Tldr version.
You don't need to believe or disbelieve in anything involving 9/11 because this is the actual official story that is told to us and it speaks for itself. 4 minute video, very much worth the watch.
yeah..."911 plane that hit the pentagon that was not there" you literally had to lobotomized yourself and repeat " Nothing exists outside the goverent story, nothing"
I'll second this. The biggest fallout from this election so far IMO is the fact that many people, like myself, really saw just how corrupt the media was in a way that was not as obvious before. I knew they were full of shit before but I didn't realize just how full.
also, it's moved it from being a thing that you kinda knew before but didn't want to mention because no one would understand to just assuming we are all on the page now.
The truth is more powerful than any attempt to conceal it. Light will always break through darkness. Trump had the bravado, the self-confidence and the money to stand up to the bullshit. He also had the truth.
Yes. So true. The media kept saying how horrible and embarrassing this election cycle was. I heard the same from friends and acquaintances on social media. "Embarrassed for America." Yet, I think this has been the single most valuable election cycle in my lifetime, as it has served to lift the veil of MSM bias. The fact that projections for Hillary's victory were so clearly purposely skewed, that the MSM did everything they could to lie about Trump and avoid any detrimental narrative about Hillary...
He's saying that the Clinton owned MSM overplaying their hand was the red pill that caused them to take a step back and question what else the media was lying about.
Bush administration the entire media was his propaganda machine. with Obama, at least the media seemed divided.But for Bush it was unanimous bulls hitting day day out. No questions asked. Exhbit A: Iraq war reporting
It was a big wake up call for me when I first heard about it.
I will never forget the first time I saw the BBC video of the woman saying it had collapsed while the building was still standing in the background. That was the moment when I realized the BBC, and therefore the British government, was a part of the 9/11 criminal cover up. It made sense though, because Tony Blaire was so bizarrely supportive of Bush's illegal war.
i remember asking my mom "why did they blow up the building after a plane crashed in it?" right after they had shown the footage to everyone in the (western) world...
was a young kid, who wanted to watch pokémon, but couldn't because of "breaking news" that interrupted the usual time-table of programs :/
... they should have let me watch my kids-show... and not interrupt it before even "anything" had happened. just a plain plane flying into a huge building. After they blew it up, i knew they knew beforehand...
and... the icing on the cake was: "yeah, we found the passport of the culprits lying around. Sure as hell these guys did it!" dafuq? you sure the passport wouldn't be one of the first things destroyed? was that some kind of "hyper heat resistant" passport? and even if you DID find some passports... how could you identify them so fast? you examined all the corpses already? Hell, you didn't even count the bodies, yet. o_O
Clear thinking friends...
The Official Story of 9/11 is a story of a conspiracy.
Anyone that says they don't believe in "9/11 conspiracies" but at the same time do believe the official story, is telling you that they are so confused that they do not now the meaning of the word "conspiracy".
Having been on site at the WTC on Septemebr 11th 2001, I doubt that you have seen "the same things" that i have seen.
It is not insulting to acknowledge the misuse of words. In this case, (the insistence that the official 9/11 story is not a conspiracy theory) it helps identify people that have internalized propaganda and need help thinking clearly.
OR they are a part of the 9/11 criminal cover up. Those people do exist, especially among our reporter and political classes. Many of them are so heavily and publicly invested in the 9/11 lies, that they can not admit to anyone that they were wrong about it.
That is how it is when you are a part of a big criminal cover up. The truth paints you into a corner, one that I think a lot of them just do not have a clue as how to get out of.
But the most glaring aspect is flight 93, look at the photos, look at the debri field, and you can watch several videos where top level people from the Bush Administration proclaim (maybe by mistake) it was shot down. Let alone this:
But prosecutor Timothy Stone told the six-member jury of U.S. military officers who will decide Hamdan's guilt or innocence that Hamdan had inside knowledge of the 2001 attacks on the United States because he overheard a conversation between bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.
The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.
"Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew," Stone said.
United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania. U.S. officials have never stated it was shot down although rumors saying that abound to this day.
What I think is you don't have to believe that its a conspiracy, but at least watch the evidence for the "official" story and how true it seems to you based on what evidence you can see. And another thing is that the NIST rapport apparantly cant be used in court, also I believe most on the 9/11 is a conspiracy side wants FBI and other agen ies that confiscated lots of video footage to declassify that footage
The issue with 9/11 is the amount of controlled opposition, especially on reddit, to discredit any theory other than the controlled-demolition theory. For my part, I found no-better expert than Judy Woods to make sense of this crazier-than-fiction case.
She's really the only one that looks at the entire GZ footprint as a Crime Scene needing forensic analysis! I respect and admire her a great deal.
When you explain that all seven buildings plus the Deutsch Bank were destroyed on 9/11 it can be very intense! There is r/judywood and r/DrJudyWood too!
LOL, and I would call you by the same label. Judy Woods is controlled opposition. She presents a lot of evidence that indicates nukes were used and then comes with a completely silly explanation for it. Energy beams, LOL. What she means is underground nukes.
There is nothing crazy about directed-energy weapons (DEW). Just google Active Denial System (ADS). The science behind this technology is pretty much the same as your microwave. Only it's focused on a specific area. I've never heard any scientific explanation of so-called 'mini-nukes'. I'd happy to look where empirical evidence is given.
The false evidence put forth to confuse people about 9/11 works on people who are really clueless about basic physics. There is a LOT of nonsense stuff put out about 9/11 in order to confuse us, which I consider to be evidence of a truly massive and well funded cover up. They never seem to run out of resources to keep the lid on it, implicating a whole lot of insiders IMO.
I tried to redpill a very intelligent member of my family to no avail. This person was aware of the Gulf of Tonkin admission by McNamara, by the way, and has a PhD in medicine, so clearly they understand Newtonian physics enough to comprehend the fallacies of the official 9/11 report.
They didn't even remember that the towers stood and burned before they were demolished. When asked how do you explain how they fell if they remained standing so long after plane impact, they immediately responded "the jet fuel".
I explained the impossibility of this scenario, as jet fuel burns cooler than steel's melting point and the amount of fuel was a drop in the bucket compared to the truly mammoth scale of the buildings.
They didn't respond, but were clearly unconvinced.
I then asked how can less than 20% of a structure disintegrate to dust the bottom 80% of healthy structure if gravity is the only force at play.
"I don't know" was the response.
I then mentioned the Society of Architects and Engineers who all disagree with the official story.
"I'm not an architectural engineer" was the answer ti that.
I offered to show them 9/11: The New Pear Harbor by Massimo Mazzucco when they are ready to open their mind.
Sadly, I don't think they want to really acknowledge the truth and would rather stay in a comfortable bubble. Most Americans appear to share this same sentiment.
Yes. Absolutely this. I got into a serious discussion about this on Christmas Eve with one of my best friends. He's an incredibly smart guy who writes for USA Today, yet unequivocally believes that anyone who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a lunatic. As we got to talking, I realized (and pointed out to him) that he knew next to no information about 9/11. He had done no research.
One very effective way that conspirators shun off conspiracy theorists is to subtly or blatantly suggest that those who believe in conspiracies are of lower intelligence and higher gullibility than those who don't. My friend, being self-defined by his own intelligence, was fearful of even considering the possibility of a 9/11 false flag, because he didn't want to be lumped in with the "unintelligent, gullible loons."
The biggest evidence besides building 7 is the situation with Dick Cheney who had the opportunity to give the order to shoot down the plane but instead let it hit the building most people don't know about that.
It's more than this for those intelligent enough to understand the very basic scientific reasoning behind it.
It is a battle with one's own conscience to willfully deny your gut instincts and instead believe the official report, because it is easier that way for most.
Many disbelievers are torn internally and they choose the path of the sheep, despite a portion of their being knowing it is a lie. They choose not to believe merely for their own sanity.
Lol, I made a nearly identical post two days ago. I kind of feel better knowing even though it's a total mind fuck and sometimes feels pretty hopeless.
Yeah, this stuff is pretty overwhelming. Small doses as you go!
I came here well over seven years ago with nobody to talk to about 9/11. and I mean people were abusive if you questioned 9/11! If it hadn't been for the solid people in here to bounce my thoughts I think I would have gone bonkers!
There are some links posted above that I personally trust/believe/entertain when you need something new to chew on! Also the side-bar link!
Not just abusive. For some the abuse turned into murder, loss of career, etc. It was a lot more than just simple abuse. It was a conspiracy to torture some people.
My journey looking at 9/11 started well after the event. Personally, I knew it wasn't what the government said but my own life was in tatters.
When my life started to square up, I had new access to Hi-speed internet I began looking. Crazy 'cuz I was on digg as it was in its death-spiral and I burned up a few user accounts trying to navigate reddit - by the time I found r/conspiracy I was able to settle in, ask questions and not get bombarded by jerks, creepers and twelve year olds!
The PG has red-pilled many people to 9/11 and our governments deep deep corruption.
Good people like you, u/Sister_Lauren, can carry the torch, be the light of those that were sacrificed on 9/11 and in the weeks, months and years where the death toll continues to rise from the dust!
The Bush's. With deep connections to the Royal Saudi family, where most of the hijackers came from. And with Bush Sr. a former Director of Central Intelligence, an organization with the knowledge and power to pull off an operation of that sort. And control of the Presidency.
It may not have been partisan, blue vs. red. But it certainly was oligarchical.
Uh huh. Who held office during the run up to the Iraq War? Were there Weapons of Mass Destruction as claimed? Who held office during changes to long held standards at NSA preventing surveillance of US citizens? Who begin the policy of surveilling journalists to find their sources for filing Espionage charges? Who decided to enact a policy of indefinite detention and torture and had injustice department lawyers (John Woo ring a bell?) craft legal policy documents in support of that?
Obama continued those policies. He didn't initially implement them.
Still reeling as well, TIL Sandy Hook was phony just like 9/11, to grab kids maybe but definitely to grab away gun rights. I mean, fucking green screens, supposed drills (too real lockdowns made for this), crisis bad actors, fake kids, fake home sets for interviews, photoshopped family pics, no blood, no triage, no bodies. Lies. CNN & MSM you brood of vipers!
Thinking of the passengers calling home on flights !after! supposed hijack but before crash, one even said it's a "frame". Cell phones wouldn't work. The people died after the real plane landed, but the cell phones didn't. I can't stomach the thought that operatives killed these people one by one, women, men, children.
But the focus is on saving the brainwashed kids from perverts, cannibalizing witches and worlocks who almost elected Hillary, ASAP for the time being.
Sandy Hook is the one that bothers me the most after 9/11. It is so inconsistent, strange and unbelievable. Yet be careful who you say that around, they'll come for you pitchforks ready.
He's saying that the Clinton owned MSM overplaying their hand was the red pill that caused them to take a step back and question what else the media was lying about.
Hey bud, the offical story is more a conspiracy theory than anything else but each to his own. If you want to believe pseudo-scientific, predetermined conspiracies be my guest. The boys over at A&E 911 are doing real science based on facts and evidence.
Yes. Absolutely this. I got into a serious discussion about this on Christmas Eve with one of my best friends. He's an incredibly smart guy who writes for USA Today, yet unequivocally believes that anyone who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a lunatic. As we got to talking, I realized (and pointed out to him) that he knew next to no information about 9/11. He had done no research.
One very effective way that conspirators shun off conspiracy theorists is to subtly or blatantly suggest that those who believe in conspiracies are of lower intelligence and higher gullibility than those who don't. My friend, being self-defined by his own intelligence, was fearful of even considering the possibility of a 9/11 false flag, because he didn't want to be lumped in with the "unintelligent, gullible loons."
