Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Rhisiart's message to three Davids

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David C
site administrator


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 234
Location: Southampton

Post Post subject: Rhisiart's message to three Davids Reply with quote

MESSAGE TO THREE DAVIDS

Siwmae Dafyddau: Cromwell, Edwards and Manning!

Greetings good men. Hope allís well with you, and that everythingís thriving for ya!

To the Medialens Dafyddau, first, can I say: Just sent off another tenner to you, as practical support for ML. As suggested a few days ago, this cash flow might get choked off altogether soon, as things get steadily more hairy for me. But for the moment itís still feasible.

However this latest contribution has brought up into sharp focus a question that I wanted to put to all three of you good Davids, seeing as you run websites which, on little shoestrings, carry on great-hearted fights against the pernicious -- not to say genocidal -- systemic dishonesty of the corporate media, and the special-interest, minority-group WealthPowerStatus mafias -- the gics -- whom they most truly serve as propaganda apparats.

The question comes up sharply to me myself as well, as in: ĎWhy am I continuing to support this website, excellent though it is overall, when thereís this really quite important unresolved issue between me and the Dafyddau..?í

So this message is in imitation of the open letter which Davids C and E sent recently from Medialens to the good George Monbiot, to which -- AFAIK -- heís still not made any visible answer. Hope you guys will make a better fist of it‚Ķ.

I wonít bandy about words like Ďhoistí and Ďpetardí. But -- well, Iím sure youíll get what I mean! [big *friendly* grin]

In any case the subject of my message here is very much apropos for George too, as he has precisely the same problem about which Iím writing to you guys, so I hope that he getís to see it too. Certainly Iíll copy it to his website.

My message here was further prompted -- tipped over the edge into action, finally, in fact -- by the response by David M to one of dear Joís latest chirpy pieces of outrageous irrationality, in which David re-iterated that he too ďdoesnít subscribe to that theoryĒ. To which I could only think, in some astonishment: ĎWhat, still! Why on earth not, by now? Iím just going to have to say something about this to those three good blokesí

So, lightly, good-humouredly, and with real, bone-deep respect and some considerable affection, but with deadly seriousness nonetheless, I have to challenge you guys to take a bit of your time, heavily taxed with slogging labour though it is, to look into a particular vexed matter which seems to me to be rather crucial to the continuing credibility of your respective truth-serving campaigns.

I am, of course, talking about the 9/11 truth campaign.

I have to say that I believe that all three of you good men, or two at least, with perhaps the third simply going along out of diplomatic loyalty, are in serious error on this matter. And itís doing your credibility in other areas no good at all.

Oddly, the fourth member of your wonderful, quixotic, small Davids-versus-Goliath apparats on both sides of the Irish Sea -- Miriam -- has no difficulty whatever seeing the very apparent truths from which you guys seem to be shying away so incomprehensibly. (Emotionally-driven denial, perhaps? Thatís not a snidery, but a deadly-serious query. Youíll recognise this quote, of course: ďThe more important a schema is for our sense of identity and security, the less likely we are to accept evidence contradicting it.") For shame lads! Bettered by a tender woman. Whereís yer balls! [Ďnuther big friendly grin]

Not to string this message out too far, I just want to suggest that you take a couple of hours -- no more than that -- to look at a couple of key vids, both current this year. And after that, might I suggest that you just let the ideas and facts therein ruminate for a while, and see where it takes you. You blokes make a vocation of doing that. And youíre outstandingly good at it, which is why I and lots of others admire and support you. But you need to use those gifts at full sharpness on this matter too. Especially now; itís high time. You really are falling down on the job on this one vexed matter. Here are the links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf5rTPuLDfM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI

If you do nothing else, at least look at the published remark by retired CIA analyst Bill Christison, quoted by David Griffin about four-fifths of the way in on Part 3 of his talk; Bill has been where you guys are now, and eventually went -- with great angst, as he says, but with great ultimate benefit -- beyond his quandary; and look at Bob McIlvaineís heartfelt remark right at the end of Part 9 of ďZeroĒ. If for no other reason (though indeed there are other reasons too, of great public moment) thatís why dedicated truth-tellers everywhere need to get their heads straight on this matter.

Not to put too fine a point on it, lads: I think that, AS IT HAS EVOLVED BY NOW (key qualifier!), this issue has put all three of you on the spot. The credibility of your work is being damaged by your current stance.

I know about your great respect for Chomsky. I donít believe that you could surpass me on that. For gratitude, reverence, and outright affection towards Noam, like millions of others round the world, I hover only just ďthis side idolatryĒ?, as Ben Jonson said of Will Shaksper. Though I know heís uncomfortable with such accolades, I continue to think that to call him one of the greatest mahatmas of our era is simply common accuracy.

And despite Noamís glaring -- entirely human and forgivable -- error on this matter, both as to fact and as to relevance, I revere him not a whit the less than before. But he *has* got this one wrong. And sticking with him on it does you no good.

There you are, friends: cat dumped unceremoniously amongst your pet pigeons! Sorry, but it does need doing.

I hope youíre all going to do a bit better in your response than Georgeís continued silence so far on that other matter. I *donít* want to start a debate about this on the MBs of your websites. I understand well the need to keep your work focussed on your professed aims, and not to allow your limited funds of time and energy to be squandered on endless self-indulgent rows which do nothing useful. Useful, practical salving of the worldís ills by the pursuit of truth and compassion is, after all, what you aim to do, and why I admire your efforts so much, and why I support them as well as I can. But David Ray Griffin is a transparently good man too, and of impressive intellectual and moral stature also. It simply shines out of him. When I first heard of him, and noted that he was a Professor of Religion and Theology, I wouldnít have expected to have been compelled to make such an assessment of him. But I am. It doesnít do at all to continue to refuse to hear from a man of such courage and stature the honest, heartfelt plea which he made -- in April of this year -- in the first video linked above.

Perhaps if this message looks likely to provoke a longthread row on the MB, you could simply lock it. In any case, as I hinted before, Iíve had to re-apportion my time and energy drastically just lately, and I just canít spend as much time as previously posting to the web, so I shanít be taking part in any debate on this. I still do a bit, as you may have noticed on MLMB. And I still visit selected quality sites regularly, in tea-breaks; but mostly as an on-the-wing lurker, rather than as an altogether-too-mouthy poster.

So -- over to you, good-buddies.

Hwyl fawr iawn i chi tri dynion da! Rhisiart Gwilym

PS: Iím not the only one of your devotees, by a long chalk, who thinks like this, you knowÖ.
Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:03 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
David C
site administrator


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 234
Location: Southampton

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Rhisiart,

Thanks once again for sending a tenner in the post (or is it a cheque this time?!). We appreciate your support.

A brief response - a few years ago (before you started posting, I believe), we had lots of posts and long discussions on the board on 9/11-related matters. Both editors spent a lot of time and effort in responding and taking part in these discussions. We also devoted a lot of effort into background research, reading relevant books, online articles, watching posted videos, etc. A lot more than the couple of hours you're pleading with us to set aside now. We even questioned the authors of one of the books and were very unimpressed with the quality of the answers we got back. In short, we've given this a fair hearing - it's not a blind spot or an artificially adopted position out of some misplaced loyalty to Noam Chomsky.

You say: "The credibility of your work is being damaged by your current stance. " That's fine - everyone's got to make their own judgment. But we've been patient with your repeated references, subtle and otherwise, to 9/11 on the message board. And so, with an affectionate sigh, I really do hope this is the last of it. We wish you well.

Best wishes
David C


Last edited by David C on Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:16 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
dereklane



Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 248
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

I would say similiar things Rhisiart (not that you asked me:) ). A lot of the accusations that seem to fly when this issue arises is that people have blanked it out, and pretended they didn't see anything, and *that's* why they think there was no major conspiracy.

But you can tell just by looking at this forum (dig through it) that I haven't done that (and the one on mediabite), nor have a number of other ml contributors. Me, John Hilley and David Sketchley (among others) had a pretty good discussion on it a few years back. I've done my own research (spent days, weeks, on it, at various intervals), firstly of my own accord ( I actually started on the premise it was probably an inside job and convinced myself out of that belief through the examination of evidence), and then in response to challenges that I was hiding from hard truths.

I've found a lot of unanswered questions, from both 'sides'. I haven't found anything substantial, evidence wise, to support the various theories of major conspiracy (exploding buildings, unmanned planes), though I've found some that certainly suggests conspiracy at the level of 'cover-up' and commandeering the event for political manipulation.

I often think the 911 movement would have been successful, even useful, if they had concentrated on the more easily provable political conspiracies surrounding the event rather than the big one of controlled demolition.

Anyway, I hope to see you around from time to time.

cheers,

Derek
Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:42 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi all! Tea break again. Out again in a few minutes. Short -- and I suggest -- comprehensive -- reply to the comments so far (5.18PM/20AUG09) is:

That was then. This is now. Things have moved on mightily. If you're still holding with a conclusion drawn several years back, when it might have been just about believeable, that the official conspiracy theory was any way credible and its detractors could be safely written off as self-deluding, and if you've not since reviewed that conclusion, then events have left you behind. So too have an increasing number of impressive, credible, not-easily-written-off people, in crucially-relevant professions and expertises, who have joined the truth movement and said so publically.

I've no time to develop this now, and anyway the dedicated high-quality volunteer researchers do it lots better. The short way to decide for yourself is to take at least that first hour and listen to David Griffin's address at Boston U in April this year. It simply isn't credible at all to write off a mind as impressive, who's done so much methodical, intellectually-compelling due diligence. Nor is it credible to discount his assertion that this is still very much a live, current issue of critical importance to the immediate future of all of us. The official legend is, after all, still the main 'justification' driver of the current wars.

I urge you: make the time; watch the vid. Then do a new, up-to-the-minute trawl through the current evidence, if you're at all persuaded to look again.

The vile system and many of the actual perpetrators who created this dreadful false-flag are STILL using it to justify and 'enoble' their vicious gangster resource-wars in Eurasia and Africa, and they STILL have our benighted societies by the balls. Are we going to let them go on calling the shots and using us commons as expendable cattle? The first step in collective self-liberation is understanding and ACCEPTING the terrible, bleak truths that are hidden routinely behind the Permanent Bullshit Blizzard. Isn't this exactly what ML is set up to do?

Gotta go. Back when possible. Rh.
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:43 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The vile system and many of the actual perpetrators who created this dreadful false-flag are STILL using it to justify and 'enoble' their vicious gangster resource-wars in Eurasia and Africa, and they STILL have our benighted societies by the balls. Are we going to let them go on calling the shots and using us commons as expendable cattle? The first step in collective self-liberation is understanding and ACCEPTING the terrible, bleak truths that are hidden routinely behind the Permanent Bullshit Blizzard. Isn't this exactly what ML is set up to do?


This above all is, I believe, the reason why we should keep going back to 911 (and 77) to consider these events in the context of what was said a long time prior by the PNAC neocons about the need for a new Pearl Harbour in order to sell their project for world domination to the American people.

Look at the way we were told lies about WMD, at the way the UNSC was used to justify military intervention in Afghanistan. We are told lies about the UNSC's ability to intervene militarily in a country to which it has not been invited. Lies about a so-called War on Terror which turned out to be an Orwellian inversion of reality. When more accurately what we have undergone is a War of Terror where millions of innocents have been killed and where our own freedoms have been vastly reduced on both sides of the Atlantic.

All this killing and oppression has been justified by a fake War on Terror which is said to have started with 911 and an official conspiracy which, when examined at any depth, appears to be a grotesque fairy story! And yet the permanent bullshit blizzard goes on, first with 911, then other false flags including 77, and the imperialist aggressions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the embedded media just keep on getting away with the bullshit.

And they will until we get to exposing the very roots of where this particular Big Lie started --ie the Pearl Harbour of 911-- and to map out how and why the great conspiracy of mystification was hatched. The clues are out there, it's mostly a case of joining the dots together.

Chomsky is a great believer in de-mystification. If the 911 Truth Movement has been about anything then it has been about precisely that.

And, BTW, I am dismayed to find that this thread has not merely been relegated from the Message Board but inserted as 'Off Topic'. Off what topic?
Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:29 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OrwellianUK



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 26

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Eds and fellow Medialens posters

I'm hoping that I can put down in words what I have been trying to collate in my mind on this subject for quite some time.


PEAK OIL, the 'GREAT GAME' and the MEANING OF 9/11 - Part One (of Three)

The most important aspect about 9/11, is not the event itself or even who was responsible for it, but what it MEANS.

When we come to an understanding of this, it is possible to view a much clearer picture of world events and how they are connected. Like any investigation of a crime, the Means, Motive and Opportunity are the overriding factors to consider. 9/11 as an event, is not the most important issue - the MOTIVE that led to it, IS.

Rhisiart's MB post, on which subject this essay is based, is the kind that immediately gets jumped upon by some, for instance Jo Abbess, who will immediately dismiss the subject as being paranoid 'Conspiracy Theory'. In respect of this particular ill-used term she does have a valid point - there is indeed a large amount of dross out there, concerning the 9/11 attacks and many other events and issues related to deep political events. What I find contrary, is that despite her experience with the systematic disinformation campaign being waged by vested interests in respect to climate change, she doesn't appear to consider that a similar phenomenon could be occurring in the case of 9/11. I would ask everyone to consider this possibility in light of the little information of such subversion that does manage to squeeze through the propaganda model, for instance in respect to say - Rendition and Torture. The very fact that so much mis/disinformation exists concerning 9/11, is informative in itself - think of 'Ex' MI5 David Shayler's 'No-Plane' claims.

Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the 9/11 Truth movement had become confused, fractionalized and in some ways lost its direction. The circumstancial evidence of a COINTELPRO type operation being waged by the PTB is quite strong in this case, although the personal foibles of human beings is of course a major factor and clearly exploitable as such. I also recently came to the conclusion that attempting to persuade skeptics with 'Physical Evidence' is a waste of energy - people either accept such evidence or they do not, but in any case, the enormous and confusing detail that such research goes into, invariably wears down both the researchers and the readers, and distracts greatly from the important questions we should be asking.
'
For these reasons, I no longer want to get distracted by discussions of how the Towers collapsed, what may or may not have happened at the pentagon, or other aspects that are merely 'part of the scenery' of the event. Rather, I am much more interested in how the Elite and Western Military/Law Enforcement/Intel behaved before, during and after the event. It is these aspects which reveal the most telling information, and are most persuasive in determining a motive. I would also hope to address some false arguments, red herrings and straw man debates that are frequently used to deflect genuine rational discussion of the subject. Finally, I hope to shed some light on why the subject is studiously avoided or dismissed by those who we would normally expect to shine a bright light on the behaviour of our Governing Elite.

In terms of the 'behaviour' of Elite interests and their Military/Banking/Industrial Complex tools, the basic evidence can be summarised as follows:

ē The creation, funding, training, ideologising and protecting of 'Islamic Terror' groups during the 80's, 90's and continuing to this day, by Western Intelligence agencies, and those of their proxies - e.g. Pakistans ISI and Saudi Arabia's SGID (1, 2)

ē The creation of the 'al Qaeda' myth around Osama Bin Laden (3, 4)

ē The secrecy of the NEPDG (National Energy Policy Development Group), chaired by Vice President Cheney almost immediately after entering office (5)

ē The suppressing of FBI 'Brick Agents' investigations of 'Terrorist' suspects both prior to, and subsequent to 9/11 by David Frasca, and the Bush administration (6, 7)

ē The NORAD Wargames, and other exercises in operation on the day of the attacks, some of which were 'hijacking' scenarios, the overall planning and scheduling of which Dick Cheney was responsible (8 )

ē The insider trading which took place on WTC companies and the affected airlines, United and AA, in the lead up to the attacks which was never properly investigated, but points to the CIA and their Wall Street associates (9, 10)

ē The multiple advance warnings of the attacks from foreign intelligence agencies and law enforcement/Anti-Terrorism agents, even foreign leaders such as Vladimir Putin (11)

ē The existence of plans found with known terrorist suspects to fly planes into buildings well in advance of 9/11 - Project Bojinka (12)

ē The existence of Off-the-Shelf plans formulated years earlier to carry out 'False-Flag' attacks to justify an attack on Cuba - Operation Northwoods (13)

ē The presence of Israeli agents in Manhattan who were placed to 'monitor' the attacks (14)

ē The complete lack of any proper 'Air Crash' investigations and the destruction of evidence (15, 16)

ē The stonewalling of victims families questions and attempts at avoiding an investigation (17)

ē The rigging of the '9/11 Commission' by Bush Administration insider Phillip Zelikow (18 )

ē The refusal of Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and GW Bush to testify to the '9/11 Commission' except on their own terms (19)

I could continue with this list for quite some time, and the footnotes given are but a small sample of the evidence available with a mere cursory search of the internet. A very useful and widely respected resource for the attacks and associated anomalies is Paul Thompsons "9/11 Timeline" (20).

Of course there will be some who put all this down to a combination of back covering, incompetence and happenstance. I have a phrase for such people: "Raging Coincidence Theorists" - paraphrased from researcher John Judge who is quoted as saying "You can call me a Conspiracy Theorist, as long as you call yourself a Coincidence Theorist" (21). In addition, the mainstream media, after initially reporting such anomalies as the Insider Trading, repeatedly backtracked while they regurgitated the chorus of denials parroted by official sources, tactics of which we are all extremely familiar with.

I am intending if possible, to refine this into a proper article in due course. This posting can be considered as Part One. I will split the rest of the 'essay' into two more parts.

FOOTNOTES:
(1) http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=saudi_general_intelligence_directorate
(2) See books by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed - 'The War on Truth' and 'The War on Freedom' for analysis and documented evidence*
(3) BBC "The Power of Nightmares" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ&feature=related (parts 1 to 6)
(4) Michael Meacher, MP - "This War on Terrorism is Bogus" http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq
(5) http://www.judicialwatch.org/Litigation-cheney-energy-task-force
(6) http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a071001williams
(7) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600016/posts
(8 ) A summary of the evidence in 'Crossing the Rubicon' (The book itself contains evidence from 'official' sources and mainstream media news reports): http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml
(9) http://www.jonesreport.com/article/02_08/200208_kucinich_trading.html
(10) http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html
(11) Did Bush know? - Media Monitors article on British author Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html *Some content relevant to footnote (2)
(12) http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/project_bojinka.htm
(13) Released under the FOIA - scanned documents available at this link: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html
(14) http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news.php?q=1248635057
(15) NTSB does not investigate crashes http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101nontsbinvestigation#a091101nontsbinvestigation
(16) Decision made to scrap WTC Steel http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101scrapsteel#a091101scrapsteel
(17) Bush stonewalling becoming a scandal: http://www.albionmonitor.com/0305a/911stonewall.html
(18 ) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_D._Zelikow
(19) Anti-War.com - "Is fix in at 9/11 Commission?" http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2209
(20) The Complete Timeline - History Commons: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_post-9/11_world=investigations
(21) http://www.steamshovelpress.com/latestword15.html
Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:00 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noamswampy



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 4

Post Post subject: Conspiracy and the IRA: Adventures in Flatland Reply with quote

Hello All.

It's funny how the 'left' had no problem with conspiracy theories when British Justice was locking up innocent Irish men and women in the 70's.

To suggest that some IRA bombings were organised and/or inspired by British Secret Service agents/informants and that innocents were framed for these murders, is and was entirely acceptable. And there was a lot less evidence then in the public domain regarding, say, the Birmingham Six than there is now regarding 9/11.

Sure, the evidence for the 911 Inside Job is all circumstantial - it hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt - but what else can be expected without a proper judicial investigation with teeth (eg the power to subpeona Cheney et al and make them testify under oath). The official conspiracy theory from the US Senate has also not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but seems to be much easier to believe for many people.

Seems that we can easily accept the idea of organised (and therefor conspiratorial) violence from the Left (Farc, Che, IRA etc) or from the Right (racists, religious fundamentalists etc) but when the violence comes from somewhere outside of this phoney left/right continuum of opinion (ie. when the violence comes directly from the elite powers who don't actually inhabit this continuum) it's invisible.

Cheers,
N.
Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:52 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OrwellianUK



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 26

Post Post subject: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Reply with quote

As it happens, Mike Ruppert openly said that he would take the case against Dick Cheney to the Office of US Attorney, with multiple accounts of murder and special circumstances, if he still believed that the US had a functioning Justice system.

I'd have to say there is more than circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless, only a genuine and open court case with full subpeona powers, unhindered by 'National Security' interests could uncover the truth to enough of a degree to get convictions.

However, when the 'Justice' system is run by the same gang who carried out the attacks, such a concept is meaningless.

Cheers,

OUK
Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:10 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spike



Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 435

Post Post subject: ... Reply with quote

For what it's worth, I agree with Rhisiart. I've looked into this extensively and although I'm not an engineer or a physicist i've looked at those buildings coming down over and over and been forced to conclude that there is no way they came down simply because of the impact of the planes. The exact details of *how* are unimportant because if you conclude this (controlled demolition), the official story collapses. Noone has accused Osama Bin Laden of planting bombs in the towers.

I didn't start from a position of wanting to believe this, the ramifications of the event are too horrible to contemplate, but contemplate them we must. For me the buildings are the key, pulverised to dust apparently by the sheer force of gravity. It's nonsense, as anyone whose built a sandcastle will tell you. If we're willing to believe that the Iraq war was based on a lie and that NATO wilfully bombed Yugoslavia simply because they weren't following orders, then why not this? Think of the hundreds of thousands, maybe milllions of people who've died in these wars, in this context what is 3000? Think of the millions who die each tear simply because of the inequity of food distribution in the world. The attacks were a masterstroke, witness how everything important that happens in the news comes from within the framework of the 'post 9-11' world, lies built on the 'Big Lie', ID cards, increased surveillance, internment without trial, none these could have been achieved without the catalysing event.

Anyway, enough. I like to think of myself as a rational person, i've got a family, I can keep a job, I have friends etc etc and there's no cache in being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' after all. Look at the evidence with a sceptical mind, but not a closed one and tell me, how did the buildings come down, freefall speed, producing pyroclastic clouds of dust, not once, but three times.

Cheers

spike
_________________
We don't want the looneys taking over...
Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OrwellianUK



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 26

Post Post subject: The WTC Demolitions Reply with quote

Hi Spike

I also used to believe that the WTC collapses (not to mention WTC7) were the key.

The problem, is that this is too emotionally disturbing and 'fantastical' for most people, who are prepared to believe the assertion that the plane strikes and resulting fires were enough to bring down such huge structures.

Even engineers and physicists will mostly look for some other explanation or 'phenomenon' to explain it all away.

I spent about 15 years on and off, studying the JFK assassination when I first began to take an interest in 'Deep Politics' and the CIA etc, and all the ballistics and autopsy research failed to make a break through - we are no nearer to the truth being admitted after 45 years.

Physical evidence, as any detective will tell you, is enormously difficult to prove in court, and without a chain of evidence, as in the case of the demolitions, not even admissible.

In the case of the Norad Wargames, for instance there is a paper trail which can be connected to Dick Cheney and General Myers and associates. Clearly, since the Republicans had total control of the Supreme Court, they knew very well that they were never going to be subject to any justice.

Cheers,

OUK
Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:46 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The problem, is that this is too emotionally disturbing and 'fantastical' for most people, who are prepared to believe the assertion that the plane strikes and resulting fires were enough to bring down such huge structures.


OUK, I agree with you about the sleight-of-hand effect that seems to hypnotise people into believing what, in fact, their eyes don't see. What the eyes see --particularly with WTC7-- is of buildings which collapse straight down, something which would only happen where controlled demolition is involved.

But watch this RT interview with Professor Niels Harrit:

http://tinyurl.com/ldhbsp

The hypnotic effect, I believe, was always intended to play a major part in what in effect was the sort of thing one might associate with a comic book. Ironically, an edition of the X-Men comic predicted this very catastrophe sixteen years before it took place!



As usual we have to burst the strait-jacket of the Murdochracies in order to find investigative reporting:

Experts want new 9/11 investigation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79o9fFwTStc&feature=channel
Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:35 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OrwellianUK



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 26

Post Post subject: Shock and Awe Reply with quote

Derek is right when he said it would have been better if the Truth movement had not focused its energies on this particular aspect of the event. I have only come to this conclusion myself quite recently.

The destruction of the twin towers served more than one purpose. The first was 'Shock and Awe' - a psychological attack on the world's population through the medium of television (that's why the towers had to 'go down').

The second was a distraction to keep those 'Conspiracy Theorists' tied up in endless study of physical evidence, un-admissable in court. This shows the understanding of human psychology behind the perpetrators - do something so mind boggling that most people will be unable to believe it.

Other reasons were for instance, Silverstein's insurance scam.

Anyone who still thinks that this episode will bring the truth into the mainstream, has in my view, fallen into this trap. I did myself for a couple of years. On the other hand I do still nosey at the vids and research out of interest.
Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:40 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spike



Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 435

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that the towers collapsing is not going to get '9-11 truth' into the mainstream media, but what aspect of the story would? All the evidence collected about wargames and NORAD and false blips being inserted on screens etc explains how it would be possible to pull this off, but it's all deniable or at least ignorable. It's also very esoteric information and probably the worst place to start when explaining what you believe about 9-11 to someone whose fresh to the subject. At least with the towers you have hours of footage you can study, the building 7 footage being particularly damning, and if you conclude the buildings were brought down by something other than impact/jetfuel then many extremely disturbing questions immediately suggest themselves. Trying to get this perspective into the MSM is a waste of time and it's inconceivable that the official story will ever be changed substantially , too much has already been done in the name of 9-11 and plenty more is on it's way. The only hope is to spread the evidence at hand by word of mouth and hope that enough people can see what you see. I know we're not substantially disagreeing about this but i thought i'd clarify what I meant by saying the towers were 'the key'.
_________________
We don't want the looneys taking over...
Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:00 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OrwellianUK



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 26

Post Post subject: Wargames Reply with quote

Hi Spike

The kind of way I phrase it is as follows:

"Are you aware that NORAD was running multiple Wargames on 9/11 and that some of these were hijacking scenarios?"

"Did you know that some of the exercises involved inserting 'ghost' blips on Radar screens, and that there were up to 22 of these 'injects'?"

"Did you know that fighters that should have been scrambled had they been there, had been sent to places like Alaska and Iceland?"

"Did you know that FEMA had arrived in Lower Manhattan the previous day to prepare for 'Tripod II', a 'Bioterror' exercise, and already had a command centre set up?"

"Did you know that the National Reconnaissance Office was running a drill on the premise of a plane flying into the building?"

"Did you know a company called Visor Consultants was running a 'Terrorist Bombing' Drill on the day of the London bombings that occurred in the same stations and at the same time as the actual event?"

"Are you seeing a pattern here? Do you wonder what the odds of these being coincidences are?"

On top of all this, a company called Ptech had computer systems set up in the FAA's basement, which integrated the systems of the FAA, NORAD and the Secret Service.

The above are all examples of Compartmentalization. Virtually everyone 'involved' thought they were engaged in a normal exercise. The 'Northwoods' style covert op, was piggy-backed on these exercises, which among other things served to confuse the system long enough for the plan to succeed.
Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:55 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Media brands pressed into service? Reply with quote

National Geographic Does 9/11

What was that about breaking out of the straitjacket of the Murdochracies? The National Geographic Channel is majority controlled (67%) by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. The National Geographic Society, publisher of the magazine, does not have editorial control over what is produced at the channel; News Corporation controls the programming.

Six days after September 11th, National Geographic Today (NGT) published a description of the event. That account apparently contained a number of errors. Here, Hoffman [1] and Ryan [2] ponder this year's upcoming National Geographic anniversary piece on 9/11 (to be screened 31 August) and explain why they're anticipating a hit piece.

The piece apparently features interviews with (among others) D R Griffin, David Aaronovitch and Richard Gage. Gage is now raising a red flag: "We gave them some great evidence [but] we don't expect them to paint us in a favorable light. The show references dubious experiments performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) to "prove" the official story correct." http://www.ae911truth.org/info/84

[1] National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased In Service of the Big Lie
- Jim Hoffman

BY NOW it's quite predictable: every year as the anniversary of the attack approaches, some of the most established mainstream media brands are pressed into service to sell the official story of 9/11.

The 2009 iteration of this spectacle is notable for the contrast between the designated brand and the obligatory message. That brand, best known for its high-brow photojournalistic National Geographic Magazine, has existed since 1889... dedicated to education in geography, archaeology, history, world cultures, and natural science. One can't help but wonder how National Geographic's many benefactors would feel if they understood how the brand was being used to prop up the "War on Terror" with its Popular-Mechanics-style attack piece to be aired on August 31, 2009.

A web feature on the website of the National Geographic Channel provides a preview of the show and a window into the methods and goals of the show's producers. Those methods are so heavy-handed that the critical reader can't help but see that those goals are something very different from educating...

The 2009 documentary isn't the first time the National Geographic brand has been used to rubber-stamp the official account of the attack. On September 17, 2001 an article in National Geographic News attempted to explain the "collapses" with such memetic devices mouthed by "experts" as "the raging inferno" (likened to a fraction of the Hiroshima A-bomb) turning the steel to "Play-doh" and precipitating a "domino collapse" in which "the buildings' majesty was their own undoing".

As unscientific as these purported explanations are, with their transparent appeals to authority and metaphor, one might excuse them as the attempt of a journalist to make sense of the horrific events at a time when rational analysis was eclipsed by shock.

Clearly, something entirely different is at work in the 2009 effort -- something that is apparent even in its graphical production ...
...

[Also] the article uses labels to flog its target in an obvious appeal to prejudice. The "Conspiracy" label prefaces each target claim, regardless of whether the claim implies a conspiracy or how any implied conspiracy compares to the officially theorized conspiracy. Conversely, the "Science" label prefaces each paragraph allegedly debunking the "conspiracy" claim. Of course, "Scientists" only support the official story, and only "truthers" question that story... Apart from insulting the reader with such patronizing language, the article also uses language more subtly... continued at link .../
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/index.html

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

[2] Finally, an Apology from the National Geographic Channel
- Kevin Ryan

SIX DAYS after September 11th, National Geographic Today (NGT) published one of the very first descriptions of the official myth for what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.[1]

This article exaggerated the little known facts about the fires in the towers, equated gas temperatures with steel temperatures, and detailed the long-surviving but incorrect Pancake Theory of collapse.Ě Since that time, millions of people have been killed or injured in the 9/11 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that originated from the official myth about 9/11.[2,3]

Fortunately, this week it was announced that the NGTs parent, the National Geographic Channel (NG Channel), is scheduled to broadcast a new television special covering the science behind the events of 9/11. We can only assume that this new show is meant to correct the record and apologize for the company's false statements that contributed to the ongoing wars.

Some of the false statements made in that NGT article had to do with an early version of the Pancake Theory for destruction of the buildings. One claim was : "As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes"... Two years later, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally made clear that its findings do not support the ėpancake theory" of collapse.Ě[4]

To date, there have been no apologies from any of the media sources that, oftentimes arrogantly, promoted the Pancake Theory as a means to prevent further questioning of the WTC events.

But we all know that National Geographic is different, right? Actually, some people are unaware that the NG Channel is majority controlled (67%) by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.[5] The National Geographic Society, publisher of the well-known magazine, was a minority partner in creation of the NG Channel, but does not have editorial control over what is produced there. Instead, the News Corporation controls the programming much like it controls Fox News.

In the early article promoting the WTC myth, NGT described how Jet fuel fires burn unusually hot, and engineers believe the fire may have led to temperatures as high as 1,600 degrees Celsius (2,900 degrees Fahrenheit).Ě

But the truth is that the jet fuel fires at the WTC, which lasted a total of 79 seconds by one expert estimate, and lasted only a few minutes according to NIST, would have been cooler than the later fires fed by office furnishings alone.[6] It has since been admitted by NIST that gas temperatures reached only as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius.[7]

With that in mind, it's important to note that in a structure fire, the temperature of fireproofed steel lags far behind the temperature of the air (i.e. gas) in the vicinity. In fact, even in a testing furnace where heat cannot be conducted away, when the temperature of the furnace is raised to 1000įC and held at that temperature, it takes two full hours for the protected steel within to reach 600įC.[8] Neither of the Twin Towers remained standing for two hours after aircraft impact, however....

The NG Channel's apology will certainly cover the other false claim in its NGT article, that: At temperatures above 500 degrees Celsius, steel loses its strength and "turns to Play-Doh."

By exaggerating the gas temperatures and then hitting us with the "Play-Doh" steel claim, the article falsely equated gas temperatures and steel temperatures in a structure fire. But anyone can see from photographs and videos that the buildings did not turn to "Play-Doh", as if they were experiencing an overall softening.

To the contrary, the towers behaved as if they were rigid structures, suddenly exploding outward and otherwise falling at nearly free-fall speed -- through what should have been the path of most resistance.[15]

Additionally, tests done by NIST indicated that only 2% of the steel samples saved had experienced temperatures as high as 250 C, and steel is barely affected at all at such low temperatures. ..
.....
... what we heard from BBC producer Mike Rudin -- that LLNL scientists would not cooperate with his ďConspiracy FilesĒ video production. Rudin told us that LLNL refused to allow the BBC to use of any of the photographs of nanothermite materials that were readily available on the web. That seems at odds with the idea that science can so easily disprove the demolition theory.
continued at link .../

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20950
or
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NationalGeographicApology.html

See NG - 911: Science And Conspiracy at the NG site at http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067?source=redir_sub_conspiracies and http://www.coffeerooms.com/tv/news/truth-behind-911-put-to-the-test-in-new-natgeo-program.html
Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:51 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spike



Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 435

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers for the article Marc..

>Orwellian

Whatever the emphasis we think should be put on the explanation of 9-11 I think we can both agree that 9-11 is not what it seems, or has been made to seem. I've only recently concluded in a concrete way that 9-11 really was an inside job, or to put it another way, did not transpire as we have been led to believe and I've found this both liberating and terrifying.

Liberating because rather than give the benefit of the doubt to official pronouncements about this and all it's repercussions, I now see world events through a new filter, one which chimes much more closely to actual history (the ebbing and flowing of power between actors, the violent measures wielded) than received history (benevolent forces trying to do good but somehow failing). And terrifying because of this realisation, for after all if it's true, then we really do live in a 'Matrix' style delusion, where sane healthy human beings happily soak up everything they're told, parasite and host all at once.

I come at this from the perspective of someone with a child growing up (6 years old), who's concerned about being, as far as possible, a receptacle of truth for the boy, not a bag of ill-gotten prejudices borrowed from other people. To this end i've tried to educate myself as much as possible, having always been acutely aware of the shortcomings of my high school education etc etc, but now i'm here the question remains...

What are we going to do?
_________________
We don't want the looneys taking over...
Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:25 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OrwellianUK



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 26

Post Post subject: What are we going to do? Reply with quote

That is the question for all of us Spike.

At the introduction to my first post, I said that the Meaning of 9/11 was the most important aspect.

By understanding 9/11 and the corrupt political and economic system behind it, we can have a clearer picture - a map if you will - of the 'road ahead'.

In case you haven't already seen it, I recommend this January 2005 presentation in two parts by Mike Ruppert, shortly before he got too close to the truth for someone's comfort, and Covert Ops agents destroyed 'From the Wilderness' where it was based in Oregon, forcing Mike to flee to Venezuela for some time.

You may need a stiff drink (or whatever makes you feel better as Ruppert says) afterwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy9JCDchk34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1xkYfjfsU&feature=related

You can find the maps he is showing on the display screen here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012505_ftw_maps.shtml

To give a bit of background, Mike Ruppert was an LA cop from a CIA family background who stumbled across CIA Narcotics and illegal arms running operations. It was after investigating the Narcotics trafficking for some time (and being hounded out of the force for it), that he discovered the link between the CIA and Wall Street and the enormous amount of money laundering that props up the US economy to the tune of $600 billion dollars a year (at least).

When he came to understand Peak Oil, the relationship between it and the things he already knew, made the motive for 9/11 clear.

Note how these things he discussed in 2005 have come true (e.g. housing bubble and economic collapse).


Last edited by OrwellianUK on Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:23 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smellmycheese



Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 9

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

First post at media lens - just wanted to add a bit of moral support as anyone who looks into 911 gets labelled a nutjob... Been reading through alot of the 911 threads and it seems to me that its like flogging a dead horse... I studied/researched lots of material on the web between 2002-2006 and I really can't see how people do not question it more.. I find it strange that the editors/admins here seem to have no issues with ignoring this event.

I know one thing for sure - the official account doesn't add up. Hope you guys keep posting info as I'm intrigued to get back up to date with new evidence etc...
Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:45 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spike



Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 435

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Well i'd definitely check out Michael Rupperts stuff and get his book 'Crossing the Rubicon'. It was the first time i'd read something approaching a coherent explanation of how and why 9-11 could have been pulled off by whoever really did it. A lot more info has been added since then, especially around the wargames and the use of thermate to bring the towers down.

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/


> Orwellian

Cheers for the links. I saw it when RhG first put it up and I can see why it made him change his stance vis-a-vis posting on this site etc. It's very compelling and he's right to say 9-11 is now in the past. It's time to 'prepare, prepare, prepare'
_________________
We don't want the looneys taking over...
Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:28 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Kevin Barrett's 911 Interview on RT Reply with quote

Kevin Barrett's 911 Interview on RT

Controversial 9/11 truth seeker Kevin Barrett sits down for an exclusive interview with Anastasia Churkina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxa4KzT52k
Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:04 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OrwellianUK



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 26

Post Post subject: The Great Game essay - Finally!! Reply with quote

I've finally finished that essay I promised.

I have refined and added to the original article posted above, plus extended it with the rest of what I intended. Not in 3 parts after all though, just one so don't give yourself an RSI scrolling Wink

http://orwellianuk.blogspot.com/2009/10/peak-oil-great-game-and-meaning-of-911.html

You never know, I might even summon the energy to add to this blog on a frequent basis!
Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:17 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker