Replies To Fransan's Welcome, Split from Welcome Options

[grizz]

jellybean:

...or if they could have stopped the terrorists from even boarding the planes to begin with.

Independent researchers have found that there is no record of the 'hijackers' buying tickets, boarding the planes, or being on the passenger lists. Many of us believe that there were no hijackers. The only evidence the government has is the very questionable phone calls supposedly made from the planes. There's a great article about the phone calls by Rob and DRG on the main page of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.org.

[jellybean]

jellybean:

...or if they could have stopped the terrorists from even boarding the planes to begin with.

Independent researchers have found that there is no record of the 'hijackers' buying tickets, boarding the planes, or being on the passenger lists. Many of us believe that there were no hijackers. The only evidence the government has is the very questionable phone calls supposedly made from the planes. There's a great article about the phone calls by Rob and DRG on the main page of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.org.

Yeah I read those and I'm skeptical of there being hijackers as well, I was just responding to his "assume the government's story is true" hypothesis (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[grizz]

LOL I get it. Can't wrap my brain around the hypothesis though.

This is a good thread, touching on many questions.

[rob balsamo]

All, please read this thread...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=286

Mods/Admins, please split out the discussion to the lobby for more visibility and leave the intro here. Thanks.

[Ricochet]

Thanks for the feed back everyone. Specialy dMole and Sanders. I read everything and found it very interesting.
I want to say this though.
I understand completely the defense of liberties and rights, and the constitution.
However, and please bear with me for just a few lines.
1.- Let´s assume for a moment, that the official story is ALL TRUE. (For arguments sake.)
2.- Let´s assume that the U.S. Gov. was caught with their pants down, and that they either had no idea this was going on, or that they knew it could happen but were in denyal and so shocked that were unable to react on time or do so properly as events were unfolding.
O.K. are you with me so far? If we assume these two premisses, where does that take us?
WHAT DO YOU DO? After all the tragedy is over and you´ve lost thousands of inocent lives inside the U.S.?
What do you do as the U.S. Gov. to make sure that something like this (or much worse) doesn´t happen again? How do you protect the american people when you know:
1.- That the very rights and liberties that protect your citizens have been used against you, and against your civilian population.
2.- That the enemy has been able to infiltrate your own civilian population.
3.- That you are at war, but not with an army on another land, or a Country. The people who are wagging war against you are living in the U.S. Some are U.S. citizens allready, or are in the proccess of becoming so.
WHAT DO YOU DO?

IF the OCT was true. Stop screwing around with other peoples countries. Unjust foreign policy would be the precursor to such backlash. I for one do not believe that a scary caveman came up with this plan and beat out the entire military defences of the USA. If it was so then the US has no right whatsoever to even think about calling itsef a Superpower. An ABC cameracrew with John Miller just months before stroll into Bin Ladens hideout and interview him but the $40 billion a year CIA could not. Since then over a trillion dollars has been spent on "The Global War on Terror". Still no boogeyman to show for it.

[fransan]

I read your post and tbh I don't know what I would do. But I'm not exactly understanding where that question has come from. Even if the government story is all completely true, and they just didn't know/didn't react in time, the only thing that you can do as a government is learn from it. Ultimately you cannot completely prevent terrorism without taking away everyone's right to freedom.

After 9/11 I would have expected the government to look at it all from scratch. Start at the very beginning. Look at the terrorists, look at when the plan was formed, find out as much information as they could about the terrorists and how they went about putting their plan in motion. Look at what happened at each step as the plan was carried out. Find out if they could have intercepted the planes, or if they could have stopped the terrorists from even boarding the planes to begin with. Look at what (if anything) could be changed to hopefully stop things like this from happening again. Analyse the emergency systems that were put in place and see how they can be improved.

Well Jelly Bean, if I may say so, I think you make a very good description of what is more or less being done by the U.S. gov. I do believe that the gov. has been trying to understand "how" it was put together, how the terrorists were recluted and trained, how everything was financed. And many meassures (there may never be enough security meassures on airports and airplanes to stop a suicide terrorist BTW). to avoid a repeat of this. And also lots of intelligence must be gathered from civilian pop. because the terrorists are moving among us.
To achieve this in the most effective way, some liberties and rights can suffer. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[fransan]

[quote name='fransan' date='Jun 9 2008, 04:56 PM' post='10743920']
Sorry, this was the way I intended to phrase this part.
And many meassures (there may never be enough security meassures on airports and airplanes to stop a suicide terrorist BTW). to avoid a repeat of this HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Sanders]

...Well Jelly Bean, if I may say so, I think you make a very good description of what is more or less being done by the U.S. gov. I do believe that the gov. has been trying to understand "how" it was put together, how the terrorists were recluted and trained, how everything was financed. And many meassures (there may never be enough security meassures on airports and airplanes to stop a suicide terrorist BTW). to avoid a repeat of this. And also lots of intelligence must be gathered from civilian pop. because the terrorists are moving among us.
To achieve this in the most effective way, some liberties and rights can suffer. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

That sounds reasonable ... or it would if it was not based on bad information & lies. It's what the people who planned 9-11 WANT people to think. They WANT you to willingly give up your civil liberties - in the interest of keeping America "safe". But the "terrorists" Americans need to really be worried about are on the US government payroll my friends.