114 comments
n/a I_reply_to_dumbasses 2017-02-09
Do you know of operation northwoods? That alone proved it for me. The gulf of Tonkin as well.
n/a Cptn_Canada 2017-02-09
yupppp
n/a polyphenus 2017-02-09
Also the Bay of Pigs.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
That's enough for you? A government thought project?
The intel community has interns come up with theories like Northwoods everyday as thought experiments to run preparation and alternate scenarios. It's what think tanks do.
I'd be disappointed if the government didn't think of this. There is still a landslide of evidence to overcome, not to mention...
There isn't a single verifiable witness. It has been 16 years. You really think there isn't a disgruntled person who would have leaked the conspiracy? There was no Snowden leaker, no foot solider with a change of heart, no official who discovers a conscience?
Instead of concerning yourself with suppositions, look at the lack of people. It would take thousands of people to pull the conspiracy off. There has never been a covert op of that size which stayed covert.
n/a Prof_Dankmemes 2017-02-09
I agree with the fact Northwoods means nothing. It also assumes the collusion is on a massive scale.
n/a williamsates 2017-02-09
Wait...what! The government is constantly making models about committing attacks on US citizens in order to justify invasion of a country? I don't think other countries make plans about attacking their own citizens to justify war, if they do, they are not legitimate governments.
Tell me how many people worked on the Manhattan Project again?
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
To the manhattan project response: How much faster did the Russians get the bomb before we anticipated. Those in the MP thought it would take them 10-15 years. They had it in, what, 4 years? Suspicious?
As for the first part... how naive are you? This is the whole argument for Pearl Harbor been allowed by FDR. I don't believe that one, but I'm pretty sure the Maine exploded on it's own and the US just ran with it for their own purposes.
If your country's survival depends on getting a casus belli to motivate a populace, you better think of extraneous circumstances.
Say you have intel that the Russia is going to strike our cities this year to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the overthrowing of the Czars. We know the date, and for the sake of this argument, let's say it's 100%. But Trump, who loves Putin, is specious of the intel.
Would you rather the US loses NYC and Boston to first strike nukes (potentially 60 million lost) , or, if you are the FBI, do you make a feint on a city and kill 40 citizens?
I don't want my government intending to do these things. I do want them preparing.
Also, if your argument is that there is a justified cause to 9-11 by invading Iraq/whatever, don't you think they would have put more reasonable evidence to solidify the intent?
This is where the "inside job" falls apart, because what is the intent? And even then, if the cabal Bush led could have gotten away with something so genius as 9-11, how could they so badly fuck up the 2003 war?
n/a williamsates 2017-02-09
Please provide evidence that Russia got the bomb because the Manhattan Project was not secure.
How about Operation Paperclip? How many people kept Nazi scientists working in the states secret?
Your whole point about the size leading to a leak does not take into account that organizations have developing methods to get large projects done with only a few realizing the scale of a project. Compartmentalization is just one small technique used.
As for the first part... how naive are you? This is the whole argument for Pearl Harbor been allowed by FDR. I don't believe that one, but I'm pretty sure the Maine exploded on it's own and the US just ran with it for their own purposes
So wait you said that the intelligence agencies make models to help brainstorm defense strategies.
Operation Northwood was an attempt to provide a justification for millitary action against Cuba. Did Cuba threaten our survival? The activity of planning a 'terror campaign' in Miami area to blame the Cubans. Is not an act to justify a defensive war. It is a deception to further someones interest. That interest and the safety of the citizenry are not aligned.
Cuba did not pose an existential threat.
There are 3 things in classical war theory that are its causes. Fear of the population, defense of the population, or interest. This was pure interest.
The citizens through deliberative processes and proper channels decide to go to war. No president should have the ability to wage war for any reason, unless declared by Congress.
I am not a utilitarian. The correct course is to have a deliberation by the citizenry, and the citizenry can decide whether to go to war or not.
We are talking about a plan where the government was going to create a spectacle to justify military action. You know, be the aggressor. Something that is prohibited by international law, and which is unethical. It is even worse than that, it shows complete disregard for international law by attempting to create a loophole to justify a war of aggression. A government that does that, is not a legitimate government.
Why? The State Department made it clear in 2001 that the Taliban would be held collectively responsible for any terror attack by anyone affiliated.
September 11th happened.
We invaded Afghanistan to stop the Taliban. Moreover the talk of a 'Pearl Harbor' like event was discussed by foreign policy institutes as justifying Americas dominance. They used precisely the impetus that was hoped for in Project North-Wood. People were angry and shocked, and the invasion was easy to sell.
They did not fuck up the war. The DOD and related contractors made out like bandits.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
OK. So, I don't get into fisking arguments. Nothing says a person is unreasonable then what you just did, which is
YOU ARE WRONG AND HERE IS A THOUSAND POINT BREAKDOWN OF EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID.
If you disagree with me. Fine. Just say so. But fuck this /r/atheism argument bullshit. You aren't a lawyer and this isn't a court case. You don't get to command the dialogue by countering every single sentence. Build a goddamn case with an argument, don't try to split out everything.
I have absolutely no interest in doing point-by-point mass arguments. You have opened up 15 different arguments. What are you trying to accomplish? And, more to the point, what does this have to do with the original point?
My original hypothesis was that I don't believe that 9-11 is a conspiracy because there isn't a single person who would have been on the inside who has come forward.
And at best, you roundly dismiss it with "Compartmentalization." So you skip over it because it's not of interest to you.
You ask for sources but don't source anything. You make sweeping generalizations. You misappropriate victors of a government cabal by those who are in the military industrial complex... as if that's somehow a viable source of capital. But I would have to do exactly what you have done here to even get back to the point, because you wasted 1000 words on side tangents.
No offense, I have no interest in replying further. I'm not your argument monkey, here so you can fisk everything I say.
I respect your right to disagree with me. But focus on something we can talk about, opposed to... everything.
n/a williamsates 2017-02-09
You and I are communicating through a written medium. It's benefit is that it allows us easy reference and point by point engagement. I think using the strength of a medium is a good thing.
Your proposition: If there is a large conspiracy then someone would spill the beans is false.
This is evidenced by the Manhattan Project and Operation Paperclip.
It is also evidenced by internal mechanism of which compartmentalization is one.
I though we were discussing project Northwood. If you were not familiar with it let me source:
https://i.imgur.com/6RQi8DB.png
https://i.imgur.com/5rE6id9.png
https://i.imgur.com/fdJAfJS.png
From this PDF: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
On just war theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli
Ok let us narrow it down: Was project Northwood a model to justify a defensive war or a plan to justify an invasion of a Sovereign country?
n/a TheLonesomeShepherd 2017-02-09
You are the correct one obviously but what a fantastic argument you just laid out. It takes a mountain of facts to dispute one bullshit sentence but you fucking laid it all out, bravo
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
You are confusing the nature of this written medium.
Reddit is a forum. It is intended to be a dialog.
You are talking about the point by point nature as if this was a journal, or academic seminar, or courtroom.
You are not a teacher, or more correctly, you are not my teacher. You offer unsolicited evidence (in on r/conspiracy, do you seriously think I don't know what Project Northwoods is?) and you try to control the discourse.
Your tone is clear. You don't want to talk or learn. You want to teach, corrects and disprove.
There is no chance I am going to change your opinion in any way. So, no thanks.
n/a williamsates 2017-02-09
I advanced an argument to counter your claim, all of the rest is non-sequitur.
n/a damn_this_is_hard 2017-02-09
Childish
n/a Solzhenitsynergy 2017-02-09
You got fucked!
n/a TheLonesomeShepherd 2017-02-09
See folks, this is a classic example of an individual suffering from severe advanced cognitive dissonance at its definition.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
Who are you talking to?
Do you even get the point of my post? If the person approached anyone in person like that, people would flee.
I don't think you understand how functional discourse and forming an argument works. All you get is internet boasting, where it is more important to write the point you want to make then actually converse.
Case in point, you try to smear where you see fit, when honestly, there are so, so many posts I have made in this thread that would be better served by your sweeping, grandstanding dismissal to preserve the hivemind.
But go ahead and write "cancer" as a reply more. You're the scholar we need.
n/a TheLonesomeShepherd 2017-02-09
Cancer
n/a Claypot 2017-02-09
Do you know what the world conspiracy means? You do realize that the offical story is a predetermined, pseudo-scientific, conclusive conspiracy theory right? So yes, you do believe in a conspiracy. Just because the media tells you something doesn't mean it's true.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
I lived thorough Bush, who until about 20 days ago was the most I've ever hated a President. I would have loved nothing more than it to have been true.
But I can find nothing. Everything is loose ties and jumps in logic and presupposing end intentions.
But we have a conspiracy at foot of a foreign government interfering with a US election but all this sub wants to talk about is Satanic child sex rings...
n/a Claypot 2017-02-09
Hey bud, the offical story is more a conspiracy theory than anything else but each to his own. If you want to believe pseudo-scientific, predetermined conspiracies be my guest. The boys over at A&E 911 are doing real science based on facts and evidence.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
Don't think I didn't dabble there.
n/a Entropick 2017-02-09
Hey, if I may be so bold, in light of your rational, practical assumption, do you then accept the details of the event as we have been told? Just a quick wonder; thanks for your time!
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
I don't tend to believe anything the government says 100% about something of this magnitude.
Do I believe their narrative for the most part? Probably, because nothing else seems to be close in competence.
I believe a bunch of pissed off Saudis and radicalized Jihadis hickjacked a plane and crashed them into the Pentagon and Twin Towers? Yes.
Do I believe tower 7 fell on its own? Yes. I know everyone uses that and the free fall speeds as a gateway drug into this, but no. I believe that there was substantial debris and fire that hit the building from the twin towers collapsing.
Do I believe flight 93 crashed due to passengers rushing the cockpit? Probably, but it also seems highly likely it was shot down by US jets.
I think Bush incompetently overlooked the intel he was given, and if Gore was in office (or if Clintons term ended in say 03 instead of 01) that there is a 70% chance the attack wouldn't have happened. I think he was so much more obsessed with Iraq that he missed the real goal.
Is my mind closed on it? No. But until there is an insider or a leak proving more, the government narrative is close enough. Too many people stand to gain from it being revealed as a cover up to have not come forward. The absence of insider evidence or cracks opposed to a mass narrative of presupposed shady dealings is where rationale ends.
n/a dlandis13 2017-02-09
Look, I'm not gonna go point by point, because you seem to have an issue with that. I just want to ask, who would qualify as a whistleblower for you? whistleblowers
I imagine you'll claim that they aren't "insider" enough, but why would you think the people that would have that type of information would have more to gain from releasing that information? If they aren't directly gaining from it, wouldn't they have much more to lose by coming out (their life)? Do you want Cheney to come out and say it or something?
Saying the US didn't commit the attack themselves is one thing, but do you really think the official narrative is the most plausible account of the events that transpired?
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
A competent leak with plans and details by someone who actually has something to lose by coming forward.
Someone who actually overcomes the plausible deniability threshold to a point where real news sites would have a hard time scrambling to dismiss.
Someone who was in power who have written communications with intent, and ideally other people on the team.
No janitors who remember something on happening the weekend before. No "boy there was extra construction going on." No professor saying, I see thermite traces in the video, and there are extra explosions which might coincide with the video.
They should have functional proof, some kind of tacit connection to a person who would have stood to benefit (like a Cheney or Bush).
n/a 1tepa1 2017-02-09
How convenient that the only "conspiracy" you believe in is what every mainstream media shouts.
This isnt the sub for you friend.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
R/gatekeeping is that way, pal.
n/a 1tepa1 2017-02-09
I am just pointing out how obvious what you are doing is. You arent into conspiracies.
n/a thesadpumpkin 2017-02-09
Came here to say that ^
n/a Hambone_Malone 2017-02-09
No evidence of Russia. Why do you keep falling for the narrative they want you to pay attention to. Ever heard of projet mockingbird?
n/a SmedleysButler 2017-02-09
Ok here's a simple answer, that dude blew you away, made you look foolish and ignorant. Its called facts and everything you said he disputed with facts. Stop paying attention to every little thing I say......LMAO.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
Yeah. Wall of texts where you criticize everything a person writes without offering anything of personal substance is the surest sign of intelligence.
He was shouting at me so people could see him. He didn't even engage in an argument. He engaged in low level intellectual masturbation.
Nothing I wrote had any real bearing on his response. All he wanted to do was jump in with his knowledge because he saw a viewpoint other than his.
n/a SmedleysButler 2017-02-09
Blew you away with facts and you can't admit it....LMAO.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
Are you 12? Do you know what functional rhetoric is?
He didn't make an argument relevant to what I said. There wasn't a cohesive hypothesis to the post. He just spouted out a bunch of viewpoints, some of which were tangential, others which were just wide ranging and pull on other much larger points.
n/a SmedleysButler 2017-02-09
Blew your doors off. Make all the bullshit excuses you want. Factually decimated you.
n/a 1point9gpa 2017-02-09
You ask for sources and make it sound like this is supposed to be a dialogue yet you straight up yell in caps and point fingers that people are "wrong" without further justification? Telling people that just means you're not willing to listen.
And ironically, you claim you have no interest in replying further yet you continue to do so. Make up your mind.
n/a jtimestwo 2017-02-09
You complain about wall of text with your own wall of text....
n/a dtr1002 2017-02-09
Yea same as the moon landings and look how that's turning out...
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
Wait what? Are you trolling or?
n/a eupf 2017-02-09
cripes...spinning the facts like that, what are you wasting time here for? Go send your resume to the Washington Post or something
p.s. there are whistleblowers, you just choose to pretend like they don't exist
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
There's a fine line between conspiracy and crackpot. Nothing of the whole truther movement holds up. From loose change to Charlie Sheen to every shitty post on here. They hold up for 80% because we all want to believe it was a big sham... then all you have to do is question the sources. You can't crowd source a conspiracy theory. At least the JFK assassination had people from K street.
It's been 11 years. The grand puppet master behind it all accomplished... what? I fail to see what it all adds up to. It's a matter of faith now.
You want a real conspiracy? The big 6 media companies are dismantling the internet because it's the last bastion on uncontrolled free speech. They appointed a lackey to head the FCC and they are going to crack down on the net.
But there won't be false flags or government feints. They are just going to tell you it's "draining the swamp" and will be good for you in the long run.
But yeah, your government is trying to take away your sources of information and they are using the whole anti elitist bent to do it?
n/a thesadpumpkin 2017-02-09
Wapo would hire this PR guy on the spot! Really makes ya wonder why he's wasting his time and talent here w/us...hmmm...
n/a MuscleTaxi 2017-02-09
I typed in operation in google after seeing your comment and operation northwoods was the first thing that popped up in the search. Wtf.
n/a RobertELee420 2017-02-09
Don't use google
n/a KickTheEmoKid 2017-02-09
Serious question, what do I use then?
n/a RobertELee420 2017-02-09
I use DuckDuckGo, it doesn't save your search history and it doesn't monitor your other activities or speech
n/a todo1740 2017-02-09
I tried to red pill my mom with operation NW and she told me it was a fake document. I told her it came from the CIA.
We got in a fight and then I heard CNN playing from her TV a few minutes later. Almost as if they are hypnotizin people. She needed her daily programming.
n/a ike_ola 2017-02-09
Yup, over here fighting with my mom too.
n/a gr8ful4 2017-02-09
welcome on the other side!
n/a Petrocat123 2017-02-09
Thank you. And can't imagine why you were down voted for that. 🙊
n/a wile_e_chicken 2017-02-09
Yeah. It's.. it's bad.
n/a ridestraight 2017-02-09
9/11 - A New Pearl Harbor
A very long video, broken into sections. There's a ton of information that is rarely covered in other videos.
n/a alpastortacos 2017-02-09
I've seen a couple and this one is by far the best. I recently saw zeitgeist for the first time and I thought thier coverage of 911 was a very good Tldr version.
n/a ridestraight 2017-02-09
Yeah, people kinda gasp at the length of The New Perl Harbor I believe it to be time well spent.
I'll have to give this one another listen, it has been quite awhile.
The Zeitgeist Movie (2:00:23)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAilefqbpG0
n/a denizen42 2017-02-09
For those who prefer the equally eye-opening papertrail aspects:
9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
911-Conspiracy Finally Solved
These shorter clips are shockingly relevant too:
9/11 Suspects: Rudy Giuliani
9/11 Suspects: Philip Zelikow
9/11 Suspects: General Ralph Eberhart
9/11 Suspects: Robert Baer
9/11 Suspects: The Dancing Israelis
9/11 Suspects: Christine Todd Whitman
n/a ridestraight 2017-02-09
Absolutely! Excellent addition!
Do include The Corbett Report and Boiling Frogs Post into your over-all (Red-Pill Me!) listening schedule!
n/a damn_this_is_hard 2017-02-09
The 9/11 suspects ones are legit
n/a murphy212 2017-02-09
Here is a list of 53 false flag attacks admitted by the institutional press and historians.
n/a fringetheories 2017-02-09
You don't need to believe or disbelieve in anything involving 9/11 because this is the actual official story that is told to us and it speaks for itself. 4 minute video, very much worth the watch.
n/a themeanbeaver 2017-02-09
yeah..."911 plane that hit the pentagon that was not there" you literally had to lobotomized yourself and repeat " Nothing exists outside the goverent story, nothing"
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
That was the point of 9/11 to replace physics and science (Greek learning) with mysticism and religion (Jewish learning).
