rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:22 pm**

8bit says look at the history and the connections, forget the physical evidence

hugh says, no look at the physical, dont get sidetracked by the second level history and coonections,

smiths says, look at both and stop arguing as if its a zero sum solution where one has to be right at the expense of the other

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:48 pm**

smiths wrote:hugh says, no look at the physical, dont get sidetracked by the second level history and coonections,

smiths says, look at both and stop arguing as if its a zero sum solution where one has to be right at the expense of the other

THAT's what I said!
8bitagent wrote 'forget that David Griffin red herring' and I was saying that isn't justified or accurate.

That's why I focused on validating the crime scene evidence and showing that the off-crime-scene background is just much more vague and variable than the actual crime scene, not to try and dismiss it but to show that parts of the alleged off-crime-scene background are actually unsubstantiated bordering on possibly fictitious.

That might be a baby in the bath water but it also might just be a toilet trout.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:50 pm**

I firmly believe that England/the crown, is the hidden hand behind all of it. England is the one with the history of imperialism, Israel is their outpost, and we are their pitbull. All the while, the lizards sit back and say they have no power. The BBC fuck up is an indicator of where the script was coming from. We may only ever be able to indentify their proxies, unless someone gets at where the WTC 7 tip off came from. I'm sure everyone is paid off or blackmailed, and won't be talking any time soon. Zionist infiltration in the US is equal to British infiltration just as the British outpost of Isreal remains unrecognized, for the most part. They have their tentacles in everything.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:59 am**

11:11 wrote:I firmly believe that England/the crown, is the hidden hand behind all of it. England is the one with the history of imperialism, Israel is their outpost, and we are their pitbull. All the while, the lizards sit back and say they have no power. The BBC fuck up is an indicator of where the script was coming from. We may only ever be able to indentify their proxies, unless someone gets at where the WTC 7 tip off came from. I'm sure everyone is paid off or blackmailed, and won't be talking any time soon. Zionist infiltration in the US is equal to British infiltration just as the British outpost of Isreal remains unrecognized, for the most part. They have their tentacles in everything.

I agree in a lot of ways, tho I think it goes behind the crown.

I am now convinced that top al Qaeda recruiter Abu Hamza in the London Mosques(who brainwashed a lot of the key famous names in the al Qaeda legend_ as WELL as German mosque recruiter Abu Hamza, Zammar(both of who were the spellcaster brainwashers of Atta, Ramzi bin Alshibh, Mousaaoui, and the rest of em) WERE in fact Western Intelligence assets used to create a monster factory in Londona and Hamburg mosques.

This is further evidenced by the FACT that British Abu Hamza, despite being intimately linked a thousand ways to sunday by fall 2002 to the 9/11 plotters was STILL free and about under protection.

By summer 2005 it was clear that BOTH the 7/7 mastermind Haroon Aswat
and Abu Hamza(both best of pals) WERE in fact MI6. I have no doubt.

These two sick degenerate pieces of garbage, like Omar Saaed were
high paid MI6 operatives. Combines they have been behind the deaths of thousands, all for their Western globalist handlers.

On the left is the one handed, one eyed MI6 mosque cleric used to recruit young Muslim men for Western false flags.

HERE is Mohammed Zammar, who Western globalists used to ferret out
their LONG in the works plans for 9/11, using the Rockefeller CDS brainwashed Atta and company for the task.

And here is MI6's star operative, Omar Saaed Sheikh, AKA "Mustafa Ahmed".
A young MI6 operative from England who false flagged his way into the Pakistani ISI and al Qaeda. A man who along with Abu Hamza and Mohammed Zammar, were used by the NWO to get KSM, Atta and others to orchestrate their sick globalist "9/11" plan.

ALL the funds conduited through banks in Dubai United Arab Emirates, mostly thru Standard Charter Bank...housed in World Trade Center 7.

