Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:53 pm

You'd be amazed at some of the information I've been privy to, rad.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:02 pm

whatcha got?

RickySlade · Post by **RickySlade** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm

Paranoia.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:24 pm

There's no reason to get into it...it won't change your mind...since I swallowed the red pill I've realized that blue pill folks have to come around to the truth in their own due time.

I will just say this: at the very least, the federal government covered up tons of rather sketchy shit w/r/t 9/11. The 9/11 Commission was a joke. There was never a real investigation. They swept all the shenanigans under the rug rather efficiently (of course, that's what government does best). The question then becomes what did they cover up? Once you rationally get to that question, I think it becomes easy to see where I question everything about 9/11.

Call me paranoid if you want slade...I take no offense. I'm fairly certain that our government's actions over the last 200+ years wholly justifies my skepticism of their propaganda.

RickySlade · Post by **RickySlade** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:35 pm

Oh, I'm no kool-aid drinker...I agree with much of what you said in the second paragraph. But...saying that 9/11 was an inside job reeks of paranoia.

There is a reason to get into it...I'm curious to know why you think that.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:10 pm

First, I said it was an inside job to be a little provocative. I don't know for certain if 9/11 was a true false flag operation (which our esteemed government has planned and carried out before) but I do believe that at the very least, there were very powerful people with real authority who had knowledge of the attacks before they happened but instead of stopping them they decided to use the events to their advantage.

I honestly don't see how I'm paranoid....when I see such blatant obfuscation of truth, it seems totally rational to me to begin to question EVERYthing the liars tell me.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:20 pm

This could get ugly.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:30 pm

What makes you say that, Z?

I'm not annoyed or frustrated at all....I know I'm not mainstream.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:46 pm

Well, you haven't said anything outlandish, but if you start telling me that 9/11 was an "inside job," or that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon or any of that other "Truther" bullshit, there's a gonna be a smackdown.

But if it's simply that you believe that officials had foreknowledge and did nothing, then I can accept your beliefs even if I don't agree with them.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:55 pm

:popcorn

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:21 pm

yeah - i respect what you've got to say AA...always have and always will....you're true to form in that you prefer the contrarian view in most cases.

what you should do though is try to capitalize on your beliefs...sort of separate yourself from the rest of the conspiracy theorists and/or contrarian viewpoints by exposing the truth...the people need to know the truth...you are the truth and the people deserve the truth....cause really, at the end of the day, if you can't capitalize on your contrarian beliefs, why then have it? you do society an injustice by withholding all these truths to yourself.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:16 pm

Well, you haven't said anything outlandish, but if you start telling me that 9/11 was an "inside job," or that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon or any of that other "Truther" bullshit, there's a gonna be a smackdown.

But if it's simply that you believe that officials had foreknowledge and did nothing, then I can accept your beliefs even if I don't agree with them.

I've come to accept that there's no way to prove if 9/11 was or was not a true false flag op. Maybe in 50 or 70 years, but not now. Dunno about the Pentagon either. I do think it's peculiar that Judicial Watch had to go so far as submitting a FOIA request to the FBI to get them to release the Citgo tape that showed NOTHING. Always love when the government hides evidence that doesn't actually serve as evidence of anything. That's not sketchy at all. Seems like if it showed nothing the FBI would have just released it.

And I wonder quite a bit about flight 93 and if the military shot it down.

And I wonder about WTC 7.

You do realize our government has both planned and carried out false flag operations before, yes?

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:14 am

Oh, geez, no you di'int mention WTC 7.

Look, man, I don't have internet access at home anymore and the libary only gives me 30 minutes at a time (where I am now). So I can't get into it at the moment, but please please please do a little research before you go off on shit that has been easily debunked.

Yes, I'm aware of a couple "false flag" operations, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident. But the differences between things that can easily be covered up (because they happened on the other side of the world and involved only a handful of people) and what happened on Sept. 11 are enormous.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:57 am

why don't you have internet access at home?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:19 pm

Oh, geez, no you di'int mention WTC 7.

Look, man, I don't have internet access at home anymore and the libary only gives me 30 minutes at a time (where I am now). So I can't get into it at the moment, but please please please do a little research before you go off on shit that has been easily debunked.

How has WTC 7 been debunked? The NIST report that falsely concluded no witnesses heard explosions? And didn't address the EPA sampling that showed residue from seemingly energetic explosions rather than the more simple fires? Or some other "debunking"?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:29 pm

i was there wes....the 'witnesses' were in shock, were in distress, and were in survival mode....trust me.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:34 pm

I'm talking first responders. You don't trust any of their accounts of that day? It's cool if you don't, it just surprises me.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:51 pm

One other skeptical question that may be more important than nearly all others: Are we still under the COG plan implemented on 9/11?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:28 pm

what's the COG plan?

as for my believing of accounts of that day by so called "witnesses", first responders, et al - i do not underestimate the human element of greed, selfishness, and hubris.

everyone's got an account of what they felt that day ...those who were there have got an account of what they felt and what they saw....most of my friends who were one of the many that were present don't really talk about it...we don't really story tell about it and we just don't revisit....the ones who have second hand experiences are the ones who love to tell the stories...i just find that those who sensationalize everything do it to make their account seem more important or more relevant...there are those who embellish and those who add-on to their stories from other stories they've heard.

point is, greed and hubris and selfishness to be more relevent, to be more sensational, to be the first, to be the most contrarian is unavoidable...there'll be a million different stories about what happened and what was seen or heard...i choose to believe my own....unless they were golfers reporting on 5 holes in one...then i'd believe it

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:00 pm

Continuity of Government....it establishes a shadow government, outside Constitutional control, to continue governmental operations during a time of emergency. However, the "emergency" declared shortly after 9/11 has never been rescinded. In fact, it was recently renewed yet again by W:

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/08/20080828-7.html

This means it's quite possible for the COG plan to be currently in place and operational. Which means...no member of the public has any idea about who/what is actually making the decisions.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:00 pm

all for the good of the country and WE, recipients of such benefit, should be compliant and cooperative...i've been searched and questioned at JFK airport for over 20 minutes coming back from canada and not once complained or argued....some do and i don't know why.

thanks for explaining the COG aa.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:05 pm

Compliant and cooperative masses allowed Hitler to come to power. Not sure what I'll think if I ever see you goose-stepping past me rad.

The COG is a way of undermining the constitution, which I know is OK with you. It's not OK with me. That's where we differ.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:42 am

How has WTC 7 been debunked?

The theory that WTC 7 fell by some means other than due to damage from the falling towers has been debunked time and time again.

The NIST report that falsely concluded no witnesses heard explosions?

What witnesses? Do you mean Barry Jennings and Michael Hess?

The BBC would like a word with you:

The first responder Barry Jennings was trapped inside the building for several hours along with another New York City official. They were crucial witnesses to what was going on inside Tower 7 after everyone had been evacuated shortly after the Twin Towers were hit by the two planes.

As I tried to explain to them at the time, we recorded a long interview with Barry Jennings. We also carefully considered other information and came to our own view based on all of that.

As the two men tried to get out of the skyscraper they were suddenly thrown into darkness. Barry Jennings said he heard explosions. We think it is likely that this was when Tower 1 collapsed, showering debris onto Tower 7.

We have also recently recorded an interview with the other man there, Michael Hess.

Michael Hess was Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's chief lawyer, in charge of 800 New York City lawyers. In his first interview since 9/11 he confirms our timeline. Hess says all the lights went out and he felt the building shake like an earthquake and he adds that he did not hear explosions.

In his mind he thought there might have been an explosion. In the only interview he did on 9/11 he told a reporter he had "walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion."

But as our interview with him shows, he is now certain that he did not hear an explosion. He just assumed on the day it could have been an explosion because he had witnessed the lights going out, the staircase filling with smoke and the building shaking vigorously.

I think it's reasonable to assume that tons of debris falling from a skyscraper would sound like explosions when they hit another building. I mean, for fuck's sake, huge skyscrapers were damaged and then falling down. What do you think it sounded like?

And didn't address the EPA sampling that showed residue from seemingly energetic explosions rather than the more simple fires? Or some other "debunking"?

You're gonna have to enlighten me on this, because it's the first time I've heard of it. What kind of sampling?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:17 am

Criticism of the NIST report on WTC 7 that includes links to many references: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.html

And here's the abstract of the paper looking at EPA's sampling:

Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is hypothesized.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

The other question is, why did the owner of WTC 7 say they made the decision to "pull it"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

And why was it reported at least 20 minutes prior to the building's collapse that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing"?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:04 pm

Here's a link to 50 facts about 9/11 that clearly justify my skepticism: http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=676