quote:

---

Iraq was attacked because of the WTC attacks?

---

But, but, Cheney directly linked 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq (the second one): "(Cheney's) speech defended the U.S.-led war in Iraq as part of the Bush administration's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. The arguments over the administration's handling of Iraq are 'helping to frame the most important debate of the post-9/11 era.'"
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/cheney.terror/

And again!

"'As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts,' Cheney told the annual conference of the pro-Israel group, which interrupted his speech at least 27 times with applause.

'Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain.'"
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/13/MNG7UOK2D61.DTL

And so too George Bush who said "We went to war because we were attacked," as you might recall.

You're not saying Dick and George are ... are liars? Are you? Because for what reasons would these two stellar gentlemen, leaders of the free world, have to lie? I mean, you would not suggest they had ulterior motives for a war that has killed some 700,000 people, created 4 million refugees, smashed the cradle of civilization, and has left the world teetering on the brink? Because if they would do that, what else could they be capable of?

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I do believe we're on a roll here.

In the days to come, I hope to source my earlier allegation that the Pakistan Intelligence Service and the Mossad have been linked to 9/11...thus making it, as unionist said, an 'outside job"

or,

more correctly, an outside inside job.

The view that the U.S. invaded Iraq "because of" the WTC (rather than "using 9/11 as one of several pathetic pretexts") is pretty sinister.

It implies that all we need is to discover the "truth" about 9/11, and the U.S., shamefaced, will apologize to the Iraqi people, pay reparations, leave the region forever, and jail all the conspirators from Cheney on down.

These are dangerous delusions.

quote:

---

It is not the armchair forensic conspiracy hobbyists which will bring down the empire. It is the resistance of the people, in the streets and in the battlefield. That resistance is thriving, and it doesn't need conspiratorial titillation to inspire it.

---

I would say truth is needed. A resistance not fueled by truth or in denial of truth or closed to the possibility of a certain truth is as delusional and dangerous as the powers that be.

If you draw a line from the Gulf of Tonkin, through the Iran-Contra scandal, through to PNAC, Afghanistan and Iraq, you will always find the same names and faces behind the worst excesses of US imperialism and crimes committed in the name of the US and seldom a criminal consequence.

So guys, I am not trying to stifle the debate, I'm not trying to say the truth is unimportant, what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the mountains of evidence that should be investigated around the event that hasn't been publically aknowledged by either party in the US, you have to ask yourself whether they care at all. And the answer is, they don't.

They will continue to lie, cheat, and steal from the common american as long as they allow them to. If and when they throw out the government and get some actual representation THEN start asking for a new investigation. Until then, this is all going to fall on deaf ears. Over 60% of americans think the government was either complicit or incompetant on that day, so work with them to remove the government, you can't ask for better numbers really.

quote:

---

the so called 'opposition' is just as criminally complicit

---

quote:

---

to remove the government

---

Remove it and replace it with what? I would also disagree there is any major movement for fundamental change in the US. So long as the TVs numb the brain, the malls remain open for recreational shopping, and the SUVs remain fueled up, Americans remain mostly oblivious to what takes place in their names.

But I believe the following: If those responsible for war crimes at the highest level were held criminally responsible for the crimes committed in Vietnam and Indonesia, then the world would be a different place and 9/11 and Iraq may never have happened. The American elite understand there are no consequences for their criminal actions from the American people or the world. It is beyond mere hypocrisy and hilarity that the UN ponders war crime charges against some Sudanese but charges against members of the US administration are not even so much as an unlikely possibility. They kill, Americans and foreigners alike, with impunity. That is civilization.

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Even within some of the most 'educated and progressive' Americans, somehow they're still fooled into thinking that voting for the other party is going to make a difference.

Personally, I can't think of a single president from the 20th century and beyond that shouldn't be in the Hague on war crimes charges.

The WTC attacks are the most significant event in modern US history, both as an event in itself and for its far-reaching implications. Even if a huge ground swell of scepticism and a subsequent independent investigation turned up no foul play whatsoever, the very process of the people going to such lengths to find their own answers about it would be the most valuable thing that could happen to the US's political culture. It is this lack of independent scepticism that allows corruption to be so rampant there, and only the fostering of same can fix it. Far from a diversion, a movement for an investigation of 9/11 is addressing the real problem directly, no matter what conclusions it draws.

As for you unionist, I'm not sure if I should bother to respond to you, as it might just encourage you, and you seem incapable of making any sense in this thread, but one more try.

quote:

---

the very process of the people going to such lengths to find their own answers about it would be the most valuable thing that could happen to the US's political culture

---

The US is as much cult as nation I am sorry to say. No real progressive political change is possible in the US. When the impacts of environmental degradation and economic collapse begins to take hold, the US will speed toward dictatorial rule and religious fascism because they will more easily accept that God is angry over liberal lifestyles than the inherent fallibility of the ideological basis of infinite consumption, and growth.

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

These men, who few dispute are capable of atrocities and indeed are responsible for atrocities in several parts of the world, decide to let one attack through to provide the crystalizing moment. Is that entirely incomprehensible?

---

I fully agree. These men - and those before in the historical cases you cited - are fully capable of having plotted and executed 9/11, and indeed far worse.

My point is, what major difference does it make?

Did the Vietnamese people and their allies around the world rise up and defeat the U.S. because they were furious upon learning that the Gulf of Tonkin was a provocation?

Did the people of Nicaragua fight their oppressors out of indignation at an arms scandal?

Did the exposure of Watergate change the face and nature of U.S. aggressive hegemonic murderous policies? Did it even change the balance of power between the governing parties??

More to the point: Let's say the Watergate bugging was known, but not the author of the crime, and for six years the government had put out the story that it was just some crooks. Would it behoove progressive people to spend their time proving who the real culprits are?

This is not about whodunit. This is about: Who and what are the agents of change in the world?

And Griffin, the grandfather of it all, is a theologian and religious scholar. He is not an engineer. And who are the peers who have reviewed the Jones articles? And where were the article published?

Now of course I am sure the answer is apparent. Its a conspiracy that prevents the Canadian doctor from speaking...a conspiracy that prevents Jones articles from being published in respected civil engineering journals...a conspiracy that no one in the highly cut throat american media wants to break this story.

Should what happened be investigated, sure. But an investigation has to be impartial (which will never happen) and cannot be based on the premise that there is a conspiracy. If you want to find a conspiracy you always will.

At a minimum then the conspiracy would involve:

1) Families of those on flight 93
2) Air traffic controllers
3) NYPD
4) NYFD
5) Air National Guard Pilots
6) The White House
7) Hospital staff in Dubai
8) the media
9) civil engineering journal editors
10) all the people who witnessed the occurrence with their own eyes

and all these people are going to keep quiet? They can't keep quiet about firing 8 US attorneys. Everything gets leaked.

quote:

---

My point is, what major difference does it make?

Did the Vietnamese people and their allies around the world rise up and defeat the U.S. because they were furious upon learning that the Gulf of Tonkin was a provocation?

Did the people of Nicaragua fight their oppressors out of indignation at an arms scandal?

---

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Vietnamese, the Nicaraguans, were fighting US imperialism through aggression. They needed no convincing. The US people are another cattle of fish to mix a metaphor. They need to woken up.

quote:

---

Did the exposure of Watergate change the face and nature of U.S. aggressive hegemonic murderous policies? Did it even change the balance of power between the governing parties??

---

No, but that is the point. Why not? Did American participation in US elections increase or decrease after Watergate? Iran/Contra? I bet voter participation decreased because NO ONE WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

The GOP just went into the next election while Nixon went into retirement and Kissinger planned the next bloodbath. Americans came to the realization it doesn't matter what they do or what anyone else does. The system is wholly corrupt and out of reach.

Look at the recent revelations of CIA criminal activity. None of this is new. And no one was held accountable. The elites are never held to account.

quote:

---

This is about: Who and what are the agents of change in the world?

---

quote:

---

That's for that inspiration message, FM.

---

I am sorry if I upset you. But Cindy Sheehan made a very salient point when she said more Americans are interested in who wins American Idol than who dies in Iraq. She is right. Everyday more people turn into sports or sitcoms than the news. People are, as Pink Floyd said, comfortably numb.

quote:

---

At a minimum then the conspiracy would involve:

1) Families of those on flight 93
2) Air traffic controllers
3) NYPD
4) NYFD
5) Air National Guard Pilots
6) The White House
7) Hospital staff in Dubai
8) the media
9) civil engineering journal editors
10) all the people who witnessed the occurrence with their own eyes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Did American participation in US elections increase or decrease after Watergate? Iran/Contra? I bet voter participation decreased because NO ONE WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

---

I'm now losing your drift. What do you mean? Nixon left in disgrace. Do the names Liddy, Hunt, North ring a bell?

Had they imprisoned Nixon for life, and all his confederates, you think this would have "awakened" the people of the U.S.? Not on your life. It's a sideshow to the real crimes of the system.

Hunger, poverty, desperation are agents of change? Hardly. Enslavement, oppression, occupation, combined with organization, national or class solidarity - it's not the desperate huddled masses that rise up - have a look around the world for proof. It's the angry and enslaved who are organized and made conscious. Not made conscious of some scandals - but of who their enemy is and how they can be defeated.

quote:

---

Had they imprisoned Nixon for life, and all his confederates, you think this would have "awakened" the people of the U.S.? Not on your life. It's a sideshow to the real crimes of the system.

---

If they had tried and executed Kissinger and others for their roles in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, East Timor, and Latin America, there may not have been a contra war and Rumsfeld and Cheney would have real fear in their miserable lives.

quote:

---

it all crystallizes nicely in the 9/11 conspiracy issue and how much we think the "truth matters" in that case.

---

Truth always matters. It is usually a moment of an awareness of truth in our lives that brings us to where we are whether it be political activism or social consciousness or whatever. I remember the exact moment I first awoke to political awareness. I don't remember if it was The Day After or another film, but it included government news reels showing children to duck under their desk if there was a nuclear war and I remember thinking, "they (the government) lied." I was stunned that government has provided absolutely false information about nuclear war to its citizens. That caused me to rethink every other thing I had always taken for granted as true because I was told it was true. I became someone who questions and especially authority.

I am cannot be convinced that the truth does not matter.

quote:

---

Hunger, poverty, desperation are agents of change? Hardly. Enslavement, oppression, occupation, combined with organization, national or class solidarity - it's not the desperate huddled masses that rise up - have a look around the world for proof. It's the angry and enslaved who are organized and made conscious. Not made conscious of some scandals - but of who their enemy is and how they can be defeated.

---

I admire your beliefs and your commitment to them. I only suggest the work of activists and leaders and the direction and motivation of the masses are different things.

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I just have a vision of the "truth" coming out about 9/11 - and it turning out to closely resemble the "official" version, as banal as that is - and the disillusionment and defeat of those who needed to see a cynical neo-con controlling hand in these events. I'm not buying it, sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

The imperialists didn't need to manufacture this pretext - no shortage of them present themselves spontaneously, or are manufactured (like "WMD") - and the consequences have landed them in deep peril. So if they did manufacture 9/11 (despite all appearances), it will rank as a monumental blunder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

If they did, it will remain an official secret for a long, long time; and so I would not see it as a blunder. Why would you believe that the real truth would eventually come out in such a scenario?

---

Sorry, you really misunderstood my point. I have been saying, continuously, that "whodunit" really won't change the world that much.

The "monumental blunder" is the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo and the "War on Terror" and the discrediting of the U.S. (as liars and aggressors) and ...

If 9/11 is what they needed to justify those actions (which I don't believe they did need, but some people do, please scroll up), and they did organize 9/11, then they "justified" themselves right into crises of epic proportions - even if their "guilt" for 9/11 were never discovered.

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

If 9/11 is what they needed to justify those actions (which I don't believe they did need, but some people do, please scroll up), and they did 9/11, then they "justified" themselves right into crises of epic proportions - even if their "guilt" for 9/11 were never discovered.

[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

While that's a very interesting paragraph, it seems to me the problem is you're thinking like a progressive. For this discussion, you should try, to put yourself into their mindset. Such a mindset might include the notion Americans have grown weak, that they don't properly understand the dangers of radical islam, et cetera. It might also be inspired by the American reaction to the Pearl Harbour bombings 65 years ago.

What matters to me are the aggressive actions of the U.S. and their allies abroad, the dangers to world peace and stability, the further erosion of democratic freedoms in the U.S. and other countries, the whipping up of hysteria about "terror" which can justify any crime and abrogation of human rights, etc.

what could possibly be so urgent that the American government would ignore 50-100 warnings of an imminent attack ?

as far as holding people accountable - forget about it. Pelosi, Obama, Clinton etc. don't have the courage.

1. stolen election Y2K
2. 9-11
3. Afghan. war
4. Iraq war
5. stolen election 2004

... not disconnected events.

Yes, the truth definitely matters. in the sense of understanding why the US is behaving like Nazi Germany, invading other countries. (though Nazi Germany did not spread nuclear waste around the countries they invaded).

why 9-11 ?

answer - Peak Oil/ Energy Transition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

That is sophomoric bullshit. People with jobs and uniforms do what they are told everyday without ever knowing the basis or the cumulative end result of the orders they follow. Have you read Crossing the Rubicon? When you have read the book and successfully debunked his arguments and his very detailed sourcing, come back and talk.

---

This is the second time that someone has basically been told to shut up by supporters of 9/11 conspiracies. I think that is kind of sad. The other thing that I think is kind of sad is the way the conspiracy theorists elevate people who any sane person would question. That is not because the author of “Crossing the Rubicon” has been in a mental hospital (that happens). Nor is it because even other 9/11 conspiracy sites (for instance wingtv) have severely questioned the author’s accuracy or honesty - to put it mildly (could just be a rivalry). It is because the house of sand that Mike Ruppert (the author) has built his 9/11 conspiracy appears to be based on naval intelligence officer and spy Delmart Vreeland (2 chapters devoted entirely to him in Crossing the Rubicon) who appears to be nothing but a career criminal and con artist. Yes Vreeland was in the military, but was turffed more than 20 years ago and he admits he was never in the naval intelligence (of course with Vreeland being by all accounts a pathological liar that means that he probably was in the naval intelligence). Since getting turffed he has been arrested more than 25 times ranging from grand theft auto, child prostitution and various frauds. He spent at least 4 years on the Most Wanted List prior to 9/11. Yes that could all be part of the ever growing conspiracy. But the only thing to support Vreeland ever being a spy is what has come from his own mouth, the same mouth that has conned people accross the continent.

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

greencrow:

2. Who was the very first person who publically said that 9/11 was an 'inside job' and when did he say it?"
Radio broadcaster and blogger Alex Jones accused the US government of involvement in 9/11 on September 11, 2001. In fact, Jones had predicted the attacks in a radio broadcast weeks earlier.

---

First of all Jones predicted that there would be future terrorist attacks sometime, somewhere. He didn’t even say if the attacks would be on American soil (in the clips widely shown now where he mentions the WTC he is referring to the bombing in the 90s). Any one who has paid any attention to world events could have “predicted” a terrorist attack. Seriously how many were there in the 90s? Anyone who has paid attention to world events could have “predicted” that Bin Laden would have been blamed. After all he declared war against the US and claimed responsibility for several terrorist attacks. There were many people who were saying that terrorist attacks would continue. No one, including Jones predicted a terrorist attack of the scale of 9/11.

Second. Accusing the government of involvement on 9/11 on the very day it happened seems to be a good part of the reason why Jones is so respected by the conspiracy community, but in my opinion it is a reason why people should be extremely skeptical of him. Alex Jones believes in every single conspiracy theory that exists, including many that he “discovered” himself. The idea that he would accuse the government of being involved, before any evidence had been uncovered was as predictable as Jerry Falwell blaming the attacks on gays, feminists and abortionists. It is the very fact that Alex Jones doens't need any proof or evidence in order to accuse someone of being guilty of it that should raise flags, but it doesn't. There are other reasons why people should take anything that Jones says with a huge grain of salt. My inbox is often full of articles from him and his sites that some friends of mine constantly bombard me with. My favorites are the ones that say that global warming is a conspiracy pushed upon the public by the Illuminati/New World Order who somehow convinced 99.9% of the scientists in the relevant fields to fool the public on this evil conspiracy. In the articles Jones shows that he has less knowledge of global warming than the average third grader, but then again the average third grader hasn’t made lots of money through global warming conspiracy films, while Jones has, so who’s the fool. I encourage people who believe anything that comes out of Jones’ mouth regarding 9/11 to research what other things he believes and then ask yourself – if even 1% of the conspiracy theories that Jones believes are true and if this is because he is so good at uncovering the truth about all of these really evil things that are being done in the quest for the New World Order or the Illuminati or whatever, then how exactly is it that Jones is still alive? I mean with all of the people that Jones claims the government/Illuminati has knocked off, and with all of the power that Jones claims this small sinister group of people have, then why not bother to knock off the one who has “discovered” what is going on? Before he becomes more and more well known.

Third, Jones is similar to that of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell. I find him to be an extreme loudmouth, right wing, libertarian nutjob who peddles fear upon his listeners (the world is coming to an end, WWIII is starting, there is active AIDS strains in the corn, immigrants get everything for free and YOU pay for it, environmentalists are evil and so on) so well that it wouldn’t surprise me if the Bush Administration used him as their role model. Some say that Jones is not really right wing and maybe they are right. But, I didn’t find it overly reassuring when his websites endorsed Ron Paul as our only hope in 2008. Yes there are some admirable things about Ron Paul (he is not a fan of the war in Iraq, he is not a fan of the Bush government, he is not a fan of the CIA), but he is also someone who opposes virtually all government spending and favors zero interference in the market. He also favors overturning Roe v. Wade. The League of Conservation Voters have consistently given Ron Paul the lowest marks of any US Congress representative on environmental issues and alternative fuels. Groups have given him zero’s (or close to it) on welfare and poverty issues, public education issues, science and medical research issues, and immigration issues. He has also received poor grades on labor issues, gender issues and foreign aid, while on the flip side getting an A from the NRA, 88% from the Federation of Independent Business, 90% from the National Taxpayers Union and routinely gets an A from the National Right to Life Organization. (Some of Ron Paul’s voting record can be found [URL=http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm ]here[/URL] and here ) Now of course just because Alex Jones endorses Ron Paul doesn’t mean that he agrees with him on every issues, but in my experience they are in agreement on far too many issues.

Finally he is also someone, who in the mold of Rush Limbaugh, tells his listeners/watchers/readers that the media is lying to them and only he is telling the truth. So he filters the news from the media for them, because I guess he thinks they are too dumb to do it themselves. It always amazes me how some people can be so violently anti-big brother, but at the same time be so willing to be big-brother themselves.

quote:

---

David Ray Griffin
Dr. Griffin wrote one of the first comprehensive overviews on 9/11 and is one of the primary public spokespersons for the truth movement.

---

Yes, Griffin has written several books on the 9/11 conspiracy. Popular Mechanics wrote an article and then a book on debunking 9/11 myths. Griffin then wrote a book debunking the Popular Mechanics book. I have not read either book. But I mentioned earlier how quick the truth movement was to attack the Popular Mechanics article (on being a “CIA front” etc). The truth movement was as quick to embrace Griffin’s book as they were to attack the PM one. One of those books was written through consultation with dozens of experts relevant to the fields in question. The other was written by an author with training in theology. He consulted for example on the issue of why the steel melted experts like Eric Hufschmid (holocaust denier, believes global warming is a hoax, and there is some Zionist, illuminati conspiracy to install a new world government – it is all on his website. But how about training or expertise in civil or structural engineering? Nada, but then again if you believe that all the scientists and engineers are part of the vast global conspiracy and can’t be trusted, then I guess you stay away from that kind of education. It is amazing how many anti-science people are prominent in the 9/11 conspiracy movements - check out Alex Jones as well. I never thought I could find a group more anti-science then the Bush administration, but… In Griffin’s defense he also consulted Jim Hoffman, who is a software engineer. Still not a civil or structural engineer, but getting closer). Who are you going to trust? Experts or holocaust denier? Experts – holocaust denier? You’d be a fool not to go with the holocaust denier.

I don't know what happened on 9/11. The government may be lieing. But, my issue is that this is a movement which seems to elevate every crackpot who says what the movement wishes to hear. If the truth is ever going to be found than it is necessary for the conspiracy theorists, who are supposedly looking for the truth, to be just as critical of their own information as the information coming from the government and mass media. It is not enough to say: “Wow, what that guy just said is fucking crazy and while it is true that he is a con artist etc, what he said is implicating the government, so it MUST be true.”

Yes there are crackpots involved in every movement, or political party. But in the case of this movement the crackpots are right prominent in the very centre of it.

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

I never thought I could find a group more anti-science then the Bush administration, but… In Griffin’s defense he also consulted Jim Hoffman, who is a software engineer. Still not a civil or structural engineer, but getting closer).

---

i'm pretty sure Jim's background is in physics. he may do programming work.

i've worked in Silicon Valley (as a design engineer) about 25 years and met a lot of very smart engineers & physicists. what makes the best the best is passion for their work - they live & breathe their area(s) of technology. Jim has this same quality.

300,000 tons of concrete, when dropped, does not normally turn to dust before it hits the ground. however, that's what happened to the WTC buildings on 9-11.

- - -

Paul Thompson's 9-11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Jim Hoffman's website on the physics of the building collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/

Michael Ruppert's website, investigating almost everything but the building collapse.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: Abdul_Maria ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abdul_Maria:
300,000 tons of concrete, when dropped, does not normally turn to dust before it hits the ground. however, that's what happened to the WTC buildings on 9-11.

---

Welcome to the Canada Day long weekend. Since you likely have more time on your hands...I would like you to watch this video:

Debunking the BBC Conspiracy Files Documentary

It has all the bells and whistles of a very good compilation of the position of 9/11 truth with current revelations. It is one hour and 20 minutes long so you can watch it in spurts between your barbeque and garden. Enjoy.

gc

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: greencrow ]

"...Greencrow, where is your evidence for all this."

. . . . .

I could ask you the same question, chicago...you don't provide any links for your assertions. That is a hallmark of the 9/11 debate....OCT (official conspsiracy theory) supporters never have to show proof for the 19 hijackers masterminded by a man dying from kidney failure living in a cave in Afghanistan theory...but the truthers have to have prima facie evidence for everything we say...and even then it is not enough for 'probable cause' arrests. Even the laws of physics are not enough to get the perps arrested in the bushzarro world we now are forced to live in.

"...Do you believe that if you keep repeating that lie that it will become true?

. . . . . .

Here we have a poster who wants us to believe that, contrary to the laws of physics, the energy released by jet fuel, which quickly burns off at 800 degrees farenheit...is enough to blow concrete into dust in mid air and project it horizontally hundreds of feet.

Better watch out for your barbeque this weekend heywoodfloyd, barbeque fuel burns at the same temperature as jet fuel....according to your thinking, you might have your barbecue melt into a puddle of iron on your verandah.

It was the jet fuel, the additional combustible materials inside as well. The jet fuel alone might not have been enough.

A lot of concrete was blown into dust on impact. When the plane crashed into the wtc, the middle part with the elevators had trouble. It was sad because it was largely preventable.

"...We saw a documentary on the WTC in my engineering ethics class a few years ago, one of the main people was the civil engineer who headed the WTC construction three decades ago.

It was the jet fuel, the additional combustible materials inside as well. The jet fuel alone might not have been enough.

A lot of concrete was blown into dust on impact. When the plane crashed into the wtc, the middle part with the elevators had trouble. It was sad because it was largely preventable.

Greencrow, keep in mind the gravitational energy."

. . . .

No wonder you saw this in your engineering 'ethics' class, 500 apples...cause the promulgating of scientific and engineering falsehoods would likely be something that would be part of your curriculum.

I'm glad it wasn't part of your physics [see the law of conservation of momentum, for example] or chemistry class [see the degree that jet fuel burns at vs. the degree of heat required to soften or melt steel] because then I'd be very concerned for the future of engineering.

gc

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: greencrow ]

If jet fuel, which is very light and burns off quickly at about 800 degrees farenheit can cause huge and complex steel structures to completely collapse in 10 seconds....

Why do we need steel foundries? Why do we need to create conditions where steel is heated to 1300 degrees of CONSTANT heat in order to melt metal?

Jet fuel is a lot cheaper than the blast furnaces that are required in foundries...why don't we just use jet fuel....and, hey...

Why DOESN'T your barbeque melt into a puddle on your deck if you are keeping the gas flame lit at 800 degrees for a couple of hours?

Did jet fueled fires cause the WTC collapses?

quote:

---

What matters to me are the aggressive actions of the U.S. and their allies abroad, the dangers to world peace and stability, the further erosion of democratic freedoms in the U.S. and other countries, the whipping up of hysteria about "terror" which can justify any crime and abrogation of human rights, etc.

---

Man, why is it that you can't acknowledge that 9/11 was the catalysing event for the last six years of all the things you mention? It's like a blind spot in your brain. You can't say these things are important and the WTC attacks don't matter. That makes no sense whatsoever. They are inextricably linked.

Supporters of all this stuff still go on and on about how "9/11 changed everything". It's their favourite phrase and their one-size-fits-all argument. It is the whole rationale for the all the crimes of the last six years, and if it were punctured, it would leave them directionless. Though once again, I support an investigation for its own sake, and not for any conclusions it would result in.

quote:

---

I am saying that the "whodunit" matters more to comfortable people than to those suffering and fighting for freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
It is the whole rationale for the all the crimes of the last six years, and if it were punctured, it would leave them directionless.

---

Where was this video filmed from?

Osama bin Laden's High Tech Cave...but did he have a dialysis machine?

For those not too wilfully blind to see them, the indications were all there. Don't trust me, see for yourself and judge.

ETA: First hint: Everyone now acknowledges that the driver was bombed.

[ 30 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

media octopus controls the news

News Anchor has to fight to read actual news on TV

quote:

---

Was he really drunk? It is accepted that he had two Ricard drinks at the Ritz, but no other evidence has emerged to support this claim, beyond questionable results from a blood test from his corpse. Why questionable? Because it is common for the alcohol level to rise in bodies after death regardless of consumption. The test also showed a very high level of carbon monoxide (20 per cent) in his blood. Experts say this would have incapacitated him before he set off on his fatal journey, and yet the hotel's video evidence shows him walking around and talking normally. An alcoholic? Well , as a pilot, he passed a rigorous health check two days before the accident. His liver showed no signs of abuse on post-mortem.

---

quote:

---

And if it turns out that there was no conspiracy, then what?

---

quote:

---

Though once again, I support an investigation for its own sake, and not for any conclusions it would result in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

I've explained myself several times here on this score, but you don't hear anything you don't care to. It's pointless talking to you.

---

Zeitguist The Movie

There are three videos on this link...watch them all...from the top down.

Afterwards, you will have a new perspective of humanity on this planet. Enjoy!

quote:

---

If the truth about 9/11 is out there, yet to be revealed, this energetic and passionate movement must uncover more tangible evidence before it loses steam and fades away. The clock is ticking.

---

I'd say as the clock ticks, more people are becoming convinced that the official story contains, to put it mildly, less than the full truth.

The clock is ticking on the truth movement to convince more people before the next big tragedy happens. The tangible evidence is there, but so is the wool over most people's eyes.

[ 03 July 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

This is the second time that someone has basically been told to shut up by supporters of 9/11 conspiracies. I think that is kind of sad. The other thing that I think is kind of sad is the way the conspiracy theorists elevate people who any sane person would question. That is not because the author of “Crossing the Rubicon” has been in a mental hospital (that happens). Nor is it because even other 9/11 conspiracy sites (for instance wingtv) have severely questioned the author’s accuracy or honesty - to put it mildly (could just be a rivalry). It is because the house of sand that Mike Ruppert (the author) has built his 9/11 conspiracy appears to be based on naval intelligence officer and spy Delmart Vreeland (2 chapters devoted entirely to him in Crossing the Rubicon) who appears to be nothing but a career criminal and con artist. Yes Vreeland was in the military, but was turffed more than 20 years ago and he admits he was never in the naval intelligence (of course with Vreeland being by all accounts a pathological liar that means that he probably was in the naval intelligence). Since getting turffed he has been arrested more than 25 times ranging from grand theft auto, child prostitution and various frauds. He spent at least 4 years on the Most Wanted List prior to 9/11. Yes that could all be part of the ever growing conspiracy. But the only thing to support Vreeland ever being a spy is what has come from his own mouth, the same mouth that has conned people accross the continent.

---

. . . . . .

If the writer of the quote above had actually read Mike Ruppert's 'Crossing the Rubicon' he or she would know that Ruppert readily admits the flaws in Vreeland's evidence/story. Ruppert also readily admits his own psychiatric problems caused initially when as an FBI agent, he discovered that the biggest importer of drugs into the USA was the CIA. He found this out because his girlfriend was a member of the CIA and got involved in the drug transportation business as part of her work,

This knowledge caused Ruppert to go bonkers for a while. Think about how you would react to such information.

Ruppert had a breakdown in the last few years as well due to stress and pressure, not to mention harrassment by person or persons unknown, in the aftermath of his book 'Crossing the Rubicon.'

While Ruppert has taken some stands that were not helpful to the truth movement, overall, his contributions must be recognized and appreciated, Ruppert, after all, was the first author who tied the military and the Defense industry irrevocably to the events of 9/11. He was the one who broke the information about the NORAD standdown being caused by at least five military drills that were going on on that day, including one airforce exercise that involved hijacked planes flying into buildings. To this day, none of his allegations around this have been denied by the US Defense Department or NORAD.

gc

[ 03 July 2007: Message edited by: greencrow ]

quote:

---

By all means, avoid anyone who challenges your assumptions, your "evidence", and your conclusions.

---

I would never avoid or dismiss anyone who did this, like Trevormkidd, whose contributions to the thread have been quite valuable. You don't fall into this category. Besides empty mockery, the only thing you've offered is the assertion that talking about the WTC attacks is pointless because investigating the Iraq and afghanistan conflicts, the breakdown of rights and freedoms, and war on terror in general is more important.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I am saying that the "whodunit" matters more to comfortable people than to those suffering and fighting for freedom.

---

Wow, who made you ambassador for all these people, both the comfortable and those suffering and fighting for freedom? Why don't you let people speak for themselves?

You are also saying the truth matters more to the comfortable than the afflicted. You think questioning the events of 9/11/01 is some inconsequential leisure activity, on which you can heap your disdain.

[ 03 July 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
We saw a documentary on the WTC in my engineering ethics class a few years ago, one of the main people was the civil engineer who headed the WTC construction three decades ago.
It was the jet fuel, the additional combustible materials inside as well. The jet fuel alone might not have been enough. A lot of concrete was blown into dust on impact. When the plane crashed into the wtc, the middle part with the elevators had trouble. It was sad because it was largely preventable.Greencrow, keep in mind the gravitational energy.

---

Can you also explain the RATE at which the towers collapsed? Why all that mass of concrete and steel underneath the burning floors provided almost ZERO resistance?

Can you explain this for all THREE towers, ie, the twin towers and the third tower, aka "WTC 7"?

Remember, WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane.

[ 03 July 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

Wow, who made you ambassador for all these people, both the comfortable and those suffering and fighting for freedom? Why don't you let people speak for themselves?

---

They're free to register with babble. Until they do, I will express whatever opinions I please. Anyway, it's perfectly obvious where the monomaniacal obsession with 9/11 is coming from.

quote:

---

You are also saying the truth matters more to the comfortable than the afflicted. You think questioning the events of 9/11/01 is some inconsequential leisure activity, on which you can heap your disdain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

Besides empty mockery, the only thing you've offered is the assertion that talking about the WTC attacks is pointless because investigating the Iraq and afghanistan conflicts, the breakdown of rights and freedoms, and war on terror in general is more important.

---

Well, yeah, I that's a pretty important and legitimate political opinion, which you are free to agree with or disagree with. But when I openly hold the view that the "truth" behind 9/11 is not as important as conspiracy theorists make it out to be, it is pretty silly to reply: "But, but, but, you're not taking the issue of who organized 9/11 seriously!" That's not a refutation, it's merely a repetition of my undisguised view.

quote:

---

Of course you know as well as anyone that it is impossible to separate 9/11 from any of these, so this point is even more useless than your foolish taunting. If you don't want to be dismissed, say something of substance.

---

According to you, "something of substance" means engaging in this silly speculative debate between amateur detectives/engineers/scientists/sci-fi fans. So you pre-determine the direction of the discussion by your definition of "something of substance".

Let me tell you "something of substance": In almost six (6) years since 9/11, I have seen approximately as much evidence that it was organized by high-ranking U.S. officials as I have seen evidence of WMD in Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
This is about: Who and what are the agents of change in the world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Yes, it's important to reveal crimes of the imperialists. Yes, it helps to wake people up to their evil nature. But it doesn't last. If people don't feel the need in their daily lives to get organized and fight for (fill in the blank: equality, peace, social justice, socialism, national liberation, **), then no amount of shocking revelations will change the situation.

---

**Fill in blank: easy accessibility to a truly diverse and free media.

It seems trust/distrust in the mainstream media is the watershed separating those who accept the official conspiracy theory from those who are asking for more plausible explanations of the 9/11/01 tragedy.

Too many people complacently think western society, as a whole, is too intelligent and well-informed to fall victim to the Big Lie technique. See "Spiral of Silence":

quote:

---

The spiral of silence begins with fear of reprisal or isolation, and escalates from there. Individuals use what is described as "an innate ability" or quasi-statistical sense to gauge public opinion (Miller 2005: 278). The media plays a large part in determining what the dominant opinion is, since our direct observation is limited to a small percentage of the population. The media has such an enormous impact on how public opinion is portrayed, and can dramatically impact an individuals perception about where public opinion lies, whether or not that portrayal is factual (Scheufele and Moy 1999). Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as dynamic process, in which predictions about public opinion become fact as the media's coverage of the majority opinion becomes the status quo, and the minority becomes less likely to speak out (Miller 2005:278).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Is anyone still debating whether there are WMD in Iraq? ANYONE?? I rest my case.

---

What is your version of the connection between debating WMD in Iraq and debating the events of 9/11/01?

Like Stockholm, do you think that because there were no WMDs found in Iraq, that this adequately explains things like how WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall speed, after not even being hit by an airplane?

"It is perfectly plausible that the Three Towers imploded at near free fall speed because there were no weapons found in Iraq several years later." That's logic for you.

[ 05 July 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
What is your version of the connection between debating WMD in Iraq and debating the events of 9/11/01?

---

The U.S. alleged that Iraq was secretly conspiring to acquire, build, and use weapons of mass destruction. They used this alleged conspiracy to divert from their own imperial aims against the region.

When no evidence of this conspiracy was found within a very short time, even those few gullible individuals worldwide who had fallen for it eventually discarded it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
When no evidence of this conspiracy was found within a very short time, even those few gullible individuals worldwide who had fallen for it eventually discarded it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Correct. I think it's a diversion at best, and a dangerous diversion at worst. "Inconsequential leisure activity" sums it up pretty well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

Do you think it is an inconsequential leisure activity for those who lost family and friends in the collapse of the three towers?

---

No, in their case, it is probably a gut-wrenching combination of false hope of closure and a wild goose chase - a speculative alternative to getting on with their lives the way all bereaved people must do.

Now, if there were the slightest persuasive evidence that there was indeed a hidden conspiracy, it would not be a wild goose chase, but instead would probably be necessary to bring them relief and closure.

The Air India disaster is an example. All the indications pointed to a terrorist-placed bomb. The quest to identify and punish the culprits then becomes essential for the bereaved families.

"...The Air India disaster is an example. All the indications pointed to a terrorist-placed bomb. The quest to identify and punish the culprits then becomes essential for the bereaved families.

That's not the case with 9/11."

. . . . .

Ha ha ha...unionist gets tied up in the knots of his own lies. The OCT [official conspiracy theory] has 'terrorists' who have not yet been caught...see e.g., Osama bin Laden...obstensibily hiding out in Afghanistan with his henchmen.

Why don't you go over there and capture him, unionist? If you do really care about justice...and not the delicious outcome of the 9/11 event...i.e., the subsequent attack on two middle east muslim nations and the occupation of them by western military powers for the purpose of taking their resources.

Read your own post...do you not see the conflict in it? Do you not see that you said you wanted to go after the terrorists who bombed the AIR India plane but you think the bereaved of 9/11 should just get on with their lives.

Try to justify those two different positions instead of running to the moderator.

NIST examining CD theory for WTC7

Yes, if a diesel fire brought down the building is the argument they're going to go with, they'll have to answer why the collapse was totally symetrical...not just on the side where the diesel tank was located.

But, hey, in today's bushzarro world, you don't HAVE to answer nit picky questions like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

According to you, "something of substance" means engaging in this silly speculative debate between amateur detectives/engineers/scientists/sci-fi fans. So you pre-determine the direction of the discussion by your definition of "something of substance".

Let me tell you "something of substance": In almost six (6) years since 9/11, I have seen approximately as much evidence that it was organized by high-ranking U.S. officials as I have seen evidence of WMD in Iraq.

Is anyone still debating whether there are WMD in Iraq? ANYONE?? I rest my case.

---

#1 - Your assault on Sci-fi fans is unjustified.

#2 - For someone ranting about how this is a distraction and diversion from the important things in life, you certainly spend a lot of time shouting it down.

#3 - The WMD debate was over before it began. Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter, the UN Atomic Energy People, etc..etc..were very vocal about the LACK of WMD's however they were directly targetted by the administration in order to quiet them. The fact that you completely accept this timeline, but refuse to apply the same rules to 9/11 is showing your intellectual dishonesty. In fact the CIA just ADMITTED to targetting reporters who were releasing TRUE yet uncomfortable details about their actions.

#4 - Is anyone still debating it? No, but Over Half of Americans believe it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

And if it turns out that there was no conspiracy, then what?

---

Then we can all breathe a big sigh of relief and go back to bin Laden hunting?

Better yet, we can all breathe a big sigh of relief and put it down to the wacky, bumbling ineptitude of the United States government. Isn't that the moderate theory? Tragedy by incompetence? That's not culpable, certainly. I mean, look how they screwed up Katrina. They couldn't hit a fly with a swatter the size of a house.

Wasn't it cute how bumbling and inept they were in Nicaragua? In El Salvador? In Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the dozens of other countries they've invaded or commandeered in the last 100 years?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:

Then we can all breathe a big sigh of relief and go back to bin Laden hunting?

---

Well, I haven't seen any better evidence of Bin Laden's responsibility than of Dick Cheney's. Have you?

quote:

---

Better yet, we can all breathe a big sigh of relief and put it down to the wacky, bumbling ineptitude of the United States government. Isn't that the moderate theory? Tragedy by incompetence?

---

Did someone in this thread present that theory? Did I? Whom exactly are you refuting here?

quote:

---

Wasn't it cute how bumbling and inept they were in Nicaragua? In El Salvador? In Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the dozens of other countries they've invaded or commandeered in the last 100 years?

---

Those were criminal actions of U.S. imperialism. If you are portraying them as examples of a well-oiled, well-planned, all-powerful Rome-like imperial marauder, I guess I'd have to ask you: How did all those adventures turn out for the U.S.? Resounding successes? Any of them? Which one?

Your argument is interesting:

1. If it wasn't a U.S. conspiracy, the only other explanation is incompetence.

2. They're not incompetent.

3. Hence, it's a U.S. conspiracy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You'll pardon me for discounting this syllogism and waiting for some actual evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Those were criminal actions of U.S. imperialism. If you are portraying them as examples of a well-oiled, well-planned, all-powerful Rome-like imperial marauder, I guess I'd have to ask you: How did all those adventures turn out for the U.S.? Resounding successes? Any of them? Which one?

---

The war in Vietnam was a resounding success for the military-congress-industrial complex. It served several purposes other than to actually conquer and occupy a nation. Several hundred billion taxpayer dollars were doled out to friends of that country's two oldest political parties.

And it fueled inflation in America as the government printed money to keep the war going. That gave the hawks reason to point to lavish social program spending, from the FDR to Johnson era, as a the culprit for skyrocketing inflation of the 1970's. Lazy workers and overly generous social programs would have to be slashed in both our countries - not due to social program spending on Americans and Canadians by and large -but because Keynesian-militarism (socialism for the rich) along with the energy crisis was sabatoging the economy accidentally on purpose. Johnson and then Trudeau would cave into the conservatives lies. By 1984, PET became just another political conservative himself wrt social policies in Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:

I think we're still waiting for yours, actually.

---

My evidence of what? That there was no conspiracy? I don't claim that. I have stated (and you obviously didn't notice) that it is perfectly possible and credible that the whole thing was cooked up by Bush, Cheney, and company.

However, there is not a shred of evidence that has surfaced to that effect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Maybe I can help. Unionist doesn't believe that proving a 911 conspiracy will lead anyone any closer to achieving a better world. I agree with him. It won't. I believe the truth matters for other reasons. I can agree to disagree on this one.

---

I too believe that the "truth matters". I just think the obsessive emphasis on this event is disturbing and dangerous. And a look at the internet shows some of the disturbing people that have latched onto this creed. We have seen evidence of that here.

Having said that, I appreciate FM's statement and in fact I agree with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Fidel, cut me some slack. You're pretending now that you can't tell the difference between a victory for imperialism and a defeat for imperialism. And for once, I have absolutely no clue what you're getting at. Do you want to side with the 9/11 conspiracy types? Or is this just some tangent?

---

Victory would be an added bonus for Keynesian-militarism for sure. If the hawks had wanted to win Vietnam over to market capitalism, they could have done it at lower cost by advocating New Deal socialist policies for those countries: investment in education, housing, *socialized medicine, agricultural protectionism - essentially all those New Deal policies which built up the American economy after collapse of laissez-faire capitalism (and which built up Nazi Germany's economy rapidly.) The banking cabal and IMF could have stipulated that none of the aid money to those poor countries was to be spent on militarism.

But nation building and economic cooperation was never their goal for countries like Vietnam. Not one thin U.S. dime ever went into reparations for Vietnam in compensation for massive loss of life and destruction. When they are in the business of warfiteering, peace and nation-building just don't produce the anywhere from 25% to 1000 percent profit margins that weapons sales and all manner of gouging the taxpayers does in time of war. So long as there is a war happening in some country, the warfiteers are actually winning and winning big.

Dubya himself comes from a long line of warfiteers dating back to Samuel Bush. It's a definite conflict of interest to be involved in both democratic decision-making and a warfiteering industry, I agree. This is what they do. This is what that have done since arming Hitler to arming Saddam with technology to wage chemical and biological and perhaps nuclear warfare, as well as arming Iraq's sworn enemies in surrounding ME countries at the time. It's what they do. And guess who's on the winning end of the double bubble when taxpayers have to declare war on their deliberate mistakes?. The "unionist inquistion" asks such difficult questions.

I'll come in again. Amongst their chief weaponry are such elements as: fear, surprise, weapons dealing, ruthless efficiency, illicit drugs, oil and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

[ 04 July 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

my real claim: that it doesn't make all that much of a difference which particular group of murderous criminals (misguided terrorists, or well-guided terrorists) did the deed.

---

I don't agree. It matters who perpetrated, who enabled the attacks. The Muslim-phobia at home and abroad would need a completely different catalyst if it could be shown beyond reasonable doubt (whether the government ever officially admits it or not) that the buildings collapsed by explosives, and not by the hit two of them took by allegedly hijacked planes. That's just one reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

However, there is not a shred of evidence that has surfaced to that effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
No, in their case, it is probably a gut-wrenching combination of false hope of closure and a wild goose chase - a speculative alternative to getting on with their lives the way all bereaved people must do. Now, if there were the slightest persuasive evidence that there was indeed a hidden conspiracy, it would not be a wild goose chase, but instead would probably be necessary to bring them relief and closure.The Air India disaster is an example. All the indications pointed to a terrorist-placed bomb. The quest to identify and punish the culprits then becomes essential for the bereaved families.That's not the case with 9/11.

---

Once again, unionist, you are speaking for others. In this case, the bereaved who were close to those who died on 9/11/01.

What do you think they need to find closure? Perhaps the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Also, from this thread:

quote:

---

The discovery of human bones in a damaged manhole at the World Trade Center site has outraged victims' families, who say the city hasn't done enough to ensure the remains of those killed in the 2001 terrorist attack are located and treated with respect…
WTC Families for Proper Burial said it would hold a news conference Friday “to express our outrage at the continued cavalier attitude toward the retrieval of human remains.”

---

[ 05 July 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

Once again, unionist, you are speaking for others. In this case, the bereaved who were close to those who died on 9/11/01.

---

Someone asked me this question:

quote:

---

Do you think it is an inconsequential leisure activity for those who lost family and friends in the collapse of the three towers?

---

I answered the question. I guess you're now saying it was rhetorical?

quote:

---

What do you think they need to find closure? Perhaps the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

---

Yes, perhaps some family members would like to move on with their lives, and perhaps some would like to dedicate their lives to unearthing the truth about what happens.

But for unrelated progressive people to dedicate inordinate amounts of time to this strikes me as obsessive and diversionary.

Remember the four Canadian soldiers killed by "friendly U.S. fire" in Afghanistan in 2002? Do you think justice was done? Do you think the full chain of command and coverups was disclosed? If someone wants to spend their life getting to the "truth" of that, fill yer boots. But don't try to tell me it's important.

quote:

---

How much care was taken to go through the debris and recover human remains, and personal effects of those who perished?

---

I have trouble understanding why this matters in the global scheme of things. Sorry to appear heartless and cold. Turn the page, move on.

quote:

---

unionist, let the bereaved speak for themselves

---

Suggestion: Don't ask me whether this issue is important for the bereaved, then rebuke me when I answer your question. I don't consider it as an amusing debating technique.

[ 05 July 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I have trouble understanding why this matters in the global scheme of things.

---

On the basis of that statement, I could just say, OK, forget about unionist, who can't add one plus one.

But here goes anyway...earlier you asked who the agents of change were. I responded, in not so many words, that the mainstream media plays a big role in conditioning society. Many issues are at the core of 9/11/01. Media manipulation is one of those core issues. Therefore it is relevant today and in the future. See?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
On the basis of that statement, I could just say, OK, forget about unionist, who can't add one plus one.

---

Ok, I've got my calculator out. Now explain to me why we should care about sifting through the remains and personal effects of the victims. That's what my comment was directed to:

quote:

---

I have trouble understanding why this matters in the global scheme of things.

---

Just tell me one more time, in case I missed the original significance.

As for the power of the MSM, you are correct. It is not an agent of change, however, but an instrument of blocking change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
If you want to combat the power of the MSM, you need convincing rational conclusions. Not conspiracy speculation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Quelar, please read your PMs and reply. Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:

Questioning the Official Conspiracy Theory is based on more than just speculation. It is based on a whole sh*tload of evidence. Like the abnormal behaviour of removing human remains hastily from the site. And much, much more, if only you would look at some links that are posted on this and other threads.

---

Every time I've looked at the evidence cited it has turned from a shitload to shit.

The cited behaviour is not abnormal.

If you can show me a specific error in the NIST report I'll look at it.

I don't care for the spirit of these exchanges with posters implying that other posters are lunatics, dumb or misinformed. That's typical paleoconservative good offence is better than defence style of debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I don't care for the spirit of these exchanges with posters implying that other posters are lunatics, dumb or misinformed. That's typical paleoconservative good offence is better than defence style of debate.

---

The furthest fetched theories are basically the ones that say the buildings didn't fall down because the planes hit them, but for some other reason.

Slightly less far fetched are theories that say the planes could have been shot down but weren't.

Exceedingly unlikely describes theories that say there was a conspiracy between the hijackers and the Bush administration.

Unlikely describes theories that say the Bush administration was deliberately incompetent in order to trigger a causus belli.

At this point I would have to say that the official story says that the Bush administration was incompetent and at least somewhat mendacious in some of its actions (notably getting some Saudis out of the country).

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I just wanted to make clear how I would perceive posts in this thread.

Edited to point out that I cross posted with Michelle.

[ 05 July 2007: Message edited by: jrootham ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

and at least somewhat mendacious in some of its actions (notably getting some Saudis out of the country).

---

Saddam was setup for a fall by the plutocracy wrt Iraqgate. The Liberal Democrats let that conspiracy slip through their own blood-soaked designer gucci riding gloves deliberately on purpose.

Teeter-totter milk and water Wash their faces in dirty water. It's the plutocracy that lacks credibility.

[ 05 July 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

To fail to understand this reality is to allow the next stage of "regime-change" imperialism which depends on another such event, external or contrived:

"Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 24, 2007

"Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)...."
Iran next
=====
Sewing a smiley face of defense on the Frankenstein of aggression is age old:

We're all being judges here, you want to argue likelyhood, go ahead, I'd like to see the argument that sorted those theories into a different order.

On the Saudis skipping town, you have a point, I've lost track of what's credible and what's not in this circus. I don't recall a source for that. I don't think it makes any difference to the fundamental argument though. At a minimum, there is motive, method, and opportunity there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

I have no difficulty believing that this administration would lie, in fact I think it is obvious they have lied, i just don't think there's any evidence for this lie. Much like the battleship Maine, and unlike the Gulf of Tonkin.

---

Exactly the point I have been making throughout.

This whole 9/11 stuff reminds me of the "debate" over Pearl Harbor - especially the crackpot view that FDR organized it, or provoked it, or ignored advance warnings, because he desperately needed a casus belli.

Was FDR capable of something like that? Of course. Did he do it? There's no credible evidence. Does it matter? Obviously not. Do people still debate it? Yes, but no one takes them seriously.

quote:

---

Any comments trying to link Saddam Hussein with 9/11 prior to the invasion were truly incidental, irrelevant, and not taken seriously in world circles

---

quote:

---

President Bush's national security adviser Wednesday said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in chemical weapons development -- information she said has been gleaned from captives in the ongoing war on terrorism.

The comments by Condoleezza Rice were the strongest and most specific to date on the White House's accusations linking al Qaeda and Iraq.

---

quote:

---

a poll taken just two months ago showing 57% of Americans still believe in the Iraq-Sept. 11 link

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
There is just a much evidence that bin Laden did it all on his lonesome with a satellite phone, so I assume you don't believe that either. In fact, the only thing you could possibly believe, based on the available evidence that no one disputes, is that the attacks were carried out randomly by individuals who chose the same day and the same tactics and the same targets by pure coincidence.

---

a) There is nothing particularly unlikely about the Bin Laden et al conspiracy.

b) He claimed he did it.