babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 04 November 2003 04:05 AM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA?

quote:
It’s not surprising that the New Jersey housewife who first spotted the five Israelis and their white van wants to preserve her anonymity. She’s insisted that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had called her just after the first strike on the Twin Towers. Maria grabbed a pair of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the day unfold.

As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot. Here’s her recollection: “They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like happy, you know ... they didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was strange.”

Maria jotted down the van’s registration and called the police. The FBI was alerted and soon there was a statewide all points bulletin put out for the apprehension of the van and its occupants. The cops traced the number, establishing that it belonged to a company called Urban Moving.

Police Chief John Schmidig said: “We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side. Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down.”

By 4pm on the afternoon of September 11, the van was spotted near New Jersey’s Giants stadium. A squad car pulled it over and inside were five men in their 20s. They were hustled out of the car with guns levelled at their heads and handcuffed.

In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters – the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who’d flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background. One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert. The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 04 November 2003 04:08 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy (TM) was behind 9/11 as well. This shouldn't surprise anyone
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 November 2003 05:07 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A more logical explanation presents itself: The Mossad didn't tell the CIA everything they knew either because they didn't know when the hijackings would occur, or they didn't know about the entire membership of the Al Qaeda cells in the USA.

I can think of several other far more prosaic explanations than your rushing to trash this observation as "OMG JEWISH CONSPIRACEY U R BAD" type crap.

(edit for another one of those annoying spelling mistakes)

[ 04 November 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 November 2003 09:16 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Finding stories to imply the calumny that Israelis are somehow behind 9/11 is usually the modus operendi of the extreme right. Why in God's name should such offensive material be placed here on Babble. Why indeed?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 November 2003 09:35 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I heard this at the time and I seem to remember it being debunked.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 November 2003 11:24 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These reports have several times been discussed thoroughly on babble, and the debunkers consider them debunked, but then what do I know?

As usual, I doubt that we need a conspiracy theory.

What we do know for sure is that a number of intelligence agencies, Mossad among them, knew much more of the al-Qaeda threat than the American people knew. There is a U.S. congressional committee fighting at the moment to get more information from the White House than Bush has so far been willing to deliver up. There are the missing pages about Saudi Arabia.

Occam's Razor: I'd opt for general stupidity and arrogance as the most obvious explanation for the intelligence failures surrounding 11 September.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 November 2003 11:25 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but every time it's trundled out and repeated - again! - it leaves just a little more taint behind. Someone, somewhere, is going to read it and say "gee, I've seen that a lot!". And then of course the live-in-their-parents-basement Conspiracy KooKs can say "more and more people are exploring and considering that the U.S./Israel/House of Saud was behind 9/11 after all!"

B O R I N G . . .


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 November 2003 11:43 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, the article isn't implying that any of those were "behind" 11 September. (And it doesn't mention the Saudis at all.)

It implies that various groups knew more about an impending attack than was ever acted against, or ever vouchsafed to the American people.

The intro, granted, is dramatized: but the article itself isn't half bad.

My apologies, mv: I hadn't read your link when I wrote my first post. I should have. It is better than I expected.

And if I'm not mistaken, that's the Glasgow Herald, a most respectable newspaper.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 November 2003 12:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, the article isn't implying that any of those were "behind" 11 September. (And it doesn't mention the Saudis at all.)

True. All of the various Conspiracy Theories are starting to blend into one ÜberKonspiracy© with the Mossad paying off the Bilderburgs to hush up the CIA involvement with the Israeli government and their attempt to stifle stories of Bush's grandfather trading with the Nazis. Of course the House of Saud was using the hijackers to funnel Haliburton money to accounts in the Caymans. And guess who's at the centre of all of it? JFK! Don't tell me you were naive enough to fall for his faked assassination!

Anyway, produce the woman who claims to have seen these dancing secret agents, or pipe down. (Not you, Skdadl.)


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 04 November 2003 12:52 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, how timely.

Tonight a film documentary will aire on CBC NewsWorld titled Conspiracy Theories: Uncovering the facts behind the myths of September 11th 2001

Check the cbc site below for more info.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 November 2003 12:53 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK Magoo, if yer so smart, how do you explain The Hindenburg!


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 November 2003 12:57 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I don't really like to name names, but this I can tell you: if the Hindenburg hadn't caught fire and discredited the safety of the hydrogen-based dirigible, then we might all be blimping around town in our personal lighter-than-air craft, instead of our ahem! Ford Explorers...

[ 04 November 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 November 2003 12:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I don't find it that hard to believe that lots of people (not me: see below) saw some kind of justified retribution in this catastrophe. I'm sad if anyone danced, but I'm sure that some did, and I can follow that.

The story of the woman who reported these guys -- and the instant, massive police response that that brought -- that is intriguing. If it's true, it says more, I think, about NAmerican paranoia, maybe even xenophobia, than anything else. To me, it reads like memories of Hawthorne -- or even Camus -- y'know? Arrest these guys because they didn't cry appropriately?

I've noted before: I knew someone who died in the North Tower. I love his mother. Before I knew what was happening to him, I was staring at all those people gathered at the broken windows, looking out for help, whole people, healthy people -- people who I feared were about to die none the less. I will never get over that impossible thought: they are alive -- but not for long.

Damn damn damn.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 04 November 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Below is a link to several interviews the documentary producers had with security figures, etc.

It might be an interesting documentary tonight (10pm, Fifth Estate, NewsWorld. More collapsing towers, notwithstanding.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/interviews.html


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 November 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

Finding stories to imply the calumny that Israelis are somehow behind 9/11 is usually the modus operendi of the extreme right. Why in God's name should such offensive material be placed here on Babble. Why indeed?


The article does not imply that Israelis were behind 9/11. It raises the question whether Israeli cells were shadowing the al-queda cells, and how much they knew as a result. I find the article to be fairly sober and well-sourced. As it notes, Israeli spying in the U.S. is not unprecedented nor, as evidence by the Pollard case, is Israeli spying on the U.S. unprecedented. Why the five men were behaving in such a manner strikes me as important only as it reveals their lack of humanity.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 November 2003 02:12 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:

The article does not imply that Israelis were behind 9/11. It raises the question whether Israeli cells were shadowing the al-queda cells, and how much they knew as a result. I find the article to be fairly sober and well-sourced. As it notes, Israeli spying in the U.S. is not unprecedented nor, as evidence by the Pollard case, is Israeli spying on the U.S. unprecedented. Why the five men were behaving in such a manner strikes me as important only as it reveals their lack of humanity.


Give me a break. The story clearly suggests that the oooooo wait for it mossad knew all about this terrorist act and by refusing to tell the Americans, allowed the terrible event to occur. Ach those evil Israelis were responsible for this, if only they would have told the American authorities so many lives would not have been lost. Damn Israelis.....please if you dont see this you are wilfully blind. This is IMHO an attempt to once again demonize Israel and Israelis. Giving any credence to it is abhorrent.

[ 04 November 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 04 November 2003 02:23 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's with the boxcutter allegation though? Is that the slag to imply Israei involvement? Why would they have boxcutters on the ground? It doesn't really make sense unless they just happened to have boxcutters in the van which is not that unreasonable to believe.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 04 November 2003 02:55 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Give me a break. The story clearly suggests that the oooooo wait for it mossad knew all about this terrorist act and by refusing to tell the Americans, allowed the terrible event to occur. Ach those evil Israelis were responsible for this, if only they would have told the American authorities so many lives would not have been lost. Damn Israelis

josh's characterization of the article is essentially accurate. It's quite clear to a reasonably careful reader where the presentation of facts ends, and the possible interpretation of those facts begins. Nowhere does it say that Israelis are responsible for 9/11 and nowhere does it describe Israelis as "evil". That's your word.

quote:

.....please if you dont see this you are wilfully blind. This is IMHO an attempt to once again demonize Israel and Israelis. Giving any credence to it is abhorrent.

I can't help feeling that "wilfully blind" is exactly how you want us to be. Whenever Israel is involved it seems you want us to stop looking for ourselves, accept the pronouncements of approved sources (which would include you) that everything is really OK (or evil if we're discussing criticism of Israel), mouth the appropriate platitudes and mind our own damn business. No sale.

If you want to be angry at the conspiracy theories that seem to have gained traction where 9/11 is concerned, may I suggest you direct that anger where it belongs - at the Bush White House. It's the American Executive Branch which has blocked every attempt to put a full and complete accounting of the events leading up to that day into the public domain. Things have deteriorated to a point where even Republican members of Congress are making loud noises about issuing supoenas to White House officials to shake some answers loose.

Nature abhors a vacuum and so, it seems, does public opinion when the subject is as momentous as this one. It's in that atmosphere that conspiracy theories, even noxious ones, will continue to circulate outside the usual tinfoil hat circles. One is left to wonder who benefits, and how, by the continued stonewalling.

[ 04 November 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 November 2003 03:01 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers

I object to the use of the word "ploughed" in the thread title.

This use casts hateful aspersions against farmers.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Art J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2259

posted 04 November 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for Art J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Very nice article. Not very flattering to Israelis, mind you. Spying is like that, though, in that knowledge cannot always be acted upon. Quite damning if Mossad had prior knowledge here. No ironclad evidence, but it doesn't look good.
From: British Columbia Inc. - Let us Prey | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 04 November 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Give me a break. The story clearly suggests that the oooooo wait for it mossad knew all about this terrorist act and by refusing to tell the Americans, allowed the terrible event to occur. Ach those evil Israelis were responsible for this, if only they would have told the American authorities so many lives would not have been lost. Damn Israelis.....please if you dont see this you are wilfully blind. This is IMHO an attempt to once again demonize Israel and Israelis. Giving any credence to it is abhorrent.

Mishei, if you will calm down your knee-jerk "anti-Semites have taken over babble" rants for a moment, you might ponder cooly the fact that there is strong evidence that the Mossad has failed to pass on information that could have saved American lives before.

I'm speaking, of course, of the revelation by former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky that the Mossad had advance knowledge of the 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut (including the make and color of the car) but didn't pass on that information to American intelligence. Two hundred and forty-one U.S. marines were killed when the car, rigged with explosives, rammed their barracks in Beirut.

In his book,
By way of Deception, Ostrovsky makes it clear that the Mossad often acted without authorization from, and contrary to the wishes of the Israeli government at the time. The CIA is no better, only less competent, and I don't see that criticism of the CIA equates to criticism of the United States.

Consider the evidence, maybe the Mossad is an impediment to a strong Israel.


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'topherscompy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2248

posted 04 November 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for 'topherscompy        Edit/Delete Post
you can watch the cbc doc here right now, or whenever you want.

this story about the israelis, possibly mossad, in new jersey i've read before.

the implication, i believe, that if mossad knew some or more of the plot does not imho lead to the conclusion they were behind it in any way, rather it puts the lie to us official claims that "no one could have seen this coming" etc.

the russians knew something was up, though not exactly what, and warned the americans before hand. so did the intel agencies of several countries. i think mossad knowing something, and the likelyhood that they told the nsa or cia at least some of it, shows us no more than us intel's (or admin's) willful blindness and/or incompetence.


From: gone | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 November 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the russians knew something was up, though not exactly what, and warned the americans before hand. so did the intel agencies of several countries. i think mossad knowing something, and the likelyhood that they told the nsa or cia at least some of it, shows us no more than us intel's (or admin's) willful blindness and/or incompetence.

Huh? If Russia knew "something was up, though not exactly what", then what use could they have been? Don't security agencies always assume "something" could be up?

Russia: Hi, we just wanted to give you the heads-up that something big is coming your way.

CIA/NSA: What?

Russia: We don't know.

CIA/NSA: Is it poison in the water?

Russia: We don't know.

CIA/NSA: An assassination attempt?

Russia: We don't know.

CIA/NSA: Is someone planning to blow California off the west coast?

Russia: We don't know.

CIA/NSA: Lasers in space? Puppies programmed to kill? Plague spores on Pokeman dolls? Throw us a frickin' bone here, eh?

Russia: We don't know.

CIA/NSA: Thanks. We'll get right on that.

[ 04 November 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 November 2003 04:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
flotsom and ahhhfukit (sp?), I've just read through the text of the CBC doc, and I am shocking myself by being shocked all over again.

I think that I knew much of this, in bits and pieces -- it's not as though most of these facts have been kept very secret ... they came tumbling and stumbling out too late to save lives, of course, but tumble out they have, in spite of all stonewalling attempts.

And yet it is awful to read the whole summary.

If I were a member of an 11 September family, I would spend the rest of my life figuring out how to sue the Bush family for all they're worth.

I would have Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes pinned up on his corkboard with one letter to the editor after another, inquiring after his cosy personal friendships with the Saudi royal family.

Again: you don't need to believe in any conspiracy (beyond the al-Qaeda conspiracy) to recognize that there is more than a casual link between the cabal now running Washington and the horror of 11 September (and all that has followed, much that preceded). The link is causal -- complicated, but causal.

The stomach turns.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'topherscompy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2248

posted 04 November 2003 04:17 PM      Profile for 'topherscompy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
– The Italian government shared "general" information of possible attacks in March 2001 based on bugs in apartments in Milan.

– An Iranian in custody in New York City told local police last May of a plot to attack the World Trade Center.

– German intelligence alerted the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, Israel's Mossad in June 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American and Israeli interests.

– Pakistanis were taken into custody June 4 in the Cayman Islands after they were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City; they were questioned and released, and the information was forwarded to U.S. intelligence.

– Indian intelligence shared "general" information in July 2001.

– In July and August, British intelligence shared "general" information that it had learned through surveillance of Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi Arabian dissident who has publicly acknowledged being a bin Laden operative. Fawwaz, suspected of participating in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya, was arrested after Sept. 11.

– Based on its own intelligence, the Israeli government provided "general" information to the United States in the second week of August that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent.

– French intelligence echoed the "general" information in the final week of August.

– Russian President Vladimir Putin has said publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the United States last summer that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets


fox news

everybody seems to be claiming they warned the americans, maybe it was just a fad.


From: gone | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 04 November 2003 06:47 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michel Chussodovsky, among others, has collected an impressive collection of evidence that many organizations had advance knowledge/suspicions of the Sept. 11 attacks that were more or less credible and that the Bush administration actively discouraged investigation (most notably by the FBI) of these warnings.

This, from the NYT is typical:

quote:
NATIONAL DESK | October 18, 2002, Friday
THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE 9/11 DEFENDANT; Early Warnings on Moussaoui Are Detailed

By PHILIP SHENON (NYT) 873 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 13 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Congressional investigators report that CIA warned its stations around world in Aug 2001 that Zacarias Moussaoui had been arrested in Minnesota after raising suspicion at flight school there and that he was 'suspect airline suicide hijacker'; say Minneapolis office of FBI told bureau headquarters in Washington at about same time that Moussaoui might be acting with 'others yet unknown' in plot to hijack airliner; exact wording of internal warnings and their urgent tone are among several disclosures in updated report on Moussaoui case released by special joint Congressional panel investigating intelligence failures before Sept 11; existence of internal warnings about Moussaoui had been previously disclosed, but revised report offers new evidence of level of suspicion and alarm he created in summer of 2001 among at least handful of FBI and CIA officials; photo (M)

and, more detailed:

