Questions for the conspiracy crowd

[Daniel19]

I understand that you want to see what I think, I've said what I think. You asked for examples, I gave them.

The questions you ask in the OP are impossible to answer. I can't answer a question that is based on a hypothetical situation, and if i did, again, it would be a straw man argument on my part.

 

[Dale]

Daniel19 in post #14:
"Even if you don't buy the theories that the government was invovled in 9/11, the tyranny which sprung from the ashes of the towers is becoming more and more visible."

"How much further to full blown tyranny?"

I don't think we have lost our rights since 9-11-2001. Where I live the press voluntarily downplays bad news and prints lies but this is nothing new.

 

[Dale]

Heron in post #13:
"We're cheering for fudging prisoner rights when they might be terrorists. Look at the Bill of Rights, and see how many of our protective standards we have bent in the name of panic."

I don't see too many people cheering over captives being denied a fair or speedy trial. I don't see the people cheering for disregarding justice, I see the Bush Administration ignoring the people.

 

[Glaz]

I understand that you want to see what I think, I've said what I think. You asked for examples, I gave them.

The questions you ask in the OP are impossible to answer. I can't answer a question that is based on a hypothetical situation, and if i did, again, it would be a straw man argument on my part.

They shouldn't be impossible to answer, given the mountain of evidence that supposedly exists proving 9/11 was a government setup.

 

[heron]

Off track... I just noticed your name was Soupy Sales! I used to love to watch him.

Addressing your question about losing freedoms -- I will include with that the freedoms and rights established in the 1700's.

1. About three years ago, a form was introduced at all the doctor's offices, for release of personal and medical information to any government organization that requested it. I was told that all patients had to sign it, whether they agreed with it or not... and the information would be released, whether we signed or not.

2. Similar release forms in the schools... signatures for the military to contact the kids. Basically for the draft, but worded to apply to any number of situations.

3. No water on airplanes? No nail clippers.... I think that the delays and bad arrests caused with petty rules can sometimes wreak more havoc than what they're trying to prevent. Whole airports have closed down over rumors. People have been left stranded for days on end.

(I'm sorry if this comment offends those who have incurred loss over tragedies. But I have too.)

4. Simple border crossings, with retinal scans, will soon require passports... which cost almost $100 per family member. Inconvenience.

5. Internet and phone interactions have been screened for quite a few years now, not just in the US. This is not new.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

6. Arguments over gun control ignore the second Amendment to the Bill of Rights:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
(I am not pro-guns.. I'm just considering collective changes.)

7. Amendment VI
...In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...
Not related to conspiracies, but our willingness to change our rules to suit the situation.

8. Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
No comment.

9. Declaration, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures...

This left their hands in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson assigned the Federal Reserve Board with this duty. The FRB is a semi-independent entity, not governed by Congress. Since 1978 they were required to meet with Congress twice per year. JFKennedy tried to return currency control into the hands of the people and the government, but faced opposition.


I think I'll stop there. I did not get this information from a hype site (and am not familiar with the name given above), but from government web sites, history classes, and a general familiarity with our country.​

 

[Law of Loud]

You blokes misunderstood my post. I was simply stating that even if the government was somehow involved, there's no reason the actual method of the attack couldn't be identical to their stories.

There was no demolition. Simple.

Of course, I've seen nothing to suggest government involvement.

 

[WayWord]

A few questions I would like answers to, in your own words not links/ cut and paste from some other websites. Please show me you're thinking for yourself not just parroting what Alex Jones says.

1. If the government secretly demolished the WTC with planted explsoives, why did they go through all of the trouble with the planes? Wouldn't it have been easier to just say "the terrorists planted bombs inside the WTC", especially since they tried that before?

Why the planes? Dramatic effect, shock value. (Shock and Awe) And, supposedly, a possible explanation for why the towers disintegrated and fell to the earth at free-fall speed straight down.