It was a big CIA psy-op on the American people in order to defeat the challenges to greater Israel. It was a big burned human sacrifice to Moloch.
n/a DankPepe81 2017-02-09
I'll second this. The biggest fallout from this election so far IMO is the fact that many people, like myself, really saw just how corrupt the media was in a way that was not as obvious before. I knew they were full of shit before but I didn't realize just how full.
n/a d121212 2017-02-09
also, it's moved it from being a thing that you kinda knew before but didn't want to mention because no one would understand to just assuming we are all on the page now.
n/a Jan_Dariel 2017-02-09
It was amazing how well Trump and the GOP worked things.
n/a MrRedTRex 2017-02-09
The truth is more powerful than any attempt to conceal it. Light will always break through darkness. Trump had the bravado, the self-confidence and the money to stand up to the bullshit. He also had the truth.
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
I was especially impressed with how they got the Democratic Party to cheat Bernie out of the primary. /s
n/a MrRedTRex 2017-02-09
Yes. So true. The media kept saying how horrible and embarrassing this election cycle was. I heard the same from friends and acquaintances on social media. "Embarrassed for America." Yet, I think this has been the single most valuable election cycle in my lifetime, as it has served to lift the veil of MSM bias. The fact that projections for Hillary's victory were so clearly purposely skewed, that the MSM did everything they could to lie about Trump and avoid any detrimental narrative about Hillary...
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
In the big picture I think that is a good thing. We need people to be able to recognize reality for what it really is.
n/a USofAwesome 2017-02-09
...it was the mossad.
n/a MSparta 2017-02-09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
n/a ParanoidFactoid 2017-02-09
Not one word about G.W. Bush in a submission about 9/11?
GTFO!
n/a WaitTilUSeeMyDick 2017-02-09
He's saying that the Clinton owned MSM overplaying their hand was the red pill that caused them to take a step back and question what else the media was lying about.
Context is your friend.
n/a themeanbeaver 2017-02-09
Bush administration the entire media was his propaganda machine. with Obama, at least the media seemed divided.But for Bush it was unanimous bulls hitting day day out. No questions asked. Exhbit A: Iraq war reporting
n/a Lifemuser246 2017-02-09
You must have been a baby back then because the media savaged Bush from day one....
n/a Rutherford82 2017-02-09
"they took the babies out of the incubators..."
n/a Petrocat123 2017-02-09
Thank you for explaining. We could discuss Kennedy but not relevant to my red pill experience,
n/a BoyWhoreWithASword 2017-02-09
9/11 is a pretty simple and easy to see through conspiracy because you don't need to necessarily know what ACTUALLY happened.
All you need to know is the official narrative is a total falsehood and bullshit.
n/a d8_thc 2017-02-09
Yep, and this simply boils down to wtc7. That's all any rational person should need to unravel the entire thing.
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
It was a big wake up call for me when I first heard about it.
I will never forget the first time I saw the BBC video of the woman saying it had collapsed while the building was still standing in the background. That was the moment when I realized the BBC, and therefore the British government, was a part of the 9/11 criminal cover up. It made sense though, because Tony Blaire was so bizarrely supportive of Bush's illegal war.
n/a BoyWhoreWithASword 2017-02-09
9/11 is a pretty simple and easy to see through conspiracy because you don't need to necessarily know what ACTUALLY happened.
All you need to know is the official narrative is a total falsehood and bullshit.
n/a cO-necaremus 2017-02-09
i remember asking my mom "why did they blow up the building after a plane crashed in it?" right after they had shown the footage to everyone in the (western) world...
was a young kid, who wanted to watch pokémon, but couldn't because of "breaking news" that interrupted the usual time-table of programs :/
... they should have let me watch my kids-show... and not interrupt it before even "anything" had happened. just a plain plane flying into a huge building. After they blew it up, i knew they knew beforehand...
and... the icing on the cake was: "yeah, we found the passport of the culprits lying around. Sure as hell these guys did it!" dafuq? you sure the passport wouldn't be one of the first things destroyed? was that some kind of "hyper heat resistant" passport? and even if you DID find some passports... how could you identify them so fast? you examined all the corpses already? Hell, you didn't even count the bodies, yet. o_O
n/a ShiftSurfer 2017-02-09
Clear thinking friends... The Official Story of 9/11 is a story of a conspiracy. Anyone that says they don't believe in "9/11 conspiracies" but at the same time do believe the official story, is telling you that they are so confused that they do not now the meaning of the word "conspiracy".
n/a Jan_Dariel 2017-02-09
Come on man plenty of us have looked at the same things you have and come to different conclusions. No need to start throwing out insults.
n/a ShiftSurfer 2017-02-09
Having been on site at the WTC on Septemebr 11th 2001, I doubt that you have seen "the same things" that i have seen.
It is not insulting to acknowledge the misuse of words. In this case, (the insistence that the official 9/11 story is not a conspiracy theory) it helps identify people that have internalized propaganda and need help thinking clearly.
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
OR they are a part of the 9/11 criminal cover up. Those people do exist, especially among our reporter and political classes. Many of them are so heavily and publicly invested in the 9/11 lies, that they can not admit to anyone that they were wrong about it.
That is how it is when you are a part of a big criminal cover up. The truth paints you into a corner, one that I think a lot of them just do not have a clue as how to get out of.
n/a tadm123 2017-02-09
Wikileaks did it for me
n/a holyshiziter 2017-02-09
Take it slow. Don't dive in. Because when it finally hits you, it'll hit you like a ton of bricks.
n/a kit8642 2017-02-09
There is a lot of other aspects than just WTC7 or how the buildings came down. Here is Richard Clark discussing how the US intelligence agency were following the terrorist, but for some reason the reports were blocked. They even lived with an FBI informant and were trained how to fly at a military base. You also had all the Military drill on that day including Operation Tri-pod.
But the most glaring aspect is flight 93, look at the photos, look at the debri field, and you can watch several videos where top level people from the Bush Administration proclaim (maybe by mistake) it was shot down. Let alone this:
Source: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN22272579
There is tons of other weird coincidences and odd shit.
n/a HelperBot_ 2017-02-09
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001#Operation_Tripod_bioterrorism_exercise
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 29508
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
I think the most glaring aspect is Susan Lindauer saying they all expected it in advance. The people in charge were expecting it.
n/a MSparta 2017-02-09
What I think is you don't have to believe that its a conspiracy, but at least watch the evidence for the "official" story and how true it seems to you based on what evidence you can see. And another thing is that the NIST rapport apparantly cant be used in court, also I believe most on the 9/11 is a conspiracy side wants FBI and other agen ies that confiscated lots of video footage to declassify that footage
n/a crazyDMT 2017-02-09
The issue with 9/11 is the amount of controlled opposition, especially on reddit, to discredit any theory other than the controlled-demolition theory. For my part, I found no-better expert than Judy Woods to make sense of this crazier-than-fiction case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkZLlzOfVQ
n/a ridestraight 2017-02-09
She's really the only one that looks at the entire GZ footprint as a Crime Scene needing forensic analysis! I respect and admire her a great deal.
When you explain that all seven buildings plus the Deutsch Bank were destroyed on 9/11 it can be very intense! There is r/judywood and r/DrJudyWood too!
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
LOL, and I would call you by the same label. Judy Woods is controlled opposition. She presents a lot of evidence that indicates nukes were used and then comes with a completely silly explanation for it. Energy beams, LOL. What she means is underground nukes.
n/a crazyDMT 2017-02-09
There is nothing crazy about directed-energy weapons (DEW). Just google Active Denial System (ADS). The science behind this technology is pretty much the same as your microwave. Only it's focused on a specific area. I've never heard any scientific explanation of so-called 'mini-nukes'. I'd happy to look where empirical evidence is given.
n/a J_Dub_TX 2017-02-09
If you don't think 9/11 was an inside job you haven't done enough research.
n/a Jan_Dariel 2017-02-09
Or you reached the wrong conclusion with a the available evidence.
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
The false evidence put forth to confuse people about 9/11 works on people who are really clueless about basic physics. There is a LOT of nonsense stuff put out about 9/11 in order to confuse us, which I consider to be evidence of a truly massive and well funded cover up. They never seem to run out of resources to keep the lid on it, implicating a whole lot of insiders IMO.
n/a Rutherford82 2017-02-09
Even people knowledgable in physics are fooled.
That is the frightening part.
I tried to redpill a very intelligent member of my family to no avail. This person was aware of the Gulf of Tonkin admission by McNamara, by the way, and has a PhD in medicine, so clearly they understand Newtonian physics enough to comprehend the fallacies of the official 9/11 report.
They didn't even remember that the towers stood and burned before they were demolished. When asked how do you explain how they fell if they remained standing so long after plane impact, they immediately responded "the jet fuel".
I explained the impossibility of this scenario, as jet fuel burns cooler than steel's melting point and the amount of fuel was a drop in the bucket compared to the truly mammoth scale of the buildings.
They didn't respond, but were clearly unconvinced.
I then asked how can less than 20% of a structure disintegrate to dust the bottom 80% of healthy structure if gravity is the only force at play.
"I don't know" was the response.
I then mentioned the Society of Architects and Engineers who all disagree with the official story.
"I'm not an architectural engineer" was the answer ti that.
I offered to show them 9/11: The New Pear Harbor by Massimo Mazzucco when they are ready to open their mind.
Sadly, I don't think they want to really acknowledge the truth and would rather stay in a comfortable bubble. Most Americans appear to share this same sentiment.
n/a MrRedTRex 2017-02-09
Yes. Absolutely this. I got into a serious discussion about this on Christmas Eve with one of my best friends. He's an incredibly smart guy who writes for USA Today, yet unequivocally believes that anyone who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a lunatic. As we got to talking, I realized (and pointed out to him) that he knew next to no information about 9/11. He had done no research.
One very effective way that conspirators shun off conspiracy theorists is to subtly or blatantly suggest that those who believe in conspiracies are of lower intelligence and higher gullibility than those who don't. My friend, being self-defined by his own intelligence, was fearful of even considering the possibility of a 9/11 false flag, because he didn't want to be lumped in with the "unintelligent, gullible loons."
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
I bet the groupthink pressure he experiences at work is severe. If he did seriously question it himself, he would get fired.
n/a J_Dub_TX 2017-02-09
The biggest evidence besides building 7 is the situation with Dick Cheney who had the opportunity to give the order to shoot down the plane but instead let it hit the building most people don't know about that.
n/a Rutherford82 2017-02-09
It's more than this for those intelligent enough to understand the very basic scientific reasoning behind it.
It is a battle with one's own conscience to willfully deny your gut instincts and instead believe the official report, because it is easier that way for most.
Many disbelievers are torn internally and they choose the path of the sheep, despite a portion of their being knowing it is a lie. They choose not to believe merely for their own sanity.
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
Amen.
n/a dirteMcgirt 2017-02-09
The rabbit hole is deep my friend.
n/a Tetragramatron 2017-02-09
Lol, I made a nearly identical post two days ago. I kind of feel better knowing even though it's a total mind fuck and sometimes feels pretty hopeless.
n/a ridestraight 2017-02-09
Yeah, this stuff is pretty overwhelming. Small doses as you go!
I came here well over seven years ago with nobody to talk to about 9/11. and I mean people were abusive if you questioned 9/11! If it hadn't been for the solid people in here to bounce my thoughts I think I would have gone bonkers!
There are some links posted above that I personally trust/believe/entertain when you need something new to chew on! Also the side-bar link!
