Who was in on the inside job ?

BasqueArch said:
Another example of a conspiracy that could not be kept secret, leaving behind large amounts of evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the Berlin Wall came down, East Germany collapsed, East Germans ransacked Stasi headquarters and the Stasi themselves dissolved. Huge victory for the freedom of information that would have stayed in the shadows.
 
Last edited:
Georgio said:
Are there really no credible 9/11 'inside job' whistleblowers?
Click to expand...
Only in the minds filled with fantasy of 911 truth followers.

No, not one. Like Gage's fake "experts" spewing lies about 911, there are no "inside job" whistleblowers, because there is no "inside job" except in the delusional mind of Gage and his followers. Does Gage have any fake whistleblowers like he has fake "experts".

The fantasy USAF standdown would be exposed the same day. Why does 911 truth think such evil in their fellow citizens; is it because 911 truth followers are capable of such evil themselves.
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
Yeah, because the Berlin Wall came down, East Germany collapsed, East Germans ransacked Stasi headquarters and the Stasi themselves dissolved. Huge victory for the freedom of information that would have stayed in the shadows.
Click to expand...

And once again you're evading the issue - that a plot of this size requires many people and cannot tolerate a failure to recruit.

Answer that point, eh? At the moment I'm heading towards the conclusion that you just like seeing your disputative words in print.
 
Jango said:
:rolleyes: Tell me about it. I've been trying my level best to keep folks like Mr. Utah on the straight and narrow. ;)
Click to expand...

By avoiding my arguments?

Whether you meant to misquote Robert Walpole, his words are accidentally relevant. What have you done to ascertain the sincerity and motivations of the people yelling that 9/11 was an inside job? See, the big difference between your approach and the rational-skepticism approach is that we weigh the likelihood on both sides that there may be ulterior motives. The conspiracy-theory approach presupposes implicitly that "The Government" is invariably evil while conspiracy authors and advocates are presupposed to be invariably altruistic and honest. The notion that these authors might just be making stuff up or throwing around pointless rhetoric in order to be "rock stars" to a paranoid and gullible audience doesn't seem to factor into your analysis.
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
...that would have stayed in the shadows.
Click to expand...

But for exactly the kind of grass-roots rebellion that dooms every large-scale deception eventually.

Your carrot-and-stick argument is a tautology. And you conceded the shades-of-grey argument.

Let's be clear. You're insinuating that we're politically naive because we cannot imagine how can airtight secret could be kept for so long by so many people not ordinarily required to do such things. So we ask you to describe how to do it.

You can't.

So let's put this back into perspective. Most people simply weigh the likelihood that the events of 9/11 unfolded substantially as discovered and reported against the likelihood that a wholly different, sinister set of events transpired which has remained entirely secret despite involving thousands of civil servants. For most people not steeped to the gills in conspiracy theories, that's a pretty easy choice to make.
 
JayUtah said:
But for exactly the kind of grass-roots rebellion that dooms every large-scale deception eventually.

Your carrot-and-stick argument is a tautology. And you conceded the shades-of-grey argument.

Let's be clear. You're insinuating that we're politically naive because we cannot imagine how can airtight secret could be kept for so long by so many people not ordinarily required to do such things. So we ask you to describe how to do it.

You can't.

So let's put this back into perspective. Most people simply weigh the likelihood that the events of 9/11 unfolded substantially as discovered and reported against the likelihood that a wholly different, sinister set of events transpired which has remained entirely secret despite involving thousands of civil servants. For most people not steeped to the gills in conspiracy theories, that's a pretty easy choice to make.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't take "thousands-and-thousands" to accomplish LIHOP.

There is little discussion about the political aspect of 9/11, which involves other topics like the humanities and history, in comparison the bulk of the conversation existing in the technical realm, and upon mostly clearly invented storylines I.e. disinformation, like no victims, nukes in the Towers and no planes to name a few. It would take thousands-and-thousands to accomplish the overwhelming vast majority of any MIHOP argument.

That reality does not fit so firmly with LIHOP.

Let me give you an example.

MIHOP: There were no planes used on 9/11 whatsoever.
Response: There is a lot of videos and photographs of the planes hitting the Twin Towers. That's two planes captured by empirical evidence. We do not live in The Truman Show or They Live where 9/10 people are all conspiring together.

That's an easy claim to actually and truly 'debunk'.

This not one isn't.

From the August 6th, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief:

FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Click to expand...

&

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
Click to expand...

Applying rudimentary levels of critical thinking or skepticism should come into play as it would with anything else that we read or encounter. Like, what else do we know about the quoted. I don't recall ever seeing any type of information about '70 full-field F.B.I. investigations' or how the F.B.I. come into possession of information regarding the awareness of 'patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.'

There is no readily available answer for those ergo it is an unanswered question.

Ask yourself why would they keep this information out of the limelight and why would the press not press them to answer those rudimentary questions I.e. rudimentary skepticism. As has been demonstrated, over 100 of so-called debunkers such as yourself are so stubborn that you refuse to accept the logical choice because of ideological conflict, or, other reasons perhaps ;)
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
It wouldn't take "thousands-and-thousands" to accomplish LIHOP.
Click to expand...

Naked assertion.

There is little discussion about the political aspect of 9/11...
Click to expand...

This is your standard phrase when retreating from the facts. Whenever one of your ideas bumps up against reality, you just throw down the "political knowledge" card and pretend that trumps the trick.

Nope.

So how many people does your 9/11 LIHOP require? Your answer is not complete without a method for computing the number.
 
You skipped a whole bunch there, many reasonable points, like, MIHOP is slammed shut because of the overwhelmingly unprovable and/or obvious disinformation/mental illness, but LIHOP is not dismissed out-of-hand so easily. One of the reasons for that is that we don't know a whole bunch about the different concepts and contexts we've been exposed to, like the two I mentioned:
information about '70 full-field F.B.I. investigations' or how the F.B.I. come into possession of information regarding the awareness of 'patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.'
Click to expand...
A giant ? exists there.

Why is the default position, griped so absolutely by yourself and 100's of the other folks here, that nothing of note is mentioned within those documents, let alone, anything that would change any level of what happened or how it happened.

That default position does not possess a shred of skepticism, let alone, the logical default position to have.

Of course, you don't nor do any of the 100's want to discuss any of this at any real level anyway, which is why so much is so constantly ignored or dismissed out of hand. It didn't take very long to realize what that means. If you actually had superior arguments or an evidentiary foundation that answered the questions above and all of the other ones that exist in the open...but you don't, can't and won't. The obvious, for obvious reasons, obviously can't be obviously discussed, let alone, admitted to because of how obvious it is because of the obvious nature of it. ;)
 
Jango said:
You skipped a whole bunch there...
Click to expand...

On purpose, because your argument depends on the unproven first sentence. Prove the premise, and then we can begin. Otherwise we're no farther along than you pulling "quotes" from a dark orifice.

Of course, you don't nor do any of the 100's want to discuss any of this at any real level anyway...
Click to expand...

Sour grapes. If you can't or won't present your argument, then please have the courtesy not to blame your critics for it.
 
Fonebone said:
Perhaps Addison is more accurate and concise ....

"_Gold is a wonderful clearer of the understanding;
it dissipates every doubt and scruple in an instant;
accommodates itself to the meanest capacities;
silences the loud and clamorous, and cringes over the most obstinate
and inflexible_
A man who is furnished with arguments from the mint, will convince his
antagonist much sooner than one who draws them from reason and philosophy."
Click to expand...

BasqueArch said:
Since arguments from reason and philosophy do not convince you, and gold would, what is the price that would convince you. How much.
Click to expand...

It can be noted that it need not be a perpetrator covering up his crime by paying a gold price for the silence of others. History is chock-a-block with examples of persons willing to take advantage of situations ,and use lies and deceit to line their own pockets.
Not sure about fonebone but an argument could be made that for Gage the price is $80,000 per year.
 
Jango said:
.
There is little discussion about the political aspect of 9/11, which involves other topics like the humanities and history
Click to expand...
It's fairly obvious you have done very little research on these topics, otherwise you would know by now how quite improbable LIHOP would have been able to be pulled off.


Applying rudimentary levels of critical thinking or skepticism should come into play as it would with anything else that we read or encounter. Like, what else do we know about the quoted. I don't recall ever seeing any type of information about '70 full-field F.B.I. investigations' or how the F.B.I. come into possession of information regarding the awareness of 'patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.'
Click to expand...
The reason you wouldn't find any information on 70 full-field FBI investigations because it turned out to be a gross exaggeration. This can exemplified by the Phoenix Memo, which was a smoking gun but got buried because of the systematic failings of the intelligence community. Because of this gross exaggeration, the Bush Administration let its guard down, because as Bush himself put it, he felt assured the FBI was on top of everything when the exact opposite was true.
As far as the surveillance of federal buildings in New York, it was looked into at that time, and turned out to be Yemeni tourists taking pictures. Time magazine uncovered this even before the 9/11 commission report came out.
This type of information isn't readily available from Google University. You're going to really have to crack some books open if you are really serious about the political side of the argument. These books are all independently researched, some by Pulitzer Prize winning authors who traveled the world interviewing and researching. Here, in my opinion are the essentials (there are more of course): Ghost Wars, Perfect Soldiers, Spying Blind, Looming Tower, The Shadow Factory, The Bin Ladens,The Commision, and Terror In The Name of God. Only a couple of truthers on this forum have read any of these books, and they have grossly misinterpreted the content. But if if you read these books objectively, you will see just how improbable LIHOP is, in fact, approaching impossible.
In short, 9/11 happened because of an archaic, bureaucratic system that didn't encourage sharing of intelligence. And for the most part, administrators and most agents were still locked into their old ways and never adapted to new ways to fight terrorism (for example, the head of the FBI, Louis Freeh, had his computer removed from his office in 1998).
 
Last edited:
TexasJack said:
It's fairly obvious you have done very little research on these topics, otherwise you would know by now how quite improbable LIHOP would have been able to be pulled off.


The reason you wouldn't find any information on 70 full-field FBI investigations because it turned out to be a gross exaggeration. This can exemplified by the Phoenix Memo, which was a smoking gun but got buried because of the systematic failings of the intelligence community. Because of this gross exaggeration, the Bush Administration let its guard down, because as Bush himself put it, he felt assured the FBI was on top of everything when the exact opposite was true.
As far as the surveillance of federal buildings in New York, it was looked into and turned out to be Yemeni tourists taking pictures. Time magazine uncovered this even before the 9/11 commission report came out.
This type of information isn't readily available from Google University. You're going to really have to crack some books open if you are really serious about the political side of the argument. These books are all independently researched, some by Pulitzer Prize winning authors who traveled the world interviewing and researching. Here, in my opinion are the essentials (there are more of course): Ghost Wars, Perfect Soldiers, Spying Blind, Looming Tower, The Shadow Factory, The Bin Ladens, and Terror In The Name of God. Only a couple of truthers on this forum have read any of these books, and they have grossly misinterpreted the content. But if if you read these books objectively, you will see just how improbable LIHOP is, in fact, approaching impossible.
In short, 9/11 happened because of an archaic, bureaucratic system that didn't encourage sharing of intelligence. And for the most part, administrators and most agents were still locked into their old ways and never adapted to new ways to fight terrorism (for example, the head of the FBI, Louis Freeh, had his computer removed from his office in 1998).
Click to expand...

One of the best anti-LIHOP "political" data points comes from Clarke in Against All Enemies:
Later, on the evening of the 12th, I left the video conferencing center and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all . . . but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."
Click to expand...
 
BasqueArch said:
Since arguments from reason and philosophy do not convince you, and gold would, what is the price that would convince you. How much.
Click to expand...

Its a very good question for those who believe that everyone can be bought off to either keep silent or actually put forth information they know to be wrong.

I'd like to know if Jango, fonebone and Georgio can tell us if there is an amount of money they could be bought with in order to simp!y proclaim they are no longer in any doubt that 19 fundamentalist Islamic terrorists hijacked four aircraft on suicide missions , and that the result, directly or indirectly, was the destruction of the entire WTC complex including the complete leveling of three of those buildings on the day of the attack, the deaths of 3000 people, a big hole in the Pentagon, and the loss of an aircraft and occupants in a crash into a field in Pennsylvania? Of course this must buy their compliance for at least 15 years, but it need not require them to post on any forum after the first year. They can simply ignore the entire topic after that one year only proclaiming their feigned acceptance of the "official story" if directly asked.

I am not asking for a specific number, just whether or not there is such a number.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
One of the best anti-LIHOP "political" data points comes from Clarke in Against All Enemies:
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, which reminded me to edit my comment to add the book The Commission. It took an objective, critical look at the 9/11 Commission, especially Phillip Zelikow (who I still think should have not have been the executive director because his association with Condi Rice, but apparently, according to some insiders, did an excellent administrative job) because he pushed for the Saddam angle, and failed because there was no evidence (some think Zelikow didn't push hard enough because he got snubbed by Bush, expecting a cabinet spot that never materialized) It just demonstrates how hard Bush wanted to oust Saddam from the beginning. It would be WMDs, and Saddam's stubbornness not allowing inspections, not 9/11, that launched the Iraq War.
 
Last edited:
@jaydeehess - I don't think I said anything about money. I was talking about how people can be persuaded to do something they have a moral objection to. No money needs to be involved.
 
Given the political mudslinging down in politics, one other matter worthy of mention is if there was an element of LIHOP that was BIG, I'd bet money that there would be a partisan's wet dream to put the other on the hook - especially if it doubled out as not only beneficial politically, but also proven beyond a doubt to have taken place. I've seen some of this on the incompetence factor of the attacks and in criticism of the Iraq war, but thus far, as heavy as the political slinging has historically been for the last decade or more, none has set any focus on the attacks having taken place internally. The CT leanings seem to think that the political parties would necessarily have to be in on in all the way... but then, the current state of affairs in politics would not appear to support this.
 
The problem with most of the MIHOP/LIHOP discussion is that both "sides" persist in treating the "I" - "It" - as singular - as if "IT" was ONE coherent single thing that was Made or Let happen. Neither of those are realistic. Nor is the concept of a single master plan or single control point for Making or Letting

But it is well nigh certain that in a large multi agency involvement over a complex set of issues both before and after 9/11 there would have been lots of parts of the overall action - sub parts which were LIHOP and as near certainly MIHOP...

And there would without any doubt have been bits of LIHOOI scattered across the whole management of the event. Just state the argument in the reverse - it would be ridiculous to claim there was no single bit of LIHOOI.

And inter agency territory protection and rivalries one of the biggest areas of failure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom