So only the key would have known what the whole event entailed after it happened? You don't think any of the others involved would have realized what they had just taken part in after the events took place?
According to a play I saw--a very well researched play--called "Atomic Bombers", it was a running joke among the people working on it that it was known to a great many around the test sites.
If anyone tried to go public, the press wouldn't report it. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-34.html#post4787154
Again to question this a priori objection is that the details of the 9/11 operation would have been known by only a few individuals in key planning positions. Also, they would have been people with a proven ability to keep their mouths shut. Everyone directly complicit in the operation, moreover, would be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the death penalty. The claim that one of these people would have come forward by now is irrational. When people suggest that whistleblowers would have come forward, of course, they usually have in mind people who, without being complicit in the operation, came to know about it afterward, perhaps realizing that some order they had carried out played a part in the overall operation. Many such people could be kept silent merely by the order to do so, along with the knowledge that if they disobeyed the order, they would be sent to prison or at least lose their jobs. (see Kevin Ryan as an example of this) For people for whom that would be insufficient intimidation, there can be threats to their families. How many people who have expressed certainty about whistleblowers would, if they or their families or their jobs would be endangered by coming forward with inside information, do so? !n any case, the assumption that 'someone would have talked, after the event and come forward' being simply an assumption, cannot provide a rational basis for refusing to look directly at the evidence.
Let's imagine you were a 'lower level' worker who helped knock over the lightpoles on the Pentagon lawn. After the fact you realized what you had help perpetrate. What exactly would it take for you to maintain your silence? Fear? Money? I'd like a serious answer. What is the cost of your silence in complicity? What wo
What evidence? I've seen a lot of opinion and a lot of bull(*)(*)(*)(*), but not one piece of real evidence. The only ones afraid to look at the evidence are the truthtards because they know the evidence directly refutes their bull(*)(*)(*)(*). As for the old "everyone was ordered to keep quiet" bull(*)(*)(*)(*), !!!! Seriously?!? As for that dip(*)(*)(*)(*) Kevin Ryan, he tried to pretend he was speaking for UL when he was nothing but a two bit manager for a completely different division. I've worked for several fortune 50 companies and in every instance I've had to sign paperwork stating I would never try to represent the company and if I did then I would lose my job. So tell me.... how many thousands of people would it take to enforce all these gag orders handed down? Funny how truthtards try to write off the obvious fact there would be whistleblowers by trying to pretend there are only a few people "in the know" who have the power to silence the tens of thousands of people who would have what they claim is an unknowing hand in the events of 9/11.
That being the case, I suppose you have direct evidence that people are being threatened? Because it would be really strange if you didn't. Almost hypocritical. "Facts," huh? WTC7 did not contain a "bunker" or a "tree fort" specifically designed to resist terrorist attacks. These are fantasies that you conjured out of thin air after learning that the WTC7 contained the New York City Office of Emergency Management. Hows that for facts?
Not only that, but is New York City now part of the conspiracy as well? Last time I checked, NYC is NOT part of the federal government......
Yes, that is simply an assumption. But then so is all of this. So where does that leave us? We have two competing assumptions. Which one sounds more logical and probable?
What are the odds that you would forget your own advice and attack the poster instead of the message. Or don't your own rules apply to you?
Its all part and parcel of CD. He can't respond to the question because he knows any answer he gives only makes his claims look like the fetid steaming pile of (*)(*)(*)(*) that it is.
What about WikiLeaks? What about blogs? What about YouTube videos? There are plenty of alternative sources one could use that do not rely on the traditional "press".
What about news media in other countries? None of them have discovered this conspiracy yet, or are they all in on it too?
Here is one example of many... Former Italian President has gone public with the oldest and most respected Italian News stating that 9/11 was an inside job conducted by the CIA and Mossad in conjunction... http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/ex-italian-president-911-an-inside-job/1899/
former Russian General has publicly stated that 9/11 was an inside job and concocted event... http://www.voltairenet.org/General-Ivashov-International
a Danish Scientist on Denmark's public television stated 9/11 was an inside job... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o[/ame]
former German Defense Minister has publicly stated that 9/11 was an inside job and concoction of the U.S.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1434036
As far as I know...this is only the tip of the iceberg... There are countless prominent people world wide making such public statements and polls in many countries are staggering on what percentage of their populations beleive America concocted 9/11...
LOL From your link . . . So I guess he figures he can just go around making unsubstantiated claims, provide no proof, and it's up to the other party to prove him wrong??
Then why hasn't someone from the US who was "really in the know" slipped them some incriminating evidence and put all the speculation to rest? Clearly there are media outlets who would publish it. Without evidence, it's just more unsubstantiated claims.