How the terrorists were recruited and trained? The "terrorists" were recruited and trained by people like Ali Mohammed, ex-Egyptian military, long-time FBI/CIA operative and US Army Sergeant who used to run back and forth between North Carolina and bin Laden's camp in Afganistan (and before that Sudan), or casing out American Embassy bombing targets in Africa when he wasn't training green-berets or wanna-be-al-CIA-duh at Fort Bragg. Or Emad Salem, the ex-Egytian intelligence officer who managed the 1993 WTC bombing for his FBI handlers. Or Mohammed Atta - I seriously doubt that he hijacked any planes on 9-11, but I'm pretty convinced he partied on (now-jailed) lobbyist Jack Abramoff's boat. How it was financed?? Don't you read the papers? General Amhed of Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence directed Omar Saeed Sheik to wire the money to Atta from Pakistan - oh, sorry, it WASN'T in the papers, because the story got quashed after it broke in the Times of India.

And also lots of intelligence must be gathered from civilian pop. because the terrorists are moving among us...

You mean, lots of intelligence must be gathered from the civilian population because Americans by the thousands are catching on that the whole thing is a scam. Where does the paranoid delusion that "terrorists" are everywhere originate? From our own media of course, but more pointedly from the Department of Defense, who churn out stories connecting anything bad happening anywhere to al-Qaeda and sneak them through outlets like the AP office in Cairo, Egypt, or Doha, Qatar, for the US media to conveniently pick up (they don't generally feed their fancyful stories directly to US outlets, that's called propoganda and is technically illegal... though they sometimes do it anyway).

Heaven knows the combined machinery of the US State Department, military and Intelligence community bends over backwards to piss off the Arab world and foment US directed hatred, heaven knows we seem to do anything and everything we can to prod disaffected Muslims the world over to try and smuggle bombs onto US planes or the parking lots of US embassies in their countries, but they just don't seem to want to cooperate. So we have to fake it sometimes.

Like we did on 9-11.

I know 9-11 is properly spelled 9/11, with a slash, but my computer's broken and the "slash" key is on the fritz ... to type slashes into a post I have to copy and paste them in from somewhere else, sort of a pain. But lately I sort of like typing it "9-11", with a hyphen, it's suggestive of 7-11, another big successful US money-making venture.

I was actually quite flabbergasted by fransan's above posts. I would enchourage you, fransan, to do a little more independent reading and thinking on this issue. You might start by googling 'Ali Mohammed', or 'Omar Al-Faruq' (& in the case of Bali-bomber Faruq you might get more pertinent info if you include 'CIA' in your search), or 'John O'Neill', or try the words 'Mohammed Atta' and 'cocaine' together and see what you get. I'd also recommend looking up 'Arc of Crisis', and who came up with the term ... (and start to contemplate why).

And the next time they ask you to take your shoes off at the airport to comply with US government security regulations, remember, it was elements in the US government that were responsible for 9-11 in the first place, and how ridiculous all of this new hightened security really is in that context.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Bruce Sinclair]

I would like to recommend a book that is very helpful in understanding what has happened with the banking system in the United States:

"The House of Morgan - An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance" by Ron Chernow - published in 1990. If you can slug through the 812 pages, it will give you a fascinating insider's view of how the banking system evolved.

Happy reading!

[jellybean]

Well Jelly Bean, if I may say so, I think you make a very good description of what is more or less being done by the U.S. gov. I do believe that the gov. has been trying to understand "how" it was put together, how the terrorists were recluted and trained, how everything was financed. And many meassures (there may never be enough security meassures on airports and airplanes to stop a suicide terrorist BTW). to avoid a repeat of this. And also lots of intelligence must be gathered from civilian pop. because the terrorists are moving among us.
To achieve this in the most effective way, some liberties and rights can suffer. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Jut because the government may seem to be doing all they can to look at what happened, and as such decided that it would be prudent to take away some liberties from the American people, does not mean that the government is telling the truth.

