BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:28 PM

Some of us have changed our loyalty from what it was to begin with. I guess that means we are the only ones with an open mind on this subject.   ;-P

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 09:51 PM

Yes, Bill. And I somehow think that those who are emotionally convinced that there were NO plots beyond the known hijackers will never change their minds either...no matter how detailed the counter arguments are.

It's exactly like that. The pot and the kettle are equally black. The people on both sides of this debate are equally loyal in their emotional commitment and their unwillingness to change it under under any circumstances...other than, perhaps, a full public confession in the media by some of the very people they think didn't and couldn't have been behind it...and that just ain't gonna happen. (At least I very much doubt it will.) (If it does, free drinks all around!)

And that's why posting on any of these threads about 911 and expecting it to do any good is a lot like jacking off in a phone booth on 32nd Street, only you never get much pleasure out of it at all...

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 09:30 PM

Jack- My remark was meant in all seriousness: I have posted clear, rational explanations of the events, as researched by many, many experts, and all I hear is more speculation involving more convoluted hypotheticals determined to show that the government was 'probably' engaged in something nefarious.

"Government involvement in 9/11, especially the Bush-Bin Laden connections need a close look."

Fine...look closely. If you look for 20 years and still find no proof, evidence or confessions, will you give up? I somehow think that those who are emotionally convinced that there were plots beyond the known hijackers will never change their minds...no matter how detailed the counter arguments are.

There ARE still people who believe the oil companies have that carburetor hidden away.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:17 PM

Hey Jack the Sailor which one of the fifty-one members of the Bin Laden Family do you want to zero in on? Presumeably that you subscribe to the presumption of innocencence until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:14 PM

Nor will more platitudes and cheap sarcasm, but that won't stop him, Jack. As I've said before many times, everyone uses what they think is good logic when they argue. They seem unable to credit other people with doing the same, though. Other people's logic just isn't seen as good logic at all to the average arguer, because he dismisses it all about a microsecond after paying almost no attention to it in the first place...

Why? Because he's too busy thinking of the next brilliant thing he is about to say in response. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 05:56 PM

Bill D.

I know you think that response was logical. I suspect you think that it is funny. It was neither.

You know that I was talking about Saudi involvement in the plot and disregard for the people Bush called heroes that were sent in to clean up the mess. You know this because I said that when I entered this conversation.

Y'all say that you are being logical, you say that you just want to talk about the truth. But when the rubber hits the road all we get it platitudes and cheap sarcasm.

Government involvement in 9/11, especially the Bush-Bin Laden connections need a close look. No amount of fantasy and distraction on your part will change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 04:20 PM

200!!!

That's what.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 04:20 PM

What happened to Willie, Walter & me?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:41 PM

There may have been several objectives behind the 911 attacks. If you want to get a number of key people on board to support a plan, it helps if the plan can "kill 2 or 3 birds with one stone". Such a plan will satisfy a variety of interested parties, making implementation of the plan all the more effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:57 PM

"I know they were hiding something."

Very much like the amazing 100MPG carburetor the oil companies have sat on for 40 years....we KNOW they are hiding it, because we haven't found it.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM

Before the Iraq War I bought the "far easier" argument fully. But having seen the real conspiracy of the buildup to the war, I now don't. The leaders in the Bush administration, may of whom have left by now, are demonstratably capable of any lunatic plan to further their dubious causes. That is the main reason I would like to see a real and thorough inquiry. To shine a light on those cockroaches to see what they were hiding. I know they were hiding something. I doubt if it weas gravity generators. But they hid something.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:36 AM

Once you have discussed "possibilities" which are far too numerous, you then logically have to go through the "probabilities". The latter reduces the former to what you could call leading contenders and then real evidience, forensics and eye-witness accounts eventually fines it down to establishment of what most likely happened.

The one horse that all the "Government-did-it" lobby seem to have seized upon is that the objective was to destroy, i.e. bring down, the buildings that were targeted. That was not the objective in the 1993 attack and I do not believe for an instant that that was what was intended on September 11th 2001.

9/11 was a "Terrorist Spectacular", something to grab the minds of a very large audience in a way that would paralyse the "western world", they achieved that the second those aircraft hit the World Trade Centre Towers, the buildings didn't have to come down.

As others have said there would have been far easier incidents to stage as "inside-set-up-jobs" that could have been undertaken and demonstrated as being the work of others far more effectively. For what did happen before the eyes of the world on 9/11, the scale and complexity of what would have had to have been done just does not enter in to what could be seen as being practicable technically or from a security point of view, which makes the "Government-did-it, Government-cover-up" line the least likely, less probable of a number of possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:01 AM

However, can I ask you what you believe Flight 93 was supposed to be doing? Why was it turned around, was it supposed to have a target, what is the reasoning behind the suggestion (as stated in patriotsquestion9/11, a site you have referenced several other times in other posts like the Rosie O'Donnell thread) that it was shot down or blown up? Was this supposed to be a diversion somehow?

I don't have any thoughts myself about what flight 93 was doing. I think there are a number of possibilities (it is not necessary to prove, or even come up with an alternate story in order to prove that the official story isn't true). The one that is probably the least controversial would be that the government shot down the plane coincidentally and tragically, just as the passengers gained entry into the cockpit and overcame the hijackers, and for this reason, they covered up what they had done. I don't see this one as being likely, myself, but it does help to explain the fact that several eye witnesses saw a small white military-type plane flying around flight 93 just prior to and after the crash.

But it doesn't explain the cell phone calls, the fact that the pilots didn't press that panic button, or the fact that the pilots allowed hijackers into the cockpit (and all of the anomalies with the other flights).

Cell phones don't work at the altitude and the speed at which flight 93 was flying during the time that the calls were supposed to have taken place. Even on the ground, cell phone coverage was spotty in that area. The lady who took that picture of the mushroom plume said she tried to call 9/11 when she saw it, but that it didn't work because the cell phone service around Indian Lake is not very good. If it's that bad on the ground, there's no way it can be better at an elevation and speed at which cell phones just don't work.

Why didn't the pilots push that button? That makes no sense at all. This is a huge problem in my mind.

I don't have any kind of coherent theory on what that plane was doing and why (I have some guesses, but that's all), but I don't really need one to be able to say that the official story doesn't add up.


I have noticed on that site that almost all of the ex-pilots interviewed give very little explanation to their own explanations for why things happened the way they did. A few of them say there is no way someone trained in a flight simulator could fly into the buildings, that it would have taken a skilled pilot to do so. That may be true, but since some of those same pilots on patriotsquestion talk about how they would never have given up the pilots chair, and the code they have the ability to transmit when they suspect a hijacking wasn't activated, then who 1) Got the existing pilots out of the way, 2)was skilled enough themselves to be able to fly a plane into a building, and 3) was willing to kill themselves in so doing? Just doesn't add up for me.

It was possible, at the time, to remotely control airplanes like the ones involved in the events of 9/11. I don't know if that is what was done, but the fact that it is possible means that it is possible that the government (or a rogue element within the government) could have done everything remotely. This possible explanation clears up all of the anomalies that arise with the official explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:32 PM

I don't believe, for a moment, BB that you proposed your "LGM hypergravity generators" for anything but satirical and rhetorical purposes...in order to make light of some serious theories people have, based on their real intentions to uncover the truth.

You were doing it to make fun of people you don't agree with, that's all.

And that's no useful contribution to this discussion.

It's up to you, I guess, to convince me that you actually mean it...but why worry about just me then? Take it to the world. Do a website, like some of the serious investigators have done. Put together a video that is seen worldwide on the Net. Address Congress. Appear on Oprah and tell the nation. Write to the national media.

Then I will be convinced you are not merely engaging in obfuscational tomfoolery on Mudcat Cafe when you talk about LGM hypergravity generators.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:20 PM

"That's because I knew it was completely tongue in cheek on BB's part to even offer it. "


And the ones saying that the plane ( whose engines were found in the wreckage of the Pentegon) never hit, and no-one was killed? All those empty coffins and "fake" remains...


You KNOW very little- You suspect it was tongue in check, but have less evidence it is false than I do that the various "explosive" scenarios are false.

My explainantion is logical, consistant with the facts as known, and to be considered just as much as any you might present.

