How Many people, at a Minimum, would it take to carry 9/11 Inside job?

This will be summarily dismissed by the truthers ...

 

Pay attention Shiner, the 9/11 whistle blowers that you lied and claimed don't exist and subsequently acknowledge you knew they do exist obviously do exist.

Point made no matter how much or how often you want to change to subject and make it about me.

The facts are (for example) that Sybil Edmonds (a 9/11 WHISTLE BLOWER) testified in front of the 9/11 Commission and her testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report (as was any testimony that questioned/contradicted the OCT). The fact is that there was a request to grant immunity to other whistle blowers so that they can testify in front of the 9/11 Commission and that was denied so their testimony could not be heard.

The 9/11 whistle blower issue is not about ME Shiner, get a clue and quit spewing silly nonsense and name calling, it doesn't make your posts sound more intelligent, trust me on this.

 

The ridiculous things these truthers expect the government to have supposedly planted/faked/lied about... Take one of Scott's claims. He admits that there WAS a 757 involved with the Pentagon, but that it flew over the Pentagon at the last second and a missile/smaller plane/explosives created the explosion and damage.

This is hysterical!

That's means that instead of the conspirators deciding to actually fly that plane into the Pentagon, they actually thought it BETTER to fake everything. Think about that for a second!

Which plan sounds better?

Plan 1
Fly an actual 757 into the Pentagon, using that FDR data, that damage from the actual flight path, and not having any contradictory eyewitness accounts

OR

Plan 2
Take that same 757 and instead pull it up at the last second to fly over the Pentagon so a smaller plane or missile or explosives could create an explosion and resultant damage.
...AND plant a cab driver with a fake light pole into his windshield and a made up story THE MORNING OF the impact
...AND plant downed light poles to match the faked flight path
...AND have someone climb a pole to make a "wing impact mark" in the flight path
...AND have someone damage and move a generator
...AND make sure that anyone on the other side of the impact point at the Pentagon does not see a 757 fly over the Pentagon
...AND make sure that passenger DNA is planted at the site
...AND make sure that debris from a 757 is planted at the site or just some king of debris that can be claimed to be from a 757

...AND after so much careful planning the idiots who where to fly the plane OVER the Pentagon decided to go North of the Citgo station and bork the whole thing. so truthers could figure the whole conspiracy out! Not to mention that the folks who planned the impact point forgot to make sure that the hole was the same size as a 757!!!

I must say.

Plan 2 sounds MUCH easier to execute than Plan 1. I like taking risks!!

 

Sibel Edmonds was a translator who started working for the FBI months after 9/11 and once again you know what kind of whistle blowers I am asking for ... ya know, one that actually took part in any physical activities of 9/11 ...

I don't take intelligence advice from troofers ... that would be counterproductive ...

 

Truther Nation? ... anybody? ... hello? ...

 

Ah, you want a SPECIFIC whistle blower who will confess. All other whistle blowers are "low ranking kooks" or don't exist. They got a few of those at Gitmo, you know, the ones who "voluntarily" confessed to doing 9/11 from A to Z and signed confessions they weren't allowed to read.

I don't blame you, there's nothing intelligent about your personal demons. But you can use them for your name calling posts, that's very intelligent.

 

Oh, I know. Or there will be some protest that it is off topic or link to a video. The reason they won't write anyting down in their own words is because they will have to defend it. And they know how stupid they sound.

Which defines the problem truthers face. By the time they get through with their incredibly implausible theories, any listener who is sober quickly surmises that it would have just been simpler (and of course more likely) to follow the supposed "OCT" and fly a plane into the Pentagon.

And, in the background of all of this, there is the nagging question any observer would ask about "why". If the theory is true that we are in the middle east for the rest of the time humanity is on earth to combat terrorism and 9/11 was a way to make sure we were sufficiently injured to create the hatred that would allow the public to support such an enterprise...I don't know about you guys but the though of a bunch of terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings is very scary. But compared to a bunch of terrorists who can fire a missile at the Pentagon and blow a 200x60 foot hole in the building is much more frightening because they theorhetically could hit any building, amusement park, bus, bridge, tunnel, nuke plant etc... with total immunity. Put simply, if the planners REALLY wanted to scare us so we'd support sending troops into the middle east, they would have said it was a missile instead of a plane. Planes are hard to come by and if you're not on them, you're pretty safe from the terrorism that a hijack brings. If there is a missile toting guy out there who can take out a building with one blow, that's pretty damn scary.

 

Bob.. Sibel Edmonds never testified in front of the 9/11 Commission....

 

You're ignoring the mountain of crushing proof that shows a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=13&p=1066776319#post1066776319
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780017#post1066780017
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780070#post1066780070
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780237#post1066780237
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&page=2&p=1066780302#post1066780302
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&page=2&p=1066782729#post1066782729

They obviously didn't have a 757 crash into the building. That's the starting point. Our not knowing why they didn't have a 757 hit the building doesn't make this mountain of proof go away. You're not being logical because you have a foregone conclusion.

 

Great research, not.

An Open Letter to the 9/11 Panel
by Sibel Edmonds

Thomas Kean, Chairman
National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, D.C. 20407

Dear Chairman Kean:

It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, during which time we have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission was created by law to investigate "facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" and to "provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism," and has now issued its "9/11 Commission Report" [pdf]. You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report and its recommendations with our tax money, our security and our lives. Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I, as a witness to the commission, made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues I am not aware of were also omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake – our national security – we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American citizen, a former FBI translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States Congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice Inspector General investigation and a witness for your own 9/11 Commission, request your response to the following questions and issues.

(snip)

I provided your investigators with a detailed account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this (please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on Feb. 11, 2004).

Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts. Your report omits any reference to this most serious issue, foregoing any accountability whatsoever, and your recommendations refrain from addressing this issue, which will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why does your report exclude this information despite the evidence and briefings you received?

Read on (those interested, those in denial can remain that way as is their prerogative)

http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=3230

 

Ah, I see. You're one of those people who need to be told how to think by some "expert", preferably a government hack. You appear to be incapable of finding the truth unless it is "given" to you by some authority figure.

Pardon me, but I'm not that kind. I do my own thinking, informed by facts and the opinions of others. As you can tell, I don't trust government hacks.

To borrow from Bob Dylan, I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows, and I don't need some government hack to tell me how to think.

 

It does not bother me that Scott sees me as a disinformation agent. Such analysis is consistent with Orwell's observation that in a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is perceived as a radical act.

Scott is halfway there--he knows he has been deceived, but is not yet aware of some of the details of that deception. It's OK by me. Halfway is better than no way.

Many people simply cannot believe that their government would deceive them, while many more believe that the government would not kill its own citizens, even as some can understand that it will kill its own citizens, but it just would not use nuclear weapons to kill them. Whatever blows their skirt, is what I say. Every man is entitled to his own beliefs.

I just go where the facts take me, and the only theory that completely explains all the observed facts, all the observed damage, is the nuclear theory.

 

To my knowledge there are 4 primary theories for the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11.

1. The OCT, which claims fire, damage or both caused the natural collapse of 3 skyscrapers. Although it's claimed to be theory on paper, it is peddled by the US government and its puppet MSM and officially recognized as fact.
2. Unconventional controlled demolition destroyed all 3 skyscrapers (but using neither #3 or #4 below), however WTC7 may have been a conventional CD. The next 2 are subsets of the CD theory.
3. Nuclear devices.
4. Direct energy.

IMO #1 is absolutely false and has been scientifically/forensically proven to be impossible for at least WTC7 and never scientifically proven to be possible for the twin towers. That only leaves CD as the prevalent/most likely theory (which it was in the first place), regardless of how it was done.

 

You're funny.

What you said was this: "We've given the competing alternative--the truth--and you're rather nervous about that." I'm simply asking where this "competing alternative" is so I can laugh harder at the conclusions.

 

Agreed Bob, and I've always considered that nuclear and conventional sources of explosives is entirely possible. IOW, just because nuclear was used does not mean or exclude the use of other explosives or incendiaries like thermite. One does not exclude the other. There is evidence for both.

I still have trouble with the DEW part, but I do not exclude it. I just can't imagine the platform for such a weapon on that day.

 

I hope you're ready to copy, because here is the competing alternative in its simple beauty: the official narrative is false. The competing alternative is that while the buildings were struck and were taken down, they were not struck by AA11 and UA175, and they were not brought down by office fires.

Is that concise enough for you?

 

IMO the physical, visual and logical evidence shows the 3 buildings were CD'd. How they were CD'd is secondary in importance to the fact that they were CD'd and I tend to stay away from speculation as to how (and what devices were used) because no one really knows exactly how other than the perpetrators. I will only go so far as to say with nearly 99.9% certainty that all 3 CDs were unconventional and had to be unconventional. The key point is that if they were CD'd then not only was there a deliberate stand down on 9/11 but elements within the US government had to be intimately involved, there is no way around that. Foreign terrorists could not possibly have planned and carried out the total destruction of the twin towers and especially not WTC7 given the tenants of that building.

 

Although the physical evidence (the allegedly recovered parts for all 4 claimed airliners) could have been forensically matched to the claimed airliners (as is standard protocol), they were not for any of them. That means an obvious coverup, especially given all the other shenanigans the US government was involved with re: 9/11 (deliberate destruction of evidence, resistance to investigate then failure to legitimately investigate, overclassification beyond legitimate reason, etc.)

That's for sure.

 

Okay, what brought down the two buildings if it wasn't AA11 and UA175?

 

No kidding.

If I were you I'd try to stay away from explaining the impossible as well.

There is no logical evidence that points to a controlled demolition.
There is no visual evidence that points to a controlled demolition.
And there is no physical evidence that points to a controlled demolition.

- - - Updated - - -

Truthers are pretty simple people...in every possible way. They are not so beautiful.

 

Let's not forget that usda_select destroyed his credibility back on page 20.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=21&p=1066968363#post1066968363

That fact doesn't seem to bother him though.

http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

 

I don't explain the impossible, the obvious speaks for itself. You on the other hand defend the impossible.

For you and that's quite ok, you are irrelevant.

"None are so blind as those who will not see" - Matthew Henry

 

Explosive devices placed days before the event.

 

sauce? ...