No, it wouldn't have been easier to "just say "the terrorists planted bombs inside the WTC" because there is no way they could have done so without being noticed unless they had help from the inside. This would implicate those who controlled tower security.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note that WTC 7 fell around 5:30 pm on the same day, and it definitely wasn't hit by an airplane. WTC 7 has controlled demolition written all over it.

2. If the government did fake 9/11, why didn't they conspire to plant all manner of damning WMD evidence against Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Why did they only do this one conspiracy? It wouldn't have been difficult to plant a nuke or two in a desert crawling with tens of thousands of our own troops, would it?

The Globalists are not concerned with vindicating the Bush Administration. 9/11 provided the excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and pass legislation to undermine the Constitution, accelerating the transformation of America into a police state (see the Patriot Act). The WMD lies provided the excuse to go to war in Iraq. With this accomplished, the globalists are confident that strategic domination of the Middle East and its resources can be maintained, while WWIII can be unleashed at any time. There is no reason to risk being caught in another scam when their objectives have already been reached. In addition, it's possible that the Globalists want a Democrat (Hillary Clintion, John Edwards, etc.) to win the White House in 2008, so allowing the reputation of Republicans to be lessened would be useful in that respect.

3. What happened to the people on the planes? Did the government fake their cell phone calls from the planes? Did the government just invent all those people, all of their relatives, were they all in on it, or did they 'disappear' them as some here have alluded to?

I don't see any reason not to believe that the people on the planes are all dead. Yes, many of the cell phone calls seem faked. It was very difficult in 2001 to get a good connection with a cell phone from flight level altitude (around 30,000 feet).

4. What was the government, or whoever was behind it, motive? Why does the government need to fake terrorist attacks when so many already occur anyway (or are they all fake)?

I already answered part of this question in my response to question #2. The motivation of criminal elements within the government, who are members of a Satanic Global Elite which desires one-world government, total control, and ultimate power, are using the 9/11 attacks to create fear. This fear is then employed to convince Americans to surrender liberty in exchange for security, and to engage in imperialistic wars which will supposedly guarantee the safety of their homeland. Meanwhile, the borders remain wide open and traitorous government officials secretly work to destroy U.S. sovereignty and create a North American Union.

The U.S. government and CIA helped fund and create terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin-Laden is basically an agent of the Global Elite. He and his organization are used to fashion threats and other distractions which can be used to manipulate the public. Look up False Flag Operations. All major terrorist attacks are false flags.

5. Do you think you could be wrong, and that perhaps your just letting your imagination run away with you? Do you think that your politcal bias is influencing your perspective on the matter in anyway?

I'm certain that I'm correct. I've had my doubts over the last five years that I've been researching these subjects (began in early 2001), but, in recent times, the evidence has become undeniable. I don't have a political bias in terms of Republican or Democrat. I was originally a Republican, but I've since learned to distrust both major political parties in America. Whether they swing to the right or to the left, the vast majority of U.S. politicians serve the same international banking and transnational corporate interests. The theatrical conflict between Republicans and Democrats is employed to divide and deceive the American people.

 

[heron]

The talk of conspiracies always appears fear-based, with a love for the dangerous... but so has the talk of terrorists lurking everywhere.

The issue isn't about gullible vs. wise, or intelligent vs. simple. People on every side want to get to the truth, and we just haven't been able to tangibly grasp it lately.

And the question behind the WTC is why -- since the crash was admittedly intentional, which groups would risk so many casualties and financial destruction and ripple-out damage for the sake of an agenda?

If you'd like to know that scholarly discussion exists about reshaping the US, here are some titles:

Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (Inalienable Rights), Richard A. Posner (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)

Common-Law Liberty: Rethinking American Constitutionalism (University Press of Kansas, 2003) James R. Stoner, Jr. (Professor of Political Science at Louisiana State University)

Common Law and Liberal Theory: Coke, Hobbes and the Origins of American Constitutionalism (University Press of Kansas, 1992), also J.R.Stoner

The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land
Andrew P. Napolitano, (New Jersey Superior Court Judge)

The U.N. Exposed: How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World, Eric Shawn
​

... and then some more fit to the OP:

Uncertain Shield: The U.S. Intelligence System in the Throes of Reform (Hoover Studies in Politics, Economics, and Society) Richard A. Posner

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts by John McCain

Preventing Surprise Attacks: Intelligence Reform in the Wake of 9/11, Richard A. Posner

The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, Lawrence Wright

​

( I haven't read all these, and am not endorsing each, but am pointing out that it's not an underground conversation.)
​

 

[Glaz]

Thank you Heron and Wayword for taking the time to answer. I would like to add a question: Do you think the original WTC attack in 1993 was also a government setup/coverup, and if so, why did they wait so many years to follow up on that attack?

 

[Daniel19]

Do you think the original WTC attack in 1993 was also a government setup/coverup, and if so, why did they wait so many years to follow up on that attack?

I'm glad you brought this up, soupysayles. This is something I can answer

The FBI was supposedly staging a sting operation on the group planning to carry out the bombings. The FBI operation planned on substituting the real bomb with a fake one. The FBI informant, Emad Salem,was given the duty of supplying the fake explosive. However, the operation was called off by higher ups in the agency, and the bombings went forward.

Why did they wait so many years for a follow up attack?

I'm not sure, perhaps planning and preparation took quite some time.

 

[Rik]

I'm glad you brought this up, soupysayles. This is something I can answer

The FBI was supposedly staging a sting operation on the group planning to carry out the bombings. The FBI operation planned on substituting the real bomb with a fake one. The FBI informant, Emad Salem,was given the duty of supplying the fake explosive. However, the operation was called off by higher ups in the agency, and the bombings went forward.

Why did they wait so many years for a follow up attack?

I'm not sure, perhaps planning and preparation took quite some time.

I'm quite sure we're gonna need to see a reputable source on that.

 

[Daniel19]

I'm quite sure we're gonna need to see a reputable source on that.

Sure thing, the information that I gave comes from Time magazine, as well as the New York times, and many other mainstream sources.

Here is the new york times article, archived on the website newsmine.org

 

[Rik]

You know, for all of the bluster about how the gov't was behind 9/11 because they wanted to create a police state/totalitarian regime/whatever, the simple fact remains that in 2 years GWB's term will be up and someone new will be elected to office and life will go on much as it always does, with the other political party making him/her out to be the devil. I'm quite confident that our political system of checks and balances will prevent any one person from becoming all powerful and creating some kind of Orwellian totalitarian regime.

 

[Glaz]

I'm glad you brought this up, soupysayles. This is something I can answer

The FBI was supposedly staging a sting operation on the group planning to carry out the bombings. The FBI operation planned on substituting the real bomb with a fake one. The FBI informant, Emad Salem,was given the duty of supplying the fake explosive. However, the operation was called off by higher ups in the agency, and the bombings went forward.

Why did they wait so many years for a follow up attack?

I'm not sure, perhaps planning and preparation took quite some time.

Thanks for the response. Now, lets say for a moment that your right. Since these attacks took place under two different Presidents, I'm left wondering if that means they were both in on a larger conspiracy or if parts of the government are committing these conspiracys without the consent of the executive branch. Bush and Clinton are like oil and water, it seems unlikely to me that they would work together on a conspiracy to gain more power when they could just work with others within their own political party (in other words, wouldn't Clinton have made sure Gore had won? Why go through the trouble of installing Bush?)

 

[Daniel19]

No problem, soupysayles.

You've hit on a key aspect of this whole debate, ony of my pet peves actually. This subject goes beyond any president, beyond democrat or republican, beyond party lines.

Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, the machinery that could take control of our government and exercise power against the peoples will, and even against a presidents will - a secret government if you will.

This is, i believe, a representation of the kind of criminal network we may very well be dealing with. A rogue group of criminals who have some how embeded themselves within key positions.

