9/11 - what happened?

[rockdrummer]

AND Quoted for Truth!

 

[Cloggy]

.....
Conspiracy theories such as yours do a disservice to all the people who lost their lives that horrible day, and they do a disservice to anyone and everyone who lost someone that day. Shame on you.

Sorry to hear about your experience. YOur experience is shared by many others. Also, people said they did not see a 757.

That's why it's good to steer away from witnesses and focus on facts and proof.

No video shown (why, there were plenty of tapes)
No wreckage of a 757... 2 x engines, 3 x landing gear.
No entry of the wings BUT no wreckage of the wings on the lawn....

YOu say that it's a "disservice to anyone and everyone who lost someone that day."
I disagree. NOT demanding answers is a disservice..

I'm not disputing that you saw a 757 diving into the Pentagon. What I am disputing is that it actually went in there....

 

[Reba]

...I'm not disputing that you saw a 757 diving into the Pentagon. What I am disputing is that it actually went in there....

What does that mean? Did the 757 enter another dimension or a parallel universe? If the 757 was diving into the Pentagon, then it actually (not virtually, not theoretically, not via a Star Gate) went in there.

 

[Reba]

AND Quoted for Truth!

Ditto!

 

[Heath]

This book does talk about the plane going into the Pentagon. I highly recommend this book and it was printed in Septemeber 2006.

Brand new right off the library shelf. You might want to check your local library for this book.

Barnes & Noble.com - Books: Operation Homecoming, by Andrew Carroll, Hardcover

 

[InTheGenes]

That's why it's good to steer away from witnesses and focus on facts and proof.

You're shitting me, right? What you mean to say is that you'd like to sit comfortably in Oslo, or wherever the hell in Norway you are, and theorize about what MIGHT have happened, based on the paranoid ravings of people that weren't even THERE? Including YOURSELF? U bent gek, me vriend.

I'm not disputing that you saw a 757 diving into the Pentagon. What I am disputing is that it actually went in there....

::blinks::

So... what I and a few thousand other people in Arlington, VA on or near I-395/Washington Blvd saw that day was an illusion? A hologram? Mass hypnosis?? You need to stop getting your intel from the World Weekly News, or whatever tabloid with which you're lining the walls in your supersecret doomsday bunker. Or are you insinuating that I'm lying? Do a little more research, Cloggy, and you'll find SEVERAL accounts from people in the Washington, DC area who saw the exact same thing I did.

You know, I actually DID manage to make it through all 15+ pages of this thread, and I've got to tell you... I really can't believe you believe the stuff you're saying.

Contrary to what you might think, I'm no lock-step American, blindly following the lead of this current administration. While I have NO love for Bush and his cohorts (after all, I'm basically a 2nd class citizen in their eyes, not deserving of marrying or having children), it is beyond the pale to suggest that the President of the United States orchestrated 9/11. Taken advantage of the situation to suit his own agenda? Many would say "perhaps". A few would say "very likely". But as much as I might dislike the man and his policies, I do not believe that he would be directly responsible for taking that many innocent American lives, in such a horrific manner.

Once again... yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions about what happened that day (and since)... and ultimately, I think that in some ways, it's appropriate that the general public DOESN'T know everything there is to know, if that means that we're one step ahead of the terrorists that remain in the world.

But please, don't ever again insult me with that bullshit about "steering away from witnesses and focusing on proof". (Which, now that I think about it, is funny to hear you say, since you were so intent on knowing what SxyPorkie's sister saw that day.) I'll say it again: I know what I saw. Just be thankful that you were lucky enough NOT to be there that day, to see it for yourself.

Let it go. It is callous to the 10th degree to perpetuate this fallacy as anything resembling "the truth". Just stop it.

 

[Cloggy]

.............. what I and a few thousand other people in Arlington, VA on or near I-395/Washington Blvd saw that day was an illusion? A hologram? Mass hypnosis?? You need to stop getting your intel from the World Weekly News, or whatever tabloid with which you're lining the walls in your supersecret doomsday bunker. Or are you insinuating that I'm lying? Do a little more research, Cloggy, and you'll find SEVERAL accounts from people in the Washington, DC area who saw the exact same thing I did...............................

That's what I said. Many people saw the same thing you did........

..............But please, don't ever again insult me with that bullshit about "steering away from witnesses and focusing on proof". .........

That was not focused on you... Sorry you feel that way. What I do notice is that no-one is questioning the government even though they have NOT shown any proof.