Be well!
n/a Petrocat123 2017-02-09
Charlie sheen being a 9/11 doubter didn't help our cause. Lol.
n/a ridestraight 2017-02-09
Wait? First he was 9/11 truth then not 9/11?! LOL
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
Not just abusive. For some the abuse turned into murder, loss of career, etc. It was a lot more than just simple abuse. It was a conspiracy to torture some people.
n/a ridestraight 2017-02-09
Very true!
My journey looking at 9/11 started well after the event. Personally, I knew it wasn't what the government said but my own life was in tatters.
When my life started to square up, I had new access to Hi-speed internet I began looking. Crazy 'cuz I was on digg as it was in its death-spiral and I burned up a few user accounts trying to navigate reddit - by the time I found r/conspiracy I was able to settle in, ask questions and not get bombarded by jerks, creepers and twelve year olds!
The PG has red-pilled many people to 9/11 and our governments deep deep corruption.
Good people like you, u/Sister_Lauren, can carry the torch, be the light of those that were sacrificed on 9/11 and in the weeks, months and years where the death toll continues to rise from the dust!
n/a yaosio 2017-02-09
9/11 was an inside job by Republicans. Republicans are fasicst and will always be fasicst.
n/a Petrocat123 2017-02-09
You think small my friend. Which republicans had that kind of resources and power?
n/a MyFartAir 2017-02-09
Yeah, don't let the red pill turn into the Red vs. Blue pill. That pill is poison.
n/a ParanoidFactoid 2017-02-09
The Bush's. With deep connections to the Royal Saudi family, where most of the hijackers came from. And with Bush Sr. a former Director of Central Intelligence, an organization with the knowledge and power to pull off an operation of that sort. And control of the Presidency.
It may not have been partisan, blue vs. red. But it certainly was oligarchical.
n/a Petrocat123 2017-02-09
Doesn't fit GWB at all.
n/a ParanoidFactoid 2017-02-09
You're kidding me. You really believe that?
n/a Petrocat123 2017-02-09
GWB just seems so paternalistic and religious.
n/a ParanoidFactoid 2017-02-09
Uh huh. Who held office during the run up to the Iraq War? Were there Weapons of Mass Destruction as claimed? Who held office during changes to long held standards at NSA preventing surveillance of US citizens? Who begin the policy of surveilling journalists to find their sources for filing Espionage charges? Who decided to enact a policy of indefinite detention and torture and had injustice department lawyers (John Woo ring a bell?) craft legal policy documents in support of that?
Obama continued those policies. He didn't initially implement them.
n/a Petrocat123 2017-02-09
Clinton/Bush/Obama. Same animal?
n/a MyFartAir 2017-02-09
A YouTube playlist of 4 videos that I put together. Well worth your watch.
n/a Swipe_Right_Here 2017-02-09
There's no going back now.
n/a HairBrian 2017-02-09
Still reeling as well, TIL Sandy Hook was phony just like 9/11, to grab kids maybe but definitely to grab away gun rights. I mean, fucking green screens, supposed drills (too real lockdowns made for this), crisis bad actors, fake kids, fake home sets for interviews, photoshopped family pics, no blood, no triage, no bodies. Lies. CNN & MSM you brood of vipers!
Thinking of the passengers calling home on flights !after! supposed hijack but before crash, one even said it's a "frame". Cell phones wouldn't work. The people died after the real plane landed, but the cell phones didn't. I can't stomach the thought that operatives killed these people one by one, women, men, children.
But the focus is on saving the brainwashed kids from perverts, cannibalizing witches and worlocks who almost elected Hillary, ASAP for the time being.
n/a MrRedTRex 2017-02-09
Sandy Hook is the one that bothers me the most after 9/11. It is so inconsistent, strange and unbelievable. Yet be careful who you say that around, they'll come for you pitchforks ready.
n/a sawftacos 2017-02-09
The way the towers fell is fair evidence... fuck
n/a WaitTilUSeeMyDick 2017-02-09
He's saying that the Clinton owned MSM overplaying their hand was the red pill that caused them to take a step back and question what else the media was lying about.
Context is your friend.
n/a Claypot 2017-02-09
Hey bud, the offical story is more a conspiracy theory than anything else but each to his own. If you want to believe pseudo-scientific, predetermined conspiracies be my guest. The boys over at A&E 911 are doing real science based on facts and evidence.
n/a 1tepa1 2017-02-09
How convenient that the only "conspiracy" you believe in is what every mainstream media shouts.
This isnt the sub for you friend.
n/a indianadave 2017-02-09
Yeah. Wall of texts where you criticize everything a person writes without offering anything of personal substance is the surest sign of intelligence.
He was shouting at me so people could see him. He didn't even engage in an argument. He engaged in low level intellectual masturbation.
Nothing I wrote had any real bearing on his response. All he wanted to do was jump in with his knowledge because he saw a viewpoint other than his.
n/a Jan_Dariel 2017-02-09
Or you reached the wrong conclusion with a the available evidence.
n/a Petrocat123 2017-02-09
GWB just seems so paternalistic and religious.
n/a MrRedTRex 2017-02-09
Yes. Absolutely this. I got into a serious discussion about this on Christmas Eve with one of my best friends. He's an incredibly smart guy who writes for USA Today, yet unequivocally believes that anyone who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a lunatic. As we got to talking, I realized (and pointed out to him) that he knew next to no information about 9/11. He had done no research.
One very effective way that conspirators shun off conspiracy theorists is to subtly or blatantly suggest that those who believe in conspiracies are of lower intelligence and higher gullibility than those who don't. My friend, being self-defined by his own intelligence, was fearful of even considering the possibility of a 9/11 false flag, because he didn't want to be lumped in with the "unintelligent, gullible loons."
n/a Hambone_Malone 2017-02-09
No evidence of Russia. Why do you keep falling for the narrative they want you to pay attention to. Ever heard of projet mockingbird?
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-09
Amen.