These are the smoking guns of 9/11, 7/7 and other "al Qaeda" attacks as
very unique, very complex sophisticated "inside jobs", using real crazy jihadist nutballs groomed and well paid.

It's so sick. The occult elite in England got a "vision", created America thru hidden proxy channels...had DC and NYC set up according to their
interpretations of "energy lines", used Masonic influence to get L'enfant to draw up Washington DC into a charged pentagram, with the white house at the bottom and obelisk charging that blocks away.

Then they set up NYC, with the French "gift" of Isis/Whore of Babylon with the eternal flame.

The government starts building the 77 foot Pentagon, the very center of a pentagram on 9/11/1941. David Rockefeller has a "dream" to create the world trade center, and gets the Bin Laden Group and their star man
Manuru Yamasaki to design the twin towers in an allegorical "11" Jakim and Boaz parable with heavy Horus and Mecca symbology weaved between.

Decades of little "9-1-1" hints sprinkled in our collective subconscious later, the stage was all set for 9/11.

Rockefeller linked attaches in rogue elements of Western intelligence
using long in the tooth proxy networks set up post Brzezinski in a BCCI fertile spiders web get KSM, Atta, Omar and Ramzi binalshidbh to be lead around by MI6 mosque clerics...Pakistani ISI and Saudi intelligence is used on the rest of the hijackers, while Atta and the main guys are sheltered visa vi CIA linked babysitters and coddlers in Florida.

FBI is obstructed, security from a technological and organic setting is
"stood down", NORAD is intentionally confused...
and who the hell knows what guided the planes in and befell the towers.

All in all, Osama, the nwo's star fallboy whose family is ass deep in the global elite nexus of Dubai-Saudi-Rockefeller-James Baker III-Bush
takes the fall.

And boom. There's 9/11. Clean, neat, ultimate plausible deniability.

AIG/Kroll/Blackstone, Mossad, front companies, Ptech, etc would all be hidden in the background.

Yeah, it sounds "Far fetched"...and maybe, just maybe theres a supra-human component were over looking(who knows what kind of occult channellers are behind the masterminds of 9/11 and global elites)
but I think this is an open and shut indictment of what REALLY went down.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:20 am**

8bitagent wrote-

Pakistani ISI and Saudi intelligence is used on the rest of the hijackers, while Atta and the main guys are sheltered visa vi CIA linked babysitters and coddlers in Florida.

Again, what hijackers? Why do you think there were any hijackers at all or that Atta had anything to do with 9/11?

Project Censored's Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008

#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2008/index.htm

#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
Source:
The Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006, and Ithaca Journal, June 29, 2006
Title: “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’”
Author: Ed Haas
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Student Researcher: Bianca May and Morgan Ulery
Faculty Evaluator: Ben Frymer, Ph.D.

Osama bin Laden’s role in the events of September 11, 2001 is not mentioned on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” poster.
On June 5, 2006, author Ed Haas contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to ask why, while claiming that bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the poster does not indicate that he is wanted in connection with the events of 9/11.
Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
Haas pauses to ask the question, “If the US government does not have enough hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to ‘smoke him out of his cave?’” Through corporate media, the Bush administration told the American people that bin Laden was “Public Enemy Number One,” responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” bin Laden and the Taliban, yet nearly six years later, the FBI said that it had no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
Though the world was to have been convinced by the December 2001 release of a bin Laden “confession video,” the Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks even before the tape was discovered.”
In a CNN article regarding the bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the US military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.”
Haas attempted to secure a reference to US government authentication of the bin Laden “confession video,” to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and US Congress, along with corporate media, presented the video as authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, notes Haas, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The participants identified in the video would be indicted. The video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why, asks Haas, is the bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Haas strongly suggests that we begin asking questions, “The fact that the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 should be headline news around the world. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the US media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the US media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government-sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account?” Haas continues. “Who is controlling the media message, and how is it that the FBI has no ‘hard evidence’ connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the US media has played the bin Laden-9/11 connection story for [six] years now as if it has conclusive evidence that bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?”
UPDATE BY ED HAAS
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”
However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).
Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.
Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video. The Muckraker Report believes that while the videotape is indeed authentic, it was the result of an elaborate CIA sting operation. The Muckraker Report also believes that the reason why there is no documentation that demonstrates that the videotape went through an authenticity process is because the CIA knew it was authentic, they arranged the taping.
It is highly probable that the videotape was taped on September 26, 2001—before the US invaded Afghanistan.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:16 am**

Whose talking about Osama? Even the official story is that it was KSM and Atta. I didn't mention Osama.

The official story was that the "Hamburg Cell" concocted and masterminded 9/11 in 1999, and Im saying that this cell was being provocatuered by MI6 operatives.

In your theory, who is to blame? There was just drone flights painted like real planes? Missiles? All the work of Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld having a big cigar party high fiving eachother?

To dismiss the exhaustive painstaking breadcrumbs intentionally pointing to "al Qaeda" operatives, is to miss how the whole plot was by way of a loose network cabal behind the scenes.

Because you say the towers exploded and there were no hijackers, how does that point to anyone or country in particular or show how it was done?

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:39 am**

8bitagent, you seem VERY well informed, and have obviously done a lot of thinking about the 9-11 attacks. In that context, it's hard to believe that you appear to have swallowed the "19 Arab hijackers" story hook, line and sinker. In any case, a lot of the questions you raise, about whether or not there were hijackers, and about the evidence that "doubles" were used to specifically and deliberately incriminate Arab individuals, have been discussed before on this board.

Rather than just keep covering the same ground, over and over, maybe we could get on the same page, or at least use the same starting point as a basis for further discussions:

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... rah#101274

http://p073.ezboard.com/frigorousintuit ... =359.topic

And John Doe II's excellent post, which includes the following passage:

All the mentioned doubts and unanswered questions lead straight to this general question.
Until today the official passenger manifests haven’t been published.
Until today no boarding cards of the alleged hijackers have been published.
(And no comparison between finger prints on the boarding card and in the cars, hotel rooms of the alleged hijackers has been published).
Until 2004 no video footage of any security camera showing the alleged hijackers in the airport of their final flight.
The video footage from Atta and Al Omari is from Portland not from Boston.
Officially the big airports Boston Logan and Newark Airport hadn’t any cameras.
The only video footage of the alleged hijackers in the airport of their last flight was presented in 2004. Strangely it lacks any time stamp.
What happened at Dulles Airport was especially interesting as an American Airlines agent who checked the tickets recalled having seen the alleged hijacker brothers Al Hazmi. But his description clearly differs from their official photos.
www.time.com/time/covers/...wplot.html
(Discussion here: www.democraticunderground...125x74547)

Why was no proof presented to the public showing that the alleged hijackers actually boarded the plane although this proof must exists (e.g. the boarding cards)?

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... rrah#78548

John Doe II also raised this interesting question:

As officially stated in the already mentioned chronology on Atta he did take Flight 2719 from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore on September 7, 2001. According to the BTS the plane was scheduled for 3:15 p.m.
Therefore Atta is on a flight to Baltimore while he is still witnessed drinking at Shuckums for hours....!
Al Shehhi is at Deerfield Beach at 5 p.m. (recorded on video) while he's witnessed drinking in Shuckums, Hollywood which is more than 20 miles away.
Double at work.

here: http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/f ... c.php?3637

After years of looking into the matter, I agree with Hugh:

...there is NO evidence of there actually being hijackers.

Anyway, there have been many more posts that raise serious doubts about whether any of the so-called hijackers were anything more than patsies unwittingly used to incite anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hysteria and panic.

