9/11 was NOT an inside job!

[One Spliff]

What did you think was gonna happen? JFK was gonna get rid of the federal reserve? Nothing that he's done or was planning to do gives us any reason to believe that he would have even tried to, and it wouldn't have been successful. JFK was not a great political wrangler like LBJ was. Stop talking about things you don't know about. Niggas take a fleeting note in a debate and run with it.

for a nigga with such a big head, you're pretty dumb.

 

[Jonas.dini]

Lot of misconceptions out there about what the Fed does and how it operates.

 

[VIBE]

Lot of misconceptions out there about what the Fed does and how it operates.

Thanks to movies, books and the imagination of people.

Some how they're always so corrupt they murder thousands of people. They plan all that happens and nothing actually exists, it's all an illusion of false flag operations. Illuminati exists and controls all media to brain wash everyone. There's secret handshakes and poses to show you they are in this thing. They drink "blood" out of skulls as a ritual for something. Any music artis, actor/actress or higher ups that die were taken out because they were gonna spill the beans or were a sacrifice.

Even though its all a big secret some how they know who's in it and know ranks. Some how agendas are known as well. So much for secrets.

 

[Jonas.dini]

isn't the fed just a separate section of gov. that basically charges to produce bills?

In essence.

The stated goal of the fed is to stabilize prices and minimize unemployment, but within the context of the current crisis it is primarily focused on saving the banks, both in the US and abroad, by passing out loans to banks at very low interest rates, which in theory has two interconnected effects: (1) it encourages the banks to lend at low interest rates and (2) it creates a situation where banks are able to make money hand over fist and thereby drag themselves back into a state of solvency.

Other activities the Fed does are to buy bonds and then put that money out into the US economy (quantitative easing) and buy toxic assets from banks to help them clear their balance sheets.

It is a separate section of gov in the sense that it does have a great deal of autonomy, which is a controversy related to the Fed. Some people argue that the Fed should be subject to congressional oversight, but the counter to that point is that the congress would just politicize monetary policy like they have fiscal policy and then the gov would really have no means of intervening in markets (whole nother controversy over whether the government should be doing market intervention, but that's probably a matter better left to another thread).

I'm not a fan of all these policies btw, a lot of it is reckless as hell imo and has all kinds of problematic ramifications, especially when that's the only sort of stimulus going on since the federal government won't do any real fiscal stimulus.

 

[janklow]

How does a large number of people saying something make it less credible?

in this case in would be more about "ridiculous people saying it makes it less credible." it's long-asserted hyperbole

JFK was murdered. Clear indication someone wanted him dead.

"clear indication that someone wanted him dead" and "he was wanted dead for some seemingly important reason" are not the same thing

 

[One Spliff]

"clear indication that someone wanted him dead" and "he was wanted dead for some seemingly important reason" are not the same thing

u realise wat u jus said makes absolutely no sesne, right ?

assassinating a president is'nt like playing a round of golf or cooking an egg, obviously there was an important reason as to why they murked him.

bunch of fucking clowns in the social lounge...

the IC never changes.

 

[VIBE]

So since it is thought JFK was assassinated on the inside, who was it? His wife right next to him? And why was he killed because he had to have been?

If you have no answers to that you cannot claim or even speculated he was assassinated, since yOu have no additional info to back up any claims made.

 

[VIBE]

First I said assassinated on the inside, second I didn't specify and only one without normal reading comprehension cannot figure out what I meant. I never said he wasn't assassinated, I know he was. I'm speaking out on the theory of it being someone that's on the inside. Why was he and who was it? If you cannot answer that you cannot theorize he was assassinated by someone on the inside, period.

Also, The YouTube comment, did he post links for proof? One way or another there would be proof, whether it be from our side or theirs. I'm guessing since they finally figured out all theories were making them look stupid they finally came up with another lame theory.

 

[rapluva]

First I said assassinated on the inside, second I didn't specify and only one without normal reading comprehension cannot figure out what I meant. I never said he wasn't assassinated, I know he was. I'm speaking out on the theory of it being someone that's on the inside. Why was he and who was it? If you cannot answer that you cannot theorize he was assassinated by someone on the inside, period.

Also, The YouTube comment, did he post links for proof? One way or another there would be proof, whether it be from our side or theirs. I'm guessing since they finally figured out all theories were making them look stupid they finally came up with another lame theory.

We know that there aregangs/drug gangs and what not, and they have secrfets, but those secrets still came out, well this is the same thing, only much bigger and powerful.

 

[dan_the_man.com]

I didn't notice you had said inside. Disregard what I said about your statement.

As for that youtube comment he didnt cite any sources. Doesn't mean it is not a possibility though.

On another note, I've read that Al-Qaeda does not exist. Apparently there is no such organization going by Al-Qaeda. There's an interesting BBC clip i watched that touched on that. (it was from the 'power of nightmares' doc)

adam curtis i believe thats his name..

them shits changed the way i look at the world..

