9/11 Thread Closed to Keep us from the Truth

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

According to [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR200504... McDermott. HarperCollins $25.95
[/url], and that's enough to pay, there was a radical change in lifestyle for those who joined the Hamburg cell in the months before 9-11.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Bobolink Bobolink's picture

The trouble with the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that for it to be real, it would have involved the knowing actions of over 10,000 people from myriad unrelated agencies, corporations, and government departments. And no one has talked! Cheney and Bush are geniuses! Which is why the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan were achieved at no loss of allied lives!

Gwyne Dyer says it better than me:

[url=http://tinyurl.com/yv5wa9]http://tinyurl.com/yv5wa9[/url]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sure, that is the Chenney planned 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It has absolutely no relation to the Chenney cabal simply intentionally avoided doing anything about the copious warnings coming in from the national security agencies. That just takes a few people saying things like: "I don't find that to be a very credible threat," and "my other sources say this is under control," and things of that order.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Sure, that is the Chenney planned 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It has absolutely no relation to the Chenney cabal simply intentionally avoided doing anything about the copious warnings coming in from the national security agencies. That just takes a few people saying things like: "I don't find that to be a very credible threat," and "my other sources say this is under control," and things of that order.[/b]


Which brings me back to the same question, why wasn't anybody fired? Not even a token scapegoat or two!

Fidel

Bill Maher, the liberal talk show host down there, was the first to lose his job I believe.

The economic recession that was just getting underway at the end of Clinton's rein was another obvious fact that went ignored by Republicans for a few years. The superrich in America love a good recession with lots of job losses.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

A few newspaper editors were also fired for asking a few too many questions about what went wrong on 9/11, Fidel.

Those events were symbolic of the cone of silence that fell over the US for the first month or two. Lots of self-censorship on the part of the media as if it would be cruel to question events when the US was still grieving. That's why the invasion of Afghanistan was such a cakewalk as was the creation of Homeland Security and all the powers they were afforded.

Many Democrats and progressives in the US maintain that 9/11 happened because of gross government incompetence. A valid theory but as far as I know, no major players were fired or reprimanded.

Fidel

It was the invisible hand that did it. The Democrats also accuse them of deliberate inaction on the economy, which ultimately serves the interest of those with money when inflation hits rock bottom from a lack of consumer spending. And so some would add, why no, because the rich like to make money in a bustling economy. And we would counter that the richest and most influential friends of the Bush family Republican Party cabal, ie. themselves to big oilm big military, big pharma etc, even a few bin Laden family members, make their money by government contracts, federal patent protections, and very little to do with what's happening in the market-based economy. Just another example of deliberate inaction.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Gwynne Dyer nails it:

quote:

It is a real problem, because by linking their fantasies about 9/11 to the Bush administration's deliberate deception of the American people in order to gain support for the invasion of Iraq, they bring discredit on the truth and the nonsense alike.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Those aren't the theories we are talking about presently. Didn't the whole, people flying airplanes thing end up in a daily presidential briefing, and didn't they just ignore it? I thought that came out in the official enquirey.

Who can say what the motive for that was? Its all conjecture of course, but its a perfectly valid conjecture.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

Ya but M, we've been building on Cueball's theory just fine until now. With Dyer we got nothin.

Cueball Cueball's picture

There isn't much to build on really. Its just there, simple, not a lot of people, no money and tons of plausible deniability, which is of course the main problems that Dyer talks about with the other theories.

We'll never know.

outsider

Vell, I jump in the deep end. I am a dyed-in-the-wool '9/11 Was An Inside Job' merchant, for openers. I am also a veteran Human Rights campaigner, since the '70's, so I do not have the hesitancy of some of you about the venality of Western governments and 'Intelligence' agencies.

Just what part of 'obviously a classic 'False Flag' op do any of you not understand? Because that is the starting point; historically, these attacks against one's own country, or the intentional fomenting of an attack by an enemy (i.e. Pearl Harbor' (Robert Stinnett 'Day of Deceit')), or setting up 'inticements' with so-called 'Sting Operations' are not new. From Nero burning Rome, and blaming the Christians, through 'Spotty Lincoln' (search), Northwoods, USS Liberty, Adolph (burning of Reichstag, and blaming the Commies, and 'Operation Himmler' (faking attacks against German bases near Polish border, and taking over a German radio station and broadcasting in Polish, leading to Adolph's attack on Poland); 'Gulf of Tonkin' 'incident' (which declassified documents prove did not actually occur, but it conveniently gave LB 'How Many Kids Did You Kill Today' J the excuse to massively escalate the Vietnam War (which JFK had been winding down, one of the many reasons he was assassinated; others include being determined to stop Israel getting nuclear weapons; accepting peace feelers from Castro; beeing decidedly anti-Secret Society';  being determined to do away with the fiendish Federal Reserve (he had even started printing Government currency backed by silver; one of the first things LBJ put a stop to); and, of course, LBJ's lust for power (he and JFK hated each other from the 'get-go'; JFK, to his own ruin, accepted LBJ as a running 'mate').

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth now have 985 a&e's on their website, soon to top a 1,000; any of you scoffers find just one who would be willing to debate the issue with them? Ditto, Pilots, Patriots, Scholars; they would all happily defend their 'Outrageous Conspiracy Theories' (as 'Dubya' called them) with any and all comers. Why does no one take them up? Why did no one take up Jimmy Walters $1,000,000 dollar challenge (now no longer active)? All the scoffers can do is scoff, and dismiss evidence without debating it.

I hope this thread is not closed, but it appears it may be. Here goes!

London UK

Sineed

outsider wrote:
All the scoffers can do is scoff, and dismiss evidence without debating it.

But it has been debated. Over and over and over and over and over and...the same points get debunked, and I see them get debunked, and then more 9/11 truthers come on and say, "Why can't anybody disprove these points?"  And all they have to do is go upthread, and there are the points being disproved.

It's all rather boring, really.  People send me e-mails saying, "Why didn't the plane hitting the Pentagon make a plane-shaped hole in the side of the building?  That looks more like an explosion than an impact" (etc), when the most rudimentary understanding of physics accounts for why that is.

How about a seasonal example: during this holiday season, one dark and rainy evening, I entertained the children by going to youtube and watching the people who lower a 20-pound turkey into a deep-fryer that is full to the brim with hot oil, who are completely caught by surprise (before they are compelled to run for their lives) when the oil overflows onto the burner and ignites.  I discuss Archimedes' principle with the kids, and whether or not home insurance pays for that sort of thing.

Basically, these same hapless turkey-deep fryers who nearly burn down their houses with their ignorance of basic physics want to convince me that a building struck by a plane wouldn't collapse like that.

Now, if my friend who has a master's degree in Engineering Science said, "You know, it's weird how the buildings collapsed like that," I might get on board.  But that isn't happening.  Instead, it's people who don't know what the hell they're talking about that go on about it.

I'm not an engineer, and don't normally have much to do with the 9/11 threads.  I work in health care, and have debated the health-care-related conspiracy theorists, who think that AIDS or the swine flu was genetically engineered by the CIA, a cure for cancer is being covered up by Big Pharma, etc.  I figure, probably the 9/11 truthers are as ill-informed as the health care truthers, and isn't that a shame.

It's a shame because there really are malevolent people in the world with hidden agendas.  Big Pharma does actively engage in disinformation campaigns and wastes research money developing "me-too" drugs that differ slightly from patented, highly-profitable remedies for disorders that affect people in the wealthier nations.  In the past couple of years billions were spent bringing Americans expensive "new" drugs for heartburn/ulcers and high cholesterol, where there already were many existing drugs in the same drug classes, while Africans continue to perish horribly of malaria, AIDS and parasitic infections.  No conspiracy; just venal people trying to make lots of money.

And Dubya took advantage of 9/11 to push through an aggressive agenda that stepped on human rights and killed tens of thousands of people.  No conspiracy; just venal people trying to make lots of money and consolidate power.

As long as gullible and ill-educated people continue to mislead each other about non-existent cabals of grey-suited men in Zurich who greet each other with secret handshakes and meet inside a giant pyramid and plot world domination, the real bad guys continue to get away with what they do.  And they are not hiding anywhere - they are in plain sight if we just open our eyes to see.

Fidel

Sineed, the majority of Americans don't believe crazy George Bush's tale of 9/11 events. And neither do two chair persons of the bipartisan hand-picked Commission itself, which wasn't even going to happen if it wasn't for victims of 9/11 families pushing for an official investigation. Can you imagine that? 3000 people died on 9/11, and crazy George's government didn't even want to investigate it?

9/11 Commission Chairs have said in recent years that crucial evidence was withheld by the Pentagon, FBI, and CIA. [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16573]Where was Osama bin Laden on 9/11?[/url] He was receiving medical attention and out of commission (CBS Investigative News)

[url=http://www.rjhresearch.com/ADR/counterterrorism/mohamed.htm]Who is Ali Mohamed?[/url] And why did the US government knowingly protect a known Al-CIA'da hijacking specialist and superstar of terrorism from investigation? Why did the FBI instruct the Canadian RCMP to release him in 1993 before entering freely into the US?

autoworker autoworker's picture

Why not accept the explanation put forth by the 9/11 Commission: intelligence failure? There apppears to be a mytholgy surrounding the security apparatus which reasons that calamatious outcomes can only occur if allowed to. What if it was simply incompetence that conspired against itself? It may be that the truth simply begs complication.

Sineed

I wouldn't take what Dubya takes at face value either - but maybe what the Pentagon, FBI and CIA are hiding is evidence of their own bungling.

What's most probable to me is that 9/11 was a catastrophic failure of various governmental departments, not to mention a failure of leadership, and folks are extrapolating a conspiracy out of all the elaborate and wide-ranging ass-covering that has been going on ever since.

As a civil servant x 12 years, I can totally see how people can find something nefarious in the actions of large numbers of people trying to protect their careers.

Sineed

autoworker wrote:

Why not accept the explanation put forth by the 9/11 Commission: intelligence failure?

High aw!  We cross-posted.  I favour the explanation that it wasn't a failure of intelligence, but a failure of following up on the information gathered by the intelligence agencies that helped solidify Dubya's administration as wilfully incompetent IMO.

outsider

Sineed: Why anyone should ask you about this issue, I don't know. So you're not an engineer or architect, Nor am I. So I see what they say about it: that's why I directed anyone interested to check the Architects and Engineers site.

Re the Pentagon, would you kindly explain the 'rudimentary understanding of physics' that explains why the original hole was aprox. 16' - 18' diameter, and unbroken windows can be seen where the wings, engines and tail would have struck. Also, why Major General (retired), who's last post was as head of photo-reconnaissance from satelites, planes, and agents regarding Soviet equiptment and facilities, says 'no Boeing hit the Pentagon' (search web; he's also on 'Patriots Question 9/11' site, along with other top ex-CIA, FBI and Military, who all say the government 'narrative' is so much bull manure.

Unfortunately (or maybe not!) I'm not so thick that I can benefit from your advice vis-a-vis deep fryers. Maybe you could stick to the point?

Also, check out architects and engineers site, to better understand that the Towers (and Buillding 7) could not have collapsed due to aircraft impact and/or fires.

Fidel

autoworker wrote:

Why not accept the explanation put forth by the 9/11 Commission: intelligence failure? There apppears to be a mytholgy surrounding the security apparatus which reasons that calamatious outcomes can only occur if allowed to. What if it was simply incompetence that conspired against itself? It may be that the truth simply begs complication.

Why should we accept this cockamaney side story when the crazy George Bush regime still insist that it was "Al-CIA'duh" and Al-CIA-duh alone who were responsible for 9/11? In fact, intelligence agents from around the world don't even believe that Al-Qa'eda exists? Actual intelligence agents are under the strong impression that "Al-Qa'eda" is a creation of the US-CIA.

 CIA and German intelligence (BND, successors to Himmler's SS since WW II and recently accused of perpetrating false flag gladio style terrorism in Kosovo in 2008) supported the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a terrorist organization with links to "Al Qaeda."  The [url=http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/iran.htm]Republican Party Policy Committee[/url] says that Clinton administration helped create a militant Islamic base in Bosnia during the 1990's. None of this was ever mentioned during the 9/11 investigation.

The point is, this is a phony-baloney "global war on terror" Al-Qa'eda is really Al-CIA'duh, and it wouldn't be the first time that a phony pretext was used to justify obscene warfiteering and great game bullshit in Asia. 9/11 is today's Gulf of Tonkin fairy tale. It's a load of horseshit, and apparently opinion polls say that Canadians are now more susceptible to crazy George II's bullshit than are Americans concerning the 9/11 fairy tale. The majority of Yanks themselves don't believe it any more.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Sineed, the majority of Americans don't believe crazy George Bush's tale of 9/11 events.

Would that be the same majority that voted for him every time he ran? Including after 9/11?

Oh no, wait, those elections were stolen... I forgot... sorry.

 

skdadl

I agree with every one of Sineed's eloquent words.

 

But the anthrax attacks: Cheney and Libby ("germ boy") did it.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Sineed, the majority of Americans don't believe crazy George Bush's tale of 9/11 events.

Would that be the same majority that voted for him every time he ran? Including after 9/11?

Oh no, wait, those elections were stolen... I forgot... sorry.

Well apparently even Americans are not supposed to change their minds based on new information, or that a lack of information was presented as proof of Al-CIA-duh guilt. And according to opinion polls, the majority of Americans have changed their minds concerning 9/11 and the fairy tale pawned off on them by crazy george's regime.  It appears that only a majority of gullible Canadians, two-thirds apparently, still believe the crazy George II era fairy tale. It's no wonder that Canadians are said to always be one or two clothing or music fads behind the Americans. And here I always thought that it was Canadians who are more clever.

outsider

@ Sineed:

Far be it for me to claim I am not gullible and/or ill-educated; but I most assuredly do believe in Bilderberg, Club of Rome, Scottish Rite Freemasonry, 'Skull & Bones', Bohemian Grove, CFR etc, and of the pernicious, evil policies that eminate from them.

And of course, a rudimentary search of 'Gulf War Syndrome + squalene', then 'Swine Flu Vaccine + squalene', then Donald Rumsfeld + Tamiflu, then Dyncorp + swine flu vaccine patent' should be enough to warn most reaonable people not to touch them with a barge-pole. And try 'Controlling Our Food + video'.

Fidel

[url=http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469]81% of Americans said crazy George II's regime were anywhere from hiding something to mostly lying to the public about 9/11[/url] (2006 Angus Reid poll)

[url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_b... Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11[/url]

So not only did the unaccountable and non-transparent 9/11 Commission fail to convince Americans of guilt beyond a doubt concerning 9/11, so is there significant doubt around the world concerning who the perpetrators were.

The world is their jury.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:
It's no wonder that Canadians are said to always be one or two clothing or music fads behind the Americans.

You just hit the nail on the head, my friend. Freudian slip no doubt.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:
It's no wonder that Canadians are said to always be one or two clothing or music fads behind the Americans.

You just hit the nail on the head, my friend. Freudian slip no doubt.

Like Canadian conservatives who bought dud Bomarc missiles from the Yanks during the cold war era. They were guaranteed to explode over Canada. And they werent cheap either. Earlier proof that US hawks are able to sell our gullible stooges(gullibility and stoogery are directly proportional with how corrupt they are) just about anything. And nothing is new under the sun. Go and fight a phony-baloney war on terror in Asia? Aye-aye uncle, Sam, on the double!! We require no proof of anyone's 9/11 guilt whatsoever. Uncle Sam's every whim is our's to trust and obey, which is the only way our corrupt stooges have ever known.

outsider

Fidel wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:
It's no wonder that Canadians are said to always be one or two clothing or music fads behind the Americans.

You just hit the nail on the head, my friend. Freudian slip no doubt.

Like Canadian conservatives who bought dud Bomarc missiles from the Yanks during the cold war era. They were guaranteed to explode over Canada. And they werent cheap either. Earlier proof that US hawks are able to sell our gullible stooges(gullibility and stoogery are directly proportional with how corrupt they are) just about anything. And nothing is new under the sun. Go and fight a phony-baloney war on terror in Asia? Aye-aye uncle, Sam, on the double!! We require no proof of anyone's 9/11 guilt whatsoever. Uncle Sam's every whim is our's to trust and obey.

It's not only Canada that bought duds; Germany kept buying Lockheed Starfighters, no matter how many planes and pilots were lost; so many, the plane became known in Germany as the 'Widowmaker'. As Lockheed have subsequently, in another case, been found to have employed bribery to sell their products, it's not unreasonable to suspect that Germany kept buying the 'Widowmaker' due to certain German palms being greased with good old (then, anyway!) greenbacks.

Fidel

Was Karl Heinz Schreiber dealing arms back then, too?

Sineed

From Wiki:

Quote:
Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[34][35] The mainstream of the scientific and engineering community has rejected the position taken by the group. In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.[36]

(also)

In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit.[46] A spokesman for NIST said that any alleged sightings of molten metal, including metal seen pouring from the South tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane, an explanation disputed by Richard Gage.[47] "Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down," said NIST spokesperson Michael Newman.[41]

So basically, most engineers don't go along with this, just like most credible climate scientists support the reality of climate change due to human activity.

Quote:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been exposed. They do NOT check ANY credentials of ANY of their supporters. They will accept any application to join immediately. As an example I have successfully added George W Bush, Architect and Richard Head, Scam Artist to their list. Sign up and expose this scam.

http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Architects_Engineers_for_9_11_Truth_Exposed

Trouble is, the more you discredit these fringe groups, the more they think it's the cabal that's shutting them down.

outsider

Sineed wrote:

From Wiki:

Quote:
Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[34][35] The mainstream of the scientific and engineering community has rejected the position taken by the group. In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.[36]

(also)

In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit.[46] A spokesman for NIST said that any alleged sightings of molten metal, including metal seen pouring from the South tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane, an explanation disputed by Richard Gage.[47] "Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down," said NIST spokesperson Michael Newman.[41]

So basically, most engineers don't go along with this, just like most credible climate scientists support the reality of climate change due to human activity.

Quote:

So you name one, and I'm sure he can find three co-signers; that equates to 'most engineers'? Maths doesn't seem to be your strongpoint, either. 985 divided by 4, seems to work out at about 246.25 to 1. Most?

And would this Zdenick agree to debate issue with Gage or any other a&e spokesperson? I very much doubt it. As for Wiki, 'fraid on 9/11 they tend to have a strong bias towards the War Criminal Administration's 'narrative'.

Oh, yes, it would be good to get Zdenick's explanation for 300-ton steel construction thrown 390' into nearby building, and piercing it like an arrow? Even a dunce knows gravity draws things downwards.

I cannot respond to latter point re spoof applicants, as the relevant part of their site is down at the moment. Perhaps the 'quoter' will add some more detail? To what part of the various groups were these 'phantom' signers added?

sandstone

conspiracy theory, or coincidence theory??????????

my vote is on the coincidence theory outweighing the conspiracies.....

Fidel

But who is on the lunatic rightwing fringe today and swallowing the crazy George II era version of events? Not me. 

Threads like this one are rubbernecked by non-truthers who are merely curious as to what else the crazy George dubya government might have tried to cover up about 9/11. Well, no one is able to answer the questions they claim not to have. No one but the CIA, Pentagon and FBI are able to produce the evidence non-truthers say they don't care about or require in order for them to decide who was responsible for 9/11. Because they are down with crazy George's version of events, and they're sticking to it no matter how flimsy or how illogical the official narrative goes. And it goes through some very dark corridors of CIA and US Military involvement in fomenting spread of religious fundamentalism in Central Asia, Africa and beyond, according to US government and military whistleblowers. And there have been several.

Them and some minority of Americans surveyed by Angus Reid opinionators have accepted half-truths and official coverup, and that's all it takes to satisfy their curiosity. But that's okay, because this falso self-flag-gellato gladio was so important to warfiteering Pentagonian capitalists that there likely won't be a followup House Senate Select committee on assassinations to declare that it was a conspiracy but nothing more. US government, like our stoogeocracy in Ottawa, is even less transparent and less accountable than vicious empire was in the 1970's and 80's if we can imagine. Back then they sometimes cared what people thought about the warfiteering and colonialism in general, Today they don't.

sandstone

was the bush gov't actually interested in getting some answers from the 9-11 commission?

my guess is no......

History

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was established on November 27, 2002 by President George W. Bush and the United States Congress, with Henry Kissinger initially appointed to head the commission.[1] George Mitchell was originally appointed as the vice-chairman, but he stepped down on December 10, 2002, not wanting to sever ties to his law firm.[2] Kissinger resigned only weeks after being appointed, after some questioned his ability to be independent and impartial. On December 15, 2002, Bush appointed former New Jersey governor Tom Kean to head the commission.[3]

By the spring of 2003, the commission was off to a slow start, needing additional funding to help it meet its target day for the final report, of May 27, 2004.[4] In late March, the Bush administration agreed to provide an additional $9 million for the commission, though this was $2 million short of what the commission requested.[5] The first hearings were held from March 31 to April 1, 2003 in New York City.[6]

Fidel

Sure, and Gulf of Tonkin was coincidental falsetto flagellato gladio, too. N-no, this was just another covert operation by the Gladio Gang to justify obscene warfiteering and great gamesmanship post end of cold war.

Gore Vidal said the Soviets stabbed them in the back with ceding the cold war. They needed a replacement enemy.

Al-CIA'duh is what they came up with.

There is no such thing.

sandstone

being misunderstood happens all the time....

Unionist

Sineed, I appreciate your attention to detail and science. But you're wasting your time. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is, "The CIA did it." Four words - got you beat by a mile.

To elaborate:

If the conspiracy is proven - "we told you so!"

If it's not - "keep on looking!"

Underlying this simple explanation are the following premises:

1. The U.S. is all-powerful and all-knowing - sort of like God. Hence, everything that happens in the world has their hand and head behind it.

2. The people are helpless victims. How could a bunch of amateurs pull off an attack like this?

3. Flowing from 1 and 2, the invasions and wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, ...) aren't real. Not only were the pretexts phoney (which is the grain of truth from which sprouts the following jungle:) The wars themselves are phoney!! The U.S. is "fighting" with its own paid agents - as a diversion! There is no real "resistance"! The people are powerless! (See axiom #2.)

Sineed, I dare your scientific approach to stand up to these simple truths!

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Underlying this simple explanation are the following premises:

1. The U.S. is all-powerful and all-knowing - sort of like God. Hence, everything that happens in the world has their hand and head behind it.

And they are the only superpower with anywhere from 700 to 1000 military bases and highest tech communications installations in dozens of countries around the world. They are the only country with nuclear weapons stationed on foreign soil.

Is the vicious empire able to keep a secret with some pointing to the Manhatten project as proof of fallibility? Well yes they can, and they have. Three years after Sputnik was launched, the US launched its first spy satellite in 1960. It wasn't made public until 1995. And there were something like twelve rocket failures along the way to a government black operation which collected more data on secret Sov military projects than U2 or SR-71 ever revealed to them. That was a well-kept secret for 35 years!

Unionist wrote:
2. The people are helpless victims. How could a bunch of amateurs pull off an attack like this?

And you don't even want to know what Pilots for 9/11 Truth have said about it. In fact, they continue murdering brown people on the other side of the world today and using false flag gladio of 9/11 to justify obscene warfiteering - even though their bosom anticommunist jihadi ally of just the last decade, Gulbby Hekmatyar, is saying that 9/11 was planned on European and US soil - and specialized training for this falsetto flagelato Gladio all took place in America!

Yes there is a murky relationship between fundamentalist terrorism and America, and the underlying connection is with Al-CIA'da. Swiss historian Daniel Ganser proposes three probable scenarios:

1. Let it happen on purpose
2. Made it happen on purpose
3. The Gladio Gang were innocent bystanders to it all

I think the safest bet is door number one, Monty.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I call fool on anyone who draws a line in the sand on this one.  Money mouthFoot in mouth

Sineed

Unionist wrote:

Sineed, I appreciate your attention to detail and science. But you're wasting your time. 

True enough.  It's a little recreational time wasting during my 1st real vacation in months. 

Quote:
Sineed, I dare your scientific approach to stand up to these simple truths!

I say, the truth isn't OUT THERE.  The truth is, you know, right here.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Um-humm?

 

Not a lot to chew on.

outsider

Sineed & Co. should check out 'Operation Northwoods'; PNAC; 'USS Liberty'; 'A People's History of the United States' (Howard Zinn); David Ray Griffin's books decimating the '9/11 Report' and the like.

Soon as they have them under their belt, I'll provide them with more sustenance.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
3. Flowing from 1 and 2, the invasions and wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, ...) aren't real. Not only were the pretexts phoney (which is the grain of truth from which sprouts the following jungle:) The wars themselves are phoney!! The U.S. is "fighting" with its own paid agents - as a diversion! There is no real "resistance"! The people are powerless! (See axiom #2.

I'm sure that crazy Dub-a-rub-tub, Rummy, Dick Cheney, the military-industrial complex, transnational energy company execs, and neolib bankers would all enjoy things better if a world wide public believed that Uncle Sam is engaged in a [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11598509/national_affairs_pre..."civilizational struggle"[/url] with enemies who seek "to establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia", but hundreds of the hawks' own policy advisors and military officials themselves don't really believe it. Even their own yes-men began to dislike the phrase "glowball war on terror" some time ago as if a wornout fad, like disco. Maybe they should try beer barrel polka war on sobriety, or something a little more catchy than the fearmongering tune they've been playing since the cold war era and the old cow died on.

But  I just can't conjure-up the mojo req'd for getting behind these neocon templars or their raison d'etre for this modern day crusade against Gulbuddin "give'er" Heckmatyar or mullah Saladin and his Islamic holy warriors who just wanna tend sheep and burn schools and books and bury women alive in a football stadium for fun. Where in hell did those guys come from? Anyway?

The pretext for military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and marauding over the border into Pakistan like it was 1970's South-East Asia all over again, is a phony one. Everyone from Newt Gingrich to Malalai Joya to Eric Margolis, the NDP, Gnome Chomsky and Tariq Ali have said that this is a phony global war on terror. The US military occupation is the terror - as in, "they have no invite to the party except for the bs pretext, like Gulf of Tonkin was to that phony war to stem an evol red tide in VietNam,

What Notorious Zbiggy Brzezinski calls geopolitics is just another Mackinder-Nazi-ish philosophy for world dominoes which, in the feeble minds of a Prince of Wales, and later King Edward,  laid the conniving for World War I similarly. Brzezinski is not just a fucktard, he's a racist fucktard and still embedded in "US government" after 30 years of US meddling in Central Asia. And this is in addition to the previous meddling in SE Asia and ten thousand day war in which a phony pretext was used to crash their way in to that country, Cambodia, and Thailand. And the pretext for invading VietNam was a colossal lie as well.

This has absolutely nothing to do with establishing women's rights in Afghanistan or chasing the CIA's Islamic gladios all over hell's half acre on a fool's errand. Not even our friend Unionist believes that baloney

Sineed

I've read A People's History of the United States.  And let's see, I've also read Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Ryzyard Kapuszinski, Barbara Tuchman, Jared Diamond, Linda McQuaig, Michael Moore (who hasn't?), Richard Dawkins, Malcolm Gladwell, Oliver Sacks, Anthony Bourdain, fiction, whole lotta medical stuff.

For me, it's important to be skeptical of people in power, wherever they are - government, big business.  It's a truism that people in power will abuse that power.  But there's also a matter of the probability of various scenarios.  I've worked for the government for going on thirteen years now, and I concede I'm a unionized worker at the service provider level, nowhere near upper management, though they do consult me; during the Mike Harris government, I wrote a couple of papers for the minister (that he completely ignored because I showed how privatization would be massively more expensive, and he went ahead and privatized anyway, and it was massively more expensive.  But the disrespect shown to civil servants by people in power when these civil servants don't toe the line is maybe for the Richard Colvin thread).  My conclusions are based on observations gathered working in government as a health care provider.  It's like this: people are just not competent enough to organize these worldwide cabals and keep them a secret.  I imagine fascist dictatorships come the closest to some manner of efficiency, but people at the individual level are gossipy and emotionally-driven, and in groups just don't have singularity of purpose.  My last shift before Christmas, the grief my workmates and I went through trying to order take-out was a lesson in how well people in groups function.

To reiterate what I said before: what is most probable to me is that a successful attack was launched on the richest, most powerful country in the world, and what you're mistaking for a conspiracy is no more than a whole lot of ass-covering of those civil servants and politicians who didn't do their jobs properly such that this massive failure of security could occur.  You can never overestimate the lengths to which people will go to protect their jobs or their turf or their reputations.

I spent some time this holiday season with a relative who is a veteran of the Bosnian war and still works for the Canadian military.  Afghanistan is a dysfunctional place at a level we can't comprehend - the Canadians would hire people as translators or whatever, and these people would return home to find their entire family impaled on stakes.  For many reasons, there are large numbers of emotionally damaged people in that part of the world, and I won't begin to speculate what the best course of action would be - but makes sense that the level of hatred of the West would result in what happened on 9/11.  

So the real truth is the actions of the US helped create the terrorism that resulted in 9/11.  I think most babblers are comfortable with this, but many millions of Americans are not. Acknowledging this truth would be a baby step towards making the world a better place, engaging citizens in what their country could do to mitigate human rights' abuses instead of perpetrating them; forcing citizens to think about uncomfortable realities instead of, "They hate us because we're Christian," or "There's a world-wide conspiracy."

IMO, conspiracy theories are a diversion, like sports, or celebrity worship.  That '60s cliche works here: if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.

outsider

@Sineed: Must admit I missjudged you. You really do appear to believe it was 'Osama wot dun it'. The only one of the authors you mention above that I have read is Zinn. But I have read a whole mess of others, from psychology, human rights, Existensialist authors etc.

To put 9/11 in context, please read PNAC ('Project for a New American Centuury'), published a year before 9/11. And Northwoods.

As for the 'Gulf of Tonkin (non) Incident', a darn sight more Americans died because of that hoax than died on 9/11. Can a lot of people keep a secret? Yes; just look at the USS Liberty massacre, where Admiral Kidd threatened the survivors with 'Courts Martial, Imprisonment OR WORSE'; it sufficed to keep the surviving victims of Israel's treacherous attack silent for many years.

Regarding the Secret Societies, they are widely known about, though initially the Masons used to trawl through libraries, stealing books about Masons so that even when an author was brave enough to write a book, and persistant enough to get it published, the public would be unable to read it. All a load of twaddle? Well, let me quote from a book I have resting on my lap as I type this; the book is 'Morals and Dogma of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry' by Albert Pike. On the facing first page, is this draconian threat, in bold and capitals:  ESOTERIC BOOK, FOR SCOTTISH RITE USE ONLY; TO BE RETURNED UPON WITHDRAWAL OR DEATH OF RECIPIENT.'

The US Authorities released to the Truth Movement the 'Black Box' data from, supposedly, Flight 77. But when the Truth Movement got the data interpreted, it showed that whatever aircraft it was from, though on aproximately the right course, did not correspond to a flightpath that would knock down the light poles and hit the Pentagon; nor did it ever go low enough to hit the Pentagon at all. When questioned about this, the Authorities refused to comment (see PilotsFor9/11Truth.org). Similarly, they refused to release the computer input info for their 'simulation' showing pancake collapse of the Towers. 