"Remember, That doesn't mean it HAD to be that way. It just means it could have been that way. It's a distinct possibility, and there is some evidence which appears to suggest it. One should give all distinct possibilities one's unbiased consideration...if one is capable of it. "

Are you claiming to be SELECTIVE about what theories you are willing to accept? Only those that have the "correct" Evil Instigators?

Hardly unbiased.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:44 PM

I switched sides too. My initial presumptions were entirely in line with the government's official conspiracy theory...I figured that 19 Al Queda guys with boxcutters and 4 hijacked airplanes did it all. Period.

I held to that viewpoint for some quite time before beginning to consider some of the alternative conspiracy theories...and in time I saw some of them as considerably more likely to be correct.

The one alternative conspiracy theory I have rejected without a moment's hesitation, though, is Bearded Bruce's one about the...what was it?..."LGM hypergravity generators"... ;-) That's because I knew it was completely tongue in cheek on BB's part to even offer it.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 06:51 PM

And what do you think the chances are that will ever happen? Slim ? None ? I don't think the conspiracy advocates are picking up much steam. Those who believe already believe - and very few people are switching sides from what I can see. What are your thoughts on that?

I disagree. I'm one of the ones who switched sides. Although I don't consider myself a 'conspiracy advocate', any more than I consider you one. We just see different conspiracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:18 PM

LH-
Think globally, Act locally.

Sounds like a local problem to me...

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:14 PM

I will if you'll do me one little favour, BB. Screw my neighbour's pooch. It's lonely and in need of some consolation, and if you did that, I think it probably wouldn't bark so much at night and things would be a lot nicer around here. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:13 PM

"rather than ridiculing and/or making fun of me."

Sure - but we ALL know that you're just an old poopyhead.....

"The only way we will ever get such an investigation is for the majority of voters to demand it."

And what do you think the chances are that will ever happen? Slim ? None ? I don't think the conspiracy advocates are picking up much steam. Those who believe already believe - and very few people are switching sides from what I can see. What are your thoughts on that?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:07 PM

I don't have any problem with you disagreeing with me, Wesley. But I don't think I'm wasting my time. I think the "terrorists" will have won if we don't do everything we possibly can to protect our democracy. To my way of thinking, the only way we can protect our democracy is to keep our government transparent and accountable. To not investigate, thoroughly and independently, the events of 9/11, helps our government maintain its veil of secrecy, and its erosion of our democracy and our civil liberties. The only way we will ever get such an investigation is for the majority of voters to demand it. I think it's time for us to do that. You may see things differently, and I have no problem with that. I also appreciate that you have used a respectful tone while discussing this with me, rather than ridiculing and/or making fun of me.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:46 PM

Well Carole - I respect you - I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into this - but it looks like we'll never agree on this. And that's why the terrorists win this time. There are so many better ways we could be expending our time and energy. Like getting a Democrat elected president. We can both think of the other as being deluded. And then move on to something productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:26 PM

One further point, Wesley, on the subject of 'simple is best'. The theory you are accepting is in no way the simplest one. It's actually incredibly convoluted. But it has been packaged in a way that looks simple on the surface. But when you dig down just a little bit, you can see that it requires quite a lot of very complicated maneuvering in order to fully explain what happened. And also, anything that can't be explained using the official version (and there is an enormous amount of that sort of thing), is simply ignored. That's not keeping it simple. That's relying on people's credulity in order to keep them from looking at the obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM

But they HAD tried to blow it up before using explosives - remember? The truck in the parking garage? So why wouldn't folks have believed that this time they had tried again and succeeded?

We know that the previous attempt failed. How could people believe that using the methods of the first attack again could possibly bring down the entire building? It would be obvious that people would have had to be on the inside in order to do what could not be done using methods that outsiders would have had access to. Look at all of the people in this thread who believe that only planes flying into the buildings could have possibly brought them down. These are the people who are needed to make it possible for the insiders who are responsible to be able to get away with what they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM

Remember, That doesn't mean it HAD to be that way. It just means it could have been that way. It's a distinct possibility, and there is some evidence which appears to suggest it. One should give all distinct possibilities one's unbiased consideration...if one is capable of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM

LH,

MY explaination ( LGM hypergravity generators) is certainly POSSIBLE, if not very likely. So I can count on your support in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

My bais is that simple is best. As they say - "keep it simple stupid". The easiest lie for people to believe is the simplest. There are so many ways a convoluted plan can fail. The story that some people are trying to sell sounds a lot more like "Mission Impossible IV". Too many people have to be involved, too many people have to keep quiet afterward. And far too many things have to happen perfectly. I'll stay open to the very remote chance that it happened that way Carole has suggested - but I'll need to see some real proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:40 PM

Either way is possible Wesley. Carol's proposal is a good, logical suggestion as to why they (someone on the inside) might have chosen the spectacular method of ramming airplanes into the buildings to shock the American public into supporting some unprovoked foreign wars.

