Author
|
Topic: Oops! BBC reported WTC7 collapse half hour before event
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 02 March 2007 08:14 AM
Ahem..look behind you, miss....At about 5:45 of the video, she points to the still-standing WTC7 and says that it collapsed. Not "about to collapse", or "officials say building may collapse because of fire weakening", or "speculate", or "warn". They both say several times that the Saloman brothers building had already collapsed before it happens. Maybe they are psychic. The CIA should hire them to find bin Laden. The question is: who told them it was down? The BBC hasn't answered that question, claiming they lost(!) the footage from that day. Apparently, their dog ate it. BBCs respnse blog Dig the comments. Nobody's buy the shite this guy's selling. [ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: Jingles ]
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529
|
posted 02 March 2007 06:47 PM
It's surprising to see how anxious some people are to discount each new bit of anomalous evidence. It's also the preferred way to trivialize facts that don't fit the preferred picture.Puzzling too, that a professional media outlet would have lost footage of events of the most historically shocking, globally transformative day of the new millenium. "Oops", indeed. So much contradictory information about that WTC7. I guess it was all just the "crazy chaos", eh?
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 02 March 2007 06:48 PM
Interesting, it seems most people around the world are taking this seriously, the BBC has huge amounts of posts on their blog, all calling the BBC on their lies abd cover ups.The film is very revealing, and it is concerning that 20 mins, or so, after she stated it collapsed, it actually did. However, while she was standing in front of it showing it was still there, and then she was cut off just 5 minutes before it actually did collapse. This is not to be dismissed, she said how it had collapsed and that there was no injuries. So, she was either feed the information, or the BBC is part of it. You do not get that kinda info from chaos. And now the BBC has lost the tape? [ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SavageInTheCity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11625
|
posted 03 March 2007 02:01 PM
9/11, like TWA 800 and JFK, is one of those events where the world will never know the whole truth. The media still gives up the magic bullet theory in the JFK case, and TWA 800's official story of center fuel tank igniting is a crock too!Dont forget that Bush said he saw the 1st tower get hit twice - see here! The fact that the media is simply continuing the official line is nothing new. Edit - Fixed link [ 03 March 2007: Message edited by: SavageInTheCity ]
From: INAC's Showcase | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13198
|
posted 03 March 2007 02:05 PM
Message from Davis MirzaA bunch of American students wanted to create a film that told how US officials conspired to blow up the World Trade Towers...no one would buy it...until they actually did the research and found out their fictional plot was the truth behind 9-11; Loose Change was born and has become the most watched documentary on the Internet...already over 15 million hits. Please pass along the info including these Loose Change website that implicate US officials who covertly manufactured/benefited from the events of 9-11 in their rush to war… www.loosechange911.com/ "http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501" "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video)" ...and yes, the collapse of WTC 7 is there for all to see in Reichstag-inspired colour. peace~davis
From: Toronto, canada | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881
|
posted 03 March 2007 02:25 PM
Tacky though it may be, I'm going to quote myself: quote: Speaking of Totalitarianism in general, and Naziism in particular, Hannah Arendt notes the propensity for the movement to encourage ever increasing heights of radicalism. It is no longer enough for the conspiracy theorists to assert that Bush Knew - now, everyone from Robert Fisk to the afore-mentioned Cockburn (as he notes in his article) are "gate-keepers of the Left", planted there to prevent the truth from coming out. Sly innuendo about Noam Chomsky's Jewishness - and sometimes outright anti-Semitic bile - becomes reason enough to discount his years of dissent as some kind of US/Israeli plot . This kind of ignorance takes an act of will, or rather Will, in the larger sense: the ability to assert belief in the face of all fact.
quote: To the fanatics, it is not enough that they [Bush/Cheney, etc. - Coyote] have killed Iraqis (in fact, I would suggest that in their world-view it is definitely not important enough that they have killed Iraqis); no, they planted bombs on every floor of the World Trade Centre and blew a hole in their own commercial capital.9/11 has become the touchstone of the seamless intertwining of Far Left and Far Right - the rhetorical apex of Fascism. I intend this as nothing less than my own humble attempt at a clarion call to all those with any attachment to progressive values: We must set ourselves against the rise of reactionary politics wherever it takes root. The 9/11 fanatics are a small group, but they are building a world forged in myth, recruiting from the ranks of the young and naive. It is a cult, and it must not be allowed to ruin any more lives.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 03 March 2007 07:34 PM
quote: The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.
Which 9/11 conspiracy theories? That's the problem with the "left-wing gatekeepers". On the one hand, they correctly identify the duplicity, the criminality, and the viciousness of the fascists when it comes to their pet causes, but on the other hand are quick to accept the narrative they (the fascists) provide for 9/11. Monbiot commits the same error as most of the critics(?) of the 9/11 crowds in not differentiating the nonsense from the very real Things That Don't Add Up. So, for Monbiot, Corn, et al, we either accept the official government conspiracy theory in its entirety, or you accept the tinfoil theory (singular), with all its nuttiest features. If you question NORADs response, the stock market actions, the warnings about travel, the pre-reported news, the Private Lynchesque flight 93 story, then you must also accept that UFOs disappeared the jets, or that a ray-gun demolished the towers, that the whole thing was a hologram, that explosives were set. For the "gatekeepers", the official version is just fine. They accept without question the events, attributing whatever elements that are questionable to incompetence, bad planning, ignoring intelligence, etc, on the part of the Bush administration. Interestingly, because they can't seem to bring themselves to believe that there are wantonly criminal elements in government in the case of 9/11, they find themselves making the same excuses for the Bush administration's motives in Iraq, Katrina, election fraud, or the upcoming war with Iran. What the lefty critics of the 9/11 truth movement fail to understand, or refuse to consider, is that there are legitimate questions, that there are things that don't add up in the official conspiracy theory, and that there are very real conspiracies, and that governments do horrible things to their citizens for political purposes. People who question official doctrine aren't crazies crying for attention. You'd think he'd understand that. IMO, people who accept unreservedly such horseshit as bin Laden's little plan are the cowards, especially when they wrap it in excuses like "it's harming the left". Instead of calling the 9/11 truth people cowards, how about explaining why the BBC reported the Soloman building had collapsed, including casualty figures, 20 minutes before it happened, while the building stood clearly visible behind them? Why did the live feed cut out just before the actual collapse, and why have the BBCs tapes "disappeared". But it's easier to dismiss questions with "cowards" and "9/11 lunatics" than to pursue them. [ 03 March 2007: Message edited by: Jingles ]
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 March 2007 10:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: You could compile a very long list of the misinformation that was conveyed by the media on the morning of Sept 11, 2001. The collapse of WTC7 is but one of them.The fact that it later collapsed is mere coincidence. Tell enough lies and sooner or later one of them will come true.
