New 9/11 Thread
August 28, 2010 - 9:01am
The ban on 9/11 threads is officially lifted.
However, the names of these threads need to not be provocative. I think you all know what I mean.
And only one open thread at a time.
Have fun. Start with this one.
Hi maysie. Wasn't the ban related to conspiracy theories about 9/11? Threads could still be opened that dealt with the political and socio-economic impacts of 9/11?
Personally I think of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 in the same way as I do about Elvis sightings or Who Really Shot Kennedy (I only mention that example because History Channel had a "documentary" last night about how the Mob might have been behind it).
Of course it was a conspiracy. How could it not be?
conspiracy=persons aligned in interest
Let me see if I can say something that will trigger a useful discussion of 9/11.
I would suggest that the real significance of 9/11 is similar to that of Katrina. An event that exposed the incompetence of the Bush administration in particular, and the right wing in government in general.
Clearly any real investigation of all the events, especially the meeting where Rice blew off the warnings about impending attacks, would demonstrate these things clearly. Which is why it got sidetracked and buried.
Given that, what can we do about it?
Of course it was a conspiracy. How could it not be?
conspiracy=persons aligned in interest
Hi NDPP, yes it was a conspiracy, but there are all kinds of "theories" about the details of the conspiracy, ergo "conspiracy theories".
There are essentially three theories:
1. Surprise attack theory. Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan and decides to attack America. Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets the word and masterminds the diabolical plot along with Mohammed Atta and 18 other amateur terrorists. It's a modern day Pearl Harbor, a surprise attack on America which Bush and Cheney knew absolutely nothing about. Most of the news media support this theory, and so this is what some large percentage of people tend to believe.
2. LIHOP(Let it happen on purpose) Osama bin Laden is riding a camel in Afghanistan and realizes he wants to attack America and does so with the help of 19 Arabs, and with KSM masterminding the diabolical plot. KSM denies any involvement for five years after which a confession is tortured from him at Guantanamo. Bush and Cheneyknew about the attacks and allowed them to occur. OBL, Bush and Cheney are guilty of a number of crimes as a result. OBL immediately denies any involvement in 9/11, because orchestrating mass murder goes against the beliefs of the pious Muslim.
3. MIHOP(Made it happen on purpose) 9/11 was a covert intelligence operation carried out by the US Military, CIA, and a number of Arabs who were all highly skilled terrorists trained in Europe and America. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, terrorists were trained by the US Military and CIA to carry out attacks against the Soviet backed Afghan PDPA Government and then the Soviets in Afghanistan. They continued to work with the CIA after 1992 in various other parts of Central Asia and Northern Africa, and are still being supported and manipulated by the CIA and US Military even today. OBL, Bush and Cheney are guilty of a number of crimes.
For theories #2 and #3, hundreds if not thousands of Americans would have to be in on it. I find it hard to believe that after 9 years not one of them (if they exist) has had a change of heart and gone rogue.
The basis of the theory is nothing new really. A number of US Congress men and women have admitted that the US created various terrorist groups to attack the Soviet backed government and Afghan people in the 1980s and 90s. A US senator details how the Clinton administration collaborated with and supported those groups to destabilize Bosnia and Macedonia in the 1990s. http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/iran.htm
Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers
Not as many as there should be. Daniel Ellsberg says Sibel Edmonds' leaks are extremely important to US national security. An inconvenient patriot
The US and other governments have managed to maintain secrets from the public in a number of cases. The Corona spy satellite launched in 1960 was kept secret from the public for 35 years. It was a more important intelligence gathering project on the Soviet Union than U2 and SR71 blackbird combined. This is a perfect example of how the national security state apparatus works on the need to know basis with ascending order of rank and file unknown to one another by degrees of bureaucratic separation from the highest ranking elitists. This is what Gore Vidal refers to as a cosmetic government in Washington that is constantly manipulated by military and financial interests. The power of the three branches of US government is not evenly distributed by any means. It's a good model for the rest of the world to follow, but it was most certainly corrupted some time ago. Sibel Edmonds describes some the corruption in detail WRT 9/11 and other treasonous acts dating back to the 1990s. Yes, there were appallingly self-interested opportunists in America after the end of cold war, too.
Great post Fidel
At times, I find it extremely difficult to speak out about 9/11 as it may trigger our emotions, but I appreciate you allowing discussion anyways.
It's been many years since:
The Canadian military is still present in Afghanistan to this day even though the majority of Canadians are opposed to this so-called "mission."
I never bought the theory of the government having a hand bringing down the towers (elaborate demolition job) but I have always been convinced that they were fully aware of an imminent major attack on 'home soil'
However,some months ago it was revealed that Cheney planned a provacateur scheme involving Navy SEALS to attack a navy ship off the waters near Iran disguised as 'terrorists' to justify an attack on Iran.
Clearly, he had no qualms with the deaths of American Navy personnel...I'm sure the deaths of 3,000 innocents to artificially create an attack of Pearl Harbour proportions for monetary and regional gains would be just fine with Dick as well.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but nothing would surprise me about the evil empire to the south..I'd put NOTHING passed them.
my feeling is that the admin was aware of the attack in the sense the CIA had been producing intelligence reports for a few years saying that because of opposition to US policies and all the terrorist groups the US had a hand in creating that it was likely an attack would happen in the US sooner or later, i.e. "blowback" as they called it.
i'll trust Chomsky on this when he says there isn't any info pointing to it being an inside job, and if there was it would be almost impossible to keep from leaking in some way or another considering how many people would have been in on it.
20) Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection
a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.
One example of how a corrupt national security state is able to withhold evidence of 9/11 financing from the public while waging a phony war on terror in several countries simultaneously. Some of the whistleblowers are 9/11 Commissioners themselves. They admit that the Pentagon and CIA deliberately withheld evidence from them, and yet there are people who believe that the 9/11 Commission was a transparent investigation with people held accountable. And nothing could be further from the truth.
Chomsky also recommends Jason Burke's 2003 book Al Qaeda: The true Story of Radical Islam
Burke says Al Qaeda is a mythical enemy created in a Manhattan court room some time at the start of the last decade. They don't actually exist as a coherent army of anti-American jihadists taking orders from one man.
There are still people who believe that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and "Al Qaeda." Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are still speaking to rich people at $1000 dollar a plate dinners and telling them that Iraq was a haven for Al-Qaeda" before 9/11. Hitler was notorious for saying different things to Germany's elite in speeches closed to the general public. What he said to the people in open air squawking oratories was a different matter and why he is considered the biggest liar of the last century. We have a number of official US Government liars in this one. People like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are today's equivalents to Lord Haha and Tokyo Rose.
Two planes hit two towers which brought down the two towers. I believed this too because when the 9/11 event happened I watched the news video over and over which showed two planes hitting two towers and then cut to showing the two towers coming down. I learned years later that:
There are essentially three theories:
1. Surprise attack theory. Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan and decides to attack America. Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets the word and masterminds the diabolical plot along with Mohammed Atta and 18 other amateur terrorists. It's a modern day Pearl Harbor, a surprise attack on America which Bush and Cheney knew absolutely nothing about. Most of the news media support this theory, and so this is what some large percentage of people tend to believe.
- you forget the elephant thing here - although they claim that they knew absolutely nothing about it (casting some pretty serious questions on the quality of the most massive and far-ranging intelligence-"defence" system in the history of the world, and additionally ignoring the many unquestioned reports that various other governments alerted them to something being afoot) - we must remember that within minutes of the planes flying into the twin towers, with the whole country in shock and panic and everybody racing around like headless chickens apparently not knowing what to do - they had the whole thing figured out and had informed the major media stations, who were telling America that the country was under attack by this crazed Arab - from complete eye-boggling incompetence to amazing ability in minutes! Truly awesome (either that, or laughingly unbelievable ...)
For theories #2 and #3, hundreds if not thousands of Americans would have to be in on it. I find it hard to believe that after 9 years not one of them (if they exist) has had a change of heart and gone rogue.
That idea has never made much sense to me, although I suppose it's not surprising in a generation whose concept of 'reality' is largely shaped by what they see on the mainstream media and the related Hollywood propaganda industry preaching America the Great vs various evils past and present, which is very much designed to give people a very shallow and often very false idea of what is going on in the world.
First, the only people involved with knowing what was 'really' going on in a 911 falseflag-op would be carefully chosen, committed 'NWO'-ers, people high in the heirarchy who know they are fighting an undeclared but very real war against 'we the people' and have a lot at stake here, so are not going to talk no matter what. As for the foot soldiers needed, hard to hypothesize a number, pick a thousand people (doing the demolition setup, mainly, whatever) - again, you pick people you know to be dedicated to 'the cause', for whatever reason, who you KNOW to be reliable. They're out there, and a lot of them, floating around in redneck-land - look at the police brutality against protesters we see regularly - cops pepper-spraying and beating people who refuse to be submissive like their 'good citizen' should do - we've always had these people with us, and always will - more in the military, bombing civilians and laughing as the 'wogs' or 'towelheads' or other demonized people get blown apart - these people don't really think much, but as far as their brains do work, they really believe they are on the side of the gods, and 'socialist scum' are taking over the world and must be stopped, etc etc, and they kill and main willingly for their cause. These (mostly) men are mostly brutal, small-minded people who have no hesitation about killing etc for whoever they accept as their masters - many if not most like to hurt and kill others for pleasure, and the wannabe rulers employ them usefully - win-win for both sides. Again, these people are not going to talk, it seems to me - they are in 'lockdown' mode, and we are the enemy.
Senior media people and academics? These are good jobs in a world full of bad jobs and financial insecurity for those with bad or no jobs. They got to these positions by knowing what is acceptable and not acceptable to be talking about - like many, they don't have much in the line of morals or ethics beyond looking out for number one - which is how they get to these senior positions in capitalistland in the first place. Chance of 'whistle-blowing? Minimal.
And again, the idea that 'nobody is talking' is simply wrong - it is to be supposed that even in a carefully chosen team, a few might have second thoughts and try to expose this great crime, and we we have indeed seen many, many people talking. But what happens? First they are just ignored, but if they manage to get some attention, they are immediately labelled as 'wackos' of one stripe or another, and there have been quite a few suspicious deaths in 911-related people. And again we need to consider that most 'progressives' (like everyone) still get their ideas of what is 'legitimate' or 'beyond the pale' from their reading of the mainstream media and mainstream alternative media such as Rabble, and if these places do their best to ignore and gatekeep and de-legitimize such voices, it is going to be much harder for many people to pay attention to what they say - there's also peer pressure at work, as you do not want your colleagues to think you are 'one of them nutcases'. David Ray Griffin, for instance, completely demolishes the official conspiracy theory in his books - it would be interesting to do a little Rabble survey, and find how many people have even heard of the man, let alone read anything he has written - yet many of these people blithely wander around sure of their opinion that we who question the 911 official theory are just fruitcakes, and they have more important things to do than waste their time.
It is a good story to spread around, though, this idea of 'government incompetence' - it plays a bit to the average not-too-clued-in-to-the-real-world citizen's fantasy view of 'gummint', another fiction created by the rulers through their media to keep people away from understanding what is actually going on - but what the people see and believe is the puppet government show of smoke and mirrors presented as the daily soap opera by the mainstream media to keep them entertained and off-balance and angry and dumbed down - and divided amongst them/ourselves, so no clear understanding of 'we the people' vs 'they the oligarchs' has a chance to get underway. These people, the ones really running things from behind the scenes, are the very reverse of 'incompetent' - they've been turning the world into the place they want to see for getting on to a hundred years, and since the program went on steroids some 25-30 years ago with Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney etc, they've pretty much finished the job - really, who's been winning the last 30 years, the minority rightwing neocons or the large majority of those who protest the rightwing direction the world is taking? Incompetent? Hardly - they're just waiting now for the few of us old enough to still have brains somewhat uncorrupted by the lifetime of television indoctrination the last couple of generations have been subjected to and who see what is happening to die off, and nobody left will have a clue as to what is really going on. The Wizard will be safely ensconced behind the curtain. Brave New World, as Huxley saw in development 60 years ago, will be a reality.
Soma time, kids. Don't pay any attention to them foolish conspiracy theorists. Mama loves you.
siamdave, you are not accurately characterizing the period immediately following 9/11.
The first question was, who did it? And nobody had the answer. It didn't take long to identify the hijackers and link them back, partly because it's easier to see what clues mean after the fact, and partly because some of the incompetence was deliberate. Not deliberate in the sense of letting bad things happen, but deliberate in the sense of the spy agencies saying "let's let these thing run, and we can pick up a back trail". The FBI was really annoyed at that, they wanted to make sure nothing bad happened and the spies were getting in their way.
Of course, Bin Laden jumping up and down yelling me, me, me! was a clue.
He didn't actually accept responsibility for years afterward. They have this one tape from the day, where he says: "I didn't think it would fall down", in Arabic. That was considered conclusive. Indeed, these threads indicate that a lot of people still dont believe the buildings should have fallen down. Thinking the building wouldn't fall down indicates not much, since a lot of people didn't think they would fall down.
I think any discussion on this has to really be confined to evidence. When you start building speculation on what this person must have been thinking or what they are capable of, you are really jumping into a bottomless pit where anyone's guess about this or that is equally valid, and people start to get upset because their equally invalid suppositions are poo pooed in favour of some other equally invalid argument.
I don't follow the technicalities. I do work with steel, and have for just about 30 years. I've bent steel, I've cut steel with fire, I've mushed steel together with electricity, I've cut it with harder steel, I've taken a big flat washer like thing almost a half inch thick and spun it into a bowl that's thick on the bottom and specifically tapered all the way to the top, I've seen it bend and squirm and crack.
Steel does lots of things.
I have no trouble believing-- no-- I have no trouble knowing that the temperature in the fire was hot enough to cause failure in the steel.
That's all I will say on that.
The other observation I'd make is that in such a huge event, I'd be rather surprised if all the questions were accounted for in an official report, or official explanation. No matter what expertise you'd throw at it, no matter how open minded the experts were, there would doubtless be unexplained things. Wierd things. That doesn't mean it's evidence of some kind of cover up. Indeed, if everything was tied up in a neat little package, that would be suspicious.
And, just because we have as yet unexplained details, it doesn't make a conspiracy of any type true by default, no more than Piltdown Man "proves" Genisis is literally true.
The alternative theories need to stand on their own, with their own evidence in order to have any creedence.
I have no trouble believing-- no-- I have no trouble knowing that the temperature in the fire was hot enough to cause failure in the steel.
- well, there you go. Not an assertion I'd want to be making in public, esp about the south (right side in pic) tower - but I'm no steel expert, just a guy with a pretty solid BS detecter. One would note that almost all of the official 911 pics are closeups of various types, giving the impression of massive fires - it helps, as always, to take a longer perspective and get some perspective ....
- and of course, one wonders why, even though there was no plane crash, this massive fire, buring much longer than the WTC 'massive'(????) fires -
- did not weaken all that steel to the point of collapse ....
- and a few more such fires, with no collapses, talke about here
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Of course, Bin Laden jumping up and down yelling me, me, me! was a clue.
- talk about mischaracterizing - actually, the 'evidence' that bin Laden admitting doing this is highly suspect, and there is much stronger evidence that he actually denied it - here, for those interested in getting to the bottom of things - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892 . Of course, if you get your info from the mainstream media, as a good citizen should, you wouldn't know about these other things ....
Steel does lots of things.
I have no trouble believing-- no-- I have no trouble knowing that the temperature in the fire was hot enough to cause failure in the steel.
That's all I will say on that.
Some percentage of the local iron workers gang I used to work with, and my nephew's firefighter buddies don't believe it. There was too much smoke and bright orange flames indicating fuel starved fire. Not believable in providing the heat source required for 250 massive steel columns to fail simultaneously within 1/100th of a second. I don't believe in tooth fairies, and I don't believe the government sponsored lies. Maybe younger pups, but not this older dog. I can still climbs steel and figure out when I'm being lied to. No more I'm full thanks.
The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright
probably the best book written on the subject - the entire thing is online
won the pulitzer prize
[Link edited and fixed by Maysie to prevent sidescroll]
Here is the question:
On September 11, 2001, in New York City, how many buildings collapsed?
Never mind the theories... What about the demons?
how about you edit your post?
Compare the fires in those two photos of SiamDave's post #20. The WTC fires were short-lived by comparison. The A&Es for truth are not saying fires could not have weakened some percentage of the steel columns. But would all 250 columns be exposed to enough heat source in order that they failed simultaneously? According to hundreds of independent experts, it's fiction. The odds against it happening are astronomical.
buildingwhat.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHIj9wzbYGQ
"Clearly any real investigation of all the events, especially the meeting where Rice blew off the warnings about impending attacks, would demonstrate these things clearly. Which is why it got sidetracked and buried.
Given that, what can we do about it?"
Well, the Bushco administration tried to prevent any investigation from happening at all, but public outcry eventually made them cave. Sadly, it was a farce and a whitewash. A similar public outcry could force a real investigation if enough people got behind it.
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist but nothing would surprise me about the evil empire to the south..I'd put NOTHING passed them."
Whenever people say "I'm not a conspiracy theorist", it reminds me of "I'm not one of those feminists". Actually, you are, as are all intellectually responsible people. FACT: The world contains conspiracies. FACT: By definition, conspiracies are not out in the open, and can only be apprehended by a confluence of various, incomplete bits of information that may indicate very little taken individually. THEREFORE, to uncover conspiracies at all, one must do a fair bit of theorising about them. Most of the babble on this site is some form of theorising about possible conspiracies, but strangely, only the theories rejected by the babble orthodoxy are tarred with the label "conspiracy theory". What's entertaining is that from a mainstream point of view, nearly everything written here would be dismissed with the same label.
"I think any discussion on this has to really be confined to evidence."
Well, that would really be a first around here, but I can't imagine why this would be the only topic to be restricted in such a fashion.
"The other observation I'd make is that in such a huge event, I'd be rather surprised if all the questions were accounted for in an official report, or official explanation."
For sure, but this implies an honest and impartial investigation, which has never been done. Given that this is still lacking, it is reasonable to continue to expect one, and then we can turn our attention to the various ommisions or inconsistencies with the knowledge that no report, however well intentioned, will ever answer all questions. As it is, we are still stuck at square -1, exposing all the unanswered inconsistencies in order to convince people that a real investigation needs to happen.
Never mind the theories... What about the demons?
how about you edit your post?
Don't worry Remind when he says demons he means White Male Demons, so it's okay.
In regards to 'conspiracy theories'....I want hard facts before I throw my confidence behind a theory.
Everybody with a critical thinking mind can smell the bullshit in most of the official 'evidence'.
Was intelligence deliberately ignored when an imminent threat (and you can pretty much take it to the bank that the FBI,the CIA,the Pentagon and the entire Bush Administration knew full and well of an imminent attack in the U.S.)..yes.
Were they aware of the actual target or if airplanes were going to be used?....I'm confident that they knew of the latter..As for the actual target,up until recently,I would have gave them the benefit of the doubt.
BUT it has since been leaked that the prospect of a provacateur scheme was discussed by Cheney and his minnions which involved an artificial attack of a Navy ship by fellow Navy SEALS disguised as 'terrorists' to justify an attack on Iran.
So clearly,the idea of the Bush(Cheney) Administration being behind the attack of 9/11 isn't far fetched,whatsover.
I'd feel better about voicing this louder if some FACTS could confirm this.
But as I said,it would not be any shock or revelation and hopefully one day the truth will be revealed.
On the other hand,the never ending questions behind JFK and RFK's assassinations are still unanswered
Sibel Edmonds thought that she left corruption and state oppression behind in Turkey and Iran by coming to the land of freedom in America. She now knows that freedom in America is an illusion. Today, Sibel Edmonds is the most muzzled woman in US history.
And anyone who says that there are no whistleblowers is perpetuating a lie, because there are. This 9/11 business actually dates back 30 years. The truth about 9/11 is out in the open in broad daylight for all to examine.
How the FBI(and RCMP) protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer
New Revelations about Ali Mohamed
How Pentagon lawyers protected Mohammed Atta from the FBI
But who's protecting US from warmongering plutocrats, the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and RCMP, and the rest of the gladio gang? Lo' Behold the enemy.
You forgot Mossad...
P4 that was out of line, rude and sexist. Don't do that. This is a warning.
You forgot Mossad...
They were one of the intel agencies warning the US about impending terror attacks. And when the Americans didn't do anything about it, the Israelis talked to the Russians in order that they might appeal to dubya's team. Still nothing. And then reports came in to Rice and Cheney from all over the world warning the US about the new Pearl Harbor attack they'd been waiting for. Nothing. LIHOP at the very least. Treason. Impeachable offense. The historical record wants correcting on this.
I wanna know who blew up the Maine.
What did Teddy Roosevelt know, and when did he know it?
Everything leads back to it. It's so obvious, but the Gatekeepers of Official Conspiracy (controlled demolitions and such) want to distract you with their flim flammery.
Seriously, 9/11 wasn't really a world changing event, and hardly worth the bandwidth to examine. It was good ol' Yankee marketing, like tampons, 3d TV, or Wonderbread.
Find something important to worry about.
They've attacked two countries and are waging a phony war on terror on several fronts as a direct result of 9/11. And our stoogeaucrats in Ottawa have been helping them wage phony war for the better part of a decade. 9/11 could possibly be the genesis fable for the start of WW III. Al-Qaeda doesn't exist, but we are supposed to believe otherwise for the sake of financing a colder war.
9/11 is a bunch of things. I want to start this post with some respect for the dead. Including a friend of mine.
One of the things 9/11 is, is a McGuffin. That's what Hitchcock called things in his movies that are plot devices. The Bush administration used the attack to justify an assault on Iraq that they were already planning. The event itself has almost no importance in this process.
What about Pearl Harbor? In fact, high ranking and long-time embedded bureaucrats in US government from Ford through to dubya's regime mentioned a new Pearl Harbor in a number of military planning documents. They described a new Pearl Harbor attack as a unifying event which would allow them to speed up changes they'd planned for the US Military, as well as changes to a national Security state apparatus that was over-bloated and top heavy decades ago before Homeland Stupidity. We know conservatives love big government and bloated bureaucracy, and 9/11 fits them like a glove.
Or the Gulf of Tonkin big lie that led to American involvement in VietNam?
Did the SS not need to carry out a number of false flag attacks along the German-Polish border during what was the Gleiwitz incident?. We wouldn't have known about this had there not been a transparent investigation at Nuremberg.
Would the Japanese have tried to annex Manchuria without the false flag at Mukden?
Would they have attacked China proper without Marco Polo Bridge Incident as a pretext to attack?
Would the Soviets have attacked Finland without first having shelled the Russian village of Mainilla and blaming it on the Finns?
jrootham it's obvious that false flag attacks have occurred in the past. Why would you believe the Yanks were not capable of pulling off such a complex false flag incident as 9/11? Do you believe Al-Qaeda is real and not just a fabricated enemy for the sake of extending a cold war for fun and wild, out of control profiteering?
Christ, they were attacking countries lllooooooongg before 9/11, and they didn't need such a flimsy excuse to do it. Do you honestly think that they wouldn't have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11? Do you really think that the American public would say "jeez, invading a Muslim country? Y'all better have a reeeeaaal good reason, or we'll put a stop to it!". Right.
They could have used high gas prices, or a fixed little league world series, or just about anything else, or nothing at all. GW could have gone on TV and said "My fellow 'Mericans. I've ordered the bombing of a couple of them Ay-rab countries y'all hate, jes so's we kin all feel good about ourselves agin. God Bless 'Merica, and shit"
Americans love to bomb the shit out of foreigners, just 'cause. Which, coincidentally, was the operation name for the invasion and bombing of Panama; "Operation Just Cause".
"Why invade Panama"
"I dunno, just 'cause we can?"
Christ, they were attacking countries lllooooooongg before 9/11, and they didn't need such a flimsy excuse to do it. Do you honestly think that they wouldn't have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11? Do you really think that the American public would say "jeez, invading a Muslim country? Y'all better have a reeeeaaal good reason, or we'll put a stop to it!". Right.
They could have used high gas prices, or a fixed little league world series, or just about anything else, or nothing at all. GW could have gone on TV and said "My fellow 'Mericans. I've ordered the bombing of a couple of them Ay-rab countries y'all hate, jes so's we kin all feel good about ourselves agin. God Bless 'Merica, and shit"
Americans love to bomb the shit out of foreigners, just 'cause. Which, coincidentally, was the operation name for the invasion and bombing of Panama; "Operation Just Cause".
"Why invade Panama"
"I dunno, just 'cause we can?"
Quite a remarkable statement, to say that the event that launched a couple of imperialistic wars and the official entrance of the world into fascism was not important - sounds like you need a bit more time in the adult section of a library, and less watching cartoons. If you don't understand what is happening, the solution is not deriding those who do or are trying to, but looking for some enlightenment. It's a long path for someone beginning so far behinc - see you in what? 2050? Clue - see if you can get any info on Hitler's falseflag attack that was quite minor in nature, but launched the second world war ... then just keep reading. Lots of stuff.
I have decided to ostentatiously ignore this post.
Of course, Bin Laden jumping up and down yelling me, me, me! was a clue.
- talk about mischaracterizing - actually, the 'evidence' that bin Laden admitting doing this is highly suspect, and there is much stronger evidence that he actually denied it - here, for those interested in getting to the bottom of things - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892 . Of course, if you get your info from the mainstream media, as a good citizen should, you wouldn't know about these other things ....
I have decided to ostentatiously ignore this post.
Of course, Bin Laden jumping up and down yelling me, me, me! was a clue.
- talk about mischaracterizing - actually, the 'evidence' that bin Laden admitting doing this is highly suspect, and there is much stronger evidence that he actually denied it - here, for those interested in getting to the bottom of things - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892 . Of course, if you get your info from the mainstream media, as a good citizen should, you wouldn't know about these other things ....
- I quite undnrstand - sometimes keeping quiet and letting people think you are somewhat talking through your hat is better than opening your mouth and proving it ... ostentatiously ... as a certain poster who shall remain unnamed herein is doing his best to demonstrate - of course, if the goal is to once again derail a promising 911 discussion, I suppose goal accomplished. Perhaps I too shall ignore obviously off-topic posts. Or try to - as a teacher, the urge to educate the ignorant is hard to ignore ...
An ad hominem attack. Bravo. You sure told me, just like you told Jrootham!
But I am puzzled by whatever the fuck it is you're taliking about.
You're obviously just a patsy of the McKinley administration, trying to change the subject away from the Maine to protect Roosevelt. It's a classic diversion tactic. I read all about that in the mainstream media in the adult section of the library.
No I'm saying that this is what the Nazis did before invading Poland. The German people needed to be incited into fear and loathing of an enemy before fascists could march into Poland, and before the fuhrer could announce to Germans that innocent civilian bystanders would be spared.
FDR needed Pearl Harbor in order to justify to Congress that the US should enter the war in the Pacific. It wasn't to benefit the average American or change their opinions in that particular case. But I believe there was legal maneuvering needed to convince the rest of the country reluctant to actually go to war.
The Americans needed false flag, because they needed to bring NATO countries into Afghanistan. That region of the world is a lot bigger and more heavily armed than a tiny country of five million people in Central America. They need military might to terrorize and control tens of millions of people in Central Asia, and many who are armed and were armed by US taxpayers from 1980 forward.
NATO militaries participated in the immoral bombing of Yugoslavia after Bill Clinton's regime created a militant Islamic base in Bosnia to destabilize Bosnia and wage terror war in Macedonia, and aiding the criminal KLA and their Islamic terrorist allies trained in US and Saudi funded terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 90s.
"I dunno, just 'cause we can?"
The Yanks have always done as they pleased in "the backyard" with waging war on tiny and relatively unarmed Latin American countries. They can't do the things they've pulled in those countries in America or Canada or any other developed country and get away with it as easily.
But attacking oil-rich and strategically situated countries closer to nuclear-armed Russia and China and next door to China's major oil suppliers in Iran is another story and requiring NSC or UN rubber stamp approval. They need NATO countries on-side for these fascist all out military attacks. They can't trust the military occupations of those countries to a few LAtin American rightwing death squads and mercenaries. They needed a "unifying event" on a scale of Pearl Harbor attack to bring other countries on-side and even fool countries into believing that their own Islamic gladios, cold war leftovers trained in terrorism on US and European soil, were solely reponsible for 9/11. All of the hijackers were trained in terrorism in American and Europe.
There are no Ian Fleming style concrete bunker complexes at Tora Bora. There are no Al-Qaeda Generals or "tentacles" extending to terror cells in America and around the world. "Al-Qaeda" is an invisible enemy that does not exist. Al-Qaeda is a myth.
That's it alan. The evidence is mostly tortured confessions, and evidence that can't be revealed to the public for reasons of US "national security" The Soviets at least had a period of glasnost before descending into a period of unprecedented corruption and non-transparency.
But this is good enough for those who refuse to believe anything other than what the crazy George dubya regime told them about 9/11. They took the bait story for the official crazy George II line on 9/11 hook, line and stinker. It's everyone else who is crazy as far as they are concerned. For them, "Al-Qaeda" is real, because crazy George and warmongering plutocrats say they are real. And that's good enough for certain people who I don't believe are thinking critically on the matter. There is just too much going against the official cover-up to be believable.
jrootham it's obvious that false flag attacks have occurred in the past. Why would you believe the Yanks were not capable of pulling off such a complex false flag incident as 9/11? Do you believe Al-Qaeda is real and not just a fabricated enemy for the sake of extending a cold war for fun and wild, out of control profiteering?
I have never categorically denied that it was a false flag attack. I have categorically asserted that the buildings fell down because they were hit by large aircraft.
I don't think it was a false flag attack. Too much real damage on American soil amongst other things. But I don't think it's impossible.
An ad hominem attack. Bravo. You sure told me, just like you told Jrootham!
But I am puzzled by whatever the fuck it is you're taliking about.
You're obviously just a patsy of the McKinley administration, trying to change the subject away from the Maine to protect Roosevelt. It's a classic diversion tactic. I read all about that in the mainstream media in the adult section of the library.
....
It's a long path for someone beginning so far behinc - see you in what? 2050?
siamdave, what the hell? These are personal attacks and you need to cut it out.
900 independent engineers and hundreds of other professionals with a combined 25000 years of experience say a real investigation is needed before jumping to US Government sponsored conclusions. Many of the A&Es for 9/11 Truth say they don't care whether it was an inside job or not. What they insist on though is that a transparent investigation was not conducted into the worst building collapses in history. 9/11 Commissioners themselves have stated that there is an ongoing cover-up.
Dozens of truth groups, from firefighters, politicians, commercial airline pilots and US intelligence officers to lawyers and medical doctors, physicists and even NASA engineers for 9/11 truth are trained in the scientific method where logic and reason are critical thinking skills they've developed on the job over many years. And they say that the official 9/11 narrative is full of gaping holes too significant to be ignored.
I don't believe any of us can be sure that Al-Qaeda even exists let alone be sure of what caused collapse initiations of three steel frame buildings on 9/11. NIST admits it does not know what caused collapse initiation only that once started, the rest of the collapses were "inevitable." It was a decade of bad US Government science all around.
I think it was a false flag based on facts covering 30 years' worth of US Government involvement in Afghanistan and Central Asia, and meddling in Asia on a whole over many more years. Military control of Asia was an insane idea hatched in the feeble minds of British imperialists and adopted by US imperialists as their own mad plan for world domination.
Warfiteering and resource grabs must always be considered suspect motives for any capitalist system in crisis as per Marx and Engels. Like US intelligence agencies were warned of impending attacks, so were students of history forewarned by Marx and Engels of the crises oriented nature of capitalism and its tendency toward war for resources and territorial claims. Capitalism is fascism with the mask on.
The official 9/11 narrative promoted by the US Government requires a leap of faith in US Government to be believed. And US Government credibility is at an all time low today.
Shoot. Or I guess it's ok to use a more primitive-with-feeling Fuck! - tried and found wanting again - we start a discussion that looks like it might get somewhere, and somebody calls in the cavalry to get it derailed, and like a fuckin idiot I fall for it. My apologies to anyone who was trying to have a serious discussion here - I shall again make a resolution to ignore these - oh well, I guess I can't say that. But I do find it interesting that such derailing, delivered with heavy sarcasm and verbal violence-cum-intimidation, attracts no comment from the moderator, but mild sarcasm in return gets a reprimand. Interesting - not really surprising, considering the history of such things ...
Let me see if I can say something that will trigger a useful discussion of 9/11.
I would suggest that the real significance of 9/11 is similar to that of Katrina. An event that exposed the incompetence of the Bush administration in particular, and the right wing in government in general.
Clearly any real investigation of all the events, especially the meeting where Rice blew off the warnings about impending attacks, would demonstrate these things clearly. Which is why it got sidetracked and buried.
Given that, what can we do about it?
That would be an interesting case in media studies: how an obvious intelligence failure was turned into a causus belli.
I never bought the theory of the government having a hand bringing down the towers (elaborate demolition job) but I have always been convinced that they were fully aware of an imminent major attack on 'home soil'
However,some months ago it was revealed that Cheney planned a provacateur scheme involving Navy SEALS to attack a navy ship off the waters near Iran disguised as 'terrorists' to justify an attack on Iran.
Clearly, he had no qualms with the deaths of American Navy personnel...I'm sure the deaths of 3,000 innocents to artificially create an attack of Pearl Harbour proportions for monetary and regional gains would be just fine with Dick as well.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but nothing would surprise me about the evil empire to the south..I'd put NOTHING passed them.
Cheney's plan involved only a small cadre of highly trained killers, and news of it still leaked.
If we wish to believe that the Bush administration knew of the attack and allowed it to happen, then there would need to have been security personnel from each airport involved, collusion with whichever departments are responsible for tracking terror suspects in the USA, the CIA, and the INS. Minimally, we are looking at about a hundred people or so just to make the thing work. If we take into account the people behind the scenes and those involved in contingency plans, we are looking at several hundred.
If Cheney can't keep his twenty person plot secret, how would they have kept a two hundred person plot secret?
Not only that, but it has been nine years since then. They would have needed some leverage against all of those people to keep them quiet, especially since someone could easily make themselves a multimillionaire by selling such a story.
If we wish to believe that the Bush administration knew of the attack and allowed it to happen, then there would need to have been security personnel from each airport involved,
No. There would not. I am not interested in becoming a regular on these 911 threads but this is clearly wrong.
If you believe that 19 terrorists with few resources can smuggle plastic boxcutters onto four planes and subsequently bring them all down, without cooperation from airport security, then trained secret agents could clearly do the same.
If you believe that security personnel at every airport would have to be involved in order to get secret agents on the planes with the gear they need to do their business, then that puts a big hole in the official story. Because the official story is that 19 people together were able to make it happen, without assistance from airport security.
So which is it? Can 19 people (religion, nationality, and motives unknown) hijack 4 planes without inside co operation from airport security?
There are those who insist that:
1. governments can't keep secrets, and
2. the real secret is that the government doesn't know what's going on and refuse to admit it
This is wrong and there are several examples from the cold war era to prove it's wrong.
The Manhattan Engineering District employed 130,000 people during WW II to develop an atomic bomb costing several billion dollars and in total secrecy. The MK Ultra Project is said to have been much larger than the Manhattan Project with dozens of different subprograms, again, done it total secrecy and involving everyone from the West Germans to Canada.
The Allies had 12,000 people working at Bletchley Park in England intercepting,d decoding and translating German communications code. If the Germans knew about it, they would have changed their code. The US Military also broke the Japanese code, again, in total secrecy.
The US launched the Corona spy satellite in 1960 after no less than twelve secret rocket failures. That necessitated a lot of secrecy to pull that off.
The Soviets knew about U2 spy planes but couldn't admit it publicly, because they couldn't do anything about it. Americans were not informed.
OTOH, the Sovs shot down a number of US Military reconnaissance aircraft over Korea, China and Russia. 166 US airmen were killed or MIA, and their families were lied to for years about their fate. Their families weren't told about what happened to their family members in the 1940s, 50's and 60s until 2001 when medals were handed out. See William Burrows' book, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
The US National Reconnaissance Office admitted in 2001 that between 1962 and 1971, it launched 7 Poppy satellites to spy on Soviet Naval ships. I didn't know about it, and I know a lot of other people who didn't. Secrecy at the highest levels.
The US annual black budget is anywhere between $40 and $50 billion dollars. Donald Rumsfeld admitted in 2001 that the DoD can't account for more than $1.2 trillion dollars in taxpayer funding of the military. It will be a total secret from the public until at least 2016 due to "ifferences in accounting methods" used by hundreds of DoD agencies. Secrets! Black operations budgetary spending at or above cold war era levels.
We've been over all of this secrecy nonsense for decades during a cold war. Yes, Governments have and do keep secrets from the public. Don't be silly.
No. There would not. I am not interested in becoming a regular on these 911 threads but this is clearly wrong.
If you believe that 19 terrorists with few resources can smuggle plastic boxcutters onto four planes and subsequently bring them all down, without cooperation from airport security, then trained secret agents could clearly do the same.
If you believe that security personnel at every airport would have to be involved in order to get secret agents on the planes with the gear they need to do their business, then that puts a big hole in the official story. Because the official story is that 19 people together were able to make it happen, without assistance from airport security.
So which is it? Can 19 people (religion, nationality, and motives unknown) hijack 4 planes without inside co operation from airport security?
If you want to be absolutely sure it will work, then you have to have collusion. The 19 hijackers who did do it could not have been absolutely sure that they would get past security. It was their good fortune (and the bad fortune for the rest of us) that they did manage it.
If you do not do this, you run the very real risk of one of your teams being randomly stopped by some racist border agent in a bad mood. Then if the local cops who are not in the conspiracy start asking your team questions, you run a very real risk of being caught. Which is a risk that the 19 hijackers took because they had comparatively little to lose. The people running the theoretical false flag operation, on the other hand, would probably be shot for treason and historically vilified if they were caught.
So, you either run the risk of having too many people in on it, or having the operation depend too much on those who are not in on it.
And so to summarize:
1. Governments do keep secrets and conceal black budgets from the public. There are plenty examples of it happening in recent history.
Who knew about the RCMP helping the FBI to protect "Al-Qaeda" hijacking trainer Ali Mohamed from arrest and detention?
Why did Pentagon lawyers prevent Mohammed Atta's arrest after their own secret data mining operation revealed Atta as a terrorist threat?
Why did CIA officials in Saudi Arabia and other countries rubber stamp US entry visas for a number of suspected terrorists and a number of the 9/11 superstars of terrorism? And, is the US Military and CIA still working with "Al-Qaeda" terrorists to destabilize countries in Asia and North Africa and elsewhere?
2. There are whistleblowers and who say there is a concerted effort to conceal evidence of "Al-Qaeda's" guilt from public knowledge. Why? What do they have to hide, smooth over, and keep secret? The way the Soviets dealt with government secrecy was this:
Glasnost (Russian: Гла́сность, IPA: [ˈɡlasnəsʲtʲ] ( listen), Openness) was the policy of maximal publicity, openness, and transparency in the activities of all government institutions in the Soviet Union, together with freedom of information, introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev in the second half of the 1980s.[1]
Truth and transparency, accountability etc are issues directly related to larger ideas for freedom and democracy.
But apparently you know about these things, Fidel.
So someone somewhere told.
But that hasn't happened for 9/11. has it?
Democracy requires that a legitimate, transparent investigation be conducted on a scale of the Nuremberg trials. It should be handled by a World Court according to former cold warrior Bill Christison and a number of legal experts.
There were two sides in the last cold war, and glasnost can work both ways. The future of world peace and democracy depends on it happening. There needs to be global apocalypse, a lifting of the veil of lies and secrecy.
A History of American False Flag Operations author unknown
America's Holy Crusade against the Muslim World
The fact that the 9/11 attacks were not instigated by Muslims has rarely been acknowledged by the Muslim community. Al Qaeda's ongoing relationship to the CIA, its role as a US sponsored "intelligence asset" going back to to the Soviet-Afghan war is not mentioned. (Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism" Global Research, Montreal, 2005)
It's a phony war on Muslims. Designated ethnic scapegoats and fascism go hand-in-hand.
The arrests on trumped up charges, as well as the show trials of alleged "homegrown" Islamic terrorists, perform an important function. They sustain the illusion, in the inner consciousness of Americans, that "Islamic terrorists" not only constitute a real threat but that the Muslim community to which they belong is broadly supportive of their actions:
"[T]he threat increasingly comes not from strangers with rough English and dubious passports. Instead, it resides much closer to home: in urban townhouses, darkened basements -- anywhere with an Internet connection. Homegrown terrorism is the latest incarnation of the al-Qaeda threat." How terror came home to roost, Ottawa Citizen, August 27, 2010, report on an alleged homegrown terrorist attack in Canada)
The invisible enemy that doesn't exist is everywhere and all around us. We must learn to fear and loathe foreigners who threaten our beloved
GermanyAmer.. ahhem Canada!But apparently you know about these things, Fidel.
So someone somewhere told.
But that hasn't happened for 9/11. has it?
- just curious if you have read my post 16, which gives what I feel to be pretty plausible answers to your questions about 'impossible to keep secret' and 'nobody telling' - do you really feel that someone with wealth and power - such as those running the US gov - could not find a few hundred well-trained psychopaths to undertake some serious criminal activity and not talk afterwards? Do you really believe that high-up academics and media people, and government bureaucrats such as Rumsfeld and Cheney and we could easily list dozens of others of their ilk, in capitalistland are upstanding, morally solid good citizens who would never, never, never do anything against the best interests of the citizens of these countries? Do you really believe that incompetent puppets like G Bush have been behind the neocon takeover of our countries and world the last 30 years? Do you really believe noone has talked about what really happened on 911? IF so, you need to follow some of the links that those looking for a new investigation have regularly provided - anything by David Ray Griffin would be a good start.
So which is it? Can 19 people (religion, nationality, and motives unknown) hijack 4 planes without inside co operation from airport security?
AIRport security? How do we imagine that Afghan Mujahedeen traveled back and forth into the US and beyond so easily in the 1980s and 1990s? Did they apply for US entry and travel visas like the rest of us ordinary slobs? Hell no! These guys were bonafide anti-communists! They were made to feel as welcome in the US(and Canada) as any member of the waffen SS on the lam was welcomed with open arms after 1945!
Introducing Whistleblower Michael Springman head of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 1988-89
Ted Olson's Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians
The 9/11 Commission Report states than none of the hijackers were imposing males. Even the so-called "muscle hijackers" were not physically imposing and average height between 5'5" - 5'7".
Meanwhile, the pilot for AA flight 77(alleged to have crashed into the Pentagon) was a Navy academy graduate, fighter pilot, "...a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents."
Historians now doubt the box-cutter wielding small men overwhelming larger US Military trained pilots and forcing 60 other passengers to the back of the plane by threats to cut all of them, and which tends to point to a more professional job. The pilots were likely murdered on the spot and passengers effectively terrorized as a result. Did they bail out in the last minute?
The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright
probably the best book written on the subject - the entire thing is online
won the pulitzer prize
[Link edited and fixed by Maysie to prevent sidescroll]
- this looks very much like an Orwellian Minstry of Truth version of "history" - I do not plan to read it, having absorbed altogether enough of such propaganda through the mainstream media the last 30 years or more, but by the sounds of the review, the author is leaving out some pretty significant stuff. There doesn't appear to be any mention of, for instance, the US role in the formation of the Afghanistan mujihadeen or even al Quaeda during the Russian invasion of the country during the 80s, nor does he appear to get into American state terrorism with such things as the American overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian PM Mosadeq in 1953 and the installation of the brutal Shah, or the criminal invasion of Iraq, several times, by the lawless US military. Such things have undoubtedly had a considerable, even dominant, influence on the activities of Muslim "terrorists" - and to pretend that 'they hate us because of our freedoms' or other such nonsense is not something those looking for what is really going on in world affairs need to waste much time with.
Where are you getting your analysis that says the MSM speaks no truth at all?