That doesn't mean it HAD to be that way. It just means it could have been that way. It's a distinct possibility, and there is some evidence which appears to suggest it. One should give all distinct possibilities one's unbiased consideration...if one is capable of it.

Most people are not. Most people are very, very biased, and their primary energies are put into serving their bias, whatever it may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:17 PM

"And they also needed something that had not ever happened before to make it possible to use the uniqueness of the event as support for their highly implausible explanations about what happened and why."

But they HAD tried to blow it up before using explosives - remember? The truck in the parking garage? So why wouldn't folks have believed that this time they had tried again and succeeded?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:09 PM

Wesley, it wouldn't have been possible to just blow the buildings up, because with that method, it would have been obvious that it would have been necessary for people on the inside to have been involved. They needed a visual stimulus that would take people so far outside the realm of anything they ever experienced, that any explanation given by authority figures would seem plausible. And they also needed something that had not ever happened before to make it possible to use the uniqueness of the event as support for their highly implausible explanations about what happened and why.

This video gives you an idea about the motivation for doing such a thing...

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film


irishenglish, I haven't forgotten your questions. But I want to put some care into the formulation of my response before I make it.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:53 PM

An argument is like a fire. The more fuel you give it, the hotter it burns.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:47 PM

JTS - you are completely off base and you are not comprehending what I am trying to say. My motivation is to stimulate real debate, not petty snipes at one another, and see if we can think logically. I did NOT berate anyone for spending their time - merely reflected on my own time spent and what all of us could be accomplishing. There is no need for you to ridicule ME simply because I question your thoughts.

Yes, I have interpreted and have an opinion based on the balance of evidence I've read and what common sense tells me based on experience and history. I'm sorry, but as I have said repeatedly, I have not read or seen any evidence that seems logically or scientifically possible to support a planting of explosives in the WTC.   

What I have surmised, based on your statements, is hat you have a preconceived notion about the Neocons and the government that is pushing your opinion to one side, and you are simply disregarding evidence to the contrary - or as you have shown several times - you attack the messenger as if that is going to give your opinion validity. It doesn't. It is a smokescreen and it smacks of desparation in your inability to counter the concrete facts that ARE available.   Disregarding is not an effective tool.

This is a waste of time. You can get the last word in if it makes you feel good - but I'm afraid you've said enough and the damage is done.   Let everyone else decide - our opinions do not matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 12:29 PM

Ron,

I read back through all of your statements on this thread. It is true that you are not flatly saying X or Y. I made an assumption based upon your demeanor later in the thread. There are weak qualifications earlier in the tread. Weak qualifications followed by attacks on other people's open-mindedness and other character traits for not having been convinced to the degree that you were. Frankly I find that stance more disturbing. Are you simply arguing for sport? It does not appear that way, but if not your motivations are as murky as the hypothetical demolition experts in the towers.

To sum up my perception of the stance you have taken on this thread. You have decided on the balance of the evidence what you believe. You attacked with what you consider logic. You made no headway. You then insulted other's character. Then stopped doing so, but in the same posts, pressed on with the attack using what you consider to be logic. You now seem to be insisting that you are carrying on the present attacks, which are a continuation of the first ones as a disinterested neutral observer. Maybe you just need a time out?

Do I now see you berating someone for the time you and others spent debating that person. Need I point out that if that time was wasted by choice, by all of you.

You don't need to respond to every word that you disagree with that is written down in cyberspace.   

The only thing you seem to have said on this thread of any import is that. You think it highly unlikely that there was a conspiracy to demolish the buildings from the inside. Maybe highly unlikely is not strong enough a phrase, but you seem to have admitted that it is not impossible.

