Continued from [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/even-newer-911-thread]here[/url]
Issues Pages:
The Ninth Anniversary of 9/11 Thread
Wed, 2010-09-15 19:42
#1
The Ninth Anniversary of 9/11 Thread
Wed, 2010-09-15 20:01
#2
[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/even-newer-911-thread#comment... wrote : What does this have to do with the fact that military jets were scrambled an average of nearly 7 times a month before 9/11 as opposed to NORAD's perfect record of zero times for nearly two hours while school children baby sat Presinit dubya on 9/11? ...Just say to yourself, I can't do it anymore.None of that is evidence that US military planes routinely intercepted hijacked and off-course planes in minutes.You also seem to be ignoring the evidence that I already quoted, and linked to, showing that there were Muslim terrorists on those planes.
So, you seem to believe one idea, even though there is no evidence for it. At the same time, you are deliberately ignoring evidence for somehing you do not wish to believe.
There is no real evidence to support what you're saying, that the hijackers were Muslim.
As we were saying before, there is no proof that the hijackers were Muslims. And anywhere from seven to ten of the alleged hijackers were found to be alive in the years since 9/11/01. The FBI has not bothered to update [url=http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm]their list of alleged hijackers[/url], even though many of them have since been discovered to be [url=http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html?q=hijackers.htm... and well.[/url]
Wed, 2010-09-15 23:00
#3
Hey guys, don't mean to interrupt, but this doesn't seem like a sciences and humanities topic to me. Or do you consider it humanities? The reason I was starting WTC threads in this forum was so that arguments about the WTC collapses would focus on the collapses themselves and not the politicial motivations behind them and also so such discussion would have to be based on recognized scientific principles. I was happy to see that the use of this forum for this purpose has been endorsed again by a mod, but these more recent threads seem to be more about the political intrigue behind it--obviously just as important and valid, but I just wouldn't want to see at some future point all 9/11 threads moved to some other forum because the h&s waters had been muddied so to speak. Perhaps I needn't worry about that, but we've seen how threads get shut down at times so, I am a little concerned about the potential for complaint coming from elsewhere.
Thu, 2010-09-16 08:28
#4
Why, jas, I believe the U-nited States of America is still considered to be the most advanced in the world in the study of the theory and application of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology]criminal science[/url] within law enforcement in general. The problem is that their politicians have prevented a proper investigation from being carried out WRT 9/11. And the fact that America is renowned for developing criminal science to the advanced state that it is today is part of the reason why so many ordinary Americans as well as Government whistleblowers and professional people have questioned the 9/11 Commission cover-up. They know that there are gaping holes in the official story. As well, there is a growing number of US and Canadian professional organizations whose members support 9/11 truth and are demanding a transparent inquiry. They, too, have been trained to think logically and rationally about problems and situations in general. Doctors and lawyers and engineers and architects, firefighters, physicists, police, politicians and intelligence officers for 9/11 truth also know that the official narrative doesn't make sense.
"And now, brothers and sisters, you know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But look how many Americans, black, brown, and white, have lost their lives on the basis of a lie.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie. The whole Vietnam war was a lie. There were a significant number of false flag incidents in history that were used to justify attacking other countries. The war on terror is based on a lie.
Thu, 2010-09-16 09:41
#5
There is no real evidence to support what you're saying, that the hijackers were Muslim.
To be honest, their religion is secondary to their political motives, but they did happen to be Muslim.
And anywhere from seven to ten of the alleged hijackers were found to be alive in the years since 9/11/01. The FBI has not bothered to update [url=http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm]their list of alleged hijackers[/url], even though many of them have since been discovered to be [url=http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html?q=hijackers.htm... and well.[/url]
No. They're dead. Even the newspapers that claimed that someof the hijackers were still alive retracted or corrected their stories later. Your refusal to look at these later articles does not make the earlier articles correct.
Thu, 2010-09-16 10:52
#6
[size=12]
There is no real evidence to support what you're saying, that the hijackers were Muslim.To be honest, their religion is secondary to their political motives, but they did happen to be Muslim.
There is no proof that the any of the alleged hijackers were Muslim, or more specifically, no real proof of anyone's guilt whatsoever regarding 9/11. That they may have been nominally Muslim could be true, but there is evidence that they were not devout Muslims much less of the fundamentalist variety which the US-CIA and Sauds have financed the proliferation of militant Islam in Central Asia since the 1980s and ongoing according to US whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.
No. They're dead. Even the newspapers that claimed that someof the hijackers were still alive retracted or [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm]corrected their stories later.[/url] Your refusal to look at these later articles does not make the earlier articles correct.
I think it's you who didn't read the "corrected" BBC story, because it says:
[b]Strength of the evidence:[/b]There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.
[color=red]At best the evidence is circumstantial.[/color]
Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.
Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm. The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. [...] US and British officials have indicated that they are unable to reveal all the evidence for security reasons...
You should read it. The so-called evidence is anywhere from weak and remote to circumstantial at best.
[url=http://www.newsweek.com/2001/09/14/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-at... Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases[/url]
U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday's terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.Three of the alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.-known as the [b]"Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,"[/b] according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.[...]
The five men were on a list of 19 people identified as hijackers by the FBI on Friday. The three foreign nationals training in Pensacola appear to be [color=red]Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami[/color], who were among the four men who allegedly commandeered United Airlines Flight 93. That flight crashed into rural Pennsylvania. The third man who may have trained in Pensacola, [color=red]Ahmed Alghamdi[/color], allegedly helped highjack United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.
That's strange. Some of the alleged hijackers were trained in terrorism by the US Military. I wonder why? Why would the US Military train people with Arab names in the black art of terrorism?
And if some of them were from Saudi Arabia, why did the US Military bomb and invade Afghanistan? Why didn't they bomb the bin Laden family's concrete bunker complex in Saudi Arabia?
And,
1) why would Pentagon lawyers protect Mohammed Atta from FBI arrest?
2) Why would [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3422]the FBI(and RCMP) protect al-Qaeda's hijacking specialist, Ali Mohamed?[/url][/size]
Thu, 2010-09-16 12:07
#7
There is no proof that the any of the alleged hijackers were Muslim, or more specifically, no real proof of anyone's guilt whatsoever regarding 9/11. That they may have been nominally Muslim could be true, but there is evidence that they were not devout Muslims much less of the fundamentalist variety which the US-CIA and Sauds have financed the proliferation of militant Islam in Central Asia since the 1980s and ongoing according to US whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.
Like I said, their religiosity was not important.
I think it's you who didn't read the "corrected" BBC story, because it says:
Strength of the evidence:There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.
At best the evidence is circumstantial.
Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.
Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm. The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. [...] US and British officials have indicated that they are unable to reveal all the evidence for security reasons...
You should read it. The so-called evidence is anywhere from weak and remote to circumstantial at best.
You should learn how to follow a conversation.
We were discussing whether or not the hijackers are still alive. Not the amount of evidence link OBL to anything.
Your reply has nothing to do with my claim that the hijackers are all dead.
[url=http://www.newsweek.com/2001/09/14/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-at... Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases[/url]
U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday's terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.Three of the alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.-known as the [b]"Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,"[/b] according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.[...]
The five men were on a list of 19 people identified as hijackers by the FBI on Friday. The three foreign nationals training in Pensacola appear to be [color=red]Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami[/color], who were among the four men who allegedly commandeered United Airlines Flight 93. That flight crashed into rural Pennsylvania. The third man who may have trained in Pensacola, [color=red]Ahmed Alghamdi[/color], allegedly helped highjack United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.
That's strange. Some of the alleged hijackers were trained in terrorism by the US Military. I wonder why? Why would the US Military train people with Arab names in the black art of terrorism?
And if some of them were from Saudi Arabia, why did the US Military bomb and invade Afghanistan? Why didn't they bomb the bin Laden family's concrete bunker complex in Saudi Arabia?
And,
1) why would Pentagon lawyers protect Mohammed Atta from FBI arrest?
2) Why would [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3422]the FBI(and RCMP) protect al-Qaeda's hijacking specialist, Ali Mohamed?[/url]
That whole training the mujahedin really backfired on them, eh?
It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Thu, 2010-09-16 13:31
#8
[size=12]
Like I said, their religiosity was not important.
You are the only one in the previous thread and this one to speculate on the religiosity of the alleged hijackers.
You should learn how to follow a conversation.We were discussing whether or not the hijackers are still alive. Not the amount of evidence link OBL to anything.
Your reply has nothing to do with my claim that the hijackers are all dead.
Well your BBC article does mention "alleged hijackers" at least once, and that the strength of the evidence is weak and circumstantial at best.
However, there is nothing in your post or that October BBC "correction" about confirmed deaths of a single alleged hijacker.
The BBC doesn't mention there being significant proof that any of them actually hijacked any planes on 9/11.
And they surely don't have any proof of the alleged hijackers' religiosity nor an absence of. In fact, if we go by what Mohammed Atta's family said, religiosity was not a going concern for the family. Atta family members were all brought up to be conformists and career goal oriented. Mohammed Atta was an engineer making good money in Germany. He wasn't a poor man who fell into despair over his personal situation as propagandists have described the alleged hijackers/patsies.
In fact, Saudi and Middle Eastern news sources have since announced that a number of the alleged hijackers, smeared by the FBI and US government when their names and photos were broadcast around the world, are actually alive today.
That whole training the mujahedin really backfired on them, eh?It was bound to happen sooner or later.
The CIA never actually severed ties with their anticommunist jihadis. They are still in business. Sibel Edmonds says that the feds have continued to conceal the indentities and whereabouts of an entire organizational layer of "al-Qaeda" based in the US still. "Al-Qaeda" is more than likely an ongoing US-CIA intelligence operation - a military-intel training exercise for perpetrating foreign and domestic terror similar to the way NATO-Gladio terrorism was perpetrated in Europe during the cold war era. [/size]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ixuf236Dk]NINE of the alleged hijackers alive and well[/url] YouTube
FBI Director Robert Mueller: There is no way to know who the hijackers were.
Thu, 2010-09-16 14:05
#9
Fri, 2010-09-17 01:31
#10
[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/sep/21/20050921-102450-4688r/?p... files destroyed by Pentagon[/url] Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Pentagon lawyers during the Clinton administration ordered the destruction of intelligence reports that identified September 11 leader Mohamed Atta months before the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, according to congressional testimony yesterday.A lawyer for two Pentagon whistleblowers also told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that the Defense Intelligence Agency last year destroyed files on the Army's computer data-mining program known as Able Danger to avoid disclosing the information.
[url=http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/102232.html][color=blue]US on 'intimate' terms with extremists in Central Asia[/color][/url]
A former FBI translator has claimed that the US was on 'intimate' terms with the Taliban and al-Qaeda using the militants to further certain goals in central Asia.
[url=http://911blogger.com/node/2582]Operation Gladio: Interview With Daniele Ganser[/url]
People must be informed about the different theories [surrounding] September 11th and the controversial WTC7 debate. Only then they can pick [which] theory [to] put their faith in. The worst [thing] you can do is to tell people that only this or [that] theory on September 11th is true. That is what Bush and Cheney and Blair are doing, they do not let people figure it out themselves - they do not even given them all the data. They only tell people what to think and whom to fear. And that is not good for a democracy. Everybody should be allowed to make up their own mind. And, as Roosevelt said, the only thing we need to fear is fear itself. It can totally paralyse you.
The demolition of WTC7 is proof that it was an inside job. We all know the US Government went bad many years ago. What Americans and Canadians are dealing with is corruption of upper echelons of the state. Both 'bipartisan' war parties were complicit in covering up the facts surrounding 9/11. The truth about 9/11 remains hidden by a body guard of lies. War crimes are still being committed today as a direct result of a false flag terrorist operation on 9/11/2001.
[url=http://911blogger.com/news/2009-11-29/truth-squad-9-11-commissioner-bob-.... Senator Bob Kerrey: 9/11 is a 30 year conspiracy[/color][/url] 9/11 began with the chickenhawk brigade's anticommunist jihad in Central Asia
Fri, 2010-09-17 09:43
#11
[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/sep/21/20050921-102450-4688r/?p... files destroyed by Pentagon[/url] Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Pentagon lawyers during the Clinton administration ordered the destruction of intelligence reports that identified September 11 leader Mohamed Atta months before the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, according to congressional testimony yesterday.A lawyer for two Pentagon whistleblowers also told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that the Defense Intelligence Agency last year destroyed files on the Army's computer data-mining program known as Able Danger to avoid disclosing the information.
[url=http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/102232.html][color=blue]US on 'intimate' terms with extremists in Central Asia[/color][/url]
A former FBI translator has claimed that the US was on 'intimate' terms with the Taliban and al-Qaeda using the militants to further certain goals in central Asia.
[url=http://911blogger.com/node/2582]Operation Gladio: Interview With Daniele Ganser[/url]
But you claimed that Atta had nothing to do with the attacks.
Why would it matter if the Pentagon did that if Atta is innocent and alive as you claim.
Fri, 2010-09-17 10:44
#12
But you claimed that Atta had nothing to do with the attacks.Why would it matter if the Pentagon did that if Atta is innocent and alive as you claim.
Well it looks like you've caught me in a filthy lie.
Or, it could be that Mohammed Atta, like US Army Sargent Ali Mohamed, was a US-Qaeda agent whom they murdered and used as a patsy.
Or, it could be that Mohammed Atta, like US Army Sargent-Qaeda agent Ali Mohamed, is living somewhere under a new identity courtesy of US federal witness protection.
It could be that Able Danger is entirely fictitious, and they wanted one more piece of circumstantial evidence to link Mohamed Atta with 9/11. I think Able Danger was real, and that the NSA does not actually spy on other countries' militaries full-time so much as they spy full-time on the lives of Americans and cosmetic government members in Warshington.
Or, it could be that Mohamed Atta had absolutely nothing to do with either Al-CIA'da operations or 9/11 and believes it's too dangerous to announce his excellent health, like eight other alleged hijackers from Saudi Arabia and other countries have announced their innocence since 9/11.
Fri, 2010-09-17 12:31
#13
BTW Fidel, why are you quoting the Washington Times?
You do understand that is a Moonie newspaper?
Fri, 2010-09-17 13:32
#14
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/pentagon-afghanistan-spy-boo... tries to buy entire print run of US spy expose Operation Dark Heart[/url] US defence department attempts to prevent book by former intelligence officer Anthony Shaffer from reaching the shops
Is the Pentagon really afraid of the book, or are they knowingly promoting sales of Shaffer's memoirs?
[a chime is heard]
Arthur Frayn: It was I who led you to the 'Wizard of Oz' book! Ha-hah, it was I who gave you access to the Stone! It was I!
[a chime is heard]
Arthur Frayn: I bred you! I led you!
Zed: And I have looked into the face of the force that put the idea in your mind. You are bred, and led, yourself.
Fri, 2010-09-17 13:36
#15
But you claimed that Atta had nothing to do with the attacks.Why would it matter if the Pentagon did that if Atta is innocent and alive as you claim.
Well it looks like you've caught me in a filthy lie.
Or, it could be that Mohammed Atta, like US Army Sargent Ali Mohamed, was a US-Qaeda agent whom they murdered and used as a patsy.
Or, it could be that Mohammed Atta, like US Army Sargent-Qaeda agent Ali Mohamed, is living somewhere under a new identity courtesy of US federal witness protection.
It could be that Able Danger is entirely fictitious, and they wanted one more piece of circumstantial evidence to link Mohamed Atta with 9/11. I think Able Danger was real, and that the NSA does not actually spy on other countries' militaries full-time so much as they spy full-time on the lives of Americans and cosmetic government members in Warshington.
Or, it could be that Mohamed Atta had absolutely nothing to do with either Al-CIA'da operations or 9/11 and believes it's too dangerous to announce his excellent health, like eight other alleged hijackers from Saudi Arabia and other countries have announced their innocence since 9/11.
I think Atta is one of those Lizard men from the centre of the world that controls the Illuminati.
This explains JFK and 9/11.
Fri, 2010-09-17 14:01
#16
No it's their designated bogeyman Elvis bin Laden and his army of darkness, al-CIA'duh. This is standard paranoid-delusional chickenhawk boilerplate. Don't you know anything?
Fri, 2010-09-17 14:02
#17
No it's their designated bogeyman Elvis bin Laden and his army of darkness, al-CIA'duh. This is standard paranoid-delusional chickenhawk boilerplate. Don't you know anything?
Sorry. I like my unverifiable conspiracy theory better.
Fri, 2010-09-17 14:12
#18
A couple of weeks ago I watched Three Days of the Condor, you know, that Robert Redford picture about the secret CIA cell that kills members of regular CIA cells for no apparent reason, other than that doing so really conspiratorial.
There's a scene where Redford takes Faye Dunaway to CIA headquarters in WTC 7 to put a spell on Cliff Robertson. If you look closely, you can see the shadow of United Airlines Flight 175 flit across the building's façade, as well as the gears turning in truthers' heads.
Fri, 2010-09-17 14:23
#19
ha hah! You are bred, and led, yourselves.
Friend: Arthur! We've all been used!
Arthur Frayn: And re-used.
Friend: And abused!
Arthur Frayn: And amused!
Fri, 2010-09-17 17:31
#20
Hey, Fidel, you going to answer my question about the Washington Times?
Fri, 2010-09-17 18:12
#21
Hey, Fidel, you going to answer my question about the Washington Times?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are we supposed to be shocked by the fact that 98% of newz media, radio and TV broadcast rights are owned by a politically rightwing billionaire oligarchy in the US? The Moonies also funded Chiang Kai-shek's WACL and a number of other anticommunist organizations and mercenaries around the world.
It's why I made sure to express my own opinion on what Able Danger might be all about. Do I know the truth? No, I don't. But to jump to the conclusion that we know who hijacked those planes, or whether they even were hijacked, would be wild speculation and nothing more. The FBI doesn't know who the hijackers were. If they want my support for their speculation on the hijackers, then they will have to agree to a legitimate investigation and re-open 9/11. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I need hard evidence to be convinced of anything. And since the cosmetic feds don't trust the US or Canadian public with the goods, the so-called real evidence which can not be made public for reasons of "national security" I have to assume that they've been lying about 9/11 all along.
Fri, 2010-09-17 18:51
#22
Ah, they're trying to clean up their act are they?
Historically they had credibility somewhat below the National Post and the Sun.
Sat, 2010-09-18 04:46
#23
Ah, they're trying to clean up their act are they?
Historically they had credibility somewhat below the National Post and the Sun.
I'm still not sure what you're saying. Is it that we are to revert to believing the Pentagon and bipartisan 9/11 Commission Cover-up, because they are the only ones with any integrity?
Were the alleged hijackers living in Virginia outside the gates of the NSA completely unknown to the gladio gang before 9/11?
Is Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer a whistleblower or part of a taxpayer-funded disinformation campaign on the part of the DoD?
Sat, 2010-09-18 05:54
#24
Historically they had credibility somewhat below the National Post and the Sun.
- that would seem to indicate you don't put a lot of faith in the NP - a firm supporter of the official conspiracy theory .... there certainly seem to be a lot of mouth-breathers (it's kind of scary roaming around NP comment threads sometimes) and obvious criminals anxious to have people believe the OCT ...
Sat, 2010-09-18 06:18
#25
Well its sounds like [url=http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=f54cf9ee-46... Kaye[/url] of the National Ghost was having none of this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense before he listened to a talk given by Richard Gage of A&Es for 9/11 Truth. Kaye tells us that Gage, unlike very many rambling conspiracy theorists, is lucid when discussing the WTC building collapses. Gage and A&Es for truth are not conspiracy theorists and offer no wild explanations as to what really did happen on 9/11. They simply want to know the truth about what caused collapse initiations of three steel frame buildings after two of them were struck by planes on 9/11.
A&E's for 9/11 truth say [url=http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/288-ae911truth-structural-... law is on their side[/url], because the National Construction Safety Team Act requires NIST to establish a likely cause of the WTC-7 building failure.
So the conspiracy is really with the US Government who continue to avoid upholding their own laws governing building safety. The AE's for truth are simply doing their jobs as well in trying to find out what caused the worst steel frame building collapses in history. This part of the concerted cover-up is obvious.
[url=http://www.lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/]Lawyers and Judges and legal scholars for 9/11 Truth[/url] are also saying that US Constitutional laws were not adhered to and producing the very slip-shod 9/11 Commission Cover-up, which was a total sham according to two of the hand-picked commissioners themselves.
Sat, 2010-09-18 06:20
#26
- I had this one in mind - http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/14/jonathan-kay-on-the-sad-d... - somewhat more typical of Kay's approach to talking about 911 ... indicative of the strength of Gage's presentation, I guess, that he even calmed Kay down for a short while - but there's no turning back a true conspiracy theorist, pointing out the many obvbious flaws and inconsistencies and even impossibilities with the official story has no impact on them at all. I guess they just can't believe their government could do something like that, so take comfort in these crazy theories. It would be sad, I suppose, if it wasn't doing such damage to our countries - these criminals now see they can do pretty much anything and not be called on it ....
Sat, 2010-09-18 07:52
#27
Nothing is new under the sun, and we have to understand it from their POV. Generations of Americans have been taught to think in terms of national security and staving off foreign threats. There was a lull in the propaganda between 1991 and 2001. Americans began thinking for themselves for a period, and America's billionaire oligarchy knew that they had to reproduce that sense of fear of an outside enemy among Americans in order to justify the massive spending on all things military, which is really a closed economy run by powerful elites in the US similar to the former USSR only a lot more corrupt. It's been an endless gravy train of socialism for rich people in America since the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism in 1929. They don't ever want those bad old days of dog-eat-dog capitalism to return as it was far duller and greyer than Soviet communism. The billionaire-socialist oligarchy in America would never allow it. Capitalism was just a rumor in America afer the dirty 30's, and now it's just a stale party joke.
Sat, 2010-09-18 12:55
#28
As far as I can tell, the NIST did as good a job as possible, given the available evidence. They have produced a report that asserts a likely cause. You don't believe it. That's fine. I don't believe you.
Of course the 9-11 Commission was a sham. The question is: Why was it a sham? Your theory is that they are covering up a false flag operation. My theory is they are covering up gross incompetence. Is there a lack of evidence for gross incompetence?
As far as the credibility of the National Post goes, I have not been quoting them. Just because they agree with me on this point doesn't mean I think they have credibility.
Actually, as far as media goes on this subject, I would go with Gwynne Dyer and Al-Jazeera.
Sat, 2010-09-18 13:38
#29
My theory is they are covering up gross incompetence. Is there a lack of evidence for gross incompetence?
Dubya's people had a direct responsibility to the American public to protect them from terrorism. They failed. People want to know why there was a security standown among many other security failures. To not be very curious about it would be like watching your Rolls Royce conk out on the highway, and instead of taking it to a garage for a mechanic to lookover, you park the thing and forget about it.
Incompetence among professionals is not generally against law. As more than 900 engineers for truth are concerned, though, they owe what's known as a duty of care to the public. It's unique to the profession of engineering in that this duty of care is owed to the general public at large over and above any individual client. They simply want to know what caused collapse initiations of the buildings and how to avoid incorporating possible design flaws in future building projects. And it's part of their jobs to find out exactly what caused WTC building 7 to collapse. FEMA-NIST have stated that their own analysis and conclusions as to what caused WTC-7 to collapse is plausible by not very likely.
So, I don't think it matters a great deal what jrootham or someone named Pants think caused WTC-7 building to collapse, Unless you're an engineer or architect, I don't find your arguments for that part of the 9/11 mystery particularly compelling. But when 1200+professionals with a combined 25,000 years of experience say that more should be known about cause, I think bureaucrats and politicians need to listen. If the US feds were all that interested in finding out the truth and putting conspiracy theories to rest, then they might act. I think there is more wrong with US Government and that widespread corruption runs deeper than we know. They've been selling nuclear weapons tech secrets to thirdworld military dictatorships as well as waging war on democracy around the world. These are dangerous times, and we have news media reporting on fake crisis after fake crisis instead of the real and genuine threats to global peace and democracy.
Sun, 2010-09-19 03:51
#30
As far as I can tell, the NIST did as good a job as possible, given the available evidence. They have produced a report that asserts a likely cause. You don't believe it. That's fine. I don't believe you. ....
Great. Just kind of for the record, I'm trying to make a list - it's not very big so far - maybe you would care to join in? It's something like this:
I look at this photo -
- and I have no trouble at all agreeing with the NIST scientists that those fires, together with great structural damage from the airplane crashes, are fully responsible for the global collapse of these two building a few minutes after this picture was taken.
(don't think about your grandkids in a few years looking funnily at you, frowning a bit maybe - "Really, Granddad?!? Who was it told you that story?' - no, don't need to think anything like that - )
Of course the 9-11 Commission was a sham. The question is: Why was it a sham? Your theory is that they are covering up a false flag operation. My theory is they are covering up gross incompetence. Is there a lack of evidence for gross incompetence?
- any evidence can be fabricated, and any evidence interpreted in different ways. I think the evidence for criminal activity and coverup is much stronger than for incompetence. Many related things in the big picture - you want to believe, for instance, that after two hijacked planes have been flown into the WTC buildings, and there are an unknown number of other hijacked planes flying around out there, but at least one is known to be heading for Washington - with Andrews Air Force base 10 miles with planes available to protect the nation's capital (whether or not it's their 'official' duty) - and with that hijacked plane heading to Washington for at least 30 minutes they cannot get a few planes in the air to protect the capital - you call that 'incompetence'? I find that more than a bit hard to swallow, given the general attitude of the American government people towards all things military, and their budget, and decades of high-level alert and practice in responding to threats, etc. And if it actually was incompetence - why did no heads roll? There were any number of promotions following 911 - usually you get a promotion for doing something well, not failing miserably in one of the most important jobs in the country. Odd - unless there weren't any actual 'failures' that day, and all went pretty much according to plan - promotions all around, lads! Well done!!
- as I have noted elsewhere - the neocons have been having things their way for around the last 30 years - hardly a sign of 'incompetence'. These people know what they want, and go out and get it. Failure is not an option with these people - and if you look at their record in taking over western governments, although most people in most western countries oppose what they are doing - it hardly makes one think 'wow, what a bunch of incompetents!' (actually, one tends to look at the anemic protests raised by the so-called lefies and progressives as their countries are stolen from them in front of their very faces, and the words 'sadly incompetent' often come to mind ...)
As far as the credibility of the National Post goes, I have not been quoting them. Just because they agree with me on this point doesn't mean I think they have credibility.
Actually, as far as media goes on this subject, I would go with Gwynne Dyer and Al-Jazeera.
- not to worry, you're on the side of the modern gods, as you can point to pretty much the entire western media as sharing your views (or should that be the other way around?) - they probably wouldn't publish that picture above and tell their readers they believed the NIST report side by side - but questioning official stories about important stuff is not their job - promoting them is, and marginalizing opposing views. The Canadian media - secretarial service for the NWO. Take your soma, kids, you'll all be happier. Daddy knows best.
Sun, 2010-09-19 07:13
#31
[URL=http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/09/the-questions-of-911-are-still... Questions of 9/11 are Still Unanswered[/URL]
“the most important thing for us is to find Osama bin Laden. It’s our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”“I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself, to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks…”“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
Sun, 2010-09-19 22:51
#32
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15186]Bin Laden Family Members Evacuated from US in Wake of the 9/11 Attacks[/url]
Is there a better way to sabotage an in-depth investigation against the world's premier evil mastermind than to release all of his family members before any in-depth question-and-answer session had taken place?
Apparently many of bin Laden's family were totally unaware of what Osama was up to on 9/11. Osama didn't warn them? The Russians are alleged to have known. Israeli intelligence knew. Dozens of intelligence agencies around the world knew to expect an attack. But Osama's family members were in America, doing business with the Bush family as usual, and attending elite American schools as usual.
[url=http://www.dailypaul.com/node/139652][color=blue]BBC: There is no Al Qaeda[/color][/url]
There is no such thing as "al Qaeda", there is no one on earth who calls himself a member of "al Qaeda". "al Qaeda" is a term made up by the U.S. government to be applied to anyone killed during in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no formal organization. There is no secret terrorist network. What there is a is a phantom enemy, a boogyman that was easily sold to the American people for the benefit of the Bush Administration and their friends at PNAC.
Mon, 2010-09-20 10:05
#33
....
It's unique to the profession of engineering in that this duty of care is owed to the general public at large over and above any individual client.
...
No, Fidel. This is common to many professional orders. Doctors will quarantine their own patients to prevent infection to the populace if required. But it is irrelevant to the discussion, so whatever.
Mind you, the engineers that design automobiles seem to be able to ignore the greater good of the people by creating machines that are responsible for so much death and pollution, for the sake of their client's wish to go zoom. So, not all of your 1200 engineers is really all that motivated by protecting the populace.
So, I don't think it matters a great deal what jrootham or someone named Pants think caused WTC-7 building to collapse, Unless you're an engineer or architect, I don't find your arguments for that part of the 9/11 mystery particularly compelling.
Of course, you have no evidence that I am not an architect or engineer.
However, it shouldn't matter, as architects and engineers are not inmbued with infallibility. So, to assume that when an architect or engineer speaks about building construction that they are automatically correct is to make a logical fallacy. I believe it is called an argument from authority.
But when 1200+professionals with a combined 25,000 years of experience say that more should be known about cause, I think bureaucrats and politicians need to listen. ....
And you are continuing to repeat this fallacy of yours that the number of people who believe something has something to do with how true it is. I bet that I can find many more people who believe the official theory. Does that make th eofficial theory true?
Mon, 2010-09-20 10:29
#34
....
It's unique to the profession of engineering in that this duty of care is owed to the general public at large over and above any individual client.
...
No, Fidel. This is common to many professional orders. Doctors will quarantine their own patients to prevent infection to the populace if required. But it is irrelevant to the discussion, so whatever.
Uh no. Engineering is unique among the professions in that its first duty of care is owed to the public.
Of course, you have no evidence that I am not an architect or engineer.
Actually I have a pretty good idea now that you mention it.
And you are continuing to repeat this fallacy of yours that the number of people who believe something has something to do with how true it is. I bet that I can find many more people who believe the official theory. Does that make th eofficial theory true?
Ethics and moral values are increasingly taught by engineering professors in what are already overcrowded syllabi of their classes with a few hours of discussion on professionalism and with special attention paid to the subject of "whistleblowing."
Mon, 2010-09-20 11:14
#35
Uh no. Engineering is unique among the professions in that its first duty of care is owed to the public.
Which ones? Car engineers certainly do not, as I have already shown.
Actually I have a pretty good idea now that you mention it.
Please note that is not the first time that you have made these weird decisions about who I am. I am not the topic of discussion.
What I do want to discuss is why you think that someone is correct simply because they are an engineer or architect. Would you do the same if they were a cigarette salesperson? Why or why not?
Ethics and moral values are increasingly taught by engineering professors in what are already overcrowded syllabi of their classes with a few hours of discussion on professionalism and with special attention paid to the subject of "whistleblowing."
That's great. To get back to the subject, do you know what an argument from popularity is?
Tue, 2010-09-21 09:56
#36
Which ones? Car engineers certainly do not, as I have already shown.
Well I suppose any employee is expected to be loyal to their employer, it's true. Some people treat such loyalties as platitudes when it comes to ethical and moral decision making. Engineers are supposed to safeguard public interests at all times. Whistleblowing should be a last resort. Unfortunately not all companies or all government agencies have procedures in place to facilitate whistleblowing. Go figure.
Please note that is not the first time that you have made these weird decisions about who I am. I am not the topic of discussion.
Art Vandalay? You're into importing and exporting and architecture?
What I do want to discuss is why you think that someone is correct simply because they are an engineer or architect. Would you do the same if they were a cigarette salesperson? Why or why not?
I never said that engineers are right all of the time. I'm saying that when 900 engineers disagree with building collapse theories promoted by a government guy and his sidekick, then I think people and the government itself should at least take notice.
Tue, 2010-09-21 10:55
#37
Art Vandalay? You're into importing and exporting and architecture?
I never said that engineers are right all of the time.
You said (post 28 in this thread) that you only care about the opinions of architects and engineers and not people such as jrootham and myself.
You make two assumptions here:
1. That neither jrootham nor I are architects or engineers.
2. That because of this, our claims cannot be considered as important as those put forth by engineers or architects.
Let us imagine a possible hypothetical scenario: jrootham, an architect, and I are all standing outside a red barn. Jrootham says the barn is red. The architect (being colour blind) says it is orange. I say that the colour is based on the fact that farms made their own paint and that iron oxide is a cheap way to tint it.
How do I know that? Because I worked on construction sites. The truth is that your 1st assumption is only partially correct. While I do not have any certification for my status, I do work in building design and construction. But let us get back to the hypothetical example as it relates to your second assumption.
Jrootham is correct about the building while the architect is not. If we assume that jrootham is not an architect or an engineer, we get a situation where a non-professional is correct while the professional is not.
This shows that someone being an architect or engineer does not make them more correct than a lay person when discussing buildings. Therefore, your second assumption is not necessarily correct.
I'm saying that when 900 engineers disagree with building collapse theories promoted by a government guy and his sidekick, then I think people and the government itself should at least take notice.
Many more US citizens believe that evolution is wrong and that creationism is correct.
When more than 40% of the US population disagree with theories about evolution promoted by a government guy and his sidekick, then do you think people and the government itself should at least take notice?
You see, that is the problem when you assume that the number of people believing something has any relevance to the truth of that belief. We know literal Biblical creationism is wrong, no matter how many people believe it.
Do you see the flaws in your critical reasoning?
Tue, 2010-09-21 11:49
#38
I never said that any group of people can be right 100% of the time.
Many more US citizens believe that evolution is wrong and that creationism is correct.
But evolution is not a contested scientific theory among mainstream scientists. Even the Catholic Church supports Darwin's theory.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls]46% of Americans believe that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for perpetrating 9/11[/url]
Apparently Americans aren't sure. They aren't sure because of the lack of proof produced by crazy George II and his government over eight years on the job.
An even larger percentage of Americans in the City of New York think that the Bush government lied about 9/11. They aren't Texans or Alabamans or even Kentuckyans where support for creationism is more likely but New Yorkers.
[url=http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/17/can-the-bush-lied-deniers-handle... the 'Bush Lied' Deniers Handle the Truth?[/url]
Pants, do you remember the NeoCons fairy tale concerning "nurse Nayirah"? Do you think Iraq had WMD? Do you think Mohammed Atta was an Iraqi intelligence agent? Do you think Elvis Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11? Who would possibly deal in these wild conspiracy theories leading up to shock and awe over Baghdad and military occupations of two countries beginning in 2001?
Do you think it's possible that you were lied to about 9/11?
Tue, 2010-09-21 12:08
#39
I never said that any group of people can be right 100% of the time.
I did not say that you did.
I said that you made several incorrect assumptions when you assumed that since jrootham and I are not architects or engineers that we must not be as correct as architects or engineers when discussing building collapse.
...
Do you think it's possible that you were lied to about 9/11?
Yes, I do think it is possible. I would even go farther than that and say that if the warhawks thought they could lie to us in order to make a profit, they would unhesitatingly do so.
But after looking at the available evidence, I simply do not believe that they lied to us about the causes and events of 9/11, though I do agree that they lied about Iraq's supposed role in 9/11.
Tue, 2010-09-21 12:42
#40
I never said that any group of people can be right 100% of the time.
I did not say that you did.
I said that you made several incorrect assumptions when you assumed that since jrootham and I are not architects or engineers that we must not be as correct as architects or engineers when discussing building collapse.
Okay let's say that you and jrootham are both professionals with 20 years of experience in building design each for a total of 40. What are the odds that your 40 years plus maybe 60 combined total for Greening and Bazant for 100 total years is worth more than the 25,000 combined attributed to 1200+ A&E's for 9/11 truth? Just looking at those numbers, aren't things a little lopsided to start off with? Did those 1200+ A&Es for truth obtain their baccalaureates in engineering and design by mistake? I know they're not gods, but shouldn't their education, training and experience on the job count for something more than nothing when it comes to blowing the whistle on a government sponsored fairy tale?
Yes, I do think it is possible. I would even go farther than that and say that if the warhawks thought they could lie to us in order to make a profit, they would unhesitatingly do so.
But after looking at the available evidence, I simply do not believe that they lied to us about the causes and events of 9/11, though I do agree that they lied about Iraq's supposed role in 9/11.
So they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin near Vietnam. That was a false flag attack in 1964. Warhawks lied to American soldiers that they were being sent to VietNam to stop communist aggression. In fact, it was the Americans who were the aggressors there and bombing hell out of Cambodia. But that was a different era of lies, We're talking about 1991 onward. Actually, these lates lies began with Jimmy Carter's admin when they began funding drug lords, mercenaries, and working toward the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So the new era of lies began with, let's say, "nurse Nayirah" in Kuwait. Actually the Saddam lies began decades earlier when he was a point man for the CIA in Baghdad.
And they lied about WMD in Iraq.
Canada's Gerald Bull was another big liar along the way.
They lied about the proxy war in Afghanistan of the 1980s and 90s.
They lied about Iraqgate.
They lied about Osamagate.
They lied on both sides of the border about US Army-Qaeda Sargent Ali Mohamed.
Apparently they lied about Mohammed Atta and details concerning at least four other alleged hijackers who received specialized US Army training in Virginia, which was also a terrorist training facility for Afghan-Arab Mujahideen coming and going from all over the Middle East and Central Asia since the 1980s.
They lied about the identities of eight or nine alleged hijackers who've announced their innocence.
But you say that for some reason they weren't lying about 9/11? Yous say that Crazy George II and his people were suddenly obliged to tell the truth about 9/11 and without so much as being waterboarded or the truth beaten out of them by the inquisition? What pray tell leads you to this conclusion?
Tue, 2010-09-21 12:48
#41
Okay let's say that you and jrootham are both professionals with 20 years of experience in building design each for a total of 40. What are the odds that your 40 years plus maybe 60 combined total for Greening and Bazant for 100 total years is worth more than the 25,000 combined attributed to 1200+ A&E's for 9/11 truth? Just looking at those numbers, aren't things a little lopsided to start off with? Did those 1200+ A&Es for truth obtain their baccalaureates in engineering and design by mistake? I know they're not gods, but shouldn't their education, training and experience on the job count for something more than nothing when it comes to blowing the whistle on a government sponsored fairy tale?
Not quite.
What I am trying to say is that it does not matter who has the experience, or who has the numbers. What matters is who has the evidence, and who has the logic to tie the evidence into an argument.
An architect or engineer should be able to show the evidence and logic more easily, but anyone can provide the evidence and logic.
So, I would believe jrootham over the 900 architects and engineers if jrootham had the evidence and the logic to support an argument while the others did not.
So they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin near Vietnam.
...
What pray tell leads you to this conclusion?
The lack of evidence that they lied about 9/11 is what leads me to this conclusion.
Like I said, it is all about evidence and logic.
Tue, 2010-09-21 13:41
#42
Not quite. An architect or engineer should be able to show the evidence and logic more easily, but anyone can provide the evidence and logic.
The evidence was carted away from the crime scene lickity split. Only one percent of the steel was recovered and tested. Their own conclusions for WTC-7 admit to a low probability for their own theory.
So, I would believe jrootham over the 900 architects and engineers if jrootham had the evidence and the logic to support an argument while the others did not.
I wouldn't. Not that I don't trust jrootham's expert opinion on the matter - it's just that I tend to agree with the logic and reasoning behind the refutations of everyone from 9/11 Commissioners themselves to A&Es for truth to emergency workers and first responders whose eye witness testimonials are at odds with the official conspiracy theory.
The lack of evidence that they lied about 9/11 is what leads me to this conclusion.
Like I said, it is all about evidence and logic.
But you're not using logic or scientific rationale in the absence of hard evidence for the official narrative. Instead you're leaning on a fairy tale constructed by a tiny group of people who were previously established liars at the time 9/11 occurred. 9/11 truthers, OTOH, have no known history of lying, and so therefore, your logic is not logic at all so much as your personal leap of faith in a group of pathological lying-liars whose unofficial duties are to lie through their teeth to the public on behalf of the military-industrial complex and Wall Street warfiteers.
[url=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09/after_911_fbi_abused_anti-terr.html... 9/11, FBI Abused Anti-Terrorism Cover to Investigate Leftist Groups[/url]
The fascists certainly weren't going to investigate their own CIA-Qaeda connections or the NSA-shadow gov who proceeded to spy on the lives of millions of ordinary Americans, that's for sure.
Tue, 2010-09-21 16:01
#43
I wouldn't. Not that I don't trust jrootham's expert opinion on the matter - it's just that I tend to agree with the logic and reasoning behind the refutations of everyone from 9/11 Commissioners themselves to A&Es for truth to emergency workers and first responders whose eye witness testimonials are at odds with the official conspiracy theory.
It's not about expert opinion at all. Experts can be wrong. It's about looking at the evidence yourself.
Fidel, stop simply agreeing with anyone who questions the official story and look it at yourself.
But you're not using logic or scientific rationale in the absence of hard evidence for the official narrative. Instead you're leaning on a fairy tale constructed by a tiny group of people who were previously established liars at the time 9/11 occurred....
Actually, I am using logic and scientific methodology. Assuming that people are lying right now because they have lied in the past is neither logical nor scientific.
Tue, 2010-09-21 17:02
#44
It's not about expert opinion at all. Experts can be wrong.
Just because a bunch of people in the bible belt supported crazy George II and his government's lies surrounding climate science denialism and 9/11 cover-ups galore doesn't mean you have to as well. You don't even have to believe that crazy George was on a mission from God to make the world safe for US hypocrisy and "the war on terror", which is basically an ongoing war on democracy really.
If you don't understand something about the government lies surrounding 9/11, you can always do your own research. Not all of the lies are obvious, and some of what they claim as truth are actually half-truths as cover for more lies and half-truths. Thinking logically does require some work on your part and not just accepting whatever it is the government guys alone feed you. You have to look at both sides of any conflicting account and weigh the evidence in both hands. If you do that, you'll find the government guys are light on proof of many of their claims and wild assumptions. But I can tell you haven't done that in favour of being a sponge for the right-wing propaganda on 9/11 and broadcast by two-bit CIA-friendly newz agencies as CNN and Fox news. Your opinion parallels those newz agencies to a tee on most of the issues you claim to have processed through your own meat grinder of reductionist reasoning and scientific rationale. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I think you've messed up somewhere along the line. Big time.
Actually, I am using logic and scientific methodology. Assuming that people are lying right now because they have lied in the past is neither logical nor scientific.
By itself, the fact that crazy Jorge de la yeyo and Neocons lied constantly about a wide range of issues concerning Iraq, renditions, the torture, the WMD etc is not proof of their guilt in 9/11 false flag. But you have to admit that it doesn't support their innocence either. Most prudent people would suggest that established liars are probably capable of lying a third or fourth or umpteenth time having already demonstrated a propensity for lying when it counts. That they are established liars is not a compelling reason for you to believe their official lies surrounding 9/11. In fact, establishing someone's credibility for telling the truth or lack of is what professional lawyers sometimes do in courts of law, and it's very effective in persuading jurors and judges to their point of view. Except in the case of 9/11, none of crazy George II or his cohorts in crime want anything to do with the inside of a criminal court. In fact, they even went so far as to declare themselves immune from international laws since Nuremberg and from prosecution for war crimes before committing them.
Wed, 2010-09-22 07:48
#45
[url=http://ssrn.stanford.edu/delivery.php?ID=5280940930740300990860010690870... Theories[/url][color=green](pdf)[/color] Cass R. Sunstein University of Chicago - Law School 2008
So what does Obama's good friend recommend to stem the tide of 9/11 conspiracy theories? We might imagine that a legitimate investigation might be on order. Wrong!
Cass recommends [url=http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/cognitive-infiltration-an-obama-ap...'Cognitive Infiltration'[/color][/url], or basically recycling cold warrior J. Edgar Hoover's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO]COINTELPRO[/url] groups for spying on lefties and 9/11 Truth movement with the intention of discrediting them.
Wed, 2010-09-22 09:07
#46
Just because a bunch of people in the bible belt supported crazy George II and his government's lies surrounding climate science denialism and 9/11 cover-ups galore doesn't mean you have to as well. ....In fact, they even went so far as to declare themselves immune from international laws since Nuremberg and from prosecution for war crimes before committing them.
I am honestly getting somewhat tired of your assumption that I simply believe and accept the official story because the US government said so.
It is wrong, and somewhat insulting.
Wed, 2010-09-22 09:12
#47
[url=http://ssrn.stanford.edu/delivery.php?ID=5280940930740300990860010690870... Theories[/url][color=green](pdf)[/color] Cass R. Sunstein University of Chicago - Law School 2008
So what does Obama's good friend recommend to stem the tide of 9/11 conspiracy theories? We might imagine that a legitimate investigation might be on order. Wrong!
Cass recommends [url=http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/cognitive-infiltration-an-obama-ap...'Cognitive Infiltration'[/color][/url], or basically recycling cold warrior J. Edgar Hoover's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO]COINTELPRO[/url] groups for spying on lefties and 9/11 Truth movement with the intention of discrediting them.
I hope David Ray Griffin's book sales go well for this book, just like his last one.
He obviously has no economic interest in perpetuating 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Except selling his seven books, that is.
Wed, 2010-09-22 10:14
#48
What? You're saying Griffin is a private entrepreneur in a land of socialism for rich people? Yes, we can see how Griffin would stand out like a sore thumb when Homeland Stupidity feds [url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/02/eye_opener_homeland... more private contractors than the feds[/url] do in police state America.
But that's nothing compared to the other state funded social programs for superrich Americans, like thousands of private contractors supplying the US Military. War and aggression is big business, and they have lobbyists running around Warshington making sure that the money spigots are turned wide open to all their favorite private enterprising jackal friends. The US Military is always well dressed and never without a country to show up in uninvited. All they need is a false flag gladio pretext, and it's show time to implement the latest weaponry. Actual blitzkrieg is worth a lot of money to the death industry with enabling their lobbyist jackals to publish performance stats on their junk used in actual battle scenarios and for making glossy photos to ply thirdworld dictator friends with. The world is run like the mafia, and Murder Inc. is more than likely good for 9/11.
Political conservatives love excessive bureaucracy and big government. And the "Liberal" Democrat wing of the same party of warmongering plutocrats love to oblige them. They all love the over-bloated conservative nanny state. Problem is, it's unsustainable and so are forced to dream up new false flag scenarios to keep the whole slow-moving conservative nanny state bureaucracy moving at a snail's pace while the real productive labour economy goes down the toilet. And the massive debts they charge-up on the taxpayers' tab translates to socialism for banksters and money speculating pals in Europe and wherever superrich people are in need of a handout in general.
Wed, 2010-09-22 10:58
#49
What? You're saying Griffin is a private entrepreneur in a land of socialism for rich people?...And the massive debts they charge-up on the taxpayers' tab translates to socialism for banksters and money speculating pals in Europe and wherever superrich people are in need of a handout in general.
No. I am pointing out that Mr. Griffin has a very clear and specific economic interest in having you believe his claims so that you will buy his books.
Other people have this interest too, I agree. But that does not change the fact that Mr. Griffin wants you to believe so that you will buy his book.
Wed, 2010-09-22 12:25
#50
What? You're saying Griffin is a private entrepreneur in a land of socialism for rich people?...And the massive debts they charge-up on the taxpayers' tab translates to socialism for banksters and money speculating pals in Europe and wherever superrich people are in need of a handout in general.
No. I am pointing out that Mr. Griffin has a very clear and specific economic interest in having you believe his claims so that you will buy his books.
Are you suggesting that Griffin should offer to produce books of information on crimes of the state and publish them for free? [url=http://www.amazon.ca/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspir... Infiltration[/url] It's a paperback and between $15 and $21 dollars CDN - not a large amount of money. I imagine you may even be able to read a copy at the library.
I don't think David Ray Griffin is a greed-driven capitalist entrepreneur, no. I think DRG helped found the [url=http://www.ctr4process.org/]Center for Process Studies[/url] in 1973. CPS is a non-profit group of researchers, theologians with interests in religion, economics, philosophy etc. [url=http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/01/catholic-socialist.html]Lee Hudson Teslik[/url] mentions one of CPS' philosophizing founders, Afred North Whitehead. So while economic well being may be an interest of David Ray Griffin and common to every other human being on the planet, I don't think David Ray Griffin is another Gordon Gecko or Bernie Madoff.
And so if we consider that socialists are also guilty of writing books and publishing them for sale, then we would probably have to label socialists as part of the 'book of the month club conspiracy to undermine capitalism' and everything else that is pure and good as well. In which case books are certainly conspiratorial enough to warrant a resurgence of COINTELPRO fascism in America, don't you think? It's either dust off the cold war book of tactics, or [url=http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/05/columbia-space-shuttle... up some money for a real investigation into 9/11[/url] Apparently the only thing that corrupt nanny state conservatives fear more than 9/11 truth is fear that Americans will find out the truth about the big bank heist on Wall Street.
Other people have this interest too, I agree. But that does not change the fact that Mr. Griffin wants you to believe so that you will buy his book.
Are you saying that people should stop buying books and especially books about 9/11? How's the import-export business going?
Wed, 2010-09-22 13:00
#51
.....
Are you saying that people should stop buying books and especially books about 9/11? How's the import-export business going?
If you want to know what I am saying, then read it.
And once again, I am not the subject under discussion. I do not care if you think I am a fictional character from a TV series or a spambot or whatever.