Do You Want 9/11 To Become Accepted Like The JFK Assassination?

Establishing that the events of 9/11 involved CD (along with the many, many other facts of what occurred on that day) and applying the investigative principle “means, motive, and opportunity,” I’d have to ask you, “Who else could it be?”

And, of course, it wasn’t just the government. It was the “government,” which includes many other nefarious characters, such as starvin' Marvn'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond

Establishing that the events of 9/11 involved CD (along with the many, many other facts of what occurred on that day) and applying the investigative principle “means, motive, and opportunity,” I’d have to ask you, “Who else could it be?”

And, of course, it wasn’t just the government. It was the “government,” which includes many other nefarious characters, such as starvin' Marvn'.

---

The "means, motive, opportunity" approach has its fauls. Sometimes all that is required is "opportunity" - in other words, completely irrational crimes do happen, and not so infrequently.

As for "who else" - I could give you a whole list of potenital culprits: Al Qaeda or other Muslim radicals (an irrational show of force), Israel (in order to frame such radicals), the Chinese (they benefit from the US being entangled in a "long war") and many others. I am not saying that I favor any of those hypothesis - this is just to illustrate that the list of potenital culprits is a long one and you should not limit your search to just one culprit.

What I find most damning is that whoever the culprit is there is hardly any doubt to the fact that the US government went to incredible lengths to cover for them. But that in itself does not provide complete proof of the US government's participation in the events themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borepstein

As for "who else" - I could give you a whole list of potenital culprits: Al Qaeda or other Muslim radicals (an irrational show of force), Israel (in order to frame such radicals), the Chinese (they benefit from the US being entangled in a "long war") and many others. I am not saying that I favor any of those hypothesis - this is just to illustrate that the list of potenital culprits is a long one and you should not limit your search to just one culprit.

What I find most damning is that whoever the culprit is there is hardly any doubt to the fact that the US government went to incredible lengths to cover for them. But that in itself does not provide complete proof of the US government's participation in the events themselves.

---

What would constitute “complete” proof for you?

I’m not too concerned at the moment about who else might be involved, as the internally placed criminals are the most menacing aspect of this whole situation. These people are, after all, in control of the most powerful military on the planet … at least for the moment.

But really, who would “they” be conducting such a cover-up for? Wouldn’t it be in “their” best interests to expose the guilty party and take it from there? It certainly can not be some nonsense of creating a distraction so that the “real” enemy does not suspect they are in the cross-hairs; most of our resources and attention are directed at the current events in and around Iraq and Afghanistan (along with evading Congress, subverting various government institutions and political heritage, spying on us, and more, I’m sure).

Furthermore, even if I were to entertain the idea that various “people” in our society are only involved in a cover-up, I’d have to point out that accessory after the fact in this case will likely carry the same level of punishment as would direct operational involvement in carrying out the crimes. But I’ve thoughtfully dismissed that idea based on the mountains of evidence compiled to date.

Nor, can it effectively be reasoned that “they” were acting in my best interests. That is generally just a pretext for the “most horrid enormities” that all too often are soon to follow. What I’ve “observed” first hand for the last few decades resonates quite strongly with the wisdom expressed by George Washington in his farewell address about how this takes place. (Today, some of us are referring to this situation as a nightmare, and the struggle is to help others realize this is the case so that we can work together to wake up already.)

And how on earth (short of having transporter technology) can anybody else get into the WTC buildings to precisely place so many demolition devices? (Considering that these buildings were known to be targets for horrid acts, the security was reasonably expected to be better looked after than in most buildings, etc. Do you have any idea what security procedures look and feel like in such a place? They are fairly thorough, checking and tracking most everything that comes into the building, etc.)

Along with all the other mountains of facts, the rather precise placement of the three Bush brothers in 2000-2001 is extremely compelling “evidence,” IMHO. These types of inferences based on circumstantial evidence do in fact carry a great deal of weight when deducing the most probable “story” of what happened. (The issue, as far as I can tell, is not whether or not “they” are guilty, because it is too obvious that they are; it is a matter of how to get the general population to see that this is so.)

As far as I’m concerned, I have the real enemy in the cross-hairs, and they should know in no uncertain terms that I’m coming to get them. Who am I? I’m the people, ultimately an even greater power then “they” are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond

What would constitute “complete” proof for you?

I’m not too concerned at the moment about who else might be involved, as the internally placed criminals are the most menacing aspect of this whole situation. These people are, after all, in control of the most powerful military on the planet … at least for the moment.

But really, who would “they” be conducting such a cover-up for? Wouldn’t it be in “their” best interests to expose the guilty party and take it from there? It certainly can not be some nonsense of creating a distraction so that the “real” enemy does not suspect they are in the cross-hairs; most of our resources and attention are directed at the current events in and around Iraq and Afghanistan (along with evading Congress, subverting various government institutions and political heritage, spying on us, and more, I’m sure).

Furthermore, even if I were to entertain the idea that various “people” in our society are only involved in a cover-up, I’d have to point out that accessory after the fact in this case will likely carry the same level of punishment as would direct operational involvement in carrying out the crimes. But I’ve thoughtfully dismissed that idea based on the mountains of evidence compiled to date.

Nor, can it effectively be reasoned that “they” were acting in my best interests. That is generally just a pretext for the “most horrid enormities” that all too often are soon to follow. What I’ve “observed” first hand for the last few decades resonates quite strongly with the wisdom expressed by George Washington in his farewell address about how this takes place. (Today, some of us are referring to this situation as a nightmare, and the struggle is to help others realize this is the case so that we can work together to wake up already.)

And how on earth (short of having transporter technology) can anybody else get into the WTC buildings to precisely place so many demolition devices? (Considering that these buildings were known to be targets for horrid acts, the security was reasonably expected to be better looked after than in most buildings, etc. Do you have any idea what security procedures look and feel like in such a place? They are fairly thorough, checking and tracking most everything that comes into the building, etc.)

Along with all the other mountains of facts, the rather precise placement of the three Bush brothers in 2000-2001 is extremely compelling “evidence,” IMHO. These types of inferences based on circumstantial evidence do in fact carry a great deal of weight when deducing the most probable “story” of what happened. (The issue, as far as I can tell, is not whether or not “they” are guilty, because it is too obvious that they are; it is a matter of how to get the general population to see that this is so.)

As far as I’m concerned, I have the real enemy in the cross-hairs, and they should know in no uncertain terms that I’m coming to get them. Who am I? I’m the people, ultimately an even greater power then “they” are.

---

I am sorry, I should have said "direct proof" as opposed to "complete proof".

Yes, there is no direct evidence t the fact that the US government participated in those attacks.

Circumstantial evidence is stong, as I have already stated. You are right to say that the coverup is a damning piece of evidence; you are incorrect in saying that the WTC security could not have been compromised by a third party. yes, I have an idea as to what kind of procedures they had; I also know that no procedure is 100% efficient.