What really happened ....11 september

This topic deserves serious discussion so I'm finding all the useful facts I can. An exerpt follows:
As a side note to this Vice President Dick Cheney also showed up at the Roswell base to make a speech in 1992. Cheney has long been rumored to be an inside player on the critical information such as crashed saucers, so I have put him in my "UFO Most Wanted" deck as the King of Clubs.
The White House Role in Crashed UFO Retrieval.
My final story is a key story dealing with the role in the inside workings of the UFO story as it applies to Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney has held many key government positions, has been tied into the military industrial complex for years, and has been the focal point of many stories dealing with Area 51 and crashed saucers.

In April 2001, just after entering the White House I had a chance to question Cheney on UFOs. He was on the Diane Rehm talk show announcing that the U.S. had just recovered a plane from China that the Chinese had shot down claiming to be a spy plane. Cheney was in a victorious mood, until the questions started. I was first up with the UFO question and all the rest of the questions were on Halliburton. I don’t think he has appeared on an open-line talk show since.

The question I asked him was the key question of briefings. Because of his background I wanted to know if he had been involved in anything official dealing with the UFO subject, defined by the question of whether anyone had every walked in his office and given him a briefing. The Q&A went as follows,

Question: Good morning. Mr. Cheney, I have a question. Since a statement made by George Bush last July there has been a vicious rumor in the UFO community that you have been "read-in" to the UFO program. My question to you is, in any of your government jobs have you ever been briefed on the subject of UFOs, and if you have when was it and what were you told?

Cheney: Well, if I had been briefed on that, I am sure it would have been classified, and I couldn’t talk about it.

Host question: Is there an investigation going on within this administration Mr. Vice President with regards to UFOs?

Cheney: Um…I have not come across the subject since I’ve been back – I guess it’s January 20th. I’ve been in a lot of meetings but I don’t recall one on UFOs.

Cheney has always been considered to be a smart man, but he slipped up on this answer. This is probably because he was not expecting the question.

The government has always stated that all UFO material has been released, and there is no cover-up. Cheney however clearly stated that the subject was "probably classified.’ If it is classified, there are documents. If there are documents the government has not released them, and we have been lied to. There is a cover-up.
 

Attachments

Quote from Haroki:

Ahhh, see now this COULD be much more likely to happen...

However, you still have the problem with leaks. You know, Bush and the boys aren't out there gathering intel themselves, right?

Again, using Occam, which is most likely and less complicated.

1. Gov't was incompetent in stopping 9/11.

or

2. The gov't knew fully well what was gonna happen, but EVERYONE that knew the full story is saying nothing.
More...
"False Flag" ops have been going on throughout history.....#1 and #2 are not the only choices............

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm
 
Quote from Haroki:

From Wiki:

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

So now I guess it comes down to what was less complicated.....

1. Terrorists decide to teach America a lesson-they decide to fly planes into buildings.
2.they come to America and take some flying lessons. they can't take off and land for shit , but they can fly...
3.US intelligence isn't able to talk the FBI to prevent it-Gorelick's little contribution.
4. and anyways, being in the US and taking flying lessons isn't against the law, so it would be dificult to arrest them anyway.
5. they succed, the buildings burn enough to warp the joists, causing failure of 1, then 2,3,4 joists. and a chainreaction results that brings down all 3 , similarly built buildings.

or

1.Neocons decide they need a new PH to enact the changes that will result in some mystical new world order where they will be able to control everyone's life , with the help of Mossad, the International Zionists Bankers Union, etc, etc...
2.they also decide they need to invade Iraq to secure its' oil. and hey let's throw up a smoke screen in Afghanistan too to hide our true intentions of wanting to line the pockets of our oil buddies. so don't forget to incriminate al-quaeda
3.let's wire up all 3 buildings now with explosives, but be sure to drop then in their own footprints, because we want to minimize the losses. and besides, according to our demo experts, all buildings fall that way, so it shouldn't cause any suspicion..
4.ok boys, we're gonna power down WTC 1and 2 for 5 days, get Jeb's advice on how to fix it up, after all, he was part owner of a security frm that worked there once.
5. let's go wire it up, it should only take us 2-300 guys to get it done in 5 days? good, we're the govt, and we're not what others think we are and so it shouldn't be a problem. and oh yeah, nobody can ever leak it out, like what's happening over at that damn CIA every other week...
6. shoot, we forgot about the people on the plane. well let's buy them off, we're sure that none of them ever want to see their family again. get them to make some fake phone calls too...
7. ok , we wired them up 5,6,7 days ago, let's wait until Tuesday to blow it. that way, it's all day monday for some janitor to find our explosives. and if they don't, we're good.....
8. do we have the remote controls all ready on the planes? good. do we have some passports and body parts from the people we paid off to throw around at the crash sites? good.
9. looks like we're good to go.....

When you look at the entire plan there, it kinda falls apart using Occam, eh?
More...
good post.
yet, i ask another question and maybe therefore get
a different answer. the question is, if something looks
very much similar to a controlled demolition, why not
discuss openly with those who think it was one?
or more precise: if something looks like something,
why not first of all assume it is that something?
for occam: well, if you blow up all the assumptions
you need for one alternative and reduce the number
of assumptions for the other, old william will see that
as a distortion of his initial idea. so in your post it is
5:9 in favour of arabian terrorists.

but no real offense intended. the law was not designed
for issues of this kind.

what really puzzles me, is that both sides have serious
intelligent people on their side (i do not mean charlie
sheen in particular), yet they are heavily bashing the
other side. really amazing to see this phenomena. my
explanation is that our consciousness works in a way
that blocks out information, that does not fit with the
overall belief, from being processed at all. really strange.
and alex jones is very strange to me either. i mean
he is obviously intelligent, engages heavily on a very
personal level, and he sees enemies literally everywhere.
an aunt of mine (a true nazi btw) is like that as well.
from auschwitz lie to moon hoax to 911 inside job,
she buys it all at face value. really strange.

an' me, the indecisive? i am still looking for that real
big conspiracy that i truly believe. BTW i heard of a
french paper on UFOs out of recent years with claims
by high class professionals for further investigation ...
:)
 
Quote from man:

good post.
yet, i ask another question and maybe therefore get
a different answer. the question is, if something looks
very much similar to a controlled demolition, why not
discuss openly with those who think it was one?
or more precise: if something looks like something,
why not first of all assume it is that something?
for occam: well, if you blow up all the assumptions
you need for one alternative and reduce the number
of assumptions for the other, old william will see that
as a distortion of his initial idea. so in your post it is
5:9 in favour of arabian terrorists.

but no real offense intended. the law was not designed
for issues of this kind.

what really puzzles me, is that both sides have serious
intelligent people on their side (i do not mean charlie
sheen in particular), yet they are heavily bashing the
other side. really amazing to see this phenomena. my
explanation is that our consciousness works in a way
that blocks out information, that does not fit with the
overall belief, from being processed at all. really strange.
and alex jones is very strange to me either. i mean
he is obviously intelligent, engages heavily on a very
personal level, and he sees enemies literally everywhere.
an aunt of mine (a true nazi btw) is like that as well.
from auschwitz lie to moon hoax to 911 inside job,
she buys it all at face value. really strange.

an' me, the indecisive? i am still looking for that real
big conspiracy that i truly believe. BTW i heard of a
french paper on UFOs out of recent years with claims
by high class professionals for further investigation ...
:)
More...

Good to see that you discount Charlie Sheen :D :D

And your views on how we can block out information that doesn't fit our beliefs is right on the money. Probably why this issue is so contentious, given the emotions behind it.... As for myself, I'd never even HEARD of a CT angle before about 6 months ago. And at first, it sounded like it would have some validity to it, even though some of the science they were using didn't seem correct to me. But then somebody here posted those links I gave you and after reviewing them, I could see how wrong a lot of their points were, and how they were full of misqoutes and omissions,etc. Don't know about you, but I'm always suspicious of the validity of someones' claims (beliefs?) when they use that kind of tactics........

I don't think that there's ever been a face to face meeting per se : besides, could you imagine what kind of melee would result, especially if you judge it by what happens here on these boards and by demonstrations at Ground Zero??? Nothing would be discussed, just a bunch of shouting....

Anyways, gov't investigators have looked for traces of explosives, and they haven't found any. They've found traces of sulfur, which is in explosives I believe, and the CTers will use this as evidence..... but sulfur (CaSO4) is also present in the dry wall used - a point that they refuse to acknowledge .

And that's by far the problem I have with theCTers - They HAVE to be aware that sulfur is present in drywall, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that and other facts when they write their theories.

And as you've noticed, some (none here though) of the CTers ARE highly intelligent people, so what is the explanation for this kind of omission? Of the several I can think of, they all influence me to believe that they're in it for personal gain on some level, be it power or wealth.

And good God, don't bring up French UFO's here, it'll just set some of these guys off to start a new thread about THAT !! :D :D
 
Haroki

i see your points. but i doubt that a serious deabte in
form of a grand jury (don't know if that would be a proper
forum in legal terms) could not at all bring up a serious
discussion. i mean there have been discussion on wide
ranges of controversial issues, so there are ways to
handle it. essentially each trial is such a "discussion"
and usually they work out without to extensive shouting.
one of the two links (not the "...debunked..." i think)
had some flaws to me. one of them the attempt to
prove that it would have taken too much explosives
to bring them down. i mean that is a weak position
when you simultaneously claim that they were not
brought down by explosives at all. plus i would think
that demolition experts should be able to bring down
the buildings. but i write these things now from top
of my head - unable to start a serious debate. and for
myself i have already decided that i'd better shut up
with all this thermite bakc and forth since i have really
no clue about these things and need to rely on other
people's opinion.

i said earlier that i love conspiracies, just have not
yet found one i believe in. all weak positions. as the
captain's questions to cheney. well yeah, could be
that he responded this way because he hides something,
could as well be that you just was not prepared and
uttered some sentences that leave room for interpretation.
no offense here, captain, just for an outsider the
dialogue as it turned out can truly have different
reasons. and only one of them is that he actively
hides something. don't get me wrong: it sounds
strange that he does not remember such an event,
which should draw attention, even his, even among
many other appointments. nevertheless, nothing
but smoke ... i find this french thing more interesting.

saw some docu on crop circles. seems to be some
serious people looking at these. yet the problem with
all of this is, that if the reps can influence public
opinion via a media "bill o reilly", well then every
cover up is possible ...
 
there is a guy leaving highly classified material on the
table and another guy picks it up and starts to study
it? aha.
then there is a lieutanent giving out information on the
most classified material possible, yet nobody knows who
he is?
and all this comes up after full five years have passed
by? and none of the other guys who heard that went
public? and why? because it was an order? an everybody
ignored that it was illegal and the respective soldier
bringing it up did not need to fear prosecution?
so in essence at NORAD itself at least a dozen people
knew for sure minutes after second impact that this
was a conspiracy done by the american government
against the american people and nobody said anything
for five years? at least: hard to swallow. alex jones
does not seem to have a problem with it. well he makes
money on this kind of information. he does not have
to stand straight for its correctness ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top