On the whole, I agree with that. But I've seen the neocons do the highly unlikely time and time again. I thought before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that if the facts showed otherwise there was no way that the Neocons could pull off a conspiracy large enough to lie about it. I was wrong. If I was wrong about the much much bigger more damaging conspiracy. I could be wrong about the much smaller one where a hand full of men with fake ids go into some buildings on a long weekend and set some radio controlled shaped charged which are designed to look like a normal part of the building.

I think, to a large degree, these conspiracies are driven by smart, indignant people who know that they have been lied to, exploring every possibility until they find the lies. I see no need to ridicule people who engage in this. If they keep digging, eventually they may latch onto something that will open a real investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:51 AM

Carol - I still don't understand the planes. IF the buildings were wired with explosives - why not just blow them up? It would be easy enough to plant some evidence putting the blame on some other group. The planes were unnecessary. The more complicated a plot is - the easier it is to fail. Why not keep it simple? Just blow up the buildings and blame whatever group you want. So - why the planes?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:28 AM

The scenario you are proposing, Teribus, is not in any way similar to what the people you think you are ridiculing have been suggesting. You are totally off the mark. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. (I expect that you won't be able to figure it out, and this is why I don't debate with you any more. I don't like to take advantage of your obviously diminished capacity.)

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 09:42 AM

Well all I can say is that there are some people on this forum I hope never, ever get in trouble with the law, based upon what they perceive as constituting "evidence" - they'd be hung in a minute.

By the bye irishenglish, I'm with you, the explanation I am waiting to hear regarding Flight 93's target, supposedly located somewhere in Washington DC is this.

"The target building had been pre-rigged as planned just like the others. Something happened and for some reason the plane didn't make it. They knew that Government Offices and Federal buildings might be subject to close protection, heightened security and random checks, so that was why there was an "Anthrax" scare to clear people out of buildings so that the "Government Bad Guys" could safely remove the explosives"

Hey GG, JTS, CarolC sound plausible to you? I came up with that in the time it took to scroll up the page - It is all complete and utter bollocks of course because that is just not how things are done.

Oh, I had a good laugh at all those plotters beavering away undisturbed 24/7 on those service floors planting explosives right, left and centre CarolC. In fact next months Monthly Departmental Meeting I am thinking of taking a print of the relevant posts in with regard to that as a discussion point, but just to set the scene, we'll take WTC7, the building that was not hit by an aircraft but had been hit by rather large chunks of one of the other Towers when it collapsed.

The building is some 23 stories tall and houses a number of different companies offices. Your task is to infiltrate undetected a team of explosives/demolitions experts into the building to place and rig tons of explosives in order to detonate and bring down that building at a pre-arranged date and time. Another part of your plan has been to similarly rig the two larger towers WTC1 and WTC2 to blow because you have arranged two fully loaded and fuelled airliners to crash into them, these operations you have timed exactly knowing months in advance the exact delays on take-off that each aircraft would be subject to. You are doing all this ostensively by the way because the buildings are too expensive to rewire electrically and you want to declare a war on somebody that you have not yet put in the frame to blame things on.

Hey is this sounding absolutely preposterous or not????

Right let's get back to WTC7 access to the building and to your service floors CarolC.

Considering the size and complexity of the building and the variety of businesses conducted inside it I would imagine that there were some pretty comprehensive procedures relating to any work being undertaken inside.

- No security considerations to be evaluated and assessed
- No HAZID undertaken
- No risk assessments carried out
- No Permit To Work System in force
- No oversight requirements
- No Third Party Verification or Warranty

Do you honestly believe that complete bloody starangers are allowed into anybodies place of work to carry out work in any way that they please completely unsupervised??? GG, JTS and CarolC you are dreaming - or watching far too many badly made movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 09:35 AM

Gee, someone left the door open again. Not often I get in here, don't have time to read all, but I see a lot of denial here in what I have read.

Mossad agents were seen filming the 9/11 event in NYC. Do a search for "Five Dancing Israelis." Picked up by local cops, released by feds. Do a google search if you want to see what the Mossad, CIA and MI-6 have admitted to in the way of terrorism and false flag operations. Killed hundreds of thousands around the world in admitted events, and you think they wouldn't do 9/11?

Took a week to launch investigations into the JFK assassination, the challenger disaster, Pearl Harbor. Took 411 days to start an investigation of 9/11, WHILE the president said it was imperative we take action. The coverup is the Achilles heel. We may never know exactly what happened on 9/11, but we can prove coverup. That's why I liked that article about the litmus test. We all know something is wrong, but who's willing to speak out about it? If you are silent or defend the govt lie, then you're a tool or a fool.

As far as wiring the WTC towers, would any of you have been able to detect the presence of Mossad specialists in coveralls in Manhattan in the weeks leading up to 9/11? The buildings were at half occupancy. Half empty.

I heard an interview a while back about certain big lies that both parties have to support, or the govt will collapse. The phony voting system is one, and 9/11 is another. That's why the traitors Pelosi, Clinton(s), etc. accept the "official" version of 9/11 history. If the attacks were revealed for what they really were, then the govt that did the deed would have to fall. So the Dems in 2006 promised to impeach, end the 9/11 wars, etc., but that was all just a lie told to get elected. 9/11 will never be investigated by the govt. But we know they are covering up, and we know they benefitted from expanding their bureacracy, and we have a good idea how the attacks were done (the govt trained the hijackers, used them as patsies, then pulled off bait-and-switch with the FAA/NORAD, then blew the targets with pre-wired explosives).

Type "False Flag Terrorism 101" into Yahoo.com for my favorite site regarding 9/11. Send it to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM

16000 posts!!   Wow!    In all sincerity, that is a wonderful thing and it shows your committment to share ideas - thoughts that everyone may not agree with, but it does start conversation and gets us all thinking.   I think that is a good job.

However, it also gets me thinking. Just think of how many hours EACH of us spend here typing. Time that we won't get back.   Do we want to spend our time knocking down others and fighting windmills. It makes me wonder and re-think my own motives for doing this.

See you later.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: irishenglish
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 04:19 PM

Can't substantiate it, Yes Carol, you are right, and I will apologize to you for saying twice that you had said there were hijackers on the plane (s). Of that, I am sincere, and will admit my error. The 16000 posts was meant to be complimentary though, and if someone ever wanted to go back to a previous post of yours, I say good luck, because thats a lot, whether you think its prolific or not!

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 04:05 PM

16000+ over a period of eight years, irishenglish. That's not particularly prolific. You said, "why would a plane that had hijackers that you say were allowed on to the plane". You stated quite unequivocally (twice) that I had said hijackers were allowed on the plane. You had no basis for making that statement, and that is why you can't substantiate it. It has nothing to do with the number of posts I've made to the Mudcat. I would suggest that you read my posts in the future before attempting to quote them.

I will answer your questions when I have some more time to devote to doing it properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: irishenglish
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 03:37 PM

Well since you are so prolific at posting on Mudcat-16000+ posts, I'll give you that one, that you never said there were actual hijackers, and admit to possibly being wrong about that one. However, can I ask you what you believe Flight 93 was supposed to be doing? Why was it turned around, was it supposed to have a target, what is the reasoning behind the suggestion (as stated in patriotsquestion9/11, a site you have referenced several other times in other posts like the Rosie O'Donnell thread) that it was shot down or blown up? Was this supposed to be a diversion somehow? I have noticed on that site that almost all of the ex-pilots interviewed give very little explanation to their own explanations for why things happened the way they did. A few of them say there is no way someone trained in a flight simulator could fly into the buildings, that it would have taken a skilled pilot to do so. That may be true, but since some of those same pilots on patriotsquestion talk about how they would never have given up the pilots chair, and the code they have the ability to transmit when they suspect a hijacking wasn't activated, then who 1) Got the existing pilots out of the way, 2)was skilled enough themselves to be able to fly a plane into a building, and 3) was willing to kill themselves in so doing? Just doesn't add up for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 01:25 PM

Where did I say that the plane had hijackers on it, irishenglish?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: irishenglish
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:14 AM

