9/11 Cult Watch

[King_Mob]

Idiot, you missed my point.

So are these the assholes who ruin the comments section on Jeff's blog? If I were Jeff, I would immediately ban them. I would ban Hugh, too, sadly. The dude needs to get himself to a peaceful cabin in the woods for a while, leave the internet and books behind, and bring whatever medication he's been prescribed that he's not taking.

No, I didn't miss your point. It's quite obvious to everyone on this thread that YOU are the only idiot here, "winging" bullshit explanations and blasting insults at anyone who you think is guilty of "dogma", and then saying that they should be banned for it. That's pretty fascist of you there FourthBase.

I'd like to hear you try to intelligently articulate a response to the arguments put forth here on this thread, if it hasn't already been completely derailed by your asinine behaviour.

But, then again, I should probably just "go fuck myself" instead.

[brainpanhandler]

Hugh, Jeff IS anti-conspiricist when it comes to this subject. That's the whole point.

You realize that he wrote the coincidence theorist's guide, yes? By definition, this would make him a conspiracist. If I read him correctly however, he not so concerned with the events of the day, but rather with the events that led up to the day. I couldn't agree more.

It actually doesn't matter much to me whether the WTC collapse was a CD. It was at least an uncontrolled demolition, and at most a controlled one. What difference does it make? Those discussions merely focus our attention away from the real action.

What matters is that there was a long-laid plan to establish totalitarian control over the only remaining superpower. The plan mostly failed. Which is why the attempts have kept coming.

And Hugh, I am quite surprised that with your keen awareness of misdirection, you keep your eye firmly on the hand that waves the wand, while the other hand flips the cards.

That's it. Couldn't have been said better. I would only add, it all depends on what your purpose is; on the one hand obsessing on proving CD and on the other trying to shine a light on the organizations and the perps behind the events of 9/11. Not necessarily and always incompatible goals, but I'll take the latter as it seems much more likely to lead to something fundamentally critical and leave the former to others as it is an endless morasse and not in the end terribly important to know relative to the latter.


What further evidence can you imagine that can be found to support cd? Of that evidence, what cannot be muddied up by tactics like the NIST report?

Even if you could provide evidence to the world that would force everyone to say, "Ah, now that is irrefutible. The bastards really did do it". Then what?

I'll tell you then what.... you're going to need to be reading The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11.


Some of you may benefit from googling Cassandra complex.

Is it hide the pickle or hide the sausage?

[isachar]

[quote="brainpanhandler
Is it hide the pickle or hide the sausage?[/quote]

Take your pick, it's rare they try to hide just one big object in a pile of crap as big as the NIST report.

[Brentos]

What further evidence can you imagine that can be found to support cd? Of that evidence, what cannot be muddied up by tactics like the NIST report?

Even if you could provide evidence to the world that would force everyone to say, "Ah, now that is irrefutible. The bastards really did do it". Then what?

Here it is:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/arti ... hTemp2.pdf

very conclusive and well researched.

Not sure what bastards you are talking about, but it sure cuts to the chase that the official story is complete bollocks.

[AlanStrangis]

I can scream "In the study with the candlestick" all I want, and Colonel Mustard will still be a free man, and I'm a CD agnostic with 'pre-planted during the network upgrade' tendencies.

Ruppert's warning about focusing to closely on the mechanics was one of the most prescient things he said in Crossing The Rubicon.

[AlanStrangis]

Even if you could provide evidence to the world that would force everyone to say, "Ah, now that is irrefutible. The bastards really did do it".

If that day ever came, then some previously unreleased Gitmo prisoner testimony will come out saying "Oh yeah, we bought stolen Russian explosives on the black market and planted them during the 'network upgrade' weekend", and this would go largely unchallenged on the nightly news, which would be echoed in the blogosphere.

[Brentos]

I can scream "In the study with the candlestick" all I want, and Colonel Mustard will still be a free man, and I'm a CD agnostic with 'pre-planted during the network upgrade' tendencies.

Ruppert's warning about focusing to closely on the mechanics was one of the most prescient things he said in Crossing The Rubicon.

If physical proof is not worth anything what is?
I'm willing to read reams on lol qaeda, but that stuff is just as hard to digest as any physics paper produced.
Not to say that any of it is untrue.

You bring up Ruppert. Have to say, I read his book too, not too convincing IMHO... so far.

[Jeff]

If physical proof is not worth anything what is?

Quoting myself from a comment I posted on the blog a while back:

Let me ask you this: if it were established that there were explosives planted, what would it prove? How high would it necessarily go? Why couldn't bombs be just as easily ascribed to "al Qaeda"? The WTC was bombed before after all. A coincident, live-fly simulation of hijacked aircraft has been established. What does that suggest, and how high must it go? Do you recognize the difference in evidentiary value, and their consequences, and why some parties would like us to circle jerk over certain arguments to the neglect of others?

I'm willing to read reams on lol qaeda, but that stuff is just as hard to digest as any physics paper produced.

It often seems to come down to this: But it's too hard! Far easier to "wake up the sheeple" with a simple video. Some truth movement.

[AlanStrangis]

I can scream "In the study with the candlestick" all I want, and Colonel Mustard will still be a free man, and I'm a CD agnostic with 'pre-planted during the network upgrade' tendencies.

Ruppert's warning about focusing to closely on the mechanics was one of the most prescient things he said in Crossing The Rubicon.

If physical proof is not worth anything what is?
I'm willing to read reams on lol qaeda, but that stuff is just as hard to digest as any physics paper produced.
Not to say that any of it is untrue.

You bring up Ruppert. Have to say, I read his book too, not too convincing IMHO... so far.

I'm not saying it's worth nothing, but so many seem to think it's the be all and end all of 9/11 investigation (it's certainly the most vocal aspect of 9/11 truth), while at the same time it's lumped in with holographic/switched planes, missile pods, pentagon missiles and space weapons when mentioned in the mainstream press.

It's still not going to prove the 'who' of the matter all that convincingly, at least IMHO.

As for Ruppert, I was hesitant to mention the book, because I believe that Rubicon was the ramp he built to jump the proverbial shark.

[Brentos]

I dont agree totally. You are attacking 'truth' videos, not the crime itself.

BTW, Thanks for letting this discussion go on Jeff. I dont think that nomo's original post was well conceived (ok american dream's (see alice)), even though I'm definitely not part of a cult

[FourthBase]

If physical proof is not worth anything what is?

In a courtroom, circumstantial evidence can be just as powerful as physical evidence, sometimes more powerful, and sometimes less. But the circumstantial evidence is never as sexy. It's "sexy" to speculate about controlled demolition. It's not nearly as sexy to follow the money trail. In the case of 9/11, I think what's left of the evidence leaves us with powerful circumstantial evidence, which can lead to actual names of actual perps. Even if it is conclusively proven that the WTC was brought down with the help of explosives, such proof would still leave us without names, and it would leave the door open for the perps to ironically pin CD on terrorists. "What was Rocky Hammad doing the weekend before 9/11, instead of fixing sprinklers?" is a question I have longed to know for years, but if worse comes to worse (for the perps) it could be answered with "he was secretly a member of Al Qaeda". As with JFK, you can conclusively prove that JFK was hit by a bullet from the grassy knoll...but if worse came to worse, the perps could have probably pulled an "accomplice of Oswald" out of their ass and placed him behind the fence. Meanwhile, there is circumstantial evidence dealing with who-knew-whom and who-paid-whom and who-worked-for-whom that more directly implicates the real perps.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

If physical proof is not worth anything what is?

Quoting myself from a comment I posted on the blog a while back:

Let me ask you this: if it were established that there were explosives planted, what would it prove?

What does controlled demolition prove? Excellent question, Jeff-.

1) The US government will lie about the largest crimes even when the lie is right out in the open.

2) The US mainstream media and much of the alternative media will also lie about the largest crimes even when the lie is right out in the open.

3) Allegedly honest officials in institutions like the NIST and FEMA and university academics will lie the same lie.

4) Hollywood will help perpetuate the same lie.

5) The masses can be mislead very easily by a widespread top-down psy-ops campaign that creates an atmosphere of unwarranted beliefs that lead to global warfare.

6) Not enough people know their junior high school level laws of physics that could prevent all this, the Conservation of Momentum.

How high would it necessarily go?

The cover-up? All the way. See above.
Perpetrating the crime? Probably much lower.

But just the implications of #1-#6 are potentially culture-shifting.

Why couldn't bombs be just as easily ascribed to "al Qaeda"? The WTC was bombed before after all.

1) There are the foreknowledge put-shares on the stock market linked to CIA.
2) The WTC had FBI, CIA, and Secret Service in them with the security that implies.
So if all the elevator service men working for months (or constantly according to William Rodriguez when I asked him) were al-Queda Arabs, they might've been visible as such and noticed precisely because the WTC was bombed before in 1993.
Before John O'Neil showed up at the WTC, who was head of security and how were the elevator technicians screened?

A coincident, live-fly simulation of hijacked aircraft has been established. What does that suggest, and how high must it go?

That suggests lots of mil-intel at computers depending on software to tell them what is supposed to be happening during their exercises.

It also suggests that a cover story is available for avoiding admitting to a rogue inside job so NORAD can sheepishly evoke their own Big Incompetence cover to the inquisitive.

Do you recognize the difference in evidentiary value, and their consequences, and why some parties would like us to circle jerk over certain arguments to the neglect of others?

Evidence is evidence.
It should be used to support the whole picture of the crime- means, motive, opportunity - not denied or suppressed.

The political expose value of my #1-#6 above are potentially culture shifting.
The USG already knows this and has thrown out lots of disinfo around controlled demolition because it really can affect trust in the government and also military recruiting.

Hence H.R. 1955.

[§ê¢rꆧ]

I'm not impressed with the 'cult watch' site at all.

I just want to agree that 'conspiracist' is indeed Chip Berlet's pet word... it's bad... don't use it. It really does sound like 'racist' at the end doesn't it? It just sounds derogatory, worse then even 'conspiracy theorist.' I too would be cautious of any site that makes a lot of use of 'conspiracist'...

[FourthBase]

I'm going to start using "realist" instead of "conspiracy theorist".

[orz]

It's a limp and soggy form of round pasta, you payaso.

Don't get out much, do you?

I know what it is, but orz is not a word so it makes no sense to make a pun out of it.

Don't stay in much, do you.