After the explosion in the Pentagon, a big plane has been seen flying in the area.
Again, I'm not saying you didn't see a plane dive in that direction. I'm not saying your conclusion that that must have hit the Pentagon. Still, you are ignoring

No video shown (why, there were plenty of tapes)
No wreckage of a 757... 2 x engines, 3 x landing gear.
No entry of the wings BUT no wreckage of the wings on the lawn....
No explanation on why surface to air defense failed... nobody was responsible
NO explanation how nothing was left of the plane.... except a studentcard of the pilot....

..............(Which, now that I think about it, is funny to hear you say, since you were so intent on knowing what SxyPorkie's sister saw that day.)

I was....??? I recall that I asked what she saw, but I never persued it.... So "intent on knowing" is exaggerated.... But that seems to suit you..

 

[InTheGenes]

That was not focused on you... Sorry you feel that way. What I do notice is that no-one is questioning the government even though they have NOT shown any proof.

My dear Cloggy... in this, there is no need for me to question the government; I saw it for myself. If anything, I am more sure of it than George Bush, even, since I was there, and he was in a school in Florida. This is not like theatrical combat, where two actors are "play fighting", and you're left with the question "Did he REALLY just punch the other guy in the face, or did it only LOOK that way?".

After the explosion in the Pentagon, a big plane has been seen flying in the area.
Again, I'm not saying you didn't see a plane dive in that direction. I'm not saying your conclusion that that must have hit the Pentagon. Still, you are ignoring

Cloggy, I had an unobstructed view of the Pentagon's western face, and of the plane that slammed into it. And, this isn't a question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"... the "big plane" that you mention was seen flying INTO the Pentagon, and THEN the explosion. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to comprehend and/or to accept. I'm sorry that it's less real for you because you didn't see it with your own eyes.

I was....??? I recall that I asked what she saw, but I never persued it.... So "intent on knowing" is exaggerated.... But that seems to suit you..

Well, in truth, I suppose what you really did was question the veracity of whether or not she even SAW the plane, since she was inside the Pentagon. You now have a personal account (mine) of someone who was OUTSIDE, and who saw what happened... and you're now nay-saying that account. To which I take offense.

Bottom line: I was there, you weren't. I don't need proof from the government or anyone else. You seem to NEED it, or else it isn't real for you. Are you also one of those people who believes that the Holocaust didn't happen?

 

[Cloggy]

My dear DNA,

My dear Cloggy... ....

Cloggy, I had an unobstructed view of the Pentagon's western face, and of the plane that slammed into it.

You said: "I saw the plane NOSEDIVE" into the Pentagon. That let me believe you did not see it as whatever hit it did not nosedive into it. I made a sharp turn in order to line up and then rapidly descended. Eyewitnesses tell that it went in horizontally, without even touching the grass. It hit lightpoles on the way in.
I'm sure you didn't mean nosedive then??

I'll add you to the witnesses that actually saw what happened... no problem. So the people that saw a commuter plane are all lying.
People that heared a rocket engine are lying.

BUT
People that wave the studentcard that the found after the crash of the supposde pilot are telling the truth, (no other leftovers from all the passengers, luggage, seats etc... but they found a plastic card.... NEAT!!)
People that refuse to show video-footage of the best-guarded building are telling the truth,
People that removed evidence from the crimescene are telling the truth,

Are you also one of those people who believes that the Holocaust didn't happen?

Is that how you line up people that question the conspiracy theory put forth by the government.??
No, I do not question the holocaust. I have seen pictures, I have seen film footage, I have been at the graves in Bergen Belsen.
That is a lot more than I have seen from the Pentagon crash, (or explosion.)
Pentagon: no pictures, no film footage, contradicting statements
Comparing the two is about the lowest I have heared.

Actually, based on that comparison you just made....
I think you're just bulshitting. The plane did not Nose-dive in the Pentagon as you "witnessed".

There is no wrackage pointing at a 757, there's no hole indicating a 757, no wreckage of wings outside, explaining there are no holes for the wings, there is no footage of a plane from a surveilance camera of the most secure building of the world.

What happened:
Explosion - all proof cleared away asop - tell everyone that it was a 757 - keep on telling it, never comment on it and in time, it will be the truth...

 

[rockdrummer]

InTheGenes. . I have read through the nonsense in this thread and replied with adequate information to debunk anything that he has come up with and yet he asks the same questions over and over. I have given information and asked questions that discredit any of the "conspiracy sites" yet he fails to respond and puts a spin on the questions to keep the conversation alive. I think that it’s good that you are here but I must caution you to not get sucked into the black hole that is this thread. If you choose to engage him you will see exactly what I am talking about.

In my opinion there are only a couple of reasons for cloggy's pursuit of this topic. He either believes the conspiracy theory’s and suffers from paranoid schizophrenia or he is a narcissist that wants to have a thread that has the most replies and views.

 

[InTheGenes]

Cloggy,

::sigh::

You're correct... it didn't "nosedive", in the sense that it didn't angle out of the sky. It DID come in horizontally, snapping powerlines near the Pentagon. When I used the term, it was more to convey the sense of something coming in hard and fast from the sky. So yes, I could've used a better term than "nosedive".

But you go on believing what you want to believe. It's obvious that no one here is going to be able to convince you otherwise. Live in your fantasy world, if it brings you comfort.

As for using the Holocaust analogy, I'm glad to see that that outraged you. Perhaps now you have an inkling of how some people HERE feel when you seek to discredit the truth about what happened on 9/11.

But applying the paranoid logic that you've done since the first time you posted in this thread... I'm surprised that you don't question the authenticity of the pictures you've seen of the Holocaust, or the graves you've visited. After all... if you can believe what you believe about 9/11, it's obvious you have a very vivid imagination. I'm sure anything is possible in your world. Why... aliens might be watching you through your window right this very moment!

The fact that you've eaten this conspiracy crap for so long is just pathetic and sad. But hey, if that's how you enjoy living your life, then more power to you. Just keep it to yourself.

 

[rockdrummer]

InTheGenes. . I have read through the nonsense in this thread and replied with adequate information to debunk anything that he has come up with and yet he asks the same questions over and over. I have given information and asked questions that discredit any of the "conspiracy sites" yet he fails to respond and puts a spin on the questions to keep the conversation alive. I think that it’s good that you are here but I must caution you to not get sucked into the black hole that is this thread. If you choose to engage him you will see exactly what I am talking about.

In my opinion there are only a couple of reasons for cloggy's pursuit of this topic. He either believes the conspiracy theory’s and suffers from paranoid schizophrenia or he is a narcissist that wants to have a thread that has the most replies and views.

 

[InTheGenes]

InTheGenes. . I have read through the nonsense in this thread and replied with adequate information to debunk anything that he has come up with and yet he asks the same questions over and over. I have given information and asked questions that discredit any of the "conspiracy sites" yet he fails to respond and puts a spin on the questions to keep the conversation alive. I think that it’s good that you are here but I must caution you to not get sucked into the black hole that is this thread. If you choose to engage him you will see exactly what I am talking about.

In my opinion there are only a couple of reasons for cloggy's pursuit of this topic. He either believes the conspiracy theory’s and suffers from paranoid schizophrenia or he is a narcissist that wants to have a thread that has the most replies and views.

Yeah, I know, I know... I shouldn't have allowed myself to get sucked into it. But there's a part of me that just can't let Cloggy get away with pushing what he believes forward as the TRUTH, when I know otherwise.

I think it's become something now where they've pushed it for so long, and made such a stink about it, that backing down now would be losing a LOT of face. Cloggy's going to hold onto his lies until he dies.

Whatever. Lang zullen je leven, Cloggy, in ontkenning.

 

[rockdrummer]

Yeah, I know, I know... I shouldn't have allowed myself to get sucked into it. But there's a part of me that just can't let Cloggy get away with pushing what he believes forward as the TRUTH, when I know otherwise.

I think it's become something now where they've pushed it for so long, and made such a stink about it, that backing down now would be losing a LOT of face. Cloggy's going to hold onto his lies until he dies.

Whatever. Lang zullen je leven, Cloggy, in ontkenning.

I hear you my brutha and it's the same reasons that motivated me to get involved here but it's futile. Step away from the thread... lol

 

[Cloggy]

Sure - step away.

Starting rediculous accusations regarding the thread. It was buried until you Rockdrummer opened it. Don't blame me.

Regrding evidence.... It is important to focus on it with regards to the WW-II massacars, but for the 9/11 massacar eye-witness account should be sufficient.

I have no problem believing you WHEN evidence is backing you up.
You ignore evidence (or lack of evidence).

Same for Rockdrummer. HE claims that my questions are answered.. but in fact they are ignored.... Which is a very effective way of handling this situation.

But come back when you have some video-footage of one of the surveilance camera's, or pictures of 2 x RR-engines from a 757.
When I see that, I will apologize for not believing you.
For now, all I read is "I saw it....I saw it.."
All I see is "no evidence"

 

[Reba]

...But come back when you have some video-footage of one of the surveilance camera's, or pictures of 2 x RR-engines from a 757.
When I see that, I will apologize for not believing you.

No, you won't. You will say that the videos and pictures are faked.

 

[Heath]

Hi Cloggy, Take this following as a silly joke okay ?

The Twelve Steps of Preppers Anonymous

The relative success of the P.A. program seems to be due to the fact that a
Prepper who no longer prepares has an exceptional faculty for "reaching" and
helping an uncontrolled prepper.

In simplest form, the P.A. program operates when a recovered Prepper passes
along the story of his or her own prepping, describes the sheeplehood he or she
has found in P.A., and invites the newcomer to join the informal Fellowship.

The heart of the suggested program of personal recovery is contained in Twelve
Steps describing the experience of the earliest members of the Sheeple:

1) We admitted we were powerless over Prepping - that our lives had become
unmanageable.

2) Came to believe that a Government greater than ourselves could restore us to
sheeple.

3) Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the will of
Government.

4) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves and our stored
food, weapons, supplies, bug out bags, and burried caches.

5) Admitted to Government, to ourselves and to another human being the exact
nature of our preparations.

6) Were entirely ready to have Government remove all these defects of character.

7) Humbly asked Government to remove our preparations.

8) Made a list of all things we had purchased, and became willing to return them
all.

9) Made direct returns to such stores wherever possible, except when to do so
would injure them or others.

10) Continued to take personal inventory and when we were preparing, promptly
admitted it.

11) Sought through campaigning and meditation to improve our conscious contact
with Government. Campaigning only for knowledge of Government's will for us and
the power to carry that out.

12) Having had a sheeple awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to
carry this message to Preppers and to practice these principles in all our
affairs.

Newcomers are not asked to accept or follow these Twelve Steps in their entirety
if they feel unwilling or unable to do so.

They will usually be asked to keep an open mind, to attend meetings at which
recovered Preppers describe their personal experiences in achieving
sheeplehood, and to read P.A. literature describing and interpreting the P.A.
program.

P.A. members will usually emphasize to newcomers that only preppers themselves,
individually, can determine whether or not they are in fact Preppers .

At the same time, it will be pointed out that all available social testimony
indicates that Prepping is a progressive illness, that it cannot be cured in the
ordinary sense of the term, but that it can be arrested through total abstinence
from Prepping in any form.

 

[Cloggy]

No, you won't. You will say that the videos and pictures are faked.

Well, imagine them coming with video footage now... how are they going to explain that they have withheld it for so long....

But no, I will not say they are fake. I'll have a look at them first...

We're not all like you.

 

[Cloggy]

Hi Cloggy, Take this following as a silly joke okay ?

The Twelve Steps of Preppers Anonymous....

Mmmm

Excellent....!!!

BTW Heath,
Didn't you have a friend in the army that would look into something.....????

 

[Cloggy]

DisinformationRule

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation:
Disinformation Rule 1: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Disinformation Rule 2: Become incredulous and indignant
Disinformation Rule 3: Create rumor mongers
Disinformation Rule 4: Use a straw man
Disinformation Rule 5: Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
Disinformation Rule 6: Hit and Run
Disinformation Rule 7: Question motives
Disinformation Rule 8: Invoke authority
Disinformation Rule 9: Play Dumb
Disinformation Rule 10: Associate opponent charges with old news
Disinformation Rule 11: Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
Disinformation Rule 12: Enigmas have no solution
Disinformation Rule 13: Alice in Wonderland Logic
Disinformation Rule 14: Demand complete solutions
Disinformation Rule 15: Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
Disinformation Rule 16: Vanish evidence and witnesses
Disinformation Rule 17: Change the subject
Disinformation Rule 18: Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
Disinformation Rule 19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
Disinformation Rule 20: False evidence
Disinformation Rule 21: Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
Disinformation Rule 22: Manufacture a new truth
Disinformation Rule 23: Create bigger distractions
Disinformation Rule 24: Silence critics
Disinformation Rule25: Vanish