A calm response ~~ Did you miss the part where Al Quada was surprised at how effective their own tactics were when the buildings came crashing down ?. . . . How bout the part when Al Quada identified their own terrorists who participated ?
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
The source is my memory. .. . and the source for you should be your memory too . How is it possible that someone like you can do allllll this research and yet miss the Al Quada films that every American saw, or should've seen if they were paying attention? . It was on every network countless times every day, every hour on the hour .
those films which were spreaded by Bush & team ? I remember that clip before Bush campaign in 2004. It was especially designed to raise votes.. And let me ask you, will you accept what ever Osama or Zawahiri says ? Yes, they were on every network because it was just a tactic for election campaign. And as I said, These organisations always do that when they want to raise more popularity & sympathy from radicals. This is the easiest way to motivate others without doing anything.
First, I'm not American. Second, my interest in all this kicked into gear very late in the game, so I will have missed bits and pieces. It's been about four years. On the day of 9/11, I didn't know who Osama bin Laden was. My knowledge of US politics, for example, was merely fledgling, and gaps have been filled in while here on Multiply - in that sense, the majority around me know exactly what I know, I am upfront, nothing to hide. Maybe when I see what you refer to, it will jog my memory. I'll keep looking, but it would be more convincing if you gave us a link, then we'll get an idea of what you know, of your opinion on this.
Memory is extremely unreliable, selective, and prone to distortions, especially when it comes to emotionally charged situations. So, you memory is not an argument. Everybody has a memory, and everybody remembers things differently.
Now, to the substance - I am not claiming that I know what happened. However, there is too much suspicious information and government secrecy/non-compliance/active ignoring of evidence and promts to address various questionable issues. Also, as was pointed out above, al Qaeda's actions, announcements, video releases, etc. have to be seen in the larger context as calculated political tactics, not as facts and evidence to support your arguments. Similarly for many of the governmental actions, announcements, etc.
Similar situation here. I am Ukrainian, though I do live in the U.S. currently. I was relatively "fresh off the boat", so to speak, in 2001, and my perceptions of 9/11 and American political environment have changed quite significantly as I learned more about them and as I matured. I am not a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I am extremely skeptical of various overblown conspiracy theories and really dislike the paranoid mindset characteristic to the proponents of such theories. I don't think it's healthy.
Partially for those reasons, as far as 9/11 attacks are concerned, through the years, hearing bits and pieces of various conpiracy theories, I tended to dismiss them. However, more and more information has been coming to light, which, when put together, is liable to make any reasonable person VERY suspicious. Knowing the Bush administration, knowing the CIA, knowing history, it is not such a huge leap of imagination to suspect certain covert involvement, especially since all the accumulated evidence and information has not been addressed, refuted, or otherwise proven implausible.
That is why I chose to post these clips - in my opinion, these are well-presented arguments, devoid of hype, emotive appeals, exhortations, and other such nonsense that only confuses the real issues. I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything - just sharing some resources, which I found valuable. These are important issues and they should be approached with open mind and open eyes.
On the other thread, Roel suggested in one of his comments that:
"Presidents are toppled all the time,as were kings and queens in the past. What makes this case different?
At what point can the people begin to object to their governments behavior OR Does that mean that basically the people are behind it, and they do not always want to know the nasty side of the business. Because it was for the greater good ,a more powerful America."
And my response to that was:
That's the core issue here. In cases such as this - when there is much suspicious information and conjecture about the government's involvement in criminal/immoral/terrorist/etc. activities - it is not an individual who is responsible, it is usually the whole systems, bureaucracies, and agencies (or, more likely, some significant parts/cliques/conspiring actors within the latter) that are implicated. It is utterly unrealistic to expect the government to ever admit anything of such nature, even if, let's say, the new administration wanted to. Pure and simple - its a question of national security and political expedience. Just imagine the repercussions of something like this actually being ADMITTED by government officials. And it's not that I'm cynical, I'm just being realistic. It is especially imprudent to suggest something like this SHOULD be done, considering the situation with the ongoing Iraq and Afghan/Central Asia situations, etc., etc., etc.
In a situation like this, from the point of view of the officials that want to fix things, the best course of action is to reverse certain policies, start deescalating the related conflicts and trying to minimize the consequences and repercussions of the earlier criminal/deceptive acts/policies. But definitely not admit or reveal some such earth-shattering, damaging information. It would simply mean suicide, in a very qualified, specific sense related to politics.
From the point of view of others - those who are not tied up with official obligations, such as honest and courageous academics, independent investigators, media, etc. - the best course of action is to try and dig deep enough to reach as close to truth as possible.
Of course, all of this is infinitely complicated by politics and media as usual - noise, manipulation, etc.
Are you hinting that that the only remedy is an all out revolution,anarchy ,chaos followed by a reconstruction of society,before some kind of normality is resumed..
After all Chaos breeds order in the end
Just kidding everyone,
But someone may have foreseen the possibilities,many police forces have more than doubled in strength ,(such as in Mexico).in the last few years. And there are Army post spread all over the country,in the sierra´s.Obviously aimed at their own people ,NOT an enemy at the other side of the border.
The excuse has always been that this control is for the sake/security of the public ,to combat narco traffic and delinquency. (now where have i heard something similar before?)
The public power is rapidly waning, going the direction of impotency.
Futuristic movies portray slave populations revolting against super corporate control,Big Brothers,evil robotic minds. .As if to prepare us for what is in store
Is Asimov a fantasist,a prophet,or just someone who can think ahead.
And we are supposed to be on peaceful paths leading to a more civilized ,advanced Human being ,
One would have thought that ,that would require LESS policing ,NOT more.
I know you are kidding, but still an interesting suggestion :).
While I am not opposed to revolution in principle, the truth is that in reality - and historically - revolutions bring too much chaos and never accomplish what they set out to do. Inevitably, the idealistic revolutionaries are not the ones who end up in charge after the revolution, and huge, demoralizing disappointment sets in. Look at such instances as the French Revolution, the Russian October Revolution, the social movements of the 1960s, etc. - they all have similar features in common. And the upheaval/violence/chaos of the revolution is bound to produce strong reaction - Napoleon, Stalin, Nixon/Reagan (and, more broadly, resurgence of the right-wingers/neoconservatives), respectively. Granted, the preceding statements are extremely schematic, but I trust most of you will get the point I'm trying to make.
In that sense, reform and reconstruction is a better path. Ultimately, change is necessary and vital, but never easy.
Yeah, ok. We'll agree to disagree, but I admit that logic is sound. Since you're here... love to hear some comment from you (on relevant thread, or a new one) about the Iranian elections, since you've lived there...
When I lived in Iran I was 12 years old. Iran is a country like most muslim countries. The people want reform but the hardliners run the show to the detriment of society in general.
I would like to see Ahmadinejad defeated of course.
that was a stutter from above,not referring to the previous post, when he said that dope smokers believe conspiracies and reject facts My machine was acting up
as described in the BBC documentary -the power of nightmares, this documentary gives an indication of how long ago some of today stategies were already being planned
Part of a strategy to create a common fear, so that laws could be changed . Increasing the governments power over the people. Police forces could be strengthened.
Rally the people behind the flag (strengthening of Nationalism,which is important if one needs soldiers) And to lay the basis for an excuse to initiate military actions.
And it worked.
With enormous economic benefits for those who wanted to increase their power. (The insurance policy of the towers by the way were changed just before the attack,an added bonus for the owners)
Similar strategies have been done in the past ,such as by Nero,Hitler and many others, More or less for the same reasons..It is a very old idea.
Hitler was talking about a new world Order and they are still talking about that today ,Incidentally the same banks were/are involved in backing both.
A similar strategy is what is happening in Mexico with the Narco problem. As described in the documentary -End game.
A friend who is a police lawyer,says that many police chiefs are replaced by those who only listen to a central command in DF,(Mexico City)
By now there are army posts all over the Sierras. Create the fear (the problem),come with the solutions and end up with total control.
We are now in stage 2 the gun battles between army and bandits. Last week there was a big one ,ten minutes away from here . At the same time as the Acapulco battle ,which is an hour away.
before it was hard to differentiate,where the drug lords stopped and the government began. a few weeks ago 10 mayors of towns were arrested together . Our own Mayor is hassled continuously by the army
If you start investigating the IRA you may also discover strange bedfellows.
Technically, I should despise your views... but I just can't punch a hole in this logic. I'm left thinking of Charlie Sheen... admittedly, I'm hungover and can't be bothered to think much right now.
Do you honestly think a credible mainstream newspaper's editor would dare to suggest that tragedy was carried out with the complicity of the establishment / Bush administration / CIA / military ? They'd be closed down, if not already gagged.
Absolutely - They were free to try to remove Clinton from office. To report on Gitmo and Abu ghraib. Are they reporting on Gordon Brown's problems? How about Nixon and Watergate? Wire Taps, Rendition, Waterboarding........It seems they are reporting on this!
When has the USA government EVER shut down a media outlet? Never - ever! Do you realize how flimsy your stance is here?
The fact is there are no facts to support your stance. The person that broke this story would be be worth untold millions and live in infamy. Newspapers are free to print anything they like as long as they can back it up with credible investigative reporting. When they print BS like Dan Rather they no they can lose their jobs.
The problem with people who want to believe in this crap is that one conspiracy always begets another; "9-11 was an inside job but the press can't report on it because the JEWS won't let them and we know this because they all attended the Bilderberg conference with Elvis Presley."
the government uses the press,that is the whole point , Clinton Like Kennedy and Abe Lincoln had gone against their bosses , But Bill only had a ticking off.
Andy it is a pity they deleted your post it was very revealing ,as to what camp you belong. guess your sheeps cloak was slipping for a moment.
Hey, I know this. I go to great lengths to both pay attention to the likes of Bilderberg, while at the same time distancing myself from as lot of the weed-smoking UFO obsessed paranoid lunatics who infest online sites about that and associated topics. I find Randy's delivery quite amusing. If he mocks a genocide in an offensive manner, I'll kick his ass and he knows it. But conspiracy theorists come by degrees, and while I consider myself pretty mild, the most fanatical ones have it coming. Of course, I don't think Bush is a 'hero', I think he's a war criminal... but I set out here to make sure all opinions could be aired, whether I like them or not. Randy has proven to be one of the people who makes this group what it is. I know some people will read that in disbelief, but I mean it.
Note Bohdan said he's not trying to convince anyone of anything, it's just important to be aware of these things. That's most important, I think. I prefer to stay open to views that I might not like or agree with, because I grow as a person, become more informed and more balanced.
You bet your ass they do. To suggest that one controlling entity controls all the information to the people is idiotic and people that suggest that the London Times or the Seattle Times can't print what they bloody hell want to print are certifiably nuts.
Rupert Murdock (FOX) and General Electric (MSNBC) are two entirely different animals with two radically different news organizations. They are controlled by the greed of capitalism and if they ran across a credible 9/11 Hoax story they would print it in a heartbeat.
That said, Murdoch is on record admitting he calls the shots regarding the political angle of his newspaper The Sun... why should the Times be any different?
My mistake it is still there, but it is way back . So very sorry I did not back track that much. I jumped the gun ,judgmentally assumed that the racist reference had been removed . I mean calling Elvis Jewish,what next??? ha ha
OK, let me qualify my earlier comments, for it seems you misunderstand me. I am not denying that big business and big media are driven by profits. All I'm saying it is not the ONLY motive. It is reductionist to think that way.
Next, I am not paranoid, but I am open-minded. We simply are talking about different ideas of media. You call big media "free to report anything they want," and I'm saying it is an exaggeration. I am not saying that the media is completely beholden to some power interests, as they are in the authoritarian and totalitarian societies, but ignoring the more subtle relations of power that exist even in democratic societies is perilous.
Lastly, some big media actually reported suspicious information about 9/11 - some such clips from ABC or CBS (I don't remember at the moment) are used in the clips I posted and some documentaries on the subject. They are hesitant to report anything more, because, as I said, there is little "conclusive proof" of such a conspiracy, as can be expected. But that does not mean that the conspiracy did not exist. The government's behavior after 9/11 could have easily alleviated such theories and fears, but their behavior (reluctance to answer questions under oath, delay in starting official investigation, lack of independence (executive director for the 9/11 commission was a White House man), etc. "Guilty" is what such behavior says. Guilty of what? This is a different and no less important question, but their guilt is something that, while not, in strictly legal terms, "beyond reasonable doubt" at the moment, is nevertheless quite obvious to any intellectually honest person.
By the way, let's not talk about Michael Moore - I didn't mention him and I don't rely on him for my information. His are not analytical films, but partisan propaganda - facts are thickly enveloped in biased editing. I think his films have a role in today's political environment, but they are not to be used as sources for analytical arguments.
do you feel better now ,Is this the ranter you use to convince yourself.
As far as corporations are concerned ,It is also the eye in the pyramid stuff , the masses do not know the ins and outs of the main Agenda ,the secret Agenda ,the alliances ,
Some times even the company directors do not know everything that the board /owners have on their plate.
But i can tell you for sure that a major electronics company,already in the 70ties was working on a depopulation plan,by giving free vasectomies in Arab and Indian countries. I knew the head doctor in charge ,and I knew the man who made the deal with the Indian government.(the Company is on the Bilderberg list and make every meeting)
Ultimately, this whole argument is useless - the subject gets changed from the substance of what happened that day to an attack on those who suggest that something suspicious was happening. It's a tactic of deflection - in a sense, counterattack is the best defense.
Randy, if you think this is ridiculous - can you simply explain the facts that are calmly presented in the clips? Can you explain the explosions in the basement that many different people reported, the fall of building 7, etc., etc., etc. See, wouldn't it be easier for everyone if these arguments were addressed? But they are not addressed by any government official. Why? One cannot help but think that the reason is because it is not possible to explain it any other way.
Also, I know how such agencies as CIA operate - I am from Ukraine - a nation with a Soviet past - and I am familiar with the tactics KGB and CIA used in the Cold War. If you think that one of them is "good", and the other "bad," you are sorely mistaken. KGB used the communist ideology as a curtain to cover their real motives, CIA - the ideology of democratic capitalism or whatever else you want to call it. But at the core, the moral considerations for these agencies were practically the same - money and power. Don't let your bias blind your judgment and intellect.
The differences between the motives of the leadership of the two countries was very little ,They took different paths ,that is all.And there was much open dialogue between the two at all times
exactly,and you can include MI5 The differences between the motives of the leadership of these countries was very little ,They took different paths ,that is all.And there was much open dialogue between them at all times
Yes - there is little conclusive proof. This is my point. Publicly owned media outlets are big on proof. They like facts. People making U-Tube videos don't need facts because they are not responsible to anyone and do not have a reputation to lose. They can say anything!
Look I know my rant on this is harsh but that's only because I have a short fuse for people who think there single opinion on something is somehow more credible that a bi partisan commission investigating a terrorists act.
I take conspiracies seriously when enough people with reputations to lose get behind it. No serious person says the USA press is not "FREE" to report on what it likes. No serious person says 9-11 was an inside job. Most people need "Proof" as you say and not just a "hunch."
This is another difference between myself and others. I don't get my news from U-Tube. I get my news from reputable sources that are responsible for what they print or say.
If the New York Times wants to look at these clips and write a piece about their validity I will pay attention. I suspect they have (and others) and determined they need more "proof."
Anyone can make a U-Tube Video;
can you simply explain the facts that are calmly presented in this clip?
If the New York Times makes a mistake - it's prints a retraction. It wants to be taken seriously as a news outlet. It can be sued for slander or libel. So it tries to get it's facts straight. It does not want to lose readers and advertisers so it is responsible for what appears in it's pages.
The dude making the U-Tube video has no such dilemma. He can distort the facts, spin, lie, take things out of context, slander ect......
Because he does not have reputation no one gives a shit. He is not responsible to anybody. The New York Times is responsible for millions of readers who pay to read it's news and want the facts right.
The Loose Change kids are not responsible to anyone. Who cares what their "facts" say? Just a couple of kids making a video! They don't have to get anything right. No one cares because they are NOBODY! That is to say they have no reputation to lose.
exactly,there has been an avalanche of reports ,witnesses,workers,ex government people,editorials ,individuals ,expert Analise's , Easier to write what has NOT been done.
If only a grain of it was true it still leaves a very big fire.
But i said before ,those who do not want to believe, can prevent themselves and that may include bringing a Big Foot into it.
plenty of reputable papers who want to be taken seriously(don´t most) have reported things that were not in fact fact ,but was what the powers who rule wanted to be known.
Has the New york times ever printed anything about Saddam having weapons of Mass destruction,which has been disproved.
Randy wrote: "Anyone can make a U-Tube Video; can you simply explain the facts that are calmly presented in this clip?"
Why do you insist on turning the arrows toward me? Instead of presenting something to explain it, you insist on attacking me. I am not attacking you - I'm just asking whether you can address some of the cogent arguments made by the 9/11 Truth Movement. I'm not accepting any extreme argument, but some evidence is quite disturbing and worrisome.
It's not just these clips - there are plenty of other sources, and all of them say this. It's not new - these facts have been around for several years. There are many suspicious unexplained occurrences that took place on that day, but the primary smoking gun is building 7 - why was it imploded all of a sudden, hours after the two towers fell? In addition, to set up an implosion of such a big building takes weeks, according to industry experts, not hours, which suggests foreknowledge of the attack.
The second point is that many people reported explosions in the basement soon after the plane hit the building. Another important point is that many architects and structural engineers - in short, people who know something about putting buildings up - claim that the buildings could not have collapsed like this simply because of the airplane hitting them. The fire could not have been hot enough - these buildings were built to withstand such damage. And so on. Essentially, the evidence suggests that these buildings were IMPLODED in a controlled manner.
Once again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. If you or anyone else can present a solid alternative explanation, that will be fine. Until such time neither you nor anyone else can claim that suggesting conspiracy is ridiculous.
Randy wrote: "Look I know my rant on this is harsh but that's only because I have a short fuse for people who think there single opinion on something is somehow more credible that a bi partisan commission investigating a terrorists act."
Once again, this commission was a sham. For Christ's sake, Bush tried to appoint Kissinger, that Cold War fossil, as the head of the commission! That was prevented, but still the commission was not independent. The person responsible for the actual investigations - the executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow, was an inside man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow) The commissioners themselves didn't physically investigate anything, and executive director had a lot of control over which lines of investigations were actually pursued and how successful they were.
I just gave you an example of Walter Duranty. Funny how you ignored it - got nothing to say?
Moreover, you use the same argument - freedom of speech - for two different purposes, just to advance your deficient arguments. On one hand you claim that big media is free, meaning it can cover and print anything it wants, essentially; on the other hand, you attack those independent sources for the same ability to cover and say anything they want. That's funny.
Look, everyone sane agrees that it is possible to doctor videos, distort facts, etc. The point is that anyone can do this - government, big media, small media, independent media, kitchen-based media... One has to use judgment when evaluating such things. That is why I posted these clips - they are by far the best presentation, devoid of hype, excessive emotion, accusation or exhortation. It presents some evidence, some arguments, and suggests that there is something suspicious here. I agree.
On the flip side, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. In the U.S., it is used as in ideological tool in many arguments. But that's a whole another discussion. Let's not exaggerate the reality. Of course the media is free in the U.S., relatively speaking, but that does not mean that it cannot be manipulated by powerful interests - media is not a monolith either, it is made up of various groups of people, such as journalists, editors, producers, owners, etc. A certain level of censorship is implied in such institution as media - this is going back to your "reputability" argument. But such things as editorial policies can be easily and sometimes quite imperceptibly manipulated. So, the media is free, yet it chooses not to report on some things. Hm... Is it really free, then? That is why there is a term such as "newsMAKING". You're not that naive, Randy, why are you defending big media like this?
Unbelievable. I give Senators and Congressmen and other pillars of the community. I give you the new York Times - maybe the most respected News Outlet in the world and my arguments are deficient!
In other words - I have Something - You have NOTHING!!
You give me some jack ass on U-Tube and and you are using sound logic!
Holy Shit - I can't make this stuff up!
AGAIN - On my side;
The members of the commission were:
* Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey * Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana * Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office * Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel * Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration * Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington * Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska * John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy * Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana * James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois
The members of the commission's staff included:
* Philip D. Zelikow, Executive Director/Chair * Christopher Kojm, Deputy Executive Director * Daniel Marcus, General Counsel * John J. Farmer, Senior Counsel * Janice Kephart, Counsel * Al Felzenberg, Spokesman[7]
AGAIN - On your side;
The Stoner kids who made Loose Change and a couple of other retards from U-Tube!
That is perfect thank you this strengthens the conspiracy theorist´s argument, not yours,.
The Bilderberg list of attendees looks just like your list ,only it is much bigger , But they were the same kind of people and of course more important ones.
I did not post any youtubes ,I am only responding to this banter. But you did, you posted a bigfoot
I think ,that you think, that the more important a person is ,the more truthful he has to be, While in fact lies become more impòrtant with status. It is what this page and this group is all about,Important people being untruthful
Most of these people seem to be working for the system that is in question. But i could be wrong
.And I have managed to say this with out calling anyone ,retards,stoner kids or jack asses I am keeping calm against all odds. I am sorry jess funnin wid ye Peace.
No problem! I enjoy the banter much. Some say my blogging style is intended to ruffle feathers and get people off their talking points. I don't see it personally.
Look, Basically your position is that people who have accumulated power cannot ever be trusted on anything.
I would submit that it is the exact opposite; people accumulate power precisely because they can be trusted.
No not necessarily,but this page is about conspiracy theories and that concerns people in top leading positions , And yes they are being caught out and have been in the past as well , trust is lost along the way.
What you say may work in a village ,but in the big picture i will get as devious as is possible ,Not everybody is like Gandhi.
Money ,connections ,breeding.and sponsors get people into leading positions Never because they are a good guy.
Do You honestly believe that the governments actions are for the sake of the American public . the last few presidents worked for the international bankers
They follow what their higher authority and their Agenda demands,
sometimes things happen that are beyond the presidents control. It has been suggested that this could have been the case of 911.
If you go into it you will find that the candidates you can choose from are appointed or placed , A countries control/ownership does not change with every president ,or with different parties,the shadow government never changes.
Why are so many of the presidents blood related,and in turn blood related to European Royalty,this is not a coincidence. They are loyal to their blood ,because it relates to power and control. ,not to the public they command.
But A king or a queen ,or a President, will never admit to that Few in the public are aware of that, until we had the internet.
What is this hang-up on stoner kids, etc? I haven't seen Loose Change nor have I referred to it in my comments. The original clips I posted plus the arguments made by 9/11 Truth Movement and MANY OTHER SOURCES are primarily what I focus on, not stoners, not "retards", not "a couple of kids".
Once again, you ignore my arguments and start lashing out at me for unknown reasons. It only makes you look ridiculous, to tell the truth, not anybody else. And even after I pointed out the connections between Zelikow to the White House and other governmental agencies, you still use this whole 9/11 commission as an argument. If those are only people "on your side", then you are in trouble, my friend, because their word is worth NOTHING.
And you know, honestly, your comparisons are morally bankrupt. You are comparing something like 9/11 with Monica Lewinski and Big Foot? Even Watergate does not reach the level of seriousness and moral implications. The case of Monica Lewinski was just an attempt at character assasination by right-wingers. Remember Kenneth Star? What a character he was. Another example of a "commission" created by the government to "investigate." In other words, your arguments only work against you, if you pick them apart sufficiently.
All right, then :). To be honest, I'd prefer less agression and more solid argument, but that's a question of style, I guess :).
I knew you weren't calling ME a stoner :). And, just for a record, I'm not. I have smoked and I am not opposed to it, but being a "stoner" is another question altogether - question of degree and such. In any case, I agree - it is less destructive than alcohol, tobacco, and firearms ;).
Yeah, sorry, today was a hectic day and I was rushing through the posts, forgetting to include the quotes. That said, all my responses were to Randy's comments
Just finished watching "Loose Change". Excellent. Randy, I don't hesitate to add this film to my list of recommended resources.
And, as Roel said, this is a very serious subject matter with far-reaching implications. Making light of this is out of place. Constructive, rather than adversarial, debate would be much more preferable when discussing something as tragic and horrific as this.
Having thought about this extensively for the past few weeks and having researched various arguments and facts, I am now absolutely certain that the twin towers and the WTC building 7 collapsed due to controlled implosion, and that no plane flew into the Pentagon. This is the starting point and the "ground zero", if you will. Whatever the explanation, it is clear that there is criminal conspiracy behind it.
I do not make the above statements lightly. I remember 9/11, I remember various pieces of different discussions through the years about the "missing plane" near the Pentagon, etc., but I never actually stopped to think about the towers' collapse in detail. And this is exactly the point - most people were so horrified, shocked, and terrorized in the months and years following the event, that they did not stop to consider the evidence. Moreover, the evidence was not readily accessible due to massive cover-up efforts.
i lied I did post loose change,on the first page I thought it was one of the most thorough of exposures, really going into details about the pentagon, Could Randy explain the damage there , considering what what supposed to have caused it. and there was this small detail of a missing tail which is two stories high
Sorry randy i lied, I did post 3 youtubes in this calm discussion,
,on the first page (repeat) loose change one of the most detailed 911 examinations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE really going into details about the pentagon,
Could Randy explain the damage there , considering what what supposed to have caused it. and there was this small detail of a missing tail which is two stories high
There is no reasoning with the TRUFERS. They will invent another conspiracy to explain your concerns about the passengers. "Dude, All those people claiming they lost family on the Pentagon Flight were paid actors from Hollywood........The Biloderberg Group told them to lie."
Whatever you do, don't hit them with facts! Maybe the stoner Loose Change kids can make a movie about it!
Go sell crazy somewhere else. What a disservice you do to all the 3000 dead and their family by suggesting that their government killed them. Do you have any facts? No. Zip. Zero. Nada. None.
These people lost loved ones and you suggest they did not. Do you have any facts? NO - NONE!
Your outlandish accusations are not "Constructive" in the least. When discussing something so "tragic and horrific" you might want to provide some proof. When you push such an asinine agenda without any facts it makes you look stupid - even hateful. I know you are smarter than that.
AGAIN - YOU HAVE NO FACTS!!!!!!!!!
Host Bill Maher called 9/11 truthers "lunatics," and demanded they stop requesting him "raise this ridiculous topic on this show and start asking [their] doctor if Paxil is right for [them]."
he full transcript of this astonishing "New Rule" follows:
New Rule: Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one that's being naïve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think, "Well, if you believe that was the cause?" Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on this show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you.
Real Time with Bill Maher- 10/19/07- Bill tangles with members of the 9/11 Truth movement.
"Constructive, rather than adversarial, debate would be much more preferable." Were you DRUNK when you said this? You are the one pushing NONSENSE with no facts!!!!!!! NONE!
I like you as a contact. You seem smart. However don't ever accuse me of not being constructive in debate when you are the one pushing lame and hateful conspiracy theories.
One other thing GROW A PAIR!!!!!! Don't hide behind your pitiful "Randy, you are lashing out at me" girly bullshit. You are a man. You are pushing bullshit with no facts. You deserve a blogging beat down.
I hope you take it like a man and not 13 year old girl for once.
This is not personal. People who push 9-11 conspiracy theories deserve to be made fun of and I like doing it.
I look forward to debating you on other issues in the future. Hopefully you can support your arguments with more than U-Tube videos!
No conspiracy need be invented. I don't know what exactly happened that day, but is it so hard to imagine that those planes crashed elsewhere? I mean, all that I'm saying is that no explanation has been forthcoming and the physical evidence is overwhelming. Planes DO NOT vaporize to pieces upon crashing. Explain that.
What facts do you have that prove Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda killed those people? "No. Zip. Zero. Nada. None." The government's official story is just as unfounded as these alternative explanations. So why do you buy into the official story, if you are such a skeptical individual?
And why should I listen to Bill Maher? LOL. Just like I don't use Michael Moore to back up my arguments, I won't use Bill Maher or any other TV jock who thrives on controversial entertainment.
(CBS/AP) Al-Jazeera aired Thursday previously unshown footage of the preparations for the Sept. 11 attacks in which al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is seen meeting with some of the planners and hijackers in a mountain camp in Afghanistan.
The station did not say how it obtained the video, which was produced by As-Sahab, al Qaeda's media branch.
The video included the last will and testaments of two of the hijackers, Wail al-Shehri and Hamza al-Ghamdi.
I am not pushing bullshit or being hateful. You are making assumptions about this. My original motive to post the clips was simply to share it with others, as I think it is important to stay aware of this debate. I, for one, am new to this - I haven't been following this Truth Movement extensively, I was exposed to many of these arguments just recently, and I find them very convincing. If you don't, that's your prerogative. I'm not trying to persuade you. What I don't like is your "aggressive arguing", when discussing such important issues as this. Your style serves to muddle up the debate and detract from the focus of the discussion. If you think this is ridiculous, don't respond. You have not provided a single constructive point to this debate, as far as I am concerned. So, piss off with your "grow a pair" and "you are a man" comments. Those are pitiful indeed, not my attempts to engage in meaningul intellectual exchange.
This is painful, alright. All your evidence also consists of videos and testaments, which are hardly conclusive.
In addition, I never claimed that the whole thing was planned and executed by the government start to finish. I'm saying there is a lot of suspicious evidence and there is guilty behavior, cover-up and reluctance to address questions after the attack.
There were 19 highjackers listed. Turned out a bunch of them were actually alive after the attack. Background checks on others revealed some strange connections to the government agencies and wierd behavior prior to the attacks. This is not enough, of course, but it is about just as conclusive as your arguments above.
Arguing prior knowledge, etc., is different from arguing that the whole thing was planned and carried out from scratch, although even that is a possibility. It is hard to discard such alternatives in the current environment of clandestine government behavior and refusal to answer questions.
If you've seen "Loose Change," there is a lot of footage of how various people (Kean of 9/11 commission, Guiliani, NIST head, etc.) are interviewed and how they avoid answering questions in an honest manner. It is very easy to tell when someone is hiding something as opposed to when someone really doesn't have an answer and honestly says so.
No disservice is done. Some of the families are participating in the Truth Movement. Many of those directly involved in the events of that day agree with the Truth Movement. That is a powerful sign.
I would argue that getting to the truth is the BIGGEST SERVICE to the dead and their families, and the government has been withholding information and lying to them.
After people are 20 there is not much difference in intelligence I think ,age brings experience,Data , Not intelligence. Silicone valley was build on spaced out kids , And because of them we are talking here
Sometimes age can bring closed mindedness ,set in ones ways, reluctance to think beyond the norm.
A`part from that in many meetings with both adults and kids ,the young peoples meetings were the most stimulating and led to more depth. The older people often got stuck on principles ,personal feelings or habit.
Next thing you say that race also determines intelligence,and I know for a fact that that is untrue ,having compared primitive native kids from the African or Mexican bush with modern white kids from mayor cities .
Intelligence can be found anywhere Education is something else.
Listen, I don't know the answers. Also, I do not exclude the possibility that my current opinions are wrong. I remain open-minded as more evidence and factual analysis comes my way. Perhaps the crash really did happen in such a way that it left little footprint, I do not know. But it seems unlikely. And let me reiterate again, the lack of forthcoming information and the guilty, clandestine behavior by the government agencies is suspicious.
The extent of the conspiracy is unknown, but there is plenty of evidence that the government was immediately ready to use this as the reason to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many equally plausible stories of what exactly happened that can be developed and it is useless to speculate. What is important is to keep asking questions and not let this slide. I think we can all agree that CIA (as well as FBI and other security agencies) is a shady organization and it has been implicated in much covert activity - it's the nature of its business. The Cold War was its heyday, and ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the CIA has been looking for a new enemy to give it reason for existing and operating. It has found it - an ephemeral threat of communism was replaced by an equally ephemeral one of terrorism. CIA is back in business in a new Homeland Security structure.
Exactly. I agree 100%. No wonder that back in the 60s, there was a slogan - too extreme, of course, but the point is made - "Don't believe anyone over 30!"
That's the problem with your misunderstanding my point here - I am not advancing any conspiracy "theory" (the term implies some conceptual coherence and such), but just looking at the evidence and trying to understand and explain it. It is easy to just accept the official explanation and say - "Good, we got that out of the way, not need to worry about that, let's move on. Who cares, it doesn't bother me, as long as I get my paycheck." And so on. The conscientious thing to do for any thinking and feeling human being and citizen is to keep questioning.
As far as your quick retort about the "nature of the beast" - that's simply cynicism and indifference speaking. Governments behave suspiciously, so we should just let them do it. Quite a position to take.
Page 3 on a theory ,that is a lot of smoke. Do you think there is a fire.
But this argument is like arguing about God. believers cannot begin to imagine that their whole cultural upbringing could be a lie,the world as they know it would shatter.
The same way many People can never accept that the blame of the death of 3000 people , could lie at home..
There are undercurrents that murky the water , I suspect not everyone is objective ,
Randy has already qualified his opinion as biased ,when he said that Bush and Blair were his heroes.So he would have to defend them.
There cannot be anything more sensitive than this. If the accusations are wrong its; horrific ,disrespectful ,criminal,treasonous bordering on Blasphemy.
If they are right it is much WORSE.
The most popular solution is ,head in the sand ,cover the ears ,start shouting la la la la la ,and hope that the nightmare would stop or go away.
Problem is that for SOME,It never will However The end of the story will be ---shit happens. Because a prosecution is also impossible. The powers that are allegedly involved ,own the courts
But i think that we have to agree ,in all truthfulness that a reasonable doubt exists,I for one have become a doubtful person.
Perhaps - if so, I must have missed it. But what evidence is there? As I said, it is easy to imagine that it could have either crashed or even safely landed elsewhere, but what use is it speculating, if no evidence exists? It is impossible to say either way - lack of evidence does not support either side.
Someone who? There is a whole movement of "someones" saying "hang on a sec" - come on, now, provide something more than pure skepticism. Contribute something.
I thought we were talking about 911, maybe the Shadow government. And corporations
Where did you pick up --EVERYTHING as a conspiracy--in this text, It is normal for a government or a corporation to be selective about what information goes public.Sometimes extremely so,
In a large international corporation the board is not an open book. but their directors have to be ,The managing director of a particular country does not always know the actions of the board.
Granted, there are various interests in this world, which invariably involve money and power. Granted, there are connections among various players across the globe - no surprise there, really. So what now? I mean, is everybody supposed to get scared, anxious, and start a revolution? At the bottom of it all, the whole society can be seen as a "conspiracy" of sorts - in a sense that governments and societies are always established on the basis of domination of some and subordination of the rest. And I mean ALWAYS. No exceptions. It is only a question of degree.
A very good resource on this topic is "Contract and Domination" by Carole Pateman and Charles Mills. Carole Pateman wrote "The Sexual Contract" in 1988, Charles Mills, partially inspired by it, wrote "The Racial Contract" in 1997, and in 2007 they collaborated on this new book, further exploring and intersecting their arguments. Their books are critical revisions of the Enlightenment social contract theories of such theorists as Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, and, more recently (in the 70s), John Rawls' revival of the tradition. The substance of the arguments may be familiar, related to race and gender, both hot-button issues in recent decades, but what is unique is how both of them engage with the mainstream liberal ideas and show how they have been based on false premises and manipulated arguments.
So, to reiterate, in light of these philosophical and social-theoretical ideas, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the rich and the powerful trying to control societies. It is not necessary to demonize them too much or to consider them somehow evil, sinister, and satanic, because, in my opinion, it means crossing the paranoid line. It's only important not to be complacent, ignorant, naive, and oblivious - The struggle for justice will go on as long as humanity exists, because - let's face it - no ideal society is possible. At the same time, despite various processes of globalization and such, various intersecting powerful interests, no one world government is possible.
One important factor in this whoel thing, as I see it, is increasing speed and availability of information - which is both good and bad. Sometimes there is just too much of it, and it becomes useless. Information on its own is really pointless - it is only important if it can be digested, interpreted, and made part of knowledge, connected to other information, concepts, etc. And herein lies another danger - connecting the wrong dots and drawing overdetermined and wrong conclusions.
Just a few thoughts, since I've been reading various things, thinking about this from various angles, etc. I would prepare a few interesting posts if I had more time, but I am about to go abroad for the rest of the summer. I will be online periodically, no doubt, but I won't be able to spend any extended amount of time here. I'll try to contributed through comments as much as possible.
That's exactly one of the points I tried to make above. It is not useful to be either completely dismissive or completely paranoid - a healthy balance is the way to go.
healthy balanced people do not resort to demeaning phrases, like some poeple do who will remain nameless-
I try to have faith in my analytical brain. I keep feeding it info ,all of it . Because some people have no limit to its capacity, Whilst others have programmed themselves with key phrases that dismiss certain items automatically as rubbish.And so revert to being reactive
I believe for example that legends or myths very likely hold grains of truth and hope that at the end of the day or probably after a good nights sleep (these brains work at night you know) I may wake up one day with a revelation and shall bathe in the light of truth.
See, a few distinctions need to be made here. First, there is difference between a) consuming information, exercising one's judgment and intellect, and sifting out those grains of truth you speak of and b) gullibly or paranoidally believing any information that seems to indicate conspiracy, subsequently going on crusades, trying to convince everyone of the same. a) is completely fine with me - that is what I call healthy balance. b) is unacceptable - and very often people mean exactly that, when they refer to "conspiracy theories." I do not - I think that the key word is "overblown" or "grand" conspiracy theories, that are ungrounded, exaggerated and full of demonizations, Manichean propositions, etc.
Second distinction I'd like to make is within the a) category. While one is consuming all that information, it is important to always keep one's guards up and not allow one's judgment to slip - and that can happen quite easily to anyone, unles care is exercised - otherwise everybody will eventually end up in the b) category.
And, as I indicated in may previous comment, completely dismissing the information is very close to the b) category, it's the other side of the coin - such attitude brings one no closer to the truth.
Just a few points of clarification on where I stand.
I also recommend getting acquainted with the Zeitgest movie and movement:
AntwortenLöschenhttp://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Whatever your opinion on this, it is important to be aware of the debate.
if terror does not exist invent it,to rally people behind a flag against a common enemy ,in order to control them better
AntwortenLöschenhttp://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Aaron Russo on New World Order
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cvdu_aaron-russo-says-911-was-a-fraud_news
from-http://www.google.com.mx/search?hl=en&q=Aaron+Russo&btnG=Search
probably the best 911 documentary
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598
A calm response ~~ Did you miss the part where Al Quada was surprised at how effective their own tactics were when the buildings came crashing down ?. . . . How bout the part when Al Quada identified their own terrorists who participated ?
AntwortenLöschenhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
AntwortenLöschenhttp://geopolitics.multiply.com/journal/item/128
http://geopolitics.multiply.com/journal/item/69
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1642896020070816
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence&timeline=complete_911_timeline
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Philip+Zelikow+911&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
http://geopolitics.multiply.com/photos/album/10/Twisted_History#26
Peter Joseph has done a remarkable job on it.
AntwortenLöschenMay be just to raise their popularity and a tactic to recruit more manpower to their organization. I'll not accept their stance unless it is proven.
AntwortenLöschenThe source is my memory. .. . and the source for you should be your memory too . How is it possible that someone like you can do allllll this research and yet miss the Al Quada films that every American saw, or should've seen if they were paying attention?
AntwortenLöschen. It was on every network countless times every day, every hour on the hour .
those films which were spreaded by Bush & team ? I remember that clip before Bush campaign in 2004. It was especially designed to raise votes.. And let me ask you, will you accept what ever Osama or Zawahiri says ?
AntwortenLöschenYes, they were on every network because it was just a tactic for election campaign. And as I said, These organisations always do that when they want to raise more popularity & sympathy from radicals. This is the easiest way to motivate others without doing anything.
First, I'm not American. Second, my interest in all this kicked into gear very late in the game, so I will have missed bits and pieces. It's been about four years. On the day of 9/11, I didn't know who Osama bin Laden was. My knowledge of US politics, for example, was merely fledgling, and gaps have been filled in while here on Multiply - in that sense, the majority around me know exactly what I know, I am upfront, nothing to hide. Maybe when I see what you refer to, it will jog my memory. I'll keep looking, but it would be more convincing if you gave us a link, then we'll get an idea of what you know, of your opinion on this.
AntwortenLöschenThat wasn't research. That's just sharing some links. Did you look at any?
AntwortenLöschenNeutral viewers... I can only recommend you follow these links, watch videos, read and research.
AntwortenLöschenThen make up your own mind.
there are many kinds of movies in circulation
AntwortenLöschenthere are US propaganda movies,
There are foreign documentaries like --loose change.
disinformation movies,
maybe even terrorist movies (but they are rare)
now there are also many Obama movies
,some made FOR him ,others are against.
All the world is a stage ,and politics outshines Broadway.
Just be sure you quote the right one ,to make a point .
Memory is extremely unreliable, selective, and prone to distortions, especially when it comes to emotionally charged situations. So, you memory is not an argument. Everybody has a memory, and everybody remembers things differently.
AntwortenLöschenNow, to the substance - I am not claiming that I know what happened. However, there is too much suspicious information and government secrecy/non-compliance/active ignoring of evidence and promts to address various questionable issues. Also, as was pointed out above, al Qaeda's actions, announcements, video releases, etc. have to be seen in the larger context as calculated political tactics, not as facts and evidence to support your arguments. Similarly for many of the governmental actions, announcements, etc.
Similar situation here. I am Ukrainian, though I do live in the U.S. currently. I was relatively "fresh off the boat", so to speak, in 2001, and my perceptions of 9/11 and American political environment have changed quite significantly as I learned more about them and as I matured. I am not a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I am extremely skeptical of various overblown conspiracy theories and really dislike the paranoid mindset characteristic to the proponents of such theories. I don't think it's healthy.
AntwortenLöschenPartially for those reasons, as far as 9/11 attacks are concerned, through the years, hearing bits and pieces of various conpiracy theories, I tended to dismiss them. However, more and more information has been coming to light, which, when put together, is liable to make any reasonable person VERY suspicious. Knowing the Bush administration, knowing the CIA, knowing history, it is not such a huge leap of imagination to suspect certain covert involvement, especially since all the accumulated evidence and information has not been addressed, refuted, or otherwise proven implausible.
That is why I chose to post these clips - in my opinion, these are well-presented arguments, devoid of hype, emotive appeals, exhortations, and other such nonsense that only confuses the real issues. I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything - just sharing some resources, which I found valuable. These are important issues and they should be approached with open mind and open eyes.
we seem to be covering the same subject on two fronts simultaneously,
AntwortenLöschenboth have a lot of input,together the argument is richer still
http://elephantsmemory.multiply.com/journal/item/310
On the other thread, Roel suggested in one of his comments that:
AntwortenLöschen"Presidents are toppled all the time,as were kings and queens in the past.
What makes this case different?
At what point can the people begin to object to their governments behavior OR
Does that mean that basically the people are behind it, and they do not always want to know the nasty side of the business.
Because it was for the greater good ,a more powerful America."
And my response to that was:
That's the core issue here. In cases such as this - when there is much suspicious information and conjecture about the government's involvement in criminal/immoral/terrorist/etc. activities - it is not an individual who is responsible, it is usually the whole systems, bureaucracies, and agencies (or, more likely, some significant parts/cliques/conspiring actors within the latter) that are implicated. It is utterly unrealistic to expect the government to ever admit anything of such nature, even if, let's say, the new administration wanted to. Pure and simple - its a question of national security and political expedience. Just imagine the repercussions of something like this actually being ADMITTED by government officials.
And it's not that I'm cynical, I'm just being realistic. It is especially imprudent to suggest something like this SHOULD be done, considering the situation with the ongoing Iraq and Afghan/Central Asia situations, etc., etc., etc.
In a situation like this, from the point of view of the officials that want to fix things, the best course of action is to reverse certain policies, start deescalating the related conflicts and trying to minimize the consequences and repercussions of the earlier criminal/deceptive acts/policies. But definitely not admit or reveal some such earth-shattering, damaging information. It would simply mean suicide, in a very qualified, specific sense related to politics.
From the point of view of others - those who are not tied up with official obligations, such as honest and courageous academics, independent investigators, media, etc. - the best course of action is to try and dig deep enough to reach as close to truth as possible.
Of course, all of this is infinitely complicated by politics and media as usual - noise, manipulation, etc.
Are you hinting that that the only remedy is an all out revolution,anarchy ,chaos followed by a reconstruction of society,before some kind of normality is resumed..
AntwortenLöschenAfter all Chaos breeds order in the end
Just kidding everyone,
But someone may have foreseen the possibilities,many police forces have more than doubled in strength ,(such as in Mexico).in the last few years.
And there are Army post spread all over the country,in the sierra´s.Obviously aimed at their own people ,NOT an enemy at the other side of the border.
The excuse has always been that this control is for the sake/security of the public ,to combat narco traffic and delinquency.
(now where have i heard something similar before?)
The public power is rapidly waning, going the direction of impotency.
Futuristic movies portray slave populations revolting against super corporate control,Big Brothers,evil robotic minds.
.As if to prepare us for what is in store
Is Asimov a fantasist,a prophet,or just someone who can think ahead.
And we are supposed to be on peaceful paths leading to a more civilized ,advanced Human being ,
One would have thought that ,that would require LESS policing ,NOT more.
I know you are kidding, but still an interesting suggestion :).
AntwortenLöschenWhile I am not opposed to revolution in principle, the truth is that in reality - and historically - revolutions bring too much chaos and never accomplish what they set out to do. Inevitably, the idealistic revolutionaries are not the ones who end up in charge after the revolution, and huge, demoralizing disappointment sets in. Look at such instances as the French Revolution, the Russian October Revolution, the social movements of the 1960s, etc. - they all have similar features in common. And the upheaval/violence/chaos of the revolution is bound to produce strong reaction - Napoleon, Stalin, Nixon/Reagan (and, more broadly, resurgence of the right-wingers/neoconservatives), respectively. Granted, the preceding statements are extremely schematic, but I trust most of you will get the point I'm trying to make.
In that sense, reform and reconstruction is a better path. Ultimately, change is necessary and vital, but never easy.
http://images.byderule.multiply.com/image/0/photos/44/500x500/65/Jolly-roger-waves.gif?et=6Jb2SG5Hnli1%2BwNdB%2Bf%2C6A&nmid=211082737
AntwortenLöschendidnt take much of a push to see your true colors ,
ha ha
Snooze.............
AntwortenLöschenI think Al Quaida did it. I know....that's just crazy! Conspiracies are for people reject facts and smoke a lot of weed IMO~
Yep.
AntwortenLöschenSo do I. I just question the funding, the nature of al Qaeda, who knew what, who benefits... and so on.
AntwortenLöschenHaven't smoked weed for years
AntwortenLöschen1. We have a freedom of the press.
AntwortenLöschen2. Breaking this story would make someone famous and rich.
3. Unlike say Watergate or Monica Lewinski - it has not happened.
4. This is a very staright foward story to me. Osama told us his intentions well before hand. Clinton & Bush did not take him for his word. 3000 dead.
5. End of story!
Yeah, ok. We'll agree to disagree, but I admit that logic is sound. Since you're here... love to hear some comment from you (on relevant thread, or a new one) about the Iranian elections, since you've lived there...
AntwortenLöschenWhen I lived in Iran I was 12 years old. Iran is a country like most muslim countries. The people want reform but the hardliners run the show to the detriment of society in general.
AntwortenLöschenI would like to see Ahmadinejad defeated of course.
that was a stutter from above,not referring to the previous post,
AntwortenLöschenwhen he said that dope smokers believe conspiracies and reject facts
My machine was acting up
He's entitled to his opinion Roel
AntwortenLöschenI suppose you call that a factual coherent statement.
AntwortenLöschenbut don´t feel bad
More than half of America has bought its governments propaganda´s .
...and you are entitled to yours
AntwortenLöschenI thought they were going extinct,
AntwortenLöschenthe big guys seem to own everything by now
Of course but saying that dope smokers reject facts got me going ,
AntwortenLöschenI used to smoke dope and that is a fact
I threw out the "Dope Smoking" comment precisely for that reason. Let's hear your 9/11 theory!!
AntwortenLöschenas described in the BBC documentary -the power of nightmares,
AntwortenLöschenthis documentary gives an indication of how long ago some of today stategies were already being planned
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
verified by Nick Rockefeller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA
supported by loose change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
and a compliment of witnesses,
supported by demolition experts as to the method of the destruction
and the extent of the damage
Part of a strategy to create a common fear,
so that laws could be changed .
Increasing the governments power over the people.
Police forces could be strengthened.
Rally the people behind the flag
(strengthening of Nationalism,which is important if one needs soldiers)
And to lay the basis for an excuse to initiate military actions.
And it worked.
With enormous economic benefits for those who wanted to increase their power.
(The insurance policy of the towers by the way were changed just before the attack,an added bonus for the owners)
Similar strategies have been done in the past ,such as by Nero,Hitler and many others,
More or less for the same reasons..It is a very old idea.
Hitler was talking about a new world Order and they are still talking about that today
,Incidentally the same banks were/are involved in backing both.
A similar strategy is what is happening in Mexico with the Narco problem.
As described in the documentary -End game.
A friend who is a police lawyer,says that many police chiefs are replaced by those who only listen to a central command in DF,(Mexico City)
By now there are army posts all over the Sierras.
Create the fear (the problem),come with the solutions and end up with total control.
We are now in stage 2 the gun battles between army and bandits.
Last week there was a big one ,ten minutes away from here .
At the same time as the Acapulco battle ,which is an hour away.
before it was hard to differentiate,where the drug lords stopped and the government began.
a few weeks ago 10 mayors of towns were arrested together .
Our own Mayor is hassled continuously by the army
If you start investigating the IRA you may also discover strange bedfellows.
we do?
AntwortenLöschenmaybe we used to.
who owns most of the media today?
Including Hollywood.
Who get benefit from it ? al-qaeda ? no way ..
AntwortenLöschenFREE PRESS = RE PRESS
AntwortenLöschenTechnically, I should despise your views... but I just can't punch a hole in this logic. I'm left thinking of Charlie Sheen... admittedly, I'm hungover and can't be bothered to think much right now.
AntwortenLöschenDo you honestly think a credible mainstream newspaper's editor would dare to suggest that tragedy was carried out with the complicity of the establishment / Bush administration / CIA / military ? They'd be closed down, if not already gagged.
Absolutely - They were free to try to remove Clinton from office. To report on Gitmo and Abu ghraib. Are they reporting on Gordon Brown's problems? How about Nixon and Watergate? Wire Taps, Rendition, Waterboarding........It seems they are reporting on this!
AntwortenLöschenWhen has the USA government EVER shut down a media outlet? Never - ever! Do you realize how flimsy your stance is here?
The fact is there are no facts to support your stance. The person that broke this story would be be worth untold millions and live in infamy. Newspapers are free to print anything they like as long as they can back it up with credible investigative reporting. When they print BS like Dan Rather they no they can lose their jobs.
The problem with people who want to believe in this crap is that one conspiracy always begets another; "9-11 was an inside job but the press can't report on it because the JEWS won't let them and we know this because they all attended the Bilderberg conference with Elvis Presley."
Logic be dammed!
I appreciate your humour, and get your point... but don't try and stick that anti-semite label on me. I'm just not.
AntwortenLöschenthe government uses the press,that is the whole point ,
AntwortenLöschenClinton Like Kennedy and Abe Lincoln had gone against their bosses ,
But Bill only had a ticking off.
Andy it is a pity they deleted your post it was very revealing ,as to what camp you belong.
guess your sheeps cloak was slipping for a moment.
quote from Andy ,
AntwortenLöschenbecause the JEWS won't let them and we know this because they all attended the Bilderberg conference with Elvis Presley."
Logic be dammed!
end quote
Martin i don´t think he was joking
Hey, I know this. I go to great lengths to both pay attention to the likes of Bilderberg, while at the same time distancing myself from as lot of the weed-smoking UFO obsessed paranoid lunatics who infest online sites about that and associated topics. I find Randy's delivery quite amusing. If he mocks a genocide in an offensive manner, I'll kick his ass and he knows it. But conspiracy theorists come by degrees, and while I consider myself pretty mild, the most fanatical ones have it coming. Of course, I don't think Bush is a 'hero', I think he's a war criminal... but I set out here to make sure all opinions could be aired, whether I like them or not. Randy has proven to be one of the people who makes this group what it is. I know some people will read that in disbelief, but I mean it.
AntwortenLöschenNote Bohdan said he's not trying to convince anyone of anything, it's just important to be aware of these things. That's most important, I think. I prefer to stay open to views that I might not like or agree with, because I grow as a person, become more informed and more balanced.
I thought Andy said Bush and Blair were hero´s.
AntwortenLöschenI also grow as a person .i wish i didnt
bloody chocolates.
LOL
AntwortenLöschenWhat post of mine was deleted?
AntwortenLöschenYou bet your ass they do. To suggest that one controlling entity controls all the information to the people is idiotic and people that suggest that the London Times or the Seattle Times can't print what they bloody hell want to print are certifiably nuts.
AntwortenLöschenRupert Murdock (FOX) and General Electric (MSNBC) are two entirely different animals with two radically different news organizations. They are controlled by the greed of capitalism and if they ran across a credible 9/11 Hoax story they would print it in a heartbeat.
I've removed a few bits from here lately, bit of a late spring clean... but I don't think any of yours were among them
AntwortenLöschenThat said, Murdoch is on record admitting he calls the shots regarding the political angle of his newspaper The Sun... why should the Times be any different?
AntwortenLöschenMy mistake it is still there, but it is way back .
AntwortenLöschenSo very sorry
I did not back track that much.
I jumped the gun ,judgmentally assumed that the racist reference had been removed .
I mean calling Elvis Jewish,what next???
ha ha
OK, let me qualify my earlier comments, for it seems you misunderstand me. I am not denying that big business and big media are driven by profits. All I'm saying it is not the ONLY motive. It is reductionist to think that way.
AntwortenLöschenNext, I am not paranoid, but I am open-minded. We simply are talking about different ideas of media. You call big media "free to report anything they want," and I'm saying it is an exaggeration. I am not saying that the media is completely beholden to some power interests, as they are in the authoritarian and totalitarian societies, but ignoring the more subtle relations of power that exist even in democratic societies is perilous.
Lastly, some big media actually reported suspicious information about 9/11 - some such clips from ABC or CBS (I don't remember at the moment) are used in the clips I posted and some documentaries on the subject. They are hesitant to report anything more, because, as I said, there is little "conclusive proof" of such a conspiracy, as can be expected. But that does not mean that the conspiracy did not exist. The government's behavior after 9/11 could have easily alleviated such theories and fears, but their behavior (reluctance to answer questions under oath, delay in starting official investigation, lack of independence (executive director for the 9/11 commission was a White House man), etc. "Guilty" is what such behavior says. Guilty of what? This is a different and no less important question, but their guilt is something that, while not, in strictly legal terms, "beyond reasonable doubt" at the moment, is nevertheless quite obvious to any intellectually honest person.
By the way, let's not talk about Michael Moore - I didn't mention him and I don't rely on him for my information. His are not analytical films, but partisan propaganda - facts are thickly enveloped in biased editing. I think his films have a role in today's political environment, but they are not to be used as sources for analytical arguments.
do you feel better now ,Is this the ranter you use to convince yourself.
AntwortenLöschenAs far as corporations are concerned ,It is also the eye in the pyramid stuff ,
the masses do not know the ins and outs of the main Agenda ,the secret Agenda ,the alliances ,
Some times even the company directors do not know everything that the board /owners have on their plate.
But i can tell you for sure that a major electronics company,already in the 70ties was working on a depopulation plan,by giving free vasectomies in Arab and Indian countries.
I knew the head doctor in charge ,and I knew the man who made the deal with the Indian government.(the Company is on the Bilderberg list and make every meeting)
And it never made the Papers.
Ultimately, this whole argument is useless - the subject gets changed from the substance of what happened that day to an attack on those who suggest that something suspicious was happening. It's a tactic of deflection - in a sense, counterattack is the best defense.
AntwortenLöschenRandy, if you think this is ridiculous - can you simply explain the facts that are calmly presented in the clips? Can you explain the explosions in the basement that many different people reported, the fall of building 7, etc., etc., etc. See, wouldn't it be easier for everyone if these arguments were addressed? But they are not addressed by any government official. Why? One cannot help but think that the reason is because it is not possible to explain it any other way.
Also, I know how such agencies as CIA operate - I am from Ukraine - a nation with a Soviet past - and I am familiar with the tactics KGB and CIA used in the Cold War. If you think that one of them is "good", and the other "bad," you are sorely mistaken. KGB used the communist ideology as a curtain to cover their real motives, CIA - the ideology of democratic capitalism or whatever else you want to call it. But at the core, the moral considerations for these agencies were practically the same - money and power. Don't let your bias blind your judgment and intellect.
The differences between the motives of the leadership of the two countries was very little ,They took different paths ,that is all.And there was much open dialogue between the two at all times
AntwortenLöschenexactly,and you can include MI5
AntwortenLöschenThe differences between the motives of the leadership of these countries was very little ,They took different paths ,that is all.And there was much open dialogue between them at all times
Yes - there is little conclusive proof. This is my point. Publicly owned media outlets are big on proof. They like facts. People making U-Tube videos don't need facts because they are not responsible to anyone and do not have a reputation to lose. They can say anything!
AntwortenLöschenLook I know my rant on this is harsh but that's only because I have a short fuse for people who think there single opinion on something is somehow more credible that a bi partisan commission investigating a terrorists act.
I take conspiracies seriously when enough people with reputations to lose get behind it. No serious person says the USA press is not "FREE" to report on what it likes. No serious person says 9-11 was an inside job. Most people need "Proof" as you say and not just a "hunch."
But you do? You are in the KNOW somehow?
AntwortenLöschen*laughing*
Please!!!!!!
If you need to spend your life terrified of the Bilderberg group that is your choice. I will stick with logic.
This is another difference between myself and others. I don't get my news from U-Tube. I get my news from reputable sources that are responsible for what they print or say.
AntwortenLöschenIf the New York Times wants to look at these clips and write a piece about their validity I will pay attention. I suspect they have (and others) and determined they need more "proof."
Anyone can make a U-Tube Video;
can you simply explain the facts that are calmly presented in this clip?
Gee - I guess he is real!
ouch bringing in Big foot to disprove conspiracy theories was below the belt.
AntwortenLöschenBut original.
this is taking a lot for granted,who owns these reputable sources.
We have been lied to in print since we have been able to print
What makes them reputable?
Endless repetition of the word reputable ,or time
Do you think Bush ,Obama or Mohamed are reputable.
did i hear 2 yesses and a No
What about Ian Fleming?He was a reputable author
does that mean he did not lie?
One question do you believe in Aliens ?
The Canadian Prime minister does ,he is reputable
So do I but alas I am not reputable.
If the New York Times makes a mistake - it's prints a retraction. It wants to be taken seriously as a news outlet. It can be sued for slander or libel. So it tries to get it's facts straight. It does not want to lose readers and advertisers so it is responsible for what appears in it's pages.
AntwortenLöschenThe dude making the U-Tube video has no such dilemma. He can distort the facts, spin, lie, take things out of context, slander ect......
Because he does not have reputation no one gives a shit. He is not responsible to anybody. The New York Times is responsible for millions of readers who pay to read it's news and want the facts right.
The Loose Change kids are not responsible to anyone. Who cares what their "facts" say? Just a couple of kids making a video! They don't have to get anything right. No one cares because they are NOBODY! That is to say they have no reputation to lose.
exactly,there has been an avalanche of reports ,witnesses,workers,ex government people,editorials ,individuals ,expert Analise's ,
AntwortenLöschenEasier to write what has NOT been done.
If only a grain of it was true it still leaves a very big fire.
But i said before ,those who do not want to believe,
can prevent themselves and
that may include bringing a Big Foot into it.
plenty of reputable papers who want to be taken seriously(don´t most) have reported things that were not in fact fact ,but was what the powers who rule wanted to be known.
Has the New york times ever printed anything about Saddam having weapons of Mass destruction,which has been disproved.
Which Newspaper Mogul is not a freemason.
Randy wrote:
AntwortenLöschen"Anyone can make a U-Tube Video;
can you simply explain the facts that are calmly presented in this clip?"
Why do you insist on turning the arrows toward me? Instead of presenting something to explain it, you insist on attacking me. I am not attacking you - I'm just asking whether you can address some of the cogent arguments made by the 9/11 Truth Movement. I'm not accepting any extreme argument, but some evidence is quite disturbing and worrisome.
It's not just these clips - there are plenty of other sources, and all of them say this. It's not new - these facts have been around for several years. There are many suspicious unexplained occurrences that took place on that day, but the primary smoking gun is building 7 - why was it imploded all of a sudden, hours after the two towers fell? In addition, to set up an implosion of such a big building takes weeks, according to industry experts, not hours, which suggests foreknowledge of the attack.
The second point is that many people reported explosions in the basement soon after the plane hit the building. Another important point is that many architects and structural engineers - in short, people who know something about putting buildings up - claim that the buildings could not have collapsed like this simply because of the airplane hitting them. The fire could not have been hot enough - these buildings were built to withstand such damage. And so on. Essentially, the evidence suggests that these buildings were IMPLODED in a controlled manner.
Once again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. If you or anyone else can present a solid alternative explanation, that will be fine. Until such time neither you nor anyone else can claim that suggesting conspiracy is ridiculous.
Randy wrote:
AntwortenLöschen"Look I know my rant on this is harsh but that's only because I have a short fuse for people who think there single opinion on something is somehow more credible that a bi partisan commission investigating a terrorists act."
Once again, this commission was a sham. For Christ's sake, Bush tried to appoint Kissinger, that Cold War fossil, as the head of the commission! That was prevented, but still the commission was not independent. The person responsible for the actual investigations - the executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow, was an inside man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow) The commissioners themselves didn't physically investigate anything, and executive director had a lot of control over which lines of investigations were actually pursued and how successful they were.
I just gave you an example of Walter Duranty. Funny how you ignored it - got nothing to say?
AntwortenLöschenMoreover, you use the same argument - freedom of speech - for two different purposes, just to advance your deficient arguments. On one hand you claim that big media is free, meaning it can cover and print anything it wants, essentially; on the other hand, you attack those independent sources for the same ability to cover and say anything they want. That's funny.
Look, everyone sane agrees that it is possible to doctor videos, distort facts, etc. The point is that anyone can do this - government, big media, small media, independent media, kitchen-based media... One has to use judgment when evaluating such things. That is why I posted these clips - they are by far the best presentation, devoid of hype, excessive emotion, accusation or exhortation. It presents some evidence, some arguments, and suggests that there is something suspicious here. I agree.
On the flip side, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. In the U.S., it is used as in ideological tool in many arguments. But that's a whole another discussion. Let's not exaggerate the reality. Of course the media is free in the U.S., relatively speaking, but that does not mean that it cannot be manipulated by powerful interests - media is not a monolith either, it is made up of various groups of people, such as journalists, editors, producers, owners, etc. A certain level of censorship is implied in such institution as media - this is going back to your "reputability" argument. But such things as editorial policies can be easily and sometimes quite imperceptibly manipulated. So, the media is free, yet it chooses not to report on some things. Hm... Is it really free, then? That is why there is a term such as "newsMAKING". You're not that naive, Randy, why are you defending big media like this?
Unbelievable. I give Senators and Congressmen and other pillars of the community. I give you the new York Times - maybe the most respected News Outlet in the world and my arguments are deficient!
AntwortenLöschenIn other words - I have Something - You have NOTHING!!
You give me some jack ass on U-Tube and and you are using sound logic!
Holy Shit - I can't make this stuff up!
AGAIN - On my side;
The members of the commission were:
* Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
* Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana
* Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
* Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
* Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
* Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
* Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska
* John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
* Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana
* James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois
The members of the commission's staff included:
* Philip D. Zelikow, Executive Director/Chair
* Christopher Kojm, Deputy Executive Director
* Daniel Marcus, General Counsel
* John J. Farmer, Senior Counsel
* Janice Kephart, Counsel
* Al Felzenberg, Spokesman[7]
AGAIN - On your side;
The Stoner kids who made Loose Change and a couple of other retards from U-Tube!
*shakes head in disbelief*
That is perfect thank you
AntwortenLöschenthis strengthens the conspiracy theorist´s argument, not yours,.
The Bilderberg list of attendees looks just like your list ,only it is much bigger ,
But they were the same kind of people and of course more important ones.
I did not post any youtubes ,I am only responding to this banter.
But you did,
you posted a bigfoot
I think ,that you think,
that the more important a person is ,the more truthful he has to be,
While in fact lies become more impòrtant with status.
It is what this page and this group is all about,Important people being untruthful
Most of these people seem to be working for the system that is in question.
But i could be wrong
.And I have managed to say this with out calling anyone ,retards,stoner kids or jack asses
I am keeping calm against all odds.
I am sorry jess funnin wid ye
Peace.
No problem! I enjoy the banter much. Some say my blogging style is intended to ruffle feathers and get people off their talking points. I don't see it personally.
AntwortenLöschenLook, Basically your position is that people who have accumulated power cannot ever be trusted on anything.
I would submit that it is the exact opposite; people accumulate power precisely because they can be trusted.
No not necessarily,but this page is about conspiracy theories and that concerns people in top leading positions ,
AntwortenLöschenAnd yes they are being caught out and have been in the past as well ,
trust is lost along the way.
What you say may work in a village ,but in the big picture i will get as devious as is possible ,Not everybody is like Gandhi.
Money ,connections ,breeding.and sponsors get people into leading positions
Never because they are a good guy.
Do You honestly believe that the governments actions are for the sake of the American public .
the last few presidents worked for the international bankers
They follow what their higher authority and their Agenda demands,
sometimes things happen that are beyond the presidents control.
It has been suggested that this could have been the case of 911.
If you go into it you will find that the candidates you can choose from are appointed or placed ,
A countries control/ownership does not change with every president ,or with different parties,the shadow government never changes.
Why are so many of the presidents blood related,and in turn blood related to European Royalty,this is not a coincidence.
They are loyal to their blood ,because it relates to power and control.
,not to the public they command.
But A king or a queen ,or a President,
will never admit to that
Few in the public are aware of that,
until we had the internet.
What is this hang-up on stoner kids, etc? I haven't seen Loose Change nor have I referred to it in my comments. The original clips I posted plus the arguments made by 9/11 Truth Movement and MANY OTHER SOURCES are primarily what I focus on, not stoners, not "retards", not "a couple of kids".
AntwortenLöschenOnce again, you ignore my arguments and start lashing out at me for unknown reasons. It only makes you look ridiculous, to tell the truth, not anybody else. And even after I pointed out the connections between Zelikow to the White House and other governmental agencies, you still use this whole 9/11 commission as an argument. If those are only people "on your side", then you are in trouble, my friend, because their word is worth NOTHING.
Live with that.
And you know, honestly, your comparisons are morally bankrupt. You are comparing something like 9/11 with Monica Lewinski and Big Foot? Even Watergate does not reach the level of seriousness and moral implications. The case of Monica Lewinski was just an attempt at character assasination by right-wingers. Remember Kenneth Star? What a character he was. Another example of a "commission" created by the government to "investigate." In other words, your arguments only work against you, if you pick them apart sufficiently.
AntwortenLöschenJesus Bohdan lighten up. I am not lashing out at you. I am stating my case aggressively.
AntwortenLöschenI am not calling you a stoner and could give two shits if you were. Personally weed is less destructive than alcohol.....but I digress!
It is true that you and I arrive at our conclusions in radically different manners. And that's A-OK with me!
I enjoyed the debate!
Like the mini Bilderberg style list ,
AntwortenLöschenBohdanp
Please state who you are talking to or about ,
But I DO have companions who are morally bankrupt
Lets not forget we are talking about where the blame lies of a mass murder
this is an unprecedented accusation in recent American history
All right, then :). To be honest, I'd prefer less agression and more solid argument, but that's a question of style, I guess :).
AntwortenLöschenI knew you weren't calling ME a stoner :). And, just for a record, I'm not. I have smoked and I am not opposed to it, but being a "stoner" is another question altogether - question of degree and such. In any case, I agree - it is less destructive than alcohol, tobacco, and firearms ;).
Yeah, sorry, today was a hectic day and I was rushing through the posts, forgetting to include the quotes. That said, all my responses were to Randy's comments
AntwortenLöschenWhat do you mean by that?
AntwortenLöschenJust finished watching "Loose Change". Excellent.
AntwortenLöschenRandy, I don't hesitate to add this film to my list of recommended resources.
And, as Roel said, this is a very serious subject matter with far-reaching implications. Making light of this is out of place. Constructive, rather than adversarial, debate would be much more preferable when discussing something as tragic and horrific as this.
Having thought about this extensively for the past few weeks and having researched various arguments and facts, I am now absolutely certain that the twin towers and the WTC building 7 collapsed due to controlled implosion, and that no plane flew into the Pentagon. This is the starting point and the "ground zero", if you will. Whatever the explanation, it is clear that there is criminal conspiracy behind it.
AntwortenLöschenI do not make the above statements lightly. I remember 9/11, I remember various pieces of different discussions through the years about the "missing plane" near the Pentagon, etc., but I never actually stopped to think about the towers' collapse in detail. And this is exactly the point - most people were so horrified, shocked, and terrorized in the months and years following the event, that they did not stop to consider the evidence. Moreover, the evidence was not readily accessible due to massive cover-up efforts.
Physics does not lie. Politics does.
i lied I did post loose change,on the first page
AntwortenLöschenI thought it was one of the most thorough of exposures,
really going into details about the pentagon,
Could Randy explain the damage there ,
considering what what supposed to have caused it.
and there was this small detail of a missing tail
which is two stories high
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
verified by Nick Rockefeller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA
supported by loose change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
And me
AntwortenLöschenSorry randy i lied,
I did post 3 youtubes in this calm discussion,
,on the first page
(repeat)
loose change one of the most detailed 911 examinations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
really going into details about the pentagon,
Could Randy explain the damage there ,
considering what what supposed to have caused it.
and there was this small detail of a missing tail
which is two stories high
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares is a documentary
about prefabricating cause for fear for political reasons
Aaron Russo talks about things Nick Rockefeller told him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA
I have ,
AntwortenLöscheni forgot
Out of interest, where is the plane and passengers who `didn`t` crash into the Pentagon?
AntwortenLöschenThere is no reasoning with the TRUFERS. They will invent another conspiracy to explain your concerns about the passengers. "Dude, All those people claiming they lost family on the Pentagon Flight were paid actors from Hollywood........The Biloderberg Group told them to lie."
AntwortenLöschenWhatever you do, don't hit them with facts! Maybe the stoner Loose Change kids can make a movie about it!
Go sell crazy somewhere else. What a disservice you do to all the 3000 dead and their family by suggesting that their government killed them. Do you have any facts? No. Zip. Zero. Nada. None.
AntwortenLöschenThese people lost loved ones and you suggest they did not. Do you have any facts? NO - NONE!
Your outlandish accusations are not "Constructive" in the least. When discussing something so "tragic and horrific" you might want to provide some proof. When you push such an asinine agenda without any facts it makes you look stupid - even hateful. I know you are smarter than that.
AGAIN - YOU HAVE NO FACTS!!!!!!!!!
Host Bill Maher called 9/11 truthers "lunatics," and demanded they stop requesting him "raise this ridiculous topic on this show and start asking [their] doctor if Paxil is right for [them]."
he full transcript of this astonishing "New Rule" follows:
New Rule: Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one that's being naïve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think, "Well, if you believe that was the cause?" Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on this show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you.
Real Time with Bill Maher- 10/19/07- Bill tangles with members of the 9/11 Truth movement.
"Constructive, rather than adversarial, debate would be much more preferable." Were you DRUNK when you said this? You are the one pushing NONSENSE with no facts!!!!!!! NONE!
I like you as a contact. You seem smart. However don't ever accuse me of not being constructive in debate when you are the one pushing lame and hateful conspiracy theories.
One other thing GROW A PAIR!!!!!! Don't hide behind your pitiful "Randy, you are lashing out at me" girly bullshit. You are a man. You are pushing bullshit with no facts. You deserve a blogging beat down.
I hope you take it like a man and not 13 year old girl for once.
This is not personal. People who push 9-11 conspiracy theories deserve to be made fun of and I like doing it.
I look forward to debating you on other issues in the future. Hopefully you can support your arguments with more than U-Tube videos!
Good question - I would like to find that out as well.
AntwortenLöschenNo conspiracy need be invented. I don't know what exactly happened that day, but is it so hard to imagine that those planes crashed elsewhere? I mean, all that I'm saying is that no explanation has been forthcoming and the physical evidence is overwhelming. Planes DO NOT vaporize to pieces upon crashing. Explain that.
AntwortenLöschenWhat facts do you have that prove Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda killed those people? "No. Zip. Zero. Nada. None." The government's official story is just as unfounded as these alternative explanations. So why do you buy into the official story, if you are such a skeptical individual?
AntwortenLöschenAnd why should I listen to Bill Maher? LOL. Just like I don't use Michael Moore to back up my arguments, I won't use Bill Maher or any other TV jock who thrives on controversial entertainment.
AntwortenLöschenKhalid Shaikh Mohammed (Al Qaeda) was not only the mastermind of 9/11, but America's most lethal enemy!
AntwortenLöschenhttp://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=mastermind+of+9-11&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=leBsIIJAIN0
(CBS/AP) Al-Jazeera aired Thursday previously unshown footage of the preparations for the Sept. 11 attacks in which al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is seen meeting with some of the planners and hijackers in a mountain camp in Afghanistan.
The station did not say how it obtained the video, which was produced by As-Sahab, al Qaeda's media branch.
The video included the last will and testaments of two of the hijackers, Wail al-Shehri and Hamza al-Ghamdi.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/terror/main1982773.shtml
This is so painfully easy.
I am not pushing bullshit or being hateful. You are making assumptions about this. My original motive to post the clips was simply to share it with others, as I think it is important to stay aware of this debate. I, for one, am new to this - I haven't been following this Truth Movement extensively, I was exposed to many of these arguments just recently, and I find them very convincing. If you don't, that's your prerogative. I'm not trying to persuade you. What I don't like is your "aggressive arguing", when discussing such important issues as this. Your style serves to muddle up the debate and detract from the focus of the discussion. If you think this is ridiculous, don't respond. You have not provided a single constructive point to this debate, as far as I am concerned. So, piss off with your "grow a pair" and "you are a man" comments. Those are pitiful indeed, not my attempts to engage in meaningul intellectual exchange.
AntwortenLöschenThis is painful, alright. All your evidence also consists of videos and testaments, which are hardly conclusive.
AntwortenLöschenIn addition, I never claimed that the whole thing was planned and executed by the government start to finish. I'm saying there is a lot of suspicious evidence and there is guilty behavior, cover-up and reluctance to address questions after the attack.
There were 19 highjackers listed. Turned out a bunch of them were actually alive after the attack. Background checks on others revealed some strange connections to the government agencies and wierd behavior prior to the attacks. This is not enough, of course, but it is about just as conclusive as your arguments above.
Arguing prior knowledge, etc., is different from arguing that the whole thing was planned and carried out from scratch, although even that is a possibility. It is hard to discard such alternatives in the current environment of clandestine government behavior and refusal to answer questions.
If you've seen "Loose Change," there is a lot of footage of how various people (Kean of 9/11 commission, Guiliani, NIST head, etc.) are interviewed and how they avoid answering questions in an honest manner. It is very easy to tell when someone is hiding something as opposed to when someone really doesn't have an answer and honestly says so.
No disservice is done. Some of the families are participating in the Truth Movement. Many of those directly involved in the events of that day agree with the Truth Movement. That is a powerful sign.
AntwortenLöschenI would argue that getting to the truth is the BIGGEST SERVICE to the dead and their families, and the government has been withholding information and lying to them.
Backed up by CBS News, Washington Post and every other REPUTABLE news organization.
AntwortenLöschenYou have the stoners from "Loose Change." *giggles*
Here - Here are the Loose Change Kids being challenged by adults with advanced degrees!
Also, You need to join the CONSPIRACY GROUP here on Multiply. I shot you an invite. It's full of TRUFERS!
Where? And why hasn`t it been documented?
AntwortenLöschenAfter people are 20 there is not much difference in intelligence I think ,age brings experience,Data ,
AntwortenLöschenNot intelligence.
Silicone valley was build on spaced out kids ,
And because of them we are talking here
Sometimes age can bring closed mindedness ,set in ones ways, reluctance to think beyond the norm.
A`part from that in many meetings with both adults and kids ,the young peoples meetings were the most stimulating and led to more depth.
The older people often got stuck on principles ,personal feelings or habit.
Next thing you say that race also determines intelligence,and I know for a fact that that is untrue ,having compared primitive native kids from the African or Mexican bush with modern white kids from mayor cities .
Intelligence can be found anywhere
Education is something else.
Listen, I don't know the answers. Also, I do not exclude the possibility that my current opinions are wrong. I remain open-minded as more evidence and factual analysis comes my way. Perhaps the crash really did happen in such a way that it left little footprint, I do not know. But it seems unlikely. And let me reiterate again, the lack of forthcoming information and the guilty, clandestine behavior by the government agencies is suspicious.
AntwortenLöschenThe extent of the conspiracy is unknown, but there is plenty of evidence that the government was immediately ready to use this as the reason to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many equally plausible stories of what exactly happened that can be developed and it is useless to speculate. What is important is to keep asking questions and not let this slide. I think we can all agree that CIA (as well as FBI and other security agencies) is a shady organization and it has been implicated in much covert activity - it's the nature of its business. The Cold War was its heyday, and ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the CIA has been looking for a new enemy to give it reason for existing and operating. It has found it - an ephemeral threat of communism was replaced by an equally ephemeral one of terrorism. CIA is back in business in a new Homeland Security structure.
Exactly. I agree 100%. No wonder that back in the 60s, there was a slogan - too extreme, of course, but the point is made - "Don't believe anyone over 30!"
AntwortenLöschenI`d be suspicious if government agencies WEREN`T behaving in a suspicious manner. It`s the nature of the beast.
AntwortenLöschenIt`s a pity you don`t know the answers; I`d have thought a large part of this conspiracy theory would hinge on knowing where planes disappeared to.
That's the problem with your misunderstanding my point here - I am not advancing any conspiracy "theory" (the term implies some conceptual coherence and such), but just looking at the evidence and trying to understand and explain it. It is easy to just accept the official explanation and say - "Good, we got that out of the way, not need to worry about that, let's move on. Who cares, it doesn't bother me, as long as I get my paycheck." And so on. The conscientious thing to do for any thinking and feeling human being and citizen is to keep questioning.
AntwortenLöschenAs far as your quick retort about the "nature of the beast" - that's simply cynicism and indifference speaking. Governments behave suspiciously, so we should just let them do it. Quite a position to take.
Which is why I`m questioning you. And when I say `you` I don`t mean the personal you, I mean all CTers.
AntwortenLöschenWell, then say "conspiracy theorists", not "you," otherwise it's simply misleading.
AntwortenLöschenis that not mentioned in one of the youtubes as landing on some abandoned airport?
AntwortenLöschenPage 3 on a theory ,that is a lot of smoke.
AntwortenLöschenDo you think there is a fire.
But this argument is like arguing about God.
believers cannot begin to imagine that their whole cultural upbringing could be a lie,the world as they know it would shatter.
The same way many People can never accept that the blame of the death of 3000 people ,
could lie at home..
There are undercurrents that murky the water ,
I suspect not everyone is objective ,
Randy has already qualified his opinion as biased ,when he said that Bush and Blair were his heroes.So he would have to defend them.
There cannot be anything more sensitive than this.
If the accusations are wrong its; horrific ,disrespectful ,criminal,treasonous bordering on Blasphemy.
If they are right it is much WORSE.
The most popular solution is ,head in the sand ,cover the ears ,start shouting la la la la la ,and hope that the nightmare would stop or go away.
Problem is that for SOME,It never will
However
The end of the story will be ---shit happens.
Because a prosecution is also impossible.
The powers that are allegedly involved ,own the courts
But i think that we have to agree ,in all truthfulness that a reasonable doubt exists,I for one have become a doubtful person.
Not really; you`re the one flinging out all these You Tube vids.
AntwortenLöschenNo idea, but why hasn`t someone come forward and said `Hang on a sec .......... `?
AntwortenLöschenIN RESPONSE TO ROEL (about landing):
AntwortenLöschenPerhaps - if so, I must have missed it. But what evidence is there? As I said, it is easy to imagine that it could have either crashed or even safely landed elsewhere, but what use is it speculating, if no evidence exists? It is impossible to say either way - lack of evidence does not support either side.
Make up your mind, will you, whether you are addressing me or "all CTers". Otherwise it's annoying
AntwortenLöschenSomeone who? There is a whole movement of "someones" saying "hang on a sec" - come on, now, provide something more than pure skepticism. Contribute something.
AntwortenLöschenPassenger? Crew?
AntwortenLöschenIf i did i might tell you .
AntwortenLöschenBut i do not
I am with the masses.
And I am not terrified of people IN or involved with the Bilderburg group
On the contrary.
I do know these corporations are NOT an open book to the press on many issues and that there is much going on under the table.
that is all I am gonna say on this
Something to look into - as I said, I must have missed this allegation that it landed, so I don't know.
AntwortenLöschenI guess if you view EVERYTHING as a conspiracy, one day you might hit the jack pot. One way of keeping your options open, eh.
AntwortenLöschenNot at all ,I wasted my options years ago.
AntwortenLöschenI thought we were talking about 911,
maybe the Shadow government.
And corporations
Where did you pick up --EVERYTHING as a conspiracy--in this text,
It is normal for a government or a corporation to be selective about what information goes public.Sometimes extremely so,
In a large international corporation the board is not an open book.
but their directors have to be ,The managing director of a particular country does not always know the actions of the board.
I do love this comment.
AntwortenLöschenRoel - I sent you an invite to the conspiracy group. I am a member.
"I do know these corporations are NOT an open book to the press on many issues and that there is much going on under the table."
They will love you!
But where did all the money go?
AntwortenLöschenFollow the money and you will find the bad guys
AntwortenLöschenwatch zeitgeist 2
AntwortenLöschenit is on another level as the first one
Very informative.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
its where the money came from and where it ends up
Granted, there are various interests in this world, which invariably involve money and power. Granted, there are connections among various players across the globe - no surprise there, really. So what now? I mean, is everybody supposed to get scared, anxious, and start a revolution? At the bottom of it all, the whole society can be seen as a "conspiracy" of sorts - in a sense that governments and societies are always established on the basis of domination of some and subordination of the rest. And I mean ALWAYS. No exceptions. It is only a question of degree.
AntwortenLöschenA very good resource on this topic is "Contract and Domination" by Carole Pateman and Charles Mills. Carole Pateman wrote "The Sexual Contract" in 1988, Charles Mills, partially inspired by it, wrote "The Racial Contract" in 1997, and in 2007 they collaborated on this new book, further exploring and intersecting their arguments. Their books are critical revisions of the Enlightenment social contract theories of such theorists as Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, and, more recently (in the 70s), John Rawls' revival of the tradition. The substance of the arguments may be familiar, related to race and gender, both hot-button issues in recent decades, but what is unique is how both of them engage with the mainstream liberal ideas and show how they have been based on false premises and manipulated arguments.
So, to reiterate, in light of these philosophical and social-theoretical ideas, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the rich and the powerful trying to control societies. It is not necessary to demonize them too much or to consider them somehow evil, sinister, and satanic, because, in my opinion, it means crossing the paranoid line. It's only important not to be complacent, ignorant, naive, and oblivious - The struggle for justice will go on as long as humanity exists, because - let's face it - no ideal society is possible. At the same time, despite various processes of globalization and such, various intersecting powerful interests, no one world government is possible.
One important factor in this whoel thing, as I see it, is increasing speed and availability of information - which is both good and bad. Sometimes there is just too much of it, and it becomes useless. Information on its own is really pointless - it is only important if it can be digested, interpreted, and made part of knowledge, connected to other information, concepts, etc. And herein lies another danger - connecting the wrong dots and drawing overdetermined and wrong conclusions.
Just a few thoughts, since I've been reading various things, thinking about this from various angles, etc. I would prepare a few interesting posts if I had more time, but I am about to go abroad for the rest of the summer. I will be online periodically, no doubt, but I won't be able to spend any extended amount of time here. I'll try to contributed through comments as much as possible.
I see the Trufers are fired up this Saturday. Nothing like a healthy conspiracy to grip the imagination of the profoundly gullible!
AntwortenLöschenThat's exactly one of the points I tried to make above. It is not useful to be either completely dismissive or completely paranoid - a healthy balance is the way to go.
AntwortenLöschenhealthy balanced people do not resort to demeaning phrases,
AntwortenLöschenlike some poeple do who will remain nameless-
I try to have faith in my analytical brain.
I keep feeding it info ,all of it .
Because some people have no limit to its capacity,
Whilst others have programmed themselves with key phrases that dismiss certain items automatically as rubbish.And so revert to being reactive
I believe for example that legends or myths very likely hold grains of truth
and hope that at the end of the day or probably after a good nights sleep
(these brains work at night you know)
I may wake up one day with a revelation and shall bathe in the light of truth.
Meanwhile i will work on getting loaded
Over the years i have become aware,that because it is written ,even if it was long ago,it aint necessarily so.
AntwortenLöschenand some stuff is way overboard
Have you seen the religious conspiracy theorists,
but they use the grains of truth to strengthen their case.
See, a few distinctions need to be made here. First, there is difference between a) consuming information, exercising one's judgment and intellect, and sifting out those grains of truth you speak of and b) gullibly or paranoidally believing any information that seems to indicate conspiracy, subsequently going on crusades, trying to convince everyone of the same. a) is completely fine with me - that is what I call healthy balance. b) is unacceptable - and very often people mean exactly that, when they refer to "conspiracy theories." I do not - I think that the key word is "overblown" or "grand" conspiracy theories, that are ungrounded, exaggerated and full of demonizations, Manichean propositions, etc.
AntwortenLöschenSecond distinction I'd like to make is within the a) category. While one is consuming all that information, it is important to always keep one's guards up and not allow one's judgment to slip - and that can happen quite easily to anyone, unles care is exercised - otherwise everybody will eventually end up in the b) category.
And, as I indicated in may previous comment, completely dismissing the information is very close to the b) category, it's the other side of the coin - such attitude brings one no closer to the truth.
Just a few points of clarification on where I stand.