Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Some wonderments?

  1. #1
    the_goldenhand Guest

    Some wonderments?

    http://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...earch&plindex=1

    This video I was guided to by this forum. It seems this is a beginning route on the journey I have decided to travel. I have a few questions for the public of this forum to determine the general mindset.

    After, I watched this entire video I had a few questions.

    1. What is everyones general conclusion about this video? Do you (as a group or populous) feel that this video links the United States current white house administration to pakistan's intellgence agency that according to the video's trail of evidence shows the ISI funding and maybe designing the terrorist plan for 911? If this isn't the general conclusion from the video let me know and explain your thoughts fully.

    This is one of my biggest questions because any route taken at this juncture would lead us on completely different roads. I may have to observe more than this path.

    2. If this is your general belief about this video and the occurances on 911 then what do you feel are the strongest supporting evidence for this theory? What topics do you feel are the most concrete evidence for this idea?

    3. How does this video compare to other 911 theory video such as "loose change". Also, how do you agree or disagree with ideas purposed in the loose change video?

    4. If the press for truth video is on the right path then what do you believe is the purpose of United States involvement? What are the goals that they may have mapped out?

    I have many more questions but they can not be ask until I hear from you as responders. Through a process of elimination some of the questions will be instantly throw away depending on the information I recieve back from you. Systematic reasoning cannot jump to conclusions.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    I think it's the video that should be shown before anything else. As far as which path you take, the quickest path to 9/11 Truth, at least to me, is right through the White House. 9/11: Press For Truth is a good starting point, but it doesn't touch on everything. Not by a longshot.

    For Question #2... there is so much information to substantiate this claim. Might I suggest doing a search for the word "Pakistan" within the 9/11 Truther forum? Not in the title, but in the posts. Or, go to www.cooperativeresearch.org and type in the search box any of the following: "Pakistani ISI, Omar Sheikh, Mahmood Ahmad, Porter Goss, John Kyl, Bob Graham, Marc Grossman, Wire transfer, Daniel Pearl." That should be enough to get you started.

    For Question #3... Read this. I don't agree with everything in Loose Change. However, I think the creators of the film have good intentions.

    For Question #4... 1) Money 2) Hegemony 3) The Protection of Israel 4) The logistical placement of permanent military bases in that region for future use 5) Oil 6) Drugs
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  3. #3
    the_goldenhand Guest
    Ok, so as soon as I read your replies I had to wonder what all of this would mean if it were true.

    If the white house was the source of it working in colaberation with pakistan this would mean a lot of things would have to be in place. First of all I am not a debunker as I have stated in an earlier thread, "I am the scientific method". Now, that means I must look at both sides of the story. Having already made of ones mind basically cuts that out of the equation.

    Now, the first thing that came to mind was that if this was all created by our white house administration then it would have had to have gotten started many many years ago. Before President Bush was in office. I believe everyone would have to agree on that seeing as al-qaeda already had their mindset of hate toward the US before Bush was elected.

    Now, to me this doesn't make logical sense how a lower level politician ran a campaign for the white house while creating a plot to destroy the world trade centers to gain power in the middle east. Now, if one wanted to say that al-qaeda was simply used as a tool and had no knowledge of Bush's adminstration involvement it can make a bit more sense. This would mean that the ISI would have had to been connected to al-quada long before 911 occurred and had a good relation with them. Also, this would also mean that eithe A. the Bush adminstration would have had to have created it's group of trusted followers long before he was elected, created this plan, and everything keep quite about it and just hope that he won the election.

    or B. they created some very swift and strong bonds with the ISI and pakistan between jan 20 2001 and 911. Also, they would have either had to have, like i said planned this as an unofficial group of politicians before Bush was elected or they would have had to have jumped in on Al-queda's plan because I don't know the exact date but I would assume it would take more than half a year to implant terrorist into the US train them to fly planes and get the plan in working order. Meaning it was planned before Bush was elected either way.

    Now, all of this basically adds even more things that would have had to have been in place. Like all of these involvements from different organizations and countries would have had to have been air tight. Not one informant could have gotten out and leaked it. Everyone would have had to stay loyal to the plan. Now, as I said I am not a debunker because I really don't have a personal or emotional feeling either way. I am curious. When I see things that don't add up on first glance it takes some reviewing.

    Sorry, to point and poke but the reasons you gave for the adminstration wanting to do this they don't really add up that well either. Because A. if it was for money then the amount of timing and planning that was involved in 911 verses the profit as far as money goes doesn't add up. They could have created a scheme that none of us would have ever know about and made far more money.

    Now your second idea really can't have any logical holes tore in it simply because that is a human psychological reason. Humans do infact think in these ways at times so it's possible that it fueled them.

    The protection of Israel didn't need 911 to help it. Israel has been a long time ally of the US. If it needed protection from a serious thread it would have gotten it with or without 911.

    Now the placement of military bases in the region makes good sense. I can't argue with that one either it's logically sound. Although, it could have been possible to get bases in the region by other means through basically cutting deals with those countries since they are very under developed economically. It would have cost less money in the long run. But yes basis is a good reason.

    Oil is one of those topics that makes me think yea it's possible because of the connection between the Bush family and other white house officials and the oil industry. Although, for them to go through this much trouble and have such a far reaching power and information structure they know as we all know that oil is coming to an end sometime in the near future. It is going to happen so I dont' see that as being a reason large enough to warrant this kind of involvement.

    Drugs again this isn't profitable to the US. The country doesn't gain all to much from drugs. I don't even really see the angle in that one.

    Like I said again I cannot stress enough how far out of the emotion realm of this topic I am. I do not have a side to take. I simply look at things and if it makes sense I agree and if I see things that don't make sense I will point them out.

    I do know alot about human psychology and how groups of people interact with one another. I can see some structure building. I also know alot about how rumors and conspiracy comes about. So, this will be an interesting walk for me. I hope people will give me their input or atleast give me links to direct sources because telling me to search this forum or google is kind of pointless. Because threads on this forum are created by people who are members of this forum and google searches have proven to be rather filled with 911 truthers internet postings which makes finding the actual evidence a bit buried. I figured that as followers the people at this forum would already know the exact places to look because I know when I become determined about something I research and know every little thing about it.

    Wow this turned out to be a long reply. I dont' think anyone will read it. lol
    sorry for the errors because I am positive that i made some.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    "This would mean that the ISI would have had to been connected to al-quada long before 911 occurred and had a good relation with them."

    Ding.

    "they created some very swift and strong bonds with the ISI and pakistan"

    Ding. Look up the different visits to and from Pakistan in the months prior to 9/11.

    "They could have created a scheme that none of us would have ever know about and made far more money."

    Not money for just Bush and Cheney. The war in Iraq is going to cost more than $1Trillion with a T. Not many things make that kind of money but war.

    "The protection of Israel didn't need 911 to help it. Israel has been a long time ally of the US. If it needed protection from a serious thread it would have gotten it with or without 911."

    It wouldn't have gotten 14 permanent military bases in Iraq between Iran and Israel.

    "oil is coming to an end sometime in the near future."

    Then wouldn't you want to secure it to get the advantage over countries like China?

    "Drugs again this isn't profitable to the US. The country doesn't gain all to much from drugs. I don't even really see the angle in that one."

    Somewhere between $250B and $500B is laundered through the American banking system, and Wall Street. Who do you think benefits from that? Isn't it curious that Afghanistan now supplies 95% of the world's opium after our invasion? Before our invasion, the Taliban managed to destroy 90% of the opium crops. Again, now, 95% of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan. It is processed in Turkey, and distributed throughout the world.

    Thank you for signing up, and asking what seem to be genuine questions. Here is something to get you started.

    The Archives

    You will find 1000's of articles. I hope this helps you in your search.

    Bare in mind, I think it's important for the individual to find things themselves. It's not that hard if you are pointed in the right direction. I try to assist in that way.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  5. #5
    the_goldenhand Guest
    I am sorry but your last reply kind of didn't help anything. Like I said the facts are a huge mess now because of all the truther post on the net. I have looked but most of the time it turns out to be a truther posting on a site, commenting, or forum post.

    Also, giving me opinions as you know is not what I want. If you know all of these things and have the evidence then it would be about 20 times simplier for you to find and post a link than me trying to walk blindly.

    Now, for your replies this is going to turn into a debate because unless you back up your claims with proof (links to source) then I will be able to see a flaw in it. For example.

    " Ding. Look up the different visits to and from Pakistan in the months prior to 9/11."

    Who were these officials? Why did they go to pakistan? You do realise that we have people going all over the world everyday talking politics? For you to say this without showing the proof like I said will do nothing but trigger a reaction in my brain that says "this hasn't got substance"

    "
    It wouldn't have gotten 14 permanent military bases in Iraq between Iran and Israel."