Western intelligence had been aware of plans for such terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as early as 1995. The plan was known as "Project Bojinka." It was known to both the CIA and FBI and was described in court documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for their participation in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC). Seven to eight weeks prior to September 11th, all internal U.S. security agencies were warned of the impending Al-Qaeda attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the attack but did nothing to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September 11th the FBI agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent. However, the FBI agents were commanded to cut short their investigations into the attacks and those involved. Agents were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized information pertaining to their investigations. Some field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 04 November 2003 06:52 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, but every time it's trundled out and repeated - again! - it leaves just a little more taint behind. Someone, somewhere, is going to read it and say "gee, I've seen that a lot!". And then of course the live-in-their-parents-basement Conspiracy KooKs can say "more and more people are exploring and considering that the U.S./Israel/House of Saud was behind 9/11 after all!"

Always calling people kooks...

Telling, methinks...


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 04 November 2003 09:42 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, no, evenflow, Magoo must be right.
Every critical thinker knows that the 9/11 terrorists were just random People Who Hate America Because She Champions Freedom and Democracy (they really should look into creating a shorter acronym!). It is, of course, a well-known but little understood statistical phenomenon that any random sample of Islamic PWHABSCFD (IPWHABSCFD), will always contain 75% Saudi nationals.

Probability (p < .0001) also dictates that the leader of such a random group will have extensive business ties with senior members of the government on whose watch the attacks occur.

From this perspective, one can only wonder why the US didn't attack Iraq before attacking Afghanistan.

Now that's a real head-scratcher, eh?

[ 04 November 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 04 November 2003 09:58 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, no, evenflow, Magoo must be right.
Every critical thinker knows that the 9/11 terrorists were just random People Who Hate America Because She Champions Freedom and Democracy (they really should look into creating a shorter acronym!). It is, of course, a well-known but little understood statistical phenomenon that any random sample of Islamic PWHABSCFD (IPWHABSCFD), will always contain 75% Saudi nationals.
Probability (p < .0001) also dictates that the leader of such a random group will have extensive business ties with senior members of the government on whose watch the attacks occur.

From this perspective, one can only wonder why the US didn't attack Iraq before attacking Afghanistan.

Now that's a real head-scratcher, eh?



From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 04 November 2003 10:04 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sisyphus, you should really do a workup for us on what the odds are that America is being attacked because "they hate our freedom"!!

If these theories were horses, what one should we bet on!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 November 2003 01:22 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Close, No Yards. It's all those John Wayne movies.

"They hate us because of our horses."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 November 2003 01:28 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, may I point out that I poured cold water on any notion of assuming some giant conspiracy involving the Israeli Mossad?

You do yourself a disservice by being so dogmatically stiff-necked and reactionary that you fail to notice that nobody with a working brain, on babble anyway, seriously thinks the Mossad was running the 9/11 attacks from top to bottom.

I do however, find it tasteless that at least one Israeli chose to use the salute-the-show-with-a-lighter thing.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 November 2003 01:45 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Always calling people kooks...

Telling, methinks...


Yes. I'm telling you they're KooKs.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 05 November 2003 11:17 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always calling people kooks...
Telling, methinks...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. I'm telling you they're KooKs.


So far as I have been able to tell, your definition of a 'Kook' is someone who thinks for themselves instead of blankly accepting the White House hand outs. Of course, I've only seen you use the expression in an emotionally reactive way a couple of times so that may or may not be totally accurate, and I wouldn't want to be guilty of erroneously invalidating anyone's comments by attaching a mildly offensive and meaninglessly vague label to them. That would be, at best, densely ignorant on my part.

Besides, it is nice to know we have a resident witch hunter..... I mean.... Kook finder right here on babble!


