Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tower

Please explain your claim.

Don't be a hypocrite.

Explain or defend yours before you start asking the same of others.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 666DanceParty

...there are a lot of holes in the story. But of course there are, they had the story all figured about within an hour of the towers falling.

I've given up on Tower as being a complete waste of space, but lets see if you have any potential.

Cowperson makes an excellent point about questioning the theorist before the theory, so lets see how rational you are about this.

Honestly, for the "true story" of 911 to be covered up, how many people do you believe had to have been involved? As those of us on the other side have commonly argued, the number of co-conspirators would have to be in the thousands.

So, I ask simply, who is "they", and how many people make up this group?

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Don't be a hypocrite.

Explain or defend yours before you start asking the same of others.

Do you see a difference to my question compared to others? I'm being polite. Perhaps you and others should try it.

Also if you have given up then why do you quote me? Don't say it... Do it.

[bcb]

Hey Sheeple,

I learned today that Dora the Explorer is really an illegal immigrant trying to teach impressionable children that illegal immigration is OK.

Did you know that? Did you?

The proof is out there...Educate yourselves.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Tower

Do you see a difference to my question compared to others? I'm being polite. Perhaps you and others should try it.

Also if you have given up then why do you quote me? Don't say it... Do it.

Dear Tower,
I would like to politely inquire what your thoughts are on marriage and the marriage act in relation to the free-man-on-the-land movement. Furthermore, I am curious about your personal experiences with being exempt from acts and statutes. Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Thanks.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Dear Tower,
I would like to politely inquire what your thoughts are on marriage and the marriage act in relation to the free-man-on-the-land movement. Furthermore, I am curious about your personal experiences with being exempt from acts and statutes. Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Thanks.

Haha..........come on. We all know that a man cannot be free when married.

[666DanceParty]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I've given up on Tower as being a complete waste of space, but lets see if you have any potential.

Cowperson makes an excellent point about questioning the theorist before the theory, so lets see how rational you are about this.

Honestly, for the "true story" of 911 to be covered up, how many people do you believe had to have been involved? As those of us on the other side have commonly argued, the number of co-conspirators would have to be in the thousands.

So, I ask simply, who is "they", and how many people make up this group?

I can completely understand why this thread is among the most popular and I have a feeling that you want me to throw all types of things out there to prove the 'inside job theory'. To argue that side of things seems a little sick on such a sad subject, but at the same time it has been a subject I have been very interested in for a few years. All I can determine is from what I have read and the handful of videos I have seen and then assessed for myself what makes sense and what doesn't.

I will agree that if this was a complete inside job, then yes there must have been a lot of people involved in making it happen. However, I am not so sure of how much I would under-estimate the CIA, which is something that nobody has mentioned thus far. The reason why I wouldn't put it past them is because they have been in the business of sponsoring terrorism for decades and there is a lot of de-classified information you can find on other subjects if you look for it. In a couple documentaries it has been noted that the reason there were no F-16's scrambled on time, was because they were a couple states over doing a drill on the exact same terrorist situation and when they were alerted, they thought is just part of the drill. That is probably not the best point to bring up out of the many, but what really gets me about that is that the exact same thing happened during the course of the 7/7 London Bombings where they were conducting a drill on the exact same situation at the exact same time. That just seemed a little weird to me.
What are the chances right? There is also the theory of the bombers themselves not even knowing they were involved and just running a drill.

So for there being thousands of people being involved in making this conspiracy work, I would suggest that perhaps only a certain amount that really knew what was up and those people aren't talking for sure, because we've all heard about what happens when you do that in the CIA.

I really hope I am wrong because i have always thought that would be the sickest thing that could have possibly happened if a) the whole thing was set up, or b) it was just allowed to happen to start a war in the middle east, but there are some documentaries I can direct you towards that you may find interesting if you are willing to watch them.

The government has said they have no intentions of starting a new investigation on the matter, but there are still many questions left un answered and people are left now with just speculation.

I am not going to call anyone down for their thoughts but I am very open to listen to anyones theories if they have one. If I had one argument on the matter, it would be for folks to look at all sides of the story, no matter how nutty it may seem before drawing any conclusions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 666DanceParty

I can completely understand why this thread is among the most popular and I have a feeling that you want me to throw all types of things out there to prove the 'inside job theory'. To argue that side of things seems a little sick on such a sad subject, but at the same time it has been a subject I have been very interested in for a few years. All I can determine is from what I have read and the handful of videos I have seen and then assessed for myself what makes sense and what doesn't.

Conspiracy theories are very interesting, but I've never seen one upon investigation that doesn't quickly fall apart due to evidence or logic.

Originally Posted by 666DanceParty

I will agree that if this was a complete inside job, then yes there must have been a lot of people involved in making it happen. However, I am not so sure of how much I would under-estimate the CIA, which is something that nobody has mentioned thus far. The reason why I wouldn't put it past them is because they have been in the business of sponsoring terrorism for decades and there is a lot of de-classified information you can find on other subjects if you look for it. In a couple documentaries it has been noted that the reason there were no F-16's scrambled on time, was because they were a couple states over doing a drill on the exact same terrorist situation and when they were alerted, they thought is just part of the drill. That is probably not the best point to bring up out of the many, but what really gets me about that is that the exact same thing happened during the course of the 7/7 London Bombings where they were conducting a drill on the exact same situation at the exact same time. That just seemed a little weird to me.
What are the chances right? There is also the theory of the bombers themselves not even knowing they were involved and just running a drill.

In terms of the CIA, they don't exactly have a history of deadly competance in the field of covert ops, in terms of intelligence gathering they were pretty competant but really the Soviets were pretty much the kings of intelligence gathering until the wall came down. But you look at the major CIA operations and they've pretty much either been failures, underwhelming or blown open by leaks. I'll give you the title on the history of the CIA book that I have been reading, but their intelligence failures and ball dropping that occured prior to the second Iraqi war are more common then successes, especially after the 80's.

The airforce stand down has been covered, but to summarize. Up until 9/11 the U.S. military didn't have a plan in place for intercepting internal threats. All of their interception zones were outward facing. Usually at any one time there were relatively few planes on alert in any one day because the American didn't see the threat. In terms of drills and excercises, even after the cold war there wasn't a day that went by that the U.S. Airforce, Navy or Army isn't running an excercise or drill.

In terms of 7/7 its more then likely that after 9/11 the number of drills and training excercises went up exponentially, so to me its not weird that drills or excercises were happening, they're a fairly common occurance and it allowed the terrorists to catch a break.

Going back to the airforce interception issues, up until 9/11 there was no concrete communication plane between the FAA and the Airforce. There were no hardened radio links, no chain of command listing, this was all suppossed to happen over the phone and one of the biggest problems was that the FAA airforce liason was tough to find.

Originally Posted by 666DanceParty

So for there being thousands of people being involved in making this conspiracy work, I would suggest that perhaps only a certain amount that really knew what was up and those people aren't talking for sure, because we've all heard about what happens when you do that in the CIA.

High members of the U.S. government including the president, top members of the CIA, the command structure of either a covert special operations unit which would have to use probably delta force members to seize the planes. Passengers who have since vanished. The team of explosive demolitions people that have to plant 18000 lbs of explosives per building. High level commanders with the airforce, high level entities with the army and navy and airforce. The owners of the WTC, all of the jews that didn't show up for work that day suppossedly. The planted witnesses. etc.

Originally Posted by 666DanceParty

I really hope I am wrong because i have always thought that would be the sickest thing that could have possibly happened if a) the whole thing was set up, or b) it was just allowed to happen to start a war in the middle east, but there are some documentaries I can direct you towards that you may find interesting if you are willing to watch them.

There are easier and cheaper ways to start a war using power point and pictures of vans and calling them mobile chemical labs works quite well.

A small bomb in a mall with a terrorist group claiming credit. Maybe a sniper from god? The WTC/Pentagon would be accessive and wastfull.

Originally Posted by 666DanceParty

The government has said they have no intentions of starting a new investigation on the matter, but there are still many questions left un answered and people are left now with just speculation.

There's nothing out there that warrents a new investigation of 9/11. People are going to speculate and make up theories no matter how complete the investigation is. Alex Jones for example hasn't pointed out anything that hasn't been debunked so you can't pull up a new investigation based on his stuff. Nor Jessie Ventura who is not an expert on this subject.



[

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In terms of 7/7 its more then likely that after 9/11 the number of drills and training excercises went up exponentially, so to me its not weird that drills or excercises were happening, they're a fairly common occurance and it allowed the terrorists to catch a break.

Another thing about this. These people while fanatics, are probably not stupid. There is planning that has to happen, preparation etc. It isn't that much of a stretch for them to actually plan an attack specifically during the same time frame as one of these exercises.

And no inside information, leaks etc need to be gained by the terrorists. All they have to do is observe.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Dear Tower,
I would like to politely inquire what your thoughts are on marriage and the marriage act in relation to the free-man-on-the-land movement. Furthermore, I am curious about your personal experiences with being exempt from acts and statutes. Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Thanks.

Ha ha ha... I was never married so I have not read this act.

Sure,

My thoughts...

Registration - Much like at birth when you register your child and a person (legal fictional entity) is created. Your marriage is seized under Admiralty law (law of the water) and becomes property of the government. You are now married to two entities and that is unlawful. (Anytime something is registered you give up ownership. This includes cars, children, homes...etc)

As far as Freeman-on-the-land,

I have a perfected claim of right/affidavit. I have given all parties (15 including the PM and Elizabeth Alexandra Mary) AMPLE time to respond and Default Judgment and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence has been made in my favor. I now live only under common law jurisdiction.

I will not post documents but will offer anyone the option to see them in private.

I'm now working on the Motor Vehicle act, however I am just starting this process (drafting Docs). I have acquaintances whom travel with private plates, and private ID and a BOND for liability. You want proof... You'll have to wait till it is done and see it in private. It is pretty exciting however.

Remember the topics on money? Well the Bond was created with just a signature. Because money does not exist it becomes a "I'll pay you when true money is available". Go back and read the PPSA post I did. This explains it in more detail.

Thanks for the post... Even though I am sure it was dripping with sarcasm.

I get how odd this stuff is... It's freak'n odd! But it is not untrue and it is growing and I think that is great.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I've given up on Tower as being a complete waste of space, but lets see if you have any potential.

Cowperson makes an excellent point about questioning the theorist before the theory, so lets see how rational you are about this.

Honestly, for the "true story" of 911 to be covered up, how many people do you believe had to have been involved? As those of us on the other side have commonly argued, the number of co-conspirators would have to be in the thousands.

So, I ask simply, who is "they", and how many people make up this group?

Man, you opened up a can of worms with that one. All of a sudden the '666DanceParty' name drops down revealing the familiar LannyMcDonald handle complete with avatar and we end up in a long drawn out arguement about 'compartmentalization' accounting for the question of "How many people must have been in on this?"

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Tower

Ha ha ha... I was never married so I have not read this act.

Sure,

My thoughts...

Registration - Much like at birth when you register your child and a person (legal fictional entity) is created. Your marriage is seized under Admiralty law (law of the water) and becomes property of the government. You are now married to two entities and that is unlawful. (Anytime something is registered you give up ownership. This includes cars, children, homes...etc)

As far as Freeman-on-the-land,

I have a perfected claim of right/affidavit. I have given all parties (15 including the PM and Elizabeth Alexandra Mary) AMPLE time to respond and Default Judgment and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence has been made in my favor. I now live only under common law jurisdiction.

I will not post documents but will offer anyone the option to see them in private.

I'm now working on the Motor Vehicle act, however I am just starting this process (drafting Docs). I have acquaintances whom travel with private plates, and private ID and a BOND for liability. You want proof... You'll have to wait till it is done and see it in private. It is pretty exciting however.

Remember the topics on money? Well the Bond was created with just a signature. Because money does not exist it becomes a "I'll pay you when true money is available". Go back and read the PPSA post I did. This explains it in more detail.

Thanks for the post... Even though I am sure it was dripping with sarcasm.

I get how odd this stuff is... It's freak'n odd! But it is not untrue and it is growing and I think that is great.

Okay, let me get this straight.
You sent 15 letters saying essentially "I do not conscent to your laws, and I'm not going to follow them" You then did not get a response from any of the people you mailed them to (including the Prime Minister), and this is your proof that this is a valid approach?

What happens when you get taken to court and there's no record of these letters because the people involved just threw them out? Just your word (maybe even copies of the letters)?

What is keeping me from keeping a letter on hand and then claiming that I've sent it to everyone and didn't get a response?
Is that not a great way for me to get around any issues that may be posed by either method of living?
If I want to do something that requires living under a certain statute, I just go ahead and do it, and if I get in trouble for say speeding, and driving with a bond that I made myself, then I just bust out my letter and say "I mailed this to Stephen Harper and he didn't reply, so you can't arrest me?"

For that matter, what value does the Bond that you're driving around with.
You're saying that the bond stipulates that you'll pay in real money, but since that doesn't exist you don't have to pay? Does the Freeman-on-the-land menthod obsolve you of all responsiblity in any matter you choose?

Finally, what does Admirallty law have to do with being married? What two entities am I married to?

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, let me get this straight.
You sent 15 letters saying essentially "I do not conscent to your laws, and I'm not going to follow them" You then did not get a response from any of the people you mailed them to (including the Prime Minister), and this is your proof that this is a valid approach?

What happens when you get taken to court and there's no record of these letters because the people involved just threw them out? Just your word (maybe even copies of the letters)?

What is keeping me from keeping a letter on hand and then claiming that I've sent it to everyone and didn't get a response?
Is that not a great way for me to get around any issues that may be posed by either method of living?
If I want to do something that requires living under a certain statute, I just go ahead and do it, and if I get in trouble for say speeding, and driving with a bond that I made myself, then I just bust out my letter and say "I mailed this to Stephen Harper and he didn't reply, so you can't arrest me?"

For that matter, what value does the Bond that you're driving around with.
You're saying that the bond stipulates that you'll pay in real money, but since that doesn't exist you don't have to pay? Does the Freeman-on-the-land menthod obsolve you of all responsiblity in any matter you choose?

Finally, what does Admirallty law have to do with being married? What two entities am I married to?

There are lawful processes which must be taken in everything. It is not just letters. It is the process and that process is recorded and public record. All parties received NOTICE and have ample time to discuss. Also the wording is much different than what you're posting.

Money is not what you think it is. I would be acting just like a bank does. Are you saying banks are acting illegally? Cash is not money, it's a promise to pay at a later date when real money is in circulation. Fiat Currency isn't "real". You are accepting more responsability by doing everything yourself. I waive all benefits and take that responsibility for myself.

Admiralty law has EVERYTHING to do with it. Your registration basically is like an unmaned boat out at sea. Nobody there to claim it is theirs so it is claimed as salvage. You're then married to the province and your husband/wife...


Think about it this way.

You own your car right? Now if it is yours how can it be towed away against your consent? It would be stealing and holding it hostage is fraud and extortion.

However now you have registered it. Your car also belongs to the registered party as well. They are not stealing only claiming it as you are misusing their property by excessive speeding or driving drunk (egs of a car being towed). Now pay up or you will never see your car again!!!!

Yes driving drunk is irresponsible from my freeman-on-the-land view. I do not condone it...

Also the BC water site is not loading for me. I'll get to it when I can get on the site.

[666DanceParty]

Cowboy, you love this can of worms and I am glad you are being somewhat entertained by this topic. It is always important to throw those with an alternate view under the train before they provoke unpopular thought. You are entertaining me as well.

Capn Crunch, you seem to have an answer for pretty much everything and although you somewhat make sense, I am still not convinced you have it all covered. You do seem to be very educated in the matter and i am sure you have read a lot of Chomsky and alike and your posts are supported. I am still not sure I agree though on a few things.

The part where the drills being conducted about the exact same scenario at the exact same time are a little too fishy for me to be written off as just a coincidence and since there hasn't been enough proof supplied for either side of the story, it seems like we are all just left with speculation until these answers come out once and for all....which isn't likely to happen since they have already been swept under the rug.

Anyways, since you are familiar with Alex Jones, i am assuming you have seen his movie Terror Storm, which for anybody that isn't familiar goes into detail about some pretty hairy false flag terror attacks throughout history and dives into the 7/7 bombings as well as some 9/11 stuff. I am not sitting here trying to plug Alex Jones because he is what he is which is usually really eccentric and hard to swallow, but the guy has done some research and I think this movie is worth the view. Most of all, i am really quite interested in your take, Mr Crunch on some of the things that are brought up in this video that have to do with government sponsored terror. I personally wish AJ would conduct himself a little more professionally in a lot of cases, be he is what he is and it is quite informative from the 'conspiracy' perspective. I think you will enjoy it even if you dont agree with it...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...79389947&hl=en
Check it out anyone who is interested on this take....

[bcb]

So, being unmarried makes me analogous to an unregistered boat?

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Haha..........come on. We all know that a man cannot be free when married.

Well at least while he is not free he is clothed in clean, freshly ironed garments, well fed on a balanced diet and loved.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by 666DanceParty

Cowboy, you love this can of worms and I am glad you are being somewhat entertained by this topic. It is always important to throw those with an alternate view under the train before they provoke unpopular thought. You are entertaining me as well.

Don't feel like you're being oppressed here. I believe you have every right to express whatever is swimming around your brian at whatever moment in time you choose to express it. Just the same as I and the rest of us 'oppressors' have to right to redicule said expressions mercilessly.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Just the same as I and the rest of us 'oppressors' have to right to redicule said expressions mercilessly.

Actually one ridiculer (the one doing the ridicule lol) may create an injury and a private matter for which said one would have to remedy. Depending on said ones style of ridicule and how much of a bully said one (ridiculer) wishes to act like...

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tower

Actually one may create an injury and a private matter for which said one would have to remedy. Depending on said ones style of ridicule and how much of a bully said one wishes to be...

I shall remedy one rock with my name signed on it. I trust it will be accepted it as appropriate specie!

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I shall remedy one rock with my name signed on it. I trust it will be accepted it as appropriate specie!

That is a funny comment...