No evidence from component parts of aircraft has ever been released; almost all steel was hurriedly, and with great security (lorries were fitted with satelite trackers; one driver who took too long on a lunch brake was sacked) taken away and shipped to China as scrap; Ground Zero was never secured as a 'crime scene'; it was secured against unauthorised entrants, especially those with cameras (though one did manage to get in and out with pics).

FBI Field Officers tried repeatedly to get their very serious concerns to top officials pre-9/11, with total apathy on behalf of the top officials, one going so far as to say he was not interested (though he denies it now).

Larry Silverstein (not exactly a Muslim Fundamentalist name) started negotiating a 99 year lease on the whole World Trade Centre Complex (the Twins had been built in the early seventies; they had never been sold, and had never made money. Perhaps more to the point, they were riddled with asbestos; the Port Authority had assessed the cost of either remoooooving the asbestos, or demolishing the Towers; both options were too expensive (the normal way high-rise building are demolished is with explosives, but it is forbidden to use explosives on buildings containing asbestos). Silverstein signed the agreement about six weeks before 9/11. He paid $3.5 billion, and insured for $4.2 billion; he also, presciently, had two clauses included in the insurance, cover in case of terrorist attacks, and if the buildings were destroyed, he would have the right to rebuild on the site. Ah, lucky Larry! He made a killing, in more ways than one.

So much (that is only a tiny fraction of the info available), yet somehow apparently well-meaning people can't see the obvious.

mmphosis
Fidel

Sineed wrote:
 For many reasons, there are large numbers of emotionally damaged people in that part of the world, and I won't begin to speculate what the best course of action would be - but makes sense that the level of hatred of the West would result in what happened on 9/11.

Sineed, what do you think of the fact that one of the two bipartisan war parties accused the other in government at the time of working diligently to assist in the creation of a militant Islamic base in Bosnia during the 1990's? Canada's Lewis Mackenzie himself has stated that the US proxies in the KLA(Thaci et al) committed war crimes then and are now propped up as a mafia-like narco-administration in Pristina. Alija Izbegotovich was key to the ethnic cleansing in that territory of the former Yugoslavia.

 

I believe Naomi Klein and tend to disbelieve "academics" like Joe Stiglitz who seemed to have felt that it was his duty to point out that she is not one of the inner circle. I really do believe that it Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc etc were not mistakes at all. The US economy is largely based on war, and war is highly profitable. Their profit margins in the warfiteering business are far greater than for about 95% of ordinary, dull and grey capitalism. What you have is a vicious empire influenced by a relatively tiny number of rich people who also buy US governments on a regular basis through money in politics.

It would be fairly easy to blame the countless mistakes on human error of those in control. They've claimed the insanity plea a number of times before. And it is time to consider that the mistakes and colossal blunders are not really blunders at all but wildly successful attempts to keep the warfiteering agenda front and centre for US taxpayers to continue paying extortion money to them. Fear, mass hysteria, and a fanatical devotion to flag and country are some of the most potent weapons of this modern day American inquisition.

 

Sineed wrote:
So the real truth is the actions of the US helped create the terrorism that resulted in 9/11.  I think most babblers are comfortable with this, but many millions of Americans are not. Acknowledging this truth would be a baby step towards making the world a better place, engaging citizens in what their country could do to mitigate human rights' abuses instead of perpetrating them; forcing citizens to think about uncomfortable realities instead of, "They hate us because we're Christian," or "There's a world-wide conspiracy."

IMO, conspiracy theories are a diversion, like sports, or celebrity worship.  That '60s cliche works here: if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.

 

I think the conspiracy is in the air we breathe, the water that becomes poisoned in thirdworld countries from either corporate pollution or a lack of resources to obtain it, the USA's rural communities where there have been weird birth defects and higher than national baseline incidences of cancer and other problems, and where some of my relatives live. The conspiracy is with a relatively small number of rich and powerful people who lobby North American and other governments to cater to a relatively tiny political and economic agenda that favours them and the supranational corporations they profit by. I think the starting point for all of this goes back to WW II. It's where one has to start in order to realize that people like Adolf Hitler might not have been so crazy as to think he could wage war on two fronts and believe for a minute that the Nazis could do what their predecessors demonstrated was insane to even try to attempt without conspiring with the leaders of other countries. Gladio was a story that broke in Europe in 1991. European governments denounced it, and the ringleader country simply denied it altogether. And it was easy for them to do so when the story itself was made little mention of by US news media. I think Canada's corporate sponsored news writers must have had their heads up their rear ends as per usual.

jas

Sineed wrote:

So the real truth is the actions of the US helped create the terrorism that resulted in 9/11.  I think most babblers are comfortable with this, but many millions of Americans are not. Acknowledging this truth would be a baby step towards making the world a better place, engaging citizens in what their country could do to mitigate human rights' abuses instead of perpetrating them; forcing citizens to think about uncomfortable realities instead of, "They hate us because we're Christian," or "There's a world-wide conspiracy."

I don't think there's anything wrong with this theory except when you come to the part of the 9/11 stage show. What would be the message in crashing a plane into the WTC? You're a terrorist organization that wants to show the U.S. something, and that's the best you can come up with? What did the so-called terrorists think was going to happen anyway? That the buildings would utterly collapse? In under an hour?? In real life, buildings don't collapse from having planes crash into them. I'm sure even cave-dwelling, paper-cutter-wielding terrorists know this. Especially buildings that are designed to withstand plane crashes. There would be some devastation, but not total and complete destruction, as we saw with the staged drama.

Oh, wait a minute. Yes, I think I read something about how the planes needed to crash in exactly the right spot for the buildings to come down like a house of cards. A true engineering Achilles heel. Sorry - make that THREE buildings from two planes. That is some special brand of hijack piloting! And crashing into an empty wing of the Pentagon really sends a message, too.

I'm sorry, but of all the truly terrorizing things a true terrorist organization could come up with, crashing planes into buildings, I would think, wouldn't really be topping the list. Especially when you know that has never been any kind of means to maximum destruction. I just don't think cave-dwelling Arab terrorists are that stupid. The whole silliness just screams Bush puppetry through and through.

Fidel

I think what's damning for them is that they and their NATO allies have an established history of perpetrating acts of false flag terrorism with the German BND and Turkish gladios being the latest to be caught red-handed in the acts.

And this 9/11 business is at the heart of a phony global war on terror. The people jeering at these so-called conspiracy theories neglect to mention that not only was there zero proof of WMD in Iraq, there is zero proof that 9/11 was hatched anywhere other than Europe(NATO) and America(NATO). And the financiers were Saudis and shadowy figures linked to the Pakistani ISI, which is a cold war era extension of the CIA and still today as far as anyone knows.

Iow's, these people who are quetly in favour of the crazy George Bush story on 9/11 are also agreeing with crazy dubya's pretext form marching into those sovereign countries. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had anything to do with Al-CIA'da or plotting 9/11 terror regardless of who the actual 9/11 perpetrators were. This means that the whole thing needs re-examining and putting under a microscope for the sake of pointing out the illegitimacy of this whole phony global war on terror, which should really be namesd the global war on democracy(GWOD acronym as opposed to the worn-out GWOT)

jas

Well, not only that, Fidel, but wouldn't you also want to know, if someone you cared about died in the WTC attacks, who was responsible for the attacks? I would think that it would make a difference to me to know conclusively whether it was my government or the official scapegoat that orchestrated the destruction that killed my friend or my brother or my spouse.

Wouldn't that public knowledge and outrage also really put a crimp in any future false flag manoeuvres our great government might attempt ? I only ask because some babblers in the past have suggested that trying to get at the truth of this really helps nothing and is, worse, a distraction from the more important issues. How can exposing murderous attacks on home soil against one's own citizens, the elements of which defy even the most basic common sense, be considered unhelpful, diversionary or useless? How can that kind of knowledge, imparted to the American masses who currently believe in the terrorist conspiracy theory, not help them understand the falsity of their own governance? Wouldn't it be nice to see mainstream Americans humbled by the knowledge of their own horrific acts? Might it not be easier then to show them what other sick campaigns their tax money is funding? According to some babblers, no.

Fidel

jas wrote:
Well, not only that, Fidel, but wouldn't you also want to know, if someone you cared about died in the WTC attacks, who was responsible for the attacks? I would think that it would make a difference to me to know conclusively whether it was my government or the official scapegoat that orchestrated the destruction that killed my friend or my brother or my spouse.

I would want to know regardless. And this is one of the criticisms of people like Noam Chomsky who tell us that it's a dead end. Chomsky of all people has made a career of correcting the historical record. 9/11 is part of the historical record and requires hashing out to the last pains-taking detail, and Chomsky, we can be sure, understands this. He does say that the reasons provided by crazy George's administration for invading Afghanistan are not plausible and provides us with a more credible motive. But this is tied intimately with the current "GWOT", which is all the more reason to pursue the truth while the trail is not entirely cold.

And this, I find, is where the anti-war crowd on the left fall down on the job. They find all this discussion concerning US(and British, Saudi, Pakistani and even Chinese and Iranian) "[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9289]"deep state"[/url](Canadian Peter Dale Scott) involvement in the Talibanization of Central Asia since the 1980's and ongoing spread of militant Islam through "arc of crisis"(Brzezinski-ism) countries to be shadowy business. They don't want to know about those details. Because then their parroting of pro-corporate newz media and thinly-veiled pro-bipartisan US war agenda rhetoric loses inertia.

Canadian troops are there in Afghanistan on a phony pretext for GWOT. And the anti-war movement needs to point out the historical record on US meddling in Asia, from the immoral war in VietNam through to their 30 year-long meddling in Afghanistan. As Noam Chomsky says, the US Military and 50 NATO countries' stated motives for being there are not plausible. And we're just not very effective with sitting on the sidelines chanting peace slogans and holding up signs that say "Support our troops, bring them home!" People are not stupid and need to know ALL of the reasons as to why we should bring the troops home. As Jack Nicholson once said in A Few Good Men, Canadians can haaandle the truth.

jas wrote:
Wouldn't that public knowledge and outrage also really put a crimp in any future false flag manoeuvres our great government might attempt ? I only ask because some babblers in the past have suggested that trying to get at the truth of this really helps nothing and is, worse, a distraction from the more important issues.

When they tell us it's a distraction, we could ask them why they believe this to be true. Because, there is no statute of limitations in Canada or America for murder cases, and this is a case of mass murder.

Pages

Topic locked