Another viewpoint could be taken, which would say that these incidents were due to incompetence, and not intentional. You decide.

So, to answer your question, no, both presidents do not necessarily have to both be in on the same "conspiracy".

If you are interested in learning more about the mechanics of secret government, take a look at this 1987 PBS video by Bill Moyers.

 

[WayWord]

Thank you Heron and Wayword for taking the time to answer. I would like to add a question: Do you think the original WTC attack in 1993 was also a government setup/coverup, and if so, why did they wait so many years to follow up on that attack?

You're welcome. And I agree with Daniel19 concerning the 1993 WTC bombing.

Thanks for the response. Now, lets say for a moment that your right. Since these attacks took place under two different Presidents, I'm left wondering if that means they were both in on a larger conspiracy or if parts of the government are committing these conspiracys without the consent of the executive branch. Bush and Clinton are like oil and water, it seems unlikely to me that they would work together on a conspiracy to gain more power when they could just work with others within their own political party (in other words, wouldn't Clinton have made sure Gore had won? Why go through the trouble of installing Bush?)

Bush and Clinton may seem like oil and water if you believe the 'reality' presented by the mainstream media. However, in actuallity, they serve the same Satanic Global Elite led by international banks and transnational corporations (led by the Rothschilds in Europe and the Rockefellers in America). A few peculiar news items should make us raise an eyebrow. Remember the dedication of the Clinton Library back in 2004?

The current President Bush also spoke highly of Clinton, his predecessor.
"Visitors to this place will be reminded of the great promise of our country and the dreams that came true in the life of our 42nd president," Bush said. "The William J. Clinton Presidential Library is a gift to the future by a man who always believed in the future and today we thank him for loving and serving America."

from http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/18/clinton.library.opening/index.html

see also http://www.clintonfoundation.org/111804-nr-pc-gn-usa-fe-clinton-center-dedication-center1.htm

Moreover, the elder George Bush had no problem working with Clinton to raise funds for Tsunami Relief in 2005.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/images/20050103-12_webp44168-009-515h.html

I suggest researching the Bilderbergers. That should be an eye-opener for you.

 

[Rik]

No problem, soupysayles.

You've hit on a key aspect of this whole debate, ony of my pet peves actually. This subject goes beyond any president, beyond democrat or republican, beyond party lines.

Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, the machinery that could take control of our government and exercise power against the peoples will, and even against a presidents will - a secret government if you will.

This is, i believe, a representation of the kind of criminal network we may very well be dealing with. A rogue group of criminals who have some how embeded themselves within key positions.

I loved that movie...

 

[heron]

You asked if I felt the first WTC was carried out by the same group. Since both were intentional attacks, we don't need to question whether there was intent by someone to make a point, gain control, or sabotage parts of our system. I am not making claims as to who this is.

My thoughts follow more along the lines of what Daniel19 and Wayword point out -- that it's not about one power-hungry administration, but a network of people with plans to gradually and quietly divert the traditional processes of the country for their benefit. I don't see this as a Satanic group, whether it is or not, but simply a group that feels a thrill in control, a greed for manipulating economies to their benefit, a rush in knowing what the public doesn't, and a lack of sense for the word "public servant."

Of course the events we know about were not quiet, but they all contained an element of uncertainty... who was involved, and why. Yes, we have faces and names and videotapes. But why would the named groups so suddenly decide to attack, when their basis for vengeance is centuries old?

It's important to keep the discussion alive.

 

[Rik]

Bush and Clinton may seem like oil and water if you believe the 'reality' presented by the mainstream media. However, in actuallity, they serve the same Satanic Global Elite led by international banks and transnational corporations (led by the Rothschilds in Europe and the Rockefellers in America). A few peculiar news items should make us raise an eyebrow. Remember the dedication of the Clinton Library back in 2004?
http://

Well, I'm convinced. Anyone else?

 

[Scribbler]

Well, I'm convinced. Anyone else?

I hear the Masons are poisoning the wells, too...