I am unfamiliar with media critics that take such an absolutist position.
Also that is a pretty definitive description of subjects not talked about from someone who has not read the work in question.
probably the best book written on the subject - the entire thing is online won the pulitzer prize[Link edited and fixed by Maysie to prevent sidescroll]
Canadian poet and scholar Peter Dale Scott wrote about al-Zawahiri's connection to US Army Sargent, Ali Mohamed in 9/11 in Historical Perspective:Flawed Assumptions
Apparently this superstar of 9/11 terror had pull in low places. British SAS and CIA trained and armed Zaiman al-Zawahiri's BalkQaeda unit in Yugoslavia. Strange indeed.
Noam Chomsky recommends Jason Burke's Al-Qaeda: the true story of radical Islam
The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright
probably the best book written on the subject - the entire thing is online
No it isn't. Tell me what it says on page 12. Or 67. Or 221. Or any page between 259 and 479 inclusive.
Etc.
Where are you getting your analysis that says the MSM speaks no truth at all?
I am unfamiliar with media critics that take such an absolutist position.
- not sure if you are talking to me, but as it is right after my post it would seem to - so -
I don't recall ever saying the MSM 'speaks no truth at all' - I am sure they are pretty reliable about the sports scores, or who is banging whom in the celebrity world, or the tv listings, and even the occasional thing that happens in the world 'politically' speaking that speaking the 'truth' about is useful to them in some way - but there is a long, long history of the MSM spinning things in a way that is favorable to western 'realpolitik' political interests of the day, and one is being naive in the extreme if one does not understand this. Start with Chomsky-Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent' if you have a bit of reading time coming up, or hunt up a guy called Lippman for an idea of how long this has been going on - there's a lot of other pretty solid analysis out there - of course, the MSM doesn't talk about it much. For a bit of a look at the Cdn media in action, I spent a bit of time writing an essay on what they did during the 2008 election to help Harper - Canadian Media: Reporting or Managing the News of the 2008 Election? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/media-narrative.html .
Also that is a pretty definitive description of subjects not talked about from someone who has not read the work in question.
- there's nothing 'definitive' in my comments, just noting that this guy appears to be nothing more than another high-paid American apologist, and such people are not thin on the ground, so there's no need to waste much time reading the same old propaganda over and over again - anyone who has been following the MSM the last few decades, as I have, knows pretty much exactly the line he is spinning. I simply noted a couple of the more obvious things that any 'real' analysis of Muslim 'terrorism' would need to take into account, that he seems to not be doing (surely such obvious things would be mentioned in a review were they there to be mentioned) - and if he is going to try to skim over or ignore altogether the obvious connections between the current Muslim activities and the decades and decades of western violence and theft committed against Muslim countries, he doesn't have much credibility with those of us who have a greater understanding of what is going on in the world than is available from an "education" confined to what is read in the MSM.
(Note - I'm still waiting for some examples of bin Laden 'jumping up and down waving his arms all over the place claiming credit for 911' - I paraphrase, but that is the message you were giving - a message as completely 'self-generated' (as opposed to having some connection with reality) as the claim I ever said the MSM never speaks the truth.
I know I know, don't hold your breath ....
- just curious if you have read my post 16, which gives what I feel to be pretty plausible answers to your questions about 'impossible to keep secret' and 'nobody telling' - do you really feel that someone with wealth and power - such as those running the US gov - could not find a few hundred well-trained psychopaths to undertake some serious criminal activity and not talk afterwards?
Yes, I did read your post.
If you were to read my posts #52 and 55, you would see how I addressed those concerns.
Do you really believe that high-up academics and media people, and government bureaucrats such as Rumsfeld and Cheney and we could easily list dozens of others of their ilk, in capitalistland are upstanding, morally solid good citizens who would never, never, never do anything against the best interests of the citizens of these countries?
This sentence seems to conflate the motives of academics with the motives of political hard-liners such as Rumsfeld and Cheney. I do not think this is realistic. Rumsfled and Cheney have direct financial ties to the defense and oil industries. Most academics and media workers do not.
Nor did I ever argue that they were all of a perfectly good moral character. In fact, human failings such as greed would lead people to blow the proverbial whistle so that they can get multi-million dollar book deals for their exclusive story that would change the world. It is those who wish us to believe in false flag operations that would have us assume that all the people involved have an incredible loyalty to mass murderers.
Do you really believe that incompetent puppets like G Bush have been behind the neocon takeover of our countries and world the last 30 years?
This is completely irrelevant, but I would like to point out how these people can be incompetent in one breath, and then capable of completely outwitting US internal counterintelligence with vast complicated schemes in the next breath. Consistency is one good indication of truth. Sadly, false flag hypotheses do not seem very consistent.
Do you really believe noone has talked about what really happened on 911? IF so, you need to follow some of the links that those looking for a new investigation have regularly provided - anything by David Ray Griffin would be a good start.
I have clicked on most of the links in this thread. So far, none of them have presented any verifiable evidence.
This one, for example, discusses a lot of history between the CIA and its support for Afghani insurgents during the Soviet occupation, but absolutely no conclusive evidence to support a false flag operation on 9/11.
This one provides nebulous claims and links to youtube videos, but no real evidence.
I believe a lot of people are talking about 9/11. I just do not believe that any serious evidence of false flag operations is being discussed.
as for the ability to keep secrets, I will only note that Prescott Bush's role in the financial support of Hitler, along with other American companies, some of whom are now making huge money off the recent fascist wars, was kept under wraps for 60 years or so.
people may be willing to scream out, but if the media won't cover it, how can they get it out?
I think the profits involved in selling the exclusive story that changed the political landscape of the USA would be more than enough to have a media company distribute the story.
- just curious if you have read my post 16, which gives what I feel to be pretty plausible answers to your questions about 'impossible to keep secret' and 'nobody telling' - do you really feel that someone with wealth and power - such as those running the US gov - could not find a few hundred well-trained psychopaths to undertake some serious criminal activity and not talk afterwards?
Yes, I did read your post.
If you were to read my posts #52 and 55, you would see how I addressed those concerns.
mmmm - I guess j** couldn't handle the flack so they brought in some bigger guns - pants, you've got me pretty much convinced you're a troll - one of the upper level varieties with some semblance of intelligence greater than the average bear, and certainly an ability to manipulate words cleverly, but nonetheless whose only purpose is keeping questioning people from getting to the truth by laying down red herrings and tangents all over the place and engaging in impossible-to-resolve circular arguments - I've been wondering, with your endless words on the "physics" of falling buildings etc, but this pretty much convinces me - you have no desire to get to the truth of what happened on 911, nor do you really believe the official theory any more than many of the rest of us do - but your mission is to try to stop others from getting to the point of understanding what a massive load of crap it all is. Thus the ducking and dodging and clever little half-truths with which you litter these discussions.
- re your 52 and 55: yes, and there is a considerable difference between 'addressing' and 'adequately addressing' - it's very dishonest of you to pretend the first has anything to do with the second, but that is one of your common tactics, writing some weak response to a point one of us makes, and then forever referring to that weak point as if you have effectively countered a much stronger argument, which you have not. I wrote at length about your dishonest approach to these discussions in an earlier thread, to which you never responded. Just as a for instance in this case, wage zombie kind of knocked your socks off in post 53 (the official theory posits that the hijackers managed to smuggle weapons onto the planes with no assistance, but you want us to believe if the gov was involved there would have to be collusion with airport security - you have talked before about faulty reasoning, and here you employ it in spades yourself - your protestations about 'being certain' of a plan in the next post are, again, far from adequate) - but of course you don't want to acknowledge that, as that would be honest debate, and that does not seem to be what you are about here.
Do you really believe that high-up academics and media people, and government bureaucrats such as Rumsfeld and Cheney and we could easily list dozens of others of their ilk, in capitalistland are upstanding, morally solid good citizens who would never, never, never do anything against the best interests of the citizens of these countries?
POD: This sentence seems to conflate the motives of academics with the motives of political hard-liners such as Rumsfeld and Cheney. I do not think this is realistic. Rumsfled and Cheney have direct financial ties to the defense and oil industries. Most academics and media workers do not.
Nor did I ever argue that they were all of a perfectly good moral character. In fact, human failings such as greed would lead people to blow the proverbial whistle so that they can get multi-million dollar book deals for their exclusive story that would change the world. It is those who wish us to believe in false flag operations that would have us assume that all the people involved have an incredible loyalty to mass murderers.
SD -- I 'conflate' nothing - first of all, I wasn't talking about 'motives' I was talking about whether or not somebody would go along with some criminal activity, for whatever motives. Cheney et al would have their own motives, the academics and/or media people and others would have their own motives, and there's no reason they need be the same motives - again, very flawed logic on your part. There are many sorts of people in the country - most are indoctrinated halfwits who believe what they see on television, there are a few who might have the wits to dimly understand that all is not as it seems, but they know if they talk they will lose their jobs, and life without a job in capitalistland America is not a fun place to be, and there are the relative few who are well paid to go along with what the wouldbe oligarchs want - the mercenaries of various sorts who exist in every society. To think that most people who might find themselves involved in the kind of planning that would be involved in 911 would be normal innocent people who would face moral problems and start talking is just too stupid to get on the table in a discussion of what really goes on in the world. As is the idea that the higher level planners of such an operation, or the mercenaries, are going to "sell their story for a million bucks wow wow wow!!!!' - cartoon fantasies - I would have thought you would not be such a tv watcher - although I suppose you aren't, really, you are just throwing this out there for the tv watchers reading this, with whom it might strike a chord.
".. who wish us to believe in false flag operations .. " - that sounds like you are trying to make the argument that there is no such thing as a false flag operation, ever - again, the idea is too juvenile to even engage. I suggest you just google the phrase, and do some reading - the documentation is far, far far too strong to dismiss. As far as 911 goes, we have no confessions of the main ringleaders - but few criminals do confess to major crimes before the investigation and trial, which is what we want here.
Do you really believe that incompetent puppets like G Bush have been behind the neocon takeover of our countries and world the last 30 years?
POD: This is completely irrelevant, but I would like to point out how these people can be incompetent in one breath, and then capable of completely outwitting US internal counterintelligence with vast complicated schemes in the next breath. Consistency is one good indication of truth. Sadly, false flag hypotheses do not seem very consistent.
SD: - again, it is YOU conflating things to try to spread confusion - nobody is saying G Bush organised anything, he is a halfwit and a puppet - but the people pulling his strings are anything but, as I talked about in the first post - they have indeed been very consistent in the achievement of their goals over the last 30-100 years. And false flag facts are not hypotheses - you're obviously having trouble focusing here, POD. I understand it - my arguments are pretty unassailable, and you guys are pretty much on the ropes - but you cannot admit it, so you grasp at anything, run in circles, duck and dodge, demand explanations of things that have been well explained earlier, etc and etc.
Do you really believe noone has talked about what really happened on 911? IF so, you need to follow some of the links that those looking for a new investigation have regularly provided - anything by David Ray Griffin would be a good start.
POD: I have clicked on most of the links in this thread. So far, none of them have presented any verifiable evidence.
This one, for example, discusses a lot of history between the CIA and its support for Afghani insurgents during the Soviet occupation, but absolutely no conclusive evidence to support a false flag operation on 9/11.
This one provides nebulous claims and links to youtube videos, but no real evidence.
I believe a lot of people are talking about 9/11. I just do not believe that any serious evidence of false flag operations is being discussed.
SD: -- like this - as you well understand, I was not talking about only the links in this thread alone, but the many links provided over the last many 911 discussions we have had - more dishonesty on your part. But to give you a quick refresher - which a google search found for me in 2.87 seconds that you were unable to perform yourself (??? really, such a clever guy, unable to do this!!) - you could start here for a discussion of credible 911 whistleblowers - http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm .
Well, I won't say it's been nice talking to you off and on, POD - but it has been educational - you are, as they say, a better class of troll. But no more - I do try to avoid beating my head against brick walls, and talking to those who have no interest in getting to the truth of 911 or anything else, but whose only goal is obstructing the search of others in their search for truth, is kind of like that. The truth will out some day - we'll see what you have to say then. If we can find you.
siamdave, if you edit that long post, you'll find a redundant [ /quote ] right before "SD -- I 'conflate' nothing" - hopefully that should fix the formatting!
ETA: Actually, on second look, it's a little more complicated than that, so I'll leave the heavy lifting to you or maybe some kind mod.
Ok I fixed the formatting, but the font sizes are tiny. I'll see what I can do.
That post demonstrates the dangers of a gajillion embedded quote boxes.
Edited to add: Ok I fixed it!
And, having read the text while I was edting and re-editing the tiny font, siamdave, it's not okay to, however politely, call someone a troll. Either once or repeatedly. Stop it.
And I really hope nobody takes this as me siding with one side or the other on this issue.
mmmm - I guess j** couldn't handle the flack so they brought in some bigger guns - pants, you've got me pretty much convinced you're a troll - .....Thus the ducking and dodging and clever little half-truths with which you litter these discussions.
Since this paragraph was about me and not the discussion at hand, I hope you do not mind if I ignore it. If you feel I am trolling or otherwise breaking forum rules, please contact the moderators.
-re your 52 and 55: yes, and there is a considerable difference between 'addressing' and 'adequately addressing' - it's very dishonest of you to pretend the first has anything to do with the second, but that is one of your common tactics, writing some weak response to a point one of us makes, and then forever referring to that weak point as if you have effectively countered a much stronger argument, which you have not. I wrote at length about your dishonest approach to these discussions in an earlier thread, to which you never responded. Just as a for instance in this case, wage zombie kind of knocked your socks off in post 53 (the official theory posits that the hijackers managed to smuggle weapons onto the planes with no assistance, but you want us to believe if the gov was involved there would have to be collusion with airport security - you have talked before about faulty reasoning, and here you employ it in spades yourself - your protestations about 'being certain' of a plan in the next post are, again, far from adequate) - but of course you don't want to acknowledge that, as that would be honest debate, and that does not seem to be what you are about here.
As you note, I replied to wage zombie's query. Please explain how my reply to his or her point was far from adequate. Thank you.
SD -- I 'conflate' nothing - first of all, I wasn't talking about 'motives' I was talking about whether or not somebody would go along with some criminal activity, for whatever motives. Cheney et al would have their own motives, the academics and/or media people and others would have their own motives, and there's no reason they need be the same motives - again, very flawed logic on your part. There are many sorts of people in the country - most are indoctrinated halfwits who believe what they see on television, there are a few who might have the wits to dimly understand that all is not as it seems, but they know if they talk they will lose their jobs, and life without a job in capitalistland America is not a fun place to be, and there are the relative few who are well paid to go along with what the wouldbe oligarchs want - the mercenaries of various sorts who exist in every society. To think that most people who might find themselves involved in the kind of planning that would be involved in 911 would be normal innocent people who would face moral problems and start talking is just too stupid to get on the table in a discussion of what really goes on in the world. As is the idea that the higher level planners of such an operation, or the mercenaries, are going to "sell their story for a million bucks wow wow wow!!!!' - cartoon fantasies - I would have thought you would not be such a tv watcher - although I suppose you aren't, really, you are just throwing this out there for the tv watchers reading this, with whom it might strike a chord.
Sorry, but I do not assume, as you apparently do, that every single person who would be involved in such a cover-up is actually benefitted most by keeping entirely quiet about it. There are simply too many opportunities for one of the people involved to not betray the others for personal gain.
".. who wish us to believe in false flag operations .. " - that sounds like you are trying to make the argument that there is no such thing as a false flag operation, ever - again, the idea is too juvenile to even engage. I suggest you just google the phrase, and do some reading - the documentation is far, far far too strong to dismiss. As far as 911 goes, we have no confessions of the main ringleaders - but few criminals do confess to major crimes before the investigation and trial, which is what we want here.
Since I never argued that false flag operations do not exist, this paragraph is entirely irrelevant.
SD: - again, it is YOU conflating things to try to spread confusion - nobody is saying G Bush organised anything, he is a halfwit and a puppet - but the people pulling his strings are anything but, as I talked about in the first post - they have indeed been very consistent in the achievement of their goals over the last 30-100 years. And false flag facts are not hypotheses - you're obviously having trouble focusing here, POD. I understand it - my arguments are pretty unassailable, and you guys are pretty much on the ropes - but you cannot admit it, so you grasp at anything, run in circles, duck and dodge, demand explanations of things that have been well explained earlier, etc and etc.
Was Cheney one of the ringleaders? The same Cheney that apparently couldn't keep Seymour Hersh from writing a news article about a proposed false flag operation against Iran? If Cheney is one of these puppet masters, then he is not doing a very good job of being covert, is he?
SD: -- like this - as you well understand, I was not talking about only the links in this thread alone, but the many links provided over the last many 911 discussions we have had - more dishonesty on your part. But to give you a quick refresher - which a google search found for me in 2.87 seconds that you were unable to perform yourself (??? really, such a clever guy, unable to do this!!) - you could start here for a discussion of credible 911 whistleblowers - http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm .
If you had clicked on the links that I already discussed, you would have noticed that the link you provided goes to web page that has the exact same information as my second link. In other words, I already looked at that link and found no evidence of a false flag operation.
Well, I won't say it's been nice talking to you off and on, POD - but it has been educational - you are, as they say, a better class of troll. But no more - I do try to avoid beating my head against brick walls, and talking to those who have no interest in getting to the truth of 911 or anything else, but whose only goal is obstructing the search of others in their search for truth, is kind of like that. The truth will out some day - we'll see what you have to say then. If we can find you.
Since this paragraph was about me and not the discussion at hand, I hope you do not mind if I ignore it. If you feel I am trolling or otherwise breaking forum rules, please contact the moderators.
siamdave, if you edit that long post, you'll find a redundant [ /quote ] right before "SD -- I 'conflate' nothing" - hopefully that should fix the formatting!
ETA: Actually, on second look, it's a little more complicated than that, so I'll leave the heavy lifting to you or maybe some kind mod.
- I tried a couple of things, but I think in the future I'll just avoid more than one level of quotes - I actually put the redundant /quote in myself because without it everything after was like regular writing with no quotes - very confusing - at least this way things are clearly separated -
Cross posted. I fixed your post #70 siamdave. Please see mine at #72.
Here is the question:
On September 11, 2001, in New York City, how many buildings collapsed?
I really like that one. Here is one of my faves that I like for 9/11 threads:
On August 30th 2010, how many arguments have been raised, and how many questions conclusively answered nearly 10 years after the fact?
If you want to be absolutely sure it will work, then you have to have collusion. The 19 hijackers who did do it could not have been absolutely sure that they would get past security. It was their good fortune (and the bad fortune for the rest of us) that they did manage it.
If you do not do this, you run the very real risk of one of your teams being randomly stopped by some racist border agent in a bad mood.
What would you estimate that "very real risk" to be? Looks to me like it was less than 1 in 19. How many muslims (or more broadly speaking, people of colour) do you think were being randomly stopped by racist border agents in bad moods before 911? And, how much time and effort would it take border agents to find a plastic boxcutter hidden in luggage?
Then if the local cops who are not in the conspiracy start asking your team questions, you run a very real risk of being caught. Which is a risk that the 19 hijackers took because they had comparatively little to lose. The people running the theoretical false flag operation, on the other hand, would probably be shot for treason and historically vilified if they were caught.
Where to start? If the "local cops" start asking questions, I expect that trained special agents are quite capable of dealing with that. And, I would expect that anyone willing to crash a plane would likely be willing to take a bullet if needed. And, if 18 of the 19 got through and 1 special agent did not, I imagine that agent could disappear or be disappeared pretty easily after the fact.
So, you either run the risk of having too many people in on it, or having the operation depend too much on those who are not in on it.
We're now just getting into conjecture, which you introduced when pitching that an inside job would need to be absolutely sure. I'm not really into spending my time speculating about what happened on 911. I only wanted to point out your faulty reasoning.
If you believe that 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters could bring down 4 planes and 3 towers, without collusion from airport security, then you ought to be willing to believe that 19 secret agents could do the same.
What would you estimate that "very real risk" to be? Looks to me like it was less than 1 in 19. How many muslims (or more broadly speaking, people of colour) do you think were being randomly stopped by racist border agents in bad moods before 911? And, how much time and effort would it take border agents to find a plastic boxcutter hidden in luggage?
I am not at all certain that plastic boxcutters (whatever those are) were used as opposed to more traditional weapons.
Without exact information as to what they were actually carrying, it would be impossible to calculate the "very real risk".
Where to start? If the "local cops" start asking questions, I expect that trained special agents are quite capable of dealing with that. And, I would expect that anyone willing to crash a plane would likely be willing to take a bullet if needed. And, if 18 of the 19 got through and 1 special agent did not, I imagine that agent could disappear or be disappeared pretty easily after the fact.
They would not be able to comtinue the mission successfully if they get into a shootout with the police at the airport. They can not simply shoot the police and then get on the plane. The whole mission depends on absolute secrecy before and after the fact.
We're now just getting into conjecture, which you introduced when pitching that an inside job would need to be absolutely sure. I'm not really into spending my time speculating about what happened on 911. I only wanted to point out your faulty reasoning.
If you believe that 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters could bring down 4 planes and 3 towers, without collusion from airport security, then you ought to be willing to believe that 19 secret agents could do the same.
I never argued that agents could not do it. I am arguing that they could not have been sure of doing it without collusion from airport security.
Airport security leading up to 9/11 was lax, and plotters were likely well aware of the fact. Everyone from the CBC to CNN ran special news stories describing how lowly paid and poorly trained airport workers in the US simply weren't doing their jobs. Everyone who traveled in the US in the months after 9/11 were able to observe the increased security measures. In my own experience, I was searched and frisked a number of times at Ohare and San Jose airports by US army soldiers before getting near the plane.
And as Michael Springman and others have noted, they've been rubberstamping US entry visas and travel visas for "Afghan-Arab" terrorists who traveled freely to and fro the US-Asia since the 1980s. Some of the superstars of terrorism were naturalized US citizens, like Ayman al-Zawahiri. And Zawahiri's brother ran a terrorist camp in the US sector of Kosovo on behalf of Balkaeda.