Oh come on. The chickenhawks are proven liars dating back to at least the Vietnam war. Both the Vietnam and Iraq wars were pre-emptive acts of aggression by a bunch of maniacs shilling for the military industrial complex and big oil. Yes, Vietnam was situated near the Indochina sea oil basin, and they're still in the region trying to gain footholds on every piddling little island and sand bar and microdot island and claiming offshore perimeter limits with them. Both wars were illegal in that sense. And both Vietnam and Iraq wars were launched using certain "pretexts" for war. IOW's, LLLLLLLIES! The Republicans lied continually to Americans concerning everything from who the insurgents were to casualty numbers to calling the shots wrt which reporters were able to access the front lines. LIES! I don't get these people who try to appeal to common sense about any of the events leading up to "shock and appall" and what was obviously inteneded to be another multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded hustle of the American people. Everybody knows the MIC was running out of enemies for a cold war, and the hawks were desperate to justify a continued state of national security, ongoing since the NSA was formed. I don't think it's conceivable to under-estimate the motherfuckers after what they've pulled just since losing the popular vote in 2000. They have a permanent shadow government in the U.S.A., and everybody knows it. They lie their fuckin heads off all the time to the news media and American people and don't even attempt to cover most of them up. There was Nurse "Nayirah" to "WMD." Those were the most obvious ones to slide by a gullible 36 percent bigoted Republican support base. And their conservative party supporters are a lot like our's, the grey-haired old ladies and old farts and Bay Streeters with coats buttoned up too tight look for the tiniest and stupidest reasons to vote the way they always do. The rest of them that vote strategically and comatose-jaded who just don't vote can go to hell for all the plutocrats care. The hawks and our ReformaTories are professional liars. We know they're lying whenever we see their lips move. [ 03 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 04 March 2007 09:44 AM
Coyote, thanks for posting from your blog. I must have missed it the first time.Here's another paragraph from Coyote's blog that drives the point home: quote: I will not cover the same ground as Cockburn, but I would like to expand on one of his points, because it leads to my central argument. Cockburn notes that one of the chief assumptions underlying the conspiracy theories is "the racist premise that “Arabs in caves” weren’t capable of the mission". I would say that the racism goes far further than this, especially when it includes the ludicrous and anti-Semitic charges of Israeli complicity (or worse, control) of the 9/11 mission. We are treated, in one "anti-Imperialist" discourse, to the stereotype of the bumbling, primitive Arab and the Conniving Jew. You have to work hard to be this obtuse.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226
|
posted 04 March 2007 10:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by John K: Coyote, thanks for posting from your blog. I must have missed it the first time.Here's another paragraph from Coyote's blog that drives the point home:
I have to concur. Coyote really nailed it here. Good job Coyote.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 04 March 2007 11:49 AM
quote: Originally posted by Jingles: If you question the official story you are a racist and an anti-semite. Bravo.
No, the claim is simply that if you listen to these particular conspiracy theories, you may be listening to the claims of racists. Not quite the same thing; the claims aren't overtly racist, and so are easy to buy into without being racist yourself. A wide range of people buy into these theories. From the more recent of the Cockburn articles linked on this thread: quote: Five years after the attacks, 9/11 conspiracism has now penetrated deep into the American left. It is also widespread on the libertarian and populist right, but that is scarcely surprising, since the American populist right instinctively mistrusts government to a far greater degree than the left, and matches conspiracies to its demon of preference, whether the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Black Helicopters or the Jews.
So some of the people who believe these theories, are racists, and some aren't. But then, maybe you don't do nuance. [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SavageInTheCity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11625
|
posted 04 March 2007 11:49 AM
A lot of conspiracy theorists believe a bunch of crap....All Im saying is - 6 years later, there are still TONS of unanswered questions. JFK, 43 years later, questions are still being asked, and not answered. Conspiracy theorists, dont hold your breath! [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: SavageInTheCity ]
From: INAC's Showcase | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 March 2007 12:05 PM
Ya, what kind of idiots would believe a damn thing the establishment has to say about anything whatsoever ?. They're pathological liars supreme. They're in a class all by themselves.The chickenhawks don't have a shred of proof pointing to who was responsible for jacking the planes on 9-11. Oooh, some of the most damning evidence was a Koran sitting in a car supposedly driven by the hijackers to an airport. And everybody knows that its typical for devout Islamists to forget their bibles on car seats immediately before performing aerial combat maneuvers with a 747 into tall buildings owned and insured by friends of Republican Party. Because that's the way those crazy Islamists in al Qaeda operate. It's all there in right-wing newspapers and cover stories put out by the CIA, just like the MSM attack on Garry Webb for exposing the Contra-Cocaine scandal before modern day McCarthyites ruined him. And they balk at anyone else trying to get to the bottom of it all. [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209
|
posted 04 March 2007 12:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jingles: If you question the official story you are a racist and an anti-semite. Bravo.
WTF? I have read the thread and see no reason for the above quoted comment.
From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 March 2007 12:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Agent 204:
So some of the people who believe these theories, are racists, and some aren't. But then, maybe you don't do nuance. [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]
The CIA has been known to discredit all kinds of people for whatever right-wing agenda that might serve, from infiltrating trade unions around the world to murdering people. If you believe the Russian FSB is capable of poisoning someone with pelonium, then what dirty tricks are the NSA and CIA still pulling after all these years?. This isn't a Robert Ludlum book. This is real. Bush is a known liar, and so are the rest of his fascist entourage. Half of Americans hated the sights of them all before the Republican Party lost the popular vote in 2000. We could fill threads just ripping down the hawks' credibility before even beginning to accuse of them of anything they've already proven themselves capable of. Millions of innocent people have been killed since the 1990's, from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Iraq. These aren't normal people we're talking about. [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 04 March 2007 12:36 PM
Poisoning a guy with polonium requires only a small handful of conspirators. Compare this small point from the Cockburn article: quote: The "conspiracy" is always open-ended as to the number of conspirators, widening steadily to include all the people involved in the execution and cover-up of the demolition of the Towers and the onslaught on the Pentagon, from the teams acquiring the explosives and the missile, inserting the explosives in the relevant floors of three vast buildings, (moving day after day among the unsuspecting office workers), then on 9/11 activating the detonators. Subsequently the conspiracy includes the disposers of the steel and rubble, the waste recyclers in Staten Island and perhaps even the Chinese who took the salvaged incriminating metal for use in the Three Gorges dam, where it will submerged in water and concrete for ever. Tens of thousands of people, all silent as the tomb to this day.
