POLITICS: 9/11 - an inside job? ( was...economic disaster and gov't surveillance like we've never known before)

[Guest guest]

> There is a big difference between believing that the government knows more

than

> they are telling, and even believing that there should be an independent

> investigation into what happened ... and believing that the Bush

administration

> planned and executed the whole thing.

Right, but you said that promotes the idea that the Bush

administration carried out 9/11 and I pointed out that, in fact, he promotes

the idea that Bush is simply a puppet for the power elite and may not have

been aware rogue elements in the government having complicity in the

attacks. Certainly some folks in the 9/11 truth movement do believe that

Bush himself was in on it, but many believe that it could be carried out

with gov't complicity or assistance without Bush having to have direct

knowledge about it. Based on the evidence I've seen to date, I believe

either scenario is plausible.

I'm not a scientist/architect/etc, and I can't

> validate claims made by some of these people - in that context it always

seems

> plausible when someone cites knowledge that I can't question, and don't

have the

> time to research, or the time to get another degree, etc....

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that whole, real foods are

better for you than processed refined foods, do you? Similarly, you don't

have to be an architect to understand the arguments of architects and

engineers that cite scientific reasons why building 7 or the towers had to

have come down by a controlled demolition. You don't have to be an engineer

to understand the many eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions within the

building right before they collapsed. You don't have to be an architect to

understand FEMA employee Barry Jennings' unedited testimony

(http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=105) that when he was on the 8th

floor of building 7 there was an explosion and the floor below him exploded

out from under him and he was left hanging from rafters. You don't have to

be a scientist to understand firemen who say the *lobby* of the towers were

blown out *before* the buildings collapsed, etc, etc, etc.

You also don't have to be a controlled demolition expert to understand why a

controlled demolition expert from Sweden (or some Scandinavian country) who

was interviewed in " Loose Change: Final Cut " stated emphatically that

building 7 was a controlled demolition and was so incredulous when told that

building 7 came down the *same day* as the towers that he asked confirmation

of this three times in a row because he didn't' believe his ears.

There are so many pieces of evidence presented in " Loose Change: Final Cut "

that makes it pretty obvious that something very fishy is going on with the

official conspiracy theory of the 9/11 attacks (that a handful of

cave-dwelling Islamic radicalists did it all on their own).

I highly recommend this video for a better understanding of the

controversial issues surrounding the 9/11 attacks:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change+final+cut & sitesearch=#

Second video to watch is 9/11 Chronicles: Truth Rising, by :

http://tinyurl.com/5nj7co

This one is primarily about the First Responders and how much they've been

suffering and dying off since working in the extremely toxic aftermath at

Ground Zero (after being told by the gov't that it was safe). It can be best

appreciated if one has some understanding of the globalist conspiracy

theory, otherwise it may not make sense to viewers as to why Brzezinski i is

confronted about his possible role in the 9/11 attacks (having nothing to do

with the fact that he had a direct hand in propping up the Mujahideen during

's administration from whence Al Qaeda and Bin Laden arose). Many

other politicians and powerbrokers are confronted in this movie about the

events of 9/11 and about reopening an investigation. The only politician who

rises to the occasion to help the First Responders turns out to be...Dennis

Kucinich, unsurprisingly. Hillary ignores the questions as does Obama, and

in one of the most amusing quotes in the movie trailer, Bill Clinton

says... " An inside job? How daaaaare you! " . LOL

>

> I do find the notion that they planned the whole thing to be ludicrous. I

do believe

> that they are great opportunists, and took advantage of the opportunity to

get a

> bunch of stuff done. I also don't think that Cheney et all are above

killing people to

> gain their objectives, but I think that they are into doing it in ways

that are less risky

> than this.

Less risky? You must be kidding. Is it less risky than lying outright to the

American people that Iraq has WMDs? Surely the Adminstration must've

realized that it could be verified that Iraq did NOT have WMDs or that no

evidence would be found of such, which is what happened. During the

impeachment hearings last Friday that Kucinich initiated, former LA

prosecutor Bugliosi (who successfully prosecuted Manson)

held up papers that he claimed were classified documents showing that the

CIA had informed Bush et al. that there was no evidence of WMDs and a week

later (or thereabouts) the administration claimed there was evidence of WMDs

to justify the war. Is *that* not risky by your assessment?

And what did the American people do? Go about their every day stupor and

accept every criminal act this Adminstration has carried out. It's not very

risky when the population acts like sheeple no matter how outrageous or

criminal an Administration behaves.

Secondly, I'm guessing it would take a very few people to be in the know in

order for the Bush Administration or elements therein to be involved, as

these type of operations are typically compartmentalized so each player has

no idea who the puppeteer is or who the other folks involved are.

> The more I listened to the more of a crackpot I thought he was.

There is

> some truly reprehensible stuff on his sites. For instance, search under

> 'homosexuality' on prisonplanet. If you can't find this stuff, I can

probably dig it up

> again.

OK, I did. I found some stuff (not written by ) that I don't agree with

and some that were simply reports from other news agencies. However, whether

or not you agree with or some of the writers whose work appears on his

site on a particular issue has little bearing on the veracity of everything

that appears on his site or the veracity of his radio show guests or his

movies. I don't agree with him on everything either but have verified

through other sources that many things he talks about on his radio show are

evidence-based. The same goes for the WAPF site. Overall, I think their

information is pretty solid, but there are things here and there where I

know they are wrong or where I disagree, and there are some articles that I

find a bit bizarre.

Suze