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 November 2003 11:46 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So far as I have been able to tell, your definition of a 'Kook' is someone who thinks for themselves instead of blankly accepting the White House hand outs.

Parrotting the same Conspiracy Crap© that they've been turning to since Kennedy was shot is hardly thinking for oneself.

"Squawk!! The CIA did it! The Mossad did it! Squawk! Bilderburgs! Shadowy men!! Squawk!!"

Let's hear from the woman who allegedly saw the dancing agents. In a sworn deposition. Until then, this "free thinking" is nothing more than (very predictable) conjecture and armchair quarterbacking.

I could tell you that David Suzuki was the mastermind behind the North American Blackout of 2003, but that doesn't begin to even approach "free thinking" until I can pony up some real, testable proof. Not more questions, not innuendo, not "possible scenarios", but proof. Proof.

And if I ever suggest, with a straight face, that David Suzuki masterminded the blackout, then feel free and call me a KooK.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 November 2003 11:54 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Um, Magoo: no one on this thread has seriously suggested that Mossad "masterminded" anything. You seem to have a vested interest in implying that anyone interested in the topic is arguing that -- and yet, demonstrably, none of us is.

The discussion has centred on how much a number of intelligence agencies knew of an impending major al-Q attack on the U.S. Some of the warnings the U.S. received are well documented, and are being treated seriously by a U.S. congressional committee.

There is nothing kooky about people learning these things and discussing them.

Why are you so intent upon misrepresenting the discussion?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 November 2003 12:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Magoo: no one on this thread has seriously suggested that Mossad "masterminded" anything. You seem to have a vested interest in implying that anyone interested in the topic is arguing that -- and yet, demonstrably, none of us is.

I'm not sure I see the difference between the Mossad, and "Israeli Spy". And as I said above, having read plenty of them, I tend to see the conspiracy theories as one big continuum. "Masterminded", "covered up", "was complicit in", "had foreknowledge of"... whatever.

I think the article *is* implying that these Mossa... er, "Israeli Spies" were informed of the impending attack and decided to film it instead of, well, warning anyone and saving thousands of lives (I'll concede that that doesn't count as "masterminding"). And it's all propped up on the hearsay of "Maria", who apparently is nowhere to be found.

quote:
There is nothing kooky about people learning these things and discussing them.

Except nobody seems to actually want to discuss, in a realistic way, what the U.S. was supposed to do with vague warnings from foreign governments. Even here at babble, where I think KooKs are few, posters seem to believe that a fact such as "Indian intelligence shared "general" information in July 2001." indicates the U.S. knew about 9/11, and didn't do anything about it.

I'd love to discuss what babblers feel the U.S. could/should have done with this information! But remember, it's got to make sense! Should they have shut down airports during the summer of 2001? Put armed guards on planes? Searched "swarthy" men entering the country? And justified this, how?


If you want to see how it is that I regard this thread as just another tendril in the vast conspiracy theory network, and why I seem to have opinions that couldn't be shaped from just this one set of posts, visit an IndyMedia and search for "Mossad", or "particle-beam weapons", "blasting caps", "FEMA report", etc. It's hard not to see that the majority of conspiracy theorists are pretty determined to pin this all on the U.S. and Israeli governments any way they can.

quote:
Occam's Razor: I'd opt for general stupidity and arrogance as the most obvious explanation for the intelligence failures surrounding 11 September.

I partially agree, insofar as I don't think "Bush Knew", but again: what should the U.S. have done with vague warnings? Was it really "stupidity"?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 November 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, I think that that is a mostly reasonable answer, although you've made yet another over-attribution there, I think, in saying that we all think "foreknowledge" must mean specific foreknowledge of 11 September and failure to act.

Failure to act needn't mean anything that obviously nefarious.

What do I think of causes that could have had different outcomes -- that's the way I would prefer to re-word your question.

I think there are a number of separate stories here that need to be looked at separately first.

There is, eg, the bin Laden story. I mean, Clinton knew that bin Laden had essentially declared war on the U.S. already, and his handling or mishandling of that threat, plus the Bushies handling or mishandling of the info Clinton's advisers tried to pass on -- that's already a big story.

The bin Laden story is a particular one, but it is not unrelated, obviously, to the Saudi story, and the Saudi-Bush saga. About that, we really don't know enough. Interestingly, it's the one U.S. congresspersons are having the most trouble getting info about.

There were people in both the CIA and the FBI who got fed up enough with the way their intell was being handled to quit. So some of that can probably be attributed to SNAFU. They weren't just targeting "swarthy men," though -- they knew specific stuff. Some of the hijackers, eg, seem to have been known to everybody's intell agencies for years!

There was, before 11 September, a striking reluctance to move very quickly against specific people, or on specific information.

I can't explain it, Magoo -- but I think it's worth remembering.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 November 2003 01:52 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fair enough. I'll admit: conspiracy theorists tend to rub me the wrong way.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 05 November 2003 01:58 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, the point most people who are thinking about this are trying to make is a simple one:
the. official. story. does. not. hold. up. to. logical. scrutiny.

To know what really happened requires an investigation. The 27 pages that were suppressed from the Congressional inuiry's report into 9/11 might have been a start if Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence hadn't put their tails between their legs and turned the other way.

Given that more than 3,000 people died in the WTC attack, that better than 20,000 have been killed in subsequent wars for which 9/11 was a pretext, that innocent people have been imprisoned and tortured as a result, and that billions of tax dollars have been diverted to the ends listed above, the derision you heap on people who think there is just cause for an investigation is puzzling outside a frightening and uncharacteristic blind loyalty to the Fatherland.

No one in the Bush administration has shown the least concern for human life, nor for the truth.

Is anyone naive enough to think that you work your way to positions of power in the CIA, Mossad, MI6, the ISI or CSIS on the basis of benevolent humanitarian impulses? All of these organizations have shown that they will tolerate "collateral damage" --how I loathe that fucking euphemism-- in service of their agenda.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing". Yeah, Magoo, I guess we should all just do nothing.


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 November 2003 02:35 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the derision you heap on people who think there is just cause for an investigation is puzzling outside a frightening and uncharacteristic blind loyalty to the Fatherland.

This candycoats conspiracy theorism in the extreme. It's actually part of what rubs me the wrong way about most of them: the insistence that they're "curious", or "looking for answers", or "free thinkers", when in fact the majority have already reached their conclusion, and are working backwards from that.

And what's the conclusion? 9 times out of 10 it's "The U.S./CIA/Shadow Government did it."

Have you seen photos yet of the "Bush Knew" ads? The 9/11 = Reichstag ads? The ones with Bush and Hitler side by side? Do these strike you as the work of someone who genuinely accepts that they don't have the answers and are ready to use some proper scientific method to look for them?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 05 November 2003 02:49 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Magoo, the point most people who are thinking about this are trying to make is a simple one:
the. official. story. does. not. hold. up. to. logical. scrutiny.

Thats fine Magoo, you don't have to like people who participate in conspiracy theories, neither do I incidentally, but I'd like to know what you think of Sisyphus' statement (quoted)?


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 05 November 2003 03:02 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hoo hah.

You have to be pretty naive to believe stuff like this.

I note for the record that only one person, the anonymous "Maria" is the source for the most damning aspects of the story. She saw them all happy about the destruction of the Twin Towers, she noted down their licence plates, and she called the police.

Then we have stuff like this:

quote:
One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were “tie-ins” between the Israelis and September 11; the hint was clearly that they’d gathered intelligence on the planned attacks but kept it to themselves.

Oooh! "One highly placed investigator"! Now that's compelling! How many investigators were there? And wow! he "hinted" that the Israelis had
"gathered intelligence" and not passed it on to the US.

