WTC Attack - Just another one for the conspiracy theorists or not?

[CaroleK]

Let's suppose, for a minute, ed, that our intelligence services DID know of an imminent attack (or even that they orchestrated the whole damn thing - which is what I think - but I know you're not able to go there yet so I won't). They would be keen for the public to see the event from their perspective - yes? And what would be a good medium for them to channel their version of events? Mainstream TV and press - yes?
And here you are, soaking it all in like a sponge, without even a question.

I guess the method works.

You should always watch news and documentaries with a second ear and eye. The lesser known sites as well, I agree.

Your average TV producer/journalist wouldn't bother trying to get other versions of the tragedy 'out there' because they know they'd be instantly rejected by the editors/producers - and why f**k up your career??? ( Look how they all sat on the latest Prince Charles scandal. The whole of fleet street knew of it for years but wouldn't publish it for fear of reprisals. It STILL hasn't been reported in mainstream press and TV. However, it has been oft, and fully, reported on some of these 'obscure' sites that you speak of.)

I rest my arse.

As far as I see the WTC: We had people claiming immediately after the event that they heard explosive bangs going off in the buildings, that def were NOT attributed to the craft or the fuel explosion. We have the qualified architects insisting that the fall of the buildings were so neat they they could only have been brought about by strategically placed explosives. Then we have the nearby parked car with AQ artifacts - how convenient. Then all the firemen - to their annoyance - were kicked off the site early and other teams brought in to deal with the debris. Who then proceeded to ferret all the steel debris/evidence out of the country. Not to mention that the CIA's office was only blocks away, no doubt somebody nipped out to plant the untouched pristine condition Islamic passport when everything else had turned to ... dust.

We have the supposed hi-jackers, who presumably - we were told - died in the blast, suddenly turn up on the streets at a later date. We have military and civilian pilots who are not accepting the 'official' version of events and who are seriously putting forward the probability of remote control. A technology that has now been proven to exist. (And if you remember, ed, we wasted many debating days on this point as you didn't accept that it was poss despite, in the main, Dr Jazz's assertions saying otherwise.)

Then we were told by the US that they had no previous knowledge of any such attempt - and then we found out from intelligence whistleblowers that they did. We had interceptor jets with well trained pilots that took forever to get there, giving rise to suspicions that they were deliberately told to stand down. And I'm not gonna even bother going into the classroom and Bash's leisurely response.

The only area I'm not too sure of were events regarding the other craft, Pensylvania etc. (Hell I DAREN'T! Who knows what I might find!) Add to all this the FACT that AQ are a creation of the CIA - y'know. create your own enemy/devil and then you can control the whole production - and there's only one conclusion that you can come to. With 'motive' written all over it in oil and currency.

Hang on, now let me do the math ... erm ... yep ... there's a great probability that the US admin are guilty as f**k!

 

[fela fan]

Fucking internet connections, just lost my whole reply. Can't be bothered again, not important.

Just to say passpartout that your last reply to me at least painted a more plausible picture.

And to say that's exactly why i have a problem with four pilots, educated, crack skills at flying, living in the west, doing the man in a cave's bidding, deciding to take the plunge and kill themselves.

Other than that, everything carolek has just said.

PS, none of us know that that man in the video is for sure obl. Tell me how you know it's him...

 

[editor]

As far as I see the WTC: We had people claiming immediately after the event that they heard explosive bangs going off in the buildings, that def were NOT attributed to the craft or the fuel explosion.

Good grief. What's surprising about that? Have you never seen a house go up? There's all manner of explosive substances in there.

But seeing as you're making out that these totally normal secondary explosions are somehow significant why don;t you tell me what you thought they were?

And how about the supposedly faked phone calls from the Pentagon flight? Have any of your 'lesser news site' (i.e unattributed, evidence-lite and source-free homepages) given you any clues how that was achieved?

And your laughably feeble suggestion that the two year old explosive article in the quaint Portuguese web site has been ignored by journalists for fear of them losing their jobs just shows the desperate measures conspiracy fans will go to to avoid facing the truth.

 

[fela fan]

bigfish's recent 'contributions' here have exclusively been Posting FAQ-busting cut and paste odysseys. Perhaps regurgitating other people's words passes for cutting edge independent thought in your world, but it doesn't in mine.

I'm sure the man can speak for himself, but the operative word in your first sentence there is 'recent'.

You also ommitted the fact that his recent posts have also included plenty of links.

And that prior to his 'recent' posts, he posted up plenty of ideas of his own many times.

So your selective 'memory' is in full operation once more. These kind of threads seem to induce that for some reason.

Saying that the USG version is acceptable, blaming it on incompetence equals a closed mind.

Consistently questioning, consistently thinking about all the huge anomalies in that official version, listening to experts, not relying upon the fact that the mainstream media aren't queuing up to expose things (when we all know the propaganda that pervades our media) equals 'conspiracy nutter'.

