Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
isn't there something in your faq about the posting of irrelevant images?editor said:And he's off again!
He wouldn't let it lie!
Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
No it claimed that "much of this threat [of Islamic terrorism] is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media."editor said:
There was a lot absent from the Power of Nightmares particularly the role of big oil, global corporatism and US imperial agendas. No comparison of 911 with a reichstag fire, all these things were left out, one presumes, because they would never have got past liberal propaganda filters. So I think his analysis is, in the end, shallow and therefore palatable.editor said:
No I wasnt saying that - just pointing out how these staged attacks on US symbols of authority have always been used to drag the public kicking and screaming into wars. Backatcha linked to the Northwoods documents on instigating a war with Cuba. But you know its much too beautiful a day to be indoors so Im off. Speak later.Pickman's model said:
editor
hiraethified
Yep. That's about right.Raisin D'etre said:
So you're saying that the program was censored?!!!Raisin D'etre said:
By whom exactly?
Have you any proof for this outstanding claim?
Or is it just a convenient way of not having to acknowledge the complete absence of 9/11 conspiracy tosh in the excellent series?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's true that aq is a bogeyman, used the same way on adults that bonaparte was used to put the fear of god into recacitrant children in the early nineteenth century. frankly, you're more likely to get smacked by a copper than hurt by aq - and far more likely to be killed by the forces of law'n'order than by bin laden's paltry brigade.
i wouldn't be surprised if a lot was left out of the programme for reasons of timing, self-censorship, lack of resources and so on. as i've mentioned on another thread, investigative journalism today's not what it could be - just think of that fuckwit macintyre. also, the corporations and other institutions which control the media do have an influence on what's reported, and how, and it's either ignorant or naive or both to believe otherwise.
i wouldn't be surprised if a lot was left out of the programme for reasons of timing, self-censorship, lack of resources and so on. as i've mentioned on another thread, investigative journalism today's not what it could be - just think of that fuckwit macintyre. also, the corporations and other institutions which control the media do have an influence on what's reported, and how, and it's either ignorant or naive or both to believe otherwise.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Belushi said:
It was and I believe the quote goes along the lines of "You get me the pictures and I'll give you the war!".
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I don't imagine that the producers of TPON really wanted to put in a big piece about 911 but didn't. It's not central to the thesis; in fact it would be a bit of a distraction from the historical and global sweep.
FridgeMagnet said:
I agree. This was an excellent TV series with a fairly restrained big picture approach to a modern problem, with a fairly simple basic premise that was designed to make people think a bit harder. Having said that, TV programmes are entertainment, advertising vehicles, so I doubt big corporations would be happy to be vilified directly. In the same way, any 9/11 related content would have tarred the programme as made by lizard conspiracists.
It's a bit like the Michael Moore problem. In TV, film, you can only go so far before you get called a fat clown. To my mind, nobody goes far enough.
Pickman's model said:
Interestingly the Northwoods document refer to the plan to sink a ship of their own as a 'Remember the Maine' incident - which reveals the truth of the who sunk the Maine all those years ago.
I don't understand your argument in the second paragraph at all. What makes you think they haven't become more competent with their Hegelian dialectic stunts? The payoff of that greater competence is that you are less likely to notice anything amiss.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
but people do notice - probably many more notice than in the more innocent age when people blew up battleships in cuba and most people took the government at their word.DrJazzz said:
governments these days seem to be crassly incompetent, if the foul blair adminstration's anything to go by.
Blair is - I regret to say - is staggeringly competent. He's a class act. Unfortunately his game is evil. He has managed to accomplish far worse than Margaret Thatcher managed, and he's about to be re-elected!
The propaganda machine which managed to convince us that we had to go to war in Iraq was very, very slick; likewise ID cards; likewise house arrest without trial. All things that you couldn't think a Labour government could possibly consider; let alone get away and stay in power with!
How the fuck have they done this by being 'incompetent'?
And all the above things were based on 9-11. They love you to think that they don't know what they are doing, it's all accident and happenstance. Guess how pool hustlers work? It panders to the vanity of the intelligentsia who think they oppose the system, yet are beautifully fooled into supporting it with misplaced 'dissent'.
The propaganda machine which managed to convince us that we had to go to war in Iraq was very, very slick; likewise ID cards; likewise house arrest without trial. All things that you couldn't think a Labour government could possibly consider; let alone get away and stay in power with!
How the fuck have they done this by being 'incompetent'?
And all the above things were based on 9-11. They love you to think that they don't know what they are doing, it's all accident and happenstance. Guess how pool hustlers work? It panders to the vanity of the intelligentsia who think they oppose the system, yet are beautifully fooled into supporting it with misplaced 'dissent'.
er.. they didn't convince us.
Half the country opposed the war, they just ignored it.
ID cards aren't in yet.
Most people don't understand the importance of underlying principles in law and the ramifications of removing them.
Blair is very incompetent at times. The Iraq thing is a mess. Labour is saved by the fact that Brown manages the economy better then any tory will, and a greater committment to public services despite the extra privatisation.
Half the country opposed the war, they just ignored it.
ID cards aren't in yet.
Most people don't understand the importance of underlying principles in law and the ramifications of removing them.
Blair is very incompetent at times. The Iraq thing is a mess. Labour is saved by the fact that Brown manages the economy better then any tory will, and a greater committment to public services despite the extra privatisation.
editor
hiraethified
Seen the findings of the 21/2-year probe by the National Institute of Standards and Technology which includes detailed computer simulations of the attacks, producing more than 10,000 pages of data with a painstakingly compiled step-by-step analysis of how the towers fell?DrJazzz said:
Funnily enough, there's not the teeniest weeniest, microscopic, atom-sized suggestion in all those pages of expert research suggesting that the towers were in fact blown up by pre-wired explosives or hit by remote control planes, missiles, holograms or Santa's sledge.
Why do you think that is then?
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Jo/Joe said:
i believe that the USG had the UKG by the short and curlys anyway, and it wouldn't have mattered which of the main two parties were governing at the time, we would still have been dragged into this war.
DrJazzz said:Blair is - I regret to say - is staggeringly competent. He's a class act. Unfortunately his game is evil. He has managed to accomplish far worse than Margaret Thatcher managed, and he's about to be re-elected!
The propaganda machine which managed to convince us that we had to go to war in Iraq was very, very slick; likewise ID cards; likewise house arrest without trial. All things that you couldn't think a Labour government could possibly consider; let alone get away and stay in power with!
How the fuck have they done this by being 'incompetent'?
And all the above things were based on 9-11. They love you to think that they don't know what they are doing, it's all accident and happenstance. Guess how pool hustlers work? It panders to the vanity of the intelligentsia who think they oppose the system, yet are beautifully fooled into supporting it with misplaced 'dissent'.
Excellent post dr, in particular your first and last sentences. So true.
Jo/Joe said:
Did it? I thought only about 1-2 million demonstrated against it. That is a small minority by anyone's maths.
Blair may make the odd mistake, but i'd say he has been exceedingly competent at his job. He has made use of spin and tv soundbites like no other. He has managed to lie for years, and to take us into two illegal wars killing thousands in the process, yet here he is about to win a third term. What a smooth operator!
Hardly the track record of an incompetent. He has done his job staggeringly well. Journalists on the other hand, for whatever reason, have failed theirs miserably.
And meanwhile we get an electorate increasingly removing this political bullshit from their lives. I wonder if this latest general election will even get 50% of eligible voters marking their cross.
invisibleplanet said:
I agree, but what we need to remember is that the british public allowed it to happen. In effect we gave blair permission to keep his tongue firmy rooted up bush's alimentary...
While the figure of two million demonstrators is admirable, and kudos to them all, that still left over 50 million who did nothing.
We're nowhere near the critical mass that will force politicians to do what we want: ie stop warring and destroying our fellow humans, and instead lead us all to peace and harmony.
Nothing will change until the general public changes. And that can only happen when enough individuals that make up that mass we call the public decide that it's no longer acceptable for our leaders to exterminate human life.
It's our call, not our leaders. They will continue to exploit us all until we withdraw our permission for them to do so. Perhaps we're too comfortable.
How NIST help to keep the: "it was al-Qaeda wot done it, honest guv" myth burning
One would have thought that after 2.5 years the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would have paid particular attention to the trajectory taken by flight 175 as it hurtled into the southeast corner of WTC2, if only to ensure that its accompanying computer simulation of this aspect actually bore some resemblance to the known reality of the event that day which, remember, was captured live on TV and on untold numbers of still photographs.
Here is a photograph showing the plane banking sharply to port, taken just a split second before it impacted the southeast corner of the building...
Here is another picture taken just a split second after the impact, showing a huge fireball of fuel and debris exiting the east face of the building as it follows the trajectory of the aircraft....
Here is a diagram plotting the trajectory of the planes approach, the point of impact and the approximate exit route it took.
To summarize, the two photographs and the diagram shows the trajectory of the banking plane as it impacted the southeast corner of tower 2 and then exited out through the east face of the building in a huge fireball.
Now, take a look at the NIST animation of the south tower attack...
(Real Player download) http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/wtc_plane_segment_2.rm
As anyone with reliable eyesight and a functioning memory can see, there is something terribly amiss with the NIST computer simulation. First of all, it appears to be trying to persuade us into believing the aircraft impacted the south face of the tower much closer to the center of the building than was actually the case. Second of all, it appears to show the aircraft impacting then passing through the building in the horizontal when in fact it was banking diagonally to the left as it hit, as is clearly shown in the first picture. Thirdly, the simulation appears to encourage the idea that the plane followed a completely different trajectory through the building to the one it actually took. At no point in the simulation do we see the aircraft exiting the east face of the building, which strikes me as very odd indeed, bearing in mind it did just that, nor does the simulation show the huge fireball of fuel and debris exploding outside of the building as a multitude of photographs and film clips silently testify.
How anyone in their right mind can fall for this latest pile of old spud served up with a straight face by the US authorities and faithfully parroted by the mainstream media, is completely beyond me. It seems perfectly obvious (to me at any rate) that the Bush Gang are trying to trick the public into believing that all the fuel that spewed out of the aircraft's ruptured fuselage was largely confined to the inside of the building when in fact the bulk of it actually exploded outside in a huge fireball.
editor said:
One would have thought that after 2.5 years the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would have paid particular attention to the trajectory taken by flight 175 as it hurtled into the southeast corner of WTC2, if only to ensure that its accompanying computer simulation of this aspect actually bore some resemblance to the known reality of the event that day which, remember, was captured live on TV and on untold numbers of still photographs.
Here is a photograph showing the plane banking sharply to port, taken just a split second before it impacted the southeast corner of the building...
Here is another picture taken just a split second after the impact, showing a huge fireball of fuel and debris exiting the east face of the building as it follows the trajectory of the aircraft....
Here is a diagram plotting the trajectory of the planes approach, the point of impact and the approximate exit route it took.
To summarize, the two photographs and the diagram shows the trajectory of the banking plane as it impacted the southeast corner of tower 2 and then exited out through the east face of the building in a huge fireball.
Now, take a look at the NIST animation of the south tower attack...
(Real Player download) http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/wtc_plane_segment_2.rm
As anyone with reliable eyesight and a functioning memory can see, there is something terribly amiss with the NIST computer simulation. First of all, it appears to be trying to persuade us into believing the aircraft impacted the south face of the tower much closer to the center of the building than was actually the case. Second of all, it appears to show the aircraft impacting then passing through the building in the horizontal when in fact it was banking diagonally to the left as it hit, as is clearly shown in the first picture. Thirdly, the simulation appears to encourage the idea that the plane followed a completely different trajectory through the building to the one it actually took. At no point in the simulation do we see the aircraft exiting the east face of the building, which strikes me as very odd indeed, bearing in mind it did just that, nor does the simulation show the huge fireball of fuel and debris exploding outside of the building as a multitude of photographs and film clips silently testify.
How anyone in their right mind can fall for this latest pile of old spud served up with a straight face by the US authorities and faithfully parroted by the mainstream media, is completely beyond me. It seems perfectly obvious (to me at any rate) that the Bush Gang are trying to trick the public into believing that all the fuel that spewed out of the aircraft's ruptured fuselage was largely confined to the inside of the building when in fact the bulk of it actually exploded outside in a huge fireball.
cynical_bastard
Mass Bowel Movement
What experts? Not a single one of them owns a conspiracy webpage or even an account on infowars. Don't sound like experts to me.
Well, come on, do you believe that Al Qaeda doesn't exist or that the CIA set up Al Qaeda? You can't have it both ways (unless of course you believe that Al Qaeda was set up by the CIA but doesn't exist any more, I suppose you could have it both ways in that sense).Raisin D'etre said:
cynical_bastard
Mass Bowel Movement
Indeed, their graduate and postgraduate qualifications are just proof that they've been co-opted by (drumroll) TEH NEW WORLD ORDER!11!1!!11
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
Intersting post there bigfish.bigfish said:
And this 'they're selling a book, therefore talking bollocks' argument is wearing a bit thin. IMO.
editor
hiraethified
Have you actually seen the 3D computer animation in question (it was shown on the news last night) or do you just prefer to take bigfish's words that 200 experts in a two and a half year, 10,000 page study all got it wrong/were in on the evil conspiracy?ill-informed said:
My money would be on the woefully unqualified, book-flogging conspiraloon with no access to official records getting it wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion, of course.
Similar threads
- Locked