I actually think it would be more plausible to suggest that the promulgation of these conspiracy theories is itself the result of a (small) conspiracy. It'd just take a few people to slap together a plausible-sounding tale and plant the seed among activists, whereas it would take tens of thousands to actually carry it out. And the motive would be there: quote: Richard Aldrich's book on British intelligence, The Hidden Hand (2002), describes how a report for the Pentagon on declassification recommended that "interesting declassified material" such as information about the JFK assassination "could be released and even posted on the Internet, as a 'diversion,'" and used to "reduce the unrestrained public appetite for 'secrets' by providing good faith distraction material". Aldrich adds, "If investigative journalists and contemporary historians were absorbed with the vexatious, but rather tired, debates over the grassy knoll, they would not be busy probing into areas where they were unwelcome."By the same token, I'm sure that the Bush gang, and all the conspirators of capital, are delighted at the obsessions of the 9/11 conspiracists. It's a distraction from the 1,001 real plots of capitalism that demand exposure and political challenge.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 March 2007 12:47 PM
So why haven't they released thousands of documents on JFK ?. I'll go along with that diversion if and when they trust the public with what should have been made public decades ago. Their's have been the most secretive governments in world history. Everybody knows that the U.S. has a permanent shadow government(see Conservative Lou Dobbs' own comments) and a cosmetic government elected for appearance sake every four or five years. And the most plausible conspiracy theories revolve around the fact that their most influential corporationists lobbying congress and the military, the military industrial complex, have been running out of enemies since the end of the cold war. U.S. budget expenses for the death and destruction industry exceed all other spending since America became a national insecurity state with the formation of the NSA after WWII. Are fascists capable of murdering people to serve ulterior motives, like warfiteering ?. Ab-so-lutely! The whole top end of government down there operates on on the basis of gross conflicts of interest. [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 March 2007 01:48 PM
I think the whole thing was actually a cover up of even more crooked dealings by the chickenhawk administration and Wall Street friends. Just before 9-11, Rummy announced a war on waste.The Pentagon cabal had "misplaced" $2.3 trillion dollars worth of assets. There was rampant insider trading happening as the DOW-NASDAQ stock bubble was imploding(neo-Liberal ideology doesn't work now as much as the invisible hand didn't in 1929). And Bush family meetings with the bin Laden family were just ignored by the 9-11 commish. From the Cold War, Watergate, Viet Nam, Iran-Contra, operation Cyclone, S&L Bush-Mob scandal, IraqGate, 9-11, it's been one long hustle of the American poeple. "Go Long", is the fascist motto. An Italian businessman once told the Kennedy family that America would have to deal with fascism at some point. It's obvious to conservatives like Lou Dobbs, Bill Moyers and millions of other people, conservative and otherwise, that fascists are out of control and running amok in America today. veritas [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865
|
posted 04 March 2007 03:40 PM
No conspiracy here. In 1945 the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, killing plenty Japanese dead. It was public event, and no one has ever said, not that you/I ever heard, that there was a problem with it in moral terms: it was war. The bombing ended the war in the east, that's also a fact: --------------- taken from Gore Vidal’s ‘Dreaming War, Blood For Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta pg 77/78: “…But let me quote from a letter by the historian Kai Bird, which, to my amazement, the New York Times published (usually they suppress anything too critical of themselves or their Opinion makers): ‘Twice the reviewer dismisses as “silly’ Vidal’s assertion that Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was unnecessary because Japan had been trying for some months to surrender. Such assertions are neither silly nor….a product of Vidal’s ‘cranky politics’ Rather Vidal has cleverly drawn on a rich and scholarly literature published in the last decade to remind his readers that much of what orthodox court historians have written about the Cold War was simply wrong. With regard to Hiroshima, perhaps Vidal had in mind Truman’s July 1945 handwritten diary reference to a ‘telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace’” ----------------------------------- If Truman's diary has a July/45 reference to a telegram from Emperor Hirohito seeking peace, then that negated the necessity of A-bombing the 2 defenseless cities, and more then that, it goes against EVERYTHING we've been told about it; though apparently both the diary ref. and telegram it mentioned have been in public domain for years.... it says that a vicious, almost unbelievable war crime occurred (which maybe explains the oft mentioned quote from Truman saying he 'slept like a baby' so comfortable was with the deed; if so, why did Harry say anything?)
From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 March 2007 04:57 PM
quote: Originally posted by clandestiny: If Truman's diary has a July/45 reference to a telegram from Emperor Hirohito seeking peace, then that negated the necessity of A-bombing the 2 defenseless cities, and more then that, it goes against EVERYTHING we've been told about it;
Exactly. Roosevelt and Churchill ignored Stalin's pleas for two years calling for a second front against the Nazis. Yalta and Potsdam was a bit disappointing for the western leaders who side-slipped intervening in the fascist takeover of Spain and the Russian Front. As well, they were lobbied by industrialists to not bomb specific factories in Berlin(ie. Ford Werkes) and Kracow(ie. Silesian Steelworks) and there are new opinions about why the allies did nothing about Auschwitz and Birkenau and private railways coming and going from all across Europe. Evidence has surfaced in recent years suggesting Roosevelt knew about the death camps before previously known. The corporate west fully believed that the Nazis would occupy the Kremlin in about six weeks time from the start of barbarossa. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was all about making an impression on Stalin. It was totally psychotic as well as an extreme form of racism. Western world hawks as well as British royals are extremely racist. U.S. air force was able to fly over Japan virtually unchallenged then. The Japanese were not known to be in the race to develop atomic weapons. And history proves that fact. quote: Originally posted by abnormal: If you want to start asking why files are sealed you can pick on any number of people and/or things. For example, Martin Luther King's FBI files are sealed until 2027. Where do you start? Or stop?
It's information that should be accessable by civil society and law enforcement groups in a free and open society. The information was gathered by taxpayer-funded authorities and so belongs to the American people. "They[Chileans] can't be trusted with democracy." -- the doctor to the madman during a meeting with NSA [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 March 2007 09:10 PM
quote: Indeed it's very probable that the FBI or US military intelligence, even the CIA, had penetrated the Al Qaeda team planning the 9/11 attacks; that intelligence reports--some are already known--piled up in various Washington bureaucracies pointing to the impending onslaught and even the manner in which it might be carried out.
Ya, like the thousands of Nazi and other war criminals who strolled into North America without so much a student loan officer harassing them while collecting social security and Canada Pensions and living under their real names. OH! what a load of crapola this Cockburner character writes. And then he rattles on for at least a paragraph about Marxist school of thought and whatever. I had to cease reading his drivel and give my eyes a wash. How the hell does he know who bombed the trade towers - he's too pre-occupied with Pearl Harbor and the red menace, fcs. Did he mention Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any of Bush Senior's business associates in the bin Laden family ?. Anything about torturing 9-11 confessions out of alleged al Qaeda suspects ?. Anything about the Hamburg Cell and the dearth of evidence against any of them ?. I didn't think so. And that's the problem with apologists for the neo-cons, they want someone to believe they are credible, and they can't be trying to appeal to the left. So what purpose does an article like that serve except a pathetic appeal to authority and "pragmatic" centrist common sense. [ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 March 2007 09:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: Alexander Cockburn. Editor of Counterpunch. Right-wing.You heard it here first, folks.
Coyote, Liberals in the States don't have the leeway that we do up here. The right is very powerful in the U.S. right now and has been for a long time.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 March 2007 10:26 PM
Chomsky has been described as a redirect agent for the establishment. I don't know him personally to tell you the truth. He could be a confidence man, but I doubt it. the hand that feeds?The whole point is, how does Cockburn know who monopolizes the truth ?. And like I've said before, the CIA does nothing for the feds credibility down there when the confessors to 9-11 plots admit to being tortured in secret prisons and U.S evidence is witheld from the trial of the Hamburg Cell in Germany. Good grief what a mess. How they can ridicule people with legitimate concerns is beyond me. What a disgrace. [ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865
|
posted 05 March 2007 07:04 AM
There's a disconnect here. Alex Cockburn despairs of the herd of kittens who make up the 'conspiracy theorists'? Noam Chomsky has been working against the fascist takeover for what.. 20 years? yet no smoking gun? Not even one? And Michael Moore shut up his forum in '02 because too much info about 911 was getting compiled there(?) His F911 accepted the bs 'official story' about 911...Even Howard Zinn skips over the JFK assassination in his 'People's History' rather then confront the nazipooh elements of the MIL! and this (from F911) ---------------------- Thanks for the information. Bob >>> [email protected] 08/24/04 12:35 AM >>> On 23 Aug 04, at 23:57, Robert Suchner wrote: > A scene in Fahrenheit 911 shows then Vice President Gore presiding > over the Senate while members of the House tried to raise objections > to the presidential election results in Florida. My wife and I did not > recognize what event was going on here, when it occurred, Here is a link from Moore's website that answers this: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?... "Some of the most powerful footage in Fahrenheit 9/11 comes from the Joint Session of Congress that convened on January 6, 2001. It was during this session that then Vice-President Al Gore presided over the verification of the Electoral College vote in the face of fierce Congressional protests. U.S. Rep. Peter Deutsch was the first to attempt to halt the proceedings and was followed shortly thereafter by U.S. Reps. Alcee Hastings and Corrine Brown. Because no Senator would sign their inquiries into the Florida recount, the electoral vote was verified and the way was cleared for George W. Bush to be sworn in as the nation's 43rd president." --More-- http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/TOMPAINE/mar04/1309... ----------------- Al Gore too! i guess with a $20 billion budget, taking candy from a baby aint a problem...
From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226
|
posted 05 March 2007 07:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: Of course it is, Fidel. That right-wing hack Alexander Cockburn, and his equally reactionary pals Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk, are conspiring with the establishment to hide the truth.It all makes sense.
******************************************************** Bill To: Coyote
1 x New Keyboard Reason: Involuntary Coffee Spew due to post quoted above ********************************************************
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 05 March 2007 09:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: Thanx to those who compliment my blog post. Geez, maybe I should update that thing sometime!
You think!? As for the opening post...I seem to remember all sorts people speculating that day on whether the buildings would fall and when. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were false reports of it happening. People expected it to happen, and media were speculating about if and when it would happen before it did. I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Probably they got some kind of tip-off, or someone saw something they thought was the beginning of the collapse, and they jumped the gun. Everyone wanted to be first with all the breaking developments.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 March 2007 11:06 AM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: Heywood: I do try. Fidel: Did you even read that link you gave? According to it, even Ward Churchill (he of "little Eichmann" fame) is in on the conspiracy.
Just beyond words.
Well I for one can't say I make a habit of nodding up and down in agreement with everything a millionaire lefty has to say. I think what Chomsky is saying is that their out of control governments past and present have been guilty of a lot worse than what happened on 9-11. I do agree with Chomsky that pursuing these conspiracy theories is probably a great waste of time and resources for the left - the hawks gave their purse-lipped testimonies to the 9-11 commision and were clever enough to make broadsweeping generalizations instead of exacting statements. They were too clever to be caught in any lies, and I think people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and a few more of them could be labelled a lot worse than "little Eichmanns." In recent history, the Republican cabal really have been individual "embodiments of evol." The available levers of justice in the U.S. have been pulled, and there is little chance that war criminals will face any harsher justice than a change of cosmetic government in 2008. Meanwhile, a permanent shadow government, technocrats, and plutocracy will remain in full control of what is a highly unequal democracy and economy designed and rigged to serve an elite few in the U.S. And they are working with out 24 percent conservatives toward North American Union in closed door meetings. I don't believe Chomsky is suggesting that critical thinking surrounding any issues be abandoned by people in general. I don't see him suggesting anywhere that the Bush cabal were simply caught with their pants down on 9-11, or that the winfall military spending after the event was not anticipated ahead of time. And there is no need to ridicule fellow babblers and appealing to the authority of the big guns for merely pointing out the farcical goings on in the USSA and what passes for democracy in that country.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 05 March 2007 11:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Probably they got some kind of tip-off, or someone saw something they thought was the beginning of the collapse, and they jumped the gun. Everyone wanted to be first with all the breaking developments.
I might believe that has it not been for a Secret Service Agent Dying in the Building. While he was in the Secret CIA Site in the WTC7 building. There is FAR too much that is inconsistant about the WTC7 story and this adds more fuel to the fire. I am far more convinced the official story is a lie that the people believing the government should be called the conspiracy theorists. Otherwise I would have solid answers on.. Why Rudy Gulliani said they were 'pulling' the WTC7 site shortly before it 'collapsed''? Why there was reports of a New York City Fuel supply in the basement of the building which was later denied? Why did this building, which had less visible damage than WTC 5 & 6 collapse and not the other ones? Why did the building not 'fall' instead it collapsed in a way that would make ANY demolitions expert proud? Why was this only the THIRD (WTC1 & 2 being the first two ) high-rise buildings ever recorded to have fallen due to a fire? And on this issue alone.. Why won't the BBC tell us who they got the early report from? How is it possible that the BBC, one of the worlds largest and most trusted news organizations, LOOSE their tape of the reporting of possibly this generations MOST important news day? For those of you claiming anti-semetism, bite me, it has NOTHING to do with that. For those claiming that we're crazy, answer the questions with some proof and we'll move onto to something else (like one of the 1000's of other inconsistancies about that day).
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019
|
posted 05 March 2007 12:38 PM
Ugh. This again.There are a lot of questions unanswered about 9-11. Many are unanswerable simply because of the unique nature of the event. The reason these: quote: Why did this building, which had less visible damage than WTC 5 & 6 collapse and not the other ones?Why did the building not 'fall' instead it collapsed in a way that would make ANY demolitions expert proud? Why was this only the THIRD (WTC1 & 2 being the first two ) high-rise buildings ever recorded to have fallen due to a fire?
don't have more resonance with me is simply because these questions aren't being posed by physicists, engineers and architects and others. Surely if these things happened, there would be some kind of outcry from the scientific community.As far as the media reports go, my unscientific guess is that they got it wrong.
From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 05 March 2007 12:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fartful Codger: Ugh. This again.
Ug. people believing everything they're told again? Just because they're not REPORTING that there are a HUGE array of Physicist, Architects, Engineers and Builders who have been very thoroughly asking questions and raising concerns about the 'official story'. Of course, people like you will just say that these people are also crazies for asking these questions, doctorates aside. Scholars for Truth
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019
|
posted 05 March 2007 01:49 PM
Yeah. Take a look at that list of full members, who I assume would be the most prominent of this group. Professors of Classical English. Of Philosophy. Of Political Science. Some economists. Professor of Population Biology. Some physical scientists, yes, but they don't seem to be the majority. I wouldn't call them a "huge array" of scientists, but rather a group of sceptics. People go looking for conspiracies but it's often mere incompetence that's at fault. The science just doesn't back up the conspiracies. All the philosophers in the world, forming a group called Really Smart Scholars for Truth, will not change that. The group you've cited represents a tiny fraction of the number of people who actually work in the physical sciences. By their collective silence, the broader community of physical scientists have essentially said there's nothing worth pursuing here. Do we know everything about 9-11? No, we do not. Is it possible that it was an inside job? Certainly. Is it likely? Probably not. Planning a conspiracy takes a huge number of people. Keeping that conspiracy quiet would require even more. I don't understand the fascination with chasing this particular tale. We get distracted with this highly improbable conspiracy, which involves the disappearance of an entire flight (the theory includes the premise that United flight 93 actually landed in Cincinatti or someplace...) with no witnesses to the event. The reality of the situation seems plenty bad itself, doesn't it? We know the Bush administration is responsible for tens of thousands of lives in Iraq. Why chase these ghosts when the real, obvious evil has been perpetrated right in front of our eyes? ETA: Just saw an interesting note in list of Associate Members: James Arft (AM) America First Party The America First Party is a bunch of folks who think the Republicans are too left wing. Nice company they keep. Not necessarily a good group to hang your intellectual hat on. [ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: Fartful Codger ] [ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: Fartful Codger ]
From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SavageInTheCity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11625
|
posted 05 March 2007 02:21 PM
Sort of off-topic, but not quite...Since this thread has some varying opinions, im intrigued....so I have to ask: Do you believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone, three shots from the depositary, of which 1 bullet turned 11 (im guessing) times before being found completely intact?