 

[Jonas.dini]

That docu (which is dope btw) contends that the US government named the group in absentee in order to prosecute it under rico laws... watch the whole thing, actually it is a series of three documentaries, you can find all three on Google vids, but it very much does document that the group exists and charts its history

 

[BitchIWillSlapU]

others can't prove it was and you can't prove that is wasn't

I think it is more to that entire thing then just a few Terrorist Hijacking a Plane and Flying It Into A Building

I feel sorry for the people who still trust and believe and their Government and actually THINK that your Government won't SACRIFICE the life of you or your family if they really had to.

 

[h8rhurta]

George Bush said nothing but terrorist did this, I can easily believe that because it is indeed true and the proof they have. Lists, passports found and video surveillance, what more do you need now? Bodies? Sorry, they were burnt up.

Even though the 9/11 Commission Report has it's flaws, which are expected, it tells us the story. We watched it unfold with our own eyes, we hear the truth from survivors and witness's. We can believe them because the evidence backs it up. I am not supposed to "play the game on both sides" because I do not need to prove this or that, you need to prove all this "inside job", "demolition/fake_____" shit because I don't need to when it doesn't exist. It's non-existence and extreme lack of evidence disproves itself yet you turn a blind eye to that and play "wack-a-mole", once answered and given a truly logical answer which you can research too, you pop up with another question, and another, and another, and another. What about this, that, this, that.

The real truth has no claims to make, the evidence was there on 9/11. The CT have claims they made which state something else took place, they need to prove it. We need physical proof. Every year it's the same shit, "there's such strong evidence for these demolitions", if so, then take it to court. Why hasn't there been a big move? No gathering of evidence, no gathering of facts, just claims which hold nothing and that's it. Holding on to claims every year yet haven't seen ONE test done to prove them right, haven't seen one artifact brought forth. Haven't seen anything, but a point, look and see?

He also said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that was the whole pretense of going to Iraq and killing Saddam. So do you pick and choose which parts you believe or which "facts" fit? I'm pretty sure they're not going to tell the people that they were involved IF THAT'S THE CASE. Just as I'm sure they're not going to discuss their true reasons for invading Iraq. Would you put it past the government? It's not like their track record is squeaky clean.

 

[brainburn]

so we seem to think that the government is competent enough to plan this for years and execute it without fucking it up?

 

[janklow]

i think if you want someone dead bad enough to go through with it you consider that reason to be fairly important

yes, but you are conflating the random acts of crazy people with vast conspiracies. the former is never considered "some seemingly important reason," no matter how strongly that crazy person feels.

and tbh you are a far more ridiculous character than I am.

actually, i wasn't talking about you. but i suppose i should point out that after this post, you cited an argument you discovered on YouTube. at least ONE person in that scenario is clearly ridiculous.

u realise wat u jus said makes absolutely no sesne, right ?

assassinating a president is'nt like playing a round of golf or cooking an egg, obviously there was an important reason as to why they murked him.

bunch of fucking clowns in the social lounge...

ah, keeping it classy!

okay, let's review the OTHER assassinations (or attempted assassinations) of US presidents: are we saying they were ALL done for some vast conspiratorial reason? of course not. so it SHOULD be acceptable to think a random crazy person can attempt to kill the president.

IF you grant this, then you should realize there's a difference between "clear indication that someone wanted him dead" (present in any case where someone tries to kill ANYONE, let alone the president) and "he was wanted dead for some seemingly important reason" (present in cases where a conspiracy is implied)

if you DON'T grant this, then i want you to start explaining how all these OTHER assassination attempts were part of conspiracies. please start with the two women that tried to shoot Gerald Ford and/or that guy that wanted to crash a plane into Nixon. i'll wait here

 

[Manik Sona]

Ever since I watched that movie, "Wag the Dog," I definitely believe there are conspiracies in the government. I DO NOT believe that 9/11 was one of them.

 

[Jonas.dini]

so the exert i viewed was taken out of context?

I'm not really saying that, more that if you watch the whole docu instead of just a clip you'll get a fuller picture. I do know that this docu does not support the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but it is critical of the US, especially the neocons:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254

 

[Jonas.dini]

Ever since I watched that movie, "Wag the Dog," I definitely believe there are conspiracies in the government. I DO NOT believe that 9/11 was one of them.

Classic movie, I want to rewatch this soon... Thanks for the reminder that it exists

 

[kingblaze84]

Okay, has anyone explained why Building 7 fell down yet?

 

[Jonas.dini]

Okay, has anyone explained why Building 7 fell down yet?

First of all yes, it has been explained like a million times over the last 10 years. Second, in short it collapsed because of a giant fire. Third, here's a report that includes extensive methods:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm