Forum

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

The 9/11 debate
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Peter Fainton



Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 127
Location: UK

Post Post subject: The 9/11 debate Reply with quote

I've started this forum thread for ML posters who want to discuss 9/11 issues. The forum is easy to use and people can post anything they like to it and it should prevent the ML message-board getting 'swamped' with one topic. Wink
Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Non-exhaustive List of 911 Sites Reply with quote

First off, may I provide readers with a few useful links regarding 911?

NB: These sites were mostly picked randomly for in some way challenging the official conspiracy story. Some of them, I understand, are rather off the wall so I will simply leave it to the reader to discriminate between the credible and the incredible:

The two main sites in the UK are:

http://www.truthforum.co.uk/

http://www.911forum.org.uk/

Some other useful sites are:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org./

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/?DetSta=DepSta&FirLevSel=DetSta

http://www.911smokingguns.com/

http://www.911weknow.com/

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=45

http://www.truth4peace.co.uk/

http://www.myspace.com/erichufschmid

http://ccc-media.50webs.com/

http://www.911truthcampaign.net/about/localgroups.html

http://www.911closeup.com

http://http://home.debitel.net

http://www.covertoperations.blogspot.com

http://www.team8plus.com

http://www.911foreknoledge.com

http://www.nomoregames.net

http://www.911review.org

http://www.911myths.com

http://www.culhavoc.blogsome.com

http://www.911tvfakery.blogspot.com

http://theblackpacket.no-ip.biz/main.html

http://www.911hoax.com

http://www.911tvfakery.net

http://www.911blogger.com

http://www.fluxrostrum.blogspot.com

http://www.likeanorb.com

http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com

http://www.plaguepuppy.net

www.likeanorb.com

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/359238.html

http://www.webfairy.org

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/

http://www.911blogger.com/

http://www.911proof.com/

http://www.911truth.org/

http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/

http://www.911review.org/

http://wordpress.com/tag/the-truth-movement/

http://www.911researchers.com/

http://www.wearechange.org.uk/index.html

http://www.wytruth.org.uk/index.html

http://www.wtc7.net/

http://www.septembereleventh.org/

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911GermanConnection1.htm

And a great Video on 911 by the Freebees:

http://www.4shared.com/account/file/51127785/2eda57db/Freebees_disco_911...

On Conspiracies:


http://www.harmlesswise.com/conspiracy/quotes


This List is non-exhaustive.


Last edited by cranntara on Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:14 pm; edited 9 times in total
Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:23 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: 911 False Flag - Unter falscher Flagge Reply with quote

911 False Flag - Unter falscher Flagge
http://nuoviso.com/movieDetail_911falseflag.htm

Made by Nuoviso last year or in 2006, this excellent German movie professionally and methodically focuses on the inconsistencies in the official version of the 911 events as well as on the evidence which was suppressed. In addition, it answers questions about why we still know nothing about it to this day and why we are being deceived – also in Europe.

The film touches on other false-flag operations including Bologna and 7/7. It also describes how after 7/7 the theme of Gleneagles suddenly shifted from third world debt to war and how the US Global Missile Defence is being implemented for a First Strike all-out nuclear war against Russia (and/or possibly China as well).

It clearly highlights the inextricable connection between a dangerously aggressive US military/foreign policy and how 911 was staged to create not only police states in the USA, the UK and the West but to soften up the Europeans to allow the installation of a Global Missile 'Defence' whose purpose is to conduct such an attack.

The UK Anti-War Movement should clearly understand this and join forces with the 911 Truth Movement to march against the threat under which the world is now in from a common enemy. It is quite ridiculous that the Anti-War Movement should remain politically aloof. But understandable, led as it is by a political party, the SWP, which is infested with MI5 stooges. It's another aspect of how the SWP trojan is being used by the Secret State to divide and rule us. Why do we allow ourselves to remain in this intolerable position?

You can see a high-quality version of the movie at the Nuoviso website http://nuoviso.com/movieDetail_911falseflag.htm (downloadable using, for example, free Realplayer 11 software) and an inferior version at Google, http://tinyurl.com/ytotsg

911 False Flag was made by the same people who made the Zero film shown at the 911 Conference both in Brussels and Amsterdam. It was originally produced for the German market as Unter falscher Flagge without subtitles.

Here are a few quotes from the English subtitles. As the English is slightly stilted I have made some small additions and alterations so they read better.

Oil, the Arms Industry, the Neocons & the Project for a New American Century

"The entire ruling elite of the American government and all who surround them come from large corporations and specifically out of the Oil and Weapons industry. That's Cheney, the vice-president. That's Rumsfeld who, meanwhile, has left. That's Feith, that's Wolfowitz. Perle [the Prince of Darkness] is back as one of the chief planners and many others. They joined forces prior to the election of Bush and wrote about a New American Century."

Quote:

"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a useful political tool" -Project for a New American Century.


"So in a manner the blacks must be exterminated and we must develop biological weapons that target dark skin. I mean that is a sentence from some monstrosity! ... a racially effective biological chemical weapon ... that's what these people are about. In Germany they would be thrown into prison for hate-mongering, which is where they belong."

"It's clearly stated by Wolfowitz in this document that the Americans cannot allow any other nation or any other coalition of nations to become even remotely as strong as they are. This statement correlates, interestingly enough, with their reflections about how that could be achieved through a catastrophic event similar to Pearl Harbour which would lead to a change in consciousness of US American citizens."

Need for a New Investigation

"Since 911 was exactly the Pearl Harbour that was advocated in these papers, naturally Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz are, in a sense, under suspicion. But it's not sufficient in my opinion to [just] say that they were responsible. It is only sufficient to demand a new investigation."

"And in the USA, where the Patriot Act was rushed through after the attacks [and] where civil rights are actually being successfullly dismantled, where a police state is on the way to become truly totalitarian ... Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Mazar-i-Sharif just after the invasion of Afghanistan ... these are things I would characterise as fascistic elements."

It's Oil

"It is not without reason that all of these people, starting with Bush himself, have pottered about half their lifetimes for the Oil industry. In all these matters, it is not about democracy and freedom for the Iraqis and Afghanis. Bush and Cheney couldn't care less about that."

"It's about securing the energy reserves. And now that no oil is coming out of Iraq because the whole infrastructure has been destroyed that suits OPEC and the multinational oil corporations just fine because as we see by the current price of oil they have never earned as much as they do today."

"The Americans wage war with 911. Bush drives his election campaign with 911"

[here the movie cuts to 77]

"At the same time the G8 Summit was taking place in Gleneagles ... after the [7/7] attacks the theme of Gleneagles changed completely: it's simply a disgrace how European nations, against better knowledge, act in full complicity. Where is anyone from these governments to express any form of opposition to these plans?"

Russia's Next

Putin comes out of the intelligence branch and knows, of course, about the game that is being played on the Grand Chessboard. He also knows that he or Russia is a figure on that chessboard. Now the passive figure has transformed himself into a man of action who does not accept the plans of the Americans to give the entire Russian Oil and Gas industry into the hands of the Americans vis-a-vis into the control of American firms. He has counteracted that."

Global Missile Defence: the US Plan to Attack Russia in a First Strike

"And Putin knows that this Global Missile Defence is, of course, directed against Russia ... whom else should it be directed against? The objective is the following: [the GMD] can never cover the entire area, It can only intercept a limited number of enemy missiles. And this limited number of enemy missiles is the number which is left over after a destructive pre-emptive strike by America, a certain [retaliatory] second-strike capacity of the enemy is still intact. To intercept the remainder which can still be discharged, that is the objective of the GMD. That means it is supposed to give the Americans the ability to launch a pre-emptive [first strike] attack without consequences and to remain thereby invulnerable."

Germany tied to the US

"One is unwilling to confront the facts because to do so would be to call into question the transatlantic ties which serve Germany's national interests. Every Chancellor voices this [interest]. It is fatal."

The Government is our Arch-Enemy

"We hope that our Government wants only the best for its citizens. When we suddenly realise that the government is our arch-enemy our world breaks down completely ... we do not want to believe it to be true."

Suppression of Government Criminality

"[These are questions that] lie on the tip of the tongue of anyone who has even a minimal interest in criminality. But anyone who does question is denounced as a conspiracy theorist. To present that at the risk that the Government will be exposed as a secret band of murderers which could be executed or imprisoned for life ... that must be suppressed as much as possible."

[cuts to scenes of people all over Europe and the world marching for 911 Truth]

911 must be Explained

"We would not have had all these fatal political actions had it not been for 911. It is for that reason that 911 must be explained"

The Courage to hold true to Law

"What I would wish for myself ... is courage to think logically. Also courage to express objections even against the opinions of the majority. To hold true to the basic rule of law and international law and to demand it of others ..."

The Truth must be Told

"We must see to it that more and more people know what is really going on, what the motives behind it are. They must simply know what the motives behind it are. They must simply know that what we have been told is not true ... we know from history that governments are capable of doing anything. They can commit unbelievable crimes. They can sacrifice their own citizens to sell to the people a plan, a strategy, a preconceived decision to go to war."

First reviewed on Chimes of Freedom
http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/2008/03/911-false-flag-unter-falscher-flagge.html


Last edited by cranntara on Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:55 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

ITALIAN SAYS 9-11 SOLVED

It’s common knowledge, he reveals, CIA, Mossad behind terror attacks

By the Staff of American Free Press




Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

“All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.

Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and ’80s. Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they termed “false flag” operations—terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcherWebster Tarpley saying “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America’s propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.

(Issue #52, December 24, 2007)
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html
Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rich



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 15

Post Post subject: 911 Mysteries Part 1 (DVD) Reply with quote

Hi Peter,

Thanks for starting this thread.

The sheer impact and power of 911 and the mass belief in the official story disseminated by the unquestioning MSM, enabled Bush & Blair to launch illegal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, causing over one million deaths and to tear up the rights of millions of us in the US/UK.

Even the 42 days detention goes back to 911.

Every day on the "news" we hear "since 911" "since 911" over and over again like a mantra.

But there's a flip side to 911, which is that when enough of us realise that the whole thing is a scam, that the "war on terror" is a fraud, then the power of 911 might well be reversed.

I spent five years intensively reading and researching 911 (2001 - mid 2006).
There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that 911 was an inside job and I suggest that the strongest evidence is the nature of the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 and 7.

If I had to choose one single piece of media to show that 911 was an inside job then it would be this film, 911 Mysteries Part 1, which can be watched in three parts here:
http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=31

It only takes one pin to burst a balloon.

The twin Towers did not collapse because they were hit by the planes, or because of fire - they were literally obliterated by pre-planted explosives from the top down.
Building 7, a 500 feet high steel framed building, was not hit by any aircraft and was explosively demolished from the bottom upwards.

This film concentrates mainly on the collapse of the buildings in NYC.

You can buy this excellent DVD at the above link for only $12.5 inc. postage to the UK - that's about 6 quid folks!
I did - it's well worth the money and a great place to start especially for anyone not familiar with the 911 inside job conspiracy.
Running time approx. 90 mins.

I also highly recommend the books, articles and speeches by David Ray Griffin.

Best wishes,
Rich.
Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:05 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Fainton



Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 127
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Rich,

thanks for kicking off the debate. It's a subject that a lot of people are interested in. The 42 days issue, which you raised, goes back 800 years to the principles in law laid down in Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215 at Runnymede. So that pre-dates 9/11 in my view, but I know where you're coming from. I think if I include all of the posts from the thread then this will help those that want to debate the issues get started.

Cheers

=================================================

Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 11:31 am

Further down the message board this morning is a post with a link to the Amy Goodman programme on Democracy Now in which she interviews an American prosecutor who has definitive proof that Blair and Bush were intent on war and knew that they had no justification for it. The Iraq war a conspiracy.

con·spir·a·cy Audio Help /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1325–75; ME conspiracie, prob. < AF; see conspire, -acy; r. ME conspiracioun; see conspiration]

—Synonyms 1. collusion, sedition. 2. Conspiracy, plot, intrigue, cabal all refer to surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish some end, most often an evil one. A conspiracy usually involves a group entering into a secret agreement to achieve some illicit or harmful objective: a vicious conspiracy to control prices. A plot is a carefully planned secret scheme, usually by a small number of persons, to secure sinister ends: a plot to seize control of a company. An intrigue usually involves duplicity and deceit aimed at achieving either personal advantage or criminal or treasonous objectives: the petty intrigues of civil servants. Cabal refers either to a plan by a small group of highly-placed persons to overthrow or control a government, or to the group of persons themselves: a cabal of powerful lawmakers.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Was 9/11 an inside job? Pooh pooh, say the left elite for some weird reason - as if it were unthinkable that anyone could behave as badly as all that. And yet we have just seen played out in front of our eyes a vast conspiracy in which hundreds of millions of people are either complicitly or unthinkingly playing their part. It's unquestionably true to say that Bush and Blair conspired to start a war. They also conspired to keep their motives disguised as best they could. That is a conspiracy - plain and simple. As with lesser conspiracies, they had willing accomplices and they lied to the far greater number they believed wouldn't do what they were asked if they knew the real reasons. These are all bog standard elements of a conspiracy. People who should have known better believed their lies and the conspiracy gathered pace until it was an unstoppable force and went on to secure it's objective: the destruction of an entire country and the seizure of its oil reserves.

In contrast, 9/11 was childsplay for these ambitious conspirators. Especially since they had total control over the means and the territory - and also over creating the opportunity to bring it about. We are talking about collapsing a few buildings by flying some planes into them. In practical terms, practically a nothing compared to what was planned and executed for/in Iraq, Chile, East Timor and lots of other places.

What is wrong with people that they won't question the convenient fact of this lesser conspiracy (9/11)in facilitating the far greater one? Three buildings collapse in their own footprint in front of our eyes. Most of us think 'hey, that looks just like a demolition'. We're not wrong, that's exactly what it was, of course.

We know that there was Saudi involvement - that almost all of the hijackers were Saudi. We know equally that the Saudi government is best friends with the US administration particularly with the Bush oil dynasty. Personally, I believe that extreme muslim feelings were exploited and young men who believed they were striking a blow for Al Qaida and Islam were in fact being exploited by people they trusted, just ike US soldiers in Iraq.

Meanwhile, intelligent folk who for some peculiar reason are embarrassed to be associated with people asking the questions that begged to be asked and who ridicule them for observing the obvious, play their own disastrous part in the conspiracy by hindering what should be an urgent attempt to make the truth known. The vacuum created by their failure has duly been filled by much fanciful speculating. We debate endlessly about what really happened behind the scenes to bring the Iraq war about. We've gotten very close to the full truth now. We should end the idiotic taboo over discussing 9/11 for what it was.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by marc on June 14, 2008, 12:20 pm, in reply to "Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"


Thanks for this Miriam. We run scared of the 'conspiracy' smear because -in my opinion - the word has been conflated (on dozens of dodgy disinfo websites) with ufo/hologram/warlock/princess di groupie claptrap.
Examples of conspiracies:
- a rugby team conspires over new strategy in the dressing room
- two managers conspire to open an off-shore account
- three kids conspire to sneak to the kitchen and raid the cookie jar.
Conspiracies exist, always have and always will. We are handicapped if we do not make connections, draw the organograms and draw logical deductions - for fear of being labelled 'nutty'.

"The commonly perceived notion that Richard Nixon and his staff were actively covering up complicity in the Watergate break-in did not consititute a 'conspiracy theory'. It was good old-fashioned journalism based on the avaliable evidence and whistle-blowers." - John Albanese, director.

One one hand, 911 is a pretty obvious fraud, and as you say, not rocket science. On the other hand, psychologically speaking, 9/11 is almost too big to fit into one box because it involves us accepting that Daddy lies and kills.
There is too much bickering over what’s true and what’s not around 911 (again on the plethora of slick disinfo websites) which diverts us from the main question: Was there foreknowledge of what happened? If so, who was responsible?

* ‘Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity’ – Marshall McLuhan

* “Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation. Journalists don't even raise the simplest questions; those who differ are labelled crazy." – Ex-German Defence Minister Andreas Von Bulow.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Sonmiani on June 14, 2008, 12:49 pm, in reply to "Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Miriam, I am in complete sympathy with your frustration with the disparagement of 'conspiracy theorists'. Are we to believe that in 1953 British intelligence, together with the CIA, arranged the coup that brought down Mossadeq's government, but managed to do it without conspiring towards it? Clearly the question itself doesn't make sense. The same goes for Chile, for Guatemala, for Nicaragua, for any covert operation - the list is endless. Everyone who posts on this board subscribes to the notion that a small elite of immensely wealthy and powerful people conspire, through government, through propaganda, through economic manipulation, to maintain their monopoly on wealth and power, and to hide their true motives from the wider public. Everyone on this board is a 'conspiracy theorist', although in reality, there is no such thing - there is only conspiracy, and speculation, in individual cases, as to whether or not conspiracy has taken place. That there is a special category of people who are "conspiracy theorists" and to be derided as such is a reactionary smear to discredit the notion that what you see and hear is not necessarily the truth. It's shabby, it's lazy, it's deeply irresponsible, and history proves, again and again, that it's completely wrong. I don't know whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, but as you say, I'm certainly not going to dismiss the possibility on the grounds that the people who conspired to take us into an illegal war against the wishes of the majority, and conspired to deceive the public in order to achieve their aims, were not capable of such a crime. That seems to me to be staggering naivety. Anyone subscribing to the view that 'conspiracy theorists' are a psychological breed apart had better think long and hard before posting anything that suggests our political leaders are not being entirely honest with us - that involves conspiracy to deceive, and the 'theory' that our leaders indulge in such practices.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Ron F (RonF) on June 14, 2008, 1:23 pm, in reply to "Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Three buildings collapse in their own footprint in front of our eyes.

So the huge chunk taken out of WTC7 by falling debris from the North Tower was caused by something else?

What, exactly?

We should end the idiotic taboo over discussing 9/11 for what it was.

Plenty of other forums for doing that, especially ones that are happy to entertain bold claims with zero evidence.

===============================================

Foreword to "The New Pearl Harbor" written by David Ray Griffin - by Richard Falk
Posted by gabriele on June 14, 2008, 1:45 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Hi RonF,

I guess you know and respect Richard Falk (Chomsky does).

Falk wrote the Foreword to "The New Pearl Harbor" written by David Ray Griffin:

David Ray Griffin has written an extraordinary book. If carefully read with only a 30% open mind, it is almost certain to alter negatively the way we understand the workings of constitutional democracy in the United States at the highest levels of government. As such, this is a disturbing book, depicting a profound crisis of political legitimacy for the most powerful sovereign state in the history of the world, and furthermore, a country embarked on the first ever borderless war with no markers of victory and defeat. If The New Pearl Harbor receives the sort of public and media attention that it abundantly deserves, it should alter the public debate, and exert a positive influence on how the future unfolds. It is rare, indeed, that any book has this potentiality to become a force of history.

What makes The New Pearl Harbor so special is that it explores the most sensitive and controversial terrain&emdash;the broad landscape of official behavior in relation to the 9/11 disaster&emdash;in the best spirit of academic detachment coupled with an exemplary display of the strongest scholarly virtue: a willingness to allow inquiry to follow the path of evidence and reason wherever it leads. And it leads here to explosive destinations that raise severe doubts about the integrity and worldview of our leadership in those parts of the government that exercise the greatest control over the behavior and destiny of the country, particularly in the area of national security, including war overseas and the stifling of liberties at home. But Griffin's relentless questioning on the basis of evidence assembled by others that cannot be reconciled with the official accounts of 9/11 is just that. It does not purport to be conclusionary or accusatory. What it does do brilliantly is to create an overwhelming argument for a comprehensive, unhampered, and fully funded investigation, with suitable prominence, of the entire story of how and why 9/11 happened, as well as why such an unprecedented breakdown of national security was not fully and immediately investigated as a matter of the most urgent national priority. There are so many gaping holes in the official accounts of 9/11 that no plausible coherent narrative remains, and we must go forward as if the truth about these traumatic events no longer matters.

Griffin shows, with insight and a firm grasp of the many dimensions of global security policy of the Bush Administration, that getting 9/11 right, even belatedly, matters desperately. The layer upon layer of unexplained facts, the multiple efforts by those in power to foreclose independent inquiry, and the evidence of a pre-9/11 blueprint by Bush insiders to do what they are doing on the basis of a 9/11 mandate is why the Griffin assessment does not even require a reader with a normally open mind. As suggested, 30% receptivity will do, which means that all but the most dogmatically blinded adherents of the Bush presidency will be convinced by the basic argument of The New Pearl Harbor.

It should be underscored that this book does not belong in the genre of "conspiracy theories." It is a painstakingly scrupulous look at the evidence, and an accounting of the numerous discrepancies between the official account provided by the U.S. Government and the best information available. It refrains from explaining these discrepancies, except by implication. It refrains also from pointing fingers at those who are responsible for this disregard of the obligation of our democratically elected government to show respect for the right of citizens to know the truth about the momentous events that have shaken the foundations of the republic as never before. A growing number of observers here and abroad no longer consider the United States to be a republic, but more accurately understood as an empire, aspiring to be the first truly global empire in history.

continues http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Falk_GriffinForeword.html

Link: http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Falk_GriffinForeword.html

===============================================

Re: Sick and Tired - Ron's reply
Posted by marc on June 14, 2008, 2:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"


@ Ron - "So the huge chunk taken out of WTC7 by falling debris from the North Tower was caused by something else? What, exactly? "

I think the point here is whether that particular chunk you refer to, which represents a percentage of the total building structure - coupled with office furniture fires on floors 7 and 12 - was sufficient to cause the universal, rapid and symmetrical descent of the entire building at 5.20pm? Scientists and engineers have presented papers at www.journalof911studies.com dealing with this issue.

You also say - "Plenty of other forums for doing that (discussing the seminal 911 event), especially ones that are happy to entertain bold claims with zero evidence."

Exactly. As I said in my post, 'plenty of other forums'- which host "bold [911] claims with zero evidence" also link to dodgy UFO/cropcircle/illuminati chitchat and are best avoided.
If we are to advance the 911 discourse, we need to stick to hard fact and verifiable evidence and steer clear of "bold" and nonsensensical forums at all costs.
Disinformation serves to obfuscate and obscure. It conflates fact with fantasy; it smears verifiable fact by association with fantasy, the better to render it unusable.
911 analysis - deliberately or not - has been hampered by this disinformation. Interestingly, many have now wised up to this and give a wide berth to it. Many refuse to get drawn into the type of circular discussion you now propose.
Let engineers, scientists and demolition experts engage in informed debate on this issue.
The real objective of disinformation, remember, is not to persuade us of 'the official account' but to create so much uncertainty that 'everything is believable and nothing is knowable.
Ron, have you at the very least read "911 Commission: Omissions and Distortions"? It makes a bold assertion but provides lengthy, footnoted evidence.

===============================================

Re: Sick and Tired - Ron's reply
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 2:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and Tired - Ron's reply"

Well said Mark. Though I agree with everythng you say, the eds dont want us debating the merits of the hypotheses so Im hoping we can all stick to the real point of what I hoped to discuss - why folk like us are treated the way we are on this issue by people who are ordinarily friends. I feel like Im in Invasion of the Body Snatchers at times - I dont understand the vehemence of the anger and extremely unpleasant derision.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 2:34 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

I know what I saw and it was the same thing billions of people saw too. Either way, I didn't post this thread to talk about what happened on 9/11 but rather to talk about why some left wing people in particular are so viciously angry about this that they go about intimidating people who want a discussion of the possibilities. 9/11 was definitely not an accident. So it's appropriate - essential - to understand exactly the what, who and why of it. From the evidence I've seen, I don't believe a word that Bush and his cabal of fellow conspiracists have to say about it. I don't believe a word they have to say about anything, come to think of it. But I'm happy for you that you appear to be satisfied with their explanation. I don't feel any antagonism towards you for your view - neither do I feel superior to you because I think you have got it wrong. We may interpret the evidence differently but I don't understand why a lot of people with your perspective seem to feel superior about this. You have no cause to at all.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 2:36 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

That last message should say conspirators where it says conspirators i.e. 'Bush and his fellow conspirators'

===============================================

Photoshop
Posted by eelpie (rowlandm) on June 14, 2008, 4:28 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Looks like a touched-up photo to me. And how come it is only emerging now? People have been looking high and low for this view for years...

===============================================

Re: Photoshop
Posted by smb1971 (sbirmingham) on June 14, 2008, 7:28 pm, in reply to "Photoshop"

This photo was published years ago. There are websites and discussion boards (with contributions from engineers) that attempt to refute various claims -- perhaps you should visit them?

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by The Editors on June 14, 2008, 2:02 pm, in reply to "Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Thanks Miriam. We hosted plenty of this material before and this board pretty quickly filled up with posts on pods, napalm bombs and so on that rendered it useless for its intended purpose - a serious resource for media activists.

It's not a free speech issue - anyone can start a blog or website devoted to these topics in an instant; they can even post to their heart's content in our own forum (very happy for people to post there). Or there are the many websites happy to discuss this material endlessly. We just don't want it on this particular board.

Eds

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by scrabble on June 14, 2008, 2:07 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Amen.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on June 14, 2008, 2:30 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"



--Previous Message--
: Thanks Miriam. We hosted plenty of this
: material before and this board pretty
: quickly filled up with posts on pods, napalm
: bombs and so on that rendered it useless for
: its intended purpose - a serious resource
: for media activists.
:
: It's not a free speech issue - anyone can
: start a blog or website devoted to these
: topics in an instant; they can even post to
: their heart's content in our own forum (very
: happy for people to post there). Or there
: are the many websites happy to discuss this
: material endlessly. We just don't want it on
: this particular board.
:
: Eds

That's right! Though guilty myself of just touching on bits of the most cogent evidence, on this board, I do agree that it -- this board -- shouldn't get clogged up with the irrelevancies (on a free speech website) of technical and engineering detail.

But still: really it IS a free speech issue, because any attempt to make even a reasoned and sane outline of the realities, as has been done so excellently by the posters to this thread (and real thanks for that everyone), is immediately smothered by people screaming "Conspiracy nutjobs burbling! Nothing to see here! Move along please!"

Even the great Noam -- to my continuing astonishment -- seems to be of this persuasion. I suspect that one or both of you guys are too, Eds. Jim Kunstler, whose work I love and even respect rather highly, replied to me in an email just recently that the very NOTION that the atrocities MIGHT have been an inside job was "####ing nonsens" and that it was paranoid to entertain even the hypothesis, and he just couldn't converse about it.

This topic, almost uniquely, seems to polarise people sharply, and to bring out in the deniers a really unusual level of need-to-deny, which I surmise to be emotionally-driven, though I just don't understand it at all clearly myself.

But, much as I lurve y'all, Eds, I have to say that I do think that this is a free-speech issue.

Now come on Emil, Jimbob! Where are ya, lads! Get in here with the passionate rubbishing......

===============================================

PS: Everything that Falk says about DRG is spot on. DRG is a serious, impressive investigator. (NM)
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on June 14, 2008, 2:34 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

==============================================

The Authoritarian personality
Posted by eelpie (rowlandm) on June 14, 2008, 4:43 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

"I just don't understand it".

People are brought up to obey authority, not to think.

Thinking for themselves makes authoritarian personalities extremely uncomfortable.

The classic example of the authoritarian personality is "Earl" Haig, the WWI commander who ordered tens of thousands to their deaths time after time without reviewing his tactics.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 2:40 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

I was busy writing my last post while you posted this one but I hope that you will see that I dont want to discuss 9/11 here at all. The issue that concerns me is the silencing of debate through intimidation - the way we discuss it around any other issue - the caraicturing and characterisation that people are subjected to for thinking that it was an inside job. It's a different subject, no?

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 2:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

I understand that and agree that the board would be swamped and therefore it is entirely reasonable for you to say that it would interfere with your purpose. However, Im not talking about what happened on 9/11, Im talking about the way people who think 9/11 was an inside job are ridiculed and intimidated. What I hoped to thrash out was why the people who believe the official explanation feel they are superior and infallible about this. There are no grounds for it, at all. So Rhisiart is right, I am talking about the free speech element of it and have no intention of posting picutres and arguing military failures or whatever. Id hoped we might contrast and compare the responses to this issue. Incidentally I was busy writing my last post when you posted yours so I did not intend to ignore what you said if it seemed that I did.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by marc on June 14, 2008, 2:52 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Dear Eds
"We hosted plenty of this
: material before and this board pretty
: quickly filled up with posts on pods, napalm
: bombs and so on that rendered it useless for
: its intended purpose - a serious resource
: for media activists. "

Thanks for saying this. It's good that medialens spells out exactly what its parameters are.
As serious media activists highlighting lacunae in the mainstream media, though, must we then ignore the glaring lacuna that sees the works of D R Griffin and Barrie Zwicker ignored on the book review pages; must we accept that Christopher Hitchens is called up to debate 911 on TV, but not Griffin, who would quietly counter him in minutes?

"From the need to soften the impact of threatening information, lacunas arise. They operate on attention, through a variety of tactics, all of which filter the flow of information." - Daniel Goleman, Vital Lies, Simple Truths.

As far as your "pod planes, napalm" point - I couldn't agree more - and I refer again to the huge amount of disinformation (some of which I have come to regard as deliberate)that clouds this issue. One can hardly blame media outlets for failing to unpack the information and, rather, dismissing the entire overwhelming package as 'non-serious' and threatening to their reputations.

===============================================

Yep, right on Marc! C'mon Eds: This really is an honest-free-speech issue, no? (NM)
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on June 14, 2008, 3:00 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

===============================================

Re: Yep, right on Marc! C'mon Eds: This really is an honest-free-speech issue, no? (NM)
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 3:43 pm, in reply to "Yep, right on Marc! C'mon Eds: This really is an honest-free-speech issue, no? (NM)"

Yes! Although a discussion of the events themselves would almost certainly swamp this board, there does seem to be a double standard in that we would be permitted to discuss as much as we wished the merits of the evidence for, say, whether or not the Iranians were actively encouraging the resistance in Iraq. And on reflection, and in contrast to what I said earlier, the Eds line is maybe comparable to the Independent or whoever saying to Media Lens that the reason it does not review its Guardians of Power theories about the media is that there are plenty of other places where it might be done. Of course against that is the fact that unlike The Independent, the ML messageboard is an open space which has to be managed in the interests of the site's overall purpose. And swamping would definitely be an issue with this topic - admittedly.

What I'd appreciate from the Eds is an acknowledgement that, whatever the logistics of editing this message board, it is reasonable, fair and ordinarily intelligent in all the known circumstances for people to say they are sceptical of the 9/11 official account and to examine and discuss the possibility that it was an inside job - even if they cannot let us do it here. And further, that it is not right that anyone who wants to do that should be intimidated, censored or ridiculed. The sensible, fact-based discussion of the issue that Marc advocates is being undermined on two sides - on th eone hand the genuinely loony speculating of some folk - and on the other the inexplicable and concrete-set refusal even to enetertain the possibility of an inside job let alone discuss it.

===============================================

Whoever carried off 911, it unleashed a 'gloves off' mentality
Posted by marc on June 14, 2008, 4:04 pm, in reply to "Yep, right on Marc! C'mon Eds: This really is an honest-free-speech issue, no? (NM)"

Putting aside the finer details of 911 discussion, the issues that erupted out of that core event are so plentiful there is still much to discuss.
Five days after 911, Dick Cheney made the following policy announcement:

"We also have to work, though, sort of on the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world.
"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful.
"That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective."
Which brings to mind the words of ex-German Minister of Defence Andreas von Bulow:
“Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation. Journalists don't even raise the simplest questions; those who differ are labelled crazy."

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Thomas (Wonderboy) on June 14, 2008, 3:41 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Although her example was 911 based, Miriam's post was clearly about the treatment of 'conspiracy theorists' in general (of which 911 is admitedly the biggest).

Can I take it that there is a similar ban on discussing the probable assasination of Dr David Kelly, as that too may require the review of technical information and the debunking of disinformation?

===============================================

There's a real quandary here, Eds. What do you think? (NM)
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on June 14, 2008, 4:13 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by maryb on June 14, 2008, 4:18 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Why should we be silenced and where else can we discuss the merits and demerits of the subject? This is such an important matter and formed the hinge upon which all the horror of Iraq took place which is still happening there and in Afghanistan.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9201

David Ray Griffin is speaking in Ottawa under the auspices of Michel Chossudovsky who would not put his name to a cause he did not believe in. Chossudovsky is the author of America's War on Terror which includes chapters on 9/11.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html

There is a page of links to related articles on the Global Research website

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=18

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by marc on June 14, 2008, 4:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Just a thought. If I was running a site and didn't want to be swamped by a particular subject that was vulnerable to ridicule by the mainstream; i would perhaps look at strict guidelines like (a) no posting up of lengthy articles with myriad photos - as Ron F posted. Links only (b)a requirement that quotes, comments be sourced and/or referenced - which would keep info verifiable and helpful. As one of the Guardian's CIF editors' recently noted - groups are remarkably good at 'self-policing' or 'winkling out' or 'exposing' the shills, trolls, time-wasters and kooks among their number.
That said, perhaps it's like trying to manage a bunch of eels in a bathtub. I'm not sure.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on June 14, 2008, 6:52 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

As one of the
: Guardian's CIF editors' recently noted -
: groups are remarkably good at
: 'self-policing' or 'winkling out' or
: 'exposing' the shills, trolls, time-wasters
: and kooks among their number.
: That said, perhaps it's like trying to
: manage a bunch of eels in a bathtub. I'm not
: sure.

No, I think that's right, Marc. It should be possible to keep discussion up to the standard of the best 'truth' sites, and more or less on the free-speech tack that this Board hosts. In any case, the Eds. seem to interpret that remit pretty tolerantly.

But this is a matter which sorely needs the light of honest discussion up to high standards of intellectual care, and with an absence of emotion-driven rubbishing.(Whatever the reasons may be -- and I'm open to persuasion on that -- there's no doubt that this topic does seem to stir up almost uniquely a lot of angry irrationality, even in people of whom you'd never expect it)

On the other hand, I for one would be pretty short with the sort of intellectually-puerile tosh which has disfigured a lot of the attempted sober discussion on the net. And yes, you're right I think: a measure of that has surely been black-ops sith-stirring by the agents of the gangsters-in-charge, deliberately trying to discredit the serious investigators by association, and to confuse and turn off tyro seekers after truth. I can't believe that I'd be the only one posting to this board who'd take such tosh/poison to task, either, thinking of the other familiar voices here.

In the end, isn't this a matter of the honour of Medialen? Yes, literally: that for a free-speech website dedicated to publishing the truth in all its dishevelled variety, nothing whatever can be taboo, so long as it observes the very basic decorums of sound discussion and kindly mutual respect?

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by peter fainton on June 14, 2008, 6:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

"I've started this forum thread for ML posters who want to discuss 9/11 issues. The forum is easy to use and people can post anything they like to it and it should prevent the ML message-board getting 'swamped' with one topic."

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9345#9345

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 7:06 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

But Peter why should this particular discussion -which is about the legitimacy of having a reasonable discussion about 9/11 - be hidden away on a kind of secret or less public part of the site? This is as relevant and important a topic as any other on the board.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by peter fainton on June 14, 2008, 7:43 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Well it's not exactly hidden away is it? I mean you can post here and link to the forum all the time as John and one or two others do. It's not 'secret' just because it's in the forum - in fact it has more permanent presence. Stuff on the MB just rolls off into the ether. I'm not saying it's not a relevant subject, just that it attracts polarised opinion and a heavy volume of debate - much of which has nothing to do with the role of the media, which is what the MB is all about really. And, as the Eds have pointed out there are plenty of other websites devoted to the issue or people can start their own if they wish. Why should a media MB become just another 9/11 website? I agree with the Eds on this one.

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 8:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Peter I understand what you say below but it doesn't relate at all to the specific issues I raised for discussion. See a few posts up the thread.
Kind regards
Miriam

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Thomas (Wonderboy) on June 14, 2008, 8:22 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Miriam,

I believe the underlying issue here is that the Editors think that MediaLens must, in the final analysis, remain 'respectable' to have any kind of impact on the mainstream press. Therefore, they cannot risk any of the 'crazy by proxy' arguments being given any air - in a similar way to the whole 'Aaronovitch/Zionism' thing a while back. I don't agree with this reasoning, but I can understand it.

Of course, you and I and many others on this board understand that there is nothing 'crazy' about wanting to understand what really happened on 911 but we must always keep in mind that this issue is a bridge too far for some people, including possibly the Eds. To quote David Lynch: "it's just too big".

This is not suprising, since ML can fairly be described as Chomskyite (as am I on 99% of issues) and the great man is on the record as dismissing 911 investigation as "diverting people from serious issues' and adding that "even if it were true...who cares?". He has form in this respect, notably accusing researchers into the Kennedy assasination of suffering from a 'Camelot complex'.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3350935472755997043&q=chomsky+911&ei=cA5USM_FGYSEjwLBv-DhDg

And so we can hear NC giving quite brazen statements like "anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount the evidence". Ergo, in NC's view Professor Stephen Earl Jones, despite holding a Phd in Physics, must not know anything about sciences since, not only has he not discounted the evidence, he advocates a controlled demolition theory. The same must apply to Profs Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider for their conclusions on WTC7. Chomsky, as we all know,holds his qualifications in linguistics.

The only conclusion I take from this is that we need to accept that everyone has their limits. Chomsky knows a great deal and is an excellent resource, but he doesn't know everything. He isn't infallible, and has no qualms about offering opinions on issues he knows little about (though, in fairness, he almost always qualifies these as 'personal opinions'). Sure, I would prefer Chomsky either to look into these issues more seriously or to remain silent about them altogether (because for some people everything he says is Gospel, be it a personal opinion or a referenced article) - but so what?

Likewise, ML sees its role as challenging the mainstream media on certain issues within their own personal boundaries - we may not understand or agree with these boundaries - but so what?

This is not to dismiss the issue you have raised, which I agree with. I understand completely your frustration - I often feel it myself. But just as I would not expect to conduct a debate on the Propoganda Model on the Times Forum - where the Eds and the users would in all probability not be able or willing to rationally discuss the issue, so too 911 on this messageboard. Whether or not we want either of those things to be true is secondary.

Thomas

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Miriam (Miriamcotton) on June 14, 2008, 8:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

" Whether or
: not we want either of those things to be
: true is secondary."

Agree with all you say except this last. Why is it secondary?

===============================================

Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing
Posted by Thomas (Wonderboy) on June 14, 2008, 9:26 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

I just meant that how we want things to be should be considered secondary to how things are. Since, how does one move towards what they would prefer if they don't know where they are moving from or what obstacles they are facing?

Likewise, we may not like ML's policy with regard to this issue, but our emotions should be secondary in trying to understand why this policy should be the case, otherwise we'll get nowhere.

===============================================

911 Forum
Posted by Thomas (Wonderboy) on June 14, 2008, 7:09 pm, in reply to "Re: Sick and tired of conspiracy theorist bashing"

Unfortunately, despite opening it on the 11th April my Forum account is still inactive and "the administrator of the board will need to activate it before you can log in". Can I be the only one with this problem?

===============================================

Re: 911 Forum
Posted by peter fainton on June 14, 2008, 7:57 pm, in reply to "911 Forum"

I should think so. Have you raised it with Olly, the administrator? He normally sorts these problems pretty quickly.

===============================================

Re: 911 Forum
Posted by Thomas (Wonderboy) on June 14, 2008, 9:27 pm, in reply to "Re: 911 Forum"


Not a conspiracy then?

Cheers for the info.

===============================================
Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:43 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The 42 days issue, which you raised, goes back 800 years to the principles in law laid down in Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215 at Runnymede. So that pre-dates 9/11 in my view, but I know where you're coming from.


Peter, I'm sure you know where I'm coming from on this too but for the sake of other readers let me make my concerns very clear: many of us believe that 911 (and after that several other false-flag incidents including 7/7) were orchestrated as an excuse to curtail our liberties on both sides of the Atlantic. And that is exactly what happened. Further, it was used as the excuse for illegal wars both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Yes, the occupation of Afghanistan is illegal because the UN Security Council has no legal remit to declare war on any country. It can use sanctions but it cannot use military force. So the oft-claimed legality of Security Council authorisation for the occupation of Afghanistan by politicians is so much nonsense.

A short while after the attacks on the Twin Towers I was listening to the BBC World Service in the Maldive Islands where I was doing a stint as an English teacher. The BBC was good enough to interview Noam Chomsky who accurately predicted that the long-term danger that arose from 911 was that it would be used by the government to curtail our civil liberties.

Well, we have seen how right he was. And as Rich correctly states, the 42-Day Detention deceit stems directly from the sham 'War on Terror' that the faking of 911 justified. It is astounding that in our country a bunch of opportunist and quisling politicians were allowed to use this fakery to take away 800 years of constitutional liberties.

It is crystal clear to many of us that 911 was not only orchestrated as another Pearl Harbor (of the kind that Rumsfeld and the PNAC Neo-cons envisaged would be necessary to implement their plans for global domination) but that it was meant to be a sort of ritual Gateway, blood-sacrifice calculated to terrorise and traumatise the public into a state of complete passivity. The passivity that has enabled both the US and UK governments to turn their countries into police states.

Some argue that Bushco and Blair were simply not smart enough to bring about an operation like 911. Bushco and Blair are only just politician puppets carrying out the schemes of the kind of powers that have traditionally manipulated events in order to achieve their ends.

Conspiracies? Indeed, yes. The wealthy elite have always conspired so. An excellent book on the subject of how the Anglo-American fraternities conspired to bring about two world wars is Guido Giacomo Preparata's Conjuring Hitler* which I would recommend highly to anyone who wishes to understand how such conspiracies are planned and carried-out.

In a world where the Rule of Law has to be trashed in order that war crimes can be committed and got away with, conspiracies are necessary. And we have seen how the Mainstream Media has played a significant role in helping to consolidate the conspiracy of which 911 was merely the gateway.

As Blair pointed out not much long after, the kaleidoscope had been shaken and when the pieces fell back into place we found ourselves in a new world. A new world indeed. One that was calculatedly prepared for us by the carrying-out of mass murder by our own rulers and the state of terror they brought about subsequently.
__________________________________________________

*About the Book
http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=136681

Nazism is usually depicted as the outcome of political blunders and unique economic factors: we are told that it could not be prevented, and that it will never be repeated.

In this explosive book, Guido Giacomo Preparata shows that the truth is very different: using meticulous economic analysis, he demonstrates that Hitler's extraordinary rise to power was in fact facilitated -- and eventually financed -- by the British and American political classes during the decade following World War I.

Through a close analysis of events in the Third Reich, Preparata unveils a startling history of Anglo-American geopolitical interests in the early twentieth century. He explains that Britain, still clinging to its empire, was terrified of an alliance forming between Germany and Russia. He shows how the UK, through the Bank of England, came to exercise control over Weimar Germany and how Anglo-American financial support for Hitler enabled the Nazis to seize power.

This controversial study shows that Nazism was not regarded as an aberration: for the British and American establishment of the time, it was a convenient way of destabilising Europe and driving Germany into conflict with Stalinist Russia, thus preventing the formation of any rival continent power bloc.

Guido Giacomo Preparata lays bare the economic forces at play in the Third Reich, and identifies the key players in the British and American establishment who aided Hitler's meteoric rise.

Published by Pluto Press. Distributed in the United States by the University of Michigan Press.


Last edited by cranntara on Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:46 pm; edited 3 times in total
Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:48 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raoul Djukanovic



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 385
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Lewis Lapham said it all (very well, in an FT article disparaged by a faith-based reasoner and posted to the message board last week):

Quote:
The conclusion of the 9/11 Commission - the official story - is that the 2001 attacks got through because those charged with protecting America had not truly conceived of the threat: in its author's evocative phrase, they had suffered a "failure of imagination". After trawling the internet in search of 9/11 Truth, it seems to me the American imagination is strong. "Americans are very good at dreaming up these scenarios," says Lewis Lapham, the former Harper's magazine editor and a prominent critic of the Bush administration post-September 11. "We are open to all kinds of magical theories," he says, citing the continuing fascination with the assassination of JFK. "We are also good at creating religions." Lapham thinks the theory that 9/11 was an inside job follows in this long tradition, but also reflects cynicism among Americans towards their government. He does not accept that the Bush administration planned 9/11 or even allowed it to happen. Nonetheless, he thinks a new investigation is warranted. In 2004, Harper's ran a trenchant piece describing the 9/11 Commission as a "whitewash" and a "cheat and a fraud" for downplaying evidence that warnings of the al-Qaeda threat were ignored. Such flaws allowed space for alternative theories to develop, Lapham says.


This far and no further... Wink

The rest is simply speculation, with evidence against much of it widely available.

Anyone who says "9/11 is an inside job" has by definition chosen faith over facts.

If they think otherwise, they'll need some solid evidence to convince anyone, which is what always seems to be lacking in these debates.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of... etcetc

Quote:
Whitewash as public service:
How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation
By Benjamin DeMott

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080234
Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:32 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
noamswampy



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 4

Post Post subject: Falsifiable, therefore scientific ;-) conspiracy theory Reply with quote

Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:45 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Fainton



Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 127
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks all. I only really kicked this off to show how easy the forum is to use. In relation to 9/11 I don't have any firm conviction about whether it was or was not an inside job. I'm pretty open minded about it really. I've a copy of Ckomsky's 9-11, which I've not read yet. I did start it but got distracted with other things.

On any issue like this it is facts that matter, and to claim an 'inside-job' then there must be evidence to support the claim. As Raoul notes:


Quote:
Anyone who says "9/11 is an inside job" has by definition chosen faith over facts.

If they think otherwise, they'll need some solid evidence to convince anyone, which is what always seems to be lacking in these debates.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of... etcetc


I agree that evidence is needed. That would be evidence of planning, training, facilitating, financing and strategy documents that show how and why it is necessary and what are the ultimate aims, goals and objectives with the strategy and who's signed on, who is for or against, etc.

Of course, for an 'inside job' of this scale there would be plenty of bureaucratic evidence, planning documents, minutes of meetings, etc.

Does anyone have any solid evidence that supports the claim it was an 'inside job'? I'd be interested to see these documents and/or testimony of those involved.
Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:52 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Of course, for an 'inside job' of this scale there would be plenty of bureaucratic evidence, planning documents, minutes of meetings, etc.


Not necessarily. If 911 was perpetrated by Mossad and the CIA as ex-Italian PM, Cossiga, says then all the kind of evidence you suggest is going to be deeply hidden in two compartmentalised secret services. It is highly unlikely that 911 was perpetrated by the Bush administration as Raoul suggests. People like Bush and Blair were mere puppets in a conspiracy that was hatched by America's secret government, the planners, movers and shakers behind the never-ending conspiracies.

The use of 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative that was deliberately coined as a term of abuse and discrediting. In the real world we live in conspiracies go on all the time. Hence, to use pejoratives such as 'conspiracy theorist' is in itself a declaration of interests and a choice to believe in the official government conspiracy theory involving Bin Laden, Al-CIAduh et al.

Even Raoul seems to agree that the 911 Commission was a whitewash. Why would we need a Commission to whitewash matters if it didn't have something to hide? We know the demolition of the buildings was suspect. Doesn't that point to a conspiracy? We know that the PNAC Neocons required a Pearl Harbour event to carry out their plans. Wasn't 911 it? And why shouldn't we view 911 as that likelihood?

Quote:
If they think otherwise, they'll need some solid evidence to convince anyone, which is what always seems to be lacking in these debates.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of... etcetc


The questions abound. Anyone who wished seriously to examine them could go to any of the links I have given above and make a serious study. But how many of the denigrators would care to do that?

How many of those who constantly complain about the oppressive measures and murderous wars being carried out by our governments would care to give a thought just why these wars and measures are being carried out and just what it was that justified them in the first place?

Who amongst us has the courage to join the dots. Who will face the fact that Daddy (the State) is a mass murderer?
Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:57 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raoul Djukanovic



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 385
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If 911 was perpetrated by Mossad and the CIA as ex-Italian PM, Cossiga, says then all the kind of evidence you suggest is going to be deeply hidden in two compartmentalised secret services.


So it's sufficient for you (and he) just to imagine it? Why should anyone else believe you?

Quote:
People like Bush and Blair were mere puppets in a conspiracy that was hatched by America's secret government, the planners, movers and shakers behind the never-ending conspiracies.


Which conspiracies? Which secret government? Who pulls the strings? How? Where? When? How do you know this (apart from imagining it)?

Quote:
Hence, to use pejoratives such as 'conspiracy theorist' is in itself a declaration of interests and a choice to believe in the official government conspiracy theory involving Bin Laden, Al-CIAduh et al.


No, it's to use language accurately. You're theorising about conspiracies you can't prove.

Quote:
Why would we need a Commission to whitewash matters if it didn't have something to hide?


Leading question. Most government whitewashes just airbrush out any sign that any individual's to blame for anything. Hence the failure of imagination, as opposed to any particular agency.

Quote:
We know the demolition of the buildings was suspect.


On what basis? The assertions of people who claim they are, in the face of expert testimony to the contrary (that you choose to whitewash)?

Quote:
We know that the PNAC Neocons required a Pearl Harbour event to carry out their plans. Wasn't 911 it? And why shouldn't we view 911 as that likelihood?


You do as you please. I just don't see why anyone should believe whoever "we" is.

Quote:
Anyone who wished seriously to examine them could go to any of the links I have given above and make a serious study. But how many of the denigrators would care to do that?


How many have? You don't know.

Quote:
How many of those who constantly complain about the oppressive measures and murderous wars being carried out by our governments would care to give a thought just why these wars and measures are being carried out and just what it was that justified them in the first place?


Interesting that you just add to the assertions instead of citing evidence, presumably because you can't. If it's so obvious, surely the evidence is crystal clear and undeniable?

Quote:
Who amongst us has the courage to join the dots.


Not so crystal clear then. It requires imagination (and faith-based reasoning).

Quote:
Who will face the fact that Daddy (the State) is a mass murderer?


Prove it (in this particular case). Or don't expect people to agree.

Regards.
Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:41 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Raoul, your professed innocence of the way the world works ill-befits your ego. You rattle off a series of ill-considered questions which it'll take me some considerable time to answer. However, I might just do that (for the sake of others, not you. You're a hopeless case as far as I'm concerned) ... but later, at my own convenience and not according to your timetable.

You take all this very personally. That you should choose to approach it in such a way is a bit of a giveaway.

From your questions it's clear you haven't properly read my previous posts. On conspiracies for example. If you haven't already done so, and as a case in point, may I suggest you go away and read Preparata's Conjuring Hitler, about probably the greatest conspiracy of the Twentieth Century?

And while you're at it please check out my comments re. Pearl Harbour and the Neocons in A Project for the New American Century. When you finish, come back and I'll add some more to an essential reading list on the circumstances around 911.


Last edited by cranntara on Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:49 pm; edited 3 times in total
Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:16 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raoul Djukanovic



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 385
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You're a hopeless case as far as I'm concerned


Does that mean you can't prove the oft-repeated claim that "9/11 was an inside job"?
Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:08 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Does that mean you can't prove the oft-repeated claim that "9/11 was an inside job"?


No it doesn't. Simply that, in my opinion, you're a hopeless case. By which I mean that your rather over-sized ego not only has a habit of antagonising people by its choice of language but is impossible to appease. I speak as a result of reading your contributions elsewhere on this forum.

I will get back to answer your snipings in detail. In the meantime, you have a reading list. Go and read.
Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:42 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rab



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Japan

Post Post subject: 'Inside job' Reply with quote

I don't want to see this descend into an insult match of the kind Miriam's thread on the message board is about but it is interesting Raoul that you choose to start off by describing those who do not believe your and Bush's version (of no inside job) as followers of faith based reasoning. That is exactly the kind of thing that Miriam is on about in the MB section and doesn't help get to the root of the matter. As there is some good stuff here in this thread let's get back on to the inside job theory.

It seems to me the burden of proof is being used the wrong way round here. The Police (when they are actually doing their job) usually look at who had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. So if the Bush regime and those who believe their version of events seriously want people to believe in their conspiracy theory (in the true non-derogatory meaning of the term) then they need to show how a relatively low tech group operating from a headquarters in a cave in Afghanistan could accomplish all the things the Bush regime claim they did without inside help, i.e how they had the means and opportunity as we all know they had the motive. And that means and opportunity point brings up a long list of questions but here are 9 of the main points / questions as I see it. There are probably more but I am pushed for time at the moment so 9 will have to do to prove the point that the means and opportunity are things AQ didn't have enough off to do 9-11 alone.

1 - How could Al Qaeda (AQ) arrange for the visas for the 19 alleged hijackers if some of them were on a watch list (and that's before discussing identity theft as some of the 19 are still alive and were never in the U.S.) and how could they get them safely through immigration?

2 - How could AQ get the FBI to pull back many of their investigations into AQ in the U.S. before 9-11, investigations that could have stopped the events from happening?

3 - How could AQ have ensured the numerous war games held on 9-11 would actually be held (and how could they have found out these were going to be held as these ensured resources were stretched on that day?) and ensured they were not cancelled when their 9-11 events started?

4 - How could AQ have ensured that none of all the fighter / interceptors the U.S. possesses would be scrambled to stop 9-11 and when eventually scrambled how could they ensure they were sent the wrong way out to sea or to provide air cover over the wrong cities when exactly those kind of intercept missions had been successfully and quickly conducted 91 times in the previous year?

5 - How could AQ ensure their 'pilots' who could barely fly in some cases would actually be able to stay on course and not miss the targets?

6 - How could AQ ensure that none of the surface to air missiles that protect the pentagon would be launched when the alleged airliner that hit the pentagon approached (see here the stuff about Cheney being asked if the orders still stood as a plane was 30 miles out - he said yes according to Norman Mineta and defensive measures were never taken even though any plane approaching without a valid U.S. military transponder is targetted, a system that lead to a UK plane being shot down in the ME by the U.S.)?

7 - How could AQ ensure the Bush regime would ignore the many warnings about an attack on 9-11 given to them by many security agences around the world including many from the U.S.'s own sources?

8 - How, given that no fire had ever caused a steel framed building to collapse into its own footprint despite there being many bigger and longer lasting fires in much smaller, weaker buildings; given that the first firemen on the scene said they only needed two hoses as the fire was small; given the huge plumes of smoke meaning less flames and heat; given the fact that airline fuels burns at a much lower temperature than that needed to melt or weaken steel yet molten steel was found in the ruins in the basement; given that video evidence shows white smoke coming from the base of the WTC before the collapse and many eyewitnesses spoke of explosions in the basement; given that hundreds of structural engineers and demolition experts from around the world have said it was a controlled demolition; taking all this into consideration to reach the only conclusion scientifically possible - that of explosives in the building, how could AQ have gotten access to the building for the time necessary to plant explosives and without any prying eyes around to see what they were doing?

9 - How, given the fact that there was a two day power down in the weeks prior to 9-11 when all security cameras were switched off, the building emptied and bomb sniffer dogs taken away never to return just for a so-called internet rewiring organised by the firm in charge of security, a firm run by Bush's younger brother and cousin, could AQ have infiltrated this firm enough to organise all this without triggering any suspicions?

There that's enough questions for now and I'll leave all the coincidences and coincidence theories alone for the moment and just stick to inside jobs. So to repeat - for those who think an inside job is impossible can you answer these questions and explain these points to me please because if you cannot then you are taking the Bush regime's statements at face value and to copy a phrase from above - following faith based reasoning alone, faith in Bush's version. Prove to me how such things could occur and negate the possibility of an inside job because if you cannot then an inside job is the only logical conclusion.

Cheers,

Rab

(Edited for typos)
Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:36 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cranntara



Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Me: If 911 was perpetrated by Mossad and the CIA as ex-Italian PM, Cossiga, says then all the kind of evidence you suggest is going to be deeply hidden in two compartmentalised secret services.

Raoul: So it's sufficient for you (and he) just to imagine it? Why should anyone else believe you?

Reply: Read my statement again: I said "If 911 was perpetrated by Mossad and the CIA", a significant conditional. In such an instance the whole operation would have proceeded on a highly secret, 'Need to Know' compartmentalised basis. People like Bush and Blair might have known something of what the USA's secret government intended to do. But it would have been extremely restricted.

However, Blair's 'Kaleidoscope Speech', made not much after the events of 911, suggested that 911 was --at some level-- being used as a justification for a spurious 'War on Terror' which was actually aimed at turning our countries into highly-surveilled police states. Blair used a verbal sleight-of-hand technique to try and persuade us that, post-911, we lived in an entirely different world to the one before. It was all nonsense of course. The only change brought about was by Bush, Blair and Co who used the events of 911 as an excuse to totalitarianise our societies.

Now you might say that the fact that they used those events does not automatically suggest they were behind them. I would agree. The people behind 911 are the kind who operate in the shadows, secret services, rebel military commanders and the like who have no public accountability. People like Bush and Blair were their figureheads.

Similarly, the Neocons used Bushco to implement their imperialist agenda for what they called the Project for a New American Century which, significantly, required the conditions of "a New Pearl Harbour" as their man, Rumsfeld, described it to sell it to the American people. 911 was precisely that new Pearl Harbour. Should the coincidence of the events of 911 with what the PNAC Neocons were calling for not make one immediately suspicious?

Me: People like Bush and Blair were mere puppets in a conspiracy that was hatched by America's secret government, the planners, movers and shakers behind the never-ending conspiracies.

Raoul: Which conspiracies? Which secret government? Who pulls the strings? How? Where? When? How do you know this (apart from imagining it)?

Reply: Regarding conspiracies and secret governments, I have given you a reading list which includes the greatest conspiracy of the Twentieth Century about which Preparata wrote in Conjuring Hitler.

You could also look at http://www.harmlesswise.com/conspiracy/quotes

A more recent conspiracy was the one perpetrated by Bush and Blair about fabricated WMDs and Yellowcake Uranium which now lie exposed and thoroughly discredited. Another is the conspiracy to persuade the world that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. All the evidence ridicules it, yet Bushco uses the Mainstream Media to perpetuate the Big Lie. And you still believe that government is conducted transparently and accountably with no conspiracy?

Me: Hence, to use pejoratives such as 'conspiracy theorist' is in itself a declaration of interests and a choice to believe in the official government conspiracy theory involving Bin Laden, Al-CIAduh et al.

Raoul: No, it's to use language accurately. You're theorising about conspiracies you can't prove.

Reply: The term 'conspiracy theorist' is clearly used by the Mainstream Media (MSM) as a pejorative meant to ridicule and dismiss those who oppose the official government conspiracy pointing at Bin Laden and Al-CIAduh as the culprits. Anyone who can't see how the MSM is being used to brainwash the public is living in lalaland.

Me: Why would we need a Commission to whitewash matters if it didn't have something to hide?

Raoul: Leading question. Most government whitewashes just airbrush out any sign that any individual's to blame for anything. Hence the failure of imagination, as opposed to any particular agency.

Reply: Anyone who makes a serious study of the proceedings of the 911 Commission will conclude that the way in which it was carried out sought to deliberately exclude much vital information. And you call such calculated deceit a "failure of imagination"? Which leads me to ask what you might be trying evade?

Me: We know the demolition of the buildings was suspect.

Raoul: On what basis? The assertions of people who claim they are, in the face of expert testimony to the contrary (that you choose to whitewash)?

Reply:There is a mountain of evidence which points to the highly suspect conditions around the demolition of the Twin Towers as welll as Building 7. Seek and you shall find.

Me: We know that the PNAC Neocons required a Pearl Harbour event to carry out their plans. Wasn't 911 it? And why shouldn't we view 911 as that likelihood?

Raoul: You do as you please. I just don't see why anyone should believe whoever "we" is.

Reply: I'm not asking you or anyone to believe anything I say. What I am asking folk is to keep an open mind and to seriously spend some time studying the case that those such as I are making.

I think Rab is absolutely right about where the burden of proof should lie. And any intelligent person would easily see through the nonsense of the official conspiracy story and find it lacking! Rab has done that most effectively, has he not?

Me: How many of those who constantly complain about the oppressive measures and murderous wars being carried out by our governments would care to give a thought just why these wars and measures are being carried out and just what it was that justified them in the first place?

Raoul: Interesting that you just add to the assertions instead of citing evidence, presumably because you can't. If it's so obvious, surely the evidence is crystal clear and undeniable?

Reply: Anyone who studies the events that followed the events of 911 will see how those events were used as the excuse to conduct totally illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to scapegoat Muslims (a la 'Red Terror'), to turn the USA and the UK into police states, to conduct an entirely spurious 'War on Terrorism' which in reality has turned out to be a War of Terrorism where we are the victims of our own Governments.

Anybody who believes that, contrary to the evidence that abounds, Daddy (the State) isn't a mass-murderer and the Enemy of the People must be living off-planet. It no longer takes an anarchist to see it.

Me: Who amongst us has the courage to join the dots?

Raoul: Not so crystal clear then. It requires imagination (and faith-based reasoning).

Reply: Yes, it requires imagination together with deduction. The classic Cui Bono is a pretty good place to start joining the dots ... Given the abundance of evidence that exists (and I have given you a non-exhaustive list from where to start your own investigations) the irony is that it appears to be the Deniers of a False-flag 911 who depend so much on a question of faith in official conspiracy stories!
Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:57 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raoul Djukanovic



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 385
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
it is interesting Raoul that you choose to start off by describing those who do not believe your and Bush's version (of no inside job) as followers of faith based reasoning


They are.

People who say "9/11 was an inside job" argue that one unproven case proves their posited alternative (which they can't prove).

Interesting that you mention "coincidence theories" - the author of a popular commentary on them just posted this:

Quote:
Conspiracies, too, fascinate, and are the reality of parapolitical culture, but conspiracy culture is its reality television. Even if someone does bust the conspiracy wide open! as Alex Jones has promised that so many of his broadcasts would do, justice would be served to the same extent The Bachelor is genuinely searching for true love. Seven years gone since September 11, and the singular accomplishment of "9/11 Truth" appears to have been the creation of another Great American Pastime.

http://rigint.blogspot.com/2008/06/master-of-our-domain.html
Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:35 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rab



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Japan

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Raoul Djukanovic wrote:
Quote:
it is interesting Raoul that you choose to start off by describing those who do not believe your and Bush's version (of no inside job) as followers of faith based reasoning


They are.

[/quote]

Prove it then. Answer my questions and explain to me how AQ could do all of the above and more. After all if Bush's explanation, which you seem to believe in, is correct you should be able to prove it and settle this once and for all.

Rab
Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:44 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raoul Djukanovic



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 385
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Prove it then.


QED.

Quote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of... etcetc

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9353#9353


We're going round in circles, so let's not waste each other's time.

Regards.
Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:08 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rab



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Japan

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Raoul Djukanovic wrote:
Quote:
Prove it then.


QED.

Quote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of... etcetc

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9353#9353


We're going round in circles, so let's not waste each other's time.

Regards.

No we are not going round in circles, you are quite plainly avoiding the questions, questions that cannot be answered without showing that there MUST have been inside help. This type of avoidance (alluded to in the latest alert from the editors actually) that many people practice when asked these questions shows they are actually following 'faith based reasoning' (faith in Bush's explanation) and not basing their beliefs on any evidence whatsoever other than Bush's claims. No amount of linguistic games will change that fact so unless you or someone else can explain these troubling facts listed above, then the theory that there was no inside job is the faith based belief. So I will ask again, to you and others, please answer the above questions and prove to me how there was no inside job.

Best,

Rab
Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:24 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raoul Djukanovic



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 385
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll keep this final post brief.

Rab wrote:
I will ask again, to you and others, please answer the above questions and prove to me how there was no inside job.


A believer asks non-believers to prove the non-existence of what they don't believe in (because it requires a leap of faith).

Asking questions is one thing, assuming answers another.

Then there's the question of the assumptions embedded in the questions, as you say...

Rab wrote:
...questions that cannot be answered without showing that there MUST have been inside help.


To repeat once again, absence of evidence isn't in itself evidence of anything (except the absence of evidence), yet so much "truth-seeking" seems to proceed from the opposite assumption, with questions posed as answers and answers posed as questions.

Each to their own beliefs.

Regards.
Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:49 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rab



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Japan

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

You need to get your chronology straight. The original explanation / conspiracy theory, call it what you will, came from the Bush regime very shortly after the event before all the facts could have been known. It did not have any proof yet people were asked by the Bush regime to believe it and take it on faith, therefore it's faith based reasoning. In your post above those who refer to inside jobs then are the non-believers as we chose not to believe Bush on faith alone. Those of a critical mind, the non-believers, asked questions and demanded proof as there were many inconsistencies, 9 of which I listed above and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Answers that explain these points and others have never been given by Bush, his regime or those who take their word on faith. So this results in an event that when properly examined (something that is not usually done by those who take Bush's word on faith, possibly for the psychological reasons referred to in the latest ML alert, possibly for reasons Michael Parenti cites in his debates with Chomsky and Cockburn, or possibly for some other reason) makes clear that it was impossible for those events to occur without inside help. Unless of course you can prove how these things could have happened without inside help, in which case I will be happy to believe in the possibility of Bush's theory as it will also be based on reasoning, logic and evidence if you or someone else proves it.

We could argue the semantics of of this all day and show how clever we are at using language and so on. But the bottom line is this - by accepting the Bush regime's explanation you are following faith based reasoning as their explanation cannot be proven due to the impossibility of their version of events co-existing with the 9 factors I mentioned above. Now do I or anyone else know to what extent the Bush regime were involved and do we have the direct evidence to prove the extent of that involvement - obviously not as this evidence would be strictly controlled and not something anyone outside the group concerned could get to. But by a process of logical deduction this inside job theory can actually be proven (although not to the exact, detailed extent of their involvement) as the Bush regime was the only group with the motive that also had the means and opportunity, unless you can tell me of any other group that had the means, motive and opportunity and power to accomplish the 9 points above.

Therefore the inside job explanation is not an assumption but a fact. Who but the U.S. government had and has the power to order the issuance of U.S. visas, cancel FBI investigations and translations, organise U.S. military war games, change standing orders regarding fighter interceptors, order the same fighters to stand down and / or go the wrong way, order a stand down of SAM's, cause the U.S. government to ignore all warnings of 9-11, gain access to the WTC buildings, get rid of the incriminating rubble quickly, set up a puppet investigation to whitewash themselves, etc. etc. etc.? By a logical process of elimination they are the only group that fits the bill, the only suspect that could possibly have committed the crime as only they fit all the criteria necessary. And no matter how uncomfortable that fact makes people that have a track record of faith based reasoning it is the only logical conclusion. So by using logic the inside job theory can be proven and has been. Unless, of course you or anyone else can logically show me (inductive, deductive, whatever - any kind of logic or explanation will do) how AQ could have done it bearing in mind the basic 9 points above. The inside job theory can only be denied if the person doing the denying purposely avoids looking at the evidence (Parenti's explanation), an act of avoidance very much on display here with your refusal to look at the evidence and then answer the questions the evidence of the event logically brings up.

So if these points can be logically explained then I will entertain the possibility that it could have occurred the way Bush and co. and their faith based reasoners would have us believe without an inside job being the only possible explanation. Absent this proof the inside job remains the only logical explanation for those who value evidence and / or logic over faith based reasoning, and if they have looked at the evidence with those former qualities in mind there is only one logical conclusion - the inside job. And no amount of linguistic cleverness can change that.

So back to you for a logical explanation or else it's an inside job for sure as faith based reasoning doesn't cut it.

Best,

Rab

(edited for clarity)
Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:02 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:
People who say "9/11 was an inside job" argue that one unproven case proves their posited alternative (which they can't prove).


"One unproven case?" What unproven case is this? The circumstances around the events of 911 simply abound with irregularities! Again, an objective study is called for, not a jeering attitude that seeks to demonise or rubbish those who dare to dissent from the official conspiracy (faith-based) theory.

Raoul, you won't answer the questions that Rab has put to you because you've never bothered to look at events in quite so much detail as he has. Admit it.
Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:32 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:
I suppose that the only thing I can do, before justing letting the matter ride on this Message Board, is to affirm, once again, that there is very persuasive sound, hard evidence pointing towards the Inside Job hypothesis, which genuinely open-minded people can dig out from several of the more reliable websites and from the published commentary of individual investigators. I'm always willing to provide links, for anyone interested.

Oh yes, and I should also affirm once again that this is very much an issue of free speech and honest reportage: the issues which Medialens chiefly espouse.


Rhisiart Gwilym and Derek Lane have made some useful comments about this thread on the Message Board. That thread has now been locked by the Editors who are determined that their great work (sic) is not marred by yet another exchange on 911.

Quote:
From what I see, the argument for governmental collusion in the events of 11th September takes too many steps at once when attempting to give a persuasive argument. It seems to leap from questioning the official story (no doubt in many ways a lie) to posturing a complete governmental inside job, and conceding that can't be proved because of the nature of the secret services (at least, that's the rationale in the forum right now).


As regards Derek's comments I would say only this: it has to be borne in mind that a false flag operation like 911 would have had to be carried out with the utmost secrecy and that participants were controlled through a Need-to-Know basis. Anything less secretive would not only have defeated the object of the exercise but it would have incriminated a great number of people in power and have led to some kind of constitutional crisis. Certainly it would have caused a great deal of social destabilisation.

Consider, for example, how the truth about the circumstances surrounding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Roosevelt's collusion in events was kept a secret for as long as it was. Similarly, with 911 it would be naive to hope for any sort of incriminating paper trail.

Leaving that aspect aside the best thing that anyone interested in the events could do is to make their own investigation by going to the several websites available (links to many which have been given) as well as the excellent books by authors like David Ray Griffin. I recommend The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America, edited by James H. Fetzer.

People who want to find out the truth will make efforts to do so. Closed minds will remain closed.
Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:27 am
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
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 1 of 23

 
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