    And why would Israel need 14 permanent military bases in Iraq? If the might of the strongest military in the world isn't enough to save them then 14 bases in the middle of a war zone that are tied up at every corner really wouldn't make much of a difference. Logic is a tool follow each road to it's conclusion.



    "oil is coming to an end sometime in the near future."

    Then wouldn't you want to secure it to get the advantage over countries like China?

    I wouldn't worry about securing it, I would have instead embraced the simple and new technologies we have and if we were worried about power over china then it would have been much better to seperate ourselves completely from foreign oil through ways of new technology. Also, the money spent fighting terrorism would have went a long way to aid this new tech campaign. Like I said I look at every angle.


    "Drugs again this isn't profitable to the US. The country doesn't gain all to much from drugs. I don't even really see the angle in that one."

    Somewhere between $250B and $500B is laundered through the American banking system, and Wall Street. Who do you think benefits from that? Isn't it curious that Afghanistan now supplies 95% of the world's opium after our invasion? Before our invasion, the Taliban managed to destroy 90% of the opium crops. Again, now, 95% of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan. It is processed in Turkey, and distributed throughout the world.

    So, 250billion which is the money coming through how much money our banking system would actually make from this would be very little in comparison. Would it really be worth creating a war for?? no, it would be worth what one F-22 raptor would cost to produce. We have many of those planes. Logically speaking it isn't curious at all that afganistan used to and now again supplies 95% of the worlds opium. The taliban had a power hold on the country and their resources were free to stop drug trafficing. After, our take down of the taliban the power hold would have been broken. Our military presence certainly wouldn't be worried about some drug problem. It would have been at the bottom of the list. This would have given drug supplier an easy straight road to walk. I am dead serious when I say that I am pure logos. I will logical conclude everything that I am presented with. If others will do the same then progress will be made.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    Who were these officials? Why did they go to pakistan? You do realise that we have people going all over the world everyday talking politics? For you to say this without showing the proof like I said will do nothing but trigger a reaction in my brain that says "this hasn't got substance"

    May 2001: Tenet Visits Pakistan; Armitage Calls on India
    Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a former covert operative and Navy Seal, travels to India on a publicized tour while CIA Director Tenet makes a quiet visit to Pakistan to meet with President Pervez Musharraf. Armitage has long and deep Pakistani intelligence connections (as well as a role in the Iran-Contra affair). It would be reasonable to assume that while in Islamabad, Tenet, in what was described as “an unusually long meeting,” also meets with his Pakistani counterpart, ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed. [SAPRA (New Delhi), 5/22/2001]

    August 28-30, 2001: US Politicians Visit Pakistan and Discuss Bin Laden
    Senator Bob Graham (D), Representative Porter Goss (R), and Senator Jon Kyl (R) travel to Pakistan and meet with President Pervez Musharraf. They reportedly discuss various security issues, including the possible extradition of bin Laden. They also meet with Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Zaeef apparently tells them that the Taliban wants to solve the issue of bin Laden through negotiations with the US. Pakistan says it wants to stay out of the bin Laden issue. [Agence France-Presse, 8/28/2001; Salon, 9/14/2001


    And why would Israel need 14 permanent military bases in Iraq? If the might of the strongest military in the world isn't enough to save them then 14 bases in the middle of a war zone that are tied up at every corner really wouldn't make much of a difference. Logic is a tool follow each road to it's conclusion.

    You are correct. Logic is a tool. Logic states that if you have the United States military in Iraq, it would be a helluva lot easier to assist Israel if needed. The quagmire that is taking place in Iraq is the result of our illegal invasion into Iraq. Occupying a country is illegal. No different than the Nazis. Did the Nazis think they could take over Russia, Europe, etc... with little to no problem? So did our "leaders." I guess they were wrong.

    I wouldn't worry about securing it, I would have instead embraced the simple and new technologies we have and if we were worried about power over china then it would have been much better to seperate ourselves completely from foreign oil through ways of new technology. Also, the money spent fighting terrorism would have went a long way to aid this new tech campaign. Like I said I look at every angle.

    I agree, except from what I understand, it will take years to convert the United States gasoline system to something else. I look at every angle as well.

    So, 250billion which is the money coming through how much money our banking system would actually make from this would be very little in comparison. Would it really be worth creating a war for?? no, it would be worth what one F-22 raptor would cost to produce. We have many of those planes. Logically speaking it isn't curious at all that afganistan used to and now again supplies 95% of the worlds opium. The taliban had a power hold on the country and their resources were free to stop drug trafficing. After, our take down of the taliban the power hold would have been broken. Our military presence certainly wouldn't be worried about some drug problem. It would have been at the bottom of the list. This would have given drug supplier an easy straight road to walk. I am dead serious when I say that I am pure logos. I will logical conclude everything that I am presented with. If others will do the same then progress will be made.

    Then I suggest you read everything there is to read on Sibel Edmonds, and everything written by Dr. Peter Dale Scott.

    Logic dictates that one should learn everything there is to know about something before coming to a conclusion. I am not going to give you everything. As I said, I am only here to lead you in the right direction. If you don't want to, I can't force you.

    I have a question for you. Do you agree or disagree that there are a multitude of "cover-ups" regarding the 9/11 attacks?
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  7. #7
    the_goldenhand Guest
    I am going to make this simple because these long post are getting no where. You aren't looking at every angle like I would expect someone searching for the truth would.

    One visit to pakistan did not create these ties and definitely didn't do it in a matter of months. May 2001: Tenet Visits Pakistan; Armitage Calls on India

    A second visit 5 days before the attacks definitely didn't create the ties.August 28-30, 2001: US Politicians Visit Pakistan and Discuss Bin Laden

    Think about that....the first visit would have been after the terrorist were already in america and training. Not to mention with something of this gravity at hand do you think we would have known anything and I mean anything about the meeting that discussed creating a terrorist plot against our own nation that killed thousands of people? I expect logic. I don't expect someone to bend logic to their needs. That isn't what I want to see.

    The fact remains having 14 bases in Iraq would not help Israel simply because our forces their have their hands tied and will for a good while. Our strongest supporting power is our airforce and it can fly around the world in a matter of hours. I don't think this is justification for our countries to take actions like you believe happened on 911. I am sorry I simply cannot see the logical reasoning in that. You have to be able to see that.

    And as for converting the US to another fuel source if the nation wanted to put the money into it as they did the war then it could have been done in a matter of 3 or 4 years. Even at a slow pace people replace vehicles and motors in vehicles on average every 3 years.

    as for you wanting me to read everything someone wrote I will not place such faith in one person. In reguard to my conclusion I have none. I can see both sides of the story. I am now having a problem getting the truther side to lay their cards on the table and it seems that when they do it has holes in it. So, it isn't looking all that good from that point of view. I still remain undecided and will for a good while. I am a very unique person. I cannot begin to explain that.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    You didn't answer my question. I think I have answered enough to at least get one answer from you.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  9. #9
    AuGmENTor Guest

    I wouldn't worry about securing it, I would have instead embraced the simple and new technologies we have and if we were worried about power over china then it would have been much better to seperate ourselves completely from foreign oil through ways of new technology. Also, the money spent fighting terrorism would have went a long way to aid this new tech campaign. Like I said I look at every angle.

    For someone being critical of opinions being forwarded, you seem to have no problem throwing yours around. Most of what Jon says here is contained within the archive page he posted for you. You can take key words from what he says and search the information out without ever leaving the forum. THEY link to the source.
    You seem set in your opinions, so why bother to debate anything. Go do YOUR homework, and when you have a specific question, one of us will get back to you.

    I wouldn't worry about securing it, I would have instead embraced the simple and new technologies we have and if we were worried about power over china then it would have been much better to seperate ourselves completely from foreign oil through ways of new technology. Also, the money spent fighting terrorism would have went a long way to aid this new tech campaign. Like I said I look at every angle.
    Ah, yet another opinion? Well here's mine. They haven't milked all of the money out of oil, thus will continue as long as they can, because Americans are impotent SHEEP who will not stop them.

    "Drugs again this isn't profitable to the US. The country doesn't gain all to much from drugs. I don't even really see the angle in that one."
    WHAT???!!! Not only are you full of vapid opinions, I do believe some of the SHIT you are full of is creeping out also! With that last statement I can hinestly say that you are either a hopeless moron, or intentionally clouding facts. The US government has most assuredly been bringing drugs into this country for YEARS. I will give you NO links. If you don't KNOW it, go look it up. It is a FACT.
    Blech, someone else can do this if they feel like it, I can't be bothered.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749
    I have a question for you. Do you agree or disagree that there are a multitude of "cover-ups" regarding the 9/11 attacks?

    You didn't answer my question. I think I have answered enough to at least get one answer from you.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •