Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I've kicked your arse about so many times i make Jonny Wilkinson look like an incompetent.Jazzz said:
You are a disappointment.
9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
You are a disappointment.
Augie March
blahem
Jazzz said:
But why would the CIA concut such a ridiculosly convoluted attack?
Why wasn't the attack something incredibly simpler, like a pretend suicide bomber on the subway? Considering there has never been a major terrorist attack on US soil, the results of such a tragedy like that could quite easily have provoked the same push for a war on terror?
Why would they commit such an expensive act too? The econmoics fallout of the disaster must've been huge, not considering the amount of lost revenue in tourism the US must've experienced whilst following the attacks.
Why was the United 93 plane involved at all in the conspiracy? It was never used in an attack (or pretended to be used if you prefer). What was the point of 'pretending' it was hi-jacked at all?
Why spend all the time creating this incredible facade of terrorist's attacking US soil in order to establish a motive to invade Middle Eastern countries, invade one country, then completly change the motive to something else to invade Iraq?
Why, if the CIA were so damn clever at conducting such an amazing cloak-and-dagger story such as 9/11, were they not able to doctor simple CCTV footage so that they could show an aeroplane crashing into the Pentagon? Why have such ambagious footage? Clearly, considering the amount of hi-tech wizardry that would've been required to pull off the whole 9/11 'scam', they could've simply inserted a better image of a plane onto grainy video footage?
And why, if the CIA are so callous and cold-hearted about murdering it's own citizens, do they not give a flying fuck about a SINGLE one of these conspiracy theorists? In 6 years any number of these people could've been targeted by the CIA, killed, arrested on trumped up charges, anything. But no, here you all still are continuing spouting your logicless theories into the ether. And yet no-one in positions of power seems to give a toss that you are 'exposing' the truth of their dastardly deeds. Why is that?
The logic of the whole conspiracy is questionable and the answers are often found to be un-answerable by theorists who seem to be lost in their own fantastical theories about the events. Important, simple questions, that are grounded in reality, then get lost in the myriad of nonsense and fanatical 'look-at-me' drivel these people spout.
what I don't get, is the fact that the war on terror hardly needed any urging along, by way of a staged attack. There are a clear and present abunance of enemies of the US just waiting to get their neck in the door to have a pop. It's bizarre that it would even need to be staged, were that to be a credible motive, which it isn't.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
MikeMcc said:
thanks for that link Mike, don't suppose we could now consider the whole controlled demolition bollocks completely debunked and simply link anyone bringing that bollocks up in a thread to that paper?(at least until such time as anyone can come up with any actual evidence to the contrary)
Surely anyone who's really a truth seeker rather than a conspiraloon would have to accept the simple fact that all the evidence points to the WTC (inc tower 7) collapsing as a consequence of 2 hijacked jet airliners full of fuel flying into them, and there is significant evidence against any controlled demolition theory.
This in itself is not evidence that there was no conspiracy at all involved in 911, just that anyone who's been pushing that line has been barking up the wrong tree, and might either want to try barking up some other trees, or even step back for a minute take some deep breathes and reassess the situation and the approach of the 'truth seeker' movement. IMO people like Alex Jones are coming across like irrational lunatics who'd not know the truth if it smacked them in the face, and their rabid lunacy is only helping to discredit the notion that their could have been any kind of conspiracy behind 911 in the minds of the vast majority of the worlds population - if I were to be running an operation to cover up any kind of conspiracy around 911 if Alex Jones didn't exist I'd have invented him as a smokescreen to obscure the real conspiracy.
Any truth seelkers who've been pushing this line willing to accept this and move on?
FruitandNut
New Member
Very likely that some of the construction of the towers was a bit suspect, due to shortcuts and economies; with the 'surplus' ending up lining a few back pockets.
If the 'baksheesh' bungs involved politicians and politics and the like, then one kind of 'cover up' could easily get confused/intertwined with the issue of the attack on the Twin Towers, thus giving rise to opportunistic semi-plausible as well as downright fanciful conspiracy theories.
If the 'baksheesh' bungs involved politicians and politics and the like, then one kind of 'cover up' could easily get confused/intertwined with the issue of the attack on the Twin Towers, thus giving rise to opportunistic semi-plausible as well as downright fanciful conspiracy theories.
Some recent media happenings that i've become aware of.
Daily Mail on 10th feb ran a double page story on the possibility that the USG were in some way complicit. It did not base its story on conspiracy theories, nor did it disparage anyone by utilising the epithet 'conspiracy theorists'.
It seems interesting to me that such a widely-read newspaper should be running stories on 911 that actually try to first address the issue as to whether more investigations should take place.
I also note, in a land that uses such things widely, that in a poll about 75% of americans now believe that the USG is covering something up over the events.
That seems to run counter to the make-up of beliefs on this particular forum!
Daily Mail on 10th feb ran a double page story on the possibility that the USG were in some way complicit. It did not base its story on conspiracy theories, nor did it disparage anyone by utilising the epithet 'conspiracy theorists'.
It seems interesting to me that such a widely-read newspaper should be running stories on 911 that actually try to first address the issue as to whether more investigations should take place.
I also note, in a land that uses such things widely, that in a poll about 75% of americans now believe that the USG is covering something up over the events.
That seems to run counter to the make-up of beliefs on this particular forum!
I also note that this thread, in common with most of the 911 threads on here has concentrated/dwelled upon the aspects that can be categorised into one of the 'conspiracy theories'.
While we have two sides amongst the public arguing it out over whether something is just a stupid theory, or a distinct possiblity, we will probably never get to the truth.
If however the media, and the public, concentrate on the more general issues first, rather than specifics, the debate may change. For me i'd start with two questions:
1. Are members of the US elite/power holders capable of, and do they have the will to sacrifice a few thousand of their own citizens in order to achieve their objectives?
2. Which agencies, and which people in particular, are responsible for what looks like a whole series of cock-ups and incompetence, both leading up to the day, and while the attacks were in progress? One area of cock-up or cover up or incompetence is all the intelligence that existed in the run up to the attacks.
All we do is go round and round and round on these boards arguing for or against this or that possiblity.
We have to get outside of this conjecturing, and move over to some general questions and directions. Once certain criteria are established, then the investigation narrows down and specifics can be addressed.
While we have two sides amongst the public arguing it out over whether something is just a stupid theory, or a distinct possiblity, we will probably never get to the truth.
If however the media, and the public, concentrate on the more general issues first, rather than specifics, the debate may change. For me i'd start with two questions:
1. Are members of the US elite/power holders capable of, and do they have the will to sacrifice a few thousand of their own citizens in order to achieve their objectives?
2. Which agencies, and which people in particular, are responsible for what looks like a whole series of cock-ups and incompetence, both leading up to the day, and while the attacks were in progress? One area of cock-up or cover up or incompetence is all the intelligence that existed in the run up to the attacks.
All we do is go round and round and round on these boards arguing for or against this or that possiblity.
We have to get outside of this conjecturing, and move over to some general questions and directions. Once certain criteria are established, then the investigation narrows down and specifics can be addressed.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
1 - yep, I'm pretty sure some are
2 - I don't think you're talking agencies here, I think (if there was a conspiracy) you'd be talking about a very few individuals probably right at the top.
My take on the whole thing is that it's a bit odd that people with the decades of government experience that rumsfelt and cheney had between them would let the whole issue of Al queida slide for several months prior to 911 despite briefings from the CIA director that AQ were his top concern, and that he thought AQ were intent on launching an attack on mainland USA.
If there was a conspiracy, my contention would be that it was a conspiracy to do nothing, to ensure an absense of leadership on the issue from the top, to leave the plans for tackling AQ drawn up under Clinton hanging in limbo... basically to give AQ enough rope to hang themselves.
If they wanted a pearl harbour style event to create the spark to allow them to launch the wars PNAC had pretty much decided needed to be launched why involve hundreds or thousands of people in some elaborate plot to stage a terrorist attack and frame AQ when you know they're ready willing and able to do it themselves given a bit of space to operate in.
That's my theory, and all this talk of controlled demolition, holographic planes etc etc is a fucking smokescreen.
2 - I don't think you're talking agencies here, I think (if there was a conspiracy) you'd be talking about a very few individuals probably right at the top.
My take on the whole thing is that it's a bit odd that people with the decades of government experience that rumsfelt and cheney had between them would let the whole issue of Al queida slide for several months prior to 911 despite briefings from the CIA director that AQ were his top concern, and that he thought AQ were intent on launching an attack on mainland USA.
If there was a conspiracy, my contention would be that it was a conspiracy to do nothing, to ensure an absense of leadership on the issue from the top, to leave the plans for tackling AQ drawn up under Clinton hanging in limbo... basically to give AQ enough rope to hang themselves.
If they wanted a pearl harbour style event to create the spark to allow them to launch the wars PNAC had pretty much decided needed to be launched why involve hundreds or thousands of people in some elaborate plot to stage a terrorist attack and frame AQ when you know they're ready willing and able to do it themselves given a bit of space to operate in.
That's my theory, and all this talk of controlled demolition, holographic planes etc etc is a fucking smokescreen.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
I'm more inclined to go with Free Spirit's theory, the "give 'em enough rope" theory, added to that the utter ineptitude displayed by the Bush administration time and again, Iraq, Katrina, etc.
I think William Rodriguez is just a janitor who has an over-active imagination and an eye for a dollar, can't blame him if people want to believe his shite even when far more rational accounts exists from people who have nothing to gain from lying like he is.
I think William Rodriguez is just a janitor who has an over-active imagination and an eye for a dollar, can't blame him if people want to believe his shite even when far more rational accounts exists from people who have nothing to gain from lying like he is.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
I'd like to see Bush in the electric chair, but that won't happen as long as government stooges like Shayler, Rodriguez and Alex Jones keep putting out fake stories to keep people from the truth.
All you truthseekers are doing what they want you to do, you are just sheep, gullible, bleating, fantasist sheep, whos only experience of investigating conspiracy theories come from jerking off over pictures of Gillian Anderson.
All you truthseekers are doing what they want you to do, you are just sheep, gullible, bleating, fantasist sheep, whos only experience of investigating conspiracy theories come from jerking off over pictures of Gillian Anderson.
Structaural
in Chatsubo
Monbiot wades in:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2017006,00.html
'9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2017006,00.html
'9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns'
are there such things as false flag terror ops? Or is this an invention by the conspiracy theorists?Jazzz said:
I have to say, if I was in charge of the NWO i'd just have these loudmouthed silenced. People like Alex JOnes claim they have been 'approached' by mysterious men in black types who have rought them up and such. Just do him in and have done with it surely? How much of a 'martyr' can he be?
Structaural said:
I don't always agree with Monbiot but it's an excellent piece and explains better than I ever could
a) why people like Jazz do harm to important issues
b) why they're pretty much cowards
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
MikeMcc said:
Can I second freespirits comments above regarding this document. Printed it and read it on the bus home last night and it comprehensively and utterly pulls apart any argument that can be made in favour of CD for ANY of the buildings, and in it's discussion on both 'What happened to all the metal' and 'What happened to WTC7' actually shows up a number of half-truths and lies of the CTers themselves (the metal wasn't 'swiftly moved abroad', it was stored, analysed and then shipped to China for example)
As I said earlier, there may even be more prosaic reasons for this - that Rummy, Rice and co didn't believe that Islamic militancy was a threat (Rice was known as a Cold Warrior and her initial advice to Bush as head of the NSA was to focus on Putin); that they ignored the warnings of Clinton-era security personell precisely because they were Clinton-era staffers; that extended to directly ignoring George Tenet who allegedly (according to Bob Woodward) told them in a private meeting that even the CIA throught that there was going to be a serious attack on US soil in September.
All the CTers look to PNAC for corroboration that because it mentions a 'catalyst' event that it therefore follows that this was a set up. Not true. It's been shown conclusively that Bush was planning to invade Iraq as soon as he got the Presidency (there were developed warplans on Cheney's desk just after 9/11) and the WMD cover was something that had been rattling around since the end of Gulf War II in various guises - the point being that given their control over the media at the time the administration didn't NEED the catalyst event to convince the US to go to war. Besides which, if the PNAC piece and 9/11 are linked it's got to be the most retarded thing ever - annouce that you need a catalyst event knowing that it's going to happen?
Nah, this is either down to incompetence, wilful ignorance or a dangerous mixture of the two. All the faff around NORAD, CD, Flight 93...it's all smokescreen to stop the focus falling on an administration who utterly fucked up in it's most important duty at the most important hour.
fela - your questions:
1. Utterly subjective and not provable - and indeed unecessary.
2. Agencies involved, and their cock-ups:
DOD - Pentagon, NORAD etc. Directly responsible for maintainance of the US early warning air attack system, plus coordinating counterstrikes. Were found to have been covering their own arses at the original 9/11 report because funding for the internal air warning network has been slashed since the mid-90s (the so called Peace Dividend) and was only operating when a dignatory came to see it
US ATC - Anyone who's listened to the tapes of the ATC workers knows that their repsonse was a mixture of bewilderment, panic and fear; an emergency situation where lots of contradictory messages and information was flying about.
NSA - Under Rice had turned it's attentions BACK to gawping at Russia
CIA - as an agency riven by internal divisions that got worse under the first Bush year; head of agency not liked by Bush, Rice, Rummy or Cheney. Long term history of not properly cooperating with FBI over terrorism over jurisidctional issues (i.e. these were foreign terrs so they are our boys; FBI say no, they are now IN the US, therefore part of our purview)
FBI - hampered by CIA recalcitrance, also divided on the strength of the threat. Arguably prevented from making arrests due to CIA desires to keep the suspects 'in play' (commonly used - there's always the potential that you go in too early and risk loosing links to those higher up the chain of command in the cell or links to other cells and something the Met/MI5/6 are supposedly annoued with the yanks over 8/8 last year) and see where things went.
Ultimately all the questions come down to ascertaining what was known, when it was known and the reasons for taking/not taking action. All the rest is smokescreen and fantasy. Holographic planes, missiles, dissappearing flights, faked phone calls, controlled demolition, death rays from space...just takes people's eyes of the central issue that the administration tried to cover up it's lack of action before 9/11 and that's where the possible 'conspiracy' lies.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The Daily Mail also features big articles on nutrition by quacks like Gillian McKeith, and is almost as obsessed with uncovering a Diana-based 'conspiracy' as The daily Express.
50% of the US population believe that the world was created in 7 days and that the planet is onky 6000 years old. 60% also believe that Elvis is still alive, in UFOs and that the Kennedy assassin was behind the grassy knoll despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary in ALL these things.
80% of Republican voters think the war in Iraq is still winnable (recent NYT survey), which translates as about 35-40% of the population...your point being?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
pk said:
I'm still waiting for his response to the Protec article on how the buildings couldn't have come down as a result of CD...
and, as he points out, if they can fake the whole of 9/11, how the fuck did they fail to fake WMDs in Iraq? 
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Dubversion said:and, as he points out, if they can fake the whole of 9/11, how the fuck did they fail to fake WMDs in Iraq?
Haven't read the article yet, but yeah...seems like a small oversight really...
free spirit said:
The interview I told you guys about in post in 2492, concluded with Paul Smith and Alex Jones discussing the $100,000 that the ISI may have given to Mohammed Atta.
Jones asked why he didn’t mention this ‘fact’, Smith conceded that it was interesting and that his team where considering doing a full documentary devoted to the story
So here’s a theory -
1. USG turned a blind to intelligence warnings, then covered it all up after the fact.
2. A foreign intelligence agency closely tied to CIA had some shady dealing before hand with Atta
On Fela fan’s poser:
1. Are members of the US elite/power holders capable of, and do they have the will to sacrifice a few thousand of their own citizens in order to achieve their objectives?
In the Paul Smith interview, Jones asked, ‘why wouldn’t you talk about Operation Northwoods’?
Smith dismissed it as irellavent to the question of whether 9/11 had been carried out by USG.
Jones replied by saying that the USG had carried out these false flag attacks in the past – giving these examples:
The USS Liberty
The gulf of Tonkin - Staged provocation for Vietnam war.
Operation Ajax - The ‘false flag’ terror campaign in Iran by CIA in the 1950s to oust Mossadeq ( a covert method repeated afterwards in other nations.)
Operation Gladio –
Also Jones also throws in ‘Hitler burning down the Reichstag’, as a historical parallel to his claims.
Smith agreed that the USG has carried out many ‘false flag’ terror attacks in the past, but continued to argue its irrelevance to establishing if 911 was the same.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
I made this point before, but seeing how Jazzz is acting like the knight in Monty Python, with all his limbs chopped off yet still trying to bite his assailant...
Why would anyone need to strap a missile onto a plane fully laden with fuel?
Even though I posted a clear set of pictures of the plane involved, and the odd shaped undercarriage some deluded muppets are calling a "pod"just being a normal design feature (note that none of the CT'ers have commented on that BTW), what possible reason would anyone have for attaching a missile to a plane in that kind of attack?
What... Just in case the massive amount of aviation fuel isn't enough of a bang?
Why would anyone need to strap a missile onto a plane fully laden with fuel?
Even though I posted a clear set of pictures of the plane involved, and the odd shaped undercarriage some deluded muppets are calling a "pod"just being a normal design feature (note that none of the CT'ers have commented on that BTW), what possible reason would anyone have for attaching a missile to a plane in that kind of attack?
What... Just in case the massive amount of aviation fuel isn't enough of a bang?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
What you ignore is that the ISI is riddled with Al-Q and other militant Islamic sympathisers, as is Saudi Arabia etc so again there is no clear linkage with the USG.
But why bother with all this? Why is it so hard to believe that an organisation that was capable of planning and delivering 'puppet' governments in Africa in the 90s (using the CIA template, which in turn was originally discussed in Macchiavelli and Sun Tsu), the original bombing of the WTC isn't capable of planning and executing 9/11 on it's own?
But why bother with all this? Why is it so hard to believe that an organisation that was capable of planning and delivering 'puppet' governments in Africa in the 90s (using the CIA template, which in turn was originally discussed in Macchiavelli and Sun Tsu), the original bombing of the WTC isn't capable of planning and executing 9/11 on it's own?
kyser_soze said:
I take your point, it is an interesting connection though. The CIA and ISI are closely tied after all.
And the convenience of the attack to Bush's agressive foreign policy ambitions, and the generally aknowledged arse covering secrecies afterwards mean my theory has got some legs...
Paul Smith at least didn't disagree with me there.
You won't take my blanky of me
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
False flag ops and similar bollocks aside, this plane crash/PNAC thing has been discussed and dismissed by previous US presidents.
Don't know if anyone recalls the tale of the airline crash proposed during the Cuban missile crisis, where a US jet filled with unclaimed John Doe corpses was to be crashed over Cuba, the idea was put to Kennedy who rejected it.
So it's not beyond reason to extrapolate a scenario allowing 9/11 to go ahead if it were a bog standard hijacking, though I seriously doubt anyone, even Bush, could have known the real intentions of the hijackers and let them happen.
Don't know if anyone recalls the tale of the airline crash proposed during the Cuban missile crisis, where a US jet filled with unclaimed John Doe corpses was to be crashed over Cuba, the idea was put to Kennedy who rejected it.
So it's not beyond reason to extrapolate a scenario allowing 9/11 to go ahead if it were a bog standard hijacking, though I seriously doubt anyone, even Bush, could have known the real intentions of the hijackers and let them happen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
