Sure it might happen, but I'd like to think Government agencies have better things to do :)
Seems more likley to me that author is driving a the concept of a conspiricy theory on people who are anti-conspiricy theory :doh:, some conspiricy theroists tend to over-estimate their importance, 'oh the establishment will want me dead' when the far more likey scenario is 'the establishment' doesnt care - or else they would already be dead. :haha:

My 2 cents?
Conspiricy Skeptics should be careful not to be naive enough to believe that people who lead civilised nations would NEVER deceive their own people or abuse their power to commit unspeakable acts to fulfill an agenda. History says that from time to time - they do.
The fact that most people are so quick and willing to reject these notions of conspiricy as 'wing nut paranoia', is somewhat dangerouse too, it would in fact work very well in favor of someone in power who really did want to carry out an act of mass deception.
If we refuse to entertain the possibility of conspiricy outright, then by default we are pretty much giving some one ample opportunity to actually pull one off.

Conspiricy belivers need to be careful they themselves dont fall into the trap of 'selective skeptisim' whereby anything in the mainstream media must be lies, and anything from some random guys, cousins, friends, brother - who worked for the CIA must be 100% credible.
The general ettiquette of the conspiricy theorist is supposed to be one of 'question everything' that is fine, in fact thats pretty healthy on some level.
But then that surely means you should question conspiricy therories as well as official scources, right?
If not, isnt that double standards?
Alot of these people do tend to get sucked into downward spiral of delusion and paranoia, until as they become a mirror image of the 'ignorant and brainwashed sheeple' that they despise so much. (the elitist types are the worst!)
They would also do well to remember that governments are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, governments are run by people, people talk ...and leave laptops on trains. :)

I've read through most of the posts here, really don't know why I decided to throw in 2 cents myself, lol. :88)

It is never despictibale to ask for the truth. It is despicable to claim to know and tell the truth like some websites do.

To ask what your country can do against you is not a question that ever should be forbidden by any government or fellow countrymen- and women, and transvestites and who ever the **** feels belonging to a nation entity.
The truth's out there: There have always been shady operations by governments, often claimed to be for the people, for a "greater good", whatever this means. Despicable actions, murder, torture, atrocites, all this fun stuff has been used, often in the name of the truth, by people who claim to know the truth, true believers. People who claim to be moral superior, obligate to the truth and in possession of it.
That's a truth that's out there, delivered by voice and writings, captured by history. "Read my lips" or "I never inhaled" being just two minor examples.

With any source you read, there is always the question who quotes what, where can you find the original source, and cui bono?
That's the question the troopfer of truth do ask: Who gained something from 9/11? The big W? If 9/11 was an inside job, they did it pretty bad job, making him look pretty bad and confused. For propaganda reasons it would have been better to pait him as the glorious hero, waving Old Glory and deciding fast, rightful and conhesive.
Oh of course it's bigger than that: The people behind W? Whoever this. Big Money? The Economy took a hit after 9/11, going even more down as it went before, when the internet bubble burst.
But as everything is planned, it must be bigger: the people who control the world. In the more boring and conventional scenarios these are the jews, freemasons, or both, in the more exciting scenarios it are some freaky lizards from space or also not bad, as I shortly read: The Atlantans! :up:

As I wrote before, a critical look at a news source is always interesting. Often it shows the true intention. Let's check out some websites with the word 'truth' in it. Interesting: Not only 9/11 was fake: no: Perl Harbor was, The Fema builds KZs and we have airplanes flying around the globe, trying to eradicate most of humankind: the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You find the pre-packaded deal there: Everything you need to know, a whole ideology as the Germans say: ein geschlossenes Weltbild ***8211; a closed view of the world. And how convenient: advertisements to buy overpriced goods from the very same webpage. tin foil hats on sale for only $9.99, survival kits for $200, books and t-shirts to spread the message and let's not forget: buy some gold for twice the market price!

If you ask cui bono, you should also see that many people bono who preach all this century old bull. They profit from it: website visitors, book saless, troofer meetinx. Gain followers: profit and fame. Like every good cult preacher does: Gimme your cash: it's all for the truth, bet ole Bhagwan also told the truth to his followers who could see him rolling by in his Royce, one for any day of the year.

I think the cult comparision is right center: Us cult members we know, the other are infildels, sheeple. Too sheep to ask questions, obedient ants. Any attack on us is an attack by the evil forces that wants to shut the true belief down. Any opposition has to come from the evil forces that rule the world. The outer enemy tightens the bonds. If you focus on the outside enemy, the inner discrepancies are conveniently swept under the carpet. A good measure indeed not to focus that 2 troofers have 4 different theories - often in direct contradiction to each other.

The most nerving side of most cults is the missionary crap: winning new believers, hearts & minds, preaching. Same as any cult members, troofers have a nerving tendency to ignore any facts which are presented.

And like with any cult, getting out can be pretty hard: Who wants to reveal to himself to have wasted ennomous amounts of time reading through websites and books, watching grainy videos to find out in the end that it has been all bull. It takes a strong person to realize and accept such an inconvenient truth to oneself.

Personally I find the Southpark theory quite charming: The truther movement was invented by the government to make them look all knowing, powerfull and having everything under control. :know:
In a way the conspiracy guys are useful to the government. Better to have people wasting their time on fake conspiracies than to take a look at all the evident and proven lies which have been presented. Yeah, let them protest FEMA death camps while in the meantime civil liberties get cut and a war that started with a lie goes on.

Who gets taken more seriously:
Person 1:"You lied to us, proven in these statements, revealed by those documents"
Person 2:"Government is arsehole: you are trying to kill us by poison you spray from aeroplanes! I have read it in the web, ye know?"

There is one thing however which I am seriously jealous about: the ability to constantly repaint a picture of the world which fits to their beliefs. That's why discussion is soo tiring and in the end most a moot point.
Any fact brought in gets woven into the conspiracy.
"It was no plane that hit the Pentagon" - "There are pictures of wreck parts, showing clearly debris from an aeroplane" - "See how perfect they are; they even planted fake evidence" :dead:
Any revealed incompentency and failure is just proof about how perfect the conspiracy is.

Not too many troofers seem to shave themselves with Hanlon's Razor.

You are short changed. you miss a whole category.
Consider the people who ar openminded enough to understand that governments are made up by a bunch of sneaky lying scheming self serving bastards and have looked at the specific "conspiracy" then rejected it because it is clearly and undeniably absolute bollox.

That's so true and I forgot to mention that in my statement.

However even if we do not support an another person's standpoint, It gives us not the right to mock these people

NO!! I do not support these conspiracy- Many of those are so ridiculous
Just because I fight for their rights to have their own standpoint, does not mean that I believe in these conspiracy

As stated before I'm not an expert on many of these things that have been discussed. F.eks Demolition, construction a.s.o
I do support a second investigation made by expert from other countries than USA.

Markus

First, you are right:

I do not trust governments, and what is spread via the mass media - and this is quite obvious if you think of Cameron and Rupert Murdoch media alone - not that you hear such things about the US when it comes to CNN and Fox News (of course both are telling lies all the time, and they blatantly support republicans and big business - not common people with common sense).


Second, the claim that the theory that it was staged is absurd, and that there has been nothing gained by it:

Really ?

What about having a new enemy, after the soviet block broke away ?
So no budget cuts and and new funds for all those agencies.

What about a faked reason for wars against nations that never had to do with 9/11 ?
And "b.t.w." thus securing energy resources.

What about an accepted allowance to torture and kill people under the pretext (!) of terroristic threats, without any trial ?
And "B.T.W." being able to so keep Guantanamo, as a torture camp outside of the territory and jurisdiction of the US, without needing to close it down anymore "because of those terrorists".
Imprison people like this taxi driver who was arrested as a terrorist and is still in prison, despite the whole world knows that it is wrong. (Only one example of hundreds)

What about having a pretext to tighten the screws regarding freedom of speech and the NSA being able to read every f'n eMail WORLDWIDE ?

What about killing people worldwide with drones, in territory abroad outside the jursidiction of the US, with "collateral damage" no one dares to doubt "because of the terrorists".

What about an artificial climate of fear making people crazy und uncertain with the argument of a worldwide terroristic orgaization who could attack anywhere, anytime ?

What about now needing a bulwark against Islam, like against the USSR not so long agao ? Israel comes in handy, now lets support and arm them.

Not to forget, a real playground for weapons and a reason to increase the defense funds to never known heights, greatly pleasing the weapon industry, and lobbies.

And a nice argument to mock the 'traitors' who dare to question all those patriotic actions.


If it was not staged, it was surely used to full extent for all kinds of mass influencing and throwing lots of rights and democratic life overboard - among with common sense.
If he could, I am sure Wolfowitz would give the terrorists a gold medal.

That is a fair point. It is also not proof, or even remote evidence, that anything was staged.

fine, Ill refund you 1 cent then.

Hey Catfish,

Nothing was gained by the form, how the attacks wnet down. Look at the bloodiest wars in European history: all that has been necessary to light the fumes was one dead person. One dead by throwing him out ofa window, one shot prince, one dead body who was put into a Polnish uniform. So do you really thing a big 'show' like 9/11 was necessary, even though we live in the media age?
If you'd rely on a false flag operation why doing it so big, the bigger the circle of people involved, the bigger are the chances to get discovered.

You're spot on with your observations about the climate of fear. And this is exactly why I think it's a waste of time to concentrate on shady theories which are unproven, claims that derive from bad research methods and often idiotic ideological bs.

We have the very same derogation of civil rights after 2001 in Europe like in the US. This is the thing we have to defend and this is the thing one has to point out.
In Germany we have already seen this hysteria in the 70s, with the RAF. The government didn't have to invent them, but in this climate they put people out of work for the wrong beliefs (Berufsverbote), used new surveillance measures (Schleierfahndung), not even mentioning the thousands who were searched, controlled, registered as 'sympathizers'. In short: the hardliners used it to come closer to their wet dreams of a police state.

I didn't watch your video link, but I doubt it somehow differs from the vids about 9/11 where I took the time to watch. So my guess is they still found no smoking gun in this either.

Just take your link from telepolis: The pic the author used to illustrate the radar covery was already proven as false in the comment section - it covers only little heights. This is what I mean by bad methodology.

Being critical against the mainstream media, means also that you use the same work ethics criteria for all people, so also for the ones from the alternative media.
Being non-mainstream does not somehow make a source reliable - good journalistic work does. And exactly this is what I miss by the Troofers (and The Sun, Bild, etc...)

Here is a non-mainstream-media link about the conspiracy stuff: http://www.kopfentlastung.de.vu/ some stuff to read, but imo quite well written. (Sorry to the others, site's in German only and too much to translate), coming from a critical postition, certainly not from people who are blind followers, also some critique about the scepticism-guys.
I would be interested what you think about this article.


^this
Cause and effect. Many people gain something from a heritage, this doesn't mean that most kill their relatives.

All true, however from all i have read, seen, heard, from the weirdest videos to good ones, state representatives, firefighters, explosives specialists from the US and abroad, CIA-whistleblowers, official documents showing reasonable numbers and statics and whatnot, my firm belief is:
The WTC was struck by two big planes/airliners.

My educated guess is:
The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner.
There were also explosives in the WTC towers (sheared off steel girders at the basement).
Some information about this 'attack' has been known or at least been expected before, by at least one foreign secret service agency who did not inform their colleagues.
Either one of the US own secret services also knew it before and used it for whatever, or they failed completely.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

Then what happened to the missing airliner with it's load of passengers and crew? Except for the many pieces of aircraft and body parts littering the Pentagon grounds no sign of either has been seen since 9-11.

For your theory to be true government would have had to:

a. Know exactly when the attacks would take place. (not just approximately but exactly)

b. Get trained pilots/assassins aboard the right aircraft.

c. Seize control of said aircraft without the pilot being able to radio for help. (two passengers actually did manage to make calls from hidden cell phones)

d. Fly it to some unknown destination, in broad daylight, without anyone either on the ground or aboard the aircraft seeing what was happening. (anything flying after 10am would definitely have been noticed BTW)

e. Murder 64 people. (or 59 if you think the hijackers were imagined)

f. Dismember and move their body parts along with pieces of the aircraft out to the supposed crash site while making sure that both types indicate damage consistent with an airliner crash. They identified 184 0f 189 victims and all five of those imaginary terrorists so not just any body parts will do.

g. Get the dozens of eye witnesses to lie about seeing the aircraft plow into the side of the building.

h. Fake ATC radar tracks at not one but two different airports.

i. Manage to wire and blow up the Pentagon without anyone spotting anything, especially the 125 military and civilian personnel who were killed in the attack.

That's an awful lot for a two hour window from takeoff at 8:10am to when the world turned it's eyes on the crash site at 9:37am.

Source? FYI the buildings did not collapse from the basement so even if true that would have been a total failure.

There were indeed several intelligence agencies both foreign and domestic that had heard something about a potential terrorist attack but you have to remember that they deal with dozens of potential terrorist plots every day. It's a lot easier to pick out the real from the fake after the fact than it is beforehand.

I don't know if you watched the vido I had linked to in my thread 84.

AS I wrote: Is she telling the truth? If she does then the government knew
But until I got some kind of verification that she is a former asset to CIA I see her nothing more than a fairyteller.

Markus

The more that you entertain this line of discourse, the more that you encourage the Truther crowd. Just sayin'.

I wonder if the Truther crowd needs encouraging? :D

You mean every time someone posts, it prompts another response?, isn't that purpose of a discussion board :06:
If we all just ignored threads/post that we didnt agree with, GT would be pretty boring wouldnt it? Just sayin'.

You mean Susan Lindor, Ive seen her talk and it struck me as a mixed bag,
on the face of it some parts were more believable than others. she talks about her job and arrest in great detail (that part is quite convincing,) then when it comes to thermite bombs etc, it sounds rather vague and over-summarised, like she might just be feeding a bunch of truthers what they want to hear.
If you know that the towers were demolished - then thats rather a big deal, you dont just casually drop it in at the end while smiling, "oh yeah, you guys were right about the bombs, so-and-so said these trucks came at *this time for 10 nights and....thats about it." (applause)

Ive not seen anything that 100% verifies her as a 'former CIA asset', but I believe there are legitimate sources that confirm details of her arrest under the patriot act in 2004 for the reasons she stated.
She could be telling some truth or she be out to sell books - or both, but her words alone are not proof of anything much other than maybe that Bush and friends were itching to get into Iraq for any reason they could possibly find, (but I think we all kinda figured that one out when those WMDs never showed up ;)) And that they knew an terrorist attack was imminent, but they didnt know exactly what it was.