I'm sure lots of others know more about this and can give dates etc, but wasn't the law that was passed which denies rights to anyone who can be classed as a "terrorist" previously attempted to be passed and failed? I admit I'm not quite up to speed on everything as yet.

[bill]

Just a couple stories about the rediculous 'rules' in American airports that have nothing to do with making us 'safer'

Last November I went to Taiwan

I was going to a rather out of the way area where I was not sure I could get my normal saline solutions for my contact lenes

there was no way I was not going to take some in my carry on (in case my checked luggage was lost)

So I put 2 twelve ounce bottles of contact solution in my carry on

As the TSA 'workers' repeated over and over in stident near shouts at O'Hare

"ALL LIQUIDS AND GELLS MUST BE PUT IN A 1 QUART ZIP LOCK BAG. CONTAINERS OF LIQUID CANNOT BE MORE 3 OUNCES AND THEY ALL MUST BE PLACED IN THE 1 QUART ZIP LOCK BAG. YOU MUST REMOVE THE BAG AND FROM YOUR CARRY ON AND SHOW IT TO TSA INSPECTORS"

There was a large trash bin that people were throwing water bottles pop cans etc etc

I just put my bag through with the 24 ounces of contact solution and of course the magic zip lock bag.

The TSA 'worker' flagged my bag.

"DO YOU HAVE ANY LIQUIDS IN DIS BAG ?"

Why yes I do here is the ziplock bag.

He examined the baggy for several seconds turning it back and forth in his hands

"IS DAT ALL"

No I also have some contact lens solutions

He glanced at the two bottles and said "Dat doan matta"

And I walked through

Regarding shoes

I never had to remove my shoes in either Taiwan or Tokyo

rediculous

[fransan]

Well, this is turning into an interesting analysis of things. I agree that security measures aren´t convincing, as I said before, I think it´s almost impossible to have "perfect" measures against suicidal terrorists.
However, it does seem to be the logical way to go, if you "assume" the official story.
What I mean is that I look at the Gov. actions from the point of view that what they say is the truth, and then they have to act accordingly. Also on civil rights and liberties, we have to admit most of the actions fall within that logic.
In a "STATE OF WAR", civil rights and liberties have to suffer, specially if you have immigrants or visitors who can be terrorists, you have to deal with that.
And I still find it amazing how many people go through customs with all their luggage without being searched.
What I find contradictory is that things like FDR data from AA77 don´t match with it. So what happened there?
Is that on purpose? If the FBI has better videos of AA77 why not make them public?

[grizz]

The problem is, fransan, that the people on this forum don't "assume" that the government story is true. Nor do we "assume" that it is false. We "know" it's false due to overwhelming evidence.

Consequently your argument that we should give up our rights to support a lie does not make any sense in this context.

You appear to support the OCT but present no evidence that it is true. Please sign in to the following topic and answer the questions before proceeding. Thanks!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13214

[fransan]

[quote name='Oceans Flow' date='Jun 10 2008, 04:13 PM' post='10744057']
The problem is, fransan, that the people on this forum don't "assume" that the government story is true. Nor do we "assume" that it is false. We "know" it's false due to overwhelming evidence.

I´ll be sure to do the reading Oceans. However let me just point out I´m not defending the OCT. The point I´m trying to make is the "logic" of the measures the Gov. has taken. In my opinion there is logic in the measures because those measures assume the OCT as true. They have to stick to their story. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[dMz]

I´ll be sure to do the reading Oceans. However let me just point out I´m not defending the OCT. The point I´m trying to make is the "logic" of the measures the Gov. has taken. In my opinion there is logic in the measures because those measures assume the OCT as true. They have to stick to their story. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Fransan,

You really should re-read Sanders' and Oceans Flow's posts again, more carefully this time.

I'll assume that you did not read the link above yet, based upon "I´ll be sure to do the reading Oceans." Aren't you making some unsupported assumptions here? Or are you proffering here that "the ends justify the means?" Or perhaps "might is right?"

Here's a quote for you to ponder:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -attributed to Benjamin Franklin, who published Richard Jackson, circa 1759.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assume

Specifically, definitions 4 & 5 in this context:

"4: to pretend to have or be : feign <assumed an air of confidence in spite of her dismay>
5: to take as granted or true : suppose <I assume he'll be there>"
----------------------------
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...ogic.html#adhoc
-----
Ad hoc (for this purpose only)

As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.

The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument.

[fransan]

dMole. I´m not assuming anything. Nor am I defending the OCT. All that I´m analyzing as I said is the "LOGIC" in the Gov. measures taken as a response or result of 9/11. I don´t like them or agree with them, but I understand it´s where this Gov. had to go. As I said, they have to stick to their story.
And I´m not saying that people should gladly give up their rights or liberties either.
Besides that, I do believe that the threat of new attacks (conventional, nuclear, quemical or biological) exists.
I don´t feel that by believing this I suport the OCT on 9/11.
Now lets talk assumptions:
My gut feeling about 9/11 is that intelligence services in the U.S. knew what was going on, and either received orders not to act, or the deciding parties thought it could not be carried out, or that the damage was going to be much less than what actually happened.
And that once the attack was under way, a decision was made to let it happen.
I may still come out very naive to many people in this site and I assure you I keep on reading as much as I can to find out as much as possible about all the angles this thing has, which are too many. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[painter]

dMole. I´m not assuming anything. Nor am I defending the OCT. All that I´m analyzing as I said is the "LOGIC" in the Gov. measures taken as a response or result of 9/11. I don´t like them or agree with them, but I understand it´s where this Gov. had to go. As I said, they have to stick to their story.
And I´m not saying that people should gladly give up their rights or liberties either.
Besides that, I do believe that the threat of new attacks (conventional, nuclear, quemical or biological) exists.
I don´t feel that by believing this I suport the OCT on 9/11.
Now lets talk assumptions:
My gut feeling about 9/11 is that intelligence services in the U.S. knew what was going on, and either received orders not to act, or the deciding parties thought it could not be carried out, or that the damage was going to be much less than what actually happened.
And that once the attack was under way, a decision was made to let it happen.
I may still come out very naive to many people in this site and I assure you I keep on reading as much as I can to find out as much as possible about all the angles this thing has, which are too many. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

So, you believe 9/11 was a terrorist attack that was allowed to happen. Is that correct? In the jargon, we call that LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) as distinguished from MIHOP (made it happen on purpose). The LIHOP position has many problems, most notably the destruction of the WTC towers. That was not caused by any combination of plane impact and fire; demolitions were used and were necessary to achieve the observed results. LIHOP is debunked if controlled demolition is accepted because "terrorists" could not have had access to those buildings.

[dMz]

From Fransan post #33:

"Well, this is turning into an interesting analysis of things."

So would you describe yourself as an "analyst" then? Do you have any business cards or official identifications that have that title?

"However, it does seem to be the logical way to go, if you "assume" the official story.
What I mean is that I look at the Gov. actions from the point of view that what they say is the truth, and then they have to act accordingly."

But in post #37 did you NOT state:

"dMole. I´m not assuming anything. Nor am I defending the OCT. All that I´m analyzing as I said is the "LOGIC" in the Gov. measures taken as a response or result of 9/11. I don´t like them or agree with them, but I understand it´s where this Gov. had to go."

This looks like circular, rhetorical, sophistry to me- any opinions out there in the audience? Perhaps this thread properly belongs in our Debate forum. Now would be a fine opportunity for Fransan to review Luke 23:34...

Still Fransan post #37: "In a "STATE OF WAR", civil rights and liberties have to suffer, specially if you have immigrants or visitors who can be terrorists, you have to deal with that."

See the Franklin/Jackson quote above. Also see your own post #19 in which you stated:

"Thanks for the feed back everyone. Specialy dMole and Sanders. I read everything and found it very interesting.
I want to say this though.
I understand completely the defense of liberties and rights, and the constitution."

Do you "understand completely" then? Who constitutionally declared war then? On whom and when? Where is the supporting Congressional documentation to support said war(s)? Why don't you reconcile your post #19 statements with those in your post #37 then? I'll wait... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

On the "LOGIC" thing... For some homework- why don't you review Cheney's "LOGIC" below so that you can explain the following regarding AA77 pre-Pentagon strike? That's a challenge for Fransan, in case you missed it.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Mine...mp;sitesearch=#

[Sanders]

I'm gonna give fransan the benefit of the doubt here, that his or her earlier comments were hypothetical, as in IF the official story is such and such then you would expect government agencies to do such and such, etc.

Fine fransan, no need to keep trying to explain yourself or backtrack. Just take some time to absorb some of the info that blows in and out of here. I also recommend you watch some of the PBB series that carries the P4T name, the FDR research is central to much of the discussion here. Something to remember about the AA77 Black Box stuff, is that that is evidence which the government released - (it's THEIR evidence).

For the record though, I too stongly disagree with the logic that civil liberties must be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. (Not only is that nonsense, but the whole "terrorist threat" is vastly overblown. If our government had any inclination to stop terrorism they would quit supporting it, and beef up security at our borders. )

[grizz]

If terrorism is such a threat that we have to give up our rights to fight it, then why have there not been any terrorist attacks in the US in almost seven years, fransan?

In other words, the threat is fake and just an excuse.