The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
Mantra for 9/11
Fourteen Years Later, Improbable World
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_308882264

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Fourteen years later and do you even believe it? Did we actually live it? Are we still living it? And how improbable is that?

Fourteen years of wars, interventions, assassinations, torture, kidnappings, black sites, the growth of the American national security state to monumental proportions, and the spread of Islamic extremism across much of the Greater Middle East and Africa. Fourteen years of astronomical expense, bombing campaigns galore, and a military-first foreign policy of repeated defeats, disappointments, and disasters. Fourteen years of a culture of fear in America, of endless alarms and warnings, as well as dire predictions of terrorist attacks. Fourteen years of the burial of American democracy (or rather its recreation as a billionaire’s playground and a source of spectacle and entertainment but not governance). Fourteen years of the spread of secrecy, the classification of every document in sight, the fierce prosecution of whistleblowers, and a faith-based urge to keep Americans “secure” by leaving them in the dark about what their government is doing. Fourteen years of the demobilization of the citizenry. Fourteen years of the rise of the warrior corporation, the transformation of war and intelligence gathering into profit-making activities, and the flocking of countless private contractors to the Pentagon, the NSA, the CIA, and too many other parts of the national security state to keep track of. Fourteen years of our wars coming home in the form of PTSD, the militarization of the police, and the spread of war-zone technology like drones and stingrays to the “homeland.” Fourteen years of that un-American word “homeland.” Fourteen years of the expansion of surveillance of every kind and of the development of a global surveillance system whose reach — from foreign leaders to tribal groups in the backlands of the planet — would have stunned those running the totalitarian states of the twentieth century. Fourteen years of the financial starvation of America’s infrastructure and still not a single mile of high-speed rail built anywhere in the country. Fourteen years in which to launch Afghan War 2.0, Iraq Wars 2.0 and 3.0, and Syria War 1.0. Fourteen years, that is, of the improbable made probable.

Fourteen years later, thanks a heap, Osama bin Laden. With a small number of supporters,$400,000-$500,000, and 19 suicidal hijackers, most of them Saudis, you pulled off a geopolitical magic trick of the first order. Think of it as wizardry from the theater of darkness. In the process, you did “change everything” or at least enough of everything to matter. Or rather, you goaded us into doing what you had neither the resources nor the ability to do. So let’s give credit where it’s due. Psychologically speaking, the 9/11 attacks represented precision targeting of a kind American leaders would only dream of in the years to follow. I have no idea how, but you clearly understood us so much better than we understood you or, for that matter, ourselves. You knew just which buttons of ours to push so that we would essentially carry out the rest of your plan for you. While you sat back and waited in Abbottabad, we followed the blueprints for your dreams and desires as if you had planned it and, in the process, made the world a significantly different (and significantly grimmer) place.

Fourteen years later, we don’t even grasp what we did.

Fourteen years later, the improbability of it all still staggers the imagination, starting with those vast shards of the World Trade Center in downtown Manhattan, the real-world equivalent of the Statue of Liberty sticking out of the sand in the original Planet of the Apes. With lower Manhattan still burning and the air acrid with destruction, they seemed like evidence of a culture that had undergone its own apocalyptic moment and come out the other side unrecognizably transformed. To believe the coverage of the time, Americans had experienced Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima combined. We were planet Earth’s ultimate victims and downtown New York was “Ground Zero,” a phrase previously reserved for places where nuclear explosions had occurred. We were instantly the world’s greatest victim and greatest survivor, and it was taken for granted that the world’s most fulfilling sense of revenge would be ours. 9/11 came to be seen as an assault on everything innocent and good and triumphant about us, the ultimate they-hate-our-freedoms moment and, Osama, it worked. You spooked this country into 14 years of giving any dumb or horrifying act or idea or law or intrusion into our lives or curtailment of our rights a get-out-of-jail-free pass. You loosed not just your dogs of war, but ours, which was exactly what you needed to bring chaos to the Muslim world.

Fourteen years later, let me remind you of just how totally improbable 9/11 was and how ragingly clueless we all were on that day. George W. Bush (and cohorts) couldn’t even take it in when, on August 6, 2001, the president was given a daily intelligence briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” The NSA, the CIA, and the FBI, which had many of the pieces of the bin Laden puzzle in their hands, still couldn’t imagine it. And believe me, even when it was happening, I could hardly grasp it. I was doing exercises in my bedroom with the TV going when I first heard the news of a plane hitting the World Trade Center and saw the initial shots of a smoking tower. And I remember my immediate thought: just like the B-25 that almost took out the Empire State Building back in 1945. Terrorists bringing down the World Trade Center? Please. Al-Qaeda? You must be kidding. Later, when two planes had struck in New York and another had taken out part of the Pentagon, and it was obvious that it wasn’t an accident, I had an even more ludicrous thought. It occurred to me that the unexpected vulnerability of Americans living in a land largely protected from the chaos so much of the world experiences might open us up to the pain of others in a new way. Dream on. All it opened us up to was bringing pain to others.

Fourteen years later, don’t you still find it improbable that George W. Bush and company used those murderous acts and the nearly 3,000 resulting deaths as an excuse to try to make the world theirs? It took them no time at all to decide to launch a “Global War on Terror” in up to 60 countries. It took them next to no time to begin dreaming of the establishment of a future Pax Americana in the Middle East, followed by the sort of global imperium that had previously been conjured up only by cackling bad guys in James Bond films. Don’t you find it strange, looking back, just how quickly 9/11 set their brains aflame? Don’t you find it curious that the Bush administration’s top officials were quite so infatuated by the U.S. military? Doesn’t it still strike you as odd that they had such blind faith in that military’s supposedly limitless powers to do essentially anything and be “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known”? Don’t you still find it eerie that, amid the wreckage of the Pentagon, the initial orders our secretary of defense gave his aides were to come up with plans for striking Iraq, even though he was already convinced that al-Qaeda had launched the attack? (“‘Go massive,’ an aide’s notes quote him as saying. ‘Sweep it all up. Things related and not.’”) Don’t you think “and not” sums up the era to come? Don’t you find it curious that, in the rubble of those towers, plans not just to pay Osama bin Laden back, but to turn Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran — “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran” — into American protectorates were already being imagined?

Fourteen years later, how probable was it that the country then universally considered the planet’s “sole superpower,” openly challenged only by tiny numbers of jihadist extremists, with a military better funded than the next 10 to 13 forces combined (most of whom were allies anyway), and whose technological skills were, as they say, to die for would win no wars, defeat no enemies, and successfully complete no occupations? What were the odds? If, on September 12, 2001, someone had given you half-reasonable odds on a U.S. military winning streak in the Greater Middle East, don’t tell me you wouldn’t have slapped some money on the table.

ORDER IT NOW

Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that the U.S. military has been unable to extricate itself from Iraq and Afghanistan, its two major wars of this century, despite having officially left one of those countries in 2011 (only to head back again in the late summer of 2014) and having endlessly announced the conclusion of its operations in the other (only to ratchet them up again)?

Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that Washington’s post-9/11 policies in the Middle East helped lead to the establishment of the Islamic State’s “caliphate” in parts of fractured Iraq and Syria and to a movement of almost unparalleled extremism that has successfully “franchised” itself out from Libya to Nigeria to Afghanistan? If, on September 12, 2001, you had predicted such a possibility, who wouldn’t have thought you mad?

Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that the U.S. has gone into the business of robotic assassination big time; that (despite Watergate-era legal prohibitions on such acts), we are now the Terminators of Planet Earth, not its John Connors; that the president is openly and proudly an assassin-in-chief with his own global “kill list”; that we have endlessly targeted the backlands of the planet with our (Grim) Reaper and Predator (thank you Hollywood!) drones armed with Hellfire missiles; and that Washington has regularly knocked off women and children while searching for militant leaders and their generic followers? And don’t you find it odd that all of this has been done in the name of wiping out the terrorists and their movements, despite the fact that wherever our drones strike, those movements seem to gain in strength and power?

Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that our “war on terror” has so regularly devolved into a war of and for terror; that our methods, including the targeted killings of numerous leaders and “lieutenants” of militant groups have visibly promoted, not blunted, the spread of Islamic extremism; and that, despite this, Washington has generally not recalibrated its actions in any meaningful way?

Fourteen years later, isn’t it possible to think of 9/11 as a mass grave into which significant aspects of American life as we knew it have been shoveled? Of course, the changes that came, especially those reinforcing the most oppressive aspects of state power, didn’t arrive out of the blue like those hijacked planes. Who, after all, could dismiss the size and power of the national security state and the military-industrial complex before those 19 men with box cutters arrived on the scene? Who could deny that, packed into the Patriot Act (passed largely unread by Congress in October 2001) was a wish list of pre-9/11 law enforcement and right-wing hobbyhorses? Who could deny that the top officials of the Bush administration and their neocon supporters had long been thinking about how to leverage “U.S. military supremacy” into a Pax Americana-style new world order or that they had been dreaming of “a new Pearl Harbor” which might speed up the process? It was, however, only thanks to Osama bin Laden, that they — and we — were shuttled into the most improbable of all centuries, the twenty-first.

Fourteen years later, the 9/11 attacks and the thousands of innocents killed represent international criminality and immorality of the first order. On that, Americans are clear, but — most improbable of all — no one in Washington has yet taken the slightest responsibility for blowing a hole through the Middle East, loosing mayhem across significant swathes of the planet, or helping release the forces that would create the first true terrorist state of modern history; nor has anyone in any official capacity taken responsibility for creating the conditions that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, possibly a million or more people, turned many in the Greater Middle East into internal or external refugees, destroyed nations, and brought unbelievable pain to countless human beings. In these years, no act — not of torture, nor murder, nor the illegal offshore imprisonment of innocent people, nor death delivered from the air or the ground, nor the slaughter of wedding parties, nor the killing of children — has blunted the sense among Americans that we live in an “exceptional” and “indispensable” country of staggering goodness and innocence.

Fourteen years later, how improbable is that?

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 136 CommentsLeave a Comment
136 Comments to "Mantra for 9/11"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Tom_R says:

    SAUDI KING, ITALIAN PM AND FARRAKAN ALL BLAME MOSSAD FOR 9/11.

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. You raised many good points.

    If you think about 9/11 rationally and logically, you will realize that the official story does not fit. For eg, the airplane crash burnt the buildings to ashes, but the main pilots passport miraculously survived all the way to the ground so the Saudis will get the blame.

    The real benefactors of 9/11 were the Judaists, who were able to incite the Iraq war to get rid of Saddam, who was sending suicide bombers to Israel. For them, the trillions the USA spent and the 3000 soldiers who died mean nothing.

    The Judaists think that people are stupid and by flooding the Europe and USA with more blacks and Muslims, who they believe are more stupid, they will be able to control and brainwash all of us better. But it is not so. For example, one Mr. Louis Farrakan, though he is a black and a Muslim, has more brain and openly calls 9/11 a Zionist operation:

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/farrakhan-lying-murderous-zionist-jews-behind-911/

    http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Saudi-king-blamed-Mossad-for-911-411119

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ex-italian-president-intel-agencies-know-9-11-an-inside-job/7550

    The Judaists scam of pandering to blacks and Muslims and inciting them to invade USA and EU are backfiring. Blacks and Muslims have more brain than Judaists assume, and, in talking to them, I realized many of them find white Judaists who incited them to invade USA and Europe (under the delusion they were holohoaxed by other whites) a deranged people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    A good summary of the current stage of the US war against Syria:
    http://thesaker.is/new-western-info-fronts-against-syria-refugees-russia-and-the-balkans/
    An interesting post by one of the commenters: "Rothschild’s EU is already exploding... America is already bankrupt for many many years, now only surviving on the wall street ponzu scheme, without any industry or anything to sell except arms. Rothschild can’t save EU and US at the same time so it seems he is sacrificing EU for US... it’s so apparent that Europeans havent have the slightest clue what is happening to them, they are asked to destroy their own economy for america and like zombies they just comply."

    It seems that the real arsonists have been burning the US/EU home for good in their attempts to create the security for and regional dominance of Israel (while enriching the MIC and financial sector, of course). The result is a global disaster.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tengelhardt/mantra-for-911/#comment-1120886
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. There is very little to nothing that anyone can say, with anything like reasonable certainty, beyond the now well-established physical facts at Ground Zero, about the 9/11 events and the obviously organized collusion behind those events – collusion extending into the White House, NORAD, the FBI, the Pentagon, every branch of the government of New York City, and, the entirety of MSM.

    And there lies another 14-year wonder: “After 14 years of dedicated and skilled investigation by independent ‘truthers’, we still know very little beyond that every element of the ‘official truth’ or of the Commission Report is a dirty lie with no basis in evidence.” I find the continuing success of the cover-up wildly improbable, despite that a great deal of what has been uncovered by the best of our patriotic Truthers is unavoidably believable … including a mountain of evidence justifying and demanding conclusions of fact as to the existence and nature of a vast conspiracy to cover-up the behnd-the-scenes realities of the events.

    To borrow, from neo-con writings, one or another phrase from the good old days of the Good-versus-Evil Cold War: “Yet none dare call it treason!” or “None dare call it conspiracy!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Abrahamsen
    Actually tens of millions worldwide "dare" to call it conspiracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. 9/11 was a false flag attack. Osama didn’t do it. Tom Engelhardt surely knows this. But reading this piece it’s hard to tell.

    The comprehensive assessment of the damage done by and since the Neocon coupe is well taken.

    The Anglo/Zio Empire is in steep decline. Until it is dead reform will remain impossible. After the crash there will be opportunities for the survivors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Fourteen years later, thanks a heap, Osama bin Laden. With a small number of supporters,$400,000-$500,000, and 19 suicidal hijackers, most of them Saudis, you pulled off a geopolitical magic trick of the first order.

    Excuse me. You really still believe all that? Or what are you? A left gatekeeper? Controlled opposition?

    Or are you just stupid?

    What is it?

    While you sat back and waited in Abbottabad,…

    Oh, you believe that one too, huh? C’mon… they really had a body to show us, but they didn’t show it to us, they just dropped it in the ocean, but there really was a body. Little Johnny really did do his homework, but the dog ate it…. or fell into the sea…

    Okay, yeah, we know that Bin Laden was in Abbottabad, because we know they wouldn’t lie to us. Okay, yeah, they would kidnap and torture people, bombard a city full of women and children with depleted uranium, but hey, nobody’s perfect… but they surely aren’t lying about this. Only a nutty conspiracy theorist would even consider the possibility that they are lying to us about this. Or anything else…

    …when, on August 6, 2001, the president was given a daily intelligence briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” The NSA, the CIA, and the FBI, which had many of the pieces of the bin Laden puzzle in their hands, still couldn’t imagine it.

    The “bin Laden puzzle”, eh? Excuse me, what is that? A 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle?

    C’mon… haven’t you ever heard of “preparing the terrain”, “foreshadowing”…? The dastardly Fu Manchu villain was planning the crime and we had our best agent 86 on the case, but that 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle was just too much….

    And you keep repeating how “improbable” the whole story is!!!! C’mon, the story is not “improbable”. It is IMPOSSIBLE. No real terrorist organization which had 19 young men willing to die for a cause would send them to the target country a year or more before the operation and count on all of them to show up at the appointed time and place, like a year later, to commit suicide. I mean, just compare this kamikaze operation to the real one in WW2 with the young Japanese. Once somebody volunteered to be a Kamikaze, they were kept in a special environment and so on. Certainly, they weren’t dropped into a novel environment and given a year’s lead time to actually reconsider whether they wanted to kill themselves! Just think about it! Just THINK!

    But, regardless, it is well established that the total disintegration of the towers as a result of being hit by airplanes is physically impossible. Go to ae911truth.org and it is completely established — ad nauseam… And, yes! 14 years have gone by! So if you really don’t know that this Bin Laden/suicide hijackers story is false, it’s because you don’t want to know.

    Look, all this limited hangout left gatekeeper nonsense — surely nobody with a brain is buying this any more, are they? So why don’t you just save yourself the bother? You write this kind of garbage and you destroy your credibility with pretty much all the general public that has a clue. Why do that?

    So, look, if you don’t have the balls to tell the truth, then just at least just shut up, why don’t you? Just shut up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Who flew the three planes which crashed into buildings and the one that didn't make it? How many precedents (or later examples) do you have for the CIA, FBI, NSA or Mossad or any other US or Israeli governmental organisation setting up suicide missions successful or unsuccessful. I'd stack up the near impossible that I rate that explanation as outweighing your near impossible [actually you say IMPOSSIBLE] business of getting 19 young Muslims to kill themselves after a year in America so let's see if we can deal in facts, not least, plausible precedents.

    Further, as to your "impossible", contrast and compare the von Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler and the upper class Catholics plot to blow up the Parliament at Westminster. The latter were discovered in time because James l was not George W. Bush advised by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and other such complacent geniuses. But the former wasn't even suspected where it mattered - after all it was clearly impossible....
    , @HLMunchkin
    Have to agree with you. I'll have to be a little more critical hereafter when reading anymore of Tom's articles.
    By the way isn't this the time of the year to conduct the five or so national security drills that our Vice President usually performs? or was that a one time thing with Mr. Cheney?
    , @Truther
    Thank you for the reply. I'm speechless after this article.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this- and if you don’t believe it you are a conspiracy theorist.

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…

    Unfazed by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI…

    …Meanwhile down in Washington…

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing…

    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little…

    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building…

    …all without a single shot being fired…. or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video…

    …Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania…

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later…

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants… except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandanna…

    …Further south in Florida…

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children… shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger…

    …In New York…

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously…

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination…

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
    Don't forget the fact that 9/11 crime scene evidence was destroyed or sequestered, and no public trial of the evidence was ever attempted.

    Instead a report was issued 2 years later by a 9/11 commission that had restricted access to evidence and witnesses, and the 9/11 report was later repudiated by people participating in the investigation.

    GW Shrub issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to produce weapons of mass destruction that were given to Iraq by the US to use against Iran 15 years in the past.

    It didn't occur to any reporters to ask Shrub if the US weapons were already spent by Iraq against Iran.

    Then there is the surrounding of Iran by US invasions of Iraq to the west of Iran and Afghanistan to the east of Iran. No preplanned scheming suspected there by the complicit media.

    It is highly likely the US installed anti-missile launchers in Iraq and Afghanistan, ready to shoot down any missiles launched by Iran at Israel.
    , @HLMunchkin
    Nice synopsis of that day. You can't make it any more chin level than that but sadly the public will still refuse to believe it. The bastards got away with murder.
    , @Pat Casey
    Well done, that was hilarious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Bill Jones
    The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this- and if you don't believe it you are a conspiracy theorist.

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

    Unfazed by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

    …Meanwhile down in Washington...

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

    ...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

    ...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandanna...

    ...Further south in Florida...

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

    ...In New York...

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports...

    Don’t forget the fact that 9/11 crime scene evidence was destroyed or sequestered, and no public trial of the evidence was ever attempted.

    Instead a report was issued 2 years later by a 9/11 commission that had restricted access to evidence and witnesses, and the 9/11 report was later repudiated by people participating in the investigation.

    GW Shrub issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to produce weapons of mass destruction that were given to Iraq by the US to use against Iran 15 years in the past.

    It didn’t occur to any reporters to ask Shrub if the US weapons were already spent by Iraq against Iran.

    Then there is the surrounding of Iran by US invasions of Iraq to the west of Iran and Afghanistan to the east of Iran. No preplanned scheming suspected there by the complicit media.

    It is highly likely the US installed anti-missile launchers in Iraq and Afghanistan, ready to shoot down any missiles launched by Iran at Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Too true, but all that is of no import, Tom. We have Gay Marriage, and because of that, we can look in the mirror with a mixture of pride and vanity, see ourselves as exceptionally progressive, everyone else backward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin

    We have Gay Marriage, and because of that, we can look in the mirror with a mixture of pride and vanity, see ourselves as exceptionally progressive, everyone else backward.

     

    Don't sell yourself short.

    You've got a lot to celebrate in queer pride parades.

    Here's some of the other major queer accomplishments:

    1. Queer sodomy protected as a federal civil right
    2. Elective abortion on demand protected as a federal civil right
    3. Pornography protected as a federal civil right
    4. Federal hate speech prosecution for protected classes, including queers
    5. Queer education in public schools
    6. Taxpayer subsidized AIDS and HIV medical treatments for queers
    7. Federally sponsored AIDS hysteria at www.AIDS.gov
    8. Federal anti-discrimination laws for queers
    9. Government war mongering and propaganda to impose queer diversity on foreign nations
    10. Queer transsexual surgery and treatments subsidized by taxpayers
    11. National health insurance with mandatory coverage for queer STD and disabilities and surgeries.
    12. Queerism promoted in military affairs
    13. Federal sponsored queer marriage licenses for licentiousness
    14. Queer promiscuity protected as freedom
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Tom, you write well and run a wonderful web site, but the real mystery of 9/11 about which you write is this: how can a person of your intellect and knowledge believe the fairy story that is the government’s account of 9/11? “Magical” hardly covers it. Magically got the US air force to stand down on that day. Magically acquired flying skills they didn’t have the week before. Magically learned, without any known scientific training to defeat the laws of physics. Magically got people to have extended cell phone conversations from 30,000 feet that the FBI said later at the Mussaui trial never happened. Magically got concrete to reduce to 60 microns. And so on ad infinitum. Really, if I want to read fairy stories I will stick to Hans Christian Anderson and the brothers Grimm. Why is the UNZ site giving space to this nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    James, I think you may be missing Tom's point a little. Most of you guys are focused on disputing the official fairy tale, but Tom focuses on the changes to the US and the World from 911. No matter whodunit, the event had profound effect on the US as a country, as a society, and has caused millions of deaths world-wide.

    It is much more important to understand the long-term effects than to worry about whodunit. What rather than who. Such analysis easily gives an answer to the latter question as well, if it is really important to you.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Please answer the questions I posed to Jonathan Revusky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. JSM says:

    Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that Osama bin Laden, with 19 rather incompetent people (for instance Mohammad Atta couldn’t even fly a student plane, according to his flight instructor) knew just which buttons of ours to push so that we would essentially carry out the rest of his plan for him while he sat back and waited in Abbottabad?

    Maybe…just maybe, is it so very improbable that Osama had some help from people ostensibly loyal to the American people and people we thought we had a “special relationship” with?

    Fourteen years later, how improbable, really, is that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. It is mind bending. Every once in a while, I go back and recheck the facts just to make sure I am not crazy. I always come to the same conclusion.

    The facts contradict the the official narrative.

    The best book for evidence is Where did the towers go? by Judy Wood. You may disagree with her conclusions, but the facts and photos are laid out clearly.

    Most people can look at building WTC7 and see the controlled demolition. But WTC1 and WTC2 are obviously fishy as well. If they had come down in a standard gravity induced collapse, there should be a mound of rubble over 100 feet high with the central columns protruding out the top of the mound(s). Yet what we see is, the buildings are destroyed down to ground level and the building material is spread over an extremely wide area. The central column –the strongest part of the building–disappeared and the main mass or “stuff ” of the building was ejected laterally at high velocity.

    The only way the official story could pass the laugh test is if people were in so much shock they couldn’t think straight. The lack of STEM people (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) truly shows America’s decline. While American’s have to conform to the establishment orthodoxy, foreigners do not. So we now have a powerful schism between the official version of reality and the scientific version. Any scientist or engineer who can’t see problems with the official story shouldn’t be allowed near an engineering project or classroom.

    I do not think Bush knew anything about it. This is a gift from America’s Deep State in cahoots with foreigners intelligence. The cover-up cannot be blamed on foreigners however, that has to go back to whoever was running the Department of Justice.

    DOJ was responsible for conducting a criminal investigation and securing the evidence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Mudhole says:

    There is no stronger evidence for the ‘Israel did 911′ theory than the fact that not one single Jewish writer will publicly question the totally discredited official fable about the 911 attacks.
    Without exception, none of them will. It’s like they all know what actually happened, but tribal loyalty keeps them parroting the ‘Arab Hijackers’ meme.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Even if you are right about no Jewish writer questioning etc. (And I would be interested to know about your researches in at least 5 languages - English, Hebrew, French, German, Russian - or just English that makes you sure of that supposedly key fact.

    What is truly absurd is your logic. Jews are notoriously disputatious and contrarian. And, apart from that, surely you are aware of the many well known Jews who wouldn't hesitate to come out as contrarian truthers. Think Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein..... and why not a physicist whose opinion would really be wort something... Ron Unz no less.

    , @Si1ver1ock
    I have to disagree. Jewish Zionists aren't really a patch on American Psychopaths. The Neocons may have fronted the operation, but they don't have the deep bench needed to do this sort operation. At best, former elements of the Israeli, Saudi, British and Pakistani intelligence were involved. As an American, I would hate to be held responsible for everything the CIA ever did.

    If you want some insight into how it likely happened, watch the TV series Rubicon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Kiza says:
    @James O'Neill
    Tom, you write well and run a wonderful web site, but the real mystery of 9/11 about which you write is this: how can a person of your intellect and knowledge believe the fairy story that is the government's account of 9/11? "Magical" hardly covers it. Magically got the US air force to stand down on that day. Magically acquired flying skills they didn't have the week before. Magically learned, without any known scientific training to defeat the laws of physics. Magically got people to have extended cell phone conversations from 30,000 feet that the FBI said later at the Mussaui trial never happened. Magically got concrete to reduce to 60 microns. And so on ad infinitum. Really, if I want to read fairy stories I will stick to Hans Christian Anderson and the brothers Grimm. Why is the UNZ site giving space to this nonsense.

    James, I think you may be missing Tom’s point a little. Most of you guys are focused on disputing the official fairy tale, but Tom focuses on the changes to the US and the World from 911. No matter whodunit, the event had profound effect on the US as a country, as a society, and has caused millions of deaths world-wide.

    It is much more important to understand the long-term effects than to worry about whodunit. What rather than who. Such analysis easily gives an answer to the latter question as well, if it is really important to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    I disagree somewhat. Regardless who you think is responsible, the 9/11 attacks were a trauma based psychological attack. Osama bin Laden, aka Tim Osman, wanted the US out of the Arab world, whoever did 9/11 wanted the US destroyed.

    The long term effects are that nobody can trust the US government or Media. Simply destroying the buildings in New York couldn't bring down the US . Catching the US government and Media lying and covering up something of this magnitude could bring down the US Establishment, not just the government. What happens when young people or STEM people figure it out?

    In other words, the US is now at risk of being Truth Bombed.
    , @Rurik

    No matter whodunit,..

    long-term effects than to worry about whodunit. What rather than who.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKGjOE_7bYI
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    James, I think you may be missing Tom’s point a little. Most of you guys are focused on disputing the official fairy tale, but Tom focuses on the changes to the US and the World from 911.
     
    Kiza, let's go to some first principles here. If somebody is going to poison you, what do they do?

    (a) they hand you a vial of some utterly foul-smelling concoction (that looks and smells like poison, because IT IS) and say "Here, swallow this"

    or

    (b) they prepare you a beautiful meal, having figured out your favourite foods, and one or more of the items is poisoned.

    Obviously b, right?

    So, by the same token, if somebody is going to purvey disinformation, what do they do? Do they just give you pure disinformation, like in (a) above or is it more like (b), where much of the information (like the food) is perfectly good and the analysis is correct, except the disinformation is mixed in there in certain places, like the poison in case (b).

    You see my point?

    This is how controlled opposition and "limited hangout" sorts of things work. Even the utterly horrid propaganda that you see on Fox news or some other Murdoch controlled operation, a lot of the information on there is actually valid, truthful. Of course, because it is very much in the nature of things that disinformation will be mixed in with other material that is valid.

    In other words, it doesn't matter that the article actually says some things that are correct. Once you recognise that somebody is purveying disinformation.... like, if somebody invites you to dinner and it turns out that the dessert (your favorite, strawberry cheesecake) is laced with arsenic, do you defend the host by saying that all the other dishes were delicious and not poisoned???

    In short, just how insufferably naive do you intend to be here?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Jonathan Revusky

    Fourteen years later, thanks a heap, Osama bin Laden. With a small number of supporters,$400,000-$500,000, and 19 suicidal hijackers, most of them Saudis, you pulled off a geopolitical magic trick of the first order.
     
    Excuse me. You really still believe all that? Or what are you? A left gatekeeper? Controlled opposition?

    Or are you just stupid?

    What is it?

    While you sat back and waited in Abbottabad,...
     
    Oh, you believe that one too, huh? C'mon... they really had a body to show us, but they didn't show it to us, they just dropped it in the ocean, but there really was a body. Little Johnny really did do his homework, but the dog ate it.... or fell into the sea...

    Okay, yeah, we know that Bin Laden was in Abbottabad, because we know they wouldn't lie to us. Okay, yeah, they would kidnap and torture people, bombard a city full of women and children with depleted uranium, but hey, nobody's perfect... but they surely aren't lying about this. Only a nutty conspiracy theorist would even consider the possibility that they are lying to us about this. Or anything else...

    ...when, on August 6, 2001, the president was given a daily intelligence briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” The NSA, the CIA, and the FBI, which had many of the pieces of the bin Laden puzzle in their hands, still couldn’t imagine it.
     
    The "bin Laden puzzle", eh? Excuse me, what is that? A 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle?

    C'mon... haven't you ever heard of "preparing the terrain", "foreshadowing"...? The dastardly Fu Manchu villain was planning the crime and we had our best agent 86 on the case, but that 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle was just too much....

    And you keep repeating how "improbable" the whole story is!!!! C'mon, the story is not "improbable". It is IMPOSSIBLE. No real terrorist organization which had 19 young men willing to die for a cause would send them to the target country a year or more before the operation and count on all of them to show up at the appointed time and place, like a year later, to commit suicide. I mean, just compare this kamikaze operation to the real one in WW2 with the young Japanese. Once somebody volunteered to be a Kamikaze, they were kept in a special environment and so on. Certainly, they weren't dropped into a novel environment and given a year's lead time to actually reconsider whether they wanted to kill themselves! Just think about it! Just THINK!

    But, regardless, it is well established that the total disintegration of the towers as a result of being hit by airplanes is physically impossible. Go to ae911truth.org and it is completely established -- ad nauseam... And, yes! 14 years have gone by! So if you really don't know that this Bin Laden/suicide hijackers story is false, it's because you don't want to know.

    Look, all this limited hangout left gatekeeper nonsense -- surely nobody with a brain is buying this any more, are they? So why don't you just save yourself the bother? You write this kind of garbage and you destroy your credibility with pretty much all the general public that has a clue. Why do that?

    So, look, if you don't have the balls to tell the truth, then just at least just shut up, why don't you? Just shut up.

    Who flew the three planes which crashed into buildings and the one that didn’t make it? How many precedents (or later examples) do you have for the CIA, FBI, NSA or Mossad or any other US or Israeli governmental organisation setting up suicide missions successful or unsuccessful. I’d stack up the near impossible that I rate that explanation as outweighing your near impossible [actually you say IMPOSSIBLE] business of getting 19 young Muslims to kill themselves after a year in America so let’s see if we can deal in facts, not least, plausible precedents.

    Further, as to your “impossible”, contrast and compare the von Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler and the upper class Catholics plot to blow up the Parliament at Westminster. The latter were discovered in time because James l was not George W. Bush advised by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and other such complacent geniuses. But the former wasn’t even suspected where it mattered – after all it was clearly impossible….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Who flew the three planes which crashed into buildings and the one that didn’t make it?
     
    I'm not really in the mood to play your little dishonest shill games. I see through them. The basic issue is that you are accusing people of perpetrating a crime. It is not up to me to demonstrate who actually did anything.

    If you say that Osama Bin Laden orchestrated this from some cave (or even moderately nice house) in Afghanistan, then it is up to you tell us what the proof of this is. If you tell me that these Arabs, Mohammed Atta and the rest, hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, you tell me what is the proof of this.

    Specifically, just even say what, in your opinion, is the strongest single piece of proof for this story, and then we have some basis to have a conversation. I know you're not going to answer, but I give you the chance. What is it? What is the proof of this OBL and 19 hijackers story?

    How many precedents (or later examples) do you have for the CIA, FBI, NSA or Mossad or any other US or Israeli governmental organisation setting up suicide missions successful or unsuccessful.
     
    History is replete with false flag terrorism operations, in which deep State operatives carry out some attack and frame some other group for it. As for "suicide operations", you are simply engaging in a "beg the question" fallacy, i.e. you are assuming the official story in order to prove the official story.

    The official story says that there were these suicide hijackers, Arab Kamikazes if you will, but the official story is what we are discussing. You can't use the official story to prove the official story. What specifically is the proof of this suicide hijacker narrative?

    My view is that if planes really did crash in the places they say they did, as far as I can see, it must have been via some sort of automatic pilot or remote control sort of hacking. It seems that it is established fact that certain models of cars can be hacked to be controlled remotely, like maybe that Benz that Michael Hastings was driving and flew into a tree... so if cars can be hacked that way, then the technology surely exists to do it with planes.

    Regardless, we can say with absolute certainly that either airplanes hit buildings or they did not. If they didn't, then what we saw was simply video fakery, and I have looked at this and the case looks pretty compelling. Aside from the cartoon physics of the planes more or less melting into the steel framed buildings, this would also explain why nobody has ever been shown a single serial numbered plane part when each plane has hundreds of thousands of parts.

    But, in any case, there is no onus on me in this conversation to tell you what precisely happened. If you are going to tell us that this was orchestrated by one Osama Bin Laden on the other side of the world, that you believe this, the onus is on you to tell US what specifically is the proof of that?

    That's the way it works. You accuse somebody of something, so you have to provide the evidence. What is the evidence? Not up to me to prove the negative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Mudhole
    There is no stronger evidence for the 'Israel did 911' theory than the fact that not one single Jewish writer will publicly question the totally discredited official fable about the 911 attacks.
    Without exception, none of them will. It's like they all know what actually happened, but tribal loyalty keeps them parroting the 'Arab Hijackers' meme.

    Even if you are right about no Jewish writer questioning etc. (And I would be interested to know about your researches in at least 5 languages – English, Hebrew, French, German, Russian – or just English that makes you sure of that supposedly key fact.

    What is truly absurd is your logic. Jews are notoriously disputatious and contrarian. And, apart from that, surely you are aware of the many well known Jews who wouldn’t hesitate to come out as contrarian truthers. Think Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein….. and why not a physicist whose opinion would really be wort something… Ron Unz no less.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Ron Unz no less.
     
    does Ron have an opinion on the issue?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @James O'Neill
    Tom, you write well and run a wonderful web site, but the real mystery of 9/11 about which you write is this: how can a person of your intellect and knowledge believe the fairy story that is the government's account of 9/11? "Magical" hardly covers it. Magically got the US air force to stand down on that day. Magically acquired flying skills they didn't have the week before. Magically learned, without any known scientific training to defeat the laws of physics. Magically got people to have extended cell phone conversations from 30,000 feet that the FBI said later at the Mussaui trial never happened. Magically got concrete to reduce to 60 microns. And so on ad infinitum. Really, if I want to read fairy stories I will stick to Hans Christian Anderson and the brothers Grimm. Why is the UNZ site giving space to this nonsense.

    Please answer the questions I posed to Jonathan Revusky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    How dumb & desperate can you get?

    Answering those questions requires an unbiased, independent investigation, and that is what is being demanded.

    According to the Wizard Not anyone recognizing a crime and it's obvious cover-up by the USG must then automatically have all the answers prior to an independent & complete investigation being made which would seek to find the answers.

    And the math challenged Wizard Not clearly knows nothing about physics and the complete scientific impossibility of the 'official' absurd conspiracy theory.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/
    'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth'... Read it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. guest says:

    “Fourteen years of wars, assassinations, interventions, torture, black sites, the growth of the American national security state to massive proportions…”

    I hate to downplay the importance of 9/11, because it’s hard to exaggerate, but we were already doing all of that long before 14 years ago. 70 years isn’t far enough back to time travel out of the Garrison State. 9/11 is only the most recent Big Scary Thing, and I’m not sure it hasn’t passed into history already. Notice we aren’t fighting Al-Qaeda anymore, at least by name, and they’re not pretending ISIS or Assad were behind the people behind 9/11, as with Afghanistan. It’s more like with Iraq, where any vague connection to terrorism or potential terrorism was enough. But that was only the fallback position. They tried like hell, and failed, to tie Saddam directly to 9/11.

    The real big bad guys are Putin and the Chinese, and according to a narrower audience Iran, all of which have much, much less to do with 9/11 or terrorism in general (though Iran is “islamofascist,” whatever that means).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. I have read your article with much sympathy – and none, in the absence of plausible answers to my questions to a couple of them – for the buzzing swarm of truthers you have attracted.

    It occurs to me that, despite the efforts of some historians and public intellectuals like Paul Kennedy, America’s power, prosperity and relative security from malign foreigners for over 100 years has allowed Americans, even sophisticated products and faculty of some of the world’s greatest universities, to be sheltered from a true view of much reality that matters.

    What a shock, at a humble level, for people working at semiskilled jobs on incomes which would have been upper middle class in say India or Malaysia, to realise that others can do it much cheaper and just as effectively – and that smart guys with a trading instinct can’t see why they shouldn’t make a fortune while employing a lot of Chinese factory hands or Indian call center operators just because you, whom they will never meet or hear the name of, never have secure employment again!

    And just imagine if you are even an Ivy League graduate with a good degree that you are confronted, though you may not even know it, with the need to get inside the heads of Muslims who hate the whole idea of America. (Why there’s my good colleague Ismeth whose family I’ve met. Mother is a pharmacist and father an academic at a good state university…. isn’t America lucky compared to Europe in the way its Muslims have assimilated?). Can’t we just go on repeating our mantra about not seeing immigrants going the other way. We must be marvellous and a beacon of freedom. At least some of those who blame Jews for being a near traitorous body of citizens with divided loyalties and global ambitions have no excuse for not being able to see that not everyone shares Americans’ imagination about themselves, their country, its institutions and its morality.

    Add ignorance of others growth rates and capacities and history and sense of their history and you are in real danger if you want to mess with others complex realities. But wasn’t there a British Empire which flourished until the Great European Civil War of 1914-1945 destroyed its relative power? And no such destruction has occurred to the US…. Oops, true until 2003.

    And when one looks at empires of the past more generally to see why they flourished and what did them in might it not be modestly prudent to consider that America’s population has 13 per cent descendant’s of slaves with votes and a stronger sense of entitlement than work ethic, a similar proportion of undereducated Latino peasants and their families, and, not least a vast number of sober people who reject the most basic truths about the human species, and the rest of evolution while believing in a God who once commanded genocide but now won’t allow the abortion of foetuses in the uteruses of low IQ young crack heads.

    Indeed I don’t think the citizens of the one remaining superpower had a clue about how much baggage they were dragging around and further accumulating in the public sector of little investment but growing extravagant entitlements and…. oh, don’t get me started on health care, prisons etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @HLMunchkin
    oh, don’t get me started on health care, prisons etc…

    If it's anything like the above incoherent ramble, Please spare us that.Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is Gods law. In the hands of man it can lead to disaster. Bonhoeffer Ethics. We’re looking at several new disasters and the list and debt are growing. Hope they don’t do the fire, shooting and robbery act on you.

    The State’s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose.
    No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient.
    “The Criminality of the State” in American Mercury (March 1939)

    With the new propertyless dependent class of refugees growing at a rapid clip it’s going to create new bureau jobs and secure agency funding. All the new billionaire donors will get a bigger piece of the expanding bloody third world and the babies will come with the scenery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @Jonathan Revusky

    Fourteen years later, thanks a heap, Osama bin Laden. With a small number of supporters,$400,000-$500,000, and 19 suicidal hijackers, most of them Saudis, you pulled off a geopolitical magic trick of the first order.
     
    Excuse me. You really still believe all that? Or what are you? A left gatekeeper? Controlled opposition?

    Or are you just stupid?

    What is it?

    While you sat back and waited in Abbottabad,...
     
    Oh, you believe that one too, huh? C'mon... they really had a body to show us, but they didn't show it to us, they just dropped it in the ocean, but there really was a body. Little Johnny really did do his homework, but the dog ate it.... or fell into the sea...

    Okay, yeah, we know that Bin Laden was in Abbottabad, because we know they wouldn't lie to us. Okay, yeah, they would kidnap and torture people, bombard a city full of women and children with depleted uranium, but hey, nobody's perfect... but they surely aren't lying about this. Only a nutty conspiracy theorist would even consider the possibility that they are lying to us about this. Or anything else...

    ...when, on August 6, 2001, the president was given a daily intelligence briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” The NSA, the CIA, and the FBI, which had many of the pieces of the bin Laden puzzle in their hands, still couldn’t imagine it.
     
    The "bin Laden puzzle", eh? Excuse me, what is that? A 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle?

    C'mon... haven't you ever heard of "preparing the terrain", "foreshadowing"...? The dastardly Fu Manchu villain was planning the crime and we had our best agent 86 on the case, but that 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle was just too much....

    And you keep repeating how "improbable" the whole story is!!!! C'mon, the story is not "improbable". It is IMPOSSIBLE. No real terrorist organization which had 19 young men willing to die for a cause would send them to the target country a year or more before the operation and count on all of them to show up at the appointed time and place, like a year later, to commit suicide. I mean, just compare this kamikaze operation to the real one in WW2 with the young Japanese. Once somebody volunteered to be a Kamikaze, they were kept in a special environment and so on. Certainly, they weren't dropped into a novel environment and given a year's lead time to actually reconsider whether they wanted to kill themselves! Just think about it! Just THINK!

    But, regardless, it is well established that the total disintegration of the towers as a result of being hit by airplanes is physically impossible. Go to ae911truth.org and it is completely established -- ad nauseam... And, yes! 14 years have gone by! So if you really don't know that this Bin Laden/suicide hijackers story is false, it's because you don't want to know.

    Look, all this limited hangout left gatekeeper nonsense -- surely nobody with a brain is buying this any more, are they? So why don't you just save yourself the bother? You write this kind of garbage and you destroy your credibility with pretty much all the general public that has a clue. Why do that?

    So, look, if you don't have the balls to tell the truth, then just at least just shut up, why don't you? Just shut up.

    Have to agree with you. I’ll have to be a little more critical hereafter when reading anymore of Tom’s articles.
    By the way isn’t this the time of the year to conduct the five or so national security drills that our Vice President usually performs? or was that a one time thing with Mr. Cheney?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Fourteen years later, thanks a heap, Osama bin Laden. With a small number of supporters,$400,000-$500,000, and 19 suicidal hijackers, most of them Saudis, you pulled off a geopolitical magic trick of the first order.

    Oh, don’t worry, Tom. The hijackers had plenty of help.

    While you sat back and waited in Abbottabad,…

    … hooked up to a kidney-dialysis machine, slowly dying.

    Psychologically speaking, the 9/11 attacks represented precision targeting of a kind American leaders would only dream of in the years to follow.

    Well, at least one American ‘leader’, Paul Wolfwowitz, openly dreamed of such a “Pearl Harbor type event” that would inspire Americans to invade the middle east before 9/11 happened. Remarkable coincidence, eh!

    Fourteen years later, don’t you find it improbable that the U.S. military has been unable to extricate itself from Iraq and Afghanistan, its two major wars of this century, despite having officially left one of those countries in 2011 (only to head back again in the late summer of 2014) and having endlessly announced the conclusion of its operations in the other (only to ratchet them up again)?

    Only if you assume they want to pull out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @Bill Jones
    The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this- and if you don't believe it you are a conspiracy theorist.

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

    Unfazed by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

    …Meanwhile down in Washington...

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

    ...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

    ...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandanna...

    ...Further south in Florida...

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

    ...In New York...

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports...

    Nice synopsis of that day. You can’t make it any more chin level than that but sadly the public will still refuse to believe it. The bastards got away with murder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Mudhole
    There is no stronger evidence for the 'Israel did 911' theory than the fact that not one single Jewish writer will publicly question the totally discredited official fable about the 911 attacks.
    Without exception, none of them will. It's like they all know what actually happened, but tribal loyalty keeps them parroting the 'Arab Hijackers' meme.

    I have to disagree. Jewish Zionists aren’t really a patch on American Psychopaths. The Neocons may have fronted the operation, but they don’t have the deep bench needed to do this sort operation. At best, former elements of the Israeli, Saudi, British and Pakistani intelligence were involved. As an American, I would hate to be held responsible for everything the CIA ever did.

    If you want some insight into how it likely happened, watch the TV series Rubicon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Kiza
    James, I think you may be missing Tom's point a little. Most of you guys are focused on disputing the official fairy tale, but Tom focuses on the changes to the US and the World from 911. No matter whodunit, the event had profound effect on the US as a country, as a society, and has caused millions of deaths world-wide.

    It is much more important to understand the long-term effects than to worry about whodunit. What rather than who. Such analysis easily gives an answer to the latter question as well, if it is really important to you.

    I disagree somewhat. Regardless who you think is responsible, the 9/11 attacks were a trauma based psychological attack. Osama bin Laden, aka Tim Osman, wanted the US out of the Arab world, whoever did 9/11 wanted the US destroyed.

    The long term effects are that nobody can trust the US government or Media. Simply destroying the buildings in New York couldn’t bring down the US . Catching the US government and Media lying and covering up something of this magnitude could bring down the US Establishment, not just the government. What happens when young people or STEM people figure it out?

    In other words, the US is now at risk of being Truth Bombed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    ...whoever did 9/11 wanted the US destroyed.
     
    That's nonsense. 9/11 was, above all, a psychological operation, a psy-op. The purpose, broadly speaking, is to alter mass psychology in a way that would further or facilitate their agenda.

    In other words, the people behind this judged, probably quite correctly, that all these wars they wanted to start would not be politically possible without some such event that would induce a mindless war hysteria. As the PNAC document said, "Pearl Harbor-like event..."

    This is really all quite plain to see -- unless you are emotionally incapable of it, that is...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act….implementation of a National Origins Immigration Policy that completely excluded all Muslims…mass deportation of all Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 ever occurring…0 probability of the Fort Hood Massacre ever occurring…0 probability of the Chattanooga massacre ever occurring…0 probability of the Boston Marathon Bombing occurring.

    So why are Muslims being imported into Our America? Very Obvious answer:so that Muslims can vote Whitey very rapidly into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 3 2016…there are no economic,cultural,social, and ecological reasons for importing Muslims into Our America.

    9/11 was completely avoidable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act….implementation of a National Origins Immigration Policy that completely excluded all Muslims…mass deportation of all Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 ever occurring…0 probability of the Fort Hood Massacre ever occurring…0 probability of the Chattanooga massacre ever occurring…0 probability of the Boston Marathon Bombing occurring.
     
    If that is the case, it is only because the people who really perpetrated these things (WHO WERE NOT MUSLIMS) would not have any Muslim patsies available to frame for their crimes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Marian says:

    Nice sarcastic article with a healthy dose of mockery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. @War for Blair Mountain
    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act....implementation of a National Origins Immigration Policy that completely excluded all Muslims...mass deportation of all Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 ever occurring...0 probability of the Fort Hood Massacre ever occurring...0 probability of the Chattanooga massacre ever occurring...0 probability of the Boston Marathon Bombing occurring.

    So why are Muslims being imported into Our America? Very Obvious answer:so that Muslims can vote Whitey very rapidly into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 3 2016...there are no economic,cultural,social, and ecological reasons for importing Muslims into Our America.

    9/11 was completely avoidable.

    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act….implementation of a National Origins Immigration Policy that completely excluded all Muslims…mass deportation of all Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 ever occurring…0 probability of the Fort Hood Massacre ever occurring…0 probability of the Chattanooga massacre ever occurring…0 probability of the Boston Marathon Bombing occurring.

    If that is the case, it is only because the people who really perpetrated these things (WHO WERE NOT MUSLIMS) would not have any Muslim patsies available to frame for their crimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    You are a 9/11 Truther Tard whose religion is 9/11 Truther Tardism. In the meantime, as you Tards went around drooling and jibber-jabbering about nanothermite nonesense...Alex Jones and Dylan Avery laughed all the way to the bank and bought million dollar homes.

    The Muslim Male Yut immigrants did 9/11-and it wasn't all that hard to pull off...considering that it was taking candy from a mentally retarded child. The mentally retarded child in this case happens to be the White American population that was way more interested in counting the number of bacteria proliferating in Tom Brady's jockstrap at the time.

    The whitened sepulacar of Prescott Bush sitting on a Throne down deep in the dark-dank basement of the Skull and Bones Yale Frat House telekinetically controlling the Alien ET technology surrounding him did not organize 911. And Chenney and Condeleeza combined have substandard intellectual capacity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Si1ver1ock
    I disagree somewhat. Regardless who you think is responsible, the 9/11 attacks were a trauma based psychological attack. Osama bin Laden, aka Tim Osman, wanted the US out of the Arab world, whoever did 9/11 wanted the US destroyed.

    The long term effects are that nobody can trust the US government or Media. Simply destroying the buildings in New York couldn't bring down the US . Catching the US government and Media lying and covering up something of this magnitude could bring down the US Establishment, not just the government. What happens when young people or STEM people figure it out?

    In other words, the US is now at risk of being Truth Bombed.

    …whoever did 9/11 wanted the US destroyed.

    That’s nonsense. 9/11 was, above all, a psychological operation, a psy-op. The purpose, broadly speaking, is to alter mass psychology in a way that would further or facilitate their agenda.

    In other words, the people behind this judged, probably quite correctly, that all these wars they wanted to start would not be politically possible without some such event that would induce a mindless war hysteria. As the PNAC document said, “Pearl Harbor-like event…”

    This is really all quite plain to see — unless you are emotionally incapable of it, that is…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    The United States is held together by the Federal Government. Destroying faith in the Federal Government destroys American unity i.e. the very thing that makes the US exceptional.

    You don't need the Patriot Act to go after terrorists. You need the Patriot Act to go after patriots.

    TPP is another assault on American sovereignty. Mass immigration is another. Hollowing out the economy is another. The assault on the Media. The assault on the Bill of Rights.

    Someone is definitely trying to destroy the US in order to make way for something else. The questions are who and why.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Wizard of Oz
    Who flew the three planes which crashed into buildings and the one that didn't make it? How many precedents (or later examples) do you have for the CIA, FBI, NSA or Mossad or any other US or Israeli governmental organisation setting up suicide missions successful or unsuccessful. I'd stack up the near impossible that I rate that explanation as outweighing your near impossible [actually you say IMPOSSIBLE] business of getting 19 young Muslims to kill themselves after a year in America so let's see if we can deal in facts, not least, plausible precedents.

    Further, as to your "impossible", contrast and compare the von Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler and the upper class Catholics plot to blow up the Parliament at Westminster. The latter were discovered in time because James l was not George W. Bush advised by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and other such complacent geniuses. But the former wasn't even suspected where it mattered - after all it was clearly impossible....

    Who flew the three planes which crashed into buildings and the one that didn’t make it?

    I’m not really in the mood to play your little dishonest shill games. I see through them. The basic issue is that you are accusing people of perpetrating a crime. It is not up to me to demonstrate who actually did anything.

    If you say that Osama Bin Laden orchestrated this from some cave (or even moderately nice house) in Afghanistan, then it is up to you tell us what the proof of this is. If you tell me that these Arabs, Mohammed Atta and the rest, hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, you tell me what is the proof of this.

    Specifically, just even say what, in your opinion, is the strongest single piece of proof for this story, and then we have some basis to have a conversation. I know you’re not going to answer, but I give you the chance. What is it? What is the proof of this OBL and 19 hijackers story?

    How many precedents (or later examples) do you have for the CIA, FBI, NSA or Mossad or any other US or Israeli governmental organisation setting up suicide missions successful or unsuccessful.

    History is replete with false flag terrorism operations, in which deep State operatives carry out some attack and frame some other group for it. As for “suicide operations”, you are simply engaging in a “beg the question” fallacy, i.e. you are assuming the official story in order to prove the official story.

    The official story says that there were these suicide hijackers, Arab Kamikazes if you will, but the official story is what we are discussing. You can’t use the official story to prove the official story. What specifically is the proof of this suicide hijacker narrative?

    My view is that if planes really did crash in the places they say they did, as far as I can see, it must have been via some sort of automatic pilot or remote control sort of hacking. It seems that it is established fact that certain models of cars can be hacked to be controlled remotely, like maybe that Benz that Michael Hastings was driving and flew into a tree… so if cars can be hacked that way, then the technology surely exists to do it with planes.

    Regardless, we can say with absolute certainly that either airplanes hit buildings or they did not. If they didn’t, then what we saw was simply video fakery, and I have looked at this and the case looks pretty compelling. Aside from the cartoon physics of the planes more or less melting into the steel framed buildings, this would also explain why nobody has ever been shown a single serial numbered plane part when each plane has hundreds of thousands of parts.

    But, in any case, there is no onus on me in this conversation to tell you what precisely happened. If you are going to tell us that this was orchestrated by one Osama Bin Laden on the other side of the world, that you believe this, the onus is on you to tell US what specifically is the proof of that?

    That’s the way it works. You accuse somebody of something, so you have to provide the evidence. What is the evidence? Not up to me to prove the negative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your ridiculous obfuscatory bluster is off to a bad start when you say that I am accusing people of committing a crime so I must prove my case instead of expecting you to give a plausible alternative version to the generally accepted one. After all my criminals are either condemned by a "conviction" by the commission of inquiry or in court for one of them but yours, whom you won't even name are not even indicted.

    So let us try to get a little order into this proceeding. There is a status quo by public inquiry and in the public mind which is what you are seeking to displace with an alternative and (by you) preferred explanation. Obviously, indeed you make it clear, your case is that the Arabs didn't crash the planes but it was done by some intelligence agency or agencies in a way that would appear to be the work of Al Qaeda and therefore cause America to go to war to suit Israel.

    (I pause here to point out one glaring improbability in your version. There is no conceivable way Israel would think it in its interests to have the US merely invade Afghanistan, a known sinkhole for foreign armies for nearly 160 years.

    The fact that Rumsfeld apparently leapt on the chance to try and turn 9/11 into justification for finishing the first Iraq war satisfactorily means that you have a huge burden of evidence and proof to carry because that was incredibly unlikely but essential to the plot).

    First the provocations had to be carried out so securely presumably by much the same crowd who made such a brilliant job of rescuing the Teheran Embassy hostages - that no muckraking journalist would get a hint of the truth so he could spill the beans in any country; LOL!
    Second, the enormous risk you were taking in committing capital offences for the benefit of Israel when any leak would in fact be totally disastrous for Israel as well as all the death penalties would have to be overmatched by some incredible degree of certainty that Rumsfeld would pick up the ball and run with it right out of one stadium and into another where he would be assisted to score five perfect goals in quick succession. Oh yes, Colin Powell could be relied to go along with all this and peddle just plausible lies to good effect and help gather up enough willing collaborators.
    Third, that the invasion and occupation would be conducted with sufficient speed and competence to achieve Israel's ends.
    Fourth, that messing up Iraq was indeed a high priority for Israel worth risking all the above going wrong and the end of US support for Israel in the worst scenario.

    I'm afraid your case, if you haven't at this stage allowed it to be dismissed with prejudice, is really looking sick as you try and find experts to say how the planes could have been taken over and flown without suicidal amateur pilots (you don't seem to back some sort of CIA kamikaze squad) and without passengers or cabin staff managing to do anything about it, especially in the light of the telephoned accounts of what was going on in the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania (which seems to rule out some elaborate plot to have everyone gassed while the preinstalled computerised controls took over. More than a little problem of secrecy before and after there anyway). The bodies or remains of 19 Arabs? Not a problem! Get parents in Cairo and roommates in Germany on the PR payroll as well - all guaranteed to be no risk word perfect...

    I'm sick of the farce. The only interest is that someone who can write quite fluently and grammatically can be stark staring mad. Do you live as a recluse in an attic or with your tolerant old mother seeing no one from week to week who is in touch with people's everyday reality and sense of proportion and probability?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Even if you are right about no Jewish writer questioning etc. (And I would be interested to know about your researches in at least 5 languages - English, Hebrew, French, German, Russian - or just English that makes you sure of that supposedly key fact.

    What is truly absurd is your logic. Jews are notoriously disputatious and contrarian. And, apart from that, surely you are aware of the many well known Jews who wouldn't hesitate to come out as contrarian truthers. Think Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein..... and why not a physicist whose opinion would really be wort something... Ron Unz no less.

    Ron Unz no less.

    does Ron have an opinion on the issue?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Rurik says:
    @Kiza
    James, I think you may be missing Tom's point a little. Most of you guys are focused on disputing the official fairy tale, but Tom focuses on the changes to the US and the World from 911. No matter whodunit, the event had profound effect on the US as a country, as a society, and has caused millions of deaths world-wide.

    It is much more important to understand the long-term effects than to worry about whodunit. What rather than who. Such analysis easily gives an answer to the latter question as well, if it is really important to you.

    No matter whodunit,..

    long-term effects than to worry about whodunit. What rather than who.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Kiza
    James, I think you may be missing Tom's point a little. Most of you guys are focused on disputing the official fairy tale, but Tom focuses on the changes to the US and the World from 911. No matter whodunit, the event had profound effect on the US as a country, as a society, and has caused millions of deaths world-wide.

    It is much more important to understand the long-term effects than to worry about whodunit. What rather than who. Such analysis easily gives an answer to the latter question as well, if it is really important to you.

    James, I think you may be missing Tom’s point a little. Most of you guys are focused on disputing the official fairy tale, but Tom focuses on the changes to the US and the World from 911.

    Kiza, let’s go to some first principles here. If somebody is going to poison you, what do they do?

    (a) they hand you a vial of some utterly foul-smelling concoction (that looks and smells like poison, because IT IS) and say “Here, swallow this”

    or

    (b) they prepare you a beautiful meal, having figured out your favourite foods, and one or more of the items is poisoned.

    Obviously b, right?

    So, by the same token, if somebody is going to purvey disinformation, what do they do? Do they just give you pure disinformation, like in (a) above or is it more like (b), where much of the information (like the food) is perfectly good and the analysis is correct, except the disinformation is mixed in there in certain places, like the poison in case (b).

    You see my point?

    This is how controlled opposition and “limited hangout” sorts of things work. Even the utterly horrid propaganda that you see on Fox news or some other Murdoch controlled operation, a lot of the information on there is actually valid, truthful. Of course, because it is very much in the nature of things that disinformation will be mixed in with other material that is valid.

    In other words, it doesn’t matter that the article actually says some things that are correct. Once you recognise that somebody is purveying disinformation…. like, if somebody invites you to dinner and it turns out that the dessert (your favorite, strawberry cheesecake) is laced with arsenic, do you defend the host by saying that all the other dishes were delicious and not poisoned???

    In short, just how insufferably naive do you intend to be here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Jonathan, I think I understand your main point. You appear to be writing about "honey-pot propaganda" - someone buys the way in into your mind by writing what you believe and then tries to deliver the real payload - the propaganda. For example, I believe Eric Margolis is such, Pierre Omidyar, even Soros used to be like that at the beginning of his regime-changing career, until his cover became too big a burden and unsustainable to maintain.

    I have been following, although not closely, Tom's writing and I do not believe he does honey-pot propaganda. What he does, to use the language of our opponent Rumsfield, is deal with known knowables. To deduct whodunit, which is an unknown unknowlable - extremely highly guarded secret, one needs to look at what happened after and who benefited.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @MisterCharlie
    There is very little to nothing that anyone can say, with anything like reasonable certainty, beyond the now well-established physical facts at Ground Zero, about the 9/11 events and the obviously organized collusion behind those events - collusion extending into the White House, NORAD, the FBI, the Pentagon, every branch of the government of New York City, and, the entirety of MSM.

    And there lies another 14-year wonder: "After 14 years of dedicated and skilled investigation by independent 'truthers', we still know very little beyond that every element of the 'official truth' or of the Commission Report is a dirty lie with no basis in evidence." I find the continuing success of the cover-up wildly improbable, despite that a great deal of what has been uncovered by the best of our patriotic Truthers is unavoidably believable ... including a mountain of evidence justifying and demanding conclusions of fact as to the existence and nature of a vast conspiracy to cover-up the behnd-the-scenes realities of the events.

    To borrow, from neo-con writings, one or another phrase from the good old days of the Good-versus-Evil Cold War: "Yet none dare call it treason!" or "None dare call it conspiracy!"

    Actually tens of millions worldwide “dare” to call it conspiracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act….implementation of a National Origins Immigration Policy that completely excluded all Muslims…mass deportation of all Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 ever occurring…0 probability of the Fort Hood Massacre ever occurring…0 probability of the Chattanooga massacre ever occurring…0 probability of the Boston Marathon Bombing occurring.
     
    If that is the case, it is only because the people who really perpetrated these things (WHO WERE NOT MUSLIMS) would not have any Muslim patsies available to frame for their crimes.

    You are a 9/11 Truther Tard whose religion is 9/11 Truther Tardism. In the meantime, as you Tards went around drooling and jibber-jabbering about nanothermite nonesense…Alex Jones and Dylan Avery laughed all the way to the bank and bought million dollar homes.

    The Muslim Male Yut immigrants did 9/11-and it wasn’t all that hard to pull off…considering that it was taking candy from a mentally retarded child. The mentally retarded child in this case happens to be the White American population that was way more interested in counting the number of bacteria proliferating in Tom Brady’s jockstrap at the time.

    The whitened sepulacar of Prescott Bush sitting on a Throne down deep in the dark-dank basement of the Skull and Bones Yale Frat House telekinetically controlling the Alien ET technology surrounding him did not organize 911. And Chenney and Condeleeza combined have substandard intellectual capacity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    correct spelling:seplucher
    , @Mudhole
    You, Sir are a name-calling troll. Because calling people names is all you have.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    You are a 9/11 Truther Tard whose religion is 9/11 Truther Tardism.
     
    Religion, eh? I think the official story looks more like a religion. After all, it's the official story that involves supernatural events that defy the laws of physics.

    Regardless of what actually happened, your idea that 9/11 has something to do with the 1965 immigration reform is utterly bizarre. Maybe a tad demented even.

    Even if the government's 9/11 story were true (which it isn't) there is no need to officially immigrate to the U.S. to carry out an operation like that. You could perfectly well just visit on a tourist visa.

    Japan, for example, has a very tight immigration policy, yet, in principle, there would have been nothing to prevent suicide hijackers from going to Japan on tourist visas and doing the equivalent attack in Tokyo instead of New York. As far as I know, you can visit Japan as a tourist as long as you can afford a plane ticket.

    What immigration policy does is it makes it easier or harder to get the green card or equivalent thereof. But you don't need a green card to carry out a terrorist attack! So, like, what exactly was your point in the first place, Genius Boy?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Biff says:

    9/11 = Government failure day where politicians stand atop of a pile of dead bodies and declare the eminence.

    Where 2 + 0 = 3
    Two airplanes take down three towers.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    You are a 9/11 Truther Tard whose religion is 9/11 Truther Tardism. In the meantime, as you Tards went around drooling and jibber-jabbering about nanothermite nonesense...Alex Jones and Dylan Avery laughed all the way to the bank and bought million dollar homes.

    The Muslim Male Yut immigrants did 9/11-and it wasn't all that hard to pull off...considering that it was taking candy from a mentally retarded child. The mentally retarded child in this case happens to be the White American population that was way more interested in counting the number of bacteria proliferating in Tom Brady's jockstrap at the time.

    The whitened sepulacar of Prescott Bush sitting on a Throne down deep in the dark-dank basement of the Skull and Bones Yale Frat House telekinetically controlling the Alien ET technology surrounding him did not organize 911. And Chenney and Condeleeza combined have substandard intellectual capacity.

    correct spelling:seplucher

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Mudhole says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    You are a 9/11 Truther Tard whose religion is 9/11 Truther Tardism. In the meantime, as you Tards went around drooling and jibber-jabbering about nanothermite nonesense...Alex Jones and Dylan Avery laughed all the way to the bank and bought million dollar homes.

    The Muslim Male Yut immigrants did 9/11-and it wasn't all that hard to pull off...considering that it was taking candy from a mentally retarded child. The mentally retarded child in this case happens to be the White American population that was way more interested in counting the number of bacteria proliferating in Tom Brady's jockstrap at the time.

    The whitened sepulacar of Prescott Bush sitting on a Throne down deep in the dark-dank basement of the Skull and Bones Yale Frat House telekinetically controlling the Alien ET technology surrounding him did not organize 911. And Chenney and Condeleeza combined have substandard intellectual capacity.

    You, Sir are a name-calling troll. Because calling people names is all you have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @War for Blair Mountain
    You are a 9/11 Truther Tard whose religion is 9/11 Truther Tardism. In the meantime, as you Tards went around drooling and jibber-jabbering about nanothermite nonesense...Alex Jones and Dylan Avery laughed all the way to the bank and bought million dollar homes.

    The Muslim Male Yut immigrants did 9/11-and it wasn't all that hard to pull off...considering that it was taking candy from a mentally retarded child. The mentally retarded child in this case happens to be the White American population that was way more interested in counting the number of bacteria proliferating in Tom Brady's jockstrap at the time.

    The whitened sepulacar of Prescott Bush sitting on a Throne down deep in the dark-dank basement of the Skull and Bones Yale Frat House telekinetically controlling the Alien ET technology surrounding him did not organize 911. And Chenney and Condeleeza combined have substandard intellectual capacity.

    You are a 9/11 Truther Tard whose religion is 9/11 Truther Tardism.

    Religion, eh? I think the official story looks more like a religion. After all, it’s the official story that involves supernatural events that defy the laws of physics.

    Regardless of what actually happened, your idea that 9/11 has something to do with the 1965 immigration reform is utterly bizarre. Maybe a tad demented even.

    Even if the government’s 9/11 story were true (which it isn’t) there is no need to officially immigrate to the U.S. to carry out an operation like that. You could perfectly well just visit on a tourist visa.

    Japan, for example, has a very tight immigration policy, yet, in principle, there would have been nothing to prevent suicide hijackers from going to Japan on tourist visas and doing the equivalent attack in Tokyo instead of New York. As far as I know, you can visit Japan as a tourist as long as you can afford a plane ticket.

    What immigration policy does is it makes it easier or harder to get the green card or equivalent thereof. But you don’t need a green card to carry out a terrorist attack! So, like, what exactly was your point in the first place, Genius Boy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act...a National Origins Immigration Policy that excluded all Muslims...deport all Muslims=o probability of 9/11 occurring...and all the other aforementioned terrorist attacks on US soil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. norm741 says:

    911 was when the USA became the USSA

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You are a 9/11 Truther Tard whose religion is 9/11 Truther Tardism.
     
    Religion, eh? I think the official story looks more like a religion. After all, it's the official story that involves supernatural events that defy the laws of physics.

    Regardless of what actually happened, your idea that 9/11 has something to do with the 1965 immigration reform is utterly bizarre. Maybe a tad demented even.

    Even if the government's 9/11 story were true (which it isn't) there is no need to officially immigrate to the U.S. to carry out an operation like that. You could perfectly well just visit on a tourist visa.

    Japan, for example, has a very tight immigration policy, yet, in principle, there would have been nothing to prevent suicide hijackers from going to Japan on tourist visas and doing the equivalent attack in Tokyo instead of New York. As far as I know, you can visit Japan as a tourist as long as you can afford a plane ticket.

    What immigration policy does is it makes it easier or harder to get the green card or equivalent thereof. But you don't need a green card to carry out a terrorist attack! So, like, what exactly was your point in the first place, Genius Boy?

    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act…a National Origins Immigration Policy that excluded all Muslims…deport all Muslims=o probability of 9/11 occurring…and all the other aforementioned terrorist attacks on US soil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act…a National Origins Immigration Policy that excluded all Muslims…deport all Muslims=o probability of 9/11 occurring…and all the other aforementioned terrorist attacks on US soil.

     

    If the official story was true (which it isn't) the 9/11 operation did not require anybody to immigrate to the U.S. They could perfectly well just come on a tourist visa and say they were middle class Arab tourists who wanted to see Disneyworld and/or Niagara falls.

    So there is no connection at all between immigration reform and 9/11. In any case, the people they claim did it are not the real perpetrators. They were patsies -- you know, like Lee Harvey Oswald.
    , @Chris Mallory
    The interesting thing is that before the 1990s, the number of terrorist attacks within the US committed by Muslims were vastly outnumbered by those committed by Puerto Ricans, Jews, Armenians and even Croats. Even if you look at the attacks overseas, until we started meddling in Lebanon, Americans were more likely to be targeted by various Communist groups than by Muslims.
    Reagan sending troops to Lebanon was the worst mistake of his tenure in office. That mistake in support of the terrorists in Tel Aviv opened the flood gates of Muslim attacks against the US. The idiotic first Gulf War did even more to inflame the Muslims
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Jonathan Revusky

    Who flew the three planes which crashed into buildings and the one that didn’t make it?
     
    I'm not really in the mood to play your little dishonest shill games. I see through them. The basic issue is that you are accusing people of perpetrating a crime. It is not up to me to demonstrate who actually did anything.

    If you say that Osama Bin Laden orchestrated this from some cave (or even moderately nice house) in Afghanistan, then it is up to you tell us what the proof of this is. If you tell me that these Arabs, Mohammed Atta and the rest, hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, you tell me what is the proof of this.

    Specifically, just even say what, in your opinion, is the strongest single piece of proof for this story, and then we have some basis to have a conversation. I know you're not going to answer, but I give you the chance. What is it? What is the proof of this OBL and 19 hijackers story?

    How many precedents (or later examples) do you have for the CIA, FBI, NSA or Mossad or any other US or Israeli governmental organisation setting up suicide missions successful or unsuccessful.
     
    History is replete with false flag terrorism operations, in which deep State operatives carry out some attack and frame some other group for it. As for "suicide operations", you are simply engaging in a "beg the question" fallacy, i.e. you are assuming the official story in order to prove the official story.

    The official story says that there were these suicide hijackers, Arab Kamikazes if you will, but the official story is what we are discussing. You can't use the official story to prove the official story. What specifically is the proof of this suicide hijacker narrative?

    My view is that if planes really did crash in the places they say they did, as far as I can see, it must have been via some sort of automatic pilot or remote control sort of hacking. It seems that it is established fact that certain models of cars can be hacked to be controlled remotely, like maybe that Benz that Michael Hastings was driving and flew into a tree... so if cars can be hacked that way, then the technology surely exists to do it with planes.

    Regardless, we can say with absolute certainly that either airplanes hit buildings or they did not. If they didn't, then what we saw was simply video fakery, and I have looked at this and the case looks pretty compelling. Aside from the cartoon physics of the planes more or less melting into the steel framed buildings, this would also explain why nobody has ever been shown a single serial numbered plane part when each plane has hundreds of thousands of parts.

    But, in any case, there is no onus on me in this conversation to tell you what precisely happened. If you are going to tell us that this was orchestrated by one Osama Bin Laden on the other side of the world, that you believe this, the onus is on you to tell US what specifically is the proof of that?

    That's the way it works. You accuse somebody of something, so you have to provide the evidence. What is the evidence? Not up to me to prove the negative.

    Your ridiculous obfuscatory bluster is off to a bad start when you say that I am accusing people of committing a crime so I must prove my case instead of expecting you to give a plausible alternative version to the generally accepted one. After all my criminals are either condemned by a “conviction” by the commission of inquiry or in court for one of them but yours, whom you won’t even name are not even indicted.

    So let us try to get a little order into this proceeding. There is a status quo by public inquiry and in the public mind which is what you are seeking to displace with an alternative and (by you) preferred explanation. Obviously, indeed you make it clear, your case is that the Arabs didn’t crash the planes but it was done by some intelligence agency or agencies in a way that would appear to be the work of Al Qaeda and therefore cause America to go to war to suit Israel.

    (I pause here to point out one glaring improbability in your version. There is no conceivable way Israel would think it in its interests to have the US merely invade Afghanistan, a known sinkhole for foreign armies for nearly 160 years.

    The fact that Rumsfeld apparently leapt on the chance to try and turn 9/11 into justification for finishing the first Iraq war satisfactorily means that you have a huge burden of evidence and proof to carry because that was incredibly unlikely but essential to the plot).

    First the provocations had to be carried out so securely presumably by much the same crowd who made such a brilliant job of rescuing the Teheran Embassy hostages – that no muckraking journalist would get a hint of the truth so he could spill the beans in any country; LOL!
    Second, the enormous risk you were taking in committing capital offences for the benefit of Israel when any leak would in fact be totally disastrous for Israel as well as all the death penalties would have to be overmatched by some incredible degree of certainty that Rumsfeld would pick up the ball and run with it right out of one stadium and into another where he would be assisted to score five perfect goals in quick succession. Oh yes, Colin Powell could be relied to go along with all this and peddle just plausible lies to good effect and help gather up enough willing collaborators.
    Third, that the invasion and occupation would be conducted with sufficient speed and competence to achieve Israel’s ends.
    Fourth, that messing up Iraq was indeed a high priority for Israel worth risking all the above going wrong and the end of US support for Israel in the worst scenario.

    I’m afraid your case, if you haven’t at this stage allowed it to be dismissed with prejudice, is really looking sick as you try and find experts to say how the planes could have been taken over and flown without suicidal amateur pilots (you don’t seem to back some sort of CIA kamikaze squad) and without passengers or cabin staff managing to do anything about it, especially in the light of the telephoned accounts of what was going on in the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania (which seems to rule out some elaborate plot to have everyone gassed while the preinstalled computerised controls took over. More than a little problem of secrecy before and after there anyway). The bodies or remains of 19 Arabs? Not a problem! Get parents in Cairo and roommates in Germany on the PR payroll as well – all guaranteed to be no risk word perfect…

    I’m sick of the farce. The only interest is that someone who can write quite fluently and grammatically can be stark staring mad. Do you live as a recluse in an attic or with your tolerant old mother seeing no one from week to week who is in touch with people’s everyday reality and sense of proportion and probability?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Your ridiculous obfuscatory bluster is off to a bad start when you say that I am accusing people of committing a crime so I must prove my case
     
    I posed a simple question. What is the strongest evidence that the official story of 9/11 is true? Surely you don't mean to say that posing that question amounts to "ridiculous obfuscatory bluster"!!??

    It certainly doesn't seem to "obfuscate" anything. I think it's quite the opposite. It clarifies things. I ask you what the evidence for the official story is and you refuse to answer. That clarifies things quite a bit, in my opinion!

    instead of expecting you to give a plausible alternative version to the generally accepted one
     
    Well, that's all a logical fallacy. Either O.J. killed his ex-wife or he didn't. But if I ask you what the proof is that he did kill his wife, that does not imply that I am obliged to tell you who actually did! No, not at all! I could be convinced that O.J. could not have done it, yet still not know who actually did! Nor am I obliged to tell you what the murder weapon was or any of it. You say O.J. killed his ex-wife and I ask you what the strongest evidence is and you should outline it. It's that simple. (Understand, of course, that this is just an analogy. I think there is a lot more evidence that O.J. killed his ex-wife than there is of Osama Bin Laden orchestrating the 9/11 attacks!)

    But again:

    What specifically is the strongest evidence that the government story, as outlined in the 9/11 commission report, is actually true? Either answer the question or don't, but don't come at me with this obvious nonsense that this question is illegitimate or that it's "obfuscatory" or whatever. Because it obviously isn't!

    So let us try to get a little order into this proceeding. There is a status quo by public inquiry and in the public mind which is what you are seeking to displace with an alternative and (by you) preferred explanation.
     
    No. First of all, I think you mean "consensus" rather than "status quo". There is no real "consensus". I find that in my life, both online and offline, most people that I talk to are highly skeptical of the U.S. government narrative on 9/11. Just looking at the comments on this page of people who are quite legitimate, regular participants here, you see there is no consensus. (Actually, if there is a broad consensus at this point, I think it is more that people generally agree that the government story is untrue!) My casual observation suggests that the majority of people participating here do NOT believe the government story. Thus, my asking you what the evidence for it is is not "obfuscatory". It's 180º away from that. It's a very pointed question that clarifies the debate! And the fact that you will doubtless refuse to answer this question

    Now, regardless, even if there was a consensus and everybody did believe the story (which they OBVIOUSLY DON'T) that would still not constitute any proof that the story is true! I asked you what the proof was. And you are not answering.

    You write an exhausting amount of verbiage, consisting mostly of extremely tenuous argumentation, but regardless, I think everybody sees that you are refusing to answer my question. Here it is again:

    Please outline the strongest evidence available that the U.S. government story, that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a religious fanatic by the name of Osama Bin Laden.

    Of course, to concede that there is no strong evidence for this would also be an answer to the question.

    And now, when I get to the bottom of your comment, after wading through all the total non-sequiturs, I read:

    I’m sick of the farce....
     
    Well, yeah, you're exhausted, trying to dance around and avoid the question. If there is such a clear case that this Bin Laden and the suicidal hijackers story is true, then why not just outline what it is and save yourself all that energy.

    Again, what specifically is, in your opinion, the strongest evidence available that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic on the other side of the world?

    For all your verbal diarrhoea, it is perfectly obvious that the above is a legitimate question that, as yet, you have not answered.
    , @Sam Shama
    Wiz,
    I do appreciate your spending effort at unmasking these conspiracy theories, the anti-paladin in the present instance being your opposing commentator. I am not sure if you had read the exchange I had in the recent past, as there were a number of returns of serve and rallies, culminating in one of my observations, rather similar in vein to your own conclusions in the final paragraph.

    http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1025767

    Engaging in a debate here, is akin to finding oneself caught in an infinite loop: The man has been at this rodent-on-staircase routine since at least 2012.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Wizard of Oz
    Your ridiculous obfuscatory bluster is off to a bad start when you say that I am accusing people of committing a crime so I must prove my case instead of expecting you to give a plausible alternative version to the generally accepted one. After all my criminals are either condemned by a "conviction" by the commission of inquiry or in court for one of them but yours, whom you won't even name are not even indicted.

    So let us try to get a little order into this proceeding. There is a status quo by public inquiry and in the public mind which is what you are seeking to displace with an alternative and (by you) preferred explanation. Obviously, indeed you make it clear, your case is that the Arabs didn't crash the planes but it was done by some intelligence agency or agencies in a way that would appear to be the work of Al Qaeda and therefore cause America to go to war to suit Israel.

    (I pause here to point out one glaring improbability in your version. There is no conceivable way Israel would think it in its interests to have the US merely invade Afghanistan, a known sinkhole for foreign armies for nearly 160 years.

    The fact that Rumsfeld apparently leapt on the chance to try and turn 9/11 into justification for finishing the first Iraq war satisfactorily means that you have a huge burden of evidence and proof to carry because that was incredibly unlikely but essential to the plot).

    First the provocations had to be carried out so securely presumably by much the same crowd who made such a brilliant job of rescuing the Teheran Embassy hostages - that no muckraking journalist would get a hint of the truth so he could spill the beans in any country; LOL!
    Second, the enormous risk you were taking in committing capital offences for the benefit of Israel when any leak would in fact be totally disastrous for Israel as well as all the death penalties would have to be overmatched by some incredible degree of certainty that Rumsfeld would pick up the ball and run with it right out of one stadium and into another where he would be assisted to score five perfect goals in quick succession. Oh yes, Colin Powell could be relied to go along with all this and peddle just plausible lies to good effect and help gather up enough willing collaborators.
    Third, that the invasion and occupation would be conducted with sufficient speed and competence to achieve Israel's ends.
    Fourth, that messing up Iraq was indeed a high priority for Israel worth risking all the above going wrong and the end of US support for Israel in the worst scenario.

    I'm afraid your case, if you haven't at this stage allowed it to be dismissed with prejudice, is really looking sick as you try and find experts to say how the planes could have been taken over and flown without suicidal amateur pilots (you don't seem to back some sort of CIA kamikaze squad) and without passengers or cabin staff managing to do anything about it, especially in the light of the telephoned accounts of what was going on in the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania (which seems to rule out some elaborate plot to have everyone gassed while the preinstalled computerised controls took over. More than a little problem of secrecy before and after there anyway). The bodies or remains of 19 Arabs? Not a problem! Get parents in Cairo and roommates in Germany on the PR payroll as well - all guaranteed to be no risk word perfect...

    I'm sick of the farce. The only interest is that someone who can write quite fluently and grammatically can be stark staring mad. Do you live as a recluse in an attic or with your tolerant old mother seeing no one from week to week who is in touch with people's everyday reality and sense of proportion and probability?

    Your ridiculous obfuscatory bluster is off to a bad start when you say that I am accusing people of committing a crime so I must prove my case

    I posed a simple question. What is the strongest evidence that the official story of 9/11 is true? Surely you don’t mean to say that posing that question amounts to “ridiculous obfuscatory bluster”!!??

    It certainly doesn’t seem to “obfuscate” anything. I think it’s quite the opposite. It clarifies things. I ask you what the evidence for the official story is and you refuse to answer. That clarifies things quite a bit, in my opinion!

    instead of expecting you to give a plausible alternative version to the generally accepted one

    Well, that’s all a logical fallacy. Either O.J. killed his ex-wife or he didn’t. But if I ask you what the proof is that he did kill his wife, that does not imply that I am obliged to tell you who actually did! No, not at all! I could be convinced that O.J. could not have done it, yet still not know who actually did! Nor am I obliged to tell you what the murder weapon was or any of it. You say O.J. killed his ex-wife and I ask you what the strongest evidence is and you should outline it. It’s that simple. (Understand, of course, that this is just an analogy. I think there is a lot more evidence that O.J. killed his ex-wife than there is of Osama Bin Laden orchestrating the 9/11 attacks!)

    But again:

    What specifically is the strongest evidence that the government story, as outlined in the 9/11 commission report, is actually true? Either answer the question or don’t, but don’t come at me with this obvious nonsense that this question is illegitimate or that it’s “obfuscatory” or whatever. Because it obviously isn’t!

    So let us try to get a little order into this proceeding. There is a status quo by public inquiry and in the public mind which is what you are seeking to displace with an alternative and (by you) preferred explanation.

    No. First of all, I think you mean “consensus” rather than “status quo”. There is no real “consensus”. I find that in my life, both online and offline, most people that I talk to are highly skeptical of the U.S. government narrative on 9/11. Just looking at the comments on this page of people who are quite legitimate, regular participants here, you see there is no consensus. (Actually, if there is a broad consensus at this point, I think it is more that people generally agree that the government story is untrue!) My casual observation suggests that the majority of people participating here do NOT believe the government story. Thus, my asking you what the evidence for it is is not “obfuscatory”. It’s 180º away from that. It’s a very pointed question that clarifies the debate! And the fact that you will doubtless refuse to answer this question

    Now, regardless, even if there was a consensus and everybody did believe the story (which they OBVIOUSLY DON’T) that would still not constitute any proof that the story is true! I asked you what the proof was. And you are not answering.

    You write an exhausting amount of verbiage, consisting mostly of extremely tenuous argumentation, but regardless, I think everybody sees that you are refusing to answer my question. Here it is again:

    Please outline the strongest evidence available that the U.S. government story, that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a religious fanatic by the name of Osama Bin Laden.

    Of course, to concede that there is no strong evidence for this would also be an answer to the question.

    And now, when I get to the bottom of your comment, after wading through all the total non-sequiturs, I read:

    I’m sick of the farce….

    Well, yeah, you’re exhausted, trying to dance around and avoid the question. If there is such a clear case that this Bin Laden and the suicidal hijackers story is true, then why not just outline what it is and save yourself all that energy.

    Again, what specifically is, in your opinion, the strongest evidence available that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic on the other side of the world?

    For all your verbal diarrhoea, it is perfectly obvious that the above is a legitimate question that, as yet, you have not answered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey JR,

    One of the first posts I made when I stumbled upon this site was to the 'wizard' when he asked for proof that 911 was an inside job. I told him that the BBC advance knowledge of building seven plopping into its basement on that day and reporting it before it happened was proof of complicity of the crime. Since it would have been impossible to know building seven was going to plop down unless they had been told by someone who knew, and the only ones who could have known were the ones who had wired it for demolition.

    The poor wizard became bereft and gibbered things. He tossed a couple slurs in my direction and then huffed away. ; )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @War for Blair Mountain
    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act...a National Origins Immigration Policy that excluded all Muslims...deport all Muslims=o probability of 9/11 occurring...and all the other aforementioned terrorist attacks on US soil.

    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act…a National Origins Immigration Policy that excluded all Muslims…deport all Muslims=o probability of 9/11 occurring…and all the other aforementioned terrorist attacks on US soil.

    If the official story was true (which it isn’t) the 9/11 operation did not require anybody to immigrate to the U.S. They could perfectly well just come on a tourist visa and say they were middle class Arab tourists who wanted to see Disneyworld and/or Niagara falls.

    So there is no connection at all between immigration reform and 9/11. In any case, the people they claim did it are not the real perpetrators. They were patsies — you know, like Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Great Battle for Blair Mountain
    No muslims...or an epsilon of Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 occurring..or with an epsilon of 0 of 9/11 occurring.....we have already significantly reduced the possibility of 9/11 occuring. Which raises the bigger question: why is a Muslim Voting Bloc being imported into the US?..Answer:to vote Whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 3 2016.

    9/11 Truther Tard science is unpublishable "scientific" sewage...whereas:NIST researchers have been recently awarded with a Noble Prize for research on atomic clocks...or, are all the NIST Scientists and Engineers in on the 9/11 cover-up?

    9/11 Truthers=a Treasonous Cabal that wants to flood the US with high fertility highly racialized Muslim Male Yuts and Female Yuts. Retired Philosophy Professor David Ray Griffith is an enthusiast for importing Muslim yut immigrants.

    9/11 Truthers=TREASON IS THE REASON!!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Max Payne says:

    helping release the forces that would create the first true terrorist state of modern history;

    I take it you’re referring to Israel?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Jonathan Revusky

    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act…a National Origins Immigration Policy that excluded all Muslims…deport all Muslims=o probability of 9/11 occurring…and all the other aforementioned terrorist attacks on US soil.

     

    If the official story was true (which it isn't) the 9/11 operation did not require anybody to immigrate to the U.S. They could perfectly well just come on a tourist visa and say they were middle class Arab tourists who wanted to see Disneyworld and/or Niagara falls.

    So there is no connection at all between immigration reform and 9/11. In any case, the people they claim did it are not the real perpetrators. They were patsies -- you know, like Lee Harvey Oswald.

    No muslims…or an epsilon of Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 occurring..or with an epsilon of 0 of 9/11 occurring…..we have already significantly reduced the possibility of 9/11 occuring. Which raises the bigger question: why is a Muslim Voting Bloc being imported into the US?..Answer:to vote Whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 3 2016.

    9/11 Truther Tard science is unpublishable “scientific” sewage…whereas:NIST researchers have been recently awarded with a Noble Prize for research on atomic clocks…or, are all the NIST Scientists and Engineers in on the 9/11 cover-up?

    9/11 Truthers=a Treasonous Cabal that wants to flood the US with high fertility highly racialized Muslim Male Yuts and Female Yuts. Retired Philosophy Professor David Ray Griffith is an enthusiast for importing Muslim yut immigrants.

    9/11 Truthers=TREASON IS THE REASON!!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Mr. Great Battle, the treasonous Bush the Lesser and Five-Deferrment genius (that betrayed the CIA officer and was never punished for that) are perfectly white folks. Instead of attacking the intelligent people that look for real answers to the tragic unraveling of the US, you could, for instance, to take a look at Bush' wet kisses with Saudi Princes, or to make some small inquiry into Cheney's sources of considerable income (war profiteering through and through). What about defacing the US Constitution by the US judiciary? - Well Mr. Baybee is not Muslim, neither Mr. Yoo is. What about the lying sec. of state, homegrown Condi Rice? - Oh, she is so Christian!
    Mind that it was not some Muslim state that came to the US to get oil, build military bases, and initiate various regime changes. Actually, it was the US that did all the above in the Arabs' lands. Perhaps if the US government was more caring about the wellbeing of the US citizenry at large (and not about the few oil and banana and weapon profiteers), there would be no 9/11.

    The Lady Liberty has nice inscription on her gown, and this inscription does not care for ethnicity.
    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
    Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door"
    Emma Lazarus
    , @KA
    Average GOP Tea Party Leftie Americans have more in common with the ineffective rage of FOX crews and MSNBC dullards They are like the ostriches with head buried under the sand thinking the danger wont resurface once they resurface . They are more like the pre K student who stomp on the chair after a fall to take revenge against the chair.

    FOX judge poses the question not the average American to the candidate. What is the question? Will Saudi remain our ally in support of Israel against Iran's dangerous nuclear development who are willing to murder millions to kill Israelis so that Mehdi Imam takes over the world?
    He could have as well asked the candidate if American even need to vote when Israelis not only do it but also write all the ME policies,various liberation acts and advise on esrmarking of money.

    and would have gotten same thunderous ovation from the stupid moron average Americans who populate these events.

    Poor pathetic creature cant even get the chnce of evaluating a Ron Paul or Kucchinich or Mike Greveal brcause a Corbyn ( UK) wont be allowed near judges deciding the electabillity.
    Moron still go back to those judges for guidance,for hope,and for psychological healing

    Only their fear of being seen as insubordinate ,fear of being seen as not tean player,fear of being seen as not sufficiently American can explain why these moron known as American voters thump their chest and bray for violence against Rusdia,China,Iran,Syria,Somalia,Rwanda when those very wars are based on lies fear,loathing,greed,and those wars are nothing but the creators of pain,death losses and dislocation and of terrorism.

    The moron agree with the judges that Muslim are enemy Africaners don't support Americn dream as if their duty is to support American dreams ,agree with. The judges that Russia is showing recidivism when the psychopathic Neocons get to recommit crimes after crimes in front of democratic religious secular pro liberty and pro peace souls of those very Americans.


    They read the material on Iran deal provided to them by the same forces that shaped their support for Iraq war and still they believe the Iran deal the worst things that ever happened to them after 911.

    They swallow hook line and slinker the myth of exceptionalism ,of manifest destiny,of being number one nation of having special position in the ranking of power and above all being innocent participant in all major wars .

    Unless the citizen challenge the paradigm in which they cast their foreign policy ,chances of any change is remote . Public weakness stems from this fountain of stupidity . The ruling class masterfully uses this stupid weakness . A few minutes attention to the presidential debate will confirm where and how these candidates get the staying power from.
    And even these loosers don't believe themselves . Look at abscence of Bush in 2008 and 2012 election . Even now he is still absent but those stupid American still support the series of wars he initiated .Vandidates won't refer to Bush but will refer to his action as guidance
    These impotent block of the citizen think that their country is being ruined by ISIS,Muslim brotherhood,Saudi oil,Muslim cell, Sharia and jihadism .

    Same judges and the neocon owners asked these ostriches in Bush administration to bury their heads under the sand when the storm of 911 was brewing . They assured them the American life would plod along smoothly .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Wally says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Please answer the questions I posed to Jonathan Revusky.

    How dumb & desperate can you get?

    Answering those questions requires an unbiased, independent investigation, and that is what is being demanded.

    According to the Wizard Not anyone recognizing a crime and it’s obvious cover-up by the USG must then automatically have all the answers prior to an independent & complete investigation being made which would seek to find the answers.

    And the math challenged Wizard Not clearly knows nothing about physics and the complete scientific impossibility of the ‘official’ absurd conspiracy theory.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’… Read it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Sam Shama says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Your ridiculous obfuscatory bluster is off to a bad start when you say that I am accusing people of committing a crime so I must prove my case instead of expecting you to give a plausible alternative version to the generally accepted one. After all my criminals are either condemned by a "conviction" by the commission of inquiry or in court for one of them but yours, whom you won't even name are not even indicted.

    So let us try to get a little order into this proceeding. There is a status quo by public inquiry and in the public mind which is what you are seeking to displace with an alternative and (by you) preferred explanation. Obviously, indeed you make it clear, your case is that the Arabs didn't crash the planes but it was done by some intelligence agency or agencies in a way that would appear to be the work of Al Qaeda and therefore cause America to go to war to suit Israel.

    (I pause here to point out one glaring improbability in your version. There is no conceivable way Israel would think it in its interests to have the US merely invade Afghanistan, a known sinkhole for foreign armies for nearly 160 years.

    The fact that Rumsfeld apparently leapt on the chance to try and turn 9/11 into justification for finishing the first Iraq war satisfactorily means that you have a huge burden of evidence and proof to carry because that was incredibly unlikely but essential to the plot).

    First the provocations had to be carried out so securely presumably by much the same crowd who made such a brilliant job of rescuing the Teheran Embassy hostages - that no muckraking journalist would get a hint of the truth so he could spill the beans in any country; LOL!
    Second, the enormous risk you were taking in committing capital offences for the benefit of Israel when any leak would in fact be totally disastrous for Israel as well as all the death penalties would have to be overmatched by some incredible degree of certainty that Rumsfeld would pick up the ball and run with it right out of one stadium and into another where he would be assisted to score five perfect goals in quick succession. Oh yes, Colin Powell could be relied to go along with all this and peddle just plausible lies to good effect and help gather up enough willing collaborators.
    Third, that the invasion and occupation would be conducted with sufficient speed and competence to achieve Israel's ends.
    Fourth, that messing up Iraq was indeed a high priority for Israel worth risking all the above going wrong and the end of US support for Israel in the worst scenario.

    I'm afraid your case, if you haven't at this stage allowed it to be dismissed with prejudice, is really looking sick as you try and find experts to say how the planes could have been taken over and flown without suicidal amateur pilots (you don't seem to back some sort of CIA kamikaze squad) and without passengers or cabin staff managing to do anything about it, especially in the light of the telephoned accounts of what was going on in the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania (which seems to rule out some elaborate plot to have everyone gassed while the preinstalled computerised controls took over. More than a little problem of secrecy before and after there anyway). The bodies or remains of 19 Arabs? Not a problem! Get parents in Cairo and roommates in Germany on the PR payroll as well - all guaranteed to be no risk word perfect...

    I'm sick of the farce. The only interest is that someone who can write quite fluently and grammatically can be stark staring mad. Do you live as a recluse in an attic or with your tolerant old mother seeing no one from week to week who is in touch with people's everyday reality and sense of proportion and probability?

    Wiz,
    I do appreciate your spending effort at unmasking these conspiracy theories, the anti-paladin in the present instance being your opposing commentator. I am not sure if you had read the exchange I had in the recent past, as there were a number of returns of serve and rallies, culminating in one of my observations, rather similar in vein to your own conclusions in the final paragraph.

    http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1025767

    Engaging in a debate here, is akin to finding oneself caught in an infinite loop: The man has been at this rodent-on-staircase routine since at least 2012.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Your ridiculous obfuscatory bluster is off to a bad start when you say that I am accusing people of committing a crime so I must prove my case
     
    I posed a simple question. What is the strongest evidence that the official story of 9/11 is true? Surely you don't mean to say that posing that question amounts to "ridiculous obfuscatory bluster"!!??

    It certainly doesn't seem to "obfuscate" anything. I think it's quite the opposite. It clarifies things. I ask you what the evidence for the official story is and you refuse to answer. That clarifies things quite a bit, in my opinion!

    instead of expecting you to give a plausible alternative version to the generally accepted one
     
    Well, that's all a logical fallacy. Either O.J. killed his ex-wife or he didn't. But if I ask you what the proof is that he did kill his wife, that does not imply that I am obliged to tell you who actually did! No, not at all! I could be convinced that O.J. could not have done it, yet still not know who actually did! Nor am I obliged to tell you what the murder weapon was or any of it. You say O.J. killed his ex-wife and I ask you what the strongest evidence is and you should outline it. It's that simple. (Understand, of course, that this is just an analogy. I think there is a lot more evidence that O.J. killed his ex-wife than there is of Osama Bin Laden orchestrating the 9/11 attacks!)

    But again:

    What specifically is the strongest evidence that the government story, as outlined in the 9/11 commission report, is actually true? Either answer the question or don't, but don't come at me with this obvious nonsense that this question is illegitimate or that it's "obfuscatory" or whatever. Because it obviously isn't!

    So let us try to get a little order into this proceeding. There is a status quo by public inquiry and in the public mind which is what you are seeking to displace with an alternative and (by you) preferred explanation.
     
    No. First of all, I think you mean "consensus" rather than "status quo". There is no real "consensus". I find that in my life, both online and offline, most people that I talk to are highly skeptical of the U.S. government narrative on 9/11. Just looking at the comments on this page of people who are quite legitimate, regular participants here, you see there is no consensus. (Actually, if there is a broad consensus at this point, I think it is more that people generally agree that the government story is untrue!) My casual observation suggests that the majority of people participating here do NOT believe the government story. Thus, my asking you what the evidence for it is is not "obfuscatory". It's 180º away from that. It's a very pointed question that clarifies the debate! And the fact that you will doubtless refuse to answer this question

    Now, regardless, even if there was a consensus and everybody did believe the story (which they OBVIOUSLY DON'T) that would still not constitute any proof that the story is true! I asked you what the proof was. And you are not answering.

    You write an exhausting amount of verbiage, consisting mostly of extremely tenuous argumentation, but regardless, I think everybody sees that you are refusing to answer my question. Here it is again:

    Please outline the strongest evidence available that the U.S. government story, that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a religious fanatic by the name of Osama Bin Laden.

    Of course, to concede that there is no strong evidence for this would also be an answer to the question.

    And now, when I get to the bottom of your comment, after wading through all the total non-sequiturs, I read:

    I’m sick of the farce....
     
    Well, yeah, you're exhausted, trying to dance around and avoid the question. If there is such a clear case that this Bin Laden and the suicidal hijackers story is true, then why not just outline what it is and save yourself all that energy.

    Again, what specifically is, in your opinion, the strongest evidence available that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic on the other side of the world?

    For all your verbal diarrhoea, it is perfectly obvious that the above is a legitimate question that, as yet, you have not answered.

    Hey JR,

    One of the first posts I made when I stumbled upon this site was to the ‘wizard’ when he asked for proof that 911 was an inside job. I told him that the BBC advance knowledge of building seven plopping into its basement on that day and reporting it before it happened was proof of complicity of the crime. Since it would have been impossible to know building seven was going to plop down unless they had been told by someone who knew, and the only ones who could have known were the ones who had wired it for demolition.

    The poor wizard became bereft and gibbered things. He tossed a couple slurs in my direction and then huffed away. ; )

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @guest
    Why would anyone in the know tell the BBC, or anyone for that matter?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Wizard of Oz
    I have read your article with much sympathy - and none, in the absence of plausible answers to my questions to a couple of them - for the buzzing swarm of truthers you have attracted.

    It occurs to me that, despite the efforts of some historians and public intellectuals like Paul Kennedy, America's power, prosperity and relative security from malign foreigners for over 100 years has allowed Americans, even sophisticated products and faculty of some of the world's greatest universities, to be sheltered from a true view of much reality that matters.

    What a shock, at a humble level, for people working at semiskilled jobs on incomes which would have been upper middle class in say India or Malaysia, to realise that others can do it much cheaper and just as effectively - and that smart guys with a trading instinct can't see why they shouldn't make a fortune while employing a lot of Chinese factory hands or Indian call center operators just because you, whom they will never meet or hear the name of, never have secure employment again!

    And just imagine if you are even an Ivy League graduate with a good degree that you are confronted, though you may not even know it, with the need to get inside the heads of Muslims who hate the whole idea of America. (Why there's my good colleague Ismeth whose family I've met. Mother is a pharmacist and father an academic at a good state university.... isn't America lucky compared to Europe in the way its Muslims have assimilated?). Can't we just go on repeating our mantra about not seeing immigrants going the other way. We must be marvellous and a beacon of freedom. At least some of those who blame Jews for being a near traitorous body of citizens with divided loyalties and global ambitions have no excuse for not being able to see that not everyone shares Americans' imagination about themselves, their country, its institutions and its morality.

    Add ignorance of others growth rates and capacities and history and sense of their history and you are in real danger if you want to mess with others complex realities. But wasn't there a British Empire which flourished until the Great European Civil War of 1914-1945 destroyed its relative power? And no such destruction has occurred to the US.... Oops, true until 2003.

    And when one looks at empires of the past more generally to see why they flourished and what did them in might it not be modestly prudent to consider that America's population has 13 per cent descendant's of slaves with votes and a stronger sense of entitlement than work ethic, a similar proportion of undereducated Latino peasants and their families, and, not least a vast number of sober people who reject the most basic truths about the human species, and the rest of evolution while believing in a God who once commanded genocide but now won't allow the abortion of foetuses in the uteruses of low IQ young crack heads.

    Indeed I don't think the citizens of the one remaining superpower had a clue about how much baggage they were dragging around and further accumulating in the public sector of little investment but growing extravagant entitlements and.... oh, don't get me started on health care, prisons etc...

    oh, don’t get me started on health care, prisons etc…

    If it’s anything like the above incoherent ramble, Please spare us that.Thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. KA says:

    http://www.lobelog.com/lindsey-graham-falsely-blames-iran-for-911-attacks/

    New findings have confirmed Iran behind 911.
    Mr Graham. I thought it was either Pakistan or Russia.
    Could we bomb both ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. @War for Blair Mountain
    No passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act...a National Origins Immigration Policy that excluded all Muslims...deport all Muslims=o probability of 9/11 occurring...and all the other aforementioned terrorist attacks on US soil.

    The interesting thing is that before the 1990s, the number of terrorist attacks within the US committed by Muslims were vastly outnumbered by those committed by Puerto Ricans, Jews, Armenians and even Croats. Even if you look at the attacks overseas, until we started meddling in Lebanon, Americans were more likely to be targeted by various Communist groups than by Muslims.
    Reagan sending troops to Lebanon was the worst mistake of his tenure in office. That mistake in support of the terrorists in Tel Aviv opened the flood gates of Muslim attacks against the US. The idiotic first Gulf War did even more to inflame the Muslims

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mudhole
    The only authentic Muslim terrorist attack in the US that I am aware of is the attack by one Major Hassan at Fort Hood. IIRC all the other ones are

    1. FBI entrapment schemes. The classic example, although it involved non muslims, was the plot by seven homeless Haitians to blow up the Sears tower. thanks, FBI!

    2. False Flags- such as the 1st and second WTC attacks.

    3. Hoaxes, like the Boston Marathon Bombing Hoax, or the 'Terror in Tennessee' hoax.

    There are undoubtedly some other, minor, authentic attacks, I just can't recall any at this time.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    9/11 was the outcome of Democratic-Republican foreign policy and immigration policy.

    However, Republican-Democratic foreign policy notwithstanding...9/11 was completely avoidable:NO MUSLIMS IN AMERICA!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Pat Casey says:
    @Bill Jones
    The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this- and if you don't believe it you are a conspiracy theorist.

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

    Unfazed by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

    …Meanwhile down in Washington...

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

    ...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

    ...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandanna...

    ...Further south in Florida...

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

    ...In New York...

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports...

    Well done, that was hilarious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Mudhole says:
    @Chris Mallory
    The interesting thing is that before the 1990s, the number of terrorist attacks within the US committed by Muslims were vastly outnumbered by those committed by Puerto Ricans, Jews, Armenians and even Croats. Even if you look at the attacks overseas, until we started meddling in Lebanon, Americans were more likely to be targeted by various Communist groups than by Muslims.
    Reagan sending troops to Lebanon was the worst mistake of his tenure in office. That mistake in support of the terrorists in Tel Aviv opened the flood gates of Muslim attacks against the US. The idiotic first Gulf War did even more to inflame the Muslims

    The only authentic Muslim terrorist attack in the US that I am aware of is the attack by one Major Hassan at Fort Hood. IIRC all the other ones are

    1. FBI entrapment schemes. The classic example, although it involved non muslims, was the plot by seven homeless Haitians to blow up the Sears tower. thanks, FBI!

    2. False Flags- such as the 1st and second WTC attacks.

    3. Hoaxes, like the Boston Marathon Bombing Hoax, or the ‘Terror in Tennessee’ hoax.

    There are undoubtedly some other, minor, authentic attacks, I just can’t recall any at this time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. guest says:
    @Rurik
    Hey JR,

    One of the first posts I made when I stumbled upon this site was to the 'wizard' when he asked for proof that 911 was an inside job. I told him that the BBC advance knowledge of building seven plopping into its basement on that day and reporting it before it happened was proof of complicity of the crime. Since it would have been impossible to know building seven was going to plop down unless they had been told by someone who knew, and the only ones who could have known were the ones who had wired it for demolition.

    The poor wizard became bereft and gibbered things. He tossed a couple slurs in my direction and then huffed away. ; )

    Why would anyone in the know tell the BBC, or anyone for that matter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hello guest,

    Why would anyone in the know tell the BBC, or anyone for that matter?
     
    Oh this is very critical. Absolutely, fundamentally, manifestly critical.

    The media is the most important element there is to selling and getting away with this crime- and all the other crimes of our government and assorted atrocities they commit. You have to have them on board or you're lost. You have to, in fact own them absolutely.

    I don't know how old you are, I was recently talking to an intelligent fellow in his late twenties who had never heard of a town called Waco, TX. Well anyways back in the nineties, when Bill Clinton was president, our government committed an assault upon a Christian compound of some of the most amenable and least objectionable people you will find anywhere. They committed no crimes against anyone and were known by everyone as being very friendly and kind and helpful in everyway. But, the spiritual leader was known to have a penchant for guns and even liked to go the local shooting range and target practice with the local law enforcement and including the ATF. So the ATF got word that he has a few guns that were in violation of some of their statutes. So they got the idea that they would plan a raid on the compound. They even arranged for TV camera crews to film their 'heroics'. If you didn't hear about it, you can guess what happened. The ATF stormed the place, guns blazing, and soon the terrorized Christians shot back. People were killed on both sides. Immediately the government started telling lies about what had happened, and now (finally ; ) I get to my point.. The media repeated the government's lies, verbatim. This was a tragic loss of life because some yahoo cowboys wanted to play tough guys on some devout Christians including old men, women and children. And when it went wrong, all we heard from the media was that this was some kind of dangerous group of right-wingers (lies) and that they had committed murderous aggressions against government agents (all lies) and that we should have no sympathy whatsoever for these people because the leader of the 'cult' was molesting the children. (again, all lies).

    Soon it became a stand off and was a media circus for a month or two. When our government lost patience with this plucky group of true believers (they became convinced that our government was 'Babylon' and were murdering them because they were righteous believers in God). Anyways Bill Clinton and his gorgon Janet Reno, and with the help of the FBI and Delta Force sent in tanks that ripped holes in the church and they injected flammable gas canisters and the place when up in flames. There were snipers with machine guns positioned to shoot at anyone who tried to get out of the burning building (they wanted them all to burn alive).

    And burn alive they did. Scores of innocent people and dozens of children all died in the most horrible way imaginable. The children were more or less cooked alive as they were huddled in the center of the church in some concrete like structure.

    >>warning<<

    http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/5385/images/kids(1).jpg

    https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.VHW6TylnNWPLPoVXBP2SEg&pid=1.1

    there's plenty more but I don't want to seem sensational

    So anyways these people were mass murdered by our government and then what happened is the avalance of lies. 'They killed themselves!' 'They were wackos'! (we heard that one relentlessly). It was all David Koresh's fault'!! (the leader). "we didn't use flammable canisters'!!!!!!! 'We didn't have snipers positioned' 'We didn't fire the first shots"

    Endless, endless lies after lies after lies. And of course the point here is that the media repeated all the lies with absolute complicity. There was ZERO investigative reporting from the MSM. ZERO. They just took their marching orders directly from the government and repeated the lies ad nauseam. Eventually it came out that the FBI had lied about using flammable gas canisters and many other lies all came out and the gorgon Reno even apologized for all the lies and said she was appalled or some such rot. But they got away with it. These lying, treasonous, murderous scum attacked and terrorized and eventually burned these otherwise good Americans to death, because they didn't lay down and submit to the power and will of our fecal government. And the media were fully complicit with the crime from beginning to cover up. They even prosecuted the survivors of their holocaust ..

    http://www.southcarolinaliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/BATF-Waco.jpg

    .. as somehow having done something wrong, like not dying in the fireball like they were supposed to.

    And today the y0ung don't even know this all happened, and the First Bitch at the time even wants to get back in the White House. Because the media control the narrative. The media create and maintain the matrix of lies and false reality that we're all marinated in, you and I and all of us here. We can't escape it. It pervades and corrodes all of our lives with its ubiquitous lies and agenda driven role to play in our upside-down times we live in today - where we American's are forced to be the murderous Nazi fiends on the world's stage. Our soldiers are the orcs visiting death and misery and horrors on a terrorized planet while the CIA terrorizes with arbitrary death from the sky. It's so surreal I can't even comprehend the evil of it all.

    So, as unprecedented crimes like 911 are covered up, as war crimes like Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and elsewhere are sold and foisted and lied about. As our government tortures and assassinates American citizens without due process, as they spy on our every word and claim the right to rendition any American they want to an offshore torture site, for reasons of 'national security", .. as the drones bomb weddings and police shoot citizens willy-nilly, it is the media that is the critical piece of the Orwellian puzzle. Like Winston Smith, they're plugging away. Making the truth disappear and replacing it with agenda driven lies and half-truths and stories about a man on dialysis that makes steel buildings plop into their basements at free-fall speed and telling us all we need to give up our rights and our dignity to be kept safe. When the whole time they know who it is that we really need to be kept safe from; the demonic fiends who burn children alive, who plot schemes to slaughter their own citizens as a pretext to destroying country after country and mass murdering and maiming and displacing millions upon millions of innocent people all over the world.

    That my friend is what they've been up to and they could not have made one inch of their demonic progress of terrorizing this planet without the utter and absolute and eager complicity of the entire main-stream media. That's why it all had to be consolidated (mostly under Clinton) so that only a very few men would own 95% of all the media that we see on TV or in the "news" or on the Internet and everywhere else.

    So it's us against them, and let the truth prevail! : )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. I have to laugh at at the article and the comments … Englehardt spews out an everything that is gone wrong since 9/11 rant while in actuality upholding (even if we don’t know what really happened on 9/11 we DO know the government has egregiously lied to us) the official line.

    Nothing quite like CIA liaised Ford Foundation money speaking to the ‘facts’, eh?

    Then we have a troll versus troll argument, sticks to the ‘official line’ WoO butting heads with ‘inside job’ obsessed Revusky, all serving to bury the one thing that is indisputable, no matter what actually HAD happened on 9/11, we have been lied to.

    What a circle jerk.

    ^ What’s wrong with the 9/11 narrative in 5 minutes

    Or you can try this one:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/12/1617/

    ^ Fear of minor debris

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    butting heads with ‘inside job’ obsessed Revusky, all serving to bury the one thing that is indisputable, no matter what actually HAD happened on 9/11, we have been lied to.
     
    how is pointing out the truth that 911 was an inside job - burying the truth?

    Yes, of course we were lied to. Duh.

    Now what, just leave it at that? That we were lied to?

    How about discovering who did this monstrous crime and see them brought to justice?

    How about stop bombing and murdering and destroying the countries of innocent people who had nothing whatsoever to do with 911?

    How about rolling back the treasonous infringements on our God-given liberties? - by the very same murderous scum who committed the crime in the first place ~ ZOG?

    We may not all agree on everything and we may have big and intractable personality differences and experiences and perspectives, sure. That's all human. But when it comes to this singular and unprecedented crime of 911, with all that it means and has meant, that completely transforms the trajectory for the 21 century, and sets in place the manor in which the fiends plan to make this century even more horrific than the last one, can't we at least agree that those men- the men who perpetrated 911, should be exposed and neutralized? Before the drone are flying above this country too?

    This is the thing. It's just like with the financial uber-crimes. When they're never held to account, they will always do it again. And since there is only tepid interest in finding out who actually perpetrated 911, and people are willing to simply live with trite bromides like 'we were lied to', then what's being done is we're setting the stage for the next 911, by being so bovine about the last one. We need to stop being bovine, cud-chewing, apathetic and identity-politics obsessed cattle, and start being men (and women). And that means holding to account the treasonous scum who murdered our own- and are attempting to enslave us and subdue us more surly than the sun comes up in the east ..

    regardless of whether or not we agree on other, less momentous issues.

    That is, in my humble opinion anyways
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I don't think you are characterising me as a troll but I am almost as puzzled by your suggestion that I am upholding the official line. How so? What is the official line that you implicitly say has holes in it and why do you say I support the flawed story?

    I have chosen your relatively calm take on the 9/11 controversies as the place to add something of substance because you say that the public has been lied to, presumably by some government people who know the truth though you haven't as far as I have read given an explanation for lying. People don't say things they know to be untrue without a reason in my experience so it does seem like a live issue where careful analysis might be rewarding.

    It does appear that NIST and the Port of New York Authority obstructed a conscientious attempt by a UK-Canadian documentary consortium to get the facts right. That comes from the end of "The Missing Evidence" doco I have just seen on Australia's SBS TV almost exactly to the hour 14 years after a call from the UK told me I should turn on my TV and watch what was happening in New York. You can agree with me I trust that it leads to madness to follow the person calling himself Jonathan Revusky even into consideration of the possibility that planes didn't fly into the Twin Towers at all!?!

    Here is my summary of what I got from the doco plus other material absorbed over the years.

    The doubts over the official report arose because it didn't follow through with any detail of what happened after the planes ploughed in to the towers but took it as obvious that the damage done led to the collapses.

    So it left open opinions that the the steel framework with its sprayed on asbestos or other insulating material couldn't have heated up enough in the time before collapse to cause the weakening and collapse. It was shown that it could have taken 10 hours with the insulation but only 30 minutes without to get the steel to the critical heat but a more convincing answer then followed. It was one that explained as well the widely reported sounds of explosions.

    Both a ?nuclear chemist Dr Frank Greening and a Norwegian metallurgist Christian ? came up with the same answer. That is the explosion of the shredded aluminium from the aircrafts' fuselages and wings.

    About 30 tons of it in each plane translates in each case to the explosive potential of 90 tons of TNT! (No I didn't know that either). What it takes to cause the explosion is molten aluminium at 600 degrees Celsius or thereabouts (the higher the more explosive) plus water though the prevalent gypsum plaster and concrete inter alia would contribute to the explosive mixture if the temperature was right.

    What about the water? No problem:the 30,000 gallons for the buildings sprinkler systems were soon creating large puddles and molten aluminium was flowing down inside and outside the building.

    But NIST apparently kept on saying to The Missing Evidence team inconsistently with its own report that (a) the aircraft had disintegrated (ie. not shredded as would appear to be the obvious result of hitting steel uprights) and (b) the aluminium wouldn't have done much flowing but quickly solidified.

    The evidence to contradict (b) was there for all to see in the video of one of the towers just before collapse. Molten metal was pouring down the side of the building from where tge plane had hit. And it was exactly the right colour to be aluminium at 1000 degrees rather than a mere 600. So much for it solidifying.

    As I mentioned the program makers couldn't get access to the material which might have proved their thesis conclusively by its containing aluminium residues but it was hard to come away without the strong impression that they had completed the technical explanation.

    So where would the lies be? And why would there be lies strictu sensu?

    More important where does that leave the conspiracy theorists? Of course they want so much to believe that there was an even more sinister conspiracy than Al Qaeda's that they will go on with all their made up facts and expertise about the third building. It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately. *There has to be plausible motive to make any crime story stick*. The extra building would just weaken the intended effect for the hypothetical conspirators compared with relying on planes visibly hitting the twin towers.

    Another item from this evening's viewing. Mohammed Atta's luggage arrived too late for loading on the flight out of Logan so his diary etc didn't get destroyed as no doubt intended. All fabricated by one of the CIA's underemployed Arab speakers?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. KA says:

    FALSE FLAG.?

    “Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents’ house in US state of Florida, is accused of posing online as “Australi Witness,” an IS supporter who publicly called for a series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.

    An affidavit sworn at the time of the arrest says that, between August 19 and August 28, Mr Goldberg “distributed information pertaining to the manufacturing of explosives, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence”.

    US Attorney Lee Bentley III, said Goldberg instructed a confidential source how to make a bomb similar to two used in the Boston Marathon bombings two years ago that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

    “Goldberg further admitted that he believed the information would create a genuine bomb,” Agent Berry alleged.

    In the leadup to an exhibition in Garland, Texas, at which pictures of the Prophet Mohammed were to be displayed, “Australi Witness” tweeted the event’s address and reposted a tweet urging people to go there with “weapons, bombs or with knifes”.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-is-jihadist-is-actually-an-jewish-american-troll-20150911-gjk852.html#ixzz3lQ8fY9YK
    Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. For those who might just want to touch base with current developments there is the fact that bone fragments of first responders were found on the roofs of some of the buildings near the WTC complex.

    So here is the problem.

    The first responders entered the buildings AFTER the planes hit and the ensuing explosions. This means that they were blown to pieces DURING the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2.

    A straight down gravitational collapse can’t account for this. They would have been crushed but not disintegrated and their bones scattered.

    The physical evidence is compelling if you look at it closely.

    For the most likely political backstories you need to turn to art not physics. Look at the TV Series called Rubicon. It used to be streamed as part of Amazon Prime, now you can’t even pay to stream it.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1389371/

    http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/596-wtc-bone-fragments-still-surface-a-decade-after-911.html

    Also worth mentioning is the pilot episode of the Lone Gunmen which aired several months prior to 9/11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @Sojourner Truth
    Too true, but all that is of no import, Tom. We have Gay Marriage, and because of that, we can look in the mirror with a mixture of pride and vanity, see ourselves as exceptionally progressive, everyone else backward.

    We have Gay Marriage, and because of that, we can look in the mirror with a mixture of pride and vanity, see ourselves as exceptionally progressive, everyone else backward.

    Don’t sell yourself short.

    You’ve got a lot to celebrate in queer pride parades.

    Here’s some of the other major queer accomplishments:

    1. Queer sodomy protected as a federal civil right
    2. Elective abortion on demand protected as a federal civil right
    3. Pornography protected as a federal civil right
    4. Federal hate speech prosecution for protected classes, including queers
    5. Queer education in public schools
    6. Taxpayer subsidized AIDS and HIV medical treatments for queers
    7. Federally sponsored AIDS hysteria at http://www.AIDS.gov
    8. Federal anti-discrimination laws for queers
    9. Government war mongering and propaganda to impose queer diversity on foreign nations
    10. Queer transsexual surgery and treatments subsidized by taxpayers
    11. National health insurance with mandatory coverage for queer STD and disabilities and surgeries.
    12. Queerism promoted in military affairs
    13. Federal sponsored queer marriage licenses for licentiousness
    14. Queer promiscuity protected as freedom

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Jonathan Revusky

    ...whoever did 9/11 wanted the US destroyed.
     
    That's nonsense. 9/11 was, above all, a psychological operation, a psy-op. The purpose, broadly speaking, is to alter mass psychology in a way that would further or facilitate their agenda.

    In other words, the people behind this judged, probably quite correctly, that all these wars they wanted to start would not be politically possible without some such event that would induce a mindless war hysteria. As the PNAC document said, "Pearl Harbor-like event..."

    This is really all quite plain to see -- unless you are emotionally incapable of it, that is...

    The United States is held together by the Federal Government. Destroying faith in the Federal Government destroys American unity i.e. the very thing that makes the US exceptional.

    You don’t need the Patriot Act to go after terrorists. You need the Patriot Act to go after patriots.

    TPP is another assault on American sovereignty. Mass immigration is another. Hollowing out the economy is another. The assault on the Media. The assault on the Bill of Rights.

    Someone is definitely trying to destroy the US in order to make way for something else. The questions are who and why.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Bair Montain"] says:
    @Chris Mallory
    The interesting thing is that before the 1990s, the number of terrorist attacks within the US committed by Muslims were vastly outnumbered by those committed by Puerto Ricans, Jews, Armenians and even Croats. Even if you look at the attacks overseas, until we started meddling in Lebanon, Americans were more likely to be targeted by various Communist groups than by Muslims.
    Reagan sending troops to Lebanon was the worst mistake of his tenure in office. That mistake in support of the terrorists in Tel Aviv opened the flood gates of Muslim attacks against the US. The idiotic first Gulf War did even more to inflame the Muslims

    9/11 was the outcome of Democratic-Republican foreign policy and immigration policy.

    However, Republican-Democratic foreign policy notwithstanding…9/11 was completely avoidable:NO MUSLIMS IN AMERICA!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Rurik says:
    @guest
    Why would anyone in the know tell the BBC, or anyone for that matter?

    Hello guest,

    Why would anyone in the know tell the BBC, or anyone for that matter?

    Oh this is very critical. Absolutely, fundamentally, manifestly critical.

    The media is the most important element there is to selling and getting away with this crime- and all the other crimes of our government and assorted atrocities they commit. You have to have them on board or you’re lost. You have to, in fact own them absolutely.

    I don’t know how old you are, I was recently talking to an intelligent fellow in his late twenties who had never heard of a town called Waco, TX. Well anyways back in the nineties, when Bill Clinton was president, our government committed an assault upon a Christian compound of some of the most amenable and least objectionable people you will find anywhere. They committed no crimes against anyone and were known by everyone as being very friendly and kind and helpful in everyway. But, the spiritual leader was known to have a penchant for guns and even liked to go the local shooting range and target practice with the local law enforcement and including the ATF. So the ATF got word that he has a few guns that were in violation of some of their statutes. So they got the idea that they would plan a raid on the compound. They even arranged for TV camera crews to film their ‘heroics’. If you didn’t hear about it, you can guess what happened. The ATF stormed the place, guns blazing, and soon the terrorized Christians shot back. People were killed on both sides. Immediately the government started telling lies about what had happened, and now (finally ; ) I get to my point.. The media repeated the government’s lies, verbatim. This was a tragic loss of life because some yahoo cowboys wanted to play tough guys on some devout Christians including old men, women and children. And when it went wrong, all we heard from the media was that this was some kind of dangerous group of right-wingers (lies) and that they had committed murderous aggressions against government agents (all lies) and that we should have no sympathy whatsoever for these people because the leader of the ‘cult’ was molesting the children. (again, all lies).

    Soon it became a stand off and was a media circus for a month or two. When our government lost patience with this plucky group of true believers (they became convinced that our government was ‘Babylon’ and were murdering them because they were righteous believers in God). Anyways Bill Clinton and his gorgon Janet Reno, and with the help of the FBI and Delta Force sent in tanks that ripped holes in the church and they injected flammable gas canisters and the place when up in flames. There were snipers with machine guns positioned to shoot at anyone who tried to get out of the burning building (they wanted them all to burn alive).

    And burn alive they did. Scores of innocent people and dozens of children all died in the most horrible way imaginable. The children were more or less cooked alive as they were huddled in the center of the church in some concrete like structure.

    >>warning<<

    https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.VHW6TylnNWPLPoVXBP2SEg&pid=1.1

    there's plenty more but I don't want to seem sensational

    So anyways these people were mass murdered by our government and then what happened is the avalance of lies. 'They killed themselves!' 'They were wackos'! (we heard that one relentlessly). It was all David Koresh's fault'!! (the leader). "we didn't use flammable canisters'!!!!!!! 'We didn't have snipers positioned' 'We didn't fire the first shots"

    Endless, endless lies after lies after lies. And of course the point here is that the media repeated all the lies with absolute complicity. There was ZERO investigative reporting from the MSM. ZERO. They just took their marching orders directly from the government and repeated the lies ad nauseam. Eventually it came out that the FBI had lied about using flammable gas canisters and many other lies all came out and the gorgon Reno even apologized for all the lies and said she was appalled or some such rot. But they got away with it. These lying, treasonous, murderous scum attacked and terrorized and eventually burned these otherwise good Americans to death, because they didn't lay down and submit to the power and will of our fecal government. And the media were fully complicit with the crime from beginning to cover up. They even prosecuted the survivors of their holocaust ..

    .. as somehow having done something wrong, like not dying in the fireball like they were supposed to.

    And today the y0ung don't even know this all happened, and the First Bitch at the time even wants to get back in the White House. Because the media control the narrative. The media create and maintain the matrix of lies and false reality that we're all marinated in, you and I and all of us here. We can't escape it. It pervades and corrodes all of our lives with its ubiquitous lies and agenda driven role to play in our upside-down times we live in today – where we American's are forced to be the murderous Nazi fiends on the world's stage. Our soldiers are the orcs visiting death and misery and horrors on a terrorized planet while the CIA terrorizes with arbitrary death from the sky. It's so surreal I can't even comprehend the evil of it all.

    So, as unprecedented crimes like 911 are covered up, as war crimes like Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and elsewhere are sold and foisted and lied about. As our government tortures and assassinates American citizens without due process, as they spy on our every word and claim the right to rendition any American they want to an offshore torture site, for reasons of 'national security", .. as the drones bomb weddings and police shoot citizens willy-nilly, it is the media that is the critical piece of the Orwellian puzzle. Like Winston Smith, they're plugging away. Making the truth disappear and replacing it with agenda driven lies and half-truths and stories about a man on dialysis that makes steel buildings plop into their basements at free-fall speed and telling us all we need to give up our rights and our dignity to be kept safe. When the whole time they know who it is that we really need to be kept safe from; the demonic fiends who burn children alive, who plot schemes to slaughter their own citizens as a pretext to destroying country after country and mass murdering and maiming and displacing millions upon millions of innocent people all over the world.

    That my friend is what they've been up to and they could not have made one inch of their demonic progress of terrorizing this planet without the utter and absolute and eager complicity of the entire main-stream media. That's why it all had to be consolidated (mostly under Clinton) so that only a very few men would own 95% of all the media that we see on TV or in the "news" or on the Internet and everywhere else.

    So it's us against them, and let the truth prevail! : )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Rurik, I agree with you. Mostly... Yes, definitely one of the key takeaways about the 9/11 attacks, once you analyse it seriously, is that the people behind this had to believe that they had a pretty strong degree of control over the mainstream media message -- actually, not just in the U.S. but in other western countries. (And who would that be, I wonder...) Like, the event happens and they're all telling us what happened with no investigation, no serious evidence offered. And anybody who suggested any other explanation was immediately a "conspiracy theorist".

    The very day of the attacks, they started going on and on about Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda". Obviously, all the talking heads screaming "Bin Laden, Bin Laden" right on the very day of the attacks were more or less reading a script that had been handed to them.

    That said, where I would take issue with what you say is that I still don't quite believe that the criminals have complete control over the institutions in question. It's more like they have key assets, moles, in there, who do work for them, yes. And it's enough to largely control the media message.

    You see something similar when you study other deep state operations, like the Kennedy assassination. There, you can see that surely the criminals behind the hit had assets within the Dallas Police Department. For example, somebody in the Dallas P.D. must have arranged the situation where Jack Ruby was able to kill Oswald. Otherwise, how could Jack Ruby even know where and when he would have that window of opportunity to do it? What I seriously doubt, however, is that the entire Dallas P.D. was "controlled" by the criminal conspirators, in the sense that all the Dallas cops were working for them or anything like that. And, in fact, you can see that they didn't have complete control over events. For example, the intention was for Oswald to be killed, not taken into custody, but he was taken alive and then they had to formulate a desperate plan B, which was this Jack Ruby killing Oswald.

    Ditto for the killing of Martin Luther King in Memphis. I'm sure the criminals had assets within the Memphis Police Department who were part of the conspiracy. But again, most of the Memphis city cops were not in on it, I'm pretty sure. Heck, even if you do figure that a lot of those white southern cops didn't like King and didn't like black folks too much, my sense would be that most of them would not willingly be party to the man's murder.

    I guess what all this gets at is that you have this "debunker" talking point where they claim that none of these "conspiracies" are possible because too many people would have to stay quiet for the conspiracy to work. i.e.

    "Somebody woulda talked..."

    Yeah, I guess that would be true, for example, if the entire Dallas P.D. or the entire Memphis P.D. was in on the respective conspiracies, but they almost certainly weren't. The criminals had moles there and I would say their control over the mainstream media is kind of similar. They have a lot of control but it is not total... you know, people go on with these all-or-none fallacies, and say stuff like "If the media is controlled, how come X and Y were actually reported on?" Well, it's not an "all or none" type deal. The criminal networks exert a large degree of control over the message but it's not total. That's where my thinking leads me on this, anyway.

    But getting back to 9/11, you have this Jane Standley woman who reported building 7 before it imploded -- now, I'm not 100% sure, but I seriously doubt that woman was really part of the conspiracy or anything. She was just one of these talking heads there on the BBC, not even necessarily extremely bright or anything. She was reading a script handed to her, pretty obviously. The problem is that the moles there in the organization who were supposed to control the narrative somehow screwed up and the poor woman was there announcing the collapse of a building that was clearly standing there right behind her. Major league FUBAR. (LOL.)

    What I think happened (again, not 100% sure) is that the criminals wanted to create some "foreshadowing" or "prepare the terrain" somewhat to make it seem somehow normal (or at least less extraordinary) that this building would just collapse. So it should have been something like "people report massive damage to building 7 and blah blah" so as to plant in people' s minds the idea that it was somehow to be expected for this steel-framed building to just collapse.

    But somehow they f'ed up -- or their moles within the BBC messed up -- and it ended up being that the BBC reported the collapse before it happened. The other networks probably just reported "the building has sustained massive damage blah blah" but somehow Jane Stanley on the BBC said it had already collapsed. I think it must have been something like that. I don't think that woman was in on any conspiracy. So when people accuse her of it and she answers indignantly, the indignation is actually honest. Probably.

    Also, a lot of the control that the criminals exert over the MSM message is not explicit really, as far as I can see. Like, somehow, throughout a huge part of the society -- not just media, but academia, government... -- it is just tacitly understood that if you express doubts about this story, you will... pay the price.. there doesn't even seem to be a need to sit people down, cosa nostra style, and put it to them. It's just somehow tacitly understood that if you express any doubt about these stories, that will be tantamount to destroying your career.

    And that's enough. So most people just won't go there. Like look at Philip Giraldi there, he says that "the truth movement makes some good points" maybe kind of to wink at us and let us know that he knows, but then you ask him what those "good points" are and it's the deafening silence...

    What I have been wondering just lately, seeing just how great the preponderance of pro-9/11 truth the comments here are, is whether there really is a tipping point being reached...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    I have to laugh at at the article and the comments ... Englehardt spews out an everything that is gone wrong since 9/11 rant while in actuality upholding (even if we don't know what really happened on 9/11 we DO know the government has egregiously lied to us) the official line.

    Nothing quite like CIA liaised Ford Foundation money speaking to the 'facts', eh?

    Then we have a troll versus troll argument, sticks to the 'official line' WoO butting heads with 'inside job' obsessed Revusky, all serving to bury the one thing that is indisputable, no matter what actually HAD happened on 9/11, we have been lied to.

    What a circle jerk.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=WFzOtvv7Pyk

    ^ What's wrong with the 9/11 narrative in 5 minutes

    Or you can try this one:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/12/1617/

    ^ Fear of minor debris

    butting heads with ‘inside job’ obsessed Revusky, all serving to bury the one thing that is indisputable, no matter what actually HAD happened on 9/11, we have been lied to.

    how is pointing out the truth that 911 was an inside job – burying the truth?

    Yes, of course we were lied to. Duh.

    Now what, just leave it at that? That we were lied to?

    How about discovering who did this monstrous crime and see them brought to justice?

    How about stop bombing and murdering and destroying the countries of innocent people who had nothing whatsoever to do with 911?

    How about rolling back the treasonous infringements on our God-given liberties? – by the very same murderous scum who committed the crime in the first place ~ ZOG?

    We may not all agree on everything and we may have big and intractable personality differences and experiences and perspectives, sure. That’s all human. But when it comes to this singular and unprecedented crime of 911, with all that it means and has meant, that completely transforms the trajectory for the 21 century, and sets in place the manor in which the fiends plan to make this century even more horrific than the last one, can’t we at least agree that those men- the men who perpetrated 911, should be exposed and neutralized? Before the drone are flying above this country too?

    This is the thing. It’s just like with the financial uber-crimes. When they’re never held to account, they will always do it again. And since there is only tepid interest in finding out who actually perpetrated 911, and people are willing to simply live with trite bromides like ‘we were lied to’, then what’s being done is we’re setting the stage for the next 911, by being so bovine about the last one. We need to stop being bovine, cud-chewing, apathetic and identity-politics obsessed cattle, and start being men (and women). And that means holding to account the treasonous scum who murdered our own- and are attempting to enslave us and subdue us more surly than the sun comes up in the east ..

    regardless of whether or not we agree on other, less momentous issues.

    That is, in my humble opinion anyways

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Architects and Engineers and 9/11 Truth is a crackpot organization. If you believe 9/11 Truther Tard nonsense…the vast majority of NIST Engineers and Scientists are in on the Prescott Bush Family Conspiracy to murder three thousand people on 9/11….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    office fires eh?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU#t=13

    anyone who purports to believe this steel frame building fell into its basement because of office fires is either a shill and a liar, or a fool of such ecclesiastical magnitude as to stagger the very senses
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Ronald Thomas West
    I have to laugh at at the article and the comments ... Englehardt spews out an everything that is gone wrong since 9/11 rant while in actuality upholding (even if we don't know what really happened on 9/11 we DO know the government has egregiously lied to us) the official line.

    Nothing quite like CIA liaised Ford Foundation money speaking to the 'facts', eh?

    Then we have a troll versus troll argument, sticks to the 'official line' WoO butting heads with 'inside job' obsessed Revusky, all serving to bury the one thing that is indisputable, no matter what actually HAD happened on 9/11, we have been lied to.

    What a circle jerk.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=WFzOtvv7Pyk

    ^ What's wrong with the 9/11 narrative in 5 minutes

    Or you can try this one:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/12/1617/

    ^ Fear of minor debris

    I don’t think you are characterising me as a troll but I am almost as puzzled by your suggestion that I am upholding the official line. How so? What is the official line that you implicitly say has holes in it and why do you say I support the flawed story?

    I have chosen your relatively calm take on the 9/11 controversies as the place to add something of substance because you say that the public has been lied to, presumably by some government people who know the truth though you haven’t as far as I have read given an explanation for lying. People don’t say things they know to be untrue without a reason in my experience so it does seem like a live issue where careful analysis might be rewarding.

    It does appear that NIST and the Port of New York Authority obstructed a conscientious attempt by a UK-Canadian documentary consortium to get the facts right. That comes from the end of “The Missing Evidence” doco I have just seen on Australia’s SBS TV almost exactly to the hour 14 years after a call from the UK told me I should turn on my TV and watch what was happening in New York. You can agree with me I trust that it leads to madness to follow the person calling himself Jonathan Revusky even into consideration of the possibility that planes didn’t fly into the Twin Towers at all!?!

    Here is my summary of what I got from the doco plus other material absorbed over the years.

    The doubts over the official report arose because it didn’t follow through with any detail of what happened after the planes ploughed in to the towers but took it as obvious that the damage done led to the collapses.

    So it left open opinions that the the steel framework with its sprayed on asbestos or other insulating material couldn’t have heated up enough in the time before collapse to cause the weakening and collapse. It was shown that it could have taken 10 hours with the insulation but only 30 minutes without to get the steel to the critical heat but a more convincing answer then followed. It was one that explained as well the widely reported sounds of explosions.

    Both a ?nuclear chemist Dr Frank Greening and a Norwegian metallurgist Christian ? came up with the same answer. That is the explosion of the shredded aluminium from the aircrafts’ fuselages and wings.

    About 30 tons of it in each plane translates in each case to the explosive potential of 90 tons of TNT! (No I didn’t know that either). What it takes to cause the explosion is molten aluminium at 600 degrees Celsius or thereabouts (the higher the more explosive) plus water though the prevalent gypsum plaster and concrete inter alia would contribute to the explosive mixture if the temperature was right.

    What about the water? No problem:the 30,000 gallons for the buildings sprinkler systems were soon creating large puddles and molten aluminium was flowing down inside and outside the building.

    But NIST apparently kept on saying to The Missing Evidence team inconsistently with its own report that (a) the aircraft had disintegrated (ie. not shredded as would appear to be the obvious result of hitting steel uprights) and (b) the aluminium wouldn’t have done much flowing but quickly solidified.

    The evidence to contradict (b) was there for all to see in the video of one of the towers just before collapse. Molten metal was pouring down the side of the building from where tge plane had hit. And it was exactly the right colour to be aluminium at 1000 degrees rather than a mere 600. So much for it solidifying.

    As I mentioned the program makers couldn’t get access to the material which might have proved their thesis conclusively by its containing aluminium residues but it was hard to come away without the strong impression that they had completed the technical explanation.

    So where would the lies be? And why would there be lies strictu sensu?

    More important where does that leave the conspiracy theorists? Of course they want so much to believe that there was an even more sinister conspiracy than Al Qaeda’s that they will go on with all their made up facts and expertise about the third building. It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately. *There has to be plausible motive to make any crime story stick*. The extra building would just weaken the intended effect for the hypothetical conspirators compared with relying on planes visibly hitting the twin towers.

    Another item from this evening’s viewing. Mohammed Atta’s luggage arrived too late for loading on the flight out of Logan so his diary etc didn’t get destroyed as no doubt intended. All fabricated by one of the CIA’s underemployed Arab speakers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately
     
    ^ This is where your entire phony construct falls apart (I would call it an 'alternative mainstream media' lie.) Setting everything else aside, you don't have to provide anything more in relation to 9/11 to know the entire business is suspect other than look to WTC Building 7 and the fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official explanation is an impossibility. Your (above) conclusion demanding motive is entirely lame. Bodies turn up every day in the annals of law enforcement with no reasonable clue as to the killer's motive. That the entire point of investigating for purpose of evidence for prosecution. Body found, subsequent investigation to determine motive is the order.

    And tossing in reply to Rurik's observation, Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal and not only that, he is a pro at engaging disingenuous propaganda technique, truth couldn't have a greater adversary when it comes to turning off reasonable people with his style. That's pretty much his substance. Not to mention his past embrace of glaring fallacies, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been wired for demolition over a period some weeks 'elevator maintenance.'

    Trolls, trollops, all the same when the fact is, all the facts are not in and both sides are obfuscating the reality
    , @Jonathan Revusky
    You have written a huge amount here but I cannot make much sense of it. Earlier, I posed a question in order to bring some focus to the discussion. This question:


    What specifically is, in your opinion, the strongest evidence available that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic on the other side of the world?
     
    Could you please answer this? (I doubt you will, but do feel free to surprise me...)

    Now, regardless, I have to wonder about your common sense reasoning abilities. Take this, for example. You write:

    Another item from this evening’s viewing. Mohammed Atta’s luggage arrived too late for loading on the flight out of Logan so his diary etc didn’t get destroyed as no doubt intended. All fabricated by one of the CIA’s underemployed Arab speakers?

     

    Mohammed Atta's luggage... his checked luggage... Think about that... Really, just think about what you are saying here.... Visualise it...

    Just, imagine this. Imagine you're going to fly a plane into a building. Why on earth would you pack one or more suitcases and schlep them to the airport and queue up there to check them in?

    WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYBODY EVER DO THAT? If you're flying the plane into a building, why would you check in your diary or any other item onto the flight????

    WTF??? Tell me. Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2 packed suitcases before the mission? Like maybe they figured that where they were going they would need a week's worth of clean underwear??!!!

    Aside from this, you claim to have heard this... well... somewhere... like on the mainstream media, I guess. (You don't provide a source, naturally. Details, details, why get caught up in details?)

    But... what precisely is the proof that this bizarre story is even true? It really seems to me that this is a perfect example of the kind of psychotic rupture with reality that people like you evince. You literally don't even think about whether the story makes any sense. And you repeat it. Yeah, it must be true. They said it on the TV... This is the level you operate on seemingly.

    This is part of the reason to keep hammering at you to answer the question and tell us what you think the strongest evidence of the official story is. I'm sure it will be fascinating to see what you think actually constitutes proof or evidence!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Rurik says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Architects and Engineers and 9/11 Truth is a crackpot organization. If you believe 9/11 Truther Tard nonsense...the vast majority of NIST Engineers and Scientists are in on the Prescott Bush Family Conspiracy to murder three thousand people on 9/11....

    office fires eh?

    anyone who purports to believe this steel frame building fell into its basement because of office fires is either a shill and a liar, or a fool of such ecclesiastical magnitude as to stagger the very senses

    Read More
    • Agree: Biff
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Wizard of Oz
    I don't think you are characterising me as a troll but I am almost as puzzled by your suggestion that I am upholding the official line. How so? What is the official line that you implicitly say has holes in it and why do you say I support the flawed story?

    I have chosen your relatively calm take on the 9/11 controversies as the place to add something of substance because you say that the public has been lied to, presumably by some government people who know the truth though you haven't as far as I have read given an explanation for lying. People don't say things they know to be untrue without a reason in my experience so it does seem like a live issue where careful analysis might be rewarding.

    It does appear that NIST and the Port of New York Authority obstructed a conscientious attempt by a UK-Canadian documentary consortium to get the facts right. That comes from the end of "The Missing Evidence" doco I have just seen on Australia's SBS TV almost exactly to the hour 14 years after a call from the UK told me I should turn on my TV and watch what was happening in New York. You can agree with me I trust that it leads to madness to follow the person calling himself Jonathan Revusky even into consideration of the possibility that planes didn't fly into the Twin Towers at all!?!

    Here is my summary of what I got from the doco plus other material absorbed over the years.

    The doubts over the official report arose because it didn't follow through with any detail of what happened after the planes ploughed in to the towers but took it as obvious that the damage done led to the collapses.

    So it left open opinions that the the steel framework with its sprayed on asbestos or other insulating material couldn't have heated up enough in the time before collapse to cause the weakening and collapse. It was shown that it could have taken 10 hours with the insulation but only 30 minutes without to get the steel to the critical heat but a more convincing answer then followed. It was one that explained as well the widely reported sounds of explosions.

    Both a ?nuclear chemist Dr Frank Greening and a Norwegian metallurgist Christian ? came up with the same answer. That is the explosion of the shredded aluminium from the aircrafts' fuselages and wings.

    About 30 tons of it in each plane translates in each case to the explosive potential of 90 tons of TNT! (No I didn't know that either). What it takes to cause the explosion is molten aluminium at 600 degrees Celsius or thereabouts (the higher the more explosive) plus water though the prevalent gypsum plaster and concrete inter alia would contribute to the explosive mixture if the temperature was right.

    What about the water? No problem:the 30,000 gallons for the buildings sprinkler systems were soon creating large puddles and molten aluminium was flowing down inside and outside the building.

    But NIST apparently kept on saying to The Missing Evidence team inconsistently with its own report that (a) the aircraft had disintegrated (ie. not shredded as would appear to be the obvious result of hitting steel uprights) and (b) the aluminium wouldn't have done much flowing but quickly solidified.

    The evidence to contradict (b) was there for all to see in the video of one of the towers just before collapse. Molten metal was pouring down the side of the building from where tge plane had hit. And it was exactly the right colour to be aluminium at 1000 degrees rather than a mere 600. So much for it solidifying.

    As I mentioned the program makers couldn't get access to the material which might have proved their thesis conclusively by its containing aluminium residues but it was hard to come away without the strong impression that they had completed the technical explanation.

    So where would the lies be? And why would there be lies strictu sensu?

    More important where does that leave the conspiracy theorists? Of course they want so much to believe that there was an even more sinister conspiracy than Al Qaeda's that they will go on with all their made up facts and expertise about the third building. It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately. *There has to be plausible motive to make any crime story stick*. The extra building would just weaken the intended effect for the hypothetical conspirators compared with relying on planes visibly hitting the twin towers.

    Another item from this evening's viewing. Mohammed Atta's luggage arrived too late for loading on the flight out of Logan so his diary etc didn't get destroyed as no doubt intended. All fabricated by one of the CIA's underemployed Arab speakers?

    It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately

    ^ This is where your entire phony construct falls apart (I would call it an ‘alternative mainstream media’ lie.) Setting everything else aside, you don’t have to provide anything more in relation to 9/11 to know the entire business is suspect other than look to WTC Building 7 and the fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official explanation is an impossibility. Your (above) conclusion demanding motive is entirely lame. Bodies turn up every day in the annals of law enforcement with no reasonable clue as to the killer’s motive. That the entire point of investigating for purpose of evidence for prosecution. Body found, subsequent investigation to determine motive is the order.

    And tossing in reply to Rurik’s observation, Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal and not only that, he is a pro at engaging disingenuous propaganda technique, truth couldn’t have a greater adversary when it comes to turning off reasonable people with his style. That’s pretty much his substance. Not to mention his past embrace of glaring fallacies, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been wired for demolition over a period some weeks ‘elevator maintenance.’

    Trolls, trollops, all the same when the fact is, all the facts are not in and both sides are obfuscating the reality

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    And tossing in reply to Rurik’s observation, Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal
     
    I just realised that I can hardly remember the last time you or anybody else really tried to take issue with anything I said on legitimate grounds -- factual or logical. It's just continual sleazy ad-hominem.

    and not only that, he is a pro at engaging disingenuous propaganda technique, truth couldn’t have a greater adversary when it comes to turning off reasonable people with his style. That’s pretty much his substance.
     
    Well, okay, it's entirely possible that my "style" turns people off. I have no way of knowing. On the other hand, this may be a classic case of projection. I cannot help but think that your overly aggressive, insulting way of addressing people is very offputting to many people.

    Of course, I am very pointed and nasty to some people as well, but pretty much only towards people who I have decided are not participating in good faith.


    Not to mention his past embrace of glaring fallacies, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been wired for demolition over a period some weeks ‘elevator maintenance.’
     
    Well, look, Ronnie Boy. Here's a bit of advice. You should try to avoid using fancy words when you're not clear on what they mean. "Fallacy" in this case... the above is not a "fallacy". Quite possibly, what I said, but if so, I can tell you that it was inadvertent. In any case, simply being mistaken about something does not constitute a "fallacy".

    Here's an example of a real fallacy. Sam Shama, when asked what the proof of the 9/11 commission report is, points to a page that is simply a summary of the 9/11 commission report. That's a fallacy.

    If my statement about the elevator maintenance is incorrect, I am not alone in the mistake. It's definitely asserted by various experts in at least a couple of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth video. It doesn't really matter. You see a building being blown up and you know it was preloaded with explosives somehow or other. Whether it was done under cover of elevator maintenance work or not is not really a very important issue. Though, come to think of it, what do you care? You seem to be satisfied with vague statements like "We were lied to". So I find your overall stance on this confusing to say the least. At any rate, do figure out what the word "fallacy" means at least.

    , @Rurik

    Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal
     
    considering the subject matter, I don't blame him

    this act ~ 911 ~ is intended to be the pretext to enslave the planet. That's not hyperbole. That is fact. They are attempting nothing less than a real life Orwellian nightmare that we humans will never wake up from. It is that proverbial 'boot, stamping on a human face, forever' that this is all about.

    They already have Total surveillance. They already have the NDAA were they can knock in your door at 4:00 am and black-bag you and rendition you away never to be heard from again. Without charges. Based on nothing more than a decision by an anonymous government official. They want the drones flying over every city and countryside. Terrifying the populace into abject total submission. Where you don't raise your head unless to notice the Hellfire missile careen down on your daughter's wedding party as it's blown to bits because the best man was an out-spoken critic of the regime.

    In opposition to this, and all the wars and horrors that they've visited upon so many because of this crime of biblical proportions, I would not fault anyone for a 'maniacal' resistance to their agenda.

    Once I heard you speak of Solzhenitsyn in favorable terms. I think you called him 'Solzy' or something like that. What do you think he would be saying about the total surveillance and torture camp at Gitmo and loss of our rights and wars based on lies that have murdered so many?

    Many of us lack an eloquent way of communicating. I myself have no formal education. But what we're discussing on this thread [and on this auspicious day] is nothing less than the very real and very dire threat to human freedom for all time. The technology they have at their fingertips is something Stalin or Mao or Hitler could have only dreamed of. And from what I've glimmered, those guys were saints compared to this lot, who have been sharpening their psychopathic ids for generations, and waiting impatiently to put us in our places once and for all. Not even Stain or Mao or Hitler stuffed hoses up men's asses to 'hydrate' them as they were trying to starve themselves to death. Our psychopathic leaders have morphed sadism with man"kind's proclivity to tyranny in a hell-spawn witches' brew of 21st century evil incarnate. And that's an understatement.

    the fact is, all the facts are not in and both sides are obfuscating the reality
     
    after fourteen years, enough of the facts are in to know that it was elements at the highest levels of our government and Israelis', including the entire mainstream media, who perpetrated and covered up 911, and they've been lying about ever since.

    When people point this out, I hardly pay too much attention to the manor in which they do it. It's enough that they're on the side of human decency and truth, and are fighting the Beast, that would and intends to firmly place its boot on our collective necks in its infinite and insatiable lust for more power.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    While you don't seem to handle rational analysis, exposition and discussion very well you seem closest to sanity and common sense on this extraordinary thread so I will again address matters of substance, ones that I forgot in my last reply, to you as well as noting that you are almost as frustrating as the complete nutters in your failure to address my central points and merely mispresenting my peripheral one. I'll get that added diversion out of the way first.

    I did not proffer any "conclusion" wrt WTC building 7. I merely acknowledged it as a side issue for the conspiracists who needed, for credibility, to show a motive consistent with those same people having a motive to cause the plane crashes and to have actually arranged them and the deliberate destruction of the twin towers and a side of the Pentagon.

    To make it plainer: even if it could be shown that some explosives finished off WTC 7 - which had been evacuated and was burning all day - the better question would be "what opportunists had the motive to take advantage of the primary disaster?". Insurance scam? An opportunity for people who had stuffed up [maybe CIA which had offices there] to destroy records? At least it would be more sensible than connecting it to the main attacks - though I offer this at no charge: Osama bin Laden hired a clever PR man to think up ways of diverting gullible Americans into conspiracy theories and was delighted at the idea of a puzzling destruction of a neighbouring building - right to be delighted too. Well he got you in RTW didn't he? You earnest Gringos have no imagination....

    Actually a little up to date Googling for "WTC building 7" will get you, inter alia, an apparently uncontradicted Daily Mail article disclosing a video of WTC 7 which dispels the supposed mystery. But let me emphasise: I don't think anyone should allow WTC 7 to distract them if they still think there are important doubts about the central disasters of 9/11.

    And so to the supplementaries from my viewing of the 2014 UK-Canadian doco.

    Dr Greening built a computer model to show what the weight of a weakened steel structure does to the building below the weakened part, and how quickly. It brilliantly answered the test of differentiating between what would and did happen to the tower which was struck lower down and the one struck ten (or however many) stories higher up. Obviously the one struck lower down would have a greater weight of superstructure to crush it into the basement. And so his model predicted with very precise - and accurate - figures for the number of seconds each tower took to collapse once it started.

    So much for silly amateurs going on about their little snippets of adapted common sense such as structures damaged asymmetrically will fall asymmetrically. The probable reality is that raging fires weakened structures and made way for molten aluminium to spread and combine with water for a series of explosions which eventually allowed the huge weight from above to begin a crushing which couldn't be other than - approximately - symmetrical.

    Leaving what relevant lies? Come on you said "lies". Very likely, but what lies? NIST not wanting to revisit its limited work or the Port Authority being uncooperative with a private investigation hardly qualifies. So, what lies with what motive that matters? (I'm not denying lies. People do. But I'm challenging your evasiveness about something you beat up).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Wizard of Oz
    I don't think you are characterising me as a troll but I am almost as puzzled by your suggestion that I am upholding the official line. How so? What is the official line that you implicitly say has holes in it and why do you say I support the flawed story?

    I have chosen your relatively calm take on the 9/11 controversies as the place to add something of substance because you say that the public has been lied to, presumably by some government people who know the truth though you haven't as far as I have read given an explanation for lying. People don't say things they know to be untrue without a reason in my experience so it does seem like a live issue where careful analysis might be rewarding.

    It does appear that NIST and the Port of New York Authority obstructed a conscientious attempt by a UK-Canadian documentary consortium to get the facts right. That comes from the end of "The Missing Evidence" doco I have just seen on Australia's SBS TV almost exactly to the hour 14 years after a call from the UK told me I should turn on my TV and watch what was happening in New York. You can agree with me I trust that it leads to madness to follow the person calling himself Jonathan Revusky even into consideration of the possibility that planes didn't fly into the Twin Towers at all!?!

    Here is my summary of what I got from the doco plus other material absorbed over the years.

    The doubts over the official report arose because it didn't follow through with any detail of what happened after the planes ploughed in to the towers but took it as obvious that the damage done led to the collapses.

    So it left open opinions that the the steel framework with its sprayed on asbestos or other insulating material couldn't have heated up enough in the time before collapse to cause the weakening and collapse. It was shown that it could have taken 10 hours with the insulation but only 30 minutes without to get the steel to the critical heat but a more convincing answer then followed. It was one that explained as well the widely reported sounds of explosions.

    Both a ?nuclear chemist Dr Frank Greening and a Norwegian metallurgist Christian ? came up with the same answer. That is the explosion of the shredded aluminium from the aircrafts' fuselages and wings.

    About 30 tons of it in each plane translates in each case to the explosive potential of 90 tons of TNT! (No I didn't know that either). What it takes to cause the explosion is molten aluminium at 600 degrees Celsius or thereabouts (the higher the more explosive) plus water though the prevalent gypsum plaster and concrete inter alia would contribute to the explosive mixture if the temperature was right.

    What about the water? No problem:the 30,000 gallons for the buildings sprinkler systems were soon creating large puddles and molten aluminium was flowing down inside and outside the building.

    But NIST apparently kept on saying to The Missing Evidence team inconsistently with its own report that (a) the aircraft had disintegrated (ie. not shredded as would appear to be the obvious result of hitting steel uprights) and (b) the aluminium wouldn't have done much flowing but quickly solidified.

    The evidence to contradict (b) was there for all to see in the video of one of the towers just before collapse. Molten metal was pouring down the side of the building from where tge plane had hit. And it was exactly the right colour to be aluminium at 1000 degrees rather than a mere 600. So much for it solidifying.

    As I mentioned the program makers couldn't get access to the material which might have proved their thesis conclusively by its containing aluminium residues but it was hard to come away without the strong impression that they had completed the technical explanation.

    So where would the lies be? And why would there be lies strictu sensu?

    More important where does that leave the conspiracy theorists? Of course they want so much to believe that there was an even more sinister conspiracy than Al Qaeda's that they will go on with all their made up facts and expertise about the third building. It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately. *There has to be plausible motive to make any crime story stick*. The extra building would just weaken the intended effect for the hypothetical conspirators compared with relying on planes visibly hitting the twin towers.

    Another item from this evening's viewing. Mohammed Atta's luggage arrived too late for loading on the flight out of Logan so his diary etc didn't get destroyed as no doubt intended. All fabricated by one of the CIA's underemployed Arab speakers?

    You have written a huge amount here but I cannot make much sense of it. Earlier, I posed a question in order to bring some focus to the discussion. This question:

    What specifically is, in your opinion, the strongest evidence available that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic on the other side of the world?

    Could you please answer this? (I doubt you will, but do feel free to surprise me…)

    Now, regardless, I have to wonder about your common sense reasoning abilities. Take this, for example. You write:

    Another item from this evening’s viewing. Mohammed Atta’s luggage arrived too late for loading on the flight out of Logan so his diary etc didn’t get destroyed as no doubt intended. All fabricated by one of the CIA’s underemployed Arab speakers?

    Mohammed Atta’s luggage… his checked luggage… Think about that… Really, just think about what you are saying here…. Visualise it…

    Just, imagine this. Imagine you’re going to fly a plane into a building. Why on earth would you pack one or more suitcases and schlep them to the airport and queue up there to check them in?

    WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYBODY EVER DO THAT? If you’re flying the plane into a building, why would you check in your diary or any other item onto the flight????

    WTF??? Tell me. Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2 packed suitcases before the mission? Like maybe they figured that where they were going they would need a week’s worth of clean underwear??!!!

    Aside from this, you claim to have heard this… well… somewhere… like on the mainstream media, I guess. (You don’t provide a source, naturally. Details, details, why get caught up in details?)

    But… what precisely is the proof that this bizarre story is even true? It really seems to me that this is a perfect example of the kind of psychotic rupture with reality that people like you evince. You literally don’t even think about whether the story makes any sense. And you repeat it. Yeah, it must be true. They said it on the TV… This is the level you operate on seemingly.

    This is part of the reason to keep hammering at you to answer the question and tell us what you think the strongest evidence of the official story is. I’m sure it will be fascinating to see what you think actually constitutes proof or evidence!

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Mohammed Atta’s luggage… his checked luggage… Think about that… Really, just think about what you are saying here…. Visualise it…

    Just, imagine this. Imagine you’re going to fly a plane into a building. Why on earth would you pack one or more suitcases and schlep them to the airport and queue up there to check them in?

    WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYBODY EVER DO THAT? If you’re flying the plane into a building, why would you check in your diary or any other item onto the flight????

    WTF??? Tell me. Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2 packed suitcases before the mission? Like maybe they figured that where they were going they would need a week’s worth of clean underwear??!!!
     

    I think you answered your own question - .ie., "where they were going they would need a week’s worth of clean underwear??!!!"

    Think about it. They were boarding a transcontinental flight (Boston to Los Angeles). Wouldn't you agree that most people who take flights from Boston to LA are probably going to stay a few days before returning. Highly unlikely that they'd come back the next day. If this is true, most people are likely to bring along sufficient clothing to wear while away, which means the will require luggage that will have to be either carried on or checked in. So if you're Mohammed Atta and trying to board a transcontinental flight, wouldn't you bring along some luggage so as not to arouse suspicion or would you try boarding with just your toothbrush?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Ronald Thomas West

    It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately
     
    ^ This is where your entire phony construct falls apart (I would call it an 'alternative mainstream media' lie.) Setting everything else aside, you don't have to provide anything more in relation to 9/11 to know the entire business is suspect other than look to WTC Building 7 and the fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official explanation is an impossibility. Your (above) conclusion demanding motive is entirely lame. Bodies turn up every day in the annals of law enforcement with no reasonable clue as to the killer's motive. That the entire point of investigating for purpose of evidence for prosecution. Body found, subsequent investigation to determine motive is the order.

    And tossing in reply to Rurik's observation, Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal and not only that, he is a pro at engaging disingenuous propaganda technique, truth couldn't have a greater adversary when it comes to turning off reasonable people with his style. That's pretty much his substance. Not to mention his past embrace of glaring fallacies, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been wired for demolition over a period some weeks 'elevator maintenance.'

    Trolls, trollops, all the same when the fact is, all the facts are not in and both sides are obfuscating the reality

    And tossing in reply to Rurik’s observation, Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal

    I just realised that I can hardly remember the last time you or anybody else really tried to take issue with anything I said on legitimate grounds — factual or logical. It’s just continual sleazy ad-hominem.

    and not only that, he is a pro at engaging disingenuous propaganda technique, truth couldn’t have a greater adversary when it comes to turning off reasonable people with his style. That’s pretty much his substance.

    Well, okay, it’s entirely possible that my “style” turns people off. I have no way of knowing. On the other hand, this may be a classic case of projection. I cannot help but think that your overly aggressive, insulting way of addressing people is very offputting to many people.

    Of course, I am very pointed and nasty to some people as well, but pretty much only towards people who I have decided are not participating in good faith.

    Not to mention his past embrace of glaring fallacies, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been wired for demolition over a period some weeks ‘elevator maintenance.’

    Well, look, Ronnie Boy. Here’s a bit of advice. You should try to avoid using fancy words when you’re not clear on what they mean. “Fallacy” in this case… the above is not a “fallacy”. Quite possibly, what I said, but if so, I can tell you that it was inadvertent. In any case, simply being mistaken about something does not constitute a “fallacy”.

    Here’s an example of a real fallacy. Sam Shama, when asked what the proof of the 9/11 commission report is, points to a page that is simply a summary of the 9/11 commission report. That’s a fallacy.

    If my statement about the elevator maintenance is incorrect, I am not alone in the mistake. It’s definitely asserted by various experts in at least a couple of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth video. It doesn’t really matter. You see a building being blown up and you know it was preloaded with explosives somehow or other. Whether it was done under cover of elevator maintenance work or not is not really a very important issue. Though, come to think of it, what do you care? You seem to be satisfied with vague statements like “We were lied to”. So I find your overall stance on this confusing to say the least. At any rate, do figure out what the word “fallacy” means at least.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately
     
    ^ This is where your entire phony construct falls apart (I would call it an 'alternative mainstream media' lie.) Setting everything else aside, you don't have to provide anything more in relation to 9/11 to know the entire business is suspect other than look to WTC Building 7 and the fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official explanation is an impossibility. Your (above) conclusion demanding motive is entirely lame. Bodies turn up every day in the annals of law enforcement with no reasonable clue as to the killer's motive. That the entire point of investigating for purpose of evidence for prosecution. Body found, subsequent investigation to determine motive is the order.

    And tossing in reply to Rurik's observation, Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal and not only that, he is a pro at engaging disingenuous propaganda technique, truth couldn't have a greater adversary when it comes to turning off reasonable people with his style. That's pretty much his substance. Not to mention his past embrace of glaring fallacies, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been wired for demolition over a period some weeks 'elevator maintenance.'

    Trolls, trollops, all the same when the fact is, all the facts are not in and both sides are obfuscating the reality

    Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal

    considering the subject matter, I don’t blame him

    this act ~ 911 ~ is intended to be the pretext to enslave the planet. That’s not hyperbole. That is fact. They are attempting nothing less than a real life Orwellian nightmare that we humans will never wake up from. It is that proverbial ‘boot, stamping on a human face, forever’ that this is all about.

    They already have Total surveillance. They already have the NDAA were they can knock in your door at 4:00 am and black-bag you and rendition you away never to be heard from again. Without charges. Based on nothing more than a decision by an anonymous government official. They want the drones flying over every city and countryside. Terrifying the populace into abject total submission. Where you don’t raise your head unless to notice the Hellfire missile careen down on your daughter’s wedding party as it’s blown to bits because the best man was an out-spoken critic of the regime.

    In opposition to this, and all the wars and horrors that they’ve visited upon so many because of this crime of biblical proportions, I would not fault anyone for a ‘maniacal’ resistance to their agenda.

    Once I heard you speak of Solzhenitsyn in favorable terms. I think you called him ‘Solzy’ or something like that. What do you think he would be saying about the total surveillance and torture camp at Gitmo and loss of our rights and wars based on lies that have murdered so many?

    Many of us lack an eloquent way of communicating. I myself have no formal education. But what we’re discussing on this thread [and on this auspicious day] is nothing less than the very real and very dire threat to human freedom for all time. The technology they have at their fingertips is something Stalin or Mao or Hitler could have only dreamed of. And from what I’ve glimmered, those guys were saints compared to this lot, who have been sharpening their psychopathic ids for generations, and waiting impatiently to put us in our places once and for all. Not even Stain or Mao or Hitler stuffed hoses up men’s asses to ‘hydrate’ them as they were trying to starve themselves to death. Our psychopathic leaders have morphed sadism with man”kind’s proclivity to tyranny in a hell-spawn witches’ brew of 21st century evil incarnate. And that’s an understatement.

    the fact is, all the facts are not in and both sides are obfuscating the reality

    after fourteen years, enough of the facts are in to know that it was elements at the highest levels of our government and Israelis’, including the entire mainstream media, who perpetrated and covered up 911, and they’ve been lying about ever since.

    When people point this out, I hardly pay too much attention to the manor in which they do it. It’s enough that they’re on the side of human decency and truth, and are fighting the Beast, that would and intends to firmly place its boot on our collective necks in its infinite and insatiable lust for more power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    I really don't have a problem with a wider view along the lines of your position. But people (most people, that is) need to be able to connect the dots. We're not doing a very good job of that, asking severely frightened people to embrace even more severely frightening scenarios. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to back what you say, easily enough to meet the lesser 'preponderance of the evidence' standard but not enough to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in the minds of most.

    One step at a time is how you might bring more people to a point of willingness to entertain evidence at odds with the severely craven lies pumped into the populace.

    Where there is clear disinformation example given, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been prepared for demolition over a period of several weeks (a clear "fallacy", the Oxford definition is given above) and you have people behaving like obsessed lunatics pushing what would be a laughable proposition at a professional 1st glance, it's not doing yourself or anyone any good.

    Sticking to what we know can impress people to open their minds, for instance the indisputable fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official WTC Building 7 explanation is an "impossibility" and leave the rest open to question (there are a lot of questions, no small one being how could the twin towers have been wired for demolition) is perhaps the only means to bring enough pressure to bear to break the entire business open.

    Coming across as obsessed fanatics certainly doesn't help. Most people desire rational experiences, it's human nature. And 'truth' is not necessarily a rational thing at first glance.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Plenty of these to go around:

    fallacy |ˈfaləsē|
    noun (pl. fallacies)
    a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument: the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy.
    • Logic a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
    • faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument: the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem.
    ORIGIN late 15th cent. (in the sense ‘deception, guile’; gradually superseding Middle English fallace): from Latin fallacia, from fallax, fallac- ‘deceiving,’ from fallere ‘deceive.’

    Or the notion two skyscrapers could be prepared for demolition in a matter of a few weeks when it takes a professional team months to prepare a single building a fraction of a one of the twin towers size, e.g. the old MGM Grand in Las Vegas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. @Rurik
    Hello guest,

    Why would anyone in the know tell the BBC, or anyone for that matter?
     
    Oh this is very critical. Absolutely, fundamentally, manifestly critical.

    The media is the most important element there is to selling and getting away with this crime- and all the other crimes of our government and assorted atrocities they commit. You have to have them on board or you're lost. You have to, in fact own them absolutely.

    I don't know how old you are, I was recently talking to an intelligent fellow in his late twenties who had never heard of a town called Waco, TX. Well anyways back in the nineties, when Bill Clinton was president, our government committed an assault upon a Christian compound of some of the most amenable and least objectionable people you will find anywhere. They committed no crimes against anyone and were known by everyone as being very friendly and kind and helpful in everyway. But, the spiritual leader was known to have a penchant for guns and even liked to go the local shooting range and target practice with the local law enforcement and including the ATF. So the ATF got word that he has a few guns that were in violation of some of their statutes. So they got the idea that they would plan a raid on the compound. They even arranged for TV camera crews to film their 'heroics'. If you didn't hear about it, you can guess what happened. The ATF stormed the place, guns blazing, and soon the terrorized Christians shot back. People were killed on both sides. Immediately the government started telling lies about what had happened, and now (finally ; ) I get to my point.. The media repeated the government's lies, verbatim. This was a tragic loss of life because some yahoo cowboys wanted to play tough guys on some devout Christians including old men, women and children. And when it went wrong, all we heard from the media was that this was some kind of dangerous group of right-wingers (lies) and that they had committed murderous aggressions against government agents (all lies) and that we should have no sympathy whatsoever for these people because the leader of the 'cult' was molesting the children. (again, all lies).

    Soon it became a stand off and was a media circus for a month or two. When our government lost patience with this plucky group of true believers (they became convinced that our government was 'Babylon' and were murdering them because they were righteous believers in God). Anyways Bill Clinton and his gorgon Janet Reno, and with the help of the FBI and Delta Force sent in tanks that ripped holes in the church and they injected flammable gas canisters and the place when up in flames. There were snipers with machine guns positioned to shoot at anyone who tried to get out of the burning building (they wanted them all to burn alive).

    And burn alive they did. Scores of innocent people and dozens of children all died in the most horrible way imaginable. The children were more or less cooked alive as they were huddled in the center of the church in some concrete like structure.

    >>warning<<

    http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/5385/images/kids(1).jpg

    https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.VHW6TylnNWPLPoVXBP2SEg&pid=1.1

    there's plenty more but I don't want to seem sensational

    So anyways these people were mass murdered by our government and then what happened is the avalance of lies. 'They killed themselves!' 'They were wackos'! (we heard that one relentlessly). It was all David Koresh's fault'!! (the leader). "we didn't use flammable canisters'!!!!!!! 'We didn't have snipers positioned' 'We didn't fire the first shots"

    Endless, endless lies after lies after lies. And of course the point here is that the media repeated all the lies with absolute complicity. There was ZERO investigative reporting from the MSM. ZERO. They just took their marching orders directly from the government and repeated the lies ad nauseam. Eventually it came out that the FBI had lied about using flammable gas canisters and many other lies all came out and the gorgon Reno even apologized for all the lies and said she was appalled or some such rot. But they got away with it. These lying, treasonous, murderous scum attacked and terrorized and eventually burned these otherwise good Americans to death, because they didn't lay down and submit to the power and will of our fecal government. And the media were fully complicit with the crime from beginning to cover up. They even prosecuted the survivors of their holocaust ..

    http://www.southcarolinaliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/BATF-Waco.jpg

    .. as somehow having done something wrong, like not dying in the fireball like they were supposed to.

    And today the y0ung don't even know this all happened, and the First Bitch at the time even wants to get back in the White House. Because the media control the narrative. The media create and maintain the matrix of lies and false reality that we're all marinated in, you and I and all of us here. We can't escape it. It pervades and corrodes all of our lives with its ubiquitous lies and agenda driven role to play in our upside-down times we live in today - where we American's are forced to be the murderous Nazi fiends on the world's stage. Our soldiers are the orcs visiting death and misery and horrors on a terrorized planet while the CIA terrorizes with arbitrary death from the sky. It's so surreal I can't even comprehend the evil of it all.

    So, as unprecedented crimes like 911 are covered up, as war crimes like Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and elsewhere are sold and foisted and lied about. As our government tortures and assassinates American citizens without due process, as they spy on our every word and claim the right to rendition any American they want to an offshore torture site, for reasons of 'national security", .. as the drones bomb weddings and police shoot citizens willy-nilly, it is the media that is the critical piece of the Orwellian puzzle. Like Winston Smith, they're plugging away. Making the truth disappear and replacing it with agenda driven lies and half-truths and stories about a man on dialysis that makes steel buildings plop into their basements at free-fall speed and telling us all we need to give up our rights and our dignity to be kept safe. When the whole time they know who it is that we really need to be kept safe from; the demonic fiends who burn children alive, who plot schemes to slaughter their own citizens as a pretext to destroying country after country and mass murdering and maiming and displacing millions upon millions of innocent people all over the world.

    That my friend is what they've been up to and they could not have made one inch of their demonic progress of terrorizing this planet without the utter and absolute and eager complicity of the entire main-stream media. That's why it all had to be consolidated (mostly under Clinton) so that only a very few men would own 95% of all the media that we see on TV or in the "news" or on the Internet and everywhere else.

    So it's us against them, and let the truth prevail! : )

    Rurik, I agree with you. Mostly… Yes, definitely one of the key takeaways about the 9/11 attacks, once you analyse it seriously, is that the people behind this had to believe that they had a pretty strong degree of control over the mainstream media message — actually, not just in the U.S. but in other western countries. (And who would that be, I wonder…) Like, the event happens and they’re all telling us what happened with no investigation, no serious evidence offered. And anybody who suggested any other explanation was immediately a “conspiracy theorist”.

    The very day of the attacks, they started going on and on about Bin Laden and “Al Qaeda”. Obviously, all the talking heads screaming “Bin Laden, Bin Laden” right on the very day of the attacks were more or less reading a script that had been handed to them.

    That said, where I would take issue with what you say is that I still don’t quite believe that the criminals have complete control over the institutions in question. It’s more like they have key assets, moles, in there, who do work for them, yes. And it’s enough to largely control the media message.

    You see something similar when you study other deep state operations, like the Kennedy assassination. There, you can see that surely the criminals behind the hit had assets within the Dallas Police Department. For example, somebody in the Dallas P.D. must have arranged the situation where Jack Ruby was able to kill Oswald. Otherwise, how could Jack Ruby even know where and when he would have that window of opportunity to do it? What I seriously doubt, however, is that the entire Dallas P.D. was “controlled” by the criminal conspirators, in the sense that all the Dallas cops were working for them or anything like that. And, in fact, you can see that they didn’t have complete control over events. For example, the intention was for Oswald to be killed, not taken into custody, but he was taken alive and then they had to formulate a desperate plan B, which was this Jack Ruby killing Oswald.

    Ditto for the killing of Martin Luther King in Memphis. I’m sure the criminals had assets within the Memphis Police Department who were part of the conspiracy. But again, most of the Memphis city cops were not in on it, I’m pretty sure. Heck, even if you do figure that a lot of those white southern cops didn’t like King and didn’t like black folks too much, my sense would be that most of them would not willingly be party to the man’s murder.

    I guess what all this gets at is that you have this “debunker” talking point where they claim that none of these “conspiracies” are possible because too many people would have to stay quiet for the conspiracy to work. i.e.

    “Somebody woulda talked…”

    Yeah, I guess that would be true, for example, if the entire Dallas P.D. or the entire Memphis P.D. was in on the respective conspiracies, but they almost certainly weren’t. The criminals had moles there and I would say their control over the mainstream media is kind of similar. They have a lot of control but it is not total… you know, people go on with these all-or-none fallacies, and say stuff like “If the media is controlled, how come X and Y were actually reported on?” Well, it’s not an “all or none” type deal. The criminal networks exert a large degree of control over the message but it’s not total. That’s where my thinking leads me on this, anyway.

    But getting back to 9/11, you have this Jane Standley woman who reported building 7 before it imploded — now, I’m not 100% sure, but I seriously doubt that woman was really part of the conspiracy or anything. She was just one of these talking heads there on the BBC, not even necessarily extremely bright or anything. She was reading a script handed to her, pretty obviously. The problem is that the moles there in the organization who were supposed to control the narrative somehow screwed up and the poor woman was there announcing the collapse of a building that was clearly standing there right behind her. Major league FUBAR. (LOL.)

    What I think happened (again, not 100% sure) is that the criminals wanted to create some “foreshadowing” or “prepare the terrain” somewhat to make it seem somehow normal (or at least less extraordinary) that this building would just collapse. So it should have been something like “people report massive damage to building 7 and blah blah” so as to plant in people’ s minds the idea that it was somehow to be expected for this steel-framed building to just collapse.

    But somehow they f’ed up — or their moles within the BBC messed up — and it ended up being that the BBC reported the collapse before it happened. The other networks probably just reported “the building has sustained massive damage blah blah” but somehow Jane Stanley on the BBC said it had already collapsed. I think it must have been something like that. I don’t think that woman was in on any conspiracy. So when people accuse her of it and she answers indignantly, the indignation is actually honest. Probably.

    Also, a lot of the control that the criminals exert over the MSM message is not explicit really, as far as I can see. Like, somehow, throughout a huge part of the society — not just media, but academia, government… — it is just tacitly understood that if you express doubts about this story, you will… pay the price.. there doesn’t even seem to be a need to sit people down, cosa nostra style, and put it to them. It’s just somehow tacitly understood that if you express any doubt about these stories, that will be tantamount to destroying your career.

    And that’s enough. So most people just won’t go there. Like look at Philip Giraldi there, he says that “the truth movement makes some good points” maybe kind of to wink at us and let us know that he knows, but then you ask him what those “good points” are and it’s the deafening silence…

    What I have been wondering just lately, seeing just how great the preponderance of pro-9/11 truth the comments here are, is whether there really is a tipping point being reached…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    That said, where I would take issue with what you say is that I still don’t quite believe that the criminals have complete control over the institutions in question. It’s more like they have key assets, moles, in there, who do work for them, yes. And it’s enough to largely control the media message.
     
    I agree

    When it came out that Carl Cameron of Faux "News" had done an investigative piece on the hundreds of Israeli "art students" who were rounded up after 911 and suspected of espionage, I was amazed that someone at Fox would have even considered such an investigation. (the entire investigation has been since classified of course and Carl Cameron is forbidden from discussing it). So the control is not complete. But it's enough.

    I guess what all this gets at is that you have this “debunker” talking point where they claim that none of these “conspiracies” are possible because too many people would have to stay quiet for the conspiracy to work. i.e.
     
    just look at the attempt to sink the USS Liberty. It was a cowardly act of war on an ally, and the men who ordered it should have been sent in chains to the US and tried and executed. But instead the whole affair was covered up, by a completely complicit media and military (who had ordered the survivors not to talk about it). Or take the case of the Holocaust for instance. They demand fealty to that religion or else. And there is universal compliance, or else.

    She was just one of these talking heads there on the BBC, not even necessarily extremely bright or anything. She was reading a script handed to her, pretty obviously
     
    I agree

    and I think the other plane that disappeared over Pennsylvania or whatever happened to it was supposed to hit building seven. That was the fuck up. Once the plane didn't reach its destination, they didn't know what to do, so they "just decided to pull it". And because it was all ad lib at that point, that's why the BBC messed up and someone handed someone a script and they read it too soon.

    Like, somehow, throughout a huge part of the society — not just media, but academia, government… — it is just tacitly understood that if you express doubts about this story, you will… pay the price.. there doesn’t even seem to be a need to sit people down, cosa nostra style, and put it to them
     
    yep

    how many people in positions of power are going to have any doubt whatsoever about the Holocaust. I mean even if it's just one iota of the narrative, no one dare say one word of doubt. Even that they have a doubt. If they even suggest just a hint, it's all over. They're done.


    What I have been wondering just lately, seeing just how great the preponderance of pro-9/11 truth the comments here are, is whether there really is a tipping point being reached…
     
    I doubt it. The people here are hardly a representation of the wider public. But I would like to think you're right about that.
    , @Hrw-500
    Speaking of Martin Luther King's assassination, the late Steve Cokely think then it was Jesse Jackson who killed MLK. I was sceptical first but sometimes I got some second thoughts.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teEplUjU0Bw

    And on a off-topic sidenote, strange coincidence then a storm hit a crane who collapsed in Mecca on 9-11. I wonder if it's an omen of things to come?
    http://www.rt.com/news/315082-crane-collapses-mecca-mosque/
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3231117/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Rurik

    Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal
     
    considering the subject matter, I don't blame him

    this act ~ 911 ~ is intended to be the pretext to enslave the planet. That's not hyperbole. That is fact. They are attempting nothing less than a real life Orwellian nightmare that we humans will never wake up from. It is that proverbial 'boot, stamping on a human face, forever' that this is all about.

    They already have Total surveillance. They already have the NDAA were they can knock in your door at 4:00 am and black-bag you and rendition you away never to be heard from again. Without charges. Based on nothing more than a decision by an anonymous government official. They want the drones flying over every city and countryside. Terrifying the populace into abject total submission. Where you don't raise your head unless to notice the Hellfire missile careen down on your daughter's wedding party as it's blown to bits because the best man was an out-spoken critic of the regime.

    In opposition to this, and all the wars and horrors that they've visited upon so many because of this crime of biblical proportions, I would not fault anyone for a 'maniacal' resistance to their agenda.

    Once I heard you speak of Solzhenitsyn in favorable terms. I think you called him 'Solzy' or something like that. What do you think he would be saying about the total surveillance and torture camp at Gitmo and loss of our rights and wars based on lies that have murdered so many?

    Many of us lack an eloquent way of communicating. I myself have no formal education. But what we're discussing on this thread [and on this auspicious day] is nothing less than the very real and very dire threat to human freedom for all time. The technology they have at their fingertips is something Stalin or Mao or Hitler could have only dreamed of. And from what I've glimmered, those guys were saints compared to this lot, who have been sharpening their psychopathic ids for generations, and waiting impatiently to put us in our places once and for all. Not even Stain or Mao or Hitler stuffed hoses up men's asses to 'hydrate' them as they were trying to starve themselves to death. Our psychopathic leaders have morphed sadism with man"kind's proclivity to tyranny in a hell-spawn witches' brew of 21st century evil incarnate. And that's an understatement.

    the fact is, all the facts are not in and both sides are obfuscating the reality
     
    after fourteen years, enough of the facts are in to know that it was elements at the highest levels of our government and Israelis', including the entire mainstream media, who perpetrated and covered up 911, and they've been lying about ever since.

    When people point this out, I hardly pay too much attention to the manor in which they do it. It's enough that they're on the side of human decency and truth, and are fighting the Beast, that would and intends to firmly place its boot on our collective necks in its infinite and insatiable lust for more power.

    I really don’t have a problem with a wider view along the lines of your position. But people (most people, that is) need to be able to connect the dots. We’re not doing a very good job of that, asking severely frightened people to embrace even more severely frightening scenarios. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to back what you say, easily enough to meet the lesser ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard but not enough to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in the minds of most.

    One step at a time is how you might bring more people to a point of willingness to entertain evidence at odds with the severely craven lies pumped into the populace.

    Where there is clear disinformation example given, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been prepared for demolition over a period of several weeks (a clear “fallacy”, the Oxford definition is given above) and you have people behaving like obsessed lunatics pushing what would be a laughable proposition at a professional 1st glance, it’s not doing yourself or anyone any good.

    Sticking to what we know can impress people to open their minds, for instance the indisputable fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official WTC Building 7 explanation is an “impossibility” and leave the rest open to question (there are a lot of questions, no small one being how could the twin towers have been wired for demolition) is perhaps the only means to bring enough pressure to bear to break the entire business open.

    Coming across as obsessed fanatics certainly doesn’t help. Most people desire rational experiences, it’s human nature. And ‘truth’ is not necessarily a rational thing at first glance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mudhole
    The entirety of the 'collapse' argument can be summarized in a single sentence-

    If a symmetrically constructed structure is damaged asymmetrically, its collapse will be necessarily be asymmetric .

    There is really no more to it than that. If all three buildings collapsed symmetrically, e. g. into their own footprint, then they were all damaged symmetrically. How? By some unknown, but foul means.
    , @Rurik

    Sticking to what we know can impress people to open their minds, for instance the indisputable fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official WTC Building 7 explanation is an “impossibility” and leave the rest open to question (there are a lot of questions, no small one being how could the twin towers have been wired for demolition) is perhaps the only means to bring enough pressure to bear to break the entire business open.
     
    you're right of course

    and it is way too much for many people to even begin to entertain that our government and the people they've come to trust giving them the news would perpetrate something so heinous and down-right evil. But the facts don't lie.

    As for the logistics, we know it happened, so figuring out how, just becomes a matter of figuring out how. If you look at all the videos there is even evidence of steel being vaporized. Turned into dust, like the whole of the building was basically turned into powder. Steel and concrete and granite and office furniture and everything that was there, was basically just turned into powder. It's as if they used some kind of weapons that we're not even privy to. So it is very fantastic and terrifying, especially when you come to the realization that the people who did this are the same people who are in power today. But then as I mentioned earlier, they are the same people who perpetrated the horrific crime in Waco in the nineties, and that was all lied about too, and they burned alive women and children, and it was covered up. So what I like to point out is that as long as these psychopaths keep getting away with it all, they'll keep doing it over and over, especially since by doing it, they're able to advance their agenda - and remove our rights and any ability we might have in the future to stop them from treating us all the way they treat the citizens of Pakistan or all those other countries that are full of "terrorists" who they need to assassinate with their drones.

    now where'd I put that glass of pinot noir?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Mudhole says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    I really don't have a problem with a wider view along the lines of your position. But people (most people, that is) need to be able to connect the dots. We're not doing a very good job of that, asking severely frightened people to embrace even more severely frightening scenarios. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to back what you say, easily enough to meet the lesser 'preponderance of the evidence' standard but not enough to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in the minds of most.

    One step at a time is how you might bring more people to a point of willingness to entertain evidence at odds with the severely craven lies pumped into the populace.

    Where there is clear disinformation example given, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been prepared for demolition over a period of several weeks (a clear "fallacy", the Oxford definition is given above) and you have people behaving like obsessed lunatics pushing what would be a laughable proposition at a professional 1st glance, it's not doing yourself or anyone any good.

    Sticking to what we know can impress people to open their minds, for instance the indisputable fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official WTC Building 7 explanation is an "impossibility" and leave the rest open to question (there are a lot of questions, no small one being how could the twin towers have been wired for demolition) is perhaps the only means to bring enough pressure to bear to break the entire business open.

    Coming across as obsessed fanatics certainly doesn't help. Most people desire rational experiences, it's human nature. And 'truth' is not necessarily a rational thing at first glance.

    The entirety of the ‘collapse’ argument can be summarized in a single sentence-

    If a symmetrically constructed structure is damaged asymmetrically, its collapse will be necessarily be asymmetric .

    There is really no more to it than that. If all three buildings collapsed symmetrically, e. g. into their own footprint, then they were all damaged symmetrically. How? By some unknown, but foul means.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Rurik, I agree with you. Mostly... Yes, definitely one of the key takeaways about the 9/11 attacks, once you analyse it seriously, is that the people behind this had to believe that they had a pretty strong degree of control over the mainstream media message -- actually, not just in the U.S. but in other western countries. (And who would that be, I wonder...) Like, the event happens and they're all telling us what happened with no investigation, no serious evidence offered. And anybody who suggested any other explanation was immediately a "conspiracy theorist".

    The very day of the attacks, they started going on and on about Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda". Obviously, all the talking heads screaming "Bin Laden, Bin Laden" right on the very day of the attacks were more or less reading a script that had been handed to them.

    That said, where I would take issue with what you say is that I still don't quite believe that the criminals have complete control over the institutions in question. It's more like they have key assets, moles, in there, who do work for them, yes. And it's enough to largely control the media message.

    You see something similar when you study other deep state operations, like the Kennedy assassination. There, you can see that surely the criminals behind the hit had assets within the Dallas Police Department. For example, somebody in the Dallas P.D. must have arranged the situation where Jack Ruby was able to kill Oswald. Otherwise, how could Jack Ruby even know where and when he would have that window of opportunity to do it? What I seriously doubt, however, is that the entire Dallas P.D. was "controlled" by the criminal conspirators, in the sense that all the Dallas cops were working for them or anything like that. And, in fact, you can see that they didn't have complete control over events. For example, the intention was for Oswald to be killed, not taken into custody, but he was taken alive and then they had to formulate a desperate plan B, which was this Jack Ruby killing Oswald.

    Ditto for the killing of Martin Luther King in Memphis. I'm sure the criminals had assets within the Memphis Police Department who were part of the conspiracy. But again, most of the Memphis city cops were not in on it, I'm pretty sure. Heck, even if you do figure that a lot of those white southern cops didn't like King and didn't like black folks too much, my sense would be that most of them would not willingly be party to the man's murder.

    I guess what all this gets at is that you have this "debunker" talking point where they claim that none of these "conspiracies" are possible because too many people would have to stay quiet for the conspiracy to work. i.e.

    "Somebody woulda talked..."

    Yeah, I guess that would be true, for example, if the entire Dallas P.D. or the entire Memphis P.D. was in on the respective conspiracies, but they almost certainly weren't. The criminals had moles there and I would say their control over the mainstream media is kind of similar. They have a lot of control but it is not total... you know, people go on with these all-or-none fallacies, and say stuff like "If the media is controlled, how come X and Y were actually reported on?" Well, it's not an "all or none" type deal. The criminal networks exert a large degree of control over the message but it's not total. That's where my thinking leads me on this, anyway.

    But getting back to 9/11, you have this Jane Standley woman who reported building 7 before it imploded -- now, I'm not 100% sure, but I seriously doubt that woman was really part of the conspiracy or anything. She was just one of these talking heads there on the BBC, not even necessarily extremely bright or anything. She was reading a script handed to her, pretty obviously. The problem is that the moles there in the organization who were supposed to control the narrative somehow screwed up and the poor woman was there announcing the collapse of a building that was clearly standing there right behind her. Major league FUBAR. (LOL.)

    What I think happened (again, not 100% sure) is that the criminals wanted to create some "foreshadowing" or "prepare the terrain" somewhat to make it seem somehow normal (or at least less extraordinary) that this building would just collapse. So it should have been something like "people report massive damage to building 7 and blah blah" so as to plant in people' s minds the idea that it was somehow to be expected for this steel-framed building to just collapse.

    But somehow they f'ed up -- or their moles within the BBC messed up -- and it ended up being that the BBC reported the collapse before it happened. The other networks probably just reported "the building has sustained massive damage blah blah" but somehow Jane Stanley on the BBC said it had already collapsed. I think it must have been something like that. I don't think that woman was in on any conspiracy. So when people accuse her of it and she answers indignantly, the indignation is actually honest. Probably.

    Also, a lot of the control that the criminals exert over the MSM message is not explicit really, as far as I can see. Like, somehow, throughout a huge part of the society -- not just media, but academia, government... -- it is just tacitly understood that if you express doubts about this story, you will... pay the price.. there doesn't even seem to be a need to sit people down, cosa nostra style, and put it to them. It's just somehow tacitly understood that if you express any doubt about these stories, that will be tantamount to destroying your career.

    And that's enough. So most people just won't go there. Like look at Philip Giraldi there, he says that "the truth movement makes some good points" maybe kind of to wink at us and let us know that he knows, but then you ask him what those "good points" are and it's the deafening silence...

    What I have been wondering just lately, seeing just how great the preponderance of pro-9/11 truth the comments here are, is whether there really is a tipping point being reached...

    That said, where I would take issue with what you say is that I still don’t quite believe that the criminals have complete control over the institutions in question. It’s more like they have key assets, moles, in there, who do work for them, yes. And it’s enough to largely control the media message.

    I agree

    When it came out that Carl Cameron of Faux “News” had done an investigative piece on the hundreds of Israeli “art students” who were rounded up after 911 and suspected of espionage, I was amazed that someone at Fox would have even considered such an investigation. (the entire investigation has been since classified of course and Carl Cameron is forbidden from discussing it). So the control is not complete. But it’s enough.

    I guess what all this gets at is that you have this “debunker” talking point where they claim that none of these “conspiracies” are possible because too many people would have to stay quiet for the conspiracy to work. i.e.

    just look at the attempt to sink the USS Liberty. It was a cowardly act of war on an ally, and the men who ordered it should have been sent in chains to the US and tried and executed. But instead the whole affair was covered up, by a completely complicit media and military (who had ordered the survivors not to talk about it). Or take the case of the Holocaust for instance. They demand fealty to that religion or else. And there is universal compliance, or else.

    She was just one of these talking heads there on the BBC, not even necessarily extremely bright or anything. She was reading a script handed to her, pretty obviously

    I agree

    and I think the other plane that disappeared over Pennsylvania or whatever happened to it was supposed to hit building seven. That was the fuck up. Once the plane didn’t reach its destination, they didn’t know what to do, so they “just decided to pull it”. And because it was all ad lib at that point, that’s why the BBC messed up and someone handed someone a script and they read it too soon.

    Like, somehow, throughout a huge part of the society — not just media, but academia, government… — it is just tacitly understood that if you express doubts about this story, you will… pay the price.. there doesn’t even seem to be a need to sit people down, cosa nostra style, and put it to them

    yep

    how many people in positions of power are going to have any doubt whatsoever about the Holocaust. I mean even if it’s just one iota of the narrative, no one dare say one word of doubt. Even that they have a doubt. If they even suggest just a hint, it’s all over. They’re done.

    What I have been wondering just lately, seeing just how great the preponderance of pro-9/11 truth the comments here are, is whether there really is a tipping point being reached…

    I doubt it. The people here are hardly a representation of the wider public. But I would like to think you’re right about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    ... and I think the other plane that disappeared over Pennsylvania or whatever happened to it was supposed to hit building seven.
     
    Yup. Unfortunately for the real perpetrators of 9/11 (whoever they may be), bldg. 7 had already been primed with some flammable substance, and when sparks from other two buildings set it off, there was no way to stop it in time. So the best they could do was to downplay it in the national media.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    You have written a huge amount here but I cannot make much sense of it. Earlier, I posed a question in order to bring some focus to the discussion. This question:


    What specifically is, in your opinion, the strongest evidence available that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by a bearded religious fanatic on the other side of the world?
     
    Could you please answer this? (I doubt you will, but do feel free to surprise me...)

    Now, regardless, I have to wonder about your common sense reasoning abilities. Take this, for example. You write:

    Another item from this evening’s viewing. Mohammed Atta’s luggage arrived too late for loading on the flight out of Logan so his diary etc didn’t get destroyed as no doubt intended. All fabricated by one of the CIA’s underemployed Arab speakers?

     

    Mohammed Atta's luggage... his checked luggage... Think about that... Really, just think about what you are saying here.... Visualise it...

    Just, imagine this. Imagine you're going to fly a plane into a building. Why on earth would you pack one or more suitcases and schlep them to the airport and queue up there to check them in?

    WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYBODY EVER DO THAT? If you're flying the plane into a building, why would you check in your diary or any other item onto the flight????

    WTF??? Tell me. Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2 packed suitcases before the mission? Like maybe they figured that where they were going they would need a week's worth of clean underwear??!!!

    Aside from this, you claim to have heard this... well... somewhere... like on the mainstream media, I guess. (You don't provide a source, naturally. Details, details, why get caught up in details?)

    But... what precisely is the proof that this bizarre story is even true? It really seems to me that this is a perfect example of the kind of psychotic rupture with reality that people like you evince. You literally don't even think about whether the story makes any sense. And you repeat it. Yeah, it must be true. They said it on the TV... This is the level you operate on seemingly.

    This is part of the reason to keep hammering at you to answer the question and tell us what you think the strongest evidence of the official story is. I'm sure it will be fascinating to see what you think actually constitutes proof or evidence!

    Mohammed Atta’s luggage… his checked luggage… Think about that… Really, just think about what you are saying here…. Visualise it…

    Just, imagine this. Imagine you’re going to fly a plane into a building. Why on earth would you pack one or more suitcases and schlep them to the airport and queue up there to check them in?

    WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYBODY EVER DO THAT? If you’re flying the plane into a building, why would you check in your diary or any other item onto the flight????

    WTF??? Tell me. Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2 packed suitcases before the mission? Like maybe they figured that where they were going they would need a week’s worth of clean underwear??!!!

    I think you answered your own question – .ie., “where they were going they would need a week’s worth of clean underwear??!!!”

    Think about it. They were boarding a transcontinental flight (Boston to Los Angeles). Wouldn’t you agree that most people who take flights from Boston to LA are probably going to stay a few days before returning. Highly unlikely that they’d come back the next day. If this is true, most people are likely to bring along sufficient clothing to wear while away, which means the will require luggage that will have to be either carried on or checked in. So if you’re Mohammed Atta and trying to board a transcontinental flight, wouldn’t you bring along some luggage so as not to arouse suspicion or would you try boarding with just your toothbrush?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Look, if you really have a deep-seated need to believe that this story is true, that a Kamikaze pilot packs his suitcases and checks them in on the flight, then probably nothing can be done for you. Now, granted, unlike other aspects of the official narrative, this part of the story does not actually violate any laws of physics. Just as it does not violate any laws of physics when little Johnny tells you that he really did his homework but the dog ate it. But that doesn't mean that we all don't know that little Johnny is lying. (As we also know that the story that the U.S. government killed Bin Laden and threw his body in the sea is not true.)

    Now, okay, just to answer your point, regarding the issue of checked baggage on a long flight.

    1. First of all, are you aware of any case in which somebody in possession of a valid ticket was not allowed to board his flight because he had suspiciously little luggage? Has this ever happened to your knowledge? (This is a simple question that admits a yes/no answer and, therefore, would you please answer it?)

    2. I have known a few people who did very large amounts of business travel. At least one of them, the wife of a friend, I recall distinctly, was absolutely religious about only taking with her the limited amount of stuff that would fit in a carry-on bag. I doubt she was alone in this. The extra hassle of checking in baggage and then, when you get off the plane, having to wait around for your bags to show up afterwards (assuming they do!) was simply not worth it, so she was absolutely disciplined about not taking anything on a business trip that she did not definitely need. Her notebook computer and a change of clothes and maybe a couple of other things, but ONLY what would fit in a carry-on bag, that's it.

    Think about it.
     
    3. "Think about it," you say... Maybe give me some credit. I HAVE thought about it. Maybe it's you that need to think about it. Specifically, think about this: prior to the operation, does Mohammed Atta or any other of the alleged perpetrators know with 100% certainty that the operation will be successful? That they will successfully hijack and take control of the planes? If the operation is unsuccessful or must be aborted, would it make sense to have your diary with incriminating information detailing the planned operation in your checked luggage???? (I mean, even leaving aside the question of whether kamikaze pilots would pack suitcases and check luggage...)

    Anyway, I asked the Wizard of Oz, that little man, whether there was any real proof that this story of the suicide pilots packing suitcases and checking in luggage was really true. To argue that some story, at the very limit, could be true is a very very weak argument. Look, you have a government that kidnaps and tortures people -- even in the full knowledge that the victims are not really guilty of anything, and your position is basically that they would not lie to us know. People would commit mass murder, torture, and also lie about WMD in Iraq and many other lies, but for some reason, there is just this unlimited gullibility, that, no, they are saying this, so it's true...

    Cripes, maybe what you need to do is just grow up a little bit.... Or maybe this desperate neurotic need to be duped is akin to the passive homosexual's overpowering need to be roughly sodomized. If such is the case, your condition is surely incurable. You know, I often wonder whether the bastards behind these narratives are constantly just sort of probing the limits, testing what BS the sheeple will believe. Regardless, if really you cannot see that this story of the Kamikaze pilot schlepping all his luggage to the airport is really some kind of macabre joke, well, what can I or anybody else do for you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    I really don't have a problem with a wider view along the lines of your position. But people (most people, that is) need to be able to connect the dots. We're not doing a very good job of that, asking severely frightened people to embrace even more severely frightening scenarios. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to back what you say, easily enough to meet the lesser 'preponderance of the evidence' standard but not enough to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in the minds of most.

    One step at a time is how you might bring more people to a point of willingness to entertain evidence at odds with the severely craven lies pumped into the populace.

    Where there is clear disinformation example given, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been prepared for demolition over a period of several weeks (a clear "fallacy", the Oxford definition is given above) and you have people behaving like obsessed lunatics pushing what would be a laughable proposition at a professional 1st glance, it's not doing yourself or anyone any good.

    Sticking to what we know can impress people to open their minds, for instance the indisputable fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official WTC Building 7 explanation is an "impossibility" and leave the rest open to question (there are a lot of questions, no small one being how could the twin towers have been wired for demolition) is perhaps the only means to bring enough pressure to bear to break the entire business open.

    Coming across as obsessed fanatics certainly doesn't help. Most people desire rational experiences, it's human nature. And 'truth' is not necessarily a rational thing at first glance.

    Sticking to what we know can impress people to open their minds, for instance the indisputable fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official WTC Building 7 explanation is an “impossibility” and leave the rest open to question (there are a lot of questions, no small one being how could the twin towers have been wired for demolition) is perhaps the only means to bring enough pressure to bear to break the entire business open.

    you’re right of course

    and it is way too much for many people to even begin to entertain that our government and the people they’ve come to trust giving them the news would perpetrate something so heinous and down-right evil. But the facts don’t lie.

    As for the logistics, we know it happened, so figuring out how, just becomes a matter of figuring out how. If you look at all the videos there is even evidence of steel being vaporized. Turned into dust, like the whole of the building was basically turned into powder. Steel and concrete and granite and office furniture and everything that was there, was basically just turned into powder. It’s as if they used some kind of weapons that we’re not even privy to. So it is very fantastic and terrifying, especially when you come to the realization that the people who did this are the same people who are in power today. But then as I mentioned earlier, they are the same people who perpetrated the horrific crime in Waco in the nineties, and that was all lied about too, and they burned alive women and children, and it was covered up. So what I like to point out is that as long as these psychopaths keep getting away with it all, they’ll keep doing it over and over, especially since by doing it, they’re able to advance their agenda – and remove our rights and any ability we might have in the future to stop them from treating us all the way they treat the citizens of Pakistan or all those other countries that are full of “terrorists” who they need to assassinate with their drones.

    now where’d I put that glass of pinot noir?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Just don't go off into 'Mars Attacks' space weapons theory and you'll be ok. Other wise absinthe would be the automatic assumption of your intake habits...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Hrw-500 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Rurik, I agree with you. Mostly... Yes, definitely one of the key takeaways about the 9/11 attacks, once you analyse it seriously, is that the people behind this had to believe that they had a pretty strong degree of control over the mainstream media message -- actually, not just in the U.S. but in other western countries. (And who would that be, I wonder...) Like, the event happens and they're all telling us what happened with no investigation, no serious evidence offered. And anybody who suggested any other explanation was immediately a "conspiracy theorist".

    The very day of the attacks, they started going on and on about Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda". Obviously, all the talking heads screaming "Bin Laden, Bin Laden" right on the very day of the attacks were more or less reading a script that had been handed to them.

    That said, where I would take issue with what you say is that I still don't quite believe that the criminals have complete control over the institutions in question. It's more like they have key assets, moles, in there, who do work for them, yes. And it's enough to largely control the media message.

    You see something similar when you study other deep state operations, like the Kennedy assassination. There, you can see that surely the criminals behind the hit had assets within the Dallas Police Department. For example, somebody in the Dallas P.D. must have arranged the situation where Jack Ruby was able to kill Oswald. Otherwise, how could Jack Ruby even know where and when he would have that window of opportunity to do it? What I seriously doubt, however, is that the entire Dallas P.D. was "controlled" by the criminal conspirators, in the sense that all the Dallas cops were working for them or anything like that. And, in fact, you can see that they didn't have complete control over events. For example, the intention was for Oswald to be killed, not taken into custody, but he was taken alive and then they had to formulate a desperate plan B, which was this Jack Ruby killing Oswald.

    Ditto for the killing of Martin Luther King in Memphis. I'm sure the criminals had assets within the Memphis Police Department who were part of the conspiracy. But again, most of the Memphis city cops were not in on it, I'm pretty sure. Heck, even if you do figure that a lot of those white southern cops didn't like King and didn't like black folks too much, my sense would be that most of them would not willingly be party to the man's murder.

    I guess what all this gets at is that you have this "debunker" talking point where they claim that none of these "conspiracies" are possible because too many people would have to stay quiet for the conspiracy to work. i.e.

    "Somebody woulda talked..."

    Yeah, I guess that would be true, for example, if the entire Dallas P.D. or the entire Memphis P.D. was in on the respective conspiracies, but they almost certainly weren't. The criminals had moles there and I would say their control over the mainstream media is kind of similar. They have a lot of control but it is not total... you know, people go on with these all-or-none fallacies, and say stuff like "If the media is controlled, how come X and Y were actually reported on?" Well, it's not an "all or none" type deal. The criminal networks exert a large degree of control over the message but it's not total. That's where my thinking leads me on this, anyway.

    But getting back to 9/11, you have this Jane Standley woman who reported building 7 before it imploded -- now, I'm not 100% sure, but I seriously doubt that woman was really part of the conspiracy or anything. She was just one of these talking heads there on the BBC, not even necessarily extremely bright or anything. She was reading a script handed to her, pretty obviously. The problem is that the moles there in the organization who were supposed to control the narrative somehow screwed up and the poor woman was there announcing the collapse of a building that was clearly standing there right behind her. Major league FUBAR. (LOL.)

    What I think happened (again, not 100% sure) is that the criminals wanted to create some "foreshadowing" or "prepare the terrain" somewhat to make it seem somehow normal (or at least less extraordinary) that this building would just collapse. So it should have been something like "people report massive damage to building 7 and blah blah" so as to plant in people' s minds the idea that it was somehow to be expected for this steel-framed building to just collapse.

    But somehow they f'ed up -- or their moles within the BBC messed up -- and it ended up being that the BBC reported the collapse before it happened. The other networks probably just reported "the building has sustained massive damage blah blah" but somehow Jane Stanley on the BBC said it had already collapsed. I think it must have been something like that. I don't think that woman was in on any conspiracy. So when people accuse her of it and she answers indignantly, the indignation is actually honest. Probably.

    Also, a lot of the control that the criminals exert over the MSM message is not explicit really, as far as I can see. Like, somehow, throughout a huge part of the society -- not just media, but academia, government... -- it is just tacitly understood that if you express doubts about this story, you will... pay the price.. there doesn't even seem to be a need to sit people down, cosa nostra style, and put it to them. It's just somehow tacitly understood that if you express any doubt about these stories, that will be tantamount to destroying your career.

    And that's enough. So most people just won't go there. Like look at Philip Giraldi there, he says that "the truth movement makes some good points" maybe kind of to wink at us and let us know that he knows, but then you ask him what those "good points" are and it's the deafening silence...

    What I have been wondering just lately, seeing just how great the preponderance of pro-9/11 truth the comments here are, is whether there really is a tipping point being reached...

    Speaking of Martin Luther King’s assassination, the late Steve Cokely think then it was Jesse Jackson who killed MLK. I was sceptical first but sometimes I got some second thoughts.

    And on a off-topic sidenote, strange coincidence then a storm hit a crane who collapsed in Mecca on 9-11. I wonder if it’s an omen of things to come?

    http://www.rt.com/news/315082-crane-collapses-mecca-mosque/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3231117/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    This is all a tangent to this discussion really, but I think the youtube video you linked is mistitled. Jesse Jackson did not kill MLK. He may have had some foreknowledge and even some level of complicity, but he was not the main mover in the thing. He at most had a secondary role.

    It is perfectly clear to me that the assassination of Martin Luther King, like that of Malcolm X before that, was a Deep State operation. The guy they claimed did it, James Earl Ray, was just a patsy. Like Oswald. There is literally an orgy of evidence for this.

    What I remember is that there was this other black preacher, Kyles, who seems to have slipped and said something very self-incriminating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwHK6HBjYN8

    The fact is that King's inner circle was totally infiltrated with FBI informants. Basically, MLK couldn't take a leak without J. Edgar Hoover knowing about it. That much is certain. Also, remember the iconic photograph of a man running up to King's body and pointing to where the shot came from. (That is NOT where the shot came from...)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Kiza says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    James, I think you may be missing Tom’s point a little. Most of you guys are focused on disputing the official fairy tale, but Tom focuses on the changes to the US and the World from 911.
     
    Kiza, let's go to some first principles here. If somebody is going to poison you, what do they do?

    (a) they hand you a vial of some utterly foul-smelling concoction (that looks and smells like poison, because IT IS) and say "Here, swallow this"

    or

    (b) they prepare you a beautiful meal, having figured out your favourite foods, and one or more of the items is poisoned.

    Obviously b, right?

    So, by the same token, if somebody is going to purvey disinformation, what do they do? Do they just give you pure disinformation, like in (a) above or is it more like (b), where much of the information (like the food) is perfectly good and the analysis is correct, except the disinformation is mixed in there in certain places, like the poison in case (b).

    You see my point?

    This is how controlled opposition and "limited hangout" sorts of things work. Even the utterly horrid propaganda that you see on Fox news or some other Murdoch controlled operation, a lot of the information on there is actually valid, truthful. Of course, because it is very much in the nature of things that disinformation will be mixed in with other material that is valid.

    In other words, it doesn't matter that the article actually says some things that are correct. Once you recognise that somebody is purveying disinformation.... like, if somebody invites you to dinner and it turns out that the dessert (your favorite, strawberry cheesecake) is laced with arsenic, do you defend the host by saying that all the other dishes were delicious and not poisoned???

    In short, just how insufferably naive do you intend to be here?

    Jonathan, I think I understand your main point. You appear to be writing about “honey-pot propaganda” – someone buys the way in into your mind by writing what you believe and then tries to deliver the real payload – the propaganda. For example, I believe Eric Margolis is such, Pierre Omidyar, even Soros used to be like that at the beginning of his regime-changing career, until his cover became too big a burden and unsustainable to maintain.

    I have been following, although not closely, Tom’s writing and I do not believe he does honey-pot propaganda. What he does, to use the language of our opponent Rumsfield, is deal with known knowables. To deduct whodunit, which is an unknown unknowlable – extremely highly guarded secret, one needs to look at what happened after and who benefited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    I can't agree with this one Kiza. Tom steers people away from the source to the symptom would be my take. There's nothing he cites that hasn't received plenty of ink, virtual or otherwise. But slipped into his rants the inevitable 'official line' is propped up. He's using the 'known knowns' as cover to perpetrate a deceit, is what I see.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Ronald Thomas West

    It is sufficient at this stage to ask how it fits in with the best evidence on the twin towers the Pentagon and everything else when, above all, you have to provide a motive for bringing down that extra building deliberately
     
    ^ This is where your entire phony construct falls apart (I would call it an 'alternative mainstream media' lie.) Setting everything else aside, you don't have to provide anything more in relation to 9/11 to know the entire business is suspect other than look to WTC Building 7 and the fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official explanation is an impossibility. Your (above) conclusion demanding motive is entirely lame. Bodies turn up every day in the annals of law enforcement with no reasonable clue as to the killer's motive. That the entire point of investigating for purpose of evidence for prosecution. Body found, subsequent investigation to determine motive is the order.

    And tossing in reply to Rurik's observation, Revusky comes across as obsessed to point of maniacal and not only that, he is a pro at engaging disingenuous propaganda technique, truth couldn't have a greater adversary when it comes to turning off reasonable people with his style. That's pretty much his substance. Not to mention his past embrace of glaring fallacies, for instance the idea the twin towers could have been wired for demolition over a period some weeks 'elevator maintenance.'

    Trolls, trollops, all the same when the fact is, all the facts are not in and both sides are obfuscating the reality

    While you don’t seem to handle rational analysis, exposition and discussion very well you seem closest to sanity and common sense on this extraordinary thread so I will again address matters of substance, ones that I forgot in my last reply, to you as well as noting that you are almost as frustrating as the complete nutters in your failure to address my central points and merely mispresenting my peripheral one. I’ll get that added diversion out of the way first.

    I did not proffer any “conclusion” wrt WTC building 7. I merely acknowledged it as a side issue for the conspiracists who needed, for credibility, to show a motive consistent with those same people having a motive to cause the plane crashes and to have actually arranged them and the deliberate destruction of the twin towers and a side of the Pentagon.

    To make it plainer: even if it could be shown that some explosives finished off WTC 7 – which had been evacuated and was burning all day – the better question would be “what opportunists had the motive to take advantage of the primary disaster?”. Insurance scam? An opportunity for people who had stuffed up [maybe CIA which had offices there] to destroy records? At least it would be more sensible than connecting it to the main attacks – though I offer this at no charge: Osama bin Laden hired a clever PR man to think up ways of diverting gullible Americans into conspiracy theories and was delighted at the idea of a puzzling destruction of a neighbouring building – right to be delighted too. Well he got you in RTW didn’t he? You earnest Gringos have no imagination….

    Actually a little up to date Googling for “WTC building 7″ will get you, inter alia, an apparently uncontradicted Daily Mail article disclosing a video of WTC 7 which dispels the supposed mystery. But let me emphasise: I don’t think anyone should allow WTC 7 to distract them if they still think there are important doubts about the central disasters of 9/11.

    And so to the supplementaries from my viewing of the 2014 UK-Canadian doco.

    Dr Greening built a computer model to show what the weight of a weakened steel structure does to the building below the weakened part, and how quickly. It brilliantly answered the test of differentiating between what would and did happen to the tower which was struck lower down and the one struck ten (or however many) stories higher up. Obviously the one struck lower down would have a greater weight of superstructure to crush it into the basement. And so his model predicted with very precise – and accurate – figures for the number of seconds each tower took to collapse once it started.

    So much for silly amateurs going on about their little snippets of adapted common sense such as structures damaged asymmetrically will fall asymmetrically. The probable reality is that raging fires weakened structures and made way for molten aluminium to spread and combine with water for a series of explosions which eventually allowed the huge weight from above to begin a crushing which couldn’t be other than – approximately – symmetrical.

    Leaving what relevant lies? Come on you said “lies”. Very likely, but what lies? NIST not wanting to revisit its limited work or the Port Authority being uncooperative with a private investigation hardly qualifies. So, what lies with what motive that matters? (I’m not denying lies. People do. But I’m challenging your evasiveness about something you beat up).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    "raging fires" all day ... I suppose referring to the moderate fires on a few floors more or less at one end of the building that twenty-two hundred professionally trained and certified architects & engineers maintain could not have brought #7 down. Btw Rudy Guiliani's original emergency/disaster headquarters were located there, so I suppose I'm taking your 'CIA or sumthin' offices bait and you can run with that. Sure, that 'coincidence' should be looked into.

    Well, no thanks for the sanity compliment, stepping into this sewer of shameless liars, I knew I'd get splashed.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    But let me emphasise: I don’t think anyone should allow WTC 7 to distract them if they still think there are important doubts about the central disasters of 9/11.
     
    When the shill says: "Don't be distracted by WTC7"

    This of course actually means: "Focus on WTC7."

    So the translation of the above quote is:


    But let me emphasise: I think everybody should focus on WTC 7 in order to realize that there are important doubts about the central disasters of 9/11.
     
    I wonder... who is handing this guy all his talking points?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. PS There’s a conspiracy theory that still makes people dismissive and even cross but which I haven’t seen countered.

    Most recently a retired Australian police detective picked up on the work of a now dead US firearms expert to dismiss the Warren Commission version of what Oswald did and just add one important (alleged) fact to complete the picture.

    A stand in Security Service officer in the car following Kennedy’s reacted when he heard Oswald’s first shot by raising his gun and preparing it to fire just as the car accelerated and he accidentally fired a shot which killed JFK. All the behaviour of the Security Service and the losses or suppressions of evidence after that flow quite naturally and plausibly. Even Robert Kennedy could have known or suspected the truth and seen no reason for it to be publicised.

    That’ s a conspiracy story which hangs together and seems plausible to me. But maybe it is BS designed to make money for a few shysters. Anyone know of any plausible rebuttal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    A stand in Security Service officer in the car following Kennedy’s reacted when he heard Oswald’s first shot by raising his gun and preparing it to fire just as the car accelerated and he accidentally fired a shot which killed JFK.
     
    So, let me get this straight... was that the famed single "magic bullet" that, via some trajectory of ricocheting back and forth, inflicted 7 wounds on 2 people?

    That’ s a conspiracy story which hangs together and seems plausible to me.
     
    Seems plausible to you. Just like the Kamikaze pilot packing his suitcases and schlepping them to airport...

    The thing is, though, that even if some theory is "plausible" (which this kind of garbage is NOT) does that mean it's actually true?

    But I wonder, who is feeding you all this disinfo? This endless stream of ludicrous crap... I somehow don't think you are coming up with it on your own...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Wizard of Oz
    While you don't seem to handle rational analysis, exposition and discussion very well you seem closest to sanity and common sense on this extraordinary thread so I will again address matters of substance, ones that I forgot in my last reply, to you as well as noting that you are almost as frustrating as the complete nutters in your failure to address my central points and merely mispresenting my peripheral one. I'll get that added diversion out of the way first.

    I did not proffer any "conclusion" wrt WTC building 7. I merely acknowledged it as a side issue for the conspiracists who needed, for credibility, to show a motive consistent with those same people having a motive to cause the plane crashes and to have actually arranged them and the deliberate destruction of the twin towers and a side of the Pentagon.

    To make it plainer: even if it could be shown that some explosives finished off WTC 7 - which had been evacuated and was burning all day - the better question would be "what opportunists had the motive to take advantage of the primary disaster?". Insurance scam? An opportunity for people who had stuffed up [maybe CIA which had offices there] to destroy records? At least it would be more sensible than connecting it to the main attacks - though I offer this at no charge: Osama bin Laden hired a clever PR man to think up ways of diverting gullible Americans into conspiracy theories and was delighted at the idea of a puzzling destruction of a neighbouring building - right to be delighted too. Well he got you in RTW didn't he? You earnest Gringos have no imagination....

    Actually a little up to date Googling for "WTC building 7" will get you, inter alia, an apparently uncontradicted Daily Mail article disclosing a video of WTC 7 which dispels the supposed mystery. But let me emphasise: I don't think anyone should allow WTC 7 to distract them if they still think there are important doubts about the central disasters of 9/11.

    And so to the supplementaries from my viewing of the 2014 UK-Canadian doco.

    Dr Greening built a computer model to show what the weight of a weakened steel structure does to the building below the weakened part, and how quickly. It brilliantly answered the test of differentiating between what would and did happen to the tower which was struck lower down and the one struck ten (or however many) stories higher up. Obviously the one struck lower down would have a greater weight of superstructure to crush it into the basement. And so his model predicted with very precise - and accurate - figures for the number of seconds each tower took to collapse once it started.

    So much for silly amateurs going on about their little snippets of adapted common sense such as structures damaged asymmetrically will fall asymmetrically. The probable reality is that raging fires weakened structures and made way for molten aluminium to spread and combine with water for a series of explosions which eventually allowed the huge weight from above to begin a crushing which couldn't be other than - approximately - symmetrical.

    Leaving what relevant lies? Come on you said "lies". Very likely, but what lies? NIST not wanting to revisit its limited work or the Port Authority being uncooperative with a private investigation hardly qualifies. So, what lies with what motive that matters? (I'm not denying lies. People do. But I'm challenging your evasiveness about something you beat up).

    “raging fires” all day … I suppose referring to the moderate fires on a few floors more or less at one end of the building that twenty-two hundred professionally trained and certified architects & engineers maintain could not have brought #7 down. Btw Rudy Guiliani’s original emergency/disaster headquarters were located there, so I suppose I’m taking your ‘CIA or sumthin’ offices bait and you can run with that. Sure, that ‘coincidence’ should be looked into.

    Well, no thanks for the sanity compliment, stepping into this sewer of shameless liars, I knew I’d get splashed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Why do you avoid what others say even when they are obviously only inrigued or amazed bystanders like me with no axe to grind. I've listed a whole lot of arguments and evidence that I have come across which are internally coherent but could be BS for all I know and you say nothing to dent their credibility.

    All you do is carry on about official lies while refusing, or at least rather obviously neglecting, to explain what those lies are and why we should believe them to be untruths knowingly propagated, and what the motives are for the lies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Rurik

    Sticking to what we know can impress people to open their minds, for instance the indisputable fact 2,200 certified architects & engineers have signed on to stating the official WTC Building 7 explanation is an “impossibility” and leave the rest open to question (there are a lot of questions, no small one being how could the twin towers have been wired for demolition) is perhaps the only means to bring enough pressure to bear to break the entire business open.
     
    you're right of course

    and it is way too much for many people to even begin to entertain that our government and the people they've come to trust giving them the news would perpetrate something so heinous and down-right evil. But the facts don't lie.

    As for the logistics, we know it happened, so figuring out how, just becomes a matter of figuring out how. If you look at all the videos there is even evidence of steel being vaporized. Turned into dust, like the whole of the building was basically turned into powder. Steel and concrete and granite and office furniture and everything that was there, was basically just turned into powder. It's as if they used some kind of weapons that we're not even privy to. So it is very fantastic and terrifying, especially when you come to the realization that the people who did this are the same people who are in power today. But then as I mentioned earlier, they are the same people who perpetrated the horrific crime in Waco in the nineties, and that was all lied about too, and they burned alive women and children, and it was covered up. So what I like to point out is that as long as these psychopaths keep getting away with it all, they'll keep doing it over and over, especially since by doing it, they're able to advance their agenda - and remove our rights and any ability we might have in the future to stop them from treating us all the way they treat the citizens of Pakistan or all those other countries that are full of "terrorists" who they need to assassinate with their drones.

    now where'd I put that glass of pinot noir?

    Just don’t go off into ‘Mars Attacks’ space weapons theory and you’ll be ok. Other wise absinthe would be the automatic assumption of your intake habits…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Just don’t go off into ‘Mars Attacks’ space weapons theory and you’ll be ok
     
    is that what I sound like? Eek

    I try to stick to what I know. One of the things I like about this place is they don't give you any slack for error. None.

    But I love that. It hones us all and edifies and cleanses. It's wonderful.

    One of my first posts here was about the shooting down of MH17, and I made the mistake of saying the BUK weapons systems (which were not what shot it down) used heat-seeking tech. And in no time I was corrected, and that's great. (they use radar guided tech) And I'll even admit that sometimes I'll say something without complete certainty knowing that the rigors of this place will push if right back at me if I'm lazy about the veracity of something I write. I love it.

    absinthe or something like that ; )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Kiza
    Jonathan, I think I understand your main point. You appear to be writing about "honey-pot propaganda" - someone buys the way in into your mind by writing what you believe and then tries to deliver the real payload - the propaganda. For example, I believe Eric Margolis is such, Pierre Omidyar, even Soros used to be like that at the beginning of his regime-changing career, until his cover became too big a burden and unsustainable to maintain.

    I have been following, although not closely, Tom's writing and I do not believe he does honey-pot propaganda. What he does, to use the language of our opponent Rumsfield, is deal with known knowables. To deduct whodunit, which is an unknown unknowlable - extremely highly guarded secret, one needs to look at what happened after and who benefited.

    I can’t agree with this one Kiza. Tom steers people away from the source to the symptom would be my take. There’s nothing he cites that hasn’t received plenty of ink, virtual or otherwise. But slipped into his rants the inevitable ‘official line’ is propped up. He’s using the ‘known knowns’ as cover to perpetrate a deceit, is what I see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Rurik

    That said, where I would take issue with what you say is that I still don’t quite believe that the criminals have complete control over the institutions in question. It’s more like they have key assets, moles, in there, who do work for them, yes. And it’s enough to largely control the media message.
     
    I agree

    When it came out that Carl Cameron of Faux "News" had done an investigative piece on the hundreds of Israeli "art students" who were rounded up after 911 and suspected of espionage, I was amazed that someone at Fox would have even considered such an investigation. (the entire investigation has been since classified of course and Carl Cameron is forbidden from discussing it). So the control is not complete. But it's enough.

    I guess what all this gets at is that you have this “debunker” talking point where they claim that none of these “conspiracies” are possible because too many people would have to stay quiet for the conspiracy to work. i.e.
     
    just look at the attempt to sink the USS Liberty. It was a cowardly act of war on an ally, and the men who ordered it should have been sent in chains to the US and tried and executed. But instead the whole affair was covered up, by a completely complicit media and military (who had ordered the survivors not to talk about it). Or take the case of the Holocaust for instance. They demand fealty to that religion or else. And there is universal compliance, or else.

    She was just one of these talking heads there on the BBC, not even necessarily extremely bright or anything. She was reading a script handed to her, pretty obviously
     
    I agree

    and I think the other plane that disappeared over Pennsylvania or whatever happened to it was supposed to hit building seven. That was the fuck up. Once the plane didn't reach its destination, they didn't know what to do, so they "just decided to pull it". And because it was all ad lib at that point, that's why the BBC messed up and someone handed someone a script and they read it too soon.

    Like, somehow, throughout a huge part of the society — not just media, but academia, government… — it is just tacitly understood that if you express doubts about this story, you will… pay the price.. there doesn’t even seem to be a need to sit people down, cosa nostra style, and put it to them
     
    yep

    how many people in positions of power are going to have any doubt whatsoever about the Holocaust. I mean even if it's just one iota of the narrative, no one dare say one word of doubt. Even that they have a doubt. If they even suggest just a hint, it's all over. They're done.


    What I have been wondering just lately, seeing just how great the preponderance of pro-9/11 truth the comments here are, is whether there really is a tipping point being reached…
     
    I doubt it. The people here are hardly a representation of the wider public. But I would like to think you're right about that.

    … and I think the other plane that disappeared over Pennsylvania or whatever happened to it was supposed to hit building seven.

    Yup. Unfortunately for the real perpetrators of 9/11 (whoever they may be), bldg. 7 had already been primed with some flammable substance, and when sparks from other two buildings set it off, there was no way to stop it in time. So the best they could do was to downplay it in the national media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Why do you think the other plane was meant to hit WTC Building 7? Why would the planners want to do anything as difficult and lacking in symbolism rather than aim at either the Capitol or the White House?

    And what do you say about the video disclised by the Daily Mail showing the building burning all day?
    , @Rurik

    bldg. 7 had already been primed with some flammable substance, and when sparks from other two buildings set it off, there was no way to stop it in time.
     
    not so much primed with a flammable substance, but wired for a controlled demolition, by professionals

    Interview with Controlled Demo Expert, Danny Jowenko, confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc



    Danny has since died in a car crash (RIP)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @geokat62

    Mohammed Atta’s luggage… his checked luggage… Think about that… Really, just think about what you are saying here…. Visualise it…

    Just, imagine this. Imagine you’re going to fly a plane into a building. Why on earth would you pack one or more suitcases and schlep them to the airport and queue up there to check them in?

    WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYBODY EVER DO THAT? If you’re flying the plane into a building, why would you check in your diary or any other item onto the flight????

    WTF??? Tell me. Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WW2 packed suitcases before the mission? Like maybe they figured that where they were going they would need a week’s worth of clean underwear??!!!
     

    I think you answered your own question - .ie., "where they were going they would need a week’s worth of clean underwear??!!!"

    Think about it. They were boarding a transcontinental flight (Boston to Los Angeles). Wouldn't you agree that most people who take flights from Boston to LA are probably going to stay a few days before returning. Highly unlikely that they'd come back the next day. If this is true, most people are likely to bring along sufficient clothing to wear while away, which means the will require luggage that will have to be either carried on or checked in. So if you're Mohammed Atta and trying to board a transcontinental flight, wouldn't you bring along some luggage so as not to arouse suspicion or would you try boarding with just your toothbrush?

    Look, if you really have a deep-seated need to believe that this story is true, that a Kamikaze pilot packs his suitcases and checks them in on the flight, then probably nothing can be done for you. Now, granted, unlike other aspects of the official narrative, this part of the story does not actually violate any laws of physics. Just as it does not violate any laws of physics when little Johnny tells you that he really did his homework but the dog ate it. But that doesn’t mean that we all don’t know that little Johnny is lying. (As we also know that the story that the U.S. government killed Bin Laden and threw his body in the sea is not true.)

    Now, okay, just to answer your point, regarding the issue of checked baggage on a long flight.

    1. First of all, are you aware of any case in which somebody in possession of a valid ticket was not allowed to board his flight because he had suspiciously little luggage? Has this ever happened to your knowledge? (This is a simple question that admits a yes/no answer and, therefore, would you please answer it?)

    2. I have known a few people who did very large amounts of business travel. At least one of them, the wife of a friend, I recall distinctly, was absolutely religious about only taking with her the limited amount of stuff that would fit in a carry-on bag. I doubt she was alone in this. The extra hassle of checking in baggage and then, when you get off the plane, having to wait around for your bags to show up afterwards (assuming they do!) was simply not worth it, so she was absolutely disciplined about not taking anything on a business trip that she did not definitely need. Her notebook computer and a change of clothes and maybe a couple of other things, but ONLY what would fit in a carry-on bag, that’s it.

    Think about it.

    3. “Think about it,” you say… Maybe give me some credit. I HAVE thought about it. Maybe it’s you that need to think about it. Specifically, think about this: prior to the operation, does Mohammed Atta or any other of the alleged perpetrators know with 100% certainty that the operation will be successful? That they will successfully hijack and take control of the planes? If the operation is unsuccessful or must be aborted, would it make sense to have your diary with incriminating information detailing the planned operation in your checked luggage???? (I mean, even leaving aside the question of whether kamikaze pilots would pack suitcases and check luggage…)

    Anyway, I asked the Wizard of Oz, that little man, whether there was any real proof that this story of the suicide pilots packing suitcases and checking in luggage was really true. To argue that some story, at the very limit, could be true is a very very weak argument. Look, you have a government that kidnaps and tortures people — even in the full knowledge that the victims are not really guilty of anything, and your position is basically that they would not lie to us know. People would commit mass murder, torture, and also lie about WMD in Iraq and many other lies, but for some reason, there is just this unlimited gullibility, that, no, they are saying this, so it’s true…

    Cripes, maybe what you need to do is just grow up a little bit…. Or maybe this desperate neurotic need to be duped is akin to the passive homosexual’s overpowering need to be roughly sodomized. If such is the case, your condition is surely incurable. You know, I often wonder whether the bastards behind these narratives are constantly just sort of probing the limits, testing what BS the sheeple will believe. Regardless, if really you cannot see that this story of the Kamikaze pilot schlepping all his luggage to the airport is really some kind of macabre joke, well, what can I or anybody else do for you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    Or maybe this desperate neurotic need to be duped is akin to the passive homosexual’s overpowering need to be roughly sodomized.
     
    Hi Jonathan,
    Since you opened the proverbial backdoor to this particular line of vituperation, my fingers defy the reluctant mind to type this rejoinder: its really for the best, an advice that all might draw benefit from, that metaphors are best restricted to ones rather quite commonplace or actually observed or experienced, by the writer. Since the one you quite randomly flung in here - I'll speculate - doesn't fit the taste for most souls on this board, should one then conclude that you speak from experience?


    Shana Tova

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Wizard of Oz
    PS There's a conspiracy theory that still makes people dismissive and even cross but which I haven't seen countered.

    Most recently a retired Australian police detective picked up on the work of a now dead US firearms expert to dismiss the Warren Commission version of what Oswald did and just add one important (alleged) fact to complete the picture.

    A stand in Security Service officer in the car following Kennedy's reacted when he heard Oswald's first shot by raising his gun and preparing it to fire just as the car accelerated and he accidentally fired a shot which killed JFK. All the behaviour of the Security Service and the losses or suppressions of evidence after that flow quite naturally and plausibly. Even Robert Kennedy could have known or suspected the truth and seen no reason for it to be publicised.

    That' s a conspiracy story which hangs together and seems plausible to me. But maybe it is BS designed to make money for a few shysters. Anyone know of any plausible rebuttal?

    A stand in Security Service officer in the car following Kennedy’s reacted when he heard Oswald’s first shot by raising his gun and preparing it to fire just as the car accelerated and he accidentally fired a shot which killed JFK.

    So, let me get this straight… was that the famed single “magic bullet” that, via some trajectory of ricocheting back and forth, inflicted 7 wounds on 2 people?

    That’ s a conspiracy story which hangs together and seems plausible to me.

    Seems plausible to you. Just like the Kamikaze pilot packing his suitcases and schlepping them to airport…

    The thing is, though, that even if some theory is “plausible” (which this kind of garbage is NOT) does that mean it’s actually true?

    But I wonder, who is feeding you all this disinfo? This endless stream of ludicrous crap… I somehow don’t think you are coming up with it on your own…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Last time. Instead of reading what I actually wrote and, if interested in the subject doing a pretty easy search fot more information, you just make things up, plucked out of thin air. But for any sane and honest person wanting to save time and no what it was about I'll just make the point that covering up a givernment body's mistake, particularly police or Security Service is something which has one tenth the plausibility problem of covering up a major and elaborate crime.

    Also that the story, originally from one Donovan many years ago, but also the subject of a libel case against publication of a book that set out the evidence and conclusion, related to just the one of three bullets fired which is alleged to have hit Kennedy directly from behind. Quite simple. I would be interested to know whether anyone has followed up the theory seriously and can discredit it satisfactorily. Or even just show that the theorisers have been discredited as fabulists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Hrw-500
    Speaking of Martin Luther King's assassination, the late Steve Cokely think then it was Jesse Jackson who killed MLK. I was sceptical first but sometimes I got some second thoughts.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teEplUjU0Bw

    And on a off-topic sidenote, strange coincidence then a storm hit a crane who collapsed in Mecca on 9-11. I wonder if it's an omen of things to come?
    http://www.rt.com/news/315082-crane-collapses-mecca-mosque/
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3231117/

    This is all a tangent to this discussion really, but I think the youtube video you linked is mistitled. Jesse Jackson did not kill MLK. He may have had some foreknowledge and even some level of complicity, but he was not the main mover in the thing. He at most had a secondary role.

    It is perfectly clear to me that the assassination of Martin Luther King, like that of Malcolm X before that, was a Deep State operation. The guy they claimed did it, James Earl Ray, was just a patsy. Like Oswald. There is literally an orgy of evidence for this.

    What I remember is that there was this other black preacher, Kyles, who seems to have slipped and said something very self-incriminating:

    The fact is that King’s inner circle was totally infiltrated with FBI informants. Basically, MLK couldn’t take a leak without J. Edgar Hoover knowing about it. That much is certain. Also, remember the iconic photograph of a man running up to King’s body and pointing to where the shot came from. (That is NOT where the shot came from…)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. geokat62 says:

    I recall distinctly, was absolutely religious about only taking with her the limited amount of stuff that would fit in a carry-on bag.

    So now you agree that trying to board a transcontinental flight with just a toothbrush makes little sense. But if you read my comment carefully, I did acknowledge the option of a carry-on:

    If this is true, most people are likely to bring along sufficient clothing to wear while away, which means the will require luggage that will have to be either carried on or checked in.

    I don’t think that had they found his diary on a carry-on instead of a checked-in luggage it would have changed your mind about the official narrative, would it? So now that we’ve established it makes sense to bring some form of luggage (either carry-on or check-in) with you on a transcontinental flight, the only real issue we’re left with is whether it makes sense to pack your diary in it. I think that it’s legitimate to question this aspect of the narrative.

    So if I had to give advice to the truthers, it would be: focus on the diary, but lay off the luggage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    So now you agree that trying to board a transcontinental flight with just a toothbrush makes little sense.
     
    Well, if you're actually going somewhere (I mean, like... an earthly destination, of course...) then no.

    But if you're a suicide pilot...

    I was simply making the point that a passenger not checking in bags on a long flight is not particularly suspicious, because, in fact, a lot of seasoned business travelers make a point of not checking in bags. That was my point. (Which, as is par for the course, you did not to respond to...)

    Also I asked you a simple yes/no question. It was this: Are you aware of any case in which somebody in possession of a valid ticket was not allowed to board his flight because he had suspiciously little luggage? Has this ever happened to your knowledge? (Note, by the way, that, to be relevant, the incident would have to be prior to 9/11 of course...)

    Could you please answer that?

    I don’t think that had they found his diary on a carry-on instead of a checked-in luggage it would have changed your mind about the official narrative, would it?
     
    No, of course not. The diary is obviously planted phony evidence just like that passport of the other guy, that was found, practically undamaged at ground zero. Out of morbid curiosity, do you believe that one?

    Regardless what you are saying makes no sense (as usual!) because to construct this diary story, they need somehow for the diary to be found afterwards, so (OBVIOUSLY) they construct the story that it was in his checked luggage and the luggage did not make it onto the plane.

    Well, granted, they could say that the diary was found intact at ground zero, just like the (planted) passport. But to claim that would test people's credulity.

    Though, okay, on third thought.... claiming that a suicide pilot packed suitcases and checked them in should also test people's credulity... so maybe one story is about as good as the other. He carried the diary with him on the plane and it somehow survived the fireball... Fine, I suppose you'd believe that too. I gotta give you credit, lad, you're one true believer...

    But, regardless, do not bother to ask me now why they choose one ridiculous story over another ridiculous story, because I won't deign to answer. I shouldn't even really deign to answer this latest silliness... It is beneath one's dignity really... if you want to believe obvious lies, it's your own business...

    Look, my position on this is coherent and clear: I decline to believe any of this crap! Okay? It's obviously all crap. I was not born yesterday and I am no Einstein, but I am not a complete fool either. You get it? Okay?

    Now, look, just think about how tenuous an argument you are making is. Basically, you are arguing that this story "could be true". Well, okay, fine. Suppose I concede just for the sake of argument that... okay, that maybe suicide pilots DO pack suitcases to check in at the airport. Maybe this somehow makes sense.... (!!??)

    Well, that still does not prove that the story is TRUE??!! Does it??? Arguing that something is at the outer limits of the possible does not mean that it's actually true!!??

    I earlier asked you what specifically is the strongest proof that this Al Qaeda/Bin Laden/suicide hijacker story is actually true and you never answered. And it was a telling moment. You simply refused to answer. Here, this branch of the conversation is just more grist to the mill. It goes to show how many degrees you are away from having any kind of serious argument in your favor. It's like:

    "It could be true that a suicide hijacker would pack a suitcase and put his diary (outlining the whole plot) in there and that the diary would be found by the authorities because it somehow did not get on the plane..."

    "Yeah, okay, it could be, insofar as the story does not defy any law of physics (unlike other aspects of the overall narrative), but to argue that a story is borderline possible is hardly tantamount to producing any proof that said story is actually true!!!

    It's basically all akin to:

    "Well, if I had some ham, I could have a ham sandwich -- if I had some bread..."

    It's like somebody thinks that if they phrase something like the above in a sufficiently clever way, people won't realize that they are basically admitting that they have NOTHING!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Look, if you really have a deep-seated need to believe that this story is true, that a Kamikaze pilot packs his suitcases and checks them in on the flight, then probably nothing can be done for you. Now, granted, unlike other aspects of the official narrative, this part of the story does not actually violate any laws of physics. Just as it does not violate any laws of physics when little Johnny tells you that he really did his homework but the dog ate it. But that doesn't mean that we all don't know that little Johnny is lying. (As we also know that the story that the U.S. government killed Bin Laden and threw his body in the sea is not true.)

    Now, okay, just to answer your point, regarding the issue of checked baggage on a long flight.

    1. First of all, are you aware of any case in which somebody in possession of a valid ticket was not allowed to board his flight because he had suspiciously little luggage? Has this ever happened to your knowledge? (This is a simple question that admits a yes/no answer and, therefore, would you please answer it?)

    2. I have known a few people who did very large amounts of business travel. At least one of them, the wife of a friend, I recall distinctly, was absolutely religious about only taking with her the limited amount of stuff that would fit in a carry-on bag. I doubt she was alone in this. The extra hassle of checking in baggage and then, when you get off the plane, having to wait around for your bags to show up afterwards (assuming they do!) was simply not worth it, so she was absolutely disciplined about not taking anything on a business trip that she did not definitely need. Her notebook computer and a change of clothes and maybe a couple of other things, but ONLY what would fit in a carry-on bag, that's it.

    Think about it.
     
    3. "Think about it," you say... Maybe give me some credit. I HAVE thought about it. Maybe it's you that need to think about it. Specifically, think about this: prior to the operation, does Mohammed Atta or any other of the alleged perpetrators know with 100% certainty that the operation will be successful? That they will successfully hijack and take control of the planes? If the operation is unsuccessful or must be aborted, would it make sense to have your diary with incriminating information detailing the planned operation in your checked luggage???? (I mean, even leaving aside the question of whether kamikaze pilots would pack suitcases and check luggage...)

    Anyway, I asked the Wizard of Oz, that little man, whether there was any real proof that this story of the suicide pilots packing suitcases and checking in luggage was really true. To argue that some story, at the very limit, could be true is a very very weak argument. Look, you have a government that kidnaps and tortures people -- even in the full knowledge that the victims are not really guilty of anything, and your position is basically that they would not lie to us know. People would commit mass murder, torture, and also lie about WMD in Iraq and many other lies, but for some reason, there is just this unlimited gullibility, that, no, they are saying this, so it's true...

    Cripes, maybe what you need to do is just grow up a little bit.... Or maybe this desperate neurotic need to be duped is akin to the passive homosexual's overpowering need to be roughly sodomized. If such is the case, your condition is surely incurable. You know, I often wonder whether the bastards behind these narratives are constantly just sort of probing the limits, testing what BS the sheeple will believe. Regardless, if really you cannot see that this story of the Kamikaze pilot schlepping all his luggage to the airport is really some kind of macabre joke, well, what can I or anybody else do for you?

    Or maybe this desperate neurotic need to be duped is akin to the passive homosexual’s overpowering need to be roughly sodomized.

    Hi Jonathan,
    Since you opened the proverbial backdoor to this particular line of vituperation, my fingers defy the reluctant mind to type this rejoinder: its really for the best, an advice that all might draw benefit from, that metaphors are best restricted to ones rather quite commonplace or actually observed or experienced, by the writer. Since the one you quite randomly flung in here – I’ll speculate – doesn’t fit the taste for most souls on this board, should one then conclude that you speak from experience?

    Shana Tova

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @geokat62

    I recall distinctly, was absolutely religious about only taking with her the limited amount of stuff that would fit in a carry-on bag.
     
    So now you agree that trying to board a transcontinental flight with just a toothbrush makes little sense. But if you read my comment carefully, I did acknowledge the option of a carry-on:

    If this is true, most people are likely to bring along sufficient clothing to wear while away, which means the will require luggage that will have to be either carried on or checked in.
     
    I don't think that had they found his diary on a carry-on instead of a checked-in luggage it would have changed your mind about the official narrative, would it? So now that we've established it makes sense to bring some form of luggage (either carry-on or check-in) with you on a transcontinental flight, the only real issue we're left with is whether it makes sense to pack your diary in it. I think that it's legitimate to question this aspect of the narrative.

    So if I had to give advice to the truthers, it would be: focus on the diary, but lay off the luggage.

    So now you agree that trying to board a transcontinental flight with just a toothbrush makes little sense.

    Well, if you’re actually going somewhere (I mean, like… an earthly destination, of course…) then no.

    But if you’re a suicide pilot…

    I was simply making the point that a passenger not checking in bags on a long flight is not particularly suspicious, because, in fact, a lot of seasoned business travelers make a point of not checking in bags. That was my point. (Which, as is par for the course, you did not to respond to…)

    Also I asked you a simple yes/no question. It was this: Are you aware of any case in which somebody in possession of a valid ticket was not allowed to board his flight because he had suspiciously little luggage? Has this ever happened to your knowledge? (Note, by the way, that, to be relevant, the incident would have to be prior to 9/11 of course…)

    Could you please answer that?

    I don’t think that had they found his diary on a carry-on instead of a checked-in luggage it would have changed your mind about the official narrative, would it?

    No, of course not. The diary is obviously planted phony evidence just like that passport of the other guy, that was found, practically undamaged at ground zero. Out of morbid curiosity, do you believe that one?

    Regardless what you are saying makes no sense (as usual!) because to construct this diary story, they need somehow for the diary to be found afterwards, so (OBVIOUSLY) they construct the story that it was in his checked luggage and the luggage did not make it onto the plane.

    Well, granted, they could say that the diary was found intact at ground zero, just like the (planted) passport. But to claim that would test people’s credulity.

    Though, okay, on third thought…. claiming that a suicide pilot packed suitcases and checked them in should also test people’s credulity… so maybe one story is about as good as the other. He carried the diary with him on the plane and it somehow survived the fireball… Fine, I suppose you’d believe that too. I gotta give you credit, lad, you’re one true believer…

    But, regardless, do not bother to ask me now why they choose one ridiculous story over another ridiculous story, because I won’t deign to answer. I shouldn’t even really deign to answer this latest silliness… It is beneath one’s dignity really… if you want to believe obvious lies, it’s your own business…

    Look, my position on this is coherent and clear: I decline to believe any of this crap! Okay? It’s obviously all crap. I was not born yesterday and I am no Einstein, but I am not a complete fool either. You get it? Okay?

    Now, look, just think about how tenuous an argument you are making is. Basically, you are arguing that this story “could be true“. Well, okay, fine. Suppose I concede just for the sake of argument that… okay, that maybe suicide pilots DO pack suitcases to check in at the airport. Maybe this somehow makes sense…. (!!??)

    Well, that still does not prove that the story is TRUE??!! Does it??? Arguing that something is at the outer limits of the possible does not mean that it’s actually true!!??

    I earlier asked you what specifically is the strongest proof that this Al Qaeda/Bin Laden/suicide hijacker story is actually true and you never answered. And it was a telling moment. You simply refused to answer. Here, this branch of the conversation is just more grist to the mill. It goes to show how many degrees you are away from having any kind of serious argument in your favor. It’s like:

    “It could be true that a suicide hijacker would pack a suitcase and put his diary (outlining the whole plot) in there and that the diary would be found by the authorities because it somehow did not get on the plane…”

    “Yeah, okay, it could be, insofar as the story does not defy any law of physics (unlike other aspects of the overall narrative), but to argue that a story is borderline possible is hardly tantamount to producing any proof that said story is actually true!!!

    It’s basically all akin to:

    “Well, if I had some ham, I could have a ham sandwich — if I had some bread…”

    It’s like somebody thinks that if they phrase something like the above in a sufficiently clever way, people won’t realize that they are basically admitting that they have NOTHING!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    JR-

    Next time get some background before replying. Firstly 'Attas luggage' was found on a flight from Portland, Maine to Boston, not on a transcontinental flight. Secondly, it contained 'evidence', not personal items- a copy of the Koran, a flight instruction manual, a cassette tape of some Islamic religious wacko, a list of the 'guilty'. EVIDENCE. It was planted, meant to be found.
    , @geokat62
    Look, I don't know if you realize this but you truthers have a lot in common with the neocons when it comes to the level of certainty with which you speak about certain facts. If you recall, they were 100% certain that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction:

    I found it peculiar that those who wanted to take military action could - with 100 per cent certainty - know that the weapons existed and turn out to have zero knowledge of where they were. - Hans Blix
     
    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov't mfged. There is no room for doubt... it's all or nothing. I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Jonathan Revusky

    A stand in Security Service officer in the car following Kennedy’s reacted when he heard Oswald’s first shot by raising his gun and preparing it to fire just as the car accelerated and he accidentally fired a shot which killed JFK.
     
    So, let me get this straight... was that the famed single "magic bullet" that, via some trajectory of ricocheting back and forth, inflicted 7 wounds on 2 people?

    That’ s a conspiracy story which hangs together and seems plausible to me.
     
    Seems plausible to you. Just like the Kamikaze pilot packing his suitcases and schlepping them to airport...

    The thing is, though, that even if some theory is "plausible" (which this kind of garbage is NOT) does that mean it's actually true?

    But I wonder, who is feeding you all this disinfo? This endless stream of ludicrous crap... I somehow don't think you are coming up with it on your own...

    Last time. Instead of reading what I actually wrote and, if interested in the subject doing a pretty easy search fot more information, you just make things up, plucked out of thin air. But for any sane and honest person wanting to save time and no what it was about I’ll just make the point that covering up a givernment body’s mistake, particularly police or Security Service is something which has one tenth the plausibility problem of covering up a major and elaborate crime.

    Also that the story, originally from one Donovan many years ago, but also the subject of a libel case against publication of a book that set out the evidence and conclusion, related to just the one of three bullets fired which is alleged to have hit Kennedy directly from behind. Quite simple. I would be interested to know whether anyone has followed up the theory seriously and can discredit it satisfactorily. Or even just show that the theorisers have been discredited as fabulists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Seamus Padraig

    ... and I think the other plane that disappeared over Pennsylvania or whatever happened to it was supposed to hit building seven.
     
    Yup. Unfortunately for the real perpetrators of 9/11 (whoever they may be), bldg. 7 had already been primed with some flammable substance, and when sparks from other two buildings set it off, there was no way to stop it in time. So the best they could do was to downplay it in the national media.

    Why do you think the other plane was meant to hit WTC Building 7? Why would the planners want to do anything as difficult and lacking in symbolism rather than aim at either the Capitol or the White House?

    And what do you say about the video disclised by the Daily Mail showing the building burning all day?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Why do you think the other plane was meant to hit WTC Building 7?
     
    A process of deduction, my dear Watson!

    The media reported that four planes were hijacked. Two struck the twin towers, another was said to have hit the Pentagon, and that leaves the one plane that went down in Pennsylvania--apparently headed for NYC--and a third WTC building that mysteriously collapsed on its own.

    Why would the planners want to do anything as difficult and lacking in symbolism rather than aim at either the Capitol or the White House?
     
    That's actually a better question than you yourself probably even realize. Ponder it a while...

    And what do you say about the video disclised by the Daily Mail showing the building burning all day?
     
    I didn't follow British media very much 15 years ago. I also didn't know about the BBC reporter (Jane Standley) who prematurely reported that bldg. 7 had collapsed. Thanks to Rurik (or was it Revusky?) for that video.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    Just don't go off into 'Mars Attacks' space weapons theory and you'll be ok. Other wise absinthe would be the automatic assumption of your intake habits...

    Just don’t go off into ‘Mars Attacks’ space weapons theory and you’ll be ok

    is that what I sound like? Eek

    I try to stick to what I know. One of the things I like about this place is they don’t give you any slack for error. None.

    But I love that. It hones us all and edifies and cleanses. It’s wonderful.

    One of my first posts here was about the shooting down of MH17, and I made the mistake of saying the BUK weapons systems (which were not what shot it down) used heat-seeking tech. And in no time I was corrected, and that’s great. (they use radar guided tech) And I’ll even admit that sometimes I’ll say something without complete certainty knowing that the rigors of this place will push if right back at me if I’m lazy about the veracity of something I write. I love it.

    absinthe or something like that ; )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Ronald Thomas West
    "raging fires" all day ... I suppose referring to the moderate fires on a few floors more or less at one end of the building that twenty-two hundred professionally trained and certified architects & engineers maintain could not have brought #7 down. Btw Rudy Guiliani's original emergency/disaster headquarters were located there, so I suppose I'm taking your 'CIA or sumthin' offices bait and you can run with that. Sure, that 'coincidence' should be looked into.

    Well, no thanks for the sanity compliment, stepping into this sewer of shameless liars, I knew I'd get splashed.

    Why do you avoid what others say even when they are obviously only inrigued or amazed bystanders like me with no axe to grind. I’ve listed a whole lot of arguments and evidence that I have come across which are internally coherent but could be BS for all I know and you say nothing to dent their credibility.

    All you do is carry on about official lies while refusing, or at least rather obviously neglecting, to explain what those lies are and why we should believe them to be untruths knowingly propagated, and what the motives are for the lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Why do you avoid what others say
     
    um .. because you're a troll?

    (and not even a very good one at that ; )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Wizard of Oz
    While you don't seem to handle rational analysis, exposition and discussion very well you seem closest to sanity and common sense on this extraordinary thread so I will again address matters of substance, ones that I forgot in my last reply, to you as well as noting that you are almost as frustrating as the complete nutters in your failure to address my central points and merely mispresenting my peripheral one. I'll get that added diversion out of the way first.

    I did not proffer any "conclusion" wrt WTC building 7. I merely acknowledged it as a side issue for the conspiracists who needed, for credibility, to show a motive consistent with those same people having a motive to cause the plane crashes and to have actually arranged them and the deliberate destruction of the twin towers and a side of the Pentagon.

    To make it plainer: even if it could be shown that some explosives finished off WTC 7 - which had been evacuated and was burning all day - the better question would be "what opportunists had the motive to take advantage of the primary disaster?". Insurance scam? An opportunity for people who had stuffed up [maybe CIA which had offices there] to destroy records? At least it would be more sensible than connecting it to the main attacks - though I offer this at no charge: Osama bin Laden hired a clever PR man to think up ways of diverting gullible Americans into conspiracy theories and was delighted at the idea of a puzzling destruction of a neighbouring building - right to be delighted too. Well he got you in RTW didn't he? You earnest Gringos have no imagination....

    Actually a little up to date Googling for "WTC building 7" will get you, inter alia, an apparently uncontradicted Daily Mail article disclosing a video of WTC 7 which dispels the supposed mystery. But let me emphasise: I don't think anyone should allow WTC 7 to distract them if they still think there are important doubts about the central disasters of 9/11.

    And so to the supplementaries from my viewing of the 2014 UK-Canadian doco.

    Dr Greening built a computer model to show what the weight of a weakened steel structure does to the building below the weakened part, and how quickly. It brilliantly answered the test of differentiating between what would and did happen to the tower which was struck lower down and the one struck ten (or however many) stories higher up. Obviously the one struck lower down would have a greater weight of superstructure to crush it into the basement. And so his model predicted with very precise - and accurate - figures for the number of seconds each tower took to collapse once it started.

    So much for silly amateurs going on about their little snippets of adapted common sense such as structures damaged asymmetrically will fall asymmetrically. The probable reality is that raging fires weakened structures and made way for molten aluminium to spread and combine with water for a series of explosions which eventually allowed the huge weight from above to begin a crushing which couldn't be other than - approximately - symmetrical.

    Leaving what relevant lies? Come on you said "lies". Very likely, but what lies? NIST not wanting to revisit its limited work or the Port Authority being uncooperative with a private investigation hardly qualifies. So, what lies with what motive that matters? (I'm not denying lies. People do. But I'm challenging your evasiveness about something you beat up).

    But let me emphasise: I don’t think anyone should allow WTC 7 to distract them if they still think there are important doubts about the central disasters of 9/11.

    When the shill says: “Don’t be distracted by WTC7″

    This of course actually means: “Focus on WTC7.”

    So the translation of the above quote is:

    But let me emphasise: I think everybody should focus on WTC 7 in order to realize that there are important doubts about the central disasters of 9/11.

    I wonder… who is handing this guy all his talking points?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Rurik says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    ... and I think the other plane that disappeared over Pennsylvania or whatever happened to it was supposed to hit building seven.
     
    Yup. Unfortunately for the real perpetrators of 9/11 (whoever they may be), bldg. 7 had already been primed with some flammable substance, and when sparks from other two buildings set it off, there was no way to stop it in time. So the best they could do was to downplay it in the national media.

    bldg. 7 had already been primed with some flammable substance, and when sparks from other two buildings set it off, there was no way to stop it in time.

    not so much primed with a flammable substance, but wired for a controlled demolition, by professionals

    Interview with Controlled Demo Expert, Danny Jowenko, confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose.

    Danny has since died in a car crash (RIP)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Why do you avoid what others say even when they are obviously only inrigued or amazed bystanders like me with no axe to grind. I've listed a whole lot of arguments and evidence that I have come across which are internally coherent but could be BS for all I know and you say nothing to dent their credibility.

    All you do is carry on about official lies while refusing, or at least rather obviously neglecting, to explain what those lies are and why we should believe them to be untruths knowingly propagated, and what the motives are for the lies.

    Why do you avoid what others say

    um .. because you’re a troll?

    (and not even a very good one at that ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Do not be too harsh on WO: take into consideration the ravages of old age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jonathan Revusky

    So now you agree that trying to board a transcontinental flight with just a toothbrush makes little sense.
     
    Well, if you're actually going somewhere (I mean, like... an earthly destination, of course...) then no.

    But if you're a suicide pilot...

    I was simply making the point that a passenger not checking in bags on a long flight is not particularly suspicious, because, in fact, a lot of seasoned business travelers make a point of not checking in bags. That was my point. (Which, as is par for the course, you did not to respond to...)

    Also I asked you a simple yes/no question. It was this: Are you aware of any case in which somebody in possession of a valid ticket was not allowed to board his flight because he had suspiciously little luggage? Has this ever happened to your knowledge? (Note, by the way, that, to be relevant, the incident would have to be prior to 9/11 of course...)

    Could you please answer that?

    I don’t think that had they found his diary on a carry-on instead of a checked-in luggage it would have changed your mind about the official narrative, would it?
     
    No, of course not. The diary is obviously planted phony evidence just like that passport of the other guy, that was found, practically undamaged at ground zero. Out of morbid curiosity, do you believe that one?

    Regardless what you are saying makes no sense (as usual!) because to construct this diary story, they need somehow for the diary to be found afterwards, so (OBVIOUSLY) they construct the story that it was in his checked luggage and the luggage did not make it onto the plane.

    Well, granted, they could say that the diary was found intact at ground zero, just like the (planted) passport. But to claim that would test people's credulity.

    Though, okay, on third thought.... claiming that a suicide pilot packed suitcases and checked them in should also test people's credulity... so maybe one story is about as good as the other. He carried the diary with him on the plane and it somehow survived the fireball... Fine, I suppose you'd believe that too. I gotta give you credit, lad, you're one true believer...

    But, regardless, do not bother to ask me now why they choose one ridiculous story over another ridiculous story, because I won't deign to answer. I shouldn't even really deign to answer this latest silliness... It is beneath one's dignity really... if you want to believe obvious lies, it's your own business...

    Look, my position on this is coherent and clear: I decline to believe any of this crap! Okay? It's obviously all crap. I was not born yesterday and I am no Einstein, but I am not a complete fool either. You get it? Okay?

    Now, look, just think about how tenuous an argument you are making is. Basically, you are arguing that this story "could be true". Well, okay, fine. Suppose I concede just for the sake of argument that... okay, that maybe suicide pilots DO pack suitcases to check in at the airport. Maybe this somehow makes sense.... (!!??)

    Well, that still does not prove that the story is TRUE??!! Does it??? Arguing that something is at the outer limits of the possible does not mean that it's actually true!!??

    I earlier asked you what specifically is the strongest proof that this Al Qaeda/Bin Laden/suicide hijacker story is actually true and you never answered. And it was a telling moment. You simply refused to answer. Here, this branch of the conversation is just more grist to the mill. It goes to show how many degrees you are away from having any kind of serious argument in your favor. It's like:

    "It could be true that a suicide hijacker would pack a suitcase and put his diary (outlining the whole plot) in there and that the diary would be found by the authorities because it somehow did not get on the plane..."

    "Yeah, okay, it could be, insofar as the story does not defy any law of physics (unlike other aspects of the overall narrative), but to argue that a story is borderline possible is hardly tantamount to producing any proof that said story is actually true!!!

    It's basically all akin to:

    "Well, if I had some ham, I could have a ham sandwich -- if I had some bread..."

    It's like somebody thinks that if they phrase something like the above in a sufficiently clever way, people won't realize that they are basically admitting that they have NOTHING!

    JR-

    Next time get some background before replying. Firstly ‘Attas luggage’ was found on a flight from Portland, Maine to Boston, not on a transcontinental flight. Secondly, it contained ‘evidence’, not personal items- a copy of the Koran, a flight instruction manual, a cassette tape of some Islamic religious wacko, a list of the ‘guilty’. EVIDENCE. It was planted, meant to be found.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Next time get some background before replying.
     
    "get some background"???!!! WTF are you talking about? Let me get this straight.... you are reproaching me for not "researching" this???!!! WTF???!!! The whole story is obviously BULLSHIT.

    Firstly ‘Attas luggage’ was found on a flight from Portland, Maine to Boston, not on a transcontinental flight.
     
    I KNOW THAT. The Portland, Maine to Boston flight was an initial hop to get on the transcontinental flight from Boston to LA. So the (concocted) story is that the luggage was checked through to LA and did not make it onto the connecting flight.

    I know what the story is.... But... IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER ANYWAY!


    Secondly, it contained ‘evidence’, not personal items- a copy of the Koran, a flight instruction manual, a cassette tape of some Islamic religious wacko, a list of the ‘guilty’. EVIDENCE. It was planted, meant to be found.
     
    Are you sure about the above? I thought the flight instruction manual was allegedly found in the rental car he left at the Portland airport.

    Regardless, what does it matter? Yes, of course, the "EVIDENCE" was planted! Just like the intact passport at ground zero was planted. Planted by the actual criminals (not the Muslim patsies) as part of the frame-up. Quite a crude frame-up really when you look at it...

    As for what specific items were allegedly in Atta's checked luggage, for crying out loud, there is no reason for a suicide pilot to check in those items OR ANYTHING ELSE. Tell me, how many hours of "background research" was I supposed to have done before pointing out that all of this is totally phony?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Rurik says:

    when sparks from other two buildings set it off,

    I also wanted to mention that the implosion wasn’t set off by a fire. That stuff doesn’t work like that. It has to be initiated electronically and there are many controls against accidental or inadvertent triggering, for obvious reasons. When the third plan didn’t show, they couldn’t just leave the building standing there wired for demolition. The risk someone would discover the rigging was too great. There was also all those files at the SEC office and other evidence of financial fraud they needed this excuse to get rid of. So they had to proceed. There’s videos of firemen saying ‘get away from that building, it’s about to come down’, and other evidence that they were planning to bring it down. And it wasn’t just the BBC that pre-reported it. Fox news did so as well.

    Here is ‘lucky Larry’ Silverstein talking about the decision to “pull” i.e. – press the button that will bring it all down.

    .. well I was going to post something but there’s just too much hyperbole with the stuff I could google up quickly, so just check out lucky Larry on your own. It’s quite an eye opener

    - Interestingly, one of lucky Larry’s closest friends with whom he speaks regularly by phone is Benjamin Netanyahu.

    And the interesting thing about that is that one of the things we know for certain is that 5 Mossad agents were arrested that morning for filming and celebrating the first plane hitting the WTC. For someone to have cameras set up to film the first plane, they would have had to have advance knowledge of the attack. And if the Mossad had advance knowledge, then it isn’t too great a leap to imagine that Bibi knew as well. And if Bibi knew, what are the chances that his close friend lucky Larry knew. Eh?

    quite the rabbit hole once you start d0wn that path

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. annamaria says:
    @Tom_R
    SAUDI KING, ITALIAN PM AND FARRAKAN ALL BLAME MOSSAD FOR 9/11.

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. You raised many good points.

    If you think about 9/11 rationally and logically, you will realize that the official story does not fit. For eg, the airplane crash burnt the buildings to ashes, but the main pilots passport miraculously survived all the way to the ground so the Saudis will get the blame.

    The real benefactors of 9/11 were the Judaists, who were able to incite the Iraq war to get rid of Saddam, who was sending suicide bombers to Israel. For them, the trillions the USA spent and the 3000 soldiers who died mean nothing.

    The Judaists think that people are stupid and by flooding the Europe and USA with more blacks and Muslims, who they believe are more stupid, they will be able to control and brainwash all of us better. But it is not so. For example, one Mr. Louis Farrakan, though he is a black and a Muslim, has more brain and openly calls 9/11 a Zionist operation:

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/farrakhan-lying-murderous-zionist-jews-behind-911/

    http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Saudi-king-blamed-Mossad-for-911-411119

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ex-italian-president-intel-agencies-know-9-11-an-inside-job/7550

    The Judaists scam of pandering to blacks and Muslims and inciting them to invade USA and EU are backfiring. Blacks and Muslims have more brain than Judaists assume, and, in talking to them, I realized many of them find white Judaists who incited them to invade USA and Europe (under the delusion they were holohoaxed by other whites) a deranged people.

    A good summary of the current stage of the US war against Syria:

    http://thesaker.is/new-western-info-fronts-against-syria-refugees-russia-and-the-balkans/

    An interesting post by one of the commenters: “Rothschild’s EU is already exploding… America is already bankrupt for many many years, now only surviving on the wall street ponzu scheme, without any industry or anything to sell except arms. Rothschild can’t save EU and US at the same time so it seems he is sacrificing EU for US… it’s so apparent that Europeans havent have the slightest clue what is happening to them, they are asked to destroy their own economy for america and like zombies they just comply.”

    It seems that the real arsonists have been burning the US/EU home for good in their attempts to create the security for and regional dominance of Israel (while enriching the MIC and financial sector, of course). The result is a global disaster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. annamaria says:
    @Rurik

    Why do you avoid what others say
     
    um .. because you're a troll?

    (and not even a very good one at that ; )

    Do not be too harsh on WO: take into consideration the ravages of old age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Do not be too harsh on WO:
     
    I try to always be nice. It's only once I start to wonder if someone is actually an overt apologist for the Beast (torture, treason, wars based on lies, genocide of Palestine) that I start to become more strident.

    But perhaps you're right. His shtick does seem worn, tired and old. ; )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Anonymous
    JR-

    Next time get some background before replying. Firstly 'Attas luggage' was found on a flight from Portland, Maine to Boston, not on a transcontinental flight. Secondly, it contained 'evidence', not personal items- a copy of the Koran, a flight instruction manual, a cassette tape of some Islamic religious wacko, a list of the 'guilty'. EVIDENCE. It was planted, meant to be found.

    Next time get some background before replying.

    “get some background”???!!! WTF are you talking about? Let me get this straight…. you are reproaching me for not “researching” this???!!! WTF???!!! The whole story is obviously BULLSHIT.

    Firstly ‘Attas luggage’ was found on a flight from Portland, Maine to Boston, not on a transcontinental flight.

    I KNOW THAT. The Portland, Maine to Boston flight was an initial hop to get on the transcontinental flight from Boston to LA. So the (concocted) story is that the luggage was checked through to LA and did not make it onto the connecting flight.

    I know what the story is…. But… IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER ANYWAY!

    Secondly, it contained ‘evidence’, not personal items- a copy of the Koran, a flight instruction manual, a cassette tape of some Islamic religious wacko, a list of the ‘guilty’. EVIDENCE. It was planted, meant to be found.

    Are you sure about the above? I thought the flight instruction manual was allegedly found in the rental car he left at the Portland airport.

    Regardless, what does it matter? Yes, of course, the “EVIDENCE” was planted! Just like the intact passport at ground zero was planted. Planted by the actual criminals (not the Muslim patsies) as part of the frame-up. Quite a crude frame-up really when you look at it…

    As for what specific items were allegedly in Atta’s checked luggage, for crying out loud, there is no reason for a suicide pilot to check in those items OR ANYTHING ELSE. Tell me, how many hours of “background research” was I supposed to have done before pointing out that all of this is totally phony?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mudhole
    Gotcha!

    If Arab terrorists had really planned the 9/11 attacks, what would Mohammed Attas' luggage have actually contained?

    1 A passport in the name of Shlomo Glickstein.

    2. A copy of 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'.

    3. A flight manual.

    4. A yarmulke.

    5. A cassette tape of 'Barry Manilows' Greatest Hits'.

    The planted evidence in the luggage is proof enough that Arabs had nothing to do with the attack planning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    So now you agree that trying to board a transcontinental flight with just a toothbrush makes little sense.
     
    Well, if you're actually going somewhere (I mean, like... an earthly destination, of course...) then no.

    But if you're a suicide pilot...

    I was simply making the point that a passenger not checking in bags on a long flight is not particularly suspicious, because, in fact, a lot of seasoned business travelers make a point of not checking in bags. That was my point. (Which, as is par for the course, you did not to respond to...)

    Also I asked you a simple yes/no question. It was this: Are you aware of any case in which somebody in possession of a valid ticket was not allowed to board his flight because he had suspiciously little luggage? Has this ever happened to your knowledge? (Note, by the way, that, to be relevant, the incident would have to be prior to 9/11 of course...)

    Could you please answer that?

    I don’t think that had they found his diary on a carry-on instead of a checked-in luggage it would have changed your mind about the official narrative, would it?
     
    No, of course not. The diary is obviously planted phony evidence just like that passport of the other guy, that was found, practically undamaged at ground zero. Out of morbid curiosity, do you believe that one?

    Regardless what you are saying makes no sense (as usual!) because to construct this diary story, they need somehow for the diary to be found afterwards, so (OBVIOUSLY) they construct the story that it was in his checked luggage and the luggage did not make it onto the plane.

    Well, granted, they could say that the diary was found intact at ground zero, just like the (planted) passport. But to claim that would test people's credulity.

    Though, okay, on third thought.... claiming that a suicide pilot packed suitcases and checked them in should also test people's credulity... so maybe one story is about as good as the other. He carried the diary with him on the plane and it somehow survived the fireball... Fine, I suppose you'd believe that too. I gotta give you credit, lad, you're one true believer...

    But, regardless, do not bother to ask me now why they choose one ridiculous story over another ridiculous story, because I won't deign to answer. I shouldn't even really deign to answer this latest silliness... It is beneath one's dignity really... if you want to believe obvious lies, it's your own business...

    Look, my position on this is coherent and clear: I decline to believe any of this crap! Okay? It's obviously all crap. I was not born yesterday and I am no Einstein, but I am not a complete fool either. You get it? Okay?

    Now, look, just think about how tenuous an argument you are making is. Basically, you are arguing that this story "could be true". Well, okay, fine. Suppose I concede just for the sake of argument that... okay, that maybe suicide pilots DO pack suitcases to check in at the airport. Maybe this somehow makes sense.... (!!??)

    Well, that still does not prove that the story is TRUE??!! Does it??? Arguing that something is at the outer limits of the possible does not mean that it's actually true!!??

    I earlier asked you what specifically is the strongest proof that this Al Qaeda/Bin Laden/suicide hijacker story is actually true and you never answered. And it was a telling moment. You simply refused to answer. Here, this branch of the conversation is just more grist to the mill. It goes to show how many degrees you are away from having any kind of serious argument in your favor. It's like:

    "It could be true that a suicide hijacker would pack a suitcase and put his diary (outlining the whole plot) in there and that the diary would be found by the authorities because it somehow did not get on the plane..."

    "Yeah, okay, it could be, insofar as the story does not defy any law of physics (unlike other aspects of the overall narrative), but to argue that a story is borderline possible is hardly tantamount to producing any proof that said story is actually true!!!

    It's basically all akin to:

    "Well, if I had some ham, I could have a ham sandwich -- if I had some bread..."

    It's like somebody thinks that if they phrase something like the above in a sufficiently clever way, people won't realize that they are basically admitting that they have NOTHING!

    Look, I don’t know if you realize this but you truthers have a lot in common with the neocons when it comes to the level of certainty with which you speak about certain facts. If you recall, they were 100% certain that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction:

    I found it peculiar that those who wanted to take military action could – with 100 per cent certainty – know that the weapons existed and turn out to have zero knowledge of where they were. – Hans Blix

    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged. There is no room for doubt… it’s all or nothing. I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Couldn't agree more.

    BTW, I might note that suicide bombers, from the Gaza or WB, during the heydays of the 2nd Intifada, were not particularly separated from society, nor their families, for any extended period prior to the act. In other words, they led perfectly 'normal' lives, but were simply provided with the explosive vest and a driver with the knowledge to pass check-posts into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or wherever. I note this for the obvious reason that Atta and his crew, appeared to have had crossed that mental rubicon, of not turning back. Their reported lifestyle imho is irrelevant.

    Furthermore, geokat, to add veracity to you observation, I am far more inclined to believe in the guilt of OBL and his organisation, which one might observe, had the motivation, ability and prior record, than some outlandish witches' brew of deep conspiracy, for which no positive evidence has been presented. In other words, I'd say to the truthers, "spell out your account of the bloody story mate", before I go hunting for banshees.

    Do all aspects of the official story sound waterproof and convincing? No. Was Bin Laden captured or killed in Abbottabad, cadaver thrown into the sea? Yes I believe it. Do JR and Rurik have any proof otherwise? In other words questioning anything is costless, but proving the same is categorically not.

    So yes, on the whole, I am comfortable in my default position of believing the apparatuses of a democracy, because there are checks and balances, over the pronouncements of feverish minds on the internet drawing sustenance from their own reality distortion field. I sleep quite well as a result, and don't obsess on the possibility of agents breaking in and abducting this corpus.. Which leads me to ask the final question: how many of the truthers here, have experienced, or know someone, who has indeed, been the subject of such bodily capture or invasion? (to be clear, not examples drawn from Google jockeying)
    , @Rurik
    Hey goekat62,

    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged. There is no room for doubt… it’s all or nothing. I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%
     
    I don't know any 'truthers' who pretend to know what happened or who did it to the point of even 1% certainty. None. There may be some fringe lunatics out there but they're most likely controlled opposition trying to make the 'truthers' look silly.

    what we (I) are(am) certain of is that the official story is complete bullshit. We're certain that building seven didn't plop into its basement because of a few office fires. We're certain that the BBC reporting on building seven imploding was not just a coincidence.

    Then you go from there

    We know there's no evidence of a plane crash in Shanksville PA. So you take the facts and deduct things. You realize the government and the media are lying, and you work with that.

    There's tones of circumstantial evidence like the chimp sitting in that classroom for 20 something minutes, and it looks funny. But it isn't proof. You wonder why we're not allowed to see the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, why we're not allowed to hear the recordings on the flight data recorders. You wonder about such thing, but they're hardly proof.

    What is proof is that the BBC reported on building seven imploding before it fell. And since it was impossible to know that building seven was going to fall unless someone had rigged it to fall, then you know that this was an inside job. Osama might have been able to thwart NORAD and SAC command. He might have been able to turn the towers one and two into powder. He might have been able to shut down all of America's defenses and taken over control of its airspace that day and managed to train men in the last minutes who couldn't fly a Cessna to manage impossible feats with a Boeing passenger jet (well, actually he couldn't have done that either, not the impossible part anyways). But what we know is that he could not have wired building seven for a controlled demolition. That's just too far out there for what any sensible person could consider reasonable.

    So

    If Osama and his henchmen didn't wire building seven to fall, then who did?

    and you go from there..
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged.

     

    Well, that's a complete misrepresentation of the state of the discussion out there.

    Earlier, I asked you what you had read on the topic -- quite specifically, I asked you whether you had read "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin.

    You refused to answer the question. (A very closed ended yes/no question, "have you read this specific book?" and you refused to answer. And that's when I decided you were definitely a troll.)

    Now, that book by Griffin is likely the single best known "truther" book. Certainly, one of the best known. At the very beginning of the book, Griffin tells you that his goal in the book is not to set out a comprehensive theory of what actually did happen; the book's goal is the much more limited one of outlining all the reasons why the government official story cannot possibly be true.

    Another go-to site is, of course, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If you were familiar with the material on ae911truth.org website, you would know that it is pretty much all (like the aforementioned Griffin book) devoted to outlining why the official story cannot possibly be true. Again, they make a point of saying that they are not going to tell you who the perpetrators are. They are simply advocating a new investigation into this event.

    The over 2000 architects and engineers who have signed the ae911 truth petition are not signing a petition outlining any specific government conspiracy. The petition simply calls for a real investigation. (Which would presumably get at the bottom of the matter.)


    There is no room for doubt… it’s all or nothing.
     
    That is a complete and utter misrepresentation. "Truthers" like David Ray Griffin or Richard Gage are not saying "this is exactly what happened, you must believe it, no room for doubt". What they are saying is that there is no room for doubt that the official government story is false, and thus, a need for a real investigation to get at what really happened. There is a need for a real investigation precisely because there is quite a bit of doubt as to what really happened!

    I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%.
     
    Well, no. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and David Ray Griffin for that matter, establish what they set out to establish with about 1,000% certainty -- i.e. that the government's official conspiracy theory is utterly impossible and thus, false.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Wizard of Oz
    Why do you think the other plane was meant to hit WTC Building 7? Why would the planners want to do anything as difficult and lacking in symbolism rather than aim at either the Capitol or the White House?

    And what do you say about the video disclised by the Daily Mail showing the building burning all day?

    Why do you think the other plane was meant to hit WTC Building 7?

    A process of deduction, my dear Watson!

    The media reported that four planes were hijacked. Two struck the twin towers, another was said to have hit the Pentagon, and that leaves the one plane that went down in Pennsylvania–apparently headed for NYC–and a third WTC building that mysteriously collapsed on its own.

    Why would the planners want to do anything as difficult and lacking in symbolism rather than aim at either the Capitol or the White House?

    That’s actually a better question than you yourself probably even realize. Ponder it a while…

    And what do you say about the video disclised by the Daily Mail showing the building burning all day?

    I didn’t follow British media very much 15 years ago. I also didn’t know about the BBC reporter (Jane Standley) who prematurely reported that bldg. 7 had collapsed. Thanks to Rurik (or was it Revusky?) for that video.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    We're almost at one by the standards of these cantankerous blogs!!

    But I don't know whether that extends to your having a better claim to judgment than I on such matters as why anyone would want to aim a plane at WTC 7 rather than the White House or Capitol where consensus says it was heading. You are rather cryptic in you somewhat patronising inferential claim to superior judgment.

    The problem seems to be that you haven't bothered to keep up to date. (You even carelessly say 15 instead of 14 years).

    There really wasn't a problem about the apparent slip by the BBC reporter and now it seems even more obvious why she got confused. Very likely someone had been telling her that there was another building that was about to come down ("if it hasn"t already") and now, from the Daily Mail item I found, with video link, which was quite recent and obtained under FOI, it sppears that the fires started early and kept going all day, quite long enough to degrade the strength of the steel structure.

    And you really should look at "The Missing Evidence", the UK-Canadian doco I described if you want to remain a serious contestant in the game. I don't I'm not even a foreign referee brought in for a blood match.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62
    Look, I don't know if you realize this but you truthers have a lot in common with the neocons when it comes to the level of certainty with which you speak about certain facts. If you recall, they were 100% certain that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction:

    I found it peculiar that those who wanted to take military action could - with 100 per cent certainty - know that the weapons existed and turn out to have zero knowledge of where they were. - Hans Blix
     
    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov't mfged. There is no room for doubt... it's all or nothing. I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    BTW, I might note that suicide bombers, from the Gaza or WB, during the heydays of the 2nd Intifada, were not particularly separated from society, nor their families, for any extended period prior to the act. In other words, they led perfectly ‘normal’ lives, but were simply provided with the explosive vest and a driver with the knowledge to pass check-posts into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or wherever. I note this for the obvious reason that Atta and his crew, appeared to have had crossed that mental rubicon, of not turning back. Their reported lifestyle imho is irrelevant.

    Furthermore, geokat, to add veracity to you observation, I am far more inclined to believe in the guilt of OBL and his organisation, which one might observe, had the motivation, ability and prior record, than some outlandish witches’ brew of deep conspiracy, for which no positive evidence has been presented. In other words, I’d say to the truthers, “spell out your account of the bloody story mate”, before I go hunting for banshees.

    Do all aspects of the official story sound waterproof and convincing? No. Was Bin Laden captured or killed in Abbottabad, cadaver thrown into the sea? Yes I believe it. Do JR and Rurik have any proof otherwise? In other words questioning anything is costless, but proving the same is categorically not.

    So yes, on the whole, I am comfortable in my default position of believing the apparatuses of a democracy, because there are checks and balances, over the pronouncements of feverish minds on the internet drawing sustenance from their own reality distortion field. I sleep quite well as a result, and don’t obsess on the possibility of agents breaking in and abducting this corpus.. Which leads me to ask the final question: how many of the truthers here, have experienced, or know someone, who has indeed, been the subject of such bodily capture or invasion? (to be clear, not examples drawn from Google jockeying)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    Which leads me to ask the final question: how many of the truthers here, have experienced, or know someone, who has indeed, been the subject of such bodily capture or invasion? (to be clear, not examples drawn from Google jockeying)
     
    Yours truly, Sam, here's my narrative:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/02/24/the-alpha-chronology/

    Not that I'd self-style as a 'truther' (an internet stereotype) but as a former intelligence professional turned investigator who'd been working for a top law firm. It were unsuccessful endeavor on the other party's (or parties) part to take me out but that has much to do with my training and some almighty good luck.

    I can assure you, if you touch the right nerve in anti-corruption, the orders to kill will be issued from on high. And it can easily be unaccountable government organs (or cells therein) will be tasked with the job, depending on the arrogance/confidence and positioning of the players. Which brings up a question; does quid pro quo favors solicited (by government figures) from 3rd parties qualify? A further query would be, how do you characterize a criminal ring consisting of government figures? Does their operating outside the constraints of law disqualify the endeavors as 'government' .. or at what point does institutionalized crime within government become so pervasive as to become 'government' prima facie? Meanwhile, you might have a look at a case stonewalled by both the FBI & The Texas Department of Public Safety for a small look into the pervasiveness of the USA's corruption:

    http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_18924755

    ^ The preceding link is a case the FBI has continued to stonewall under Director Comey. And I presume you've read (as previously indicated) Giraldi's interview with Sibel Edmonds. I've partially incorporated that into my article on intelligence services international narcotics trafficking:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/08/heroin-bags-of-cash-the-cia/

    ^ You don't get many better examples of government murders than those tied to intelligence agencies

    And I've done a few pieces on renditions but that might cross your google prohibition ; )
    , @geokat62

    So yes, on the whole, I am comfortable in my default position of believing the apparatuses of a democracy, because there are checks and balances, ...
     
    Just to be clear, I normally take pronouncements from government officials with a grain of salt. For example, the "explanation" for the attacks on 9/11 - i.e., they hate us for our freedoms - is a crock of sh*t. The real reasons for the attacks were included by OBL in his November 2002 "Letter to America":

    1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia,
    2. supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya,
    3. supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir,
    4. the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon,
    5. the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,
    6. US support of Israel; and
    7. sanctions against Iraq

    So, my approach is to assess each and every event on an ad hoc bases, and to withhold judgement until there is sufficient evidence on which to base a sound conclusion. So, unlike you Sam, I have no "default" position.

    , @Jonathan Revusky

    BTW, I might note that suicide bombers, from the Gaza or WB, during the heydays of the 2nd Intifada, were not particularly separated from society, nor their families, for any extended period prior to the act.
     
    Okay, yeah, I'm pretty sure that's true, but mostly it's true because there was no extended period prior to the act. Think about it. If you were in charge of that, and some angry young man (or woman) volunteered to be a suicide bomber, would you give them very much time to think about whether they really wanted to do it?

    I'm not an expert psychologist (ask your shrink friend if you wish) but it seems reasonable to suppose that the longer you give somebody to think about whether they want to kill themselves, the greater the risk that they will change their minds.

    On average, what was the lead time between somebody volunteering to kill himself for the cause and that person being sent on the mission? Do you know?

    Moreover, you act like these are comparable operations. Tell me: were there any suicide attacks during the second intifada that required 19 people to show up and kill themselves on some date a year into the future?

    No, once you compare the 9/11 story with any suicide operation that really undisputably happened, like the WW2 Japanese kamikazes, once you really think about, warning bells start going off in your head! They really do! (Try it. Think about it...)

    In other words, they led perfectly ‘normal’ lives, but were simply provided with the explosive vest and a driver with the knowledge to pass check-posts into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or wherever.
     
    Well, that's precisely the point, you numbnut! These actual suicide operations that really did happen -- they did not require any lead time for the person to be able to carry them out! The 9/11 story involves people going to flying school and learning how to fly the planes, and that takes a good while. It particularly takes a while to learn to fly the planes in a flight school in Florida when you don't really know English worth a damn! At least one of the alleged pilots spent time in intensive language school to learn English so that they could then go study how to fly the plane in a place where the language of instruction was English. (It's really the craziest thing imaginable. Imagine you are part of a plot to fly a plane into a building in Russia, so you go to Russia a year before the operation, you enrol in an intensive Russian language course in order to be able to study how to fly the plane in a Russian flying school.... Why wouldn't you just learn how to fly the plane in English in your own country and go to Russia at the last possible moment?)

    So you have this operation that requires somebody to learn English and then go to the flight school, something that takes a year or more and the operation you have planned absolutely assumes that none of these people, given AN ENTIRE YEAR would change their minds about killing themselves. Is there any real suicide operation that really did happen that resembles this???!!!! In all of the annals of history???!!!!

    But anyway, it doesn't even matter!!! Because other aspects of the 9/11 official story actually violate the laws of physics, not just human psychology. So it's even more objective that the story is false. It has been very well established -- every which way to Sunday -- by independent researchers that the government story cannot possibly be true. Have you read any of that? David Ray Griffin's book, "the New Pearl Harbor".... have you read that? There's that book, other books, they establish with absolute 1000% overkill that the official story cannot be true.

    Do all aspects of the official story sound waterproof and convincing? No.
     
    Wow, Shama! Did you just say something truthful by accident??!!

    Yeah, damned right, the answer is NO. Just about every aspect of the official story sounds contrived and absolutely unconvincing! Anything... the suicide pilot who packs a suitcase and checks it in.... The passport found intact at ground zero... it's all just so FUBAR!!! LOL.

    Was Bin Laden captured or killed in Abbottabad, cadaver thrown into the sea? Yes I believe it. Do JR and Rurik have any proof otherwise? In other words questioning anything is costless, but proving the same is categorically not.
     
    Well, that's a rather weak argument, since it works both ways. After all, just saying that you believe anything the government says is also "costless", isn't it? Certainly, it's costless if, when you are asked what the proof of the government story is, you are just going to decline to provide any.... which is what you always do...

    What is the proof that Bin Laden was killed and thrown in the sea? (Really, as far as I can tell, that whole story looks deliberately constructed so as to be unprovable one way or the other, no?)

    (NB: Even if OBL was thrown in the sea, that doesn't prove that he orchestrated 9/11...)

    But anyway, when people who have a record of continually lying tell you a story that is pretty fishy sounding and there is no proof for it, isn't the default option to decline to believe them? WTF? Your basic stance is insane. People who torture and murder and start horrible wars on false pretexts, and that's all indisputable, and your position is that you believe everything these people say and there is no need for any proof of it! Good grief...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Mudhole says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Next time get some background before replying.
     
    "get some background"???!!! WTF are you talking about? Let me get this straight.... you are reproaching me for not "researching" this???!!! WTF???!!! The whole story is obviously BULLSHIT.

    Firstly ‘Attas luggage’ was found on a flight from Portland, Maine to Boston, not on a transcontinental flight.
     
    I KNOW THAT. The Portland, Maine to Boston flight was an initial hop to get on the transcontinental flight from Boston to LA. So the (concocted) story is that the luggage was checked through to LA and did not make it onto the connecting flight.

    I know what the story is.... But... IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER ANYWAY!


    Secondly, it contained ‘evidence’, not personal items- a copy of the Koran, a flight instruction manual, a cassette tape of some Islamic religious wacko, a list of the ‘guilty’. EVIDENCE. It was planted, meant to be found.
     
    Are you sure about the above? I thought the flight instruction manual was allegedly found in the rental car he left at the Portland airport.

    Regardless, what does it matter? Yes, of course, the "EVIDENCE" was planted! Just like the intact passport at ground zero was planted. Planted by the actual criminals (not the Muslim patsies) as part of the frame-up. Quite a crude frame-up really when you look at it...

    As for what specific items were allegedly in Atta's checked luggage, for crying out loud, there is no reason for a suicide pilot to check in those items OR ANYTHING ELSE. Tell me, how many hours of "background research" was I supposed to have done before pointing out that all of this is totally phony?

    Gotcha!

    If Arab terrorists had really planned the 9/11 attacks, what would Mohammed Attas’ luggage have actually contained?

    1 A passport in the name of Shlomo Glickstein.

    2. A copy of ‘The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’.

    3. A flight manual.

    4. A yarmulke.

    5. A cassette tape of ‘Barry Manilows’ Greatest Hits’.

    The planted evidence in the luggage is proof enough that Arabs had nothing to do with the attack planning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Sam Shama
    Couldn't agree more.

    BTW, I might note that suicide bombers, from the Gaza or WB, during the heydays of the 2nd Intifada, were not particularly separated from society, nor their families, for any extended period prior to the act. In other words, they led perfectly 'normal' lives, but were simply provided with the explosive vest and a driver with the knowledge to pass check-posts into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or wherever. I note this for the obvious reason that Atta and his crew, appeared to have had crossed that mental rubicon, of not turning back. Their reported lifestyle imho is irrelevant.

    Furthermore, geokat, to add veracity to you observation, I am far more inclined to believe in the guilt of OBL and his organisation, which one might observe, had the motivation, ability and prior record, than some outlandish witches' brew of deep conspiracy, for which no positive evidence has been presented. In other words, I'd say to the truthers, "spell out your account of the bloody story mate", before I go hunting for banshees.

    Do all aspects of the official story sound waterproof and convincing? No. Was Bin Laden captured or killed in Abbottabad, cadaver thrown into the sea? Yes I believe it. Do JR and Rurik have any proof otherwise? In other words questioning anything is costless, but proving the same is categorically not.

    So yes, on the whole, I am comfortable in my default position of believing the apparatuses of a democracy, because there are checks and balances, over the pronouncements of feverish minds on the internet drawing sustenance from their own reality distortion field. I sleep quite well as a result, and don't obsess on the possibility of agents breaking in and abducting this corpus.. Which leads me to ask the final question: how many of the truthers here, have experienced, or know someone, who has indeed, been the subject of such bodily capture or invasion? (to be clear, not examples drawn from Google jockeying)

    Which leads me to ask the final question: how many of the truthers here, have experienced, or know someone, who has indeed, been the subject of such bodily capture or invasion? (to be clear, not examples drawn from Google jockeying)

    Yours truly, Sam, here’s my narrative:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/02/24/the-alpha-chronology/

    Not that I’d self-style as a ‘truther’ (an internet stereotype) but as a former intelligence professional turned investigator who’d been working for a top law firm. It were unsuccessful endeavor on the other party’s (or parties) part to take me out but that has much to do with my training and some almighty good luck.

    I can assure you, if you touch the right nerve in anti-corruption, the orders to kill will be issued from on high. And it can easily be unaccountable government organs (or cells therein) will be tasked with the job, depending on the arrogance/confidence and positioning of the players. Which brings up a question; does quid pro quo favors solicited (by government figures) from 3rd parties qualify? A further query would be, how do you characterize a criminal ring consisting of government figures? Does their operating outside the constraints of law disqualify the endeavors as ‘government’ .. or at what point does institutionalized crime within government become so pervasive as to become ‘government’ prima facie? Meanwhile, you might have a look at a case stonewalled by both the FBI & The Texas Department of Public Safety for a small look into the pervasiveness of the USA’s corruption:

    http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_18924755

    ^ The preceding link is a case the FBI has continued to stonewall under Director Comey. And I presume you’ve read (as previously indicated) Giraldi’s interview with Sibel Edmonds. I’ve partially incorporated that into my article on intelligence services international narcotics trafficking:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/08/heroin-bags-of-cash-the-cia/

    ^ You don’t get many better examples of government murders than those tied to intelligence agencies

    And I’ve done a few pieces on renditions but that might cross your google prohibition ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Just finished reading your account.

    Blimey Ronald! I hadn't the foggiest that you had gone through this saga. The hair on the nape of my neck were stiff at certain points!

    It boggles the mind. I don't consider myself as chap who is disinclined to believe this sort of harrowing accounts from citizens, but never thought I'd be speaking to one in actual fact!

    My hats off to you for surviving thus far (no doubt on account of your background). Mate, I won't ask you where you live now, but wish I could be of help in some regard, and best of luck.


    Sam
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    Couldn't agree more.

    BTW, I might note that suicide bombers, from the Gaza or WB, during the heydays of the 2nd Intifada, were not particularly separated from society, nor their families, for any extended period prior to the act. In other words, they led perfectly 'normal' lives, but were simply provided with the explosive vest and a driver with the knowledge to pass check-posts into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or wherever. I note this for the obvious reason that Atta and his crew, appeared to have had crossed that mental rubicon, of not turning back. Their reported lifestyle imho is irrelevant.

    Furthermore, geokat, to add veracity to you observation, I am far more inclined to believe in the guilt of OBL and his organisation, which one might observe, had the motivation, ability and prior record, than some outlandish witches' brew of deep conspiracy, for which no positive evidence has been presented. In other words, I'd say to the truthers, "spell out your account of the bloody story mate", before I go hunting for banshees.

    Do all aspects of the official story sound waterproof and convincing? No. Was Bin Laden captured or killed in Abbottabad, cadaver thrown into the sea? Yes I believe it. Do JR and Rurik have any proof otherwise? In other words questioning anything is costless, but proving the same is categorically not.

    So yes, on the whole, I am comfortable in my default position of believing the apparatuses of a democracy, because there are checks and balances, over the pronouncements of feverish minds on the internet drawing sustenance from their own reality distortion field. I sleep quite well as a result, and don't obsess on the possibility of agents breaking in and abducting this corpus.. Which leads me to ask the final question: how many of the truthers here, have experienced, or know someone, who has indeed, been the subject of such bodily capture or invasion? (to be clear, not examples drawn from Google jockeying)

    So yes, on the whole, I am comfortable in my default position of believing the apparatuses of a democracy, because there are checks and balances, …

    Just to be clear, I normally take pronouncements from government officials with a grain of salt. For example, the “explanation” for the attacks on 9/11 – i.e., they hate us for our freedoms – is a crock of sh*t. The real reasons for the attacks were included by OBL in his November 2002 “Letter to America”:

    1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia,
    2. supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya,
    3. supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir,
    4. the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon,
    5. the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,
    6. US support of Israel; and
    7. sanctions against Iraq

    So, my approach is to assess each and every event on an ad hoc bases, and to withhold judgement until there is sufficient evidence on which to base a sound conclusion. So, unlike you Sam, I have no “default” position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    The real reasons for the attacks were included by OBL in his November 2002 “Letter to America”:
     
    Okay, from the above sentence, it can be inferred -- quite unequivocally -- that you believe that Osama Bin Laden was the person who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. (Because if he didn't do it, it wouldn't matter what he wrote in some "Letter to America", right?)

    Now, I previously asked you (more than once) what, in your opinion, was the strongest proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks. You refused to answer. Well, WTF is going on here then? You claimed to believe that my asking you this, what the proof is, that this was not a legitimate question.

    But you're clearly saying OBL did it!!!! SO IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. GIVE US SOME PROOF!!!

    WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION IS THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE AVAILABLE THAT THESE ATTACKS WERE ORCHESTRATED BY OSAMA BIN LADEN?

    You really must answer this question. (At least if you want to have any claim to being taken seriously at all...)

    Also, while you're at it, could you provide some proof that this "Letter to America" was actually written by Osama Bin Laden? Because I frankly have my doubts about this. For one thing, I suspect that OBL was already dead from kidney failure at that point in time. (I am not 100% certain of that, mind you, but there definitely seems to be a strong case for this.)


    So, unlike you Sam, I have no “default” position.
     
    What kind of fork-tongued bastard are you anyway? You already are clearly implying that OBL did it! WTF do you mean when you say you have no "default" position? That's not a "default position"???? You state that OBL did it but then it's illegitimate to ask you what the proof of this is???!!!!!

    I think guys like you are so crooked that you screw your clothes on in the morning...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Rurik says:
    @annamaria
    Do not be too harsh on WO: take into consideration the ravages of old age.

    Do not be too harsh on WO:

    I try to always be nice. It’s only once I start to wonder if someone is actually an overt apologist for the Beast (torture, treason, wars based on lies, genocide of Palestine) that I start to become more strident.

    But perhaps you’re right. His shtick does seem worn, tired and old. ; )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Rurik says:
    @geokat62
    Look, I don't know if you realize this but you truthers have a lot in common with the neocons when it comes to the level of certainty with which you speak about certain facts. If you recall, they were 100% certain that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction:

    I found it peculiar that those who wanted to take military action could - with 100 per cent certainty - know that the weapons existed and turn out to have zero knowledge of where they were. - Hans Blix
     
    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov't mfged. There is no room for doubt... it's all or nothing. I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%.

    Hey goekat62,

    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged. There is no room for doubt… it’s all or nothing. I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%

    I don’t know any ‘truthers’ who pretend to know what happened or who did it to the point of even 1% certainty. None. There may be some fringe lunatics out there but they’re most likely controlled opposition trying to make the ‘truthers’ look silly.

    what we (I) are(am) certain of is that the official story is complete bullshit. We’re certain that building seven didn’t plop into its basement because of a few office fires. We’re certain that the BBC reporting on building seven imploding was not just a coincidence.

    Then you go from there

    We know there’s no evidence of a plane crash in Shanksville PA. So you take the facts and deduct things. You realize the government and the media are lying, and you work with that.

    There’s tones of circumstantial evidence like the chimp sitting in that classroom for 20 something minutes, and it looks funny. But it isn’t proof. You wonder why we’re not allowed to see the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, why we’re not allowed to hear the recordings on the flight data recorders. You wonder about such thing, but they’re hardly proof.

    What is proof is that the BBC reported on building seven imploding before it fell. And since it was impossible to know that building seven was going to fall unless someone had rigged it to fall, then you know that this was an inside job. Osama might have been able to thwart NORAD and SAC command. He might have been able to turn the towers one and two into powder. He might have been able to shut down all of America’s defenses and taken over control of its airspace that day and managed to train men in the last minutes who couldn’t fly a Cessna to manage impossible feats with a Boeing passenger jet (well, actually he couldn’t have done that either, not the impossible part anyways). But what we know is that he could not have wired building seven for a controlled demolition. That’s just too far out there for what any sensible person could consider reasonable.

    So

    If Osama and his henchmen didn’t wire building seven to fall, then who did?

    and you go from there..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @geokat62

    So yes, on the whole, I am comfortable in my default position of believing the apparatuses of a democracy, because there are checks and balances, ...
     
    Just to be clear, I normally take pronouncements from government officials with a grain of salt. For example, the "explanation" for the attacks on 9/11 - i.e., they hate us for our freedoms - is a crock of sh*t. The real reasons for the attacks were included by OBL in his November 2002 "Letter to America":

    1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia,
    2. supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya,
    3. supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir,
    4. the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon,
    5. the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,
    6. US support of Israel; and
    7. sanctions against Iraq

    So, my approach is to assess each and every event on an ad hoc bases, and to withhold judgement until there is sufficient evidence on which to base a sound conclusion. So, unlike you Sam, I have no "default" position.

    The real reasons for the attacks were included by OBL in his November 2002 “Letter to America”:

    Okay, from the above sentence, it can be inferred — quite unequivocally — that you believe that Osama Bin Laden was the person who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. (Because if he didn’t do it, it wouldn’t matter what he wrote in some “Letter to America”, right?)

    Now, I previously asked you (more than once) what, in your opinion, was the strongest proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks. You refused to answer. Well, WTF is going on here then? You claimed to believe that my asking you this, what the proof is, that this was not a legitimate question.

    But you’re clearly saying OBL did it!!!! SO IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. GIVE US SOME PROOF!!!

    WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION IS THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE AVAILABLE THAT THESE ATTACKS WERE ORCHESTRATED BY OSAMA BIN LADEN?

    You really must answer this question. (At least if you want to have any claim to being taken seriously at all…)

    Also, while you’re at it, could you provide some proof that this “Letter to America” was actually written by Osama Bin Laden? Because I frankly have my doubts about this. For one thing, I suspect that OBL was already dead from kidney failure at that point in time. (I am not 100% certain of that, mind you, but there definitely seems to be a strong case for this.)

    So, unlike you Sam, I have no “default” position.

    What kind of fork-tongued bastard are you anyway? You already are clearly implying that OBL did it! WTF do you mean when you say you have no “default” position? That’s not a “default position”???? You state that OBL did it but then it’s illegitimate to ask you what the proof of this is???!!!!!

    I think guys like you are so crooked that you screw your clothes on in the morning…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Marais says:

    “You knew just which buttons of ours to push so that we would essentially carry out the rest of your plan for you.”

    Indeed, OBL knew us better that we knew ourselves. There wasn’t a great deal to know, other than the Bush administration was colossally incompetent, morally compromised, and easily swayed by swaggering neocons who peddled illegal policies for decades. The evidence is overwhelming – consider the sworn testimony of administration high priestess Condoleezza Rice:

    “In the memorandum that Dick Clarke sent me on January 25th [2001], he mentions sleeper cells. There is no mention or recommendation of anything that needs to be done about them…the President was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.”*

    The Administration could have upgraded NORAD response procedures, airline passenger screening, airline carry-on items (banning box cutters, mace, etc). They could have added air marshalls and CIA/NSA interpreters. They could have consolidated intelligence assets to focus on the threat. Customs and INS could have been told to update terror watch lists and identify visa overstays. All in January 2001.

    “The title [of the 6 August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief] was ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’”*

    The PDB warned of domestic terrorist cells, determination to strike in America, interest in New York and Washington, and possible airline hijackings. The President continued his vacation in Crawford for the rest of August. He spoke twice to George Tenant in the entire month.

    “President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was “tired of swatting flies.”*

    In the words of one Commissioner, “What flies had President Bush swatted?” Despite multiple warnings, he’d nothing about al Qaeda.

    “We really thought that the Cole incident was past, that you didn’t want to respond tit-for-tat. As I’ve said, there is strategic response and there’s tactical response, and just responding to another attack in an insufficient way, we thought, would actually probably embolden the terrorists.”*

    Wouldn’t the lack of any response also “embolden” the terrorists? Perhaps to a greater extent?

    “Perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein. That’s a strategic view.”*

    Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, and they weren’t in Iraq. Whatever your view, Osama bin Laden wasn’t Saddam Hussein.

    “Structural reform is hard, and in seven months we didn’t have time to make the changes that were necessary. We made them almost immediately after September 11.”*

    If reform was too difficult to enact in the seven months before 9/11, how could it be done “immediately after?” In fact the Administration adopted the Afghanistan plan Richard Clarke proposed in January 2001.

    “After the September 11th attacks, our nation faced hard choices. We could fight a narrow war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory, or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush has chosen the bolder course…I believe we will change the nature of the Middle East, particularly if there are examples that this can work in the Middle East. And this is why Iraq is so important.”*

    * Condoleezza Rice testimony before the 9/11 Commision on 8 April 2004

    The Bush administration failed to respond to prior terrorism, failed to heed warnings of an immanent threat, failed to catch Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar, and instead attacked Iraq, a favorite neocon target (which by 2004 was a mess).

    The truly improbable thing was the lack of impeachment for dereliction of duty and the absence of wholesale firing of inept principals after Rice’s testimony. Worse surfaced a year later:

    “C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

    -’Downing Street Memo’ on secret UK-US meeting 23 Jul 2002 (published 1 May 2005)

    Thus the president’s decision to invade Iraq after manufacturing a pretext, acts worthy of Nüremberg, became public knowledge. Again improbably, the public did nothing, even when the following become clear:

    • Negligence & dereliction (GWB failure to act on the 6 Aug 2001 PDB);
    • Conspiracy & launching of aggressive war (summer 2002-19 Mar 2003);
    • Illegal torture (‘enhanced interrogation’);
    • Extra-judicial kidnapping (‘rendition’);
    • Extra-judicial assassination;
    • Widespread illegal surveillance;
    • Failure to protect cultural treasures in occupied areas (museums & libraries);
    • Failure to maintain civil order in occupied areas (from looting, etc);
    • Failure to protect civilian life in occupied areas (from sectarian violence & murder);
    • Negligence (fraud?) in Defense Department contract oversight;

    And still the public does nothing. And that’s the most improbable thing of all.

    Read More
    • Agree: annamaria
    • Replies: @HLMunchkin
    If reform was too difficult to enact in the seven months before 9/11, how could it be done “immediately after?” In fact the Administration adopted the Afghanistan plan Richard Clarke proposed in January 2001.


    Well this 'Reform' wasn't too difficult to enact. The Stand Down Order.
    http://www.rense.com/general50/fdd.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @geokat62
    Look, I don't know if you realize this but you truthers have a lot in common with the neocons when it comes to the level of certainty with which you speak about certain facts. If you recall, they were 100% certain that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction:

    I found it peculiar that those who wanted to take military action could - with 100 per cent certainty - know that the weapons existed and turn out to have zero knowledge of where they were. - Hans Blix
     
    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov't mfged. There is no room for doubt... it's all or nothing. I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%.

    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged.

    Well, that’s a complete misrepresentation of the state of the discussion out there.

    Earlier, I asked you what you had read on the topic — quite specifically, I asked you whether you had read “The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin.

    You refused to answer the question. (A very closed ended yes/no question, “have you read this specific book?” and you refused to answer. And that’s when I decided you were definitely a troll.)

    Now, that book by Griffin is likely the single best known “truther” book. Certainly, one of the best known. At the very beginning of the book, Griffin tells you that his goal in the book is not to set out a comprehensive theory of what actually did happen; the book’s goal is the much more limited one of outlining all the reasons why the government official story cannot possibly be true.

    Another go-to site is, of course, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If you were familiar with the material on ae911truth.org website, you would know that it is pretty much all (like the aforementioned Griffin book) devoted to outlining why the official story cannot possibly be true. Again, they make a point of saying that they are not going to tell you who the perpetrators are. They are simply advocating a new investigation into this event.

    The over 2000 architects and engineers who have signed the ae911 truth petition are not signing a petition outlining any specific government conspiracy. The petition simply calls for a real investigation. (Which would presumably get at the bottom of the matter.)

    There is no room for doubt… it’s all or nothing.

    That is a complete and utter misrepresentation. “Truthers” like David Ray Griffin or Richard Gage are not saying “this is exactly what happened, you must believe it, no room for doubt”. What they are saying is that there is no room for doubt that the official government story is false, and thus, a need for a real investigation to get at what really happened. There is a need for a real investigation precisely because there is quite a bit of doubt as to what really happened!

    I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%.

    Well, no. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and David Ray Griffin for that matter, establish what they set out to establish with about 1,000% certainty — i.e. that the government’s official conspiracy theory is utterly impossible and thus, false.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    geokat62-And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged.

    JR-Well, that’s a complete misrepresentation of the state of the discussion out there.
     

    Look, I'm getting a little tired of being accused of "misrepresentation" or being "disingenuous." Here is the exchange we had the last time we addressed this topic:

    geokat62-I was the one who had suggested that it was a difficult thing determining whether the events of 9/11 were gov’t mfged or whether they were prompted by U.S. foreign policy. It was you who disagreed and said:

    JR-Not really. It’s pretty clear that it was a manufactured pretext.
     

    Is this not a fair representation of the state of discussion out there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Sam Shama says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    Which leads me to ask the final question: how many of the truthers here, have experienced, or know someone, who has indeed, been the subject of such bodily capture or invasion? (to be clear, not examples drawn from Google jockeying)
     
    Yours truly, Sam, here's my narrative:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/02/24/the-alpha-chronology/

    Not that I'd self-style as a 'truther' (an internet stereotype) but as a former intelligence professional turned investigator who'd been working for a top law firm. It were unsuccessful endeavor on the other party's (or parties) part to take me out but that has much to do with my training and some almighty good luck.

    I can assure you, if you touch the right nerve in anti-corruption, the orders to kill will be issued from on high. And it can easily be unaccountable government organs (or cells therein) will be tasked with the job, depending on the arrogance/confidence and positioning of the players. Which brings up a question; does quid pro quo favors solicited (by government figures) from 3rd parties qualify? A further query would be, how do you characterize a criminal ring consisting of government figures? Does their operating outside the constraints of law disqualify the endeavors as 'government' .. or at what point does institutionalized crime within government become so pervasive as to become 'government' prima facie? Meanwhile, you might have a look at a case stonewalled by both the FBI & The Texas Department of Public Safety for a small look into the pervasiveness of the USA's corruption:

    http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_18924755

    ^ The preceding link is a case the FBI has continued to stonewall under Director Comey. And I presume you've read (as previously indicated) Giraldi's interview with Sibel Edmonds. I've partially incorporated that into my article on intelligence services international narcotics trafficking:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/08/heroin-bags-of-cash-the-cia/

    ^ You don't get many better examples of government murders than those tied to intelligence agencies

    And I've done a few pieces on renditions but that might cross your google prohibition ; )

    Just finished reading your account.

    Blimey Ronald! I hadn’t the foggiest that you had gone through this saga. The hair on the nape of my neck were stiff at certain points!

    It boggles the mind. I don’t consider myself as chap who is disinclined to believe this sort of harrowing accounts from citizens, but never thought I’d be speaking to one in actual fact!

    My hats off to you for surviving thus far (no doubt on account of your background). Mate, I won’t ask you where you live now, but wish I could be of help in some regard, and best of luck.

    Sam

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Seamus Padraig

    Why do you think the other plane was meant to hit WTC Building 7?
     
    A process of deduction, my dear Watson!

    The media reported that four planes were hijacked. Two struck the twin towers, another was said to have hit the Pentagon, and that leaves the one plane that went down in Pennsylvania--apparently headed for NYC--and a third WTC building that mysteriously collapsed on its own.

    Why would the planners want to do anything as difficult and lacking in symbolism rather than aim at either the Capitol or the White House?
     
    That's actually a better question than you yourself probably even realize. Ponder it a while...

    And what do you say about the video disclised by the Daily Mail showing the building burning all day?
     
    I didn't follow British media very much 15 years ago. I also didn't know about the BBC reporter (Jane Standley) who prematurely reported that bldg. 7 had collapsed. Thanks to Rurik (or was it Revusky?) for that video.

    We’re almost at one by the standards of these cantankerous blogs!!

    But I don’t know whether that extends to your having a better claim to judgment than I on such matters as why anyone would want to aim a plane at WTC 7 rather than the White House or Capitol where consensus says it was heading. You are rather cryptic in you somewhat patronising inferential claim to superior judgment.

    The problem seems to be that you haven’t bothered to keep up to date. (You even carelessly say 15 instead of 14 years).

    There really wasn’t a problem about the apparent slip by the BBC reporter and now it seems even more obvious why she got confused. Very likely someone had been telling her that there was another building that was about to come down (“if it hasn”t already”) and now, from the Daily Mail item I found, with video link, which was quite recent and obtained under FOI, it sppears that the fires started early and kept going all day, quite long enough to degrade the strength of the steel structure.

    And you really should look at “The Missing Evidence”, the UK-Canadian doco I described if you want to remain a serious contestant in the game. I don’t I’m not even a foreign referee brought in for a blood match.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged.

     

    Well, that's a complete misrepresentation of the state of the discussion out there.

    Earlier, I asked you what you had read on the topic -- quite specifically, I asked you whether you had read "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin.

    You refused to answer the question. (A very closed ended yes/no question, "have you read this specific book?" and you refused to answer. And that's when I decided you were definitely a troll.)

    Now, that book by Griffin is likely the single best known "truther" book. Certainly, one of the best known. At the very beginning of the book, Griffin tells you that his goal in the book is not to set out a comprehensive theory of what actually did happen; the book's goal is the much more limited one of outlining all the reasons why the government official story cannot possibly be true.

    Another go-to site is, of course, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If you were familiar with the material on ae911truth.org website, you would know that it is pretty much all (like the aforementioned Griffin book) devoted to outlining why the official story cannot possibly be true. Again, they make a point of saying that they are not going to tell you who the perpetrators are. They are simply advocating a new investigation into this event.

    The over 2000 architects and engineers who have signed the ae911 truth petition are not signing a petition outlining any specific government conspiracy. The petition simply calls for a real investigation. (Which would presumably get at the bottom of the matter.)


    There is no room for doubt… it’s all or nothing.
     
    That is a complete and utter misrepresentation. "Truthers" like David Ray Griffin or Richard Gage are not saying "this is exactly what happened, you must believe it, no room for doubt". What they are saying is that there is no room for doubt that the official government story is false, and thus, a need for a real investigation to get at what really happened. There is a need for a real investigation precisely because there is quite a bit of doubt as to what really happened!

    I say they have a long way to go before they can establish their case with 30% certainty, let alone 100%.
     
    Well, no. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and David Ray Griffin for that matter, establish what they set out to establish with about 1,000% certainty -- i.e. that the government's official conspiracy theory is utterly impossible and thus, false.

    geokat62-And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged.

    JR-Well, that’s a complete misrepresentation of the state of the discussion out there.

    Look, I’m getting a little tired of being accused of “misrepresentation” or being “disingenuous.” Here is the exchange we had the last time we addressed this topic:

    geokat62-I was the one who had suggested that it was a difficult thing determining whether the events of 9/11 were gov’t mfged or whether they were prompted by U.S. foreign policy. It was you who disagreed and said:

    JR-Not really. It’s pretty clear that it was a manufactured pretext.

    Is this not a fair representation of the state of discussion out there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Look, I’m getting a little tired of being accused of “misrepresentation” or being “disingenuous.”
     
    Oh really, the poor little lying troll scum bastard is reduced to whining.... He is soooo very tired of people called a lying troll scum bastard....

    You know, I hear that George Bush is very tired of being called a mass murderer and war criminal. Those pedophile priests are tired of being called child molesters.

    Yeah, I get it. It's so tiresome.... Well, fine, if you get a little tired of being called a liar, then you can figure that I and others get very very tired of all your lies and trolling.

    Here is the exchange we had the last time we addressed this topic:
     
    Uh, no, that is another blatant falsehood from you. You don't stop. No, that is NOT the "exchange we had". It is a snippet taken out of context. And quite dishonestly, as usual.

    In fact, in the complete exchange I specifically clarified that, to me, to me, it doesn't even make sense to say that "the U.S. government did 9/11". The U.S. government is this giant leviathan that does not,

    as a whole,
     
    carry out anything.

    The most reasonable working hypothesis is that 9/11 was carried out by a criminal cabal and some members of the cabal did, in fact, occupy key positions in the U.S. government. Others were likely outside the government in the corporate world. But the overall nature of the crime is such that it is impossible for any group to carry it out without having quite a bit of power within the government AND also within the mainstream media.

    At any rate, also, YOU, in that exchange, claimed that you were agnostic about the attacks, that you had not come to a conclusion, therefore there was no need for you to answer my question, which was what the best proof available was that OBL did it!

    Now, you say that what you need to understand is OBL's "letter to America" (which he probably didn't even right, but never mind...) so you're assuming there that OBL did it! After claiming that you were agnostic about that.

    So you ARE defending the official story and when you said you were agnostic, you were lying to get out of the obligation of having to answer my question, what the proof was!

    You lie and you lie and you lie and then you whine like the bitch ass loser you are, that you are so tired of being called a liar. What a disgusting, vile piece of work you are. Just all this shameless mendacity. Burn in hell, you pathetic, lying scum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Marais

    “You knew just which buttons of ours to push so that we would essentially carry out the rest of your plan for you.”
     
    Indeed, OBL knew us better that we knew ourselves. There wasn’t a great deal to know, other than the Bush administration was colossally incompetent, morally compromised, and easily swayed by swaggering neocons who peddled illegal policies for decades. The evidence is overwhelming - consider the sworn testimony of administration high priestess Condoleezza Rice:

    “In the memorandum that Dick Clarke sent me on January 25th [2001], he mentions sleeper cells. There is no mention or recommendation of anything that needs to be done about them...the President was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.”*
     
    The Administration could have upgraded NORAD response procedures, airline passenger screening, airline carry-on items (banning box cutters, mace, etc). They could have added air marshalls and CIA/NSA interpreters. They could have consolidated intelligence assets to focus on the threat. Customs and INS could have been told to update terror watch lists and identify visa overstays. All in January 2001.

    “The title [of the 6 August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief] was ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’”*
     
    The PDB warned of domestic terrorist cells, determination to strike in America, interest in New York and Washington, and possible airline hijackings. The President continued his vacation in Crawford for the rest of August. He spoke twice to George Tenant in the entire month.

    “President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."*
     
    In the words of one Commissioner, “What flies had President Bush swatted?” Despite multiple warnings, he’d nothing about al Qaeda.

    “We really thought that the Cole incident was past, that you didn't want to respond tit-for-tat. As I've said, there is strategic response and there's tactical response, and just responding to another attack in an insufficient way, we thought, would actually probably embolden the terrorists.”*
     
    Wouldn’t the lack of any response also “embolden” the terrorists? Perhaps to a greater extent?

    “Perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein. That’s a strategic view.”*
     
    Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, and they weren’t in Iraq. Whatever your view, Osama bin Laden wasn’t Saddam Hussein.

    “Structural reform is hard, and in seven months we didn't have time to make the changes that were necessary. We made them almost immediately after September 11.”*
     
    If reform was too difficult to enact in the seven months before 9/11, how could it be done “immediately after?” In fact the Administration adopted the Afghanistan plan Richard Clarke proposed in January 2001.

    “After the September 11th attacks, our nation faced hard choices. We could fight a narrow war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory, or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush has chosen the bolder course...I believe we will change the nature of the Middle East, particularly if there are examples that this can work in the Middle East. And this is why Iraq is so important.”*
     
    * Condoleezza Rice testimony before the 9/11 Commision on 8 April 2004

    The Bush administration failed to respond to prior terrorism, failed to heed warnings of an immanent threat, failed to catch Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar, and instead attacked Iraq, a favorite neocon target (which by 2004 was a mess).

    The truly improbable thing was the lack of impeachment for dereliction of duty and the absence of wholesale firing of inept principals after Rice’s testimony. Worse surfaced a year later:


    "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

    -'Downing Street Memo' on secret UK-US meeting 23 Jul 2002 (published 1 May 2005)
     

    Thus the president’s decision to invade Iraq after manufacturing a pretext, acts worthy of Nüremberg, became public knowledge. Again improbably, the public did nothing, even when the following become clear:

    • Negligence & dereliction (GWB failure to act on the 6 Aug 2001 PDB);
    • Conspiracy & launching of aggressive war (summer 2002-19 Mar 2003);
    • Illegal torture (‘enhanced interrogation’);
    • Extra-judicial kidnapping (‘rendition’);
    • Extra-judicial assassination;
    • Widespread illegal surveillance;
    • Failure to protect cultural treasures in occupied areas (museums & libraries);
    • Failure to maintain civil order in occupied areas (from looting, etc);
    • Failure to protect civilian life in occupied areas (from sectarian violence & murder);
    • Negligence (fraud?) in Defense Department contract oversight;

    And still the public does nothing. And that’s the most improbable thing of all.

    If reform was too difficult to enact in the seven months before 9/11, how could it be done “immediately after?” In fact the Administration adopted the Afghanistan plan Richard Clarke proposed in January 2001.

    Well this ‘Reform’ wasn’t too difficult to enact. The Stand Down Order.

    http://www.rense.com/general50/fdd.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. annamaria says:
    @Great Battle for Blair Mountain
    No muslims...or an epsilon of Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 occurring..or with an epsilon of 0 of 9/11 occurring.....we have already significantly reduced the possibility of 9/11 occuring. Which raises the bigger question: why is a Muslim Voting Bloc being imported into the US?..Answer:to vote Whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 3 2016.

    9/11 Truther Tard science is unpublishable "scientific" sewage...whereas:NIST researchers have been recently awarded with a Noble Prize for research on atomic clocks...or, are all the NIST Scientists and Engineers in on the 9/11 cover-up?

    9/11 Truthers=a Treasonous Cabal that wants to flood the US with high fertility highly racialized Muslim Male Yuts and Female Yuts. Retired Philosophy Professor David Ray Griffith is an enthusiast for importing Muslim yut immigrants.

    9/11 Truthers=TREASON IS THE REASON!!!!!

    Mr. Great Battle, the treasonous Bush the Lesser and Five-Deferrment genius (that betrayed the CIA officer and was never punished for that) are perfectly white folks. Instead of attacking the intelligent people that look for real answers to the tragic unraveling of the US, you could, for instance, to take a look at Bush’ wet kisses with Saudi Princes, or to make some small inquiry into Cheney’s sources of considerable income (war profiteering through and through). What about defacing the US Constitution by the US judiciary? – Well Mr. Baybee is not Muslim, neither Mr. Yoo is. What about the lying sec. of state, homegrown Condi Rice? – Oh, she is so Christian!
    Mind that it was not some Muslim state that came to the US to get oil, build military bases, and initiate various regime changes. Actually, it was the US that did all the above in the Arabs’ lands. Perhaps if the US government was more caring about the wellbeing of the US citizenry at large (and not about the few oil and banana and weapon profiteers), there would be no 9/11.

    The Lady Liberty has nice inscription on her gown, and this inscription does not care for ethnicity.
    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
    Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door”
    Emma Lazarus

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Silverado says:

    Ya, 14 years later and we find out it was an inside job by the military/industrial complex that we were warned about 50+ years ago…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. KA says:

    Was 1993 WTC bombing was a trial run?
    ———–///
    (Correction Appended)
    Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

    The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

    The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City’s tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.

    Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian army officer, was used by the Government to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the trade center blast, he was feuding with the F.B.I. Supervisor ‘Messed It Up’

    After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, “came and messed it up.”

    “He requested to meet me in the hotel,” Mr. Salem says of the supervisor. “He requested to make me to testify and if he didn’t push for that, we’ll be going building the bomb with a phony powder and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn’t do that.”

    The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. headquarters in Washington about the bureau’s failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.

    “He said, I don’t think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York office to go to Washington, D.C.,” Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him.

    Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem’s account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the New York people: “Well, of course not, because they don’t want to get their butts chewed.”

    Mary Jo White, who, as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York is prosecuting defendants in two related bombing cases, declined yesterday to comment on the Salem allegations or any other aspect of the cases. An investigator close to the case who refused to be identified further said, “We wish he would have saved the world,” but called Mr. Salem’s claims “figments of his imagination.”

    The transcripts, which are stamped “draft” and compiled from 70 tapes recorded secretly during the last two years by Mr. Salem, were turned over to defense lawyers in the second bombing case by the Government on Tuesday under a judge’s order barring lawyers from disseminating them. A large portion of the material was made available to The New York Times.

    In a letter to Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Andrew C. McCarthy, an assistant United States attorney, said that he had learned of the tapes while debriefing Mr. Salem and that the informer had then voluntarily turned them over. Other Salem tapes and transcripts were being withheld pending Government review, of “security and other issues,” Mr. McCarthy said.

    William M. Kunstler, a defense lawyer in the case, accused the Government this week of improper delay in handing over all the material. The transcripts he had seen, he said, “were filled with all sorts of Government misconduct.” But citing the judge’s order, he said he could not provide any details.

    The transcripts do not make clear the extent to which Federal authorities knew that there was a plan to bomb the World Trade Center, merely that they knew that a bombing of some sort was being discussed. But Mr. Salem’s evident anguish at not being able to thwart the trade center blast is a recurrent theme in the transcripts. In one of the first numbered tapes, Mr. Salem is quoted as telling agent Floyd: “Since the bomb went off I feel terrible. I feel bad. I feel here is people who don’t listen.”

    Ms. Floyd seems to commiserate, saying, “hey, I mean it wasn’t like you didn’t try and I didn’t try.”

    In an apparent reference to Mr. Salem’s complaints about the supervisor, Agent Floyd adds, “You can’t force people to do the right thing.”

    The investigator involved in the case who would not be quoted by name said that Mr. Salem may have been led to believe by the agents that they were blameless for any mistakes. It was a classic agent’s tactic, he said, to “blame the boss for all that’s bad and take credit for all the good things.”

    In another point in the transcripts, Mr. Salem recounts a conversation he said he had with Mr. Anticev, saying, “I said, ‘Guys, now you saw this bomb went off and you both know that we could avoid that.’ ” At another point, Mr. Salem says, “You get paid, guys, to prevent problems like this from happening.”

    Mr. Salem talks of the plan to substitute harmless powder for explosives during another conversation with agent Floyd. In that conversation, he recalls a previous discussion with Mr. Anticev.

    “Do you deny,” Mr. Salem says he told the other agent, “your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?” Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev did not deny it. “We was handling the case perfectly well until the supervisor came and messed it up, upside down.”

    The transcripts reflect an effort to keep Mr. Salem as an intelligence asset who would not have to go public or testify.

    A police detective working with the F.B.I., Louis Napoli, assures Mr. Salem in one conversation, “We can give you total immunity towards prosecution, towards, ah, ah, testifying.” But he adds: “I still have to tell you that if you’re the only game in town in regards to the information,” then, he says, “you’ll have to testify.” Studied for Signs of Illegality

    The transcripts are being closely studied by lawyers looking for signs that Mr. Salem and the law enforcement officials, in their zeal to gather evidence, may have crossed the legal line into entrapment, a charge that defense counsel have already raised.

    But the transcripts show that the officials were concerned that by associating with bombing defendants awaiting trial in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Mr. Salem might have been accused of spying on the defense.

    In an undated conversation, Mr. Anticev tries to explain the perils.

    “We’re not allowed to have any information regarding that,” he tells Mr. Salem. “That could jeopardize, you know, if you go see a lawyer, ah, you know, with the defendant’s friend or whatever like that, and you’re talking about things we’re not suppose to, ah, condone that. We’re not supposed to make people do that for us. That’s like sacred ground. You can’t be privileged, ah, you can’t know what’s being talked about at all.”

    Mr. Salem seems to bridle. “I, I, I don’t think that’s right,” he says.

    The agent insists: “Yeah, but that’s just a guideline. If that ever happened, ah, you can back and reported on the meeting between, ah, you know, Kunstler and Mohammad A. Elgabrown. Forget about it. I mean a lot of people ah the case can get thrown out. You understand?” The references were to the defense lawyer, Mr. Kunstler, and his client in the second bomb case, Ibrahim A. Elgabrowny.

    Mr. Salem seems to reluctantly agree.

    “They want you to have a hand in it,” Mr. Anticev goes on, “but they’re afraid that when you get that kind of, ah, too deep, like me, it’s almost like, especially with all this legal stuff going on right now.”

    If it were just intelligence gathering, the agent says, “You can do anything you want. You could go crazy over there and have a good time. Do you know what I mean?”

    The agent goes on: “But now that everything is going to court and there is legal stuff and it’s just, it’s just too hard. It’s just too tricky, if, this, you know. And then there’s the fact if you come by with the big information, he did this, ah, let me talk about this with the other people again.”

    “O.K.,” Mr. Salem says. “All right. O.K.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html?pagewanted=print

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. KA says:

    More information is out there and available from multiple sources
    .They point to one constant theme in pre 911 administration . Elements within intelligence were actively obstructing any meanignful effective response to the terrorism threat.

    -Former FBI Agent Mark Rossini Driven to Expose CIA’s 9/11 Secret

    http://28pages.org/2015/09/11/former-fbi-agent-mark-rossini-driven-to-expose-cias-911-secret/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Maybe he's barking up the wrong tree. Did the passport not match the man? There's precedent:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html

    If not a match, maybe that was the cause of CIA panic when running some as yet to be determined hare-brained scheme, they're famous for that shit (in wider intelligence circles.) As well, the FBI isn't always on top of what is decidedly NOT rocket science, sometimes they can't find their own forensic ass with both hands.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Former FBI Agent Mark Rossini Driven to Expose CIA’s 9/11 Secret

    http://28pages.org/2015/09/11/former-fbi-agent-mark-rossini-driven-to-expose-cias-911-secret/
     
    Guys, I have to admit that I did not catch on to everything immediately. It took me quite a few years to reach the conceptual framework I now have regarding this false flag terrorism. It probably took me until at least ten, maybe eleven years, after this all went down to where I really started to "get it". I was not fast and a lot of people figured it out a lot faster than I did.

    But now it's been 14 years, and really, it's high time for you guys to get a damned clue. The above linked article is classic "limited hang-out".

    Properly understood, it's even kind of comical. The FBI agent in question talks like: "Oh, yeah, we were right on the tail of these guys who did 9/11 and we could have stopped them, but somehow, there was all these mixed messages, this.... incompetence (LOL) and these guys who later did 9/11 (LOL) were not rounded up, as they should have been..."

    Okay, first point. Look, we know damned well that these guys did NOT do 9/11. Okay? we know it. They were patsies. These guys they claim flew planes did not know how to fly those planes and the buildings did not collapse as a result of plane collisions anyway. The towers were blown to kingdom come with pre-set explosives. Etcetera. Right? Okay? Independent researchers have demonstrated all this ad nauseam. Despite all the trolls here trying desperately to confuse matters, increasingly, everybody with a brain in their heads, knows all this.

    So what is going on here? Well, think about it. A key part of the real operation is framing the patsies. Until the operation goes down, the real criminals have to protect their patsies, right? I mean, if you want to frame these guys for the crime, you cannot have them getting taken into custody and/or deported. You need to be able to say these guys did it!

    So, there are two basic possibilities:

    1. The FBI guy in the story really believes the patsies did it and so he goes to the press all hot and bothered, saying: "Oh, we nearly caught these guys but somewhere something FUBAR happened and they were not taken in and look what happened!

    2. The FBI guy in the story knows perfectly well that these are patsies and didn't do it and is engaging consciously in a disinfo campaign.

    It doesn't even matter that much which of the two above cases it is. We understand that the real criminals have to protect the patsies before the operation goes down, because they need them to be available to framed. They can't be sitting there in FBI custody, say on 9/11/2001, because... like... that would be an alibi! You can't frame them then!

    So common sense tells you that the real criminals do not have complete control over all the federal government, but they do have moles within various relevant federal agencies, so that if the suspicious behaviour of the patsies comes to the attention of some agent or agents who are not in on the conspiracy, then the moles, who are in on the conspiracy have to intervene and somehow prevent the patsies (who will later be framed) from being rounded up. So all of this stuff where you have this kind of article expressing amazement that these terrorists (actually patsies) were not taken into custody even though their bizarre behavior had already come to the attention of various State agents -- properly understood, it's comical.

    Properly understood, there is no mystery about any of this. Once you have the proper conceptual framework, you can immediately analyse/dissect this kind of stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @KA
    More information is out there and available from multiple sources
    .They point to one constant theme in pre 911 administration . Elements within intelligence were actively obstructing any meanignful effective response to the terrorism threat.




    -Former FBI Agent Mark Rossini Driven to Expose CIA’s 9/11 Secret

    http://28pages.org/2015/09/11/former-fbi-agent-mark-rossini-driven-to-expose-cias-911-secret/

    Maybe he’s barking up the wrong tree. Did the passport not match the man? There’s precedent:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html

    If not a match, maybe that was the cause of CIA panic when running some as yet to be determined hare-brained scheme, they’re famous for that shit (in wider intelligence circles.) As well, the FBI isn’t always on top of what is decidedly NOT rocket science, sometimes they can’t find their own forensic ass with both hands.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @KA
    More information is out there and available from multiple sources
    .They point to one constant theme in pre 911 administration . Elements within intelligence were actively obstructing any meanignful effective response to the terrorism threat.




    -Former FBI Agent Mark Rossini Driven to Expose CIA’s 9/11 Secret

    http://28pages.org/2015/09/11/former-fbi-agent-mark-rossini-driven-to-expose-cias-911-secret/

    Former FBI Agent Mark Rossini Driven to Expose CIA’s 9/11 Secret

    http://28pages.org/2015/09/11/former-fbi-agent-mark-rossini-driven-to-expose-cias-911-secret/

    Guys, I have to admit that I did not catch on to everything immediately. It took me quite a few years to reach the conceptual framework I now have regarding this false flag terrorism. It probably took me until at least ten, maybe eleven years, after this all went down to where I really started to “get it”. I was not fast and a lot of people figured it out a lot faster than I did.

    But now it’s been 14 years, and really, it’s high time for you guys to get a damned clue. The above linked article is classic “limited hang-out”.

    Properly understood, it’s even kind of comical. The FBI agent in question talks like: “Oh, yeah, we were right on the tail of these guys who did 9/11 and we could have stopped them, but somehow, there was all these mixed messages, this…. incompetence (LOL) and these guys who later did 9/11 (LOL) were not rounded up, as they should have been…”

    Okay, first point. Look, we know damned well that these guys did NOT do 9/11. Okay? we know it. They were patsies. These guys they claim flew planes did not know how to fly those planes and the buildings did not collapse as a result of plane collisions anyway. The towers were blown to kingdom come with pre-set explosives. Etcetera. Right? Okay? Independent researchers have demonstrated all this ad nauseam. Despite all the trolls here trying desperately to confuse matters, increasingly, everybody with a brain in their heads, knows all this.

    So what is going on here? Well, think about it. A key part of the real operation is framing the patsies. Until the operation goes down, the real criminals have to protect their patsies, right? I mean, if you want to frame these guys for the crime, you cannot have them getting taken into custody and/or deported. You need to be able to say these guys did it!

    So, there are two basic possibilities:

    1. The FBI guy in the story really believes the patsies did it and so he goes to the press all hot and bothered, saying: “Oh, we nearly caught these guys but somewhere something FUBAR happened and they were not taken in and look what happened!

    2. The FBI guy in the story knows perfectly well that these are patsies and didn’t do it and is engaging consciously in a disinfo campaign.

    It doesn’t even matter that much which of the two above cases it is. We understand that the real criminals have to protect the patsies before the operation goes down, because they need them to be available to framed. They can’t be sitting there in FBI custody, say on 9/11/2001, because… like… that would be an alibi! You can’t frame them then!

    So common sense tells you that the real criminals do not have complete control over all the federal government, but they do have moles within various relevant federal agencies, so that if the suspicious behaviour of the patsies comes to the attention of some agent or agents who are not in on the conspiracy, then the moles, who are in on the conspiracy have to intervene and somehow prevent the patsies (who will later be framed) from being rounded up. So all of this stuff where you have this kind of article expressing amazement that these terrorists (actually patsies) were not taken into custody even though their bizarre behavior had already come to the attention of various State agents — properly understood, it’s comical.

    Properly understood, there is no mystery about any of this. Once you have the proper conceptual framework, you can immediately analyse/dissect this kind of stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Listen chap , I don't have access to all the information I am not on expert on flying or controlled demolition of on thermites .
    But I don't need to be an expert to see a pattern of obstruction,negligence,and downright dismissiveness in the behaviors of the intelligence agencies among some high ups and among the neocon ad,insist ration of Bush . Those can't be challenged or be ridiculed or be laughed at as conspiracy .Yes ,it can be ignored as 911 commission or the MSM or the apologist of Budh Cheney administration has done thinking everyone else will ignore . Those pre 911 behaviors raise the issue who knew what and when about pre 911 processing of 911. This issue also become more acutely felt urgent but ignored problem when one adds the very opposite reactions exhibited by the administration .
    Their lukewarm dismissiveness to the threat ,lack of intelligence along with the desire to attack Middle Eastern country before 911 changed into sudden major fear of terrorism of worst kind with plan to attack the very same middle eastern countries along with suddenly derived capacity out of nowhere to pinpoint the sources,methods,and operative capabilities of the enemies with utmost certitude .

    Question to me isn't that the Arabs didn't do it. They did . But to me the question are who knew it coming and who knowingly and who unknowingly facilitated it . The question is why .
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Guys, I have to admit that I did not catch on to everything immediately. It took me quite a few years to reach the conceptual framework I now have regarding this false flag terrorism. It probably took me until at least ten, maybe eleven years, after this all went down to where I really started to “get it”. I was not fast and a lot of people figured it out a lot faster than I did.
     
    That's basically my story too. For years I was comfortable with the 'blow-back' theory. I figured, if it's good enough for Ron Paul, it's good enough for me. It wasn't until the so-called 'Arab Spring' that I actually began to take seriously the idea that the neocons had a strategy of deliberately destabilizing the ME and breaking up Arab countries into ethnic/sectarian cantons. That's when I first began to take the Oded Yinon theory seriously, and that convinced me to take another look at trutherism. When I finally did, I was flabbergasted by how incredibly weak the government's story was. How could I have missed such an obvious false-flag! Oh well, live and learn...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @geokat62

    geokat62-And when it comes to 9/11, the truthers are 100% certain it was gov’t mfged.

    JR-Well, that’s a complete misrepresentation of the state of the discussion out there.
     

    Look, I'm getting a little tired of being accused of "misrepresentation" or being "disingenuous." Here is the exchange we had the last time we addressed this topic:

    geokat62-I was the one who had suggested that it was a difficult thing determining whether the events of 9/11 were gov’t mfged or whether they were prompted by U.S. foreign policy. It was you who disagreed and said:

    JR-Not really. It’s pretty clear that it was a manufactured pretext.
     

    Is this not a fair representation of the state of discussion out there?

    Look, I’m getting a little tired of being accused of “misrepresentation” or being “disingenuous.”

    Oh really, the poor little lying troll scum bastard is reduced to whining…. He is soooo very tired of people called a lying troll scum bastard….

    You know, I hear that George Bush is very tired of being called a mass murderer and war criminal. Those pedophile priests are tired of being called child molesters.

    Yeah, I get it. It’s so tiresome…. Well, fine, if you get a little tired of being called a liar, then you can figure that I and others get very very tired of all your lies and trolling.

    Here is the exchange we had the last time we addressed this topic:

    Uh, no, that is another blatant falsehood from you. You don’t stop. No, that is NOT the “exchange we had”. It is a snippet taken out of context. And quite dishonestly, as usual.

    In fact, in the complete exchange I specifically clarified that, to me, to me, it doesn’t even make sense to say that “the U.S. government did 9/11″. The U.S. government is this giant leviathan that does not,

    as a whole,

    carry out anything.

    The most reasonable working hypothesis is that 9/11 was carried out by a criminal cabal and some members of the cabal did, in fact, occupy key positions in the U.S. government. Others were likely outside the government in the corporate world. But the overall nature of the crime is such that it is impossible for any group to carry it out without having quite a bit of power within the government AND also within the mainstream media.

    At any rate, also, YOU, in that exchange, claimed that you were agnostic about the attacks, that you had not come to a conclusion, therefore there was no need for you to answer my question, which was what the best proof available was that OBL did it!

    Now, you say that what you need to understand is OBL’s “letter to America” (which he probably didn’t even right, but never mind…) so you’re assuming there that OBL did it! After claiming that you were agnostic about that.

    So you ARE defending the official story and when you said you were agnostic, you were lying to get out of the obligation of having to answer my question, what the proof was!

    You lie and you lie and you lie and then you whine like the bitch ass loser you are, that you are so tired of being called a liar. What a disgusting, vile piece of work you are. Just all this shameless mendacity. Burn in hell, you pathetic, lying scum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    You are the real piece of work. But I don't blame you for your foul mouth. I blame your parents because they failed to wash your mouth with soap every time you used foul language.

    My advice to others on this forum is to not engage this individual if he insists on using even one offensive term in any of his future responses. It's best to ignore such filth. The last thing UR needs is more commenters of his ilk.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Sam Shama
    Couldn't agree more.

    BTW, I might note that suicide bombers, from the Gaza or WB, during the heydays of the 2nd Intifada, were not particularly separated from society, nor their families, for any extended period prior to the act. In other words, they led perfectly 'normal' lives, but were simply provided with the explosive vest and a driver with the knowledge to pass check-posts into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or wherever. I note this for the obvious reason that Atta and his crew, appeared to have had crossed that mental rubicon, of not turning back. Their reported lifestyle imho is irrelevant.

    Furthermore, geokat, to add veracity to you observation, I am far more inclined to believe in the guilt of OBL and his organisation, which one might observe, had the motivation, ability and prior record, than some outlandish witches' brew of deep conspiracy, for which no positive evidence has been presented. In other words, I'd say to the truthers, "spell out your account of the bloody story mate", before I go hunting for banshees.

    Do all aspects of the official story sound waterproof and convincing? No. Was Bin Laden captured or killed in Abbottabad, cadaver thrown into the sea? Yes I believe it. Do JR and Rurik have any proof otherwise? In other words questioning anything is costless, but proving the same is categorically not.

    So yes, on the whole, I am comfortable in my default position of believing the apparatuses of a democracy, because there are checks and balances, over the pronouncements of feverish minds on the internet drawing sustenance from their own reality distortion field. I sleep quite well as a result, and don't obsess on the possibility of agents breaking in and abducting this corpus.. Which leads me to ask the final question: how many of the truthers here, have experienced, or know someone, who has indeed, been the subject of such bodily capture or invasion? (to be clear, not examples drawn from Google jockeying)

    BTW, I might note that suicide bombers, from the Gaza or WB, during the heydays of the 2nd Intifada, were not particularly separated from society, nor their families, for any extended period prior to the act.

    Okay, yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s true, but mostly it’s true because there was no extended period prior to the act. Think about it. If you were in charge of that, and some angry young man (or woman) volunteered to be a suicide bomber, would you give them very much time to think about whether they really wanted to do it?

    I’m not an expert psychologist (ask your shrink friend if you wish) but it seems reasonable to suppose that the longer you give somebody to think about whether they want to kill themselves, the greater the risk that they will change their minds.

    On average, what was the lead time between somebody volunteering to kill himself for the cause and that person being sent on the mission? Do you know?

    Moreover, you act like these are comparable operations. Tell me: were there any suicide attacks during the second intifada that required 19 people to show up and kill themselves on some date a year into the future?

    No, once you compare the 9/11 story with any suicide operation that really undisputably happened, like the WW2 Japanese kamikazes, once you really think about, warning bells start going off in your head! They really do! (Try it. Think about it…)

    In other words, they led perfectly ‘normal’ lives, but were simply provided with the explosive vest and a driver with the knowledge to pass check-posts into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or wherever.

    Well, that’s precisely the point, you numbnut! These actual suicide operations that really did happen — they did not require any lead time for the person to be able to carry them out! The 9/11 story involves people going to flying school and learning how to fly the planes, and that takes a good while. It particularly takes a while to learn to fly the planes in a flight school in Florida when you don’t really know English worth a damn! At least one of the alleged pilots spent time in intensive language school to learn English so that they could then go study how to fly the plane in a place where the language of instruction was English. (It’s really the craziest thing imaginable. Imagine you are part of a plot to fly a plane into a building in Russia, so you go to Russia a year before the operation, you enrol in an intensive Russian language course in order to be able to study how to fly the plane in a Russian flying school…. Why wouldn’t you just learn how to fly the plane in English in your own country and go to Russia at the last possible moment?)

    So you have this operation that requires somebody to learn English and then go to the flight school, something that takes a year or more and the operation you have planned absolutely assumes that none of these people, given AN ENTIRE YEAR would change their minds about killing themselves. Is there any real suicide operation that really did happen that resembles this???!!!! In all of the annals of history???!!!!

    But anyway, it doesn’t even matter!!! Because other aspects of the 9/11 official story actually violate the laws of physics, not just human psychology. So it’s even more objective that the story is false. It has been very well established — every which way to Sunday — by independent researchers that the government story cannot possibly be true. Have you read any of that? David Ray Griffin’s book, “the New Pearl Harbor”…. have you read that? There’s that book, other books, they establish with absolute 1000% overkill that the official story cannot be true.

    Do all aspects of the official story sound waterproof and convincing? No.

    Wow, Shama! Did you just say something truthful by accident??!!

    Yeah, damned right, the answer is NO. Just about every aspect of the official story sounds contrived and absolutely unconvincing! Anything… the suicide pilot who packs a suitcase and checks it in…. The passport found intact at ground zero… it’s all just so FUBAR!!! LOL.

    Was Bin Laden captured or killed in Abbottabad, cadaver thrown into the sea? Yes I believe it. Do JR and Rurik have any proof otherwise? In other words questioning anything is costless, but proving the same is categorically not.

    Well, that’s a rather weak argument, since it works both ways. After all, just saying that you believe anything the government says is also “costless”, isn’t it? Certainly, it’s costless if, when you are asked what the proof of the government story is, you are just going to decline to provide any…. which is what you always do…

    What is the proof that Bin Laden was killed and thrown in the sea? (Really, as far as I can tell, that whole story looks deliberately constructed so as to be unprovable one way or the other, no?)

    (NB: Even if OBL was thrown in the sea, that doesn’t prove that he orchestrated 9/11…)

    But anyway, when people who have a record of continually lying tell you a story that is pretty fishy sounding and there is no proof for it, isn’t the default option to decline to believe them? WTF? Your basic stance is insane. People who torture and murder and start horrible wars on false pretexts, and that’s all indisputable, and your position is that you believe everything these people say and there is no need for any proof of it! Good grief…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Look, I’m getting a little tired of being accused of “misrepresentation” or being “disingenuous.”
     
    Oh really, the poor little lying troll scum bastard is reduced to whining.... He is soooo very tired of people called a lying troll scum bastard....

    You know, I hear that George Bush is very tired of being called a mass murderer and war criminal. Those pedophile priests are tired of being called child molesters.

    Yeah, I get it. It's so tiresome.... Well, fine, if you get a little tired of being called a liar, then you can figure that I and others get very very tired of all your lies and trolling.

    Here is the exchange we had the last time we addressed this topic:
     
    Uh, no, that is another blatant falsehood from you. You don't stop. No, that is NOT the "exchange we had". It is a snippet taken out of context. And quite dishonestly, as usual.

    In fact, in the complete exchange I specifically clarified that, to me, to me, it doesn't even make sense to say that "the U.S. government did 9/11". The U.S. government is this giant leviathan that does not,

    as a whole,
     
    carry out anything.

    The most reasonable working hypothesis is that 9/11 was carried out by a criminal cabal and some members of the cabal did, in fact, occupy key positions in the U.S. government. Others were likely outside the government in the corporate world. But the overall nature of the crime is such that it is impossible for any group to carry it out without having quite a bit of power within the government AND also within the mainstream media.

    At any rate, also, YOU, in that exchange, claimed that you were agnostic about the attacks, that you had not come to a conclusion, therefore there was no need for you to answer my question, which was what the best proof available was that OBL did it!

    Now, you say that what you need to understand is OBL's "letter to America" (which he probably didn't even right, but never mind...) so you're assuming there that OBL did it! After claiming that you were agnostic about that.

    So you ARE defending the official story and when you said you were agnostic, you were lying to get out of the obligation of having to answer my question, what the proof was!

    You lie and you lie and you lie and then you whine like the bitch ass loser you are, that you are so tired of being called a liar. What a disgusting, vile piece of work you are. Just all this shameless mendacity. Burn in hell, you pathetic, lying scum.

    You are the real piece of work. But I don’t blame you for your foul mouth. I blame your parents because they failed to wash your mouth with soap every time you used foul language.

    My advice to others on this forum is to not engage this individual if he insists on using even one offensive term in any of his future responses. It’s best to ignore such filth. The last thing UR needs is more commenters of his ilk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    You are the real piece of work. But I don’t blame you for your foul mouth. I blame your parents because they failed to wash your mouth with soap every time you used foul language.
     
    Okay, I rest my case. You're exposed as a liar and the best you can do is claim that the other person is using foul language.

    You don't even bother to contest the claim that you were lying. If the accusation that you were lying were actually unfair (which it's not) surely you would devote at least some energy to trying to defend yourself from the accusation.

    But the problem is that you can't contest it. How can you? You've been plainly caught. Just consider this point in the discussion we had in July:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1018263

    There, I pressed you (not for the first time, because previously you had walked away from the question) to outline what was the strongest evidence that the official story on 9/11 was true. And you answered there:

    Again at the risk of repeating myself, I’m the one who said that establishing whether 9/11 was gov’t mfged or provoked by U.S. foreign policy was a difficult thing to do, remember?
     

    So, there you were claiming that your position was that you did not know whether the story was true or not, thus, there was no need for you to answer my question requesting proof of the government story.

    Now, on this very page, here: http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/mantra-for-911/#comment-1131979

    You write:


    The real reasons for the attacks were included by OBL in his November 2002 “Letter to America”
     
    So your position in the earlier comment was that you didn't need to provide any evidence that OBL did it because you were an agnostic about the event. Now, in the later comment, you simply take it as an established fact that OBL did it and they are in his "letter to America". (Alleged letter.... You also take it as an established fact that OBL actually wrote said "letter to America" but if he was just framed for the attacks, that would hardly matter...)

    So, here we have the classic troll behaviour. You take one position when it suits you -- when I ask you what the proof is that Bin Laden did it, you claim that there is no obligation to answer because you are sitting on the fence. You just don't know... But, then, at a later point, you simply assume that the official story is true, seemingly having forgotten that your position was supposed to be that you "just dunno."

    There is no way that an honest participant would behave this way. So blow it all out your ass, troll. When all you can do is whine that I'm calling you nasty names, that shows clearly just how badly I've now wiped the floor with you. Besides, any nasty things I say about you are necessarily understatement anyway. I have a decent command of the English language but words fail me when it comes to describing what a piece of shit people like you are.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Sam Shama says:

    Revusky, you are a foul mouthed popinjay, hopelessly infatuated with your own voice aren’t you? The next time you try to unload your verbal diarrhea in UR, it should be incumbent on the writer of the essay to ban you. I was about to destroy your self-serving vacuous assumptions about the suicide bombers, but on 2nd thoughts I won’t. In fact you should be banned, like the paranoid boorish lout you are, no need at all for civilised people to come in contact with you. You should be treated like a biblical leper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. @geokat62
    You are the real piece of work. But I don't blame you for your foul mouth. I blame your parents because they failed to wash your mouth with soap every time you used foul language.

    My advice to others on this forum is to not engage this individual if he insists on using even one offensive term in any of his future responses. It's best to ignore such filth. The last thing UR needs is more commenters of his ilk.

    You are the real piece of work. But I don’t blame you for your foul mouth. I blame your parents because they failed to wash your mouth with soap every time you used foul language.

    Okay, I rest my case. You’re exposed as a liar and the best you can do is claim that the other person is using foul language.

    You don’t even bother to contest the claim that you were lying. If the accusation that you were lying were actually unfair (which it’s not) surely you would devote at least some energy to trying to defend yourself from the accusation.

    But the problem is that you can’t contest it. How can you? You’ve been plainly caught. Just consider this point in the discussion we had in July:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1018263

    There, I pressed you (not for the first time, because previously you had walked away from the question) to outline what was the strongest evidence that the official story on 9/11 was true. And you answered there:

    Again at the risk of repeating myself, I’m the one who said that establishing whether 9/11 was gov’t mfged or provoked by U.S. foreign policy was a difficult thing to do, remember?

    So, there you were claiming that your position was that you did not know whether the story was true or not, thus, there was no need for you to answer my question requesting proof of the government story.

    Now, on this very page, here: http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/mantra-for-911/#comment-1131979

    You write:

    The real reasons for the attacks were included by OBL in his November 2002 “Letter to America”

    So your position in the earlier comment was that you didn’t need to provide any evidence that OBL did it because you were an agnostic about the event. Now, in the later comment, you simply take it as an established fact that OBL did it and they are in his “letter to America”. (Alleged letter…. You also take it as an established fact that OBL actually wrote said “letter to America” but if he was just framed for the attacks, that would hardly matter…)

    So, here we have the classic troll behaviour. You take one position when it suits you — when I ask you what the proof is that Bin Laden did it, you claim that there is no obligation to answer because you are sitting on the fence. You just don’t know… But, then, at a later point, you simply assume that the official story is true, seemingly having forgotten that your position was supposed to be that you “just dunno.”

    There is no way that an honest participant would behave this way. So blow it all out your ass, troll. When all you can do is whine that I’m calling you nasty names, that shows clearly just how badly I’ve now wiped the floor with you. Besides, any nasty things I say about you are necessarily understatement anyway. I have a decent command of the English language but words fail me when it comes to describing what a piece of shit people like you are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. KA says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Former FBI Agent Mark Rossini Driven to Expose CIA’s 9/11 Secret

    http://28pages.org/2015/09/11/former-fbi-agent-mark-rossini-driven-to-expose-cias-911-secret/
     
    Guys, I have to admit that I did not catch on to everything immediately. It took me quite a few years to reach the conceptual framework I now have regarding this false flag terrorism. It probably took me until at least ten, maybe eleven years, after this all went down to where I really started to "get it". I was not fast and a lot of people figured it out a lot faster than I did.

    But now it's been 14 years, and really, it's high time for you guys to get a damned clue. The above linked article is classic "limited hang-out".

    Properly understood, it's even kind of comical. The FBI agent in question talks like: "Oh, yeah, we were right on the tail of these guys who did 9/11 and we could have stopped them, but somehow, there was all these mixed messages, this.... incompetence (LOL) and these guys who later did 9/11 (LOL) were not rounded up, as they should have been..."

    Okay, first point. Look, we know damned well that these guys did NOT do 9/11. Okay? we know it. They were patsies. These guys they claim flew planes did not know how to fly those planes and the buildings did not collapse as a result of plane collisions anyway. The towers were blown to kingdom come with pre-set explosives. Etcetera. Right? Okay? Independent researchers have demonstrated all this ad nauseam. Despite all the trolls here trying desperately to confuse matters, increasingly, everybody with a brain in their heads, knows all this.

    So what is going on here? Well, think about it. A key part of the real operation is framing the patsies. Until the operation goes down, the real criminals have to protect their patsies, right? I mean, if you want to frame these guys for the crime, you cannot have them getting taken into custody and/or deported. You need to be able to say these guys did it!

    So, there are two basic possibilities:

    1. The FBI guy in the story really believes the patsies did it and so he goes to the press all hot and bothered, saying: "Oh, we nearly caught these guys but somewhere something FUBAR happened and they were not taken in and look what happened!

    2. The FBI guy in the story knows perfectly well that these are patsies and didn't do it and is engaging consciously in a disinfo campaign.

    It doesn't even matter that much which of the two above cases it is. We understand that the real criminals have to protect the patsies before the operation goes down, because they need them to be available to framed. They can't be sitting there in FBI custody, say on 9/11/2001, because... like... that would be an alibi! You can't frame them then!

    So common sense tells you that the real criminals do not have complete control over all the federal government, but they do have moles within various relevant federal agencies, so that if the suspicious behaviour of the patsies comes to the attention of some agent or agents who are not in on the conspiracy, then the moles, who are in on the conspiracy have to intervene and somehow prevent the patsies (who will later be framed) from being rounded up. So all of this stuff where you have this kind of article expressing amazement that these terrorists (actually patsies) were not taken into custody even though their bizarre behavior had already come to the attention of various State agents -- properly understood, it's comical.

    Properly understood, there is no mystery about any of this. Once you have the proper conceptual framework, you can immediately analyse/dissect this kind of stuff.

    Listen chap , I don’t have access to all the information I am not on expert on flying or controlled demolition of on thermites .
    But I don’t need to be an expert to see a pattern of obstruction,negligence,and downright dismissiveness in the behaviors of the intelligence agencies among some high ups and among the neocon ad,insist ration of Bush . Those can’t be challenged or be ridiculed or be laughed at as conspiracy .Yes ,it can be ignored as 911 commission or the MSM or the apologist of Budh Cheney administration has done thinking everyone else will ignore . Those pre 911 behaviors raise the issue who knew what and when about pre 911 processing of 911. This issue also become more acutely felt urgent but ignored problem when one adds the very opposite reactions exhibited by the administration .
    Their lukewarm dismissiveness to the threat ,lack of intelligence along with the desire to attack Middle Eastern country before 911 changed into sudden major fear of terrorism of worst kind with plan to attack the very same middle eastern countries along with suddenly derived capacity out of nowhere to pinpoint the sources,methods,and operative capabilities of the enemies with utmost certitude .

    Question to me isn’t that the Arabs didn’t do it. They did . But to me the question are who knew it coming and who knowingly and who unknowingly facilitated it . The question is why .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Question to me isn’t that the Arabs didn’t do it. They did . But to me the question are who knew it coming and who knowingly and who unknowingly facilitated it . The question is why .
     
    "They did"

    and you know this based on what?

    the 'terrorists' passport?

    "Osama's" confession?

    President Bush said so? Because they "hate our freedom"?

    perhaps it's more of a general unspoken consensus, like the sun will rise in the East, the Earth is the center of the universe, and sun goes around it once a day. Those things we all tacitly agree on because to question such things would make us a heretic, and put us in bad form with our neighbors

    I'm guessing you're sincere, and there are very many like you to be sure, so it's folks like you who seem to me to be incapable of doubting that Arabs did it- because to do so, would open that door to who really might have done it. And the thought that our own government; the people paid and trusted to protect us, would, or could be that evil - to slaughter thousands of us willy-nilly so that they can pursue demonic wars of aggression against innocent countries, is simply a bridge too far. We humans need a foundation to stand on. We need to wake up in the morning believing in something, so we can build on it. When we're told to look through the telescope at the revolving stars in the heavens, and are forced to accept that the earth is not its center, most of us will become angry and hostile at the man showing us the truth. This is the crux of The Allegory of the Cave that Plato spoke of as he tried to use it to explain this all too human phenomena.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Jonathan Revusky

    Former FBI Agent Mark Rossini Driven to Expose CIA’s 9/11 Secret

    http://28pages.org/2015/09/11/former-fbi-agent-mark-rossini-driven-to-expose-cias-911-secret/
     
    Guys, I have to admit that I did not catch on to everything immediately. It took me quite a few years to reach the conceptual framework I now have regarding this false flag terrorism. It probably took me until at least ten, maybe eleven years, after this all went down to where I really started to "get it". I was not fast and a lot of people figured it out a lot faster than I did.

    But now it's been 14 years, and really, it's high time for you guys to get a damned clue. The above linked article is classic "limited hang-out".

    Properly understood, it's even kind of comical. The FBI agent in question talks like: "Oh, yeah, we were right on the tail of these guys who did 9/11 and we could have stopped them, but somehow, there was all these mixed messages, this.... incompetence (LOL) and these guys who later did 9/11 (LOL) were not rounded up, as they should have been..."

    Okay, first point. Look, we know damned well that these guys did NOT do 9/11. Okay? we know it. They were patsies. These guys they claim flew planes did not know how to fly those planes and the buildings did not collapse as a result of plane collisions anyway. The towers were blown to kingdom come with pre-set explosives. Etcetera. Right? Okay? Independent researchers have demonstrated all this ad nauseam. Despite all the trolls here trying desperately to confuse matters, increasingly, everybody with a brain in their heads, knows all this.

    So what is going on here? Well, think about it. A key part of the real operation is framing the patsies. Until the operation goes down, the real criminals have to protect their patsies, right? I mean, if you want to frame these guys for the crime, you cannot have them getting taken into custody and/or deported. You need to be able to say these guys did it!

    So, there are two basic possibilities:

    1. The FBI guy in the story really believes the patsies did it and so he goes to the press all hot and bothered, saying: "Oh, we nearly caught these guys but somewhere something FUBAR happened and they were not taken in and look what happened!

    2. The FBI guy in the story knows perfectly well that these are patsies and didn't do it and is engaging consciously in a disinfo campaign.

    It doesn't even matter that much which of the two above cases it is. We understand that the real criminals have to protect the patsies before the operation goes down, because they need them to be available to framed. They can't be sitting there in FBI custody, say on 9/11/2001, because... like... that would be an alibi! You can't frame them then!

    So common sense tells you that the real criminals do not have complete control over all the federal government, but they do have moles within various relevant federal agencies, so that if the suspicious behaviour of the patsies comes to the attention of some agent or agents who are not in on the conspiracy, then the moles, who are in on the conspiracy have to intervene and somehow prevent the patsies (who will later be framed) from being rounded up. So all of this stuff where you have this kind of article expressing amazement that these terrorists (actually patsies) were not taken into custody even though their bizarre behavior had already come to the attention of various State agents -- properly understood, it's comical.

    Properly understood, there is no mystery about any of this. Once you have the proper conceptual framework, you can immediately analyse/dissect this kind of stuff.

    Guys, I have to admit that I did not catch on to everything immediately. It took me quite a few years to reach the conceptual framework I now have regarding this false flag terrorism. It probably took me until at least ten, maybe eleven years, after this all went down to where I really started to “get it”. I was not fast and a lot of people figured it out a lot faster than I did.

    That’s basically my story too. For years I was comfortable with the ‘blow-back’ theory. I figured, if it’s good enough for Ron Paul, it’s good enough for me. It wasn’t until the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ that I actually began to take seriously the idea that the neocons had a strategy of deliberately destabilizing the ME and breaking up Arab countries into ethnic/sectarian cantons. That’s when I first began to take the Oded Yinon theory seriously, and that convinced me to take another look at trutherism. When I finally did, I was flabbergasted by how incredibly weak the government’s story was. How could I have missed such an obvious false-flag! Oh well, live and learn…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Rurik says:
    @KA
    Listen chap , I don't have access to all the information I am not on expert on flying or controlled demolition of on thermites .
    But I don't need to be an expert to see a pattern of obstruction,negligence,and downright dismissiveness in the behaviors of the intelligence agencies among some high ups and among the neocon ad,insist ration of Bush . Those can't be challenged or be ridiculed or be laughed at as conspiracy .Yes ,it can be ignored as 911 commission or the MSM or the apologist of Budh Cheney administration has done thinking everyone else will ignore . Those pre 911 behaviors raise the issue who knew what and when about pre 911 processing of 911. This issue also become more acutely felt urgent but ignored problem when one adds the very opposite reactions exhibited by the administration .
    Their lukewarm dismissiveness to the threat ,lack of intelligence along with the desire to attack Middle Eastern country before 911 changed into sudden major fear of terrorism of worst kind with plan to attack the very same middle eastern countries along with suddenly derived capacity out of nowhere to pinpoint the sources,methods,and operative capabilities of the enemies with utmost certitude .

    Question to me isn't that the Arabs didn't do it. They did . But to me the question are who knew it coming and who knowingly and who unknowingly facilitated it . The question is why .

    Question to me isn’t that the Arabs didn’t do it. They did . But to me the question are who knew it coming and who knowingly and who unknowingly facilitated it . The question is why .

    “They did”

    and you know this based on what?

    the ‘terrorists’ passport?

    “Osama’s” confession?

    President Bush said so? Because they “hate our freedom”?

    perhaps it’s more of a general unspoken consensus, like the sun will rise in the East, the Earth is the center of the universe, and sun goes around it once a day. Those things we all tacitly agree on because to question such things would make us a heretic, and put us in bad form with our neighbors

    I’m guessing you’re sincere, and there are very many like you to be sure, so it’s folks like you who seem to me to be incapable of doubting that Arabs did it- because to do so, would open that door to who really might have done it. And the thought that our own government; the people paid and trusted to protect us, would, or could be that evil – to slaughter thousands of us willy-nilly so that they can pursue demonic wars of aggression against innocent countries, is simply a bridge too far. We humans need a foundation to stand on. We need to wake up in the morning believing in something, so we can build on it. When we’re told to look through the telescope at the revolving stars in the heavens, and are forced to accept that the earth is not its center, most of us will become angry and hostile at the man showing us the truth. This is the crux of The Allegory of the Cave that Plato spoke of as he tried to use it to explain this all too human phenomena.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    “They did”

    and you know this based on what?
     
    Well, this page has gone silent, which is normal once an article gets a little old, I suppose, but I'm just checking back to see whether there is anything new.

    Just thought I'd comment that, surely, it's not lost on you that, any time you ask any of these guys the obvious question, i.e. what the proof of this is, they just disappear! That, or they just try to turn it around you, like you have to demonstrate something. Or they really just start hurling insults at you...

    But heck, really, it's the most obvious thing to ask somebody, when they express such certainty. Just in regular life if somebody says so-and-so did something and they're so utterly certain, then it makes sense to ask them: "Why are you so sure? What is the most convincing proof for this?"

    And then if they won't answer... Not just this KA guy, all of them...

    I’m guessing you’re sincere,
     
    Yeah, well, that's because you're a generous minded person, but your guess could be wrong... There are a lot of participants on this site (and others, of course) that are bona fide professional trolls. I'm convinced of that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Truther says: • Website
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Fourteen years later, thanks a heap, Osama bin Laden. With a small number of supporters,$400,000-$500,000, and 19 suicidal hijackers, most of them Saudis, you pulled off a geopolitical magic trick of the first order.
     
    Excuse me. You really still believe all that? Or what are you? A left gatekeeper? Controlled opposition?

    Or are you just stupid?

    What is it?

    While you sat back and waited in Abbottabad,...
     
    Oh, you believe that one too, huh? C'mon... they really had a body to show us, but they didn't show it to us, they just dropped it in the ocean, but there really was a body. Little Johnny really did do his homework, but the dog ate it.... or fell into the sea...

    Okay, yeah, we know that Bin Laden was in Abbottabad, because we know they wouldn't lie to us. Okay, yeah, they would kidnap and torture people, bombard a city full of women and children with depleted uranium, but hey, nobody's perfect... but they surely aren't lying about this. Only a nutty conspiracy theorist would even consider the possibility that they are lying to us about this. Or anything else...

    ...when, on August 6, 2001, the president was given a daily intelligence briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” The NSA, the CIA, and the FBI, which had many of the pieces of the bin Laden puzzle in their hands, still couldn’t imagine it.
     
    The "bin Laden puzzle", eh? Excuse me, what is that? A 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle?

    C'mon... haven't you ever heard of "preparing the terrain", "foreshadowing"...? The dastardly Fu Manchu villain was planning the crime and we had our best agent 86 on the case, but that 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle was just too much....

    And you keep repeating how "improbable" the whole story is!!!! C'mon, the story is not "improbable". It is IMPOSSIBLE. No real terrorist organization which had 19 young men willing to die for a cause would send them to the target country a year or more before the operation and count on all of them to show up at the appointed time and place, like a year later, to commit suicide. I mean, just compare this kamikaze operation to the real one in WW2 with the young Japanese. Once somebody volunteered to be a Kamikaze, they were kept in a special environment and so on. Certainly, they weren't dropped into a novel environment and given