|
New 9/11 Documentary, The peoples voice. (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lagrangian |
| quote: | The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.
Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.
Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.
It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc. |
Library of Congress [SOURCE HERE] |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
That's a great video because it really does showcase the religious "faith" mentality of the conspiracy. This Veitch guy provides a series of rational explanations for everything and the other guy just goes back to some gut feeling - "It just feels impossible to me". The feeling comes first and everything - the motive, the evidence - is reverse engineered around that.
If you apply any logic at all, none of the 9/11 theory makes sense. Why would the American government need to demolish the towers, or hit the Pentagon with a missile, smuggle away all the plane passengers, kill them and dispose of their bodies, make the building fall in a certain direction, and so on and on and on? They could create the shock, awe and fear required just by planting pilots or operatives on the planes and flying them into the building. Hundreds die, public landmarks are ruined on international television, a state of fear is created. Or why even fly planes? Just blow the building up and claim it was a successful bombing - Al Qaeda had already tried it once in the 1990s. You don't even have to pick it apart point by point - it's just utterly ludicrous to mock up the scenario in such a ridiculously complex manner. The same result could be achieved with so much more simplicity and infallability. But of course, then there'd be no real evidence, nothing to work off. It'd be simply too plausible.
It all starts with a feeling - paranoid emotion, embodied in a visual image. The guy is right. It's exactly like a religion. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| Yeah for sure. None of it makes sense on any level whatsoever. THIS study found that people that believed in conspiracies were more likely to do so because they themselves would act in a similar way as perceived conspirators (if they ever got off the couch and moved out of home that is). |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
My ing god, I can't believe this is still going.
There's only two valid points int he entire steaming pile of conspiarcies:
1, Certain people knew this was going to happen and either ignored it, or were happy to let it take place. There have been several documents and statements from those in the CIA and FBI that something was impending but the upper chain inexplicably did nothing about it. It could of course be grand ineptitude on a massive scale but the opposing possibility is just as credible.
2, At least one of the planes was shot down. I personally never had any doubt about the pentagon plane crashing but the last plane I am not so sure about.
I will never forget watching TV that morning when I was living on the east coast, seeing it all happen live (switched on 10 seconds before the 2nd plane hit). As I jumped to different channels later that day I happened on a small local news broadcast and saw a live interview with the farmer that owned the field where the last plane crashed 30 minutes before.
His words were "I saw it coming down, belly facing up, with smoke billowing from the underside"
I have never been able to find a recording or a transcript of that interview. Then within about 48 hours, the "Let's Roll" story started to emerge.
I believe that last plane was shot down. By that time, they knew it wasn't an accident, that two major targets had been hit and they could clearly see the flight path.
The story of it being taken by passengers was bearable, migs taking it down was not.
That is the sum total of government involvement. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
but the opposing possibility is just as credible. |
no it isn't.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
2, At least one of the planes was shot down. I personally never had any doubt about the pentagon plane crashing but the last plane I am not so sure about.
I will never forget watching TV that morning when I was living on the east coast, seeing it all happen live (switched on 10 seconds before the 2nd plane hit). As I jumped to different channels later that day I happened on a small local news broadcast and saw a live interview with the farmer that owned the field where the last plane crashed 30 minutes before.
His words were "I saw it coming down, belly facing up, with smoke billowing from the underside"
I have never been able to find a recording or a transcript of that interview. Then within about 48 hours, the "Let's Roll" story started to emerge.
I believe that last plane was shot down. By that time, they knew it wasn't an accident, that two major targets had been hit and they could clearly see the flight path.
The story of it being taken by passengers was bearable, migs taking it down was not.
That is the sum total of government involvement. |
i too remember reading that quote, but all the evidence points to flight 93 crashing on its own. no airforce planes ever made contact with 93. that's proven fact. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
[IMG][/IMG]
|
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no it isn't.
|
Well, it is. In our haste to quell the quagmire of bull that is 9/11 conspiracy theories, let's not exclude or even forget a few decades of very well documented (and officially conceded) coverups ranging from covert action to document tampering, to witness suppression over the last century.
(Pentagon papers, Susan McDougal, the 45 minute claim etc).
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i too remember reading that quote, but all the evidence points to flight 93 crashing on its own. no airforce planes ever made contact with 93. that's proven fact. |
Actually, it's not. That's just what the norad records state (and yes, I've read the entire thing).
This, if it did happen, is the first and only apparent instance in US history of a civilian aircraft being taken down for the greater protection. I doubt, that if it did happen, they are going to send a Mig with a nice big Star Spangled across the tail and record the data of the whole thing.
The problem is, many people said they saw at least one other plane in the sky near flight 93, when every single plane had already been ordered to land at the nearest airport (and there was no airport nearby). Also, if migs had been scrambled for the other planes but got there too late, why wouldn't they have done the same for the last plane which happened later and had more time to react to?
It simply doesn't make sense. Grand, mass scale ineptitude again?
This quite eloquently sums up the inconsistencies, not to mention states the clear fact that at least the decision HAD been made:
| quote: | Well-founded uncertainty as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.
That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.
Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down.
On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration’s clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.
Vice President Cheney: “Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.”
NBC’s Tim Russert: “And you decided?”
Cheney: “We decided to do it. We’d, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time …
“It doesn’t do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don’t give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it’s appropriate.”
Russert: “So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?”
Cheney: “Yes. The president made the decision … that if the plane would not divert … as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that’s a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You’ve got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by … terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?
“… It’s a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we’d had combat air patrol up over New York.’”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28200/#q5CjqyKUi5Kz2X2u.99 |
|
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| MiGs are Russian aircraft. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
MiGs are Russian aircraft. |
EXACTLY. EXACTLY. |
|
|
|
|