My arse, it equals an open mind. And plenty on these threads seem to hate that for some reason.

But it's interesting to see the heat slowly getting hotter for bush el al.

 

[Diamond]

carole k - I admire you're searching analysis and take no prisoners style of questioning that takes NOTHING for granted, but ultimately you betray your delusions by WILFULLY IGNORING other avenues that you MUST explore if you are to take such an inquisitive line on the whole event.

Questions like:

Why should we believe you as opposed to numerous other publications and government agencies?

Why would the government of the USA construct a terrorist attack on their own shores, killing their own citizens, with the possibility of plunging their country into a reactionary economic slump when they could have fulfilled all the same motives by blowing up an ally's assets or their own military bases?

Why does so much of your story rely on immaculate cover up?

Why did the main WTC architect confess that the towers had not been structurally strong enough to withstand the impact of several tonnes of aircraft and the furnace of hundreds of gallons of airline fuel?

What about the 1993 A-Q attempted attack on the WTC that highlights it as a target 8 years before 9/11?

Are all A-Q attacks constructions of the US government?

And finally do you know the difference between a US government and a US administration?

Are ALL journalists all over the world, the very same ones who are prepared to report about Monica Lewinsky, mud baths with carole caplin, betsygate and IDS, Bush's aviodance of National Sevice, implicit in this sublime conspiracy?

Why are you prepared to swallow so much so unthinkingly, and then in a staggeringly arrogant act of hypocrisy accuse others of lacking the faculties of critical thought?

 

[fela fan]

Why are you prepared to swallow so much so unthinkingly, and then in a staggeringly arrogant act of hypocrisy accuse others of lacking the faculties of critical thought?

Diamond, have just read your post. And based on it, same question to you... coz it appears to me you've just done exactly that which i've quoted you on.

Correct me if i'm wrong like.

 

[Diamond]

fair enough it is a matter of opinion but this is how I see it:

on the one side you have someone who is posting up a mix of conspiracy claims that range from the interestingly plausible to the offensively outlandish with little evidence, and what evidence there is being sourced from a very small range of non-professional websites tinged with, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable here, quite a bit of paranoia, labelling individuals as lacking in critical thought.

And on the other side you have the majority that listen to information gatherers of a professional nature who, we like to think, are bound to some extent by journalistic morals. Put simply the onus is on the person arguing the conspiracy to demonstrate their case and when that is reduced to answers similar to 'it was a cover up' and 'you don't know how to think critically' it amuses and irritates me in equal measure.

I see no reason to doubt this matter. It mystifies me that so many people cannot accept 9/11 as reported fact. I suppose it's because it is the single most defining event of western history of this era so far and as such some paranoid/insecure people might find it difficult to believe that a paradigm shift in geo-politics could have been caused by 20 men ingeniously using the luxuries of modern living as weapons of mass destruction against it.

 

[editor]

I'm sure the man can speak for himself, but the operative word in your first sentence there is 'recent'.

You also ommitted the fact that his recent posts have also included plenty of links.

And that prior to his 'recent' posts, he posted up plenty of ideas of his own many times.

So your selective 'memory' is in full operation once more.

There is NOTHING 'selective' about my memory at all.

I was simply stating the simple FACT that bigfish's recent contributions have been nothing but tedious cut and paste jobs.

Moreover, he knows damn well that cut and paste odysseys aren't allowed here, yet that didn't stop him slamming up a whole fucking page of some recycled waffle from some conspiracy-tastic site or another.

I keep asking him to stop. He keeps ignoring me. Perhaps you might tell me why I should I put up with such arrogance?

 

[Jazzz]

that falls into the "ridiculous conspiracy theory conveniently fabricated to support inconsistencies in my worldview" category.

If you are willing to accept the authenticity of this video purely on the say so of US spooks - for there is absolutely no independent corroboration that the man in the video is Bin Laden - then really I pity you. Anyone could find someone who vaguely looks like Bin Laden, stick a turban and beard on him, and - hey presto! You have the claim of responsibility which Osama himself inconveniently failed to provide following 9-11.

... and this video is clearly indeed a fake, like the previous attempt at an audio 'confession' (discredited by Swiss voice analysis experts who declared it phoney). Because the man doesn't look like Bin Laden (apart from the turban and beard, but hey, it doesn't take much to fool the world, does it).

Judge for yourself!

Now one really has to ask who is producing this pap, and why. And it's also instructing to note how the world's media swallows it uncritically.

 

[editor]

Now one really has to ask who is producing this pap, and why. And it's also instructing to note how the world's media swallows it uncritically.

Why do you swallow the tale of the "amazing" low flying aircraft over Long Island, DrJ?

There's not a single witness to be found anywhere in the world to back up that bonkers story - much like that equally improbable tale of the invisible expert posting on invisible bulletin boards. And you swallowed that one, hook line and sinker too. Just like you swallow the unmitigated offensive horseshit that radiates out of Joe Vialls mouth.

Seeing as you're so keen to paint the entire world's media as 'uncritical' and 'producers of pap', no doubt you'll be paying no heed to this BBC article: Former US terror chief slams Bush

 

[Passepartout]

the problem with you conspiracy theorists is that you go to *incredible lengths* to believe theories which while occasionally technically possible are *incredibly complex.*

And you fancy yourselves as challenging conventional wisdom, and yet when presented with highly preposterous theories you accept them *with hardly any challenge or critical thinking at all!*

The simplest and most logical theory, that Bin Laden commissioned a suicide attack and the CIA and US bureaucrats were too stupid to realize what was happening and stop it, is overwhelmingly the most likely. Even though it happens to be close to the official theory (although nobody's admitting to criminal-level negligence).

There's a wise saying that conspiracy theorists always forget -- "Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity." Instead, they prefer to assume the U.S. government has super-human, incredible powers, almost to the point of omnipotence.

The sad truth is that thanks to rampant bureaucratic ineptitude it was very easy for a hate-filled but brilliant man, and a band of deluded medievalists to kill 3,000 people. And it's still easy. They will do it again.

 

[fela fan]

The problem with those who shout 'conspiracy theorists' is this:

In your rush to impose your own value judgements on people you don't know, you close the door to open thinking on your part. Furthermore, you ascribe character judements on those that you perceive to be 'nutters'. You ascribe motives to the CTs that are based on nothing more than your screwed up perceptions. I know this, coz the things levelled at me and my motivations for questioning the official version (and not believing it) are wrong.

I don't fancy myself as anything whatsoever. What i post on this subject has got sweet fuck all to do with my character. It is simply that i find the official version impossible to believe, it is just way too cock-eyed. My subjectivity vs yours eh mate. Only difference is that you (as an example of an accuser) seem so quick to pronounce judgements on my (as an example of a CT) character that you have somehow decided you know.

I don't go to any kind of lenghts to believe anything. What i do is simple brain exercise: i FIND THE OFFICIAL VERSION INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE.

Look mate, there's the difference: it's not what i believe, it's what i DON'T believe that drives my interest on this subject.

"The simplest and most logical theory, that Bin Laden commissioned a suicide attack and the CIA and US bureaucrats were too stupid to realize what was happening and stop it, is overwhelmingly the most likely. Even though it happens to be close to the official theory (although nobody's admitting to criminal-level negligence)."

Pure subjectivity, and designed to yet again highlight the stupidity of CTs who think otherwise. Interestingly this is one of the accusations by the CT accusers.

Sorry mate, but that theory to me is the least believable of them all, and looking at everything i've read (some will be true, some won't, i wasn't there, i cannot know) it is not in the least bit logical.

So, problem eh??

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The "didn't stop it" theory becomes even more convincing when you take into account one of the central points of the "L/MIHOP" theories - that the USG doesn't really care much about its population, as far as it doesn't affect electoral results (or further, depending on your notions of secret government and the establishment). This is something I would agree on.

Individual members of the teams in question might care, but a general policy of laxness would prevail over that. It's not in question that blowback might happen to the degree where it actually threatens the existence of the US, and any terrorist attacks are going to be relatively minor, outraging the population but not actually causing any real damage to the apparatus of the state. So why not ignore possible threats on that basis?

The other side is simple - why bother doing it yourself deliberately when you don't really need an "outrage" on that level to invade anyway? Too much of a risk. Just wait for the next event to happen on its own, it's bound to come eventually, then you can use that as justification to do what you want.

 

[fela fan]

fair enough it is a matter of opinion but this is how I see it:

on the one side you have someone who is posting up a mix of conspiracy claims that range from the interestingly plausible to the offensively outlandish with little evidence, and what evidence there is being sourced from a very small range of non-professional websites tinged with, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable here, quite a bit of paranoia, labelling individuals as lacking in critical thought.


I see no reason to doubt this matter. It mystifies me that so many people cannot accept 9/11 as reported fact. I suppose it's because it is the single most defining event of western history of this era so far and as such some paranoid/insecure people might find it difficult to believe that a paradigm shift in geo-politics could have been caused by 20 men ingeniously using the luxuries of modern living as weapons of mass destruction against it.

A small range of websites eh? Do you have any idea how much stuff is out there on the net? And non-western newspapers? And what non-western people on the street think of who did 911?

It is the accusers of CTs that do all the labelling of people lacking critical thought. But they seem blinded by this in their rush to pronounce their own judgements.

There is EVERY FUCKING REASON to doubt the official version. It is UNARGUABLE FACT that governements lie to fuck. In the pursuit of ever more power, the only way of attaining it is through lies and deception.

Yet, with this topic, those that highlight this get accused of being nutters, and of treating believers of the official version as less wise then they.

It completely mystifies me how people can simply accept the USG's version of events when we know how their currency of life is lies.

Your position depends mostly on rubbishing posters that don't believe the official version and who spend lots of time doing their own research on finding alternative, more plausible reasons for what happened.

Relying upon the homogonised, propaganda-laced mainstream media to me, fela fan, at least, seems to be the most closed mind way of dealing with the events of 911.

 

[Loki]

The other side is simple - why bother doing it yourself deliberately when you don't really need an "outrage" on that level to invade anyway? Too much of a risk. Just wait for the next event to happen on its own, it's bound to come eventually, then you can use that as justification to do what you want.

Yep. I'm convinced the War on Terror strategy was in place for years before 9/11, just waiting for a suitable opportunity to be launched.

MI5/6 sought new roles after the end of the cold war and they named terrorism as a new way to extend their usefulness. The CIA/FBI/us military must have thought the same. Of course I don't think the security forces were involved in 9/11 but when it happened they had their plans already in place.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Yeah, there's considerable evidence to support that, planning documents etc. I can scare up some links if anyone wants....

 

[Jessiedog]

Gwan then Fridge.



Woof

 

[bigfish]

... that didn't stop him slamming up a whole fucking page of some recycled waffle from some conspiracy-tastic site or another.

I keep asking him to stop. He keeps ignoring me. Perhaps you might tell me why I should I put up with such arrogance?

I'm not ignoring you. I simply don't have enough time at the moment to contribute as much as I would like. My apologies for the cut and pastes. I wasn't employing any particular kind of tactic with the second one, it was just something I came across that I thought might inform the forum.

However, aside from its unsuitable length (again apologies for that), the first c&p consisted of four reports, all from reputable sources, and all tending to support the proposition that bin Laden is seriously ill with some form of kidney disease and that he requires regular specialized hospital treatment.

These reports, from Le Figaro; the London Times; Dan Rather/CBS and the President of Pakistan, all directly contradict the impression given in the TV profile of bin Laden which you described earlier. Indeed, one report even names a Canadian-trained urologist who likely treated public enemy number 1 at the American hospital in Dubai in July 2001.

In addition, the Dan Rather/CBS report identifies the urology department at the military hospital in Rawalpindi Pakistan as the second medical facility visited by bin Laden this time on the evening of September 10 2001. The report cites eyewitness accounts taken from hospital employees by a reporter at the scene.

By the way, both the article I cited, which you have chosen to describe as "recycled waffle" and the globalresearch site from which it was taken and which you have chosen to ridicule and dismiss as "conspiracy-tastic", are the studied work of Michel Chossudovsky a respected academic who is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.

 

[bigfish]

Why would the government of the USA construct a terrorist attack on their own shores, killing their own citizens, with the possibility of plunging their country into a reactionary economic slump when they could have fulfilled all the same motives by blowing up an ally's assets or their own military bases?

Leaving aside the question of economics for the moment, you need to urgently explain to the forum how slaughtering say 3000 innocent Italians would have had an equal impact on American public opinion to that of the slaughter of 3000 innocent Americans. A deadly terrorist attack on say Rome would present a direct and mortal threat not to average Americans, but to average Italians who quite naturally would be more shocked than their American counterparts. Conversely, therefore, maximum impact on American public opinion would be more efficiently rendered through a deadly terrorist attack unfolding directly on American soil wouldn't you agree? And in fact that's precisely what happened and what happened more or less fitted the requirement spelled out in the now infamous PNAC document.

As for plunging the United States "into a reactionary economic slump"; hadn't the United States already been plunged into one some months prior to the attack? Didn't the bursting of the dotcom bubble result in the collapse of the NY stock market? And wasn't that collapse accompanied by the Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, etc., etc., bankruptcy and false accounting scandles?

As I recall the fall out from all this saw Bush's popularity numbers spiral through the floor. What were team Bush going to do? And then, just like a prayer being answered by God almighty, the Al-Q phantoms pounced. Armed with the very latest in boxcutter technology 19 fanatical phantoms managed to comprehensively out fox the rusty old $30 billion a year US national security apparatus including its integrated NORAD air defenses and hijack 4 passenger aircraft more or less simultaneously from different airports crashing 3 of them into capital buildings in NYC and WDC.

