9/11: Inside job?

[krapnek]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.

[close]

that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way.  is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings?  that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?

 

[close]

Of course not and as I said (please read back more then a page) I think that it had more to do with Bush and Co ignoring and allowing the Saudi's to fly the planes into the buildings so that they could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq (you do know that one of the first things Bush said was find a way to blame Saddam).
The fact that the Neo Con group that many of the Bush and company belonged to said that a new Pearl Harbor was needed so they could invade Iraq again is very suspicious don’t you think? 
But as I have said has the claims of the Saudi men coming forward saying that they are one of the pictured hijackers even be disproved.

And before you say all conspiracy theories are bullshit lets go over a few that proved to be true.
1.   The US government was in fact trying to deport John Lennon because they feared his influence over the US elections and his anti war stance.
2.   The US government did in fact test Syphilis effects on black men in the south.
3.   The US targeted the more radical fringe groups of the 60’s and 70’s.
These are three of the more well know that have proved true, so please don’t write us all off as crazy.   

[close]

those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories.  they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything.  the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war.  tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment.   the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.

as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?

more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives.  george was not part of a neocon group.  he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911.  he probably regrets it now.

the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context.  one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions.  bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in.  you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!"  the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores.  it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.

[close]

those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories.  they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything.  the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war.  tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment.   the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.

as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?

more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives.  george was not part of a neocon group.  he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911.  he probably regrets it now.

the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context.  one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions.  bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in.  you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!"  the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores.  it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.

Expand Quote

[close]

I know that George wasn't part of the Neo Con group; I have always felt it is Dick Chaney that is making all the big decisions, and if anything George Bush may have been left out of loop on purpose.
But those three things I mentioned where all once held as nothing more then crazy talk from people and all where proved true. And what makes you think after all that the government is any better now then in the 1950s? Our history is dark (genocide of the native population, slavery, forced internment of US citizens of Japanese decent, funding para military groups in South America etc..) honestly is the ignoring and allowing of a terrorist act out of the realm of possibility? And you are right I am taking the  Pearl Harbor reference out of context, but I do think it shows motivation as to why the US would allow something like that to happen, after the cold war we had our chance to get rid of all of Nukes, Russia offered a crossed the board to dismantle theirs, we could have been the harbingers of world peace instead we have made the world a worse place because of our greed. (sorry off topic)
And where are those same people who cared about Bosnia now that Darfur is undergoing even worse Genocide? Funny that no high ranking officials seem to care about them, no oil or weapons to profit from?

the neoconservative reaction to darfur has been to demand us led military action, just like in bosnia.  the last high ranking neocon was paul wolfawitz, and he's been put away as you might recall.  dick cheney signed the pnac's letter to clinton in 1997, but he's no neocon. neocon literally implies you were once a leftist (many were trotskyites), and you took a rightward turn as a result of disallusionment with the left's weak stances on foreign policy, and a sense that the large social welfare programs had failed to address the problems they were designed to address.  dick cheney is just an old school rightwinger from the cold war era.  he doesn't even have the appreciation of nuance of a james baker or henry kissenger.  that his militeristic mindset dovetailed with the neocons on the issue of iraq is probably part of why we're over there.

but the real issue here is laid bare by your use of the phrase "out of the realm of possibility".  there is little that is "out of the realm of possibility", but it's not a reason to accept an overly complicated or implausible explanation.  and that's really what this is about. 

[fuckingvegan]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906terroristrecruiters.htm

White House Targets Conspiracy Theorists As Terrorist Recruiters
'Strategy for winning the war on terror' says world contaminated, corrupted by misinformation

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 7 2006

A document cited by President Bush in his recent speech at the Capital Hilton Hotel on how to 'win the war on terror' cites conspiracies as one of the wellsprings of terrorism and threatens to "address" and "diminish" the problems they are causing the government in fulfilling their agenda.

On Tuesday Bush referred to the strategy paper as "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001," that takes into account, "the changing nature of this enemy."

The document says that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

The terminology echoes President Bush's speech (video below) to the UN General Assembly on November 10th 2001 in which he stated, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

This is an outright threat to the 9/11 truth movement and is meant to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

It is also a callous reminder that the administration that has been the progenitor of the most heinous and deliberate campaign to mislead and lie to its own people is so transfixed by its own hubris that it has the temerity to accuse others of propagating deceptive information.

This is the same administration that deliberately included the Niger yellow cake fraud in a state of the union speech to sell a war - knowing that the information was completely bogus.

How dare they threaten us with the very defining characteristic of their black legacy and equate us with terrorists?

This is a direct assault on the alternative media and a continuation of the twilight zone rhetoric that saw the administration attempt to link its critics with Fascists and Hitler appeasers. The only fascists that should really concern us are not imaginary 'Blogofascists' or 'Islamofascists' but the Neo-Fascist slugs that occupy the White House and their cheerleading sycophants in the mainstream media and congress.

This is by no means the first time political enemies of the state have been smeared as terrorist sympathizers.

Alex Jones' 2001 documentary film 9/11: The Road to Tyranny featured footage from a FEMA symposium given to firefighters and other emergency personnel in Kansas City in which it was stated that the founding fathers, Christians and homeschoolers were terrorists and should be treated with the utmost suspicion and brutality in times of national emergency.

We have highlighted previous training manuals issues by state and federal government bodies which identify whole swathes of the population as potential terrorists. A Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal Law Enforcement pamphlet gives the public characteristics to identify terrorists that include buying baby formula, beer, wearing Levi jeans, carrying identifying documents like a drivers license and traveling with women or children.

A Virginia training manual used to help state employees recognize terrorists lists anti-government and property rights activists as terrorists and includes binoculars, video cameras, pads and notebooks in a compendium of terrorist tools.

Shortly after 9/11 a Phoenix FBI manual that was disseminated amongst federal employees at the end of the Clinton term caused waves on the Internet after it was revealed that potential terrorists included, "defenders of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN, " and individuals who "make numerous references to the US Constitution." Lawyers everywhere cowered in fear at being shipped off to Gitmo.

In May we broke the exclusive of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation."

There is also video on the site. If the government is starting to crack down on this it enforces that they are hiding something.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.

[close]

that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way.  is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings?  that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?

 

[close]

Of course not and as I said (please read back more then a page) I think that it had more to do with Bush and Co ignoring and allowing the Saudi's to fly the planes into the buildings so that they could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq (you do know that one of the first things Bush said was find a way to blame Saddam).
The fact that the Neo Con group that many of the Bush and company belonged to said that a new Pearl Harbor was needed so they could invade Iraq again is very suspicious don’t you think? 
But as I have said has the claims of the Saudi men coming forward saying that they are one of the pictured hijackers even be disproved.

And before you say all conspiracy theories are bullshit lets go over a few that proved to be true.
1.   The US government was in fact trying to deport John Lennon because they feared his influence over the US elections and his anti war stance.
2.   The US government did in fact test Syphilis effects on black men in the south.
3.   The US targeted the more radical fringe groups of the 60’s and 70’s.
These are three of the more well know that have proved true, so please don’t write us all off as crazy.   

[close]

those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories.  they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything.  the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war.  tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment.   the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.

as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?

more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives.  george was not part of a neocon group.  he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911.  he probably regrets it now.

the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context.  one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions.  bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in.  you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!"  the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores.  it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.

[close]

those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories.  they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything.  the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war.  tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment.   the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.

as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?

more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives.  george was not part of a neocon group.  he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911.  he probably regrets it now.

the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context.  one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions.  bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in.  you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!"  the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores.  it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.

Expand Quote

[close]

I know that George wasn't part of the Neo Con group; I have always felt it is Dick Chaney that is making all the big decisions, and if anything George Bush may have been left out of loop on purpose.
But those three things I mentioned where all once held as nothing more then crazy talk from people and all where proved true. And what makes you think after all that the government is any better now then in the 1950s? Our history is dark (genocide of the native population, slavery, forced internment of US citizens of Japanese decent, funding para military groups in South America etc..) honestly is the ignoring and allowing of a terrorist act out of the realm of possibility? And you are right I am taking the  Pearl Harbor reference out of context, but I do think it shows motivation as to why the US would allow something like that to happen, after the cold war we had our chance to get rid of all of Nukes, Russia offered a crossed the board to dismantle theirs, we could have been the harbingers of world peace instead we have made the world a worse place because of our greed. (sorry off topic)
And where are those same people who cared about Bosnia now that Darfur is undergoing even worse Genocide? Funny that no high ranking officials seem to care about them, no oil or weapons to profit from?

[close]

the neoconservative reaction to darfur has been to demand us led military action, just like in bosnia.  the last high ranking neocon was paul wolfawitz, and he's been put away as you might recall.  dick cheney signed the pnac's letter to clinton in 1997, but he's no neocon. neocon literally implies you were once a leftist (many were trotskyites), and you took a rightward turn as a result of disallusionment with the left's weak stances on foreign policy, and a sense that the large social welfare programs had failed to address the problems they were designed to address.  dick cheney is just an old school rightwinger from the cold war era.  he doesn't even have the appreciation of nuance of a james baker or henry kissenger.  that his militeristic mindset dovetailed with the neocons on the issue of iraq is probably part of why we're over there.

but the real issue here is laid bare by your use of the phrase "out of the realm of possibility".  there is little that is "out of the realm of possibility", but it's not a reason to accept an overly complicated or implausible explanation.  and that's really what this is about. 

Kid, thats not what "neocon" means. Neocon is the new kind of conservative (hence "neocon"). It LITERALLY means new conservative. It doesn't literally mean ex-leftist at all. New kind, not new member jackass. The neocon movement has its roots in the last 20 years, with that miserable bastard Ronald Reagan as their hero. Trotskyites? Are you fuckng regular? Bill Kristol was never a trotsykyite. Basically neocon is a new packaging of the right wing. "Compassionate conservatives" who care about others, love jesus, and support strong and constant military use. There is nothing in the neo-con thinking that  says you hhave to be an ex-democrat. Those are "Reagan republicans." There is a crossover, but its not the same thing. Also, Dick Cheney and George Bush are unabashed neo-cons. You said Bush PROBABLY REGRETS it now?!?! Are you fucking insane? That dude has never admitted or acted like he's made a mistake in his life. Also he has always claimed to NOT be a traditional conservative, and actually coined the term conpassionate conservative. Also, his acts as president ignore everything traditional conservatives believe, Thats why guys like Pat Buchanan and the head of the Cato institute hate Bush, they think he ignores and does not represent traditional conservative values by fucking up the budget consistently. Bush is the posterchild for the neo-con movement, just because he wasn't part of a think tank doesn't mean he doesn't believe it. He chose his cabinet, he didn't have to pick neocons.

[E.l.G]

Actually the roots of the neoconservative movement do lie in far left leaders of the '60s and '70s who were dissillusioned with "ineffective" liberal foreign policy in Vietnam and such, although much of their current doctrine was formed as a result of the cold war. That's not to say that you can't be a neo-conservative unless you were a democrat first but those are the foundations of the group.

[krapnek]

Kid, thats not what "neocon" means. Neocon is the new kind of conservative (hence "neocon"). It LITERALLY means new conservative. It doesn't literally mean ex-leftist at all. New kind, not new member jackass. The neocon movement has its roots in the last 20 years, with that miserable bastard Ronald Reagan as their hero. Trotskyites? Are you fuckng regular? Bill Kristol was never a trotsykyite. Basically neocon is a new packaging of the right wing. "Compassionate conservatives" who care about others, love jesus, and support strong and constant military use. There is nothing in the neo-con thinking that  says you hhave to be an ex-democrat. Those are "Reagan republicans." There is a crossover, but its not the same thing. Also, Dick Cheney and George Bush are unabashed neo-cons. You said Bush PROBABLY REGRETS it now?!?! Are you fucking insane? That dude has never admitted or acted like he's made a mistake in his life. Also he has always claimed to NOT be a traditional conservative, and actually coined the term conpassionate conservative. Also, his acts as president ignore everything traditional conservatives believe, Thats why guys like Pat Buchanan and the head of the Cato institute hate Bush, they think he ignores and does not represent traditional conservative values by fucking up the budget consistently. Bush is the posterchild for the neo-con movement, just because he wasn't part of a think tank doesn't mean he doesn't believe it. He chose his cabinet, he didn't have to pick neocons.

irving kristol and and norman poderetz were the founders of the neoconservative movement and both were troskyites.  you can get the history yourself on wikipedia and you can get a list of politician and public intellectuals who are considered neocons.  you'll notice most of them had a sea change in their political leaning at some point in their lives.  neither bush nor cheney are part of this movement, and if you look at bush's cabinet you'll notice it has been purged of people identified with this idealogy.  the departure of wolfowitz was a clear and certain signal that their day was over.  morevoer, condi rice's recent foreign policy statements reflect her own movement back towards the realist ideaology of her mentors james baker and brett scowcroft.  consider as well, that james baker and other former foreign policy wonks from both partiers have put together an iraq plan which they will present to the president after the congressional elections.  bush has said he will listen to it.  a far cry from when he refused to discuss foreign policy wit his father, let alone cosult with anyone from his father's cabinet. 

so, sure, bush may never verbally admit regret, his actions do.  the iraq war is going to cost him his parties' majority in congress, and that, kid, is not worth any amount of crooked military contracts.

[gub]

[bentmode]

trill as fuck.

[soon]

hot damn, someone drove that fucker into both towers?

total cover up.