And here's something I posted last March, taken from Paul Thompson's Timeline:

In January 2000 (some sources say January 2001) the CIA goes out of its way to ensure that their "Ziad Jarrah" is documented on his way back from Pakistan, where the real Ziad Jarrah never went:

March 1995-February 1996: Hijacker Jarrah Living in New York or Lebanon?

A man named “Ziad Jarrah” rents an apartment in Brooklyn, New York. [Longman, 2002, pp. 90] The landlords later identify his photograph as being that of the 9/11 hijacker. A Brooklyn apartment lease bears Ziad Jarrah’s name. [Boston Globe, 9/25/2001] “Another man named Ihassan Jarrah lived with Ziad, drove a livery cab and paid the 800-dollar monthly rent. The men were quiet, well-mannered, said hello and good-bye. Ziad Jarrah carried a camera and told his landlords that he was a photographer. He would disappear for a few days on occasion, then reappear. Sometimes a woman who appeared to be a prostitute arrived with one of the men. ‘Me and my brother used to crack jokes that they were terrorists,’ said Jason Matos, a construction worker who lived in a basement there, and whose mother owned the house.”

However, another Ziad Jarrah is still in his home country of Lebanon at this time. He is studying in a Catholic school in Beirut, and is in frequent contact with the rest of his family. His parents drive him home to be with the family nearly every weekend, and they are in frequent contact by telephone as well. [Los Angeles Times, 10/23/2001] Not until April 1996 does this Ziad Jarrah leave Lebanon for the first time to study in Germany. [Boston Globe, 9/25/2001] His family believes that the New York lease proves that there were two “Ziad Jarrahs.” [CNN, 9/18/2001] Evidence seems to indicate Jarrah was also in two places at the same time from November 2000 to January 2001 (see Late November 2000-January 30, 2001).

Entity Tags: Ziad Jarrah, Ihassan Jarrah

Category Tags: Other 9/11 Hijackers, Ziad Jarrah

.....

Late November 2000-January 30, 2001: Conflicting Accounts of Jarrah’s Location

Two images of Ziad Jarrah. The photo on the right is from the wreckage of Flight 93. Two images of Ziad Jarrah. The photo on the right is from the wreckage of Flight 93. [Source: FBI]When Ziad Jarrah is questioned at Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on January 30, 2001, he reveals that he has been in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the previous two months and five days, and that he is returning to Florida. [Chicago Tribune, 12/13/2001] Investigators also later confirm that “Jarrah had spent at least three weeks in January 2001 at an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.” [CNN, 8/1/2002]

However, the Florida Flight Training Center, where Jarrah has been studying for the previous six months, later says he is in school there until January 15, 2001. His family later reports he arrives in Lebanon to visit them on January 26, five days before he supposedly passes through Dubai. His father had just undergone open-heart surgery, and Jarrah visits him every day in the hospital until after January 30. Pointing out this incident, his uncle Jamal Jarrah later asks, “How could he be in two places at one time?” [Longman, 2002, pp. 101-02] This is not the only example of Jarrah being in two places at the same time—there is also evidence he was in different places at once from March 1995-February 1996 (see March 1995-February 1996).

Entity Tags: Florida Flight Training Center, Ziad Jarrah, Jamal Jarrah

Category Tags: Other 9/11 Hijackers, Ziad Jarrah

.......

January 30, 2001: Hijacker Questioned at Request of CIA, Then Released

Hijacker Ziad Jarrah is questioned for several hours at the Dubai International Airport, United Arab Emirates, at the request of the CIA for “suspected involvement in terrorist activities,” then let go. This is according to United Arab Emirates, US, and European officials, but the CIA denies the story.

The CIA notified local officials that he would be arriving from Pakistan on his way back to Europe, and they wanted to know where he had been in Afghanistan and how long he had been there. (Or did the CIA actually want to make sure that there was "proof" that "Ziad Jarrah" had travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistan? Where the real Ziad Jarrah never went. -- Alice). US officials were informed of the results of the interrogation before Jarrah left the airport. Jarrah had already been in the US for six months learning to fly. “UAE and European intelligence sources told CNN that the questioning of Jarrah fits a pattern of a CIA operation begun in 1999 to track suspected al-Qaeda operatives who were traveling through the United Arab Emirates.” He was then permitted to leave, eventually going to the US. [Chicago Tribune, 12/13/2001; CNN, 8/1/2002] Some accounts place this in January 2000. [Vanity Fair, 11/2004]

Entity Tags: United Arab Emirates, Ziad Jarrah, Central Intelligence Agency

Category Tags: Other 9/11 Hijackers, Ziad Jarrah
March 30-April 13, 2001: Jarrah Visits Family, Tells Girlfriend He Wants Children Soon

Ziad Jarrah flies from Atlanta to Dusseldorf via Amsterdam. He then returns to Lebanon to see his father, who is ill. On his way back to the US, he stops in Bochum, Germany, to see his girlfriend and tells her he wants to have children soon. He is re-admitted to the US as a business visitor for three and a half months. [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 21 pdf file; McDermott, 2005, pp. 213]

Entity Tags: Ziad Jarrah, Aysel Senguen

Category Tags: Ziad Jarrah

Complete 911 Timeline
Frankly, I suspect that the Arab patsies were primarily selected on the basis of their physical resemblance to the Mossad or CIA agents who were involved in the 9/11 plot. All the "corroborating details" that they were pilots, or even knew each other, that they were Muslim extremists, etc, were in most cases unconvincingly tacked on later. I'm not saying that's necessarily how it went down, that's just my personal conclusion, so far. - Alice

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... ahs#110130

As to the question of who was involved in the planning and execution of the 9-11 attacks, there is no way that the whole operation could have been carried out without the participation of at least some VERY high-level elements of the CIA, Pakistan's ISI and the Mossad. The Saudis, I believe, were unwitting patsies, not because they're any better than the others, but because they didn't understand that, in this particular case, they were being set up. There IS NO honour among thieves...

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:54 am**

whew.

Did I say, "welcome back, Alice?"

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:25 am**

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:07 am**

A lot of the exhaustively vetted and sourced information(and I appreciate you quoting/linking to these, some I had only heard of)
prove one thing:

Atta and the keystone cops filling in the blanks were ALL too willing to set up the ledger, the legend.

It REEKS of Oswald, being seen in multiple places at once. Making a big stink.

I remembered Atta made a BIG fuss about wanting to rent cropdusters to carry out "Osamas" wishes.

So Alice, we can agree that the "19 hijackers" breadcrumb trails is on purpose, and those that are the 19 hijackers are the patsies. The setup.

There's a lot of spooky WTF moments in the hijacker legend.

Before Nico and Killtown went into No Planer World, they did some damn solid research onto the hijackers.

However, there are two contentions years of research later, I still
dont feel are the answer.

1. the idea of fake drone planes/fake passengers/faked calls
as well as the idea of anything other than 77 hitting the Pentagon, or 93 "not" crashing in shanksville

2. This idea that 9/11 was all brainchilded by Pentagon neocon good ol boys, aka the "Inside Job" theory

While I may be chastised and scorned for my overall belief that
9/11 was a decades, if not centuries in the making occult megaritual event with bigger implications than "excuses for war and oil"...

I do take issue with the no hijackers thing:

This idea rests on the claim that:

1. the cell/airphone calls are fake
2. a lot of people in the army/companies were involved
(someone had to land the planes/kill passengers/etc)

and 3:

WHY is there evidence at the shanksville crash of person affects of hijackers and people? as well as al Hamzi's ID at the pentagon?

I agree the Atta story of him leaving a rosetta stone duffle bag of all that cliche evidence is in itself evidence of a setup.

But I want to know WHY outside of the 9/11 research community,
law enforcement, ex CIA, FBI, etc hasnt noticed this stuff if its so apparent?

Is the legend and backstory that well planted?
Is this alternate possibility to bizarre for people to handle?

Because ultimate we have to ask: What HAPPENED to the passengers?

Is Family Guy creator Seth Mcfarlane lying when he said he was spose to be on Flight 11? Mark Wahlberg lying when he said he was spose to be on Flight 93?

Wheres the creator of Frasier, David Angel? If there was no hijackers,
was the plane just remoted in ala Lone Gunmen and the passengers dead in the crash?

Also, people say "oh Israel did it, Cheney did it".

While I see hardcore evidence of Israel Mossad all over the 9/11 op(for what purpose? The white van cells shows a possible side attack planned)

...

WHO would be the upper echelons of the masterminds?

Perhaps, the very man who created the WTC and who wants a one world government: David Rockefeller?

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:22 am**

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Laws of Physics and physical evidence plus hundreds of firefighter eyewitnesses PROVE that the WTC was blown up.

No it doesn't.

Do you really have to hijack each and every thread with your inane mangling of basic physics?

Ya know, just because you know how to use big and bold typefaces doesn't make any of it true. You're just yelling.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:26 am**

8bitagent wrote:Because you say the towers exploded and there were no hijackers, how does that point to anyone or country in particular or show how it was done?

Well, it doesn't.

What I found so mindbogglingly frustrating about the so-called "truthers" is exactly what you point out here: they replace what is, at least partly, a trace-able, provable backstory to something that is merely fantastic and allegorical.

You know, those same people who think we're weird because we like to talk about UFOs and stuff on this forum. :roll:

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:37 am**

nomo wrote:
8bitagent wrote:they replace what is, at least partly, a trace-able, provable backstory to something that is merely fantastic and allegorical.

A very recognizable footprint.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:43 am**

8bitagent wrote:

Because you say the towers exploded and there were no hijackers, how does that point to anyone or country in particular or show how it was done?

Nomo: Well, it doesn't.

Really? If the buildings were deliberately brought down by explosives, and if there were no hijackers on any of those 4 planes, this would provide you with NO CLUES at all concerning the perpetrators?

I guess denial is NOT just a river in Egypt...

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:37 pm**

nomo wrote:
8bitagent wrote:Because you say the towers exploded and there were no hijackers, how does that point to anyone or country in particular or show how it was done?

Well, it doesn't.

What I found so mindbogglingly frustrating about the so-called "truthers" is exactly what you point out here: they replace what is, at least partly, a trace-able, provable backstory to something that is merely fantastic and allegorical.

You know, those same people who think we're weird because we like to talk about UFOs and stuff on this forum.

Yeah I never got that. Somehow were disinfo for talking about the UFO phenonenon, that while perhaps not a physical reality, is a visual reality proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and of great interest to the powers that be.

Yet, 9/11? "Oh just trust us...WTC was blown up, Cheney and neocons did it".

Im like "yeah, ok skippy"

I swear its like BOTH truthers and debunkers dont seem to think for themselves, only what the "truth" gatekeepers parrot out.

One year its "Fake Osama"(haha, no that WAS the real Osama in the video tape...he was saying how he was shocked there was no air defenses), or "cell calls fake", or "pentagon missile"

If Im a David Rockefeller globalist, I would be horrified at the use of "fake planes", "fake calls", "missiles". That destroys the 90% of the official story thats provable and destroys ultimate plausible deniability.

Apparently the witnesses at the pentagon are full of shit, but the witnesses at the towers are experts.

Passengers messing up the globalist plans to attack the Capital turned into
"passengers stopped al Qaeda" which turned into "OMG, the plane got shot down" which turned to "what plane"?

Its the elephant phone game at its worst.

rigorousintuition.ca

The REAL Story of 9/11 That Most Truthers Miss

come on

Re: come on - already there.

What hijackers?

Bottom line.

Re: Physical evidence trumps anecdotes.