9-11 Conspiracy Theorists

the impact of airliners might have something to do with that, since well they don't exactly stop on a dime. You don't think they could have damaged the core on the floors they hit?

Becareful you might confuse them with the facts

Rox

Here, I'll help you out. Here's what you can post back to me:

So simplistic.

No, children. If you want to understand 9/11, you must actually read, and I mean really read, not go into an SL forum and skim the posts, or better still, write your own post declaring, "ZOMG CONSPIRACEY THROESITSS ARE TEH DUMBZXOORS LOLOLOL!!!"

This is not, in fact, something that can be discussed intelligently within the confines of an Internet forum because it's simply too complicated. You don't get to watch a five-minute special report and then flip off the TV. You have to invest some effort ... or you can remain ignorant. Nobody can make that choice but you.

Definitive, as-yet-undisputed research the proves the conspiracy has already been done. It is there and available to read: Crossing the Rubicon by Mike Ruppert.

Now, if you've read that in its entirity, and you can come back here and prove him wrong, prove his well-documented case flawed, then I'm interested. Since you can't, I don't expect to be interested anytime soon.

Would you be interested in reading some of the scientific material those who disagree with you have posted here, or is that expectation of equal consideration only something that applies to the other team?

*yawn*
so we should all take YOUR word for it? I'm sorry I prefer to get my information from more than one person, but thanks anyway.

no she wouldn't because it doesn't agree with her preconcieved notions of an impending Civil War.

My concern was never with strictly physical evidence, nor did I ever claim that planes didn't strike the buildings or worry myself over the temperature at which steel melts. You are confusing me with Kendra.

so your worse?

Well, it's like this, Billybob: I cannot lay out for you, here, even in an intelligent or organized summary, an intricately documented case made over roughly 600 pages. So yes, you either have to lift a finger all by your little lonesome and educate yourself, or you may choose to remain ignorant of the actual facts surrounding 9/11 and how it came to pass. It really is up to you.

That makes no sense. Physical evidence is only one kind of evidence, not necessarily even the best kind. There is plenty of documentation to prove the conspiracy without resorting to arguments over the mechanics of how the buildings collapsed.

*yawn*
or I can engage my brain and decide for myself without having to have someone spoonfeed his crackpot theories down my throat. I use actual intelligence instead of someone else's when I decide what I believe. If you can't accept that fact then there is no hope for you anyway.

*yawn* like what?

I'll agree to the point that there can be evidence separate from physical evidence.

However, for me to take the conspiracy theories seriously, the physical evidence better match what they are proposing.

I'll take a look at the book you suggested, and if its not too off the wall, maybe even read it.

It isn't theoretical -- that is a misuse of the word "theory." The case is very much based on well-documented, factual information.

uh huh

Are you narcoleptic?

Billybob, I cannot summarize 600-odd pages of material for you. I suppose if you insist, I can (not today, as I don't have it on me) post an except from the book. However, I'm concerned that the reaction I'll get is people reading that one thing and then screaming, "But that's just one thing! It doesn't prove anything!" ... and so on. Invariably, people tend to gravitate toward the laziest, easiest option.

The best way is to really read it for yourself. Or don't! I'm not your mommy. I'm just letting you know the case is already made, and there is no room for debate anymore as far as I am concerned. I'm not even interested in debating it, any more than I care to debate the existence of gravity.

You know what? Often times, the correct answer is the most simple one.

I tend to be suspicious of things that depend on too much marketing or mental gymnastics to be "understood." Incidentally, that's one of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity, either.

Good.

Personally, I'm also open to recommendations anyone else cares to make with respect to reading material, by the way. I've come to believe that people make a huge mistake in thinking that they can really deal with these issues within the confines of something as limited as an Internet forum, when the actual truth is that the world is a little more complicated than that. I have no problem, in turn, with being told that I really need to read something before I can comment intelligently on it.

In fact, I would think that's understood.

and don't expect you to post anything from the 600 pages since it is hard to summarize bullshit and it actually mean something. Now I have a question, since this debate is over and all, why are you so intent that you can't accept other data that isn't in your little book? Since he has 600 pages he must be right, so I shall go forth and spout out his incite. I'm sorry I don't take the word of 1 man, so unless you have other information this debate really is over.

That is often true, but it is not always true, nor is it necessarily the case that the official story is the simplest explanation. To actually reconcile it with the facts is, in fact, quite the feat of mental gymnastics (and doublethink) itself.

so why are you telling us to? Since by your own words, this guys book is the end all be all of this debate, whats the point in us reading anything else?

FRom Amazon

Book Description

The attacks of September 11, 2001, were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Crossing the Rubicon discovers and identifies key suspects-finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government-by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks produced the desired result.

Crossing the Rubicon is unique not only for its case-breaking examination of 9/11, but for the breadth and depth of its world picture-an interdisciplinary analysis of petroleum, geopolitics, narcotraffic, intelligence and militarism-without which 9/11 cannot be understood.

The US manufacturing sector has been mostly replaced by speculation on financial data whose underlying economic reality is a dark secret. Hundreds of billions of dollars in laundered drug money flow through Wall Street each year from opium and coca fields maintained by CIA-sponsored warlords and US-backed covert paramilitary violence. America's global dominance depends on a continually turning mill of guns, drugs, oil and money. Oil and natural gas-the fuels that make economic growth possible-are subsidized by American military force and foreign lending.

In reality, 9/11 and the resulting "war on terror" are parts of a massive authoritarian response to an emerging economic crisis of unprecedented scale. Peak Oil-the beginning of the end for our industrial civilization-is driving the elites of American power to implement unthinkably draconian measures of repression, warfare and population control. Crossing the Rubicon is more than a story. It is a map of the perilous terrain through which, together and alone, we are all now making our way.

Michael C. Ruppert is the publisher and editor of From the Wilderness, a newsletter read by more than 16,000 subscribers in 40 countries. A former Los Angeles Police Department narcotics investigator, he is widely known for his groundbreaking stories on US involvement in the drug trade, Peak Oil and 9/11.


About the Author
Mike Ruppert is the Publisher/Editor of From the Wilderness, a newsletter read by more than 16,000 subscribers in 40 countries. A former LAPD narcotics investigator, he is widely known for his groundbreaking stories on US involvement in the drug trade, Peak Oil and 9/11. His video on the latter, The Truth and Lies About 9-11, has sold more than 10,000 copies.

I'm not taking the word of one man ... the book quotes from quite a variety of verifiable sources, even drawing from mainstream media reports at times, believe it or not. Especially in the chapter on pre-9/11 insider trading. If his case just consisted of "because I said so," of course I would reject it. Don't trivialize me so much, Billy -- I'm a little smarter than that.

Anyway, you're right about one thing: the debate is over, at least for me.