America Slapped in the Face, Again....

its an occupational hazard of every government that consistently lies to people that when something happens the people naturally assume that their government has a direct hand in it. the truth is we won't get the truth, (we can't handle the truth) and in a hundred years or so when the truth does come out it won't matter. the middle east will be the dominion of one country the bomb craters and ravages of various chemical biological and nuclear weapons will be blight on the survivors on the land. we'll all be dead from old age - and you know what, no-one will care one iota.

 

Still no explanations from the conspiracy enthusiasts, just claims that A was impossible therefore it must have been B. And B consists of planes and people that disappear and turn into cruise missiles; witnesses that are all liars; relatives of victims that are liars; people in the professional and academic community that are liars; explosives planted all over 208 foot wide floors without anyone noticing; secret weapons on the pod of an aircraft; military jets camoflaged as commercial airliners; thermate smuggled in by the government; sunglint from a helicopter near the tower that's really a beam weapon; thermobaric bombs and mininukes; holography and mind control; cutter charges that blew up WTC7 without making any noise.

Anyone is welcome to elaborate on details about the claims.

I do agree with what guy said, though, that the distrust in the government gets so great that people start believing everything no matter how fringe. It has a way of fueling theories that are far more fringe than anything the government can come up with. It makes you wonder what will happen when the boiling point is reached within a society.

.

 

It's funny how Shaggie's threads display all the characteristics of COINTELPRO. Notice how he mixes controlled demoliton in with talk of holographs, pods, and other bogus theories that have long been thrown out the window by most astute 9/11 researchers.

People aren't falling for it, sir.

The fact is, SHAGGIE, that people DID hear explosions prior to the collapse, and there is even video footage where you can hear the charges going off seconds prior to the collapse, and during the collapse, of the towers.

There was also a series of what are called "power-downs" in the weeks leading up to the attacks, in which large sections of the towers were literally shut down for prolonged periods of time. All power was cut to these areas and were vacant at the time. This would have provided the PERFECT opportunity for explosives to be planted.

Your last paragraph infuriates me the most, because the evidence that the attacks were an inside job is overwhelming to most critically thinking people. When Charlie Sheen came forward and CNN covered his remarks on the 9/11 attacks, a poll was conducted showing that 84% agreed with Sheen that the government is lying about what really happened. Of course this isn't a scientific poll, and has no indication what the public as a whole believes. But to call those questioning the official story as "fringe" is bullshit. There are more people questioning the official story than you think, and many of these people are far from what you would call conspiracy theorists. These are professors, physicists, former government officials, NYC firefighters and police, and 9/11 family members. For you to attack the NYC firefighters and 9/11 families, calling them fringe whackos, is beyond the pale.

Well, the day is coming when YOU will be the fringe whacko!

Talk of NORAD standing down, controlled demolition, prior knowledge and insider trading is not fringe. Talk of pods and holographs is fringe, and you are seeking to make us all out to share those fringe beliiefs by mixing them with the credible evidence we discuss.

 

How is anyone to know where to draw the line? Chemtrails? Secret bases under Denver airport? Life sized 757 replicas? Is feminism a globalist conspiracy? Was the holocaust a zionist plot? In fact you called hippyness itself to be a globalist conspiracy.

You pretend there is some sort of consensus about what is "good" conspiracy theory and what is "bad" conspiracy theory. Does Lick think a cabal of central bankers has controlled the world for centuries and secretly plotted to undermine civilisation with feminism and hippies? I doubt it. In fact the only thing you two seem to agree on is that you are both part of a very small, enlightened elite and the rest of the world is completely stupid. Oh yeah, and anyone who disagrees with you is probably cointelpro.

 

It's not fringe to question the government about the events. I applaud that. It's what groups are putting in place of it that is fringe and with little or no support for their claims.

I've never attacked the firefighters or 911 families. I've seen one conspiracy website called "Let's Roll" with a section that claims flight 93 never had people on it. This is a group that named itself after the passenger on 93 (Todd Beamer) who said "let's roll" and at the same time denies that he was on the plane. If that's not disrespectful to the 911 families, I don't know what is. Other conspiracy enthusiasts call all the witnesses a bunch of liars (like the hundred or more that saw 77 hit the Pentagon) because what they saw contradicts the the political ideology of the conspiracy group.

The people who were lost on 911 are played with like pawns for the sake of some fringe groups trying to promote their own political agendas. Not to mention the U.S. government that used it to promote its screwed up agenda. Neither is any better than the other.

.

 

Regarding Ben Chertoff, conspiracy advocates are going to have to come up with something better than 'Ben Chertoff's Dad looks like Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security.' That type of 'evidence' seems to be typical of conspiracy groups.

Ben Chertoff of Popular Mechanics is in his mid 20s. Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security was born in 1953. That's about a 30-year age difference for 'cousins'.

The original claim of them being cousins apparently was started by journalist Chris Bollyn of American Free Press who took words out of context.

http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

Ben's response:

"Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only"Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins." Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" I said, "I guess so," -- that's not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story."

.

 

Wow, now there is a prime example of the non-effort at any rational consideration evinced by the status quo naysayers.

So cousins must be within a certain age range to have any possible viability is that it shaggie? Couldn't possibly be the case that Michael Chertoff and Larry Chertoff are first cousins (again with unmistakable family facial characteristics) which would make Ben and Michael (wait for it....) first cousins once removed. Wow!, such a clearly obvious consideration just escapes you altogether as you continue to demonstrate a desperate need to ignore the copious amounts of available and quite legitimate factual research which points to a concerted insider act of treason and mass murder.

Of course, again, for the shaggie/PB "i cannot see or hear anything that would undermine my conditioned deference to and belief in the goodness of my government" crowd, it must be that all those who apply the most fundamental principles of investigative analysis to this crime of the century (means, motive and opportunity) or simply "qui bono" are representative of an illogical fringe which must be pursuing a political agenda.

It cannot be the case, to such cognitively challenged individuals, that the motivation is one of civic duty and an ardent desire to honour the victims (as the "official line" junkies patently do not by tacitly enabling the most likely perpetrators to advance their agenda of perpetual warfare and additional mass murder elsewhere upon other nations and civilians) by exposing the more factually consistent and evidentially supported realities of that terrible crime and those yet to be fully and transparently investigated for it.

Indeed this is another sad indictment of the intellectual decline so evidently characteristic of our nation and sanitised-tv reporting-fed populace. No matter how much evidence is made available, they will do no more than read the random paragraph or headline before flocking together to reaffirm one anothers' psychosis of denial and evasion by suggesting their counterparts (who DO bother to make an effort to sift through the massive body of researched interconnected events, documented agendas, technological involvement, personal backgrounds, laughable physical impossibilities, et al) must believe every claim which has been thrown in (very often by traceable misinformation sources) to discredit the public investigation sufficiently to slow the spread of public reassessment and acceptance. As if this practice does not have an equally well documented precedent in America (recalling the early stages of the Watergate scandal in which all those who suggested direct involvement of the highest officials were also branded as loons and "conspiracy theorists", despite being proved correct all along).

Of course, they come into public fora and adamantly claim they HAVE made the laborious effort to sift through the body of facts uncovered, exercising due discernment of those claims (pods, holograms, what have you) which range from dubious to downright outrageous. However, their oft repeated reference to those very strawman elements belies the truth of their failure to have made the objective and reasoned effort they claim.

Subscribing to their view means, amongst other things, that we certainly have no need any longer for the costly and man/hour intensive effort of controlled demolition to bring buildings down, we merely have to damage a few steel supports and start fires in random locations and let the new physics take its course. Neither do we need extensive training for civilian aircraft pilots since even those documented as wholly inept with single engine training aircraft can execute stunning aerial acrobatics with military precision.
And of course, we can forget all known laws of aerodynamics since these same magic pilots have proven that even Jumbo jets can be flown over distance (at high speed) at heights hithertofore considered impossible (not to mention hit a target at levels well below even the dimensions of the officially alleged craft itself). Let us not trouble ourselves by raising any objections to the necessary suspension of disbelief and logical disconnect involved, Hollywood has trained the public well in such practice.

Don't think too hard shaggie. Just keep your eyes focussed on the parade of PhD's who couldn't possibly be endorsing the fraud to earn a place in the queue for a piece of the WoT budgetary and political advancement pie offered by the most plausible culprits. No, of course not!

 

That's nice. But the part you are trying to avoid is this:

Kind of inconvenient for you I guess.

 

That's nice. But the part you are trying to avoid is this:

Cause of course, journalists never lie and Popular Mechanics (gas station toilet fare that it is) is a bastion of truth and journalistic integrity.

Then again, unsurprising you should accept such a denial as truth given your routine defence for your repeatedly exposed lying administration heros.

 

So lets see... Ben Chertoff has never met or spoken to Michael Chertoff, nor has any other member of his immediate family. At the time the article was written, Michael Chertoff hadn't even been nominated for the Homeland Security Agency, an agency which didn't even exist at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, Ben did not have a senior position at Popular Mechanics, and was only one part of a team that wrote the article. Based on this, you conclude that Popular Mechanics was part of a coverup conspiracy.

Popular Mechanics certainly has higher standards than, say, Infowars, but that's not saying much. And sure, he could lie, but why lie about something which would be so easy to prove wrong? And so far, nobody has been able to prove that they are actual cousins or have at any time been in contact. It is just innuendo and that's good enough for the conspiracy theorists.

 

Wow, you make it so easy to highlight how lost in your own denials you truly are PB. So much so that you readily reveal your lack of even the most basic grasp of the facts (which you regularly claim others here do not provide).

- Ben Chertoff has never met or spoken to Michael Chertoff, nor has any other member of his immediate family

Correction: Ben Chertoff claims (for more than obvious reasons of defending journalistic integrity for his strawman piece) he has never met nor spoken to Michael Chertoff...

-At the time the article was written, Michael Chertoff hadn't even been nominated for the Homeland Security Agency

Correction: Again you demonstrate your predelection for accepting whatever is claimed without so much as checking timelines or demonstrating even the slightest critical enquiry...

Fact: Michael Chertoff nominated by Bush to Secretary of Homeland Security on January 11th 2005. Chertoff Sworn in on February 15, 2005. Popular Mechanics diversionary piece published in March 2005 edition.

You readily believe that a Popular Machanics hack piece comprised of nothing more than a routine diversionary mockery of the "pods and holograms" claims (most likely introduced into the public discourse in first place by those with a vested interest in derailing it, psy ops and media management for which the OSP amongst other intel/defence agency divisions have been established) took more than 2 months to write and send to press? Gullible indeed!

- an agency which didn't even exist at the time of the 9/11 attacks

Correction: irrelevant throw away line since the Chertoff piece was published well after Michael Chertoff was a known public figure in a well established agency.

- Ben did not have a senior position at Popular Mechanics, and was only one part of a team that wrote the article

Correction: Again, Ben's position at Popular Mechanics is a specious argument and in no way logically relevant to the argument. It is HIS name which appears as the author and therefore the one answerable for its content and standard of research. His claim to an entire team being devoted to such a hack piece only further discredits both its integrity and that of Popular Mechanics as a publication for printing it. Of course those with severe cognitive and critical reasoning capabilities who trumpet its content, such as yourself, would fail to pick up on that.

Nice try, but still the same denials characteristic of every other post you make on these forums.

 

You're acting like you've proved something here. All you've proved is that two people have the same name. That's not much.

So what? Someone alleges he is a cousin. As you should know, it is difficult to prove a negative. Proving he is related on the other hand is fairly easy. Why hasn't anyone done it?

No, he said it was sent to press before the nomination. So the timeline works. Again, all you are doing is saying "he's lying!" to everything. And maybe your understanding of publishing is similar to your understanding of pretty much everything else, and you think large, non time-sensitive articles are submitted to press what... two days before the magazine hits the newsstand?

 

The government must think so or else it wouldn't have confiscated them in the first place....

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/marketing/1100892.html chertoff is listed as a researcher, his name does NOT appear anywhere as the author, try JAMES MEIGS.

 

If it's that important to them, why don't some of the conspiracy groups just go to a genealogy service and have it researched, and get some legal documentation to back up their claims. It can't be that difficult.

So this 911 thing all boils down to whether or not a writer at Popular Mechanics was a relative of the homeland security director. As if a missile really hit the Pentagon if someone at PM is a relative of Chertoff. It's reminiscent of the 2004 campaign where the whole campaign boiled down to whether or not Kerry was on the proper side of the Mekong river. Jeez.

.

 

Another good debunking site.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/

.

 

lol geocities shaggie? is that the best you can come up with, i could just IMAGINE what you would say if i came on here and used geocities as a website to promote my views on 9/11...how about you give us a real credible site since you are so hellbent on us giving you the most credible reliable sources.

 

Why don't you read the site. It's not the server that matters.

I also gave you another site, aerospaceweb.org.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

.

 

Again interesting to see how shaggie gives wide berth to the aerodynamic impossibility for a 757 to have flow at speed over distance at the height claimed in advance of reaching the Pentagon lawn (approx 20 feet above ground) let alone that height indicated in the surveillance camera footage and by the location of the initial impact damage.

Like all official line junkies, shaggie, races to grasp what he can to insulate him from any logical and critically consistent consideration which might force him to acknowledge the utter implausibility of the populist conspiracy fraud of magic planes, magic pilots, magic collapsing towers, and the 19 (oops must be 12) box-cutter wielding, alcohol and prostitute consuming fundamentalist muslim hijackers who dont even appear on any flight manifest nor any autopsy report with the other allegedly "recovered and indentified" remains.

What it all boils down to is that no independent logical assessment need apply, merely bow to whatever tortured mathematical theorisations, and many there are (from truss, to pancake to zipper theories galore), are forwarded by those with every clear fiscal and political motivation to toe the company line. Just flash a PhD and you are beyond all possible ulterior motivation and necessary critical review.

The bandwagon is such a mentally comfortable perch after all, no cognitive effort required.

 

Just looking at some things about Christopher Bollyn. He has a track record of not identifying who exactly he has spoken to in his interviews and calls. He also claims that Paul Wellstone was murdered by Bush, not to mention many other conspiracy theories. In his reports about Wellstone, he makes remarks that he spoke with 'an employee from the FBI' but doesn't say who. Not the kind of person you would want to be putting a lot of faith in.

.