From: INAC's Showcase | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 05 March 2007 02:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by SavageInTheCity: Sort of off-topic, but not quite...Since this thread has some varying opinions, im intrigued....so I have to ask: Do you believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone, three shots from the depositary, of which 1 bullet turned 11 (im guessing) times before being found completely intact?
Well, it's not totally off-topic, because I think it points to another possibility in between a giant evil MIC 9-11 conspiracy and the simple fog of muddled and contradictory information: namely, that governments sometimes cover up things that have the potential to embarrass them. I don't know precisely what elements in the U.S. government might want to hide about 9-11 if it isn't their own involvement in it, but it could be their own incompetence in failing to put together the pieces and figure out about the plot in advance. It could be that there was something in particular about WTC 7, unrelated to the 9-11 plot, that people wanted to hide -- after all, it was an office / storage area for government departments who dealt with highly restricted information. In the case of the JFK assassination, it's perhaps easier to divine motives for a cover-up. Oswald had connections to anti-Castro Cubans who in turn had connections to the Mob. Both of these groups had their reasons for hating JFK. And both were involved in US government efforts to kill Castro. Perhaps the Mob and / or the anti-Castro Cubans killed Kennedy, maybe using two or more shooters. People in the US government then covered this up out of fear that a full investigation would lead to their anti-Castro plots being exposed, which could've had consequences for them personally, for internal US public opinion of the government in general, and for US-Soviet relations. The most interesting theory I've heard of JFK's death is that he was killed by the accidental discharge of a Secret Service agent's rifle. You can imagine that some people might want to cover something like THAT up. Although I don't think the theory is supported by the facts. (Edit: cross-posted with Michelle. I'll repost this to a new thread if someone starts one, but as I said, I think this relates to the topic of WTC 7.) [ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: obscurantist ]
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 06 March 2007 06:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fartful Codger:
The science just doesn't back up the conspiracies. .... I don't understand the fascination with chasing this particular tale.
that's fine, there's giant holes in the official story that are clearly fabrications and have been change by the government, but that's not worth looking into. Instead, everytime it's brought up people like you (meaning, everyone from the Necons all the way down to you) start talking about planes going missing, secret missiles, and aliens. All I was talking about were the massive obvious holes (see above, answer ONE of the questions then) but clearly there are far too many people here unwilling to look at the truth. As for the fact that teh same people have murdered thousands in Iraq? Sure, THIS incident was the catalyst. As well as the catalyst for draconian measures by virtually every western so called 'progressive' nature, there's been a massive fear pushed onto us that we are constantly in danger of being killed. We're now on war #2 due to this. And what if it's all a lie? Are you saying none of that is important? You're happy to live under a police state, constant fear and constant war becuase you're not interested in getting a few answers?
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019
|
posted 06 March 2007 07:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by quelar:
As for the fact that teh same people have murdered thousands in Iraq? Sure, THIS incident was the catalyst. As well as the catalyst for draconian measures by virtually every western so called 'progressive' nature, there's been a massive fear pushed onto us that we are constantly in danger of being killed. We're now on war #2 due to this. And what if it's all a lie? Are you saying none of that is important? You're happy to live under a police state, constant fear and constant war becuase you're not interested in getting a few answers?
You caught me. I'm happy to live in a police state. In fact, I've secretly infiltrated babble to subvert the truth. My screen name is an anagram for the Finnish word for truth-subverter. And you've caught me. Now I have to turn in my shoe-phone and get fitted for a new sub-dermal transmitter. What a hassle that will be. There's all that work playing around with the frequency so it doesn't interfere with the radio playing in my fillings. Oh well. Lovely chatting like this, but I think I left my stove on in Area 51.
From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 06 March 2007 07:27 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fartful Codger:
My screen name is an anagram for the Finnish word for truth-subverter.
I know this post is supposed to be some sort of sarcastic joke, but you're doing exactly that. The folks who have lied about 9/11, and you even admit there are inconsistancies, want and need people like you to bleet out like a sheep at anyone asking questions that they're crazy and wasting time. Thank you for making this a playground taunting sesson instead of a discussion though. That's really helpful.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fartful Codger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9019
|
posted 06 March 2007 08:05 AM
You're right. It's much more helpful to point out that a bunch of philosophers, sociologists and accountants, in collaboration with some outright loons, believe that the physical scientists who are ignoring the conspiracy are wrong about their area of expertise. And it's much more helpful to assert that anyone who doesn't agree with the philosophers and political scientists, who are arguing that the physical science doesn't add up, are just sheep, willing to blindly follow the conspirators into a police state. That's much more helpful. Incidentally, I'm willing to believe anything. But it needs to be based on more than wild-eyed speculation. I've watched the Loose Change video, with all its assertions and logic leaps. It makes the same logic mistake that you seem to be making: if the official story is wrong, then the only possible truth is the most incredible conspiracy, which would, by now, involve thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people. Ultimately, I'll trust the guys with the scientific knowledge. (No, not the population ecologist.) If some real evidence emerges or some credible group comes out with a factually based explanation, I'll listen. Until then, I guess: Baa. Baa.
From: In my chair | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 06 March 2007 08:28 AM
For those who think that 9/11 would require a "conspiracy of millions", you have a short memory. Way back in naught three, a bunch of well connected neocon fascists convinced the US that they were in imminent danger of nuclear attack by Iraq. What did it take for that conspiracy to succeed? Not bloody much, as it turns out. The corporate media weren't "in on it" so much as unwilling to be seen as unpatriotic and therefore debased themselves to power, parroting whatever lies the conspirators deemed necessary to advance the agenda. It also didn't hurt that there are intimate and incestuous corporate connections between the major media and weapons contractors (GE/NBC, etc). The military unquestioningly carried out its illegal orders, destroying an entire country and killing hundreds of thousands for nothing. Most of those in the lower ranks of the military believed the conspirators, and those at the highest ranks and levels of power, who knew the score, were not about to fall on their swords for over a bunch of heathens. Besides, they could see the great benefits that would be theirs in the aftermath. They weren't in on the conspiracy, but were eager to carry out the orders of the President (even if they knew it was horseshit) if it meant personal and professional benefit. The Intelligence agencies knew all about the conspiracy, but apart from a very few exceptions raised no objection (until things were well advanced enough that their objections were mute). It was also in their interests not to derail the conspiracy, as they too would benefit greatly from war-fevered spending. So, what we have is a small group of well-placed fanatics who planned for years in think tanks and lobby groups for the moment when they could carry out their conspiracy. And they succeeded. There was no need for anyone from the lowliest CIA analyst on up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to know the fine details, it was enough that they kept their mouths shut, their heads down, and a quick "yes sir" on the lips. That there was a conspiracy to destroy Iraq is well-established. What it shows is that for these things to work, it isn't necessary for everyone involved to be in the know. Indeed, their success depends upon the regular dupes who can be easily manipulated into playing their parts without letting their conscience get in the way. quote: Why would the puppet masters of this ingenious plot even bother to tell a British broadcaster that certain buildings were going to fall anyway? Wouldn't it make the most sense not to tell them anything at all?
How the hell should I know? I don't have the answers. But I have questions too. How did Atta get into the US despite being on an FBI watch list? Why did the pilots train at the same Florida flight school that had deep involvement in Iran/Contra with connections to CIA front companies? How did the planners know the exact time and day of a NORAD excercise simulating multiple airline hijackings? Why did these fundamentalist fanatical Islamofascist suicide bombers spend their last evening getting drunk in a stripjoint with Atta's German (infidel) girlfriend? How can anyone look at the Government story without saying "whaaa?"? But then again, there are a lot of people who believe in a virgin birth and the walking dead.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 06 March 2007 11:44 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fartful Codger:
Ultimately, I'll trust the guys with the scientific knowledge. (No, not the population ecologist.) If some real evidence emerges or some credible group comes out with a factually based explanation, I'll listen. .
That's completely fair. But there ARE people with accreditations that are close to this that have honest questions. Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist....His hypothesis is that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled explosive demolition during the September 11 attacks. Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors," and then added, "but truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, believe that building 7 was intentionally demolished based on video footage Van Romero, Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that his opinion, based on the videotapes, was that there were some explosive devices inside that caused the towers to collapse. Zdenek P. Bazant,(from the National Institute of Standards and Technology) who co-authored the first published analysis of the collapses of the two towers, has proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers. Mike Pecoraro, a mechanical engineer who had seen the bomb attack in 1993 and was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower on 9/11, also gave detailed observations of what he believed to be damage from bombs
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 06 March 2007 12:16 PM
I suppose that if the Bush cabal had demonstrated even the remotest scintilla of competence in anything else they have undertaken, it might be possible to believe that 911 was a plot.But they have proven to be astonishingly, hilariously, tragically moronic and incompetent. There is no way they could have pulled off something like 911 without screwing it up. They did, however, capitalize on the event to push their own agenda.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 06 March 2007 01:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by arborman:
But they have proven to be astonishingly, hilariously, tragically moronic and incompetent. There is no way they could have pulled off something like 911 without screwing it up.
This is the strongest argument for believing the COLOSSAL amount of mistakes that would have had to happen to allow for the official story. Still, too many holes to believe it. And is a GREAT catalyst for getting people to see the reality that governments and media lie for their own benefit. And yes, there are LOTS of people out there still.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 06 March 2007 01:38 PM
So, does anyone have any thoughts about my suggestion that a cover-up could've been motivated by embarrassment (e.g., about incompetent intelligence work), or as an attempt to protect confidential information unrelated to the attacks themselves (e.g., the contents of WTC 7)? Or do I have to start a new thread called "Discuss 9-11 from an Elizabeth-May-style, 'nuanced' point of view"? I don't make idle threats, you know.... [ 06 March 2007: Message edited by: obscurantist ]
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 06 March 2007 02:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by sidra:
I have seen no definitive finger-pointing at Bush and co. other than for a possible cover up. There are other quite capable entities that are much keener than Bush and co. to see the words Arab and Muslim perceived as synonymous with terror and evil. Don't you think ?
Sure, there are the illuminati, the bliderbergers, the owl grovers, the freemasons, the templars, the corporations, the aliens, Opus Dei, the communists, the CIA (NOT), the Mossad, MI6, Russia, the Elks, the Rotary club, the YMCA, the Librarians association, the soccer club at my local community centre. More capable than Bushco is not a particularly exclusive club. Maybe, just maybe, it was a small group of extremists who seek to shake up the world, entice the US into war against Islamic countries, and bring about a resurgence of Islamic power in the form of a Caliphate. Totally wacky, of course, but well funded and somewhat coordinated. Let's call it something like Al-Qaeda. There is plenty of collusion and venality in the world, but they don't need to do anything quite this blatant to get what they want.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
SavageInTheCity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11625
|
posted 06 March 2007 02:47 PM
"Yeah. I'm a simplistic guy, but I tend to think the guy who says stuff like "I hate America and boy am I going to get them" might be a prime suspect when America gets got. Just a thought"Just a thought, maybe the list of people who dont want to "get them" is shorter than the list of those who do,.... But thanks for simplifing things.....
From: INAC's Showcase | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 06 March 2007 02:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: Yeah. I'm a simplistic guy, but I tend to think the guy who says stuff like "I hate America and boy am I going to get them" might be a prime suspect when America gets got.Just a thought.
Yes, but what actually happened after 9/11 was an ideolgical shift, so that persons previously within the select group of CIA resources (bin Laden among them) and tangible controllable and useful allies, were shifted out of that frame and moved definitely over to the enemy camp. So much to say, that it doesn't really matter if today these people are enemies of the US, the fact is at the time they were assets of the US national security aparatus, so in saying they "did it to themselves," is objectively true even if Bin Laden did it, and their were no other players within the national security aparatus who were in on the plot. I think it goes without saying that the plotters likely depended on their status as protected CIA assets, and on their knowledge of (and even possibly contacts within) the national security aparatus, at least to bring the event to its fruition. [ 06 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881
|
posted 06 March 2007 03:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, but what actually happened after 9/11 was an ideolgical shift, so that persons previously within the select group of CIA resources (bin Laden among them) and tangible controllable and useful allies, were shifted out of that frame and moved definitely over to the enemy camp. So much to say, that it doesn't really matter if today these people are enemies of the US, the fact is at the time they were assets of the US national security aparatus, so in saying they "did it to themselves," is objectively true even if Bin Laden did it, and their were no other players within the national security aparatus who were in on the plot. I think it goes without saying that the plotters likely depended on their status as protected CIA assets, and on their knowledge of (and even possibly contacts within) the national security aparatus, at least to bring the event to its fruition. [ 06 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I think that's fair, more or less.I'm not saying there aren't unanswered questions about 9/11. I'm saying the answers won't be found in conspiracy theories and badly overhyped junk like "Loose Change".
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 06 March 2007 05:31 PM
quote: Such as? -HeywoodFloyd
The mossad. quote: An article by reporter Jim Galloway, published on The Austin American-Statesman on Nov. 25, 2001, stated that the FBI had evidence suggesting that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence, along with some rogue American and foreign spy agencies, may be deeply involved in or even entirely responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks as well as other acts of terrorism against the United States.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=287
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865
|
posted 06 March 2007 07:49 PM
quote: This small group, capable enough to successfully plan and implement such undertaking would not be that naive to anticipate a re-surgence of a Caliphate as a response to the US might, or better still a Caliphate that 'unites' occupied lands. Yes like the Caliphate of the United Islamic Republics of Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.
Err, Caliphate of Iraq? COuld you please explain, Sidra because I dont think the Baath Party were Islamists.As for Mossad, thats some gray area. They couldve known it along with the CIA. Still, The hijackers would have to fly the planes into their targets...
From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 06 March 2007 08:11 PM
quote: Back to the original topic, IIRC, if you account for the time differences due to British Summer Time (Daylight savings) and New York, then the BBC is actually about 40 minutes late in reporting the WTC7 collapse
In the "live" feed, the building is standing in full view right behind the woman as she reports with the requisite gravity (pardon the pun) that it has, in fact, collapsed. Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lyin' eyes?
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 06 March 2007 08:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by BetterRed:
Err, Caliphate of Iraq? COuld you please explain, Sidra because I dont think the Baath Party were Islamists.As for Mossad, thats some gray area. They couldve known it along with the CIA. Still, The hijackers would have to fly the planes into their targets...
The second caliphate under the Abbasid dynasty built Baghdad as their capital. The previous capital had been in Damscus under the Ummayyad Dynasty.There is oftern confusion on the point of the Umayyads, as in fact a later dynasty in Andulasia (Spain) also claimed the title and the line of the Umayyad dynasty. After getting the snot kicked out of them, and having the reigning caliph rolled into a carpet and then trodden on by horses at the behest of one of Ghenghis Khan's sons, (whom in the pre-execution interview, is reported to have asked the Caliph "why he had not spent all the gold" the Mongols found in the royal treasurey, "on building defences for his city," and then made the Calph eat some, and suggesting that that he was a fool that deserved his fate thus -- the Mongols were a practical people) the throne of Abbasid Caliph was moved to Cairo, where it continued for a while under the Mameluks, who even succeeded at giving the Mongols some what for. In anycase the Ottomans eventually siezed Cairo in the 16th century and then the Sultan addopted the title, and Constantinople became the seat of the Caliphate, until Mustafa Kemal Attaturk abolished the Caliphate in 1924. No one has attempted to claim the title of supreme temporal religious leader of all Muslims until George W. Bush's most recent efforts. It is probably best to make the clear distinction that the Caliph is not essentially a religious leader in the Sunni religion, but the temporal leader of the believers. Religious leadership actually devolves to the various schools of Sunni Islam which advice the Caliph on spirtual matters. [ 06 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 06 March 2007 08:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by Coyote: Oh, for fuck's sake.
Yeah ... here we go with the 911-was-a-Jewish-plot story again. Even though it appears to be inspired by just as much axe-grinding as the Mossad theory, I still prefer the Russia theory. Don't know how well it checks out factually, but it makes for an engaging narrative: quote: Doron: A terrestic system alone doesn't give enough information to pull this masterpiece off. They've had to had access to a satellite system. That's either American GPS or the Russian Glonass. The Americans say the terrorists had broken off contact with GPS. How did the terrorists navigate? ...Zac: ... It was supposed to bring about a Pearl Harbor-effect. Getting the Americans to declare war on the terrorists who have their base in Afghanistan and also inflame the battles in Chechenya. The islamic movement of Uzbekistan is also based in Afghanistan. The Russians can't reach them, but the Americans can. They'll have to do the dirty work. They only needed to be convinced that the attack was the work of muslims, which was partly true. The fact that they'd never be able to pull it off on their own is just a minor detail.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 06 March 2007 08:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by obscurantist: Yeah ... here we go with the 911-was-a-Jewish-plot story againne
No one said anything about Jews. Someone said something about Mossad, which has been provably active in clandestine operation throughout the world, commonly using Canadian passports as cover for their operatives. Attmepting to poison a Hamas leader in Jordan for instance while carrying said Canadian passports. They were caught. This was proved. King Hussein made his ally Israel appologize. The Canadian goverment made Israel appologize for using our paasports, and made them promise not to do so in future. More redently Mossad people were jailed in New Zealand for attempting to obtain New Zealand passports. Interestingly said Mossad people were caught because a civil servant was supicious about the applicant speaking English with a Canadian or American accent. 'Mossad spies' jailed over New Zealand passport fraud There is nothing more insidious in talking about Mossad operations than there is about talking up the CIA, in such a fashion. I agree the Mossad theory of 9/11 is as bogus as most of the rest, but lets not start making vague accusation laden with the charge of antisemetism. Mossad exists. It is the Israeli secret service. They kill people without apparent compunction or respect of civil law and international law, and have been caught doing so on a number of occassions. The kidnapping from Rome of Mordechai Vanunu was in fact 100% illegal. The number of times that they have been provably caught indicates in my view that there are even more cases where they have not. [ 06 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865
|
posted 06 March 2007 08:36 PM
quote: Nima: "What do you think of this al-Qaeda history?" Doron: "The "Source"? It means nothing! The Americans thought the name was a great euphemism and decided to name the entire organisation that way. You know their desire to name all things, they feel safer that way." Nima: "It can't be the Arabs. I know my business. They've got no one with the experience, the rigor, the brain, the knowledge and the required support. On top of that, they'd require an entire group!" Amos: "Still they say they did.."
A hypothetical conversation between Mossad agents in a French book. yeah, very credible. And cue the racist arguments that the Arabs are too dumb to mastermind an precision terrorist strike. If JFK threatened to nuke Russia in 1962 over missile Crisis when no attack even took place, then why would American military(of 2001) be expected to stay timid if they knew Russia had a hand in an attack? At any rate, 19 hijackers stayed in US for months prior to 9/11. Are we to believe that all of these alleged Russian spies were undetected by CIA?
From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 06 March 2007 10:34 PM
Nobody was surprised when WTC7 collapsed. At least one fireman was later recorded as saying a sentence that included the clause "when building 7 finally came down." It had been evacuated hours earlier (as had the rest of South Manhattan) and it was known to have been damaged enough by the falling twin towers to threaten its structural integrity. If there was a lone Secret Service agent left in the building he was probably there frantically shredding documents in advance of the anticipated collapse.Nobody issues a "press release" to notify the media that a building has collapsed in Manhattan. Even if it weren't September 11, 2001 the media would know about it before you even had a chnace to type up the release. Think about it: you see a building collapse and you immediately rush to put out a press release? I don't think so. More likely you'd pick up a phone. And where is the alleged premature press release? It doesn't exist. The US media found out about the collapse when they saw it and captured it on camera, not when a press release landed on the editor's desk. Why would you send out a press release when the entire world's media is already right there in Manhattan, scanning the smouldering skyline with video cameras and sifting through hundreds of messages, phone calls, interviews, amateur video footage, etc. for reliable information? What kind of "press release" would not even bother to state the exact time when the building collapsed? If it had, don't you think the BBC would have reported it? Ever heard of the broken telephone game? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a chain of communications from one person to another could transform a statement by some official that the WTC7 was in imminent danger of collapse into a statement that it had collapsed? News editors receiving the incorrect report that the building had collapsed would be all the more inclined to believe it and put it on the air without independent confirmation because its collapse had been anticipated for hours. If there had been a conspiracy that involved demolishing WTC7, why wait till 8 hours after the initial attacks to do it? Nobody has explained that. What was to be gained by demolishing the almost-empty building? Did its collapse give the day's events a level of shock and horror that they would otherwise have lacked? In fact, immediately after it happened, firemen and other shell-shocked rescuers simply shrugged and carried on with the work they had been doing. As for the idea that the BBC would deliberately lose tapes of their broadcasts, were they thinking that nobody else might have made and kept a copy? Once something is broadcast, somebody, somewhere has a recording of it, particularly on a day of such dramatic news events. The idea that the BBC would think it could hide what had been broadcast is ridiculous - almost as ridiculous as the idea that they would even want to. Unless they were in on the conspiracy, they would love to be the first reputable news organization to expose it, if they had the evidence. They don't. And neither does anybody else.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 07 March 2007 06:52 AM
First off to Obscurant, F-off. Tying every evil act of Israel to Jews is an anti-semitic move and completely uncalled for. M.Spector, I agree that there wouldn't have been a press release issued about the building collapse, but there still remains the issue that it looks like it was demolished, and there were people (like Gulliani) quoted earlier that they were going to demolish it. If you watch the BBC report, she actually says she 'received a report' that the building had collapsed, so if your theory is right tha they had people all over the place then they should have had someone there to be able to look up and see that no building had collapsed. Why won't they just tell us where they got the 'report' from? They have so far not answered that question. And obviously there's not conspiracy to cover anything up, one of the worlds LARGEST news organizations just HAPPENED to lose the most important news day of this milleniums tapes. Someone must have not notices the 9/11/01 date and not thought it important. BULLSHIT.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490
|
posted 07 March 2007 08:22 AM
quote: Err, Caliphate of Iraq? COuld you please explain, Sidra because I dont think the Baath Party were Islamists. As for Mossad, thats some gray area. They couldve known it along with the CIA. Still, The hijackers would have to fly the planes into their targets... -BetterRed
I was merely pointing out the ludicrousness of the suggestion that Al Qaeda would even entertain the notion, let alone the possibility, that a Caliphate would form during (or following) a confrontation "USA-Islam." As Cueball has written quote: No one has attempted to claim the title of supreme temporal religious leader of all Muslims until George W. Bush's most recent efforts.
As for Mossad, I suggest that it is not far fetched: 1. Israel's benefits from the 'coup' are greater than any benefit other entities may draw. 2. The Mossad has the capability and the logistics to equip its agents so that they become instantly American citizens, roam in Saudi Arabia and recruit a few. (By the way, wasn't there one or two 'terrorists' who are supposed to have died but have been found alive and safe in Saudi ARabia ?) 3. Israel has friends in Washington who seem uneasy that Armageddon is dragging its feet and who are eager to rush the process a bit. 4. Other indications of Israeli knowledge/involvment, perfunctorily investigated or not at all.
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 07 March 2007 09:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by quelar: .. but there still remains the issue that it looks like it was demolished, and there were people (like Gulliani) quoted earlier that they were going to demolish it.
The building was so heavily damaged that it was considered at high risk of collapse. In the event that it did not collapse on its own, it would have to be demolished for safety reasons. No big mystery there. quote: If you watch the BBC report, she actually says she 'received a report' that the building had collapsed, so if your theory is right tha they had people all over the place then they should have had someone there to be able to look up and see that no building had collapsed. Why won't they just tell us where they got the 'report' from? They have so far not answered that question.
What's so mysterious or suspicious about "received a report"? That's how news broadcasters get their news! They receive reports! Reports can be telephone conversations, wire service messages, emails, text messages, gossip, press releases, items cribbed form other broadcasters or news media, etc. etc. And how many journalists do you suppose could instantly pick out WTC7 in the New York skyline? Would you have noticed that the WTC7 was still standing behind the BBC reporter if not for the giant arrow pointing to it after the fact?The "report" obviously was unreliable, but so frikkin' what? The media publish and broadcast unreliable or downright false news every day of the year. For example, initial reports of the killings of civilians by US troops in Afghanistan last Sunday said 16 were killed. Then reports said 8. Then later reports said 10. Is this evidence of a great conspiracy? Do we have to sit around and brainstorm all the possibilities in order to figure out why wrong information was published? quote: And obviously there's not conspiracy to cover anything up, one of the worlds LARGEST news organizations just HAPPENED to lose the most important news day of this milleniums tapes. Someone must have not notices the 9/11/01 date and not thought it important. BULLSHIT.
Bullshit indeed.This is the lamest rave of all. As I pointed out, they could not hope to suppress footage that had been broadcast by deliberately destroying their own tapes, because there are hundreds if not thousands of copies out there in public hands. And exactly what would those tapes tell us if we saw them? That the BBC reported falsely that WTC7 collapsed before it did? We already know that. If there was anything "incriminating" that the BBC broadcast and later destroyed, don't you think somebody would have come forward by now with a homemade tape of the broadcast? Are there not enough known outrages perpetrated every day to keep us irate without exercising ourselves as well over wild fantasies? Get a life.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 07 March 2007 10:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector:
If there was anything "incriminating" that the BBC broadcast and later destroyed, don't you think somebody would have come forward by now with a homemade tape of the broadcast?
Isn't that JUST what F'ing happened???? Thanks
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 07 March 2007 01:28 PM
I agree that it's not "anti-Semitic" as such to suggest that the Mossad was involved in 9-11. I also agree that the term is currently overused by the political right (as well as by some at least nominally on the left, like Terry Glavin) to smear anyone who criticizes Israel. But at least Cueball and Coyote seem to agree that the theory is bunk. And as I know them to be some of the more thoughtful critics of Israeli policies that I've read here, their opinions carry some weight with me. And I would reach the same conclusion on my own. Israel and the U.S. were already close allies before 9-11. You seem to acknowledge this, Sidra, although I have no idea what the significance is of your observation that "Israel has friends in Washington who seem uneasy that Armageddon is dragging its feet and who are eager to rush the process a bit." So if the theory is so sketchy, based on people supposedly turning up alive in Saudi Arabia as well as on "other indications of Israeli knowledge/involvement, perfunctorily investigated or not at all" (like what, exactly?), what purpose is served by repeating it? Coming from Al-Jazeera, it sounds like special pleading. "It wasn't Arabs who were behind this! No! It must be a frame-up by Israel!" I mentioned the Russia theory because it seemed about as plausible as the Mossad one -- which is to say, not very, but perhaps it makes one stop for a second to consider the possibility, unlike most of the variants expounded here about the U.S. government. quote: Ever heard of the broken telephone game? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a chain of communications from one person to another could transform a statement by some official that the WTC7 was in imminent danger of collapse into a statement that it had collapsed?
M. Spector, I do believe you've found a context in which the concept of the "broken telephone game" is actually relevant (as opposed to the context of oral histories and traditions passed down through a culture which has its own built-in methods of maintaining the accuracy of those histories).[ 07 March 2007: Message edited by: obscurantist ]
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 07 March 2007 02:00 PM
quote: Now, Where did I say or where did the link I posted say it is a "Jewish conspiracy"
You didn't say that, and neither did the Al-Jazeera article. I guess I was agreeing with Coyote's sentiment when he said, "Oh, for fuck's sake." Now, Coyote can expand on that if he wants, but what I was thinking of were the various urban myths about Jewish workers in the twin towers staying home in large numbers on the day of the attacks. But the Al-Jazeera story itself is bizarre. So the five Israeli men (and alleged Mossad agents) arrested in New York City on the day of the attack were "at a waterfront park in New Jersey apparently laughing and clowning, and photographing themselves in front of the burning towers"? Yeah, that really sounds like something you would do if you had advance knowledge of, or had taken part in, the attacks. Just because Palestinians danced in the streets doesn't mean that Hamas or Fatah carried out 9-11.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|