What if they gathered intelligence and concluded nothing was to occur? The story does not provide the slightest information saying that they knew of the attack; only that they filmed it after it occurred. (I note that the headline obscures this, but to establish foreknowledge, they would have had to be there ready to film before the FIRST plane struck. And they might not have chosen a plain-view parking lot, either. Maybe they would have filmed from INSIDE their van?)

I'm glad this sort of drivel doesn't get published in Canada; we have enough anti-semitism as it is. And we have enough secret-police nonsense like Project Thread, where defensible behaviour is spun to suggest vast and nefarious plots.

[ 05 November 2003: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 November 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Have you seen photos yet of the "Bush Knew" ads? The 9/11 = Reichstag ads? The ones with Bush and Hitler side by side? Do these strike you as the work of someone who genuinely accepts that they don't have the answers and are ready to use some proper scientific method to look for them?

Are you denying that the US Government in the person of Bush and his Cabinet have jumped all over the September 11th attacks like a ton of opportunistic jerkoffs who wanted to manipulate genuine public sympathy and solidarity for their own ends?

This rather strong stink of a rat is what makes people see the comparison of the Reichstag fire (after which public solidarity was misused by Hitler in order to derail opposition to his suspension of civil rights in Germany as his prelude for war), to the attacks of September 11 2001 (which was manipulated by Dubya to steamroller the Dems into giving him no opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, among other odious projects he had in mind, such as blatantly stealing tax money for his buddies in big corporations).

[ 05 November 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 November 2003 03:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, dear.

And I thought that Magoo and I were making headway towards a reasonable discussion here.

Suddenly everyone has retreated to extreme opposite corners and is projecting oversimplifications again.

skdadl discouraged.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 November 2003 03:12 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Depends on exactly what we mean by "the official story". If you mean that some terrorists learned to fly (but not land) airplanes so that they could hijack them, then for the first time ever crash them deliberately into buildings in a suicide mission" then I don't see any illogic.

Nor, for that matter, do I see illogic in the fact that they could do this without alerting security, or the fact that military fighters didn't shoot down the passenger jets.

Everything that happened after 9/11, including the hay that GWB made of it, and the actions he tried to justify with it, I consider to be fair game, mind you. But I tend to believe that most of it can be adequately explained by either political opportunism or plain old ass-covering.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 November 2003 03:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS to jeff house:

Did you actually read the CBC link?

I consider a broadcast on CBC to be "published in Canada." And it ain't drivel. You focused on the drivel, but there's tons more to read there.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 November 2003 03:33 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you denying that the US Government in the person of Bush and his Cabinet have jumped all over the September 11th attacks like a ton of opportunistic jerkoffs who wanted to manipulate genuine public sympathy and solidarity for their own ends?

Nope. Not at all. But wasn't the Reichstag fire actually set by the Nazis? And isn't that categorically different from simply making hay after the fact?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 05 November 2003 03:41 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nope. Not at all. But wasn't the Reichstag fire actually set by the Nazis? And isn't that categorically different from simply making hay after the fact?

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, Magoo. The fire was set by Marinus van der Lubbe, who was found at the scene, given a fair trial and punished.


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 November 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, good, back on track.

Yes: setting Reichstag fire (1) is categorically different from making hay after fact (2). However, we have a third category.

If much of what we read in the CBC summary is true, then there never was much need to make USians -- and much of the rest of the world -- paranoid about all "swarthy men." A long list of actual persons, as in individuals, as in guys with names and well-known histories, was available. Why some of them, at least, weren't under tight surveillance in the U.S. remains a mystery.

I'm prepared to believe that's mainly incompetence, but it sure at least is that. Within a week of 11 September, the Brits and Germans had arrested dozens of guys they had been watching.

So first the Bushies screwed up; then they made hay.

Why they screwed up: that is the question. Yes, some incompetence; but also yes, a focus on other things. The obsession with Iraq. The need to stay cosy with the Saudis.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca