Rethinking 9/11, and other rants

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I've been thinking about my position of what happened on 9/11. I honestly don't know if the government could kill 3000 of its own citizens to further its own agenda. Correction... yes, I believe they would. However, I don't think Bush, who I honestly believe is a decent man, could give the go ahead for something so catastrophic. Therefore, if 9/11 was a government conspiracy, it had to have been done by the puppet masters, and not the puppet (Bush).

Regardless if 9/11 is of government origin or foreign, the facts remain that 9/11 has changed the way we live, as dictated by our government. I, for one, was gung ho at all the patriotism... the "oneness with government", if you will. I honestly thought we have seen a tragedy that would better ourselves as a country. Well, for a short time that was true.

I yearned for war! I wanted the body counts to rise, on the enemy side, 10 fold, 100 fold, 1000 fold of our dead on 9/11, as did most of the country. "If we're going over there, let's go all the way to Iran!", I shouted. Others agreed. I still believe that we should have helped insurgents in Iran; but that was mainly up to themselves to revolt, and overthrow their own beast. If we do it ourselves, as we did in Iraq, the people will not truly know emancipation. They must taste the blood of the tyrants to experience freedom.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, we got a gift known as the Patriot Act. Typical congressional BS to label an act to sound better. A more fitting name would be the Just Another Loss of Liberty Act (JALoLA). Democrats fought this and the wars, but voted for them anyways. It was all a show for the MSM and their constituents. Obama was the only one who voted against it, tho he pushes for it now, as he understands what it was really for... restrictions of our liberties.

Britain had something similar to the Patriot Act, tho its contents I don't know. What I do know is that you are not allowed to film government officials (police) if they suspect you will use it for a terrorist act. Well, who would've thunk that would be used as an excuse? You might as well say, "Don't get caught filming cops under any circumstance." We have a few states like that... Maryland, for sure; Illinois, I've recently read about. But what that does is prevents the police from being held accountable to those they supposedly serve. Without video evidence, there isn't much chance that a rogue cop will be brought to justice.

Our police state is out of control. There is no listening to reason - only black and white. "You are going to get arrested, and I will beat the crap out of you until you comply, whether I'm right or wrong." The tazer, IMO, has its place in apprehension. However, I believe it's being used more by sadistic cops to get their thrills; or by lazy cops, so they don't have to get dirty. We hear far too many stories of the elderly or children being tazed. Or people complying, and in handcuffs being zapped. I read an incident where a man was dragged from a courtroom, into a cell with no cameras, and tazed by 6 cops.

Right wingers, such as tea partiers, are labelled as terrorists now. In fact, everyone who goes against the ideals of our government, on the right, are considered terrorists. I truly believe I know why it's only the right who get this label, and not the left. The left will hit you with cardboard signs, maybe break a window or two, and run away when the teargas flies. The right has the capability, and in some cases the will, to fight fire with fire. If we commence to watering the Tree of Liberty, it will be Libertarians who spill the first blood, I believe.

So, we've been force fed (not that we were necessarily against it) propaganda about patriotism, duty, hope, change, giving up liberty for security, and so on. What has this gotten us? Who is benefiting from 9/11? Really? I thought of making that a rhetorical question, and letting you think it for yourselves; but this is my rant! LOL

The UN. The war profiteers. The government. Politicians. Arab nation dictators.

Who has lost as a result of 9/11? Everyone who believes they have lost liberty. Whether it's a SWAT team busting down someone's door to confiscate a gram of weed, or someone who feels violated by the TSA while getting patted down; they are victims of 9/11. And those who are oblivious to what's been happening... well, they don't have rights to begin with; they have privileges granted by their government. They have chosen to take the blue pill.
 
Last edited:

MissKat

Expert Expediter
Excellent post. Have you read Dr. Judy woods's book about this implosion? and the tesla weapon? The photos are amazing. You fund yourself asking what really happened. Was the gold reserve moved out of the basement first etc.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I'm not familiar with the book you site. I'm not overly interested if this was an act of terrorism, or one of demolition. What I'm trying to convey is the losses of liberty as a result of 9/11. If it was a terrorist act, our government clamped down on liberties as a reason to "protect us". If our government did it, it was to put the clamps on our liberties, push global government, and throw us into an unwarranted war. Either way, we lose. Tho, if it was the government, we are in deeper trouble than if it was Islamic terrorists.
 

louixo

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Conspiracy theories are always out there. I, for one don't feel threatened. If you are not doing anything wrong, you have little to fear from the government. They are not out to get you, and if they were I believe they would be dealt with in our society. Restrictions on individual liberties are a necessary evil in times of uncertainty. The goal is to get back to times of certainty. When that is happening, you then have other theorists crying too much regulation. It's a balancing act. Always has been, and always will be, as long as man is involved in the equation.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
So... if you aren't doing anything wrong (as defined by your government), you have nothing to fear from your government. If you don't look the king in the eyes, you don't have to worry about getting beheaded, IOW... if you're lucky.

Society will deal with them when the problem is apparent. Too many "citizens" are distracted by bread and circuses, as the Romans were, to be worried about what goes on in our government. Our economy is collapsing; and a very small percentage knows this... or cares.

There should NEVER be a need for restrictions of liberty. The ones who restricted our liberties are the same ones who caused the problems that became the excuse of why our liberties were restricted in the first place. See the problem?

I know, I know. Conspiracies, blah blah blah. The government isn't out to get you, blah blah blah. Maybe not on an individual level. But what if the "theorists" are right, and it's on a mass scale... say 325 million people level, to get you to conform? What does Congress do? They write laws. What do laws do? RESTRICT LIBERTY! I would rather be prepared that the conspiracy theories are correct, than hope that the government's propaganda is. Right now, more facts point to the conspricies being correct.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
What I find odd is....there has not been another terrorist attack of any kind since 9/11... I been reading up on building 7 ... a lot of questions need to be answered.....listen to Jesse Ventura....

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 
Last edited:

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Meanwhile, back on the farm, we got a gift known as the Patriot Act. Typical congressional BS to label an act to sound better. A more fitting name would be the Just Another Loss of Liberty Act (JALoLA).

More like the "We've Got You Where We Want You Act" Or the "So Much For The Bill Of Rights Act."

It's not just that the loss of liberty is unnecessary, it's that it CAN'T EXIST under our form of government. In America, our forefathers carved out in the Constitution the things that government MAY DO. If it ain't on the list, then government MAY NOT. That's how it works.

It's the opposite for us. There are a few things we may not do, and a very short list of things that are compulsory, and the rest are our rights.

So this is the thing about government and the loss of rights. Sometimes, someone will mention martial law (wasn't it General Franks who said if there was another attack, martial law was a real possibility?). Martial law was threatened, the rumor says, if the first TARP bill wasn't passed. But nowhere among the constitutional list of the enumerated powers of government are such powers listed, aside from a temporary congressional suspension of habeas corpus under specified circumstances.

So the argument of whether the government should or shouldn't restrict liberty is moot. The fact is, they cant, no matter how much they want to or think they must. So if it's done, it is, ipso facto, a coup orchestrated by those that did it.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Restrictions on individual liberties are a necessary evil in times of uncertainty.

How can anyone consider this?

I mean that regardless what happened, the signs were there but ignored and as citizens we failed miserably.

The only uncertainty is caused by the ignorant and foolish who believe that we are weak and willing to give up things to be safe.

No one in that crowd seems to think that what we should have done was to rebuild WTC complex, put up a plaque and be more diligent in brining those within our government to task for their failure. They felt there must be much more to the death of 3000 people, we must immortalize them with a garish monument to our failures. We as a people failed ourselves and we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing this ambiguity to happen in the first place. It isn't like 1941 where we were attacked and if we didn't act to fight a clear enemy, we would be invaded like France this time it was different and we are at war with many in the world who we can't or should not treat with the same respect we gave those in our past. In this case our reaction was too much and our effort was and still is misplaced.

So after spending billions of dollars, enlarging our government, over extending our military and becoming another complacent society once again, we are as safe as we were on 9/10 and will always be as safe as 9/10 because nothing we will ever do will bring us beyond that.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
can somebody tell me how 2 buildings can fall stright down ???

2...3 buildings fell into there footprint due to fire .....1 didn't even get hit ( bld.7) 1st and only time in history this has happened and it happened 3 x in 1 day...hmmmmmmm..I.would hope our government wouldnt pull off something like this....but....



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

mcavoy33

Seasoned Expediter
I'm a little cold hearted but I don't think the cost of 10 years of war was worth 3000 lives. Especially when you have an even larger number of domestic terrorists killing more Americans every year (drunk drivers). In 2001, I think 15 000 people were killed by drunk drivers.

But a war against religious fanatics is easier to sell.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
can somebody tell me how 2 buildings can fall stright down ???

Build a house of cards, then pull the middle foundation card out. You'll see it fall straight down.

I have no doubts the planes took those buildings down. Jet fuel burns super hot. Even the asbestos coating on the support beams wasn't enough to resist tankfuls of fuel.
 

mcavoy33

Seasoned Expediter
Build a house of cards, then pull the middle foundation card out. You'll see it fall straight down.

I have no doubts the planes took those buildings down. Jet fuel burns super hot. Even the asbestos coating on the support beams wasn't enough to resist tankfuls of fuel.

Also, it would be impossible for it to fall sideways without something pushing it from one side while breaking a point below. Falling straight down is the only way it could fall given the factors in play.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
Build a house of cards, then pull the middle foundation card out. You'll see it fall straight down.

I have no doubts the planes took those buildings down. Jet fuel burns super hot. Even the asbestos coating on the support beams wasn't enough to resist tankfuls of fuel.

All 3 of those buildings fell @ free fall rate....no restiance...as if all of the structural support was taken out.....the jet fuel would have burned off VERY QUICKLY..so carpet,paper,office furniture burned hot enough to warp steel.....again NEVER has fire collapsed a building made of structural steel in history....then it happened 3 x on 9/11....weird...then why did bld.7 fall??
It was not hit.....if you listen back to news reports of.that day ...there were reports of explosions b4 the buildings fell...just seems odd ....go to buildingwhat.com


Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
All 3 of those buildings fell @ free fall rate....no restiance...as if all of the structural support was taken out.....the jet fuel would have burned off VERY QUICKLY..so carpet,paper,office furniture burned hot enough to warp steel.....again NEVER has fire collapsed a building made of structural steel in history....then it happened 3 x on 9/11....weird...then why did bld.7 fall??
It was not hit.....if you listen back to news reports of.that day ...there were reports of explosions b4 the buildings fell...just seems odd ....go to buildingwhat.com


Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Jet fuel does not burn very quickly. It burns HOTLY. Both the heat from that fuel, plus the weight of the planes made the support beams buckle.

How many building fires in history do you know of were the result of a plane crashing into them?

I didn't want this thread to go this way, dammit.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
The buildings fell from the top down. The weight of the building above the crash was enough to cause a downward force to take out the rest of the building.

Remember that building demolition is not a science as many want to think it is, too many factors are involved in it and many times things don't go as they like them to go.

WTC7 was cheaply made, it was an afterthought for the complex and built with speed in mind. If there was any thing to be said, it was surprising that it lasted as long as it did without an implosion on itself on a regular business day.

Oh and by the way, I don't remember but I understood that WTC7 was not allowed to have a helipad because of the weight of the aircraft would cause serious problems to the building's roof.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
Jet fuel does not burn very quickly. It burns HOTLY. Both the heat from that fuel, plus the weight of the planes made the support beams buckle.

How many building fires in history do you know of were the result of a plane crashing into them?

I didn't want this thread to go this way, dammit.

Go what way....I 'm not entitled to my opinion....you bring up.a topic on 9/11 ..you don't think there's people who thinks there's questions...and yes jet fuel burns HOT..it also would burn off very quickly...there is a bunch of structural engineers that will put there careers on the line to.dispute what we have BEEN TOLD...



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Go what way....I 'm not entitled to my opinion....you bring up.a topic on 9/11 ..you don't think there's people who thinks there's questions...and yes jet fuel burns HOT..it also would burn off very quickly...there is a bunch of structural engineers that will put there careers on the line to.dispute what we have BEEN TOLD...

No... it's nothing against your opinion. My original intent was to talk about what 9/11 did, as far as the government taking away our freedoms. But if the conspiracy itself is what you guys want to talk about, I can't stop it. In fact, I'm contributing to it. So it's partially my fault that the thread is veering off course.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
The buildings fell from the top down. The weight of the building above the crash was enough to cause a downward force to take out the rest of the building.

Remember that building demolition is not a science as many want to think it is, too many factors are involved in it and many times things don't go as they like them to go.

WTC7 was cheaply made, it was an afterthought for the complex and built with speed in mind. If there was any thing to be said, it was surprising that it lasted as long as it did without an implosion on itself on a regular business day.

Oh and by the way, I don't remember but I understood that WTC7 was not allowed to have a helipad because of the weight of the aircraft would cause serious problems to the building's roof.

Could.not find 1 thing on #7 being built poorly...


Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

MissKat

Expert Expediter
"Where did the towers go?" By Dr. Judy wood. See how far away cars burned. If everything was incinerated why were there remains. There has never been a completed govt study on what occurred. So was it a test gone wrong to start the freedoms we have enjoyed as Americans to be systematically withdrawn? Why are the schoolchildren history books being mandated to be rewritten. Why is the pledge of allegiance being *******ized. Why re elect someone that has spent millions on private vacations, cars, handmaids and hairdressers, and repaintng the white house interior in desert colors? This isn't the country we fought to keep, and we have to fight back to keep our,homes, our water sources, firearms, and way of life. 9/11 was tragic and huge. This is still a fabulous country. Read the book. The maps and photos are compelling. We will never know the true story.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 
Top