Why shot down or exploded in the air Carol? If to support your logic about all of the attacks on that day, why would a plane that had hijackers that you say were allowed on to the plane be shot down or have a bomb set off? Following your own logic, that makes no sense. If it was supposed to have a target in DC, why would it be shot down or exploded? When I posed this question, that was the type of inconsistency that I thought I might get. Your theories of the grand scheme are riddled with problems.You can't even follow through on your own conspiracy theory. Hmm, hijackers allowed on United 93 to cover up the explosives planted in some building, lets blow it up instead (after being turned around on its flight path)in rural Pennsylvania and make fake phone calls from loved ones saying goodbye. Makes no sense to me Carol, no sense, and all I get from you is, that plane didn't come down the way everybody thinks. Well tell us, tell us YOUR argument for your logic. Tell us YOUR proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:49 PM

The burden of proof lies with the people in the government who have concealed the truth. We know that witnesses have been suppressed. We know that information and evidence has been suppressed and left out of the 9/11 commission report. Many people who were working in sensitive positions in the government and military have said that their testimony was not included in the report. One of the members of the 9/11 commission resigned because of this. When someone hides evidence, lies, and covers up evidence, this is evidence of guilt, and that person (or those people) should be investigated.

The hole in the ground in PA was not consistent with the type of airline crash that was supposed to have taken place. Witnesses have said that the plane exploded while in the air. Some witnesses have said that they believe the plane was shot down.

It isn't necessary for any extra people to have been involved in order for the cell phone calls to have been faked. They have technology that makes it possible to simulate an individual's voice. One of the people who ostensibly called his mother from the plane said, "This is (first and last name), you believe me, don't you?". If he was calling his mother, why would he use his first and last name, and why would he ask her if she believed it was really him?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:41 PM

Jackie boy - get it through your thick skull - I AM NOT flatly saying it could not have happened so stop putting words in my mouth. Your lies aren't helping the discussion.

All I am saying is the probablilty of your "theory" is open to question, and you are flatly saying you are confident it happened. Yet anytime someone questions you, you are throwing out venom and misconceptions. Shame on you. You are a poor mans spin doctor. It doesn't work

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:58 PM

The burden of proof belongs to those who believe in the conspiracy. And so far no compelling proof has been offered. The official version is the simple answer. The conspiracy is ornate beyond belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM

I think the Flight 93 incident occurred much as it did as portrayed in the movies about it. I believe the relatives I believe in the heroism of those men. I certainly believe that Bin Ladin sponsored hijackers were aboard all four planes. It is the lack of scrutiny of the Saudis and Osama Bin Ladin's family that I have concerns about.

Obviously the Security at the Pentagon and other US governmental buildings is much tighter than it was at the WTC. I would bet that empty garbage containers and other shipments are searched upon entry to the Pentagon. I doubt, even now, that they are in most office buildings. The Mossad has whole US businesses as cover for their covert actions in this country. The ones who danced in glee at the destruction of the twin towers were employees of such a business. Is it so impossible for American neocons to have done the same. Do you not believe, Mr Olesko, that Americans cannot do what the Israelis can do with ease? Is it so implausible that one of those companies could not have been a low bidder on an HVAC or electrical at the WTC. I don't believe that happened. But I'd like to see it looked at by someome other than the most lying and secretive administration in this country's history.

Olesko,

I think that flatly saying "no it couldn't have happened." Is pulling data out of your ass. Now you say you have visited the building' I wonder if next you will say that you inspected the Heating and cooling ducts and other limited access areas to the frame of the building in your capacity and a special deputy security inspector on the day of the attacks. Because that is the standard of proof required for the statements you have made. I could say that I had gone through airport security for United Airlines before the attacks and saw no problems and therefor I could say that the couldn't have been weapons on those planes. I would have been wrong. You could be wrong. Your problem is there is no way for you to know what you claim to know. But you keep pulling bullshit out of your ass to try to convince the gullible that you indeed believe that you can know the unknowable.


"I love how people throw around the word "evidence" without any substance in fact."

Look at this, more ridicule, without the slightest hint of self awareness. You don't even use the word evidence for your ass facts. You just flatly state that you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:43 PM

I'll bet the hole in the ground was faked too. Maybe the Army Corp of Engineers dug it during the night. Or maybe it was a faked photo. It just gets harder and harder to believe that it could have been anything other than what it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: irishenglish
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:56 PM

Ahh, the numbers of people involved grows and grows to include housewives and parents faking stories of the last calls they received from their loved ones. I bet those were all fake tears as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:50 PM

Okay. That ends that discussion.

I love how people throw around the word "evidence" without any substance in fact.