If you could be bothered to read and comprehend the testimony given as recently as last Wednesday to the 9/11 commission by former White House counter-terrorism Czar Richard Clarke you will find that he makes it abundantly clear that the September 11 attacks were facilitated by the standing down of the existing counter-terrorism preparations initiated under Clinton. Clarke is being careful not to suggest this was done deliberately to whip-up public support for war by the Bush administration—as a [former] top national security establishment insider he represents that section of the ruling elite that is tactically opposing itself to Bush. Clarke is clearly not telling us everything he knows about the events leading up to Black Tuesday. Instead, by selectively assembling his material in a particular way, he has sought to establish an acceptable framework or context within which the Bush administration can be portrayed by its opponents as a team of bumbling incompetents (rather than as a gang of complicit killers) who failed America when the moment arrived for them to defend it from "evil" terrorism on September 11 and who therefore should not be trusted with the nations security in the future.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8.htm

 

[Diamond]

Leaving aside the question of economics for the moment, you need to urgently explain to the forum how slaughtering say 3000 innocent Italians would have had an equal impact on American public opinion to that of the slaughter of 3000 innocent Americans. A deadly terrorist attack on say Rome would present a direct and mortal threat not to average Americans, but to average Italians who quite naturally would be more shocked than their American counterparts. Conversely, therefore, maximum impact on American public opinion would be more efficiently rendered through a deadly terrorist attack unfolding directly on American soil wouldn't you agree? And in fact that's precisely what happened and what happened more or less fitted the requirement spelled out in the now infamous PNAC document.

As for plunging the United States "into a reactionary economic slump"; hadn't the United States already been plunged into one some months prior to the attack? Didn't the bursting of the dotcom bubble result in the collapse of the NY stock market? And wasn't that collapse accompanied by the Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, etc., etc., bankruptcy and false accounting scandles?

As I recall the fall out from all this saw Bush's popularity numbers spiral through the floor. What were team Bush going to do? And then, just like a prayer being answered by God almighty, the Al-Q phantoms pounced. Armed with the very latest in boxcutter technology 19 fanatical phantoms managed to comprehensively out fox the rusty old $30 billion a year US national security apparatus including its integrated NORAD air defenses and hijack 4 passenger aircraft more or less simultaneously from different airports crashing 3 of them into capital buildings in NYC and WDC.

If you could be bothered to read and comprehend the testimony given as recently as last Wednesday to the 9/11 commission by former White House counter-terrorism Czar Richard Clarke you will find that he makes it abundantly clear that the September 11 attacks were facilitated by the standing down of the existing counter-terrorism preparations initiated under Clinton. Clarke is being careful not to suggest this was done deliberately to whip-up public support for war by the Bush administration—as a [former] top national security establishment insider he represents that section of the ruling elite that is tactically opposing itself to Bush. Clarke is clearly not telling us everything he knows about the events leading up to Black Tuesday. Instead, by selectively assembling his material in a particular way, he has sought to establish an acceptable framework or context within which the Bush administration can be portrayed by its opponents as a team of bumbling incompetents (rather than as a gang of complicit killers) who failed America when the moment arrived for them to defend it from "evil" terrorism on September 11 and who therefore should not be trusted with the nations security in the future.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8.htm

1. You totally ignore the possiblity that the USG might have found it easier to kill a whole swathe of their troops stationed around the world. Do you have any idea what that would do to public opinion back in the US. They'd go fucking ballistic. Our boys being blown up by towelheads etc... the US is an incredibly militaristic country whose identity is interwoven with their military. It could have been so much easier than causing NYC billions of dollars worth of damage.

2. I've been reading PNAC's website for years and the suggestion that they published articles calling for a terrorist attack to steel the US public's resolve for the next period of imperial expansion is patently absurd.

3. The Dotcom bubble burst a year and a half before 9/11. America's economy was just starting to recover and the Enron scandal had yet to explode the culture of book cooking and corporate greed among top US companies. In fact a careful reading of the scandal shows that 9/11 preceded Enron's collapse by a month, and it was to be at least a year until the true crisis was revealed. The US economy was healthy at the time and there were frequent predictions of a new bull run.

4. I have read Dick Clarke's testimony and it doesn't go anywhere near corroborating your story. In fact it contradicts it to the extent that you have to put caveat after caveat into your justification that it is useful evidence for your argument:

'Clarke is being careful not to suggest this was done deliberately to whip-up public support for war by the Bush administration—as a [former] top national security establishment insider he represents that section of the ruling elite that is tactically opposing itself to Bush. Clarke is clearly not telling us everything he knows about the events leading up to Black Tuesday. Instead, by selectively assembling his material in a particular way, he has sought to establish an acceptable framework or context within which the Bush administration can be portrayed by its opponents as a team of bumbling incompetents (rather than as a gang of complicit killers) who failed America when the moment arrived for them to defend it from "evil" terrorism on September 11 and who therefore should not be trusted with the nations security in the future.'

Do you know Dick Clarke? Have you spoken to him recently? Or is this all just a clumsy attempt at paranoid extrapolations that skew his arguments off his actual line and supposedly into your 'truth'. I mean 'selectively assembling his material in a particular way', why don't you just say that he's not actually presenting information that supports your argument?

His line is more plausible than yours and it is simply that thanks to the Republican party's hatred and resentment of Clinton combined with PNAC's revenge-like obsession with Iraq, terrorism was not on the Bush agenda precisely because it had been on the Clinton agenda.

They had a strong, confessed, and well reported desire to break from the last administration in as many ways as possible, and this was one of them.

Futhermore he goes onto say that, having placed terrorism far lower on the agenda than Clinton, when they were caught on the hop by 9/11 Rumsfeld, Wolfie, Bush et al immediatly started looking for ways to use it as a justification for war on Iraq.

If anything a non-paranoid, not reading between the lines assessment of Dick Clarke's under oath testimony, his subsequent unschackled interviews, and a scan of his book will damn your argument more strongly than anyone else can, precisely because it is a relatively accurate account of what actually went on in the white house during that historic period.

 

[CaroleK]

'Why should we believe you as opposed to numerous other publications and government agencies'?

Hey Diamond, DON'T believe me. You don't even have to read these posts if you don't want to. Personally I don't GIVE a f**k whether you agree with me or not. I have no agenda, I'm not running for office, there's no book to sell, I'm not in any organisation, I'm not out to 'convince' you, or 'persuade' you in any way. Hell I don't even HAVE to, the glaring discrepencies should do that all by themselves. You just have to open your eyes. I'm merely having my say.

Oh yeah, and don't f**king vote for me either.


'Why would the government of the USA construct a terrorist attack on their own shores, killing their own citizens, with the possibility of plunging their country into a reactionary economic slump when they could have fulfilled all the same motives by blowing up an ally's assets or their own military bases?'

They would construct a terrorist attack on their own shores purely for effect. For the 'Omigod!' response, the 'tie us up in barbed wire laws and protect us from these evil people!' reaction. The american people were the only ones they had to really net, as has become clear from Bash's comments that the UN were 'irrelevant', he was gonna do it anyway. It would be silly to attack military bases, given the future plans they have for them (not to mention the shortage of men and kit). Any attack on an ally's assets wouldn't
have induced the degree of fear needed to get the american people to hand over control of their civil liberties - as has happened. And, as has been pointed out, they were already in an economic slump. WWIII was the way out.


'Why does so much of your story rely on immaculate cover up?'

Because this is what criminals do. They cover up their tracks, wipe their prints, distort the evidence. And given the growing numbers of ordinary people who are also doubting the official version - not so 'immaculate' after all.


'Why did the main WTC architect confess that the towers had not been structurally strong enough to withstand the impact of several tonnes of aircraft and the furnace of hundreds of gallons of airline fuel?'

What? With all these bombings going on? Was he nuts? Well, we won't employ him again!


'What about the 1993 A-Q attempted attack on the WTC that highlights it as a target 8 years before 9/11?'

Hey, even the best laid plans can suffer setbacks. So that one didn't work out. There's always the next attempt. And all the more reason to increase security thereafter. Nevertheless, the interceptor pilots still decided to take a tea-break en route ... tut!


'Are all A-Q attacks constructions of the US government?'

Probably.


'Why are you prepared to swallow so much so unthinkingly, and then in a staggeringly arrogant act of hypocrisy accuse others of lacking the faculties of critical thought.'

In fact, it was ed who asked bigfish if he was capable of original thought, and as you can see from bigfish's last two posts - and many more before - clearly he most def IS.


'in a staggeringly arrogant act of hypocrisy'

Obviously you've been watching too much Hollywood as well. Here Diamond, have a read of this .

And these:

http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/brainwashing.html
http://dieoff.org/page24.htm

 

[editor]

Obviously you've been watching too much Hollywood as well. Here Diamond, have a read of this .

Oh well. If someone I've never heard of tells me that I'm brainwashed on a website stuffed full of crop circles called, "thetruthseeker", heck it must be true, eh?

Talking of seeking the truth, what's your opinion of the supposedly faked calls from the Pentagon flight?

How about the planes that hit the WTC? What's your take?

If - as that long-ignored article by an obscure author on a holidaymakers site claims - they were remote controlled, why haven't experts all around the word reached the same conclusion? What happened to the real pilots? How come the pilots and ground staff didn't notice the extra equipment?

And why hasn't the amazingly complex technology since been adopted - it would be worth a fortune!

How come none of the thousands of people involved in creating this incredible technology haven't broken their silence, rightly disgusted by what went on?

Any ideas?

 

[Diamond]

'Why should we believe you as opposed to numerous other publications and government agencies'?

Hey Diamond, DON'T believe me. You don't even have to read these posts if you don't want to. Personally I don't GIVE a f**k whether you agree with me or not. I have no agenda, I'm not running for office, there's no book to sell, I'm not in any organisation, I'm not out to 'convince' you, or 'persuade' you in any way. Hell I don't even HAVE to, the glaring discrepencies should do that all by themselves. You just have to open your eyes. I'm merely having my say.

Oh yeah, and don't f**king vote for me either.


'Why would the government of the USA construct a terrorist attack on their own shores, killing their own citizens, with the possibility of plunging their country into a reactionary economic slump when they could have fulfilled all the same motives by blowing up an ally's assets or their own military bases?'

They would construct a terrorist attack on their own shores purely for effect. For the 'Omigod!' response, the 'tie us up in barbed wire laws and protect us from these evil people!' reaction. The american people were the only ones they had to really net, as has become clear from Bash's comments that the UN were 'irrelevant', he was gonna do it anyway. It would be silly to attack military bases, given the future plans they have for them (not to mention the shortage of men and kit). Any attack on an ally's assets wouldn't
have induced the degree of fear needed to get the american people to hand over control of their civil liberties - as has happened. And, as has been pointed out, they were already in an economic slump. WWIII was the way out.


'Why does so much of your story rely on immaculate cover up?'

Because this is what criminals do. They cover up their tracks, wipe their prints, distort the evidence. And given the growing numbers of ordinary people who are also doubting the official version - not so 'immaculate' after all.


'Why did the main WTC architect confess that the towers had not been structurally strong enough to withstand the impact of several tonnes of aircraft and the furnace of hundreds of gallons of airline fuel?'

What? With all these bombings going on? Was he nuts? Well, we won't employ him again!


'What about the 1993 A-Q attempted attack on the WTC that highlights it as a target 8 years before 9/11?'

Hey, even the best laid plans can suffer setbacks. So that one didn't work out. There's always the next attempt. And all the more reason to increase security thereafter. Nevertheless, the interceptor pilots still decided to take a tea-break en route ... tut!


'Are all A-Q attacks constructions of the US government?'

Probably.


'Why are you prepared to swallow so much so unthinkingly, and then in a staggeringly arrogant act of hypocrisy accuse others of lacking the faculties of critical thought.'

In fact, it was ed who asked bigfish if he was capable of original thought, and as you can see from bigfish's last two posts - and many more before - clearly he most def IS.


'in a staggeringly arrogant act of hypocrisy'

Obviously you've been watching too much Hollywood as well. Here Diamond, have a read of this .

And these:

http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/brainwashing.html
http://dieoff.org/page24.htm

Ok, ok this is good progress. We've got beyond you're scattergun style of rhetoric and those irritating 'knowing' alliterations to horrendous USG atrocities.

Now how about you post up a concise, cogent, unlinked, and coherent argument that states your opinion in no uncertain terms. I've already done mine in a few sentences, there's no reason why you can't do yours to a similar length?

But let me just say first: no contradictions, no alliterations, everything stated explicitly and interwoven clearly, and if you don't have the evidence, or you haven't read some enlightened CT theorising what you think, just go right ahead anyway and state your suspicions as long as they are an integral, and not extraneous, part of your argument. Ok?

 

[CaroleK]

'How about the planes that hit the WTC?'

' ... they were remote controlled, why haven't experts all around the word reached the same conclusion? What happened to the real pilots? How come the pilots and ground staff didn't notice the extra equipment?'

Hehehe ... now come on, ed, I never said I ORGANISED the WTC tragedy! All I'm saying is that there's a lot not RIGHT with it. And you'd have to BE the organiser to know all the answers to the zillions of questions about the WTC tragedy that are flying around out here.


'Now how about you post up a concise, cogent, unlinked, and coherent argument that states your opinion in no uncertain terms. ' - Diamond

... Naaah! ... Can't be arsed ...

But thanks for giving my post another airing. You just can't reiterate good stuff too much these days, can you?

And I'll write my posts the way 'I' want to, not the way YOU want me to.'

 

[fela fan]

Okay then diamond, editor, here’s what I think.

9/11 was organised and carried out by US elites. I say elites, coz I’m sure it includes those outside of government. Either way, for me it was done by americans, not arab people.

OBL is not repsonsible for the attacks.

The planes were remote controlled. Possibly with pilots who had their ability to control the plane overridden by computers controlled from the ground.

The attacks were carried out by americans to provide the necessary means (ie having the american public softened up to get them onside) to embark on their empire activities for the new century. The one when oil is due to run out.

And here are the problems I have with my scenario. They’re the bits I’m interested in gaining more insights into.

I know OBL exists, coz I have enough confidence in Robert Fisk having known that it was indeed OBL that he was interviewing not so long before 2001.

So why doesn’t this OBL man come out and tell the world that it wasn’t him who attacked New York, it was the americans themselves?

If the planes were remote controlled, with no pilots, what of communications usually had between pilots and air traffic control? How could planes take off without pilots, and without anyone knowing that there were no pilots on the planes doing all the pre-flight checks that pilots have to do? If there were indeed pilots flying the planes, but who then discovered that other computers on the ground were overriding them, again … er, actually as I type, I realise that ATC weren’t in communication with the pilots. Actually with pilots sitting in their seats, but unable to control the flight path of the planes, this as I type sounds most plausible. But no pilots is a bit hard for me to get my head round.

There would have been a lot of people involved in the planning and execution of the attacks. Not one so far seems to have broken ranks.

I have other unanswered questions in my head, always have had, but there’s no doubt in my mind that americans being behind the attacks makes far more valid and logical sense to me than arabs led by OBL. They really do have so much to gain from the attacks, indeed, are in the process of making those gains.

What exactly did OBL and arabs gain from the attacks if it was them?

 

[Diamond]

What exactly did OBL and arabs gain from the attacks if it was them?

Well the Arabs gained little IMO, but then again it was a very small minority of the Arab population who planned the event and carried it out. The hijackers were never representative of the Arabs and neither are their actions.

OBL gained a vast amount of respect and publicity but the most valuable thing he gained was a paradigm shift in how the world community views itself. Previous to 9/11 there had always been vague talk of the West but no one had ever bothered to vaguely define the East, it just seemed to be a mass of heterogenous impoverished countries governed by piss poor leaders.

However post-9/11 OBL got the world geo-political context he needed in order to validate his war. Quite simply the US weren't paying him enough attention and a catastrophic strike was needed to take place within the US heartland before this polarisation of world politics into christian-rich-white West and poor-oppressed-islamic east.

Remember that his world view is based on a cruader/saladin construction that demands holy war to justify itself. And put simply you can't have a war when your enemy has the conceit to ignore you. His organisation and their ideas needed to be validated, and 9/11 did just that.

Without this division his struggle would never have been anything more than a minor irritant to Western governments concerned with their foreign assets. Post-9/11 OBL sets the agenda and he has the real power.

He probably anticipated a US reaction somewhere in the Islamic world, and he probably anticipated that this reaction could be used to his advantage in expanding and securing new recruits to his mission.

You only have to look at what's happening in Iraq now to understand that OBL has probably managed to harvest a whole new generation of terrorists thanks to the new world conflict he has ushered in. (the old generation primarily being zealous mujahadin from the 80's afghan conflict turning their projected hatred away from the then immediate perceived threat to Islam [Soviet Russia] and on to their recent immediate perceived threat to Islam [USA])

 

[editor]

.OBL is not repsonsible for the attacks.

Then why has he not denied it?

The planes were remote controlled. Possibly with pilots who had their ability to control the plane overridden by computers controlled from the ground.

You have not a single shred of evidence to support these claims. Nothing. In fact, you can't even show me a single example of a commercial passenger aircraft being flown in this manner, even though the technology would be worth billions.
And what about the 'faked' calls? No cray-zeee conspiracy scenario can adequately explain how people could be fooled in this manner. There is no way that anyone could fool me with a call from someone claiming to my girlfriend. One private joke and they'd be rumbled. So how come so many people were supposedly so easily duped?

The attacks were carried out by americans to provide the necessary means to embark on their empire activities for the new century

Rubbish. History proves that America has embarked on a long series of attacks on other countries without the need to destroy their own cities and mass murder their own citizens in phenomenally expensive conspiracies first.

What exactly did OBL and arabs gain from the attacks if it was them?.

Err, exactly what he wanted!
You really should try and get a copy of the OBL documentary, you know.

 

[editor]

All I'm saying is that there's a lot not RIGHT with it. And you'd have to BE the organiser to know all the answers to the zillions of questions about the WTC tragedy that are flying around out here.

Stop wriggling and back up your vague claims about these remote controlled planes, please.

If you're saying that it's all a big conspiracy, why can't you offer a vaguely plausible explanation about how it was done?

Without that, you may as well believe in the fairies.

Or obscure Portuguese ex-pat holiday let sites.

 

[Jazzz]

CaroleK, you might like to read this German TV Documentary transcript which I just googled up.

Is there anyone who still doubts the existence of remote control technology? If so, please note how Operation Northwoods was to be carried out...

The master stroke was to be a aircraft operation. A plane was to take off from a Florida airport with CIA personnel as passengers destined for a vacation in the Caribbean.

James Bamford
At the same time as this passenger plane took off, an identical plane would take off from a nearby airport. The second plane would be be empty, steered by remote control. The first plane with its CIA passengers would then land and the second, empty, remote controlled plane would take the place of the first plane in the air, and soon would be flying over Cuba. This second plane would broadcast an SOS that had been previously recorded on tape. Then, with the pressing of a button, the empty plane would explode. Thereby, the claim that the Cubans had shoot down an American passenger plane would be believable.

(from the above link)

There was also recently a documentary which I caught a bit of on the very subject of whether RC technology should be introduced as standard to prevent hijackings (that's what I was looking for... did anyone else see it?).

 

[editor]

Is there anyone who still doubts the existence of remote control technology? If so, please note how Operation Northwoods was to be carried out...

Err, Operation Northwoods was never more than a planner's pipedream from decades ago. It never happened.

But could you show me a single example of a commercial passenger aircraft being flown by remote control without the ground staff or pilots noticing the equipment?

And how about those faked calls? Do you really believe that a crack team of Mike Yarwoods managed to fool all those loved ones? Personally, I find it a deeply insulting suggestion that sums up the ridiculous lengths conspiracy fans will go to.