Anyway, no one believes the box-cutter theory anymore except for those who are still misinformed and deceived by newz media propaganda regarding 9/11.
Airport security leading up to 9/11 was lax, and plotters were likely well aware of the fact. Everyone from the CBC to CNN ran special news stories describing how lowly paid and poorly trained airport workers in the US simply weren't doing their jobs. Everyone who traveled in the US in the months after 9/11 were able to observe the increased security measures. In my own experience, I was searched and frisked a number of times at Ohare and San Jose airports by US army soldiers before getting near the plane.
And as Michael Springman and others have noted, they've been rubberstamping US entry visas and travel visas for "Afghan-Arab" terrorists who traveled freely to and fro the US-Asia since the 1980s. Some of the superstars of terrorism were naturalized US citizens, like Ayman al-Zawahiri. And Zawahiri's brother ran a terrorist camp in the US sector of Kosovo on behalf of Balkaeda.
Anyway, no one believes the box-cutter theory anymore except for those who are still misinformed and deceived by newz media propaganda regarding 9/11.
And that suggests that while the secret false flag agents could probably have managed to get past security, it does not address the issue of the very real risk of being exposed (and thereby shot for treason) if they got caught by airport security.
But I am glad that you agree with me about the plastic boxcutters.
1. Pro-mujahideen and Afghan-Arab terrorists traveled freely to and from the US and Canada in the years and months leading up to 9/11. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Ali Mohamed are two examples. The Afghan-Arab terrorists trained by the US Military and British SAS over the years probably had as many US frequent flyer points racked up as the average business person.
2. Airport security was so lax in the US and Canada even after 9/11 that several investigative news reports showed that airport security still weren't doing their jobs. One CBC report showed how a former airport security expert was able to board planes and enter restricted areas of a number of airports in North America without anyone from security noticing or confronting him.
According to those investigative news reports, it would have been fairly easy for a professional terrorists to smuggle small firearms on board planes prior to 9/11. Risk of being caught by airport security was low.
If they don't get on the plane, they don't get on the plane. Any that don't get on the plane know that the others will.
PoD, the boxcutter theory is the official story. 19 terrorists with boxcutters took down 4 planes.
1. Pro-mujahideen and Afghan-Arab terrorists traveled freely to and from the US and Canada in the years and months leading up to 9/11. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Ali Mohamed are two examples. The Afghan-Arab terrorists trained by the US Military and British SAS over the years probably had as many US frequent flyer points racked up as the average business person.
Unless they were carrying weapons on board each time, that is irrelevant.
2. Airport security was so lax in the US and Canada even after 9/11 that several investigative news reports showed that airport security still weren't doing their jobs. One CBC report showed how a former airport security expert was able to board planes and enter restricted areas of a number of airports in North America without anyone from security noticing or confronting him.
According to those investigative news reports, it would have been fairly easy for a professional terrorists to smuggle small firearms on board planes prior to 9/11. Risk of being caught by airport security was low.
And I have already addressed this. Aagain, the risk is not just in being caught, but the exposure that would come with being caught.
The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright
probably the best book written on the subject - the entire thing is online
No it isn't. Tell me what it says on page 12. Or 67. Or 221. Or any page between 259 and 479 inclusive.
Etc.
Yes - I was mistaken - I've already read a paperback copy and didn't realize it was limited preview on Google books.
To Dave and his critical reaction to something he admits he hasn't even read - I will usually take to the word of someone who actually travels to the locations around the world and speaks directly with the people involved when investigating a story over someone who simply distrusts "the mainstream media"
If they don't get on the plane, they don't get on the plane. Any that don't get on the plane know that the others will.
PoD, the boxcutter theory is the official story. 19 terrorists with boxcutters took down 4 planes.
And where do they go if they do not get on the plane? They just get in a cab and drive away? No. They get arrested for trying to smuggle weapons onto an airplane. Then the other planes hit. Do you honestly think that the local cops are not going to make a connection between the person in the holding cell and the huge terror attack on the TV? And then the chances of containing exposure to the truth plummet dramatically because people outside of the conspiracy control one of the conspiracy agents, and they know it.
The boxcutter story is apparently a fictoid.
And where do they go if they do not get on the plane? They just get in a cab and drive away? No. They get arrested for trying to smuggle weapons onto an airplane. Then the other planes hit. Do you honestly think that the local cops are not going to make a connection between the person in the holding cell and the huge terror attack on the TV? And then the chances of containing exposure to the truth plummet dramatically because people outside of the conspiracy control one of the conspiracy agents, and they know it.
The feds come in, they take the prisoner, and then a number of things can happen. The "local cops" hold no control.
The boxcutter story is apparently a fictoid.
That link suggests that 19 terrorists smuggled guns, bombs, knives, and chemical weapons onto the planes, with 0 out of 19 getting stopped in the airport.
What is the official story?
The feds come in, they take the prisoner, and then a number of things can happen. The "local cops" hold no control.
Which feds? The feds that the cop usually calls, or the feds that are in on it? How do the conspirators make sure that the local cop calls the right fed without collusion between the conspirators and the local cops or whatever office handles calls from local police requesting federal assistance. At this point, it is easier and less risky to collude with airport security.
That link suggests that 19 terrorists smuggled guns, bombs, knives, and chemical weapons onto the planes, with 0 out of 19 getting stopped in the airport.
What is the official story?
I don't know, nor do I think it is relevant. Some self-serving half truth, I suppose.
The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright
probably the best book written on the subject - the entire thing is online
No it isn't. Tell me what it says on page 12. Or 67. Or 221. Or any page between 259 and 479 inclusive.
Etc.
Yes - I was mistaken - I've already read a paperback copy and didn't realize it was limited preview on Google books.
To Dave and his critical reaction to something he admits he hasn't even read - I will usually take to the word of someone who actually travels to the locations around the world and speaks directly with the people involved when investigating a story over someone who simply distrusts "the mainstream media"
That is such a typical Official Conspiracy Theory-supporter response/post in one of these threads - a half truth drive-by smear attempting to cast someone in a bad light (ad hominem), whilst ignoring substantial points in the original posting that actually seriously question some OCT statement. Here, rather than refuting anything I actually said (ie does the guy acknowledge or not the fact that much of Muslim 'terrorism' is simply a response to American actions over the last century??), you take the path of attempting to portray me as some simpleton who simply doesn't trust the mainstream media, dragging up associated images of some internet-addicted conspiracy theorist of limited intelligence or something - when the fact is, my scepticism about what I read on the mainstream media is well-founded and widespread in the actually-thinking classes of our society - in my own case based on 30+ years of adult reading of the mainstream media critically with eyes open hand in hand with reading widely in other places, after the first 30 years of my life of absorbing all the MSM propaganda before starting to understand it needed to be questioned. For the first 20 of those adult reading years primarily in libraries, as there was no internet at the time. I learned, over a long period of self-education (over and above what I was reading in the Canadian papers and being "taught" in university (do as you're told Dave! Think what you're told, Dave! Join the herd Dave!) from reading books by authors such as Chomsky and Lippman and Postman and many, many others these led me to, alternative ideas about the way the world 'really' works aside from the fictions and distortions and gatekeeping and spin and all the rest of it in the MSM. And then when the internet came along, with its much greater content than any library, those of us who already knew we were being lied to and manipulated by the media just got more proof as many, many other people who never got a chance to speak in the very controlled MSM and could not afford to publish and distribtute books suddenly found a place to share their ideas and experiences and knowledge with others. Sure there's a lot of crap on the net, as there is everywhere people talk - but what most people don't seem to understand is that there's a great deal of crap in the MSM too, although the MSM crap is much more dangerous because so many people believe it unquestioningly - part of being an intelligent, engaged citizen is absorbing as much information as you can from a wide variety of sources, and sorting out the crap from the real - which people who get everything from the MSM seem singularly unable to do.
That was what my quick evaluation of your book was based on - many years of wide reading, as I did indicate, not some kneejerk distrust of the MSM, as you attempt, very dishonestly (as is most of the defence of the OCT) to portray.
Part of the media lies and spin etc has been trying to put across the fiction of 'America the Great Defender of Freedom and Democracy!!!', as your offering appears to be part of - but Chomsky has been taking apart this story for decades, but of course his work and writings - like Lippmann or Postman or the others - was not then, and is not now, ever covered in the mainstream media - and when you understand the depth and length of time America has been plundering the world, well, books like the one you referred to - which apparently make no mention of this, and you do not attempt to counter my assumption in your attempted smear - are quickly categorizable as the (as I noted) apparently Orwellian Ministry of Truth version of "history" desired by those who are lying and manipulating what people think or believe in their own interests (for what I find a much more credible portrayal of the 'real' history of America in the world over the last century, you or others might try a book called Killing Hope - http://killinghope.org/ ).
As I said, I am well familiar with the general content of such books as you linked to, so it is not necessary to read every latest version of propaganda that comes along with great praise offered in the MSM, any more than I read every criticism of the mainstream media. As far as travelling the world and getting first hand information - the authors I read and rely on have done that as well as yours, and probably moreso (Robert Fisk comes to mind, or John Pilger, for starters - have you heard of these writers? - almost certainly not, if you rely on the US or Cdn MSM, although they get a small bit of space in the slightly more free British media ...) - I just find other versions of the history of places I have never been, such as theirs, more credible than the sanitized and even outright lying versions lauded by the MSM that try to make out America to be 'the good', when it so obviously is not. My decisions on who to believe are based on my own wide reading of many things other than the mainstream media over many, many years - and I find people like Pilger and Fisk far more credible than the one you offer up as the 'definitive' history of muslim 'terrorism' (actually, calling people who are simply trying to get rid of armed invaders 'terrorists' is itself a pretty obvious giveaway of what the author is peddling .. by exactly the same light, Washington, Jefferson and the rest of that gang currently praised as 'the founders' were actually 'terrorists' in 1776, killing the lovely British masters (reading the British press of the day would probably turn up some interesting parallels with the current American MSM ...)... and as is oft noted (although not in the MSM ...), when bin Laden and the rest were trying to kick the Russians out of Afghanistan, the US called them 'Freedom Fighters!!' )
-- I'm curious, if you bother to respond to this - have you ever read anything from the political-economy-history section of a library, any of the authors I mention or those like them, who talk about the mainstream media in ways the mainstream media never talk about, and offer versions of history that actually look for the truth rather than trying to present America as The Great and everyone they want to steal from as some kind of mindless gang of ogres? I find it hard to believe that anyone who has actually read widely, the authors I mention and many others, could ever believe anything they read in the MSM of importance.
The boxcutter story is apparently a fictoid.
That's too bad. I always thought it poetic that the people who hijacked those aeroplanes used magic carpet knives to subdue the crews and passengers.
And in 2006 as a result of the Moussaoui trial, the FBI denied the US Justice Dept. solicitor general's statement and said that Barbara Olson's two cellular phone calls from AA Flight 77 did not actually take place. The FBI now states that not even one of Olson's alleged cellular phone calls took place. And yet, Olson's alleged mid air cell phone calls were the only information source to reveal that box-cutters and plastic knives were used, and that terrorists killed another passenger in a horrific display of violence. Brown people and foreigners murdering innocent Americans in the air! And they were all later described as 'pious Muslims' and amateur terrorists who struck back at the empire.
Not only were cellular phone calls originating from passenger planes in-flight not a commercially viable reality in September 2001, the FBI does not want Osama bin Laden for 9/11. Even they don't think OBL's confessional video discovered in a village somewhere in Afghanistan is genuine. These were two examples of cover-up and deception, and probably US Government sponsored pro-war propaganda at the time.
Ok I fixed the formatting, but the font sizes are tiny. I'll see what I can do.
That post demonstrates the dangers of a gajillion embedded quote boxes.
Edited to add: Ok I fixed it!
And, having read the text while I was edting and re-editing the tiny font, siamdave, it's not okay to, however politely, call someone a troll. Either once or repeatedly. Stop it.
And I really hope nobody takes this as me siding with one side or the other on this issue.
- and I do thank you for the fixing - as for the other, I kind of see your point, but - I won't get into all the 'but' stuff here, aside from noting that dealing with those whose sole objective is obstruction of progessive goals is something we all should be thinking about dealing with a bit more - it's not just bad luck the minority neocons are having things all their way for lo these last 30 years .... .
....
... the FBI does not want Osama bin Laden for 9/11. Even they don't think OBL's confessional video discovered in a village somewhere in Afghanistan is genuine. .....
I think the FBI do believe it is genuine. They may not consider it "hard evidence" though.
....
... the FBI does not want Osama bin Laden for 9/11. Even they don't think OBL's confessional video discovered in a village somewhere in Afghanistan is genuine. .....
I think the FBI do believe it is genuine. They may not consider it "hard evidence" though.
It's hard to say what they believe. I think the FBI and even RCMP tried to arrest a number of the superstars of the 9/11 terrorism and were thwarted by US Military officials on a number of occasions.
Former US Army intelligence officer in Vietnam Jeff Stein writing for the Washington Post said that CIA officials admitted to producing at least one fake bin Laden video. Does this sound like something the dirty tricks gang would pull? Absolutely, yes.
Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan? by Prof. David Ray Griffin
Have any of: the British Government, US Government, FBI, or 9/11 Commission provided any real evidence that Osama bin Laden is responsible for orchestrating 9/11? No.
Is there any evidence that "Al-Qaeda Muslims" were on the Airliners? No
Why did all eight pilots fail to "squawk the hijack code" on 9/11?
Is there a legal justification for the US-led war in Afghanistan? No
Is there a moral justification for the US-led war in Afghanistan? No
Why did WTC building seven collapse if it wasn't hit by any planes piloted by "pious Muslim" hijackers? No one knows.
Why are the US Military and NATO occupying Afghanistan militarily? And the answer is,
...no one knows.
a) The evidence from various sources is adequate for me.
b) The hijackers caused the plains to crash, whether it is accurate to call them "Al-Queada Muslims" is irrelevant.
b) Don't know about this one. In any event, the SOP for hijacking at the time was to co-operate, fly to wherever the hijackers wanted to go, and arrest them there. SOP has now changed.
c) Probably not.
d) Absolutely not.
e) Building seven was hit by aircraft debris, in particular the nose wheel, that passed through one of the towers. That triggered the fire that took the building down. In this case, I would characterize the report as asserting there were some design deficiencies in the building.
a) The evidence from various sources is adequate for me.
1a) I tend to agree with Marjorie Cohn law professor at San Diego's Thomas Jefferson School of law and former president of the National Lawyer's Guild when she says that the war in Afghanistan is a violation of not only international laws since 1945 but a violation of US law as well.
Note: NLG member attorney Lynne Stewart was sentenced to 10 years in prison for aiding Omar Abdel Rahman, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombings.
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman was identified in a 1997 Report of the Republican Party Policy Committee of the US Senate as collaborating with Bill Clinton's Government in bringing in weapons and Mujahideen into Bosnia:
None of this was mentioned by the 9/11 Commission cover-up. Very little was mentioned by the same 9/11 Cover-up Commission of the US Government's protection from FBI arrest of Mohammed Atta. "Al-Qaeda' hijacking trainer and US Army Sargent Ali Mohamed was mentioned very little by the same bipartisan cover-up commision on 9/11.
And so while it all may be good enough for a few internet bloggers to justify in their minds the waging of a phony war on terror in Afghanistan, it's not good enough for everyone from law professors to trade unionists belonging to the NLG, nor the United Nations, dozens of professional organizations for 9/11 truth, nor is it good enough for progressive people everywhere who are against the immoral and illegal war in Afghanistan.
And lastly, WTC buildings 3,4,5, and 6 were damaged far more so by falling debris than WTC-7. And yet the steel frame structures of WTC buildings 3,4,5 and 6 were still standing after 9/11.
They had to concoct a phony story about fire causing complete destruction of WTC7, because it was obvious that "Al-Qaeda Muslim" hijackers had nothing to do with the collapse of building seven.
Glanz wrote before the NIST report. The NIST report explained why building 7 came down. Well, to be precise they devised models that matched the observed events. I am sure those models are being examined by building designers so they won't make the same mistakes.
AE911Truth Structural Engineer Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7(pdf) March, 2010
"Building what?" - Judge Edward Lehner, New York State Supreme Court, upon hearing the words "Building 7."
It is not outside the realm of possibilities that we never know exactly why building 7 collapsed.
We know that a bunch of stuff fell on it from a great height and a fire burned for a long time.
I an understand not being happy with inconclusive reports, but are there any suggestions as to what the NIST could do to improve their findings? They did a lot of analysis and modeling. It's not clear what other avenues are available at this point.
It is not outside the realm of possibilities that we never know exactly why building 7 collapsed.
We know that a bunch of stuff fell on it from a great height and a fire burned for a long time.
I an understand not being happy with inconclusive reports, but are there any suggestions as to what the NIST could do to improve their findings? They did a lot of analysis and modeling. It's not clear what other avenues are available at this point.
Well I think there are people who don't want to know the truth for politically motivated reasons. The US is a very divided country today as it always was. Some "red States" were once Democrat strongholds, and that was because the Republicans were the ones who prosecuted the civil war against the South. But once Southern Dixiecrats saw Liberal Democrats moving a little to the political left, they switched to the Republican Party. And Southerners don't really believe in a United States of America. The Bush family and Texas Republicans want to work toward the destruction of American society same as Margaret Thatcher wanted to dismantle British society. And Liberal Democrats became just a redundant conservative party some time ago same as have their Liberal counterparts in Canada.
I think, as some little red schoolhouse conservatives in the US do, that both US political parties were of one mind on issues of national security and national energy policy since the 1980s. And those political conservatives have said that all of this 30 year-long business in Afghanistan and long-time meddling in Middle Eastern affairs is due to the fact that America has no sustainable national energy policy. Those US conservatives realize that to continue bombing and waging wars of aggression for oil and resource grabs is bankrupting America. The "starve the beast" US conservatives and rightwing Liberal Democrats are working toward controlled demolition of America. The truth will not save them. In fact, America will not be saved by any policies for political openness similar to what the former USSR submitted to in the 1990s. And similar to the fall of Rome, future historians will point to all sorts of different causes for decline of the American empire except for the ones actually identified and written about by US critics of our time who are now insisting that the truth be dealt with in a transparent and judicious manner. As far as 9/11 is concerned, I believe rich and powerful Americans have already chosen magic over Occam's razor while the American public has little choice in the matter.
It is not outside the realm of possibilities that we never know exactly why building 7 collapsed.
We know that a bunch of stuff fell on it from a great height and a fire burned for a long time.
I an understand not being happy with inconclusive reports, but are there any suggestions as to what the NIST could do to improve their findings? They did a lot of analysis and modeling. It's not clear what other avenues are available at this point.
- for a slightly more thorough examination of the problems with the OCT and WTC 7, one might check this - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 .
Yes, several of us can surely see building seven still standing over Jane Standley's left shoulder. Try to say that fast three times.
BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell YouTube
Cock-up or cover-up?
Cock up, my ass (tee hee).
The BBC received a tip from a source so highly-placed and unimpeachable that they didn't bother to check it by LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW,
and now they refuse to identify the source.
When pressed, they claimed to have LOST THE TAPES OF 9-11.
Uh huh.
.....
Why did all eight pilots fail to "squawk the hijack code" on 9/11?
....
How does Griffin know this happened?
a) The evidence from various sources is adequate for me.
1a) I tend to agree with Marjorie Cohn law professor at San Diego's Thomas Jefferson School of law and former president of the National Lawyer's Guild when she says that the war in Afghanistan is a violation of not only international laws since 1945 but a violation of US law as well...
And so while it all may be good enough for a few internet bloggers to justify in their minds the waging of a phony war on terror in Afghanistan, it's not good enough for everyone from law professors to trade unionists belonging to the NLG, nor the United Nations, dozens of professional organizations for 9/11 truth, nor is it good enough for progressive people everywhere who are against the immoral and illegal war in Afghanistan.
That is irrelevant to jrootham's discussion on the evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.
And lastly, WTC buildings 3,4,5, and 6 were damaged far more so by falling debris than WTC-7. And yet the steel frame structures of WTC buildings 3,4,5 and 6 were still standing after 9/11.
.....
Please provide evidence for the bolded claim. Thank you.
Yes, several of us can surely see building seven still standing over Jane Standley's left shoulder. Try to say that fast three times.
BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell YouTube
Cock-up or cover-up?
If your conspiracy theory is true, it would be a cock-up of the cover-up.
Again, the conspiracy masterminds are capable of orchestrating a covert and complex installation of explosives, secretly confound the parts of the internal security apparatus of the most powerful military and espionage force in the world that aren't involved in the conspiracy, apparently control the BBC itself, but still can't time a news release properly.
I think the characterisation of the conspiracists as global masterminds who make stupid errors like this is somewhat inconsistent.
I think the characterisation of the conspiracists as global masterminds who make stupid errors like this is somewhat inconsistent.
- or else, among other things, it is a test of the degree of indoctrination of the general population - and they find the answer is - almost total .... scary as hell for those of us who can still think to see the blatantly obvious controlled demolition of three WTC buildings that day - and yet when the official story says something else, almost nobody has the mental intelligence or independnce left to stand up and just say 'horseshit!!' - likewise with the blatant theft that is going on in the modern world through the massive scam of letting private banks create and control money - at its root a very simple scam, but almost nobody understands this, and when I or someone else tries to inform people, we just get accused of wacky ideas - the game's about over. Like ol TS said 60 years ago - not with a bang but a whimper - the lemmings marching to the cliff.
- or else, among other things, it is a test of the degree of indoctrination of the general population - and they find the answer is - almost total .... scary as hell for those of us who can still think to see the blatantly obvious controlled demolition of three WTC buildings that day - and yet when the official story says something else, almost nobody has the mental intelligence or independnce left to stand up and just say 'horseshit!!' ....
Yes, that must be it. It is more rational to assume that it was in fact a test by our global conspirators to see how willingly we believe them rather than a simple journalistic error during a chaotic time.
Yes, I am being sarcastic.
Homophobic humour is against babble policy. Make a juvenile joke like this again and you'll be suspended.
Closing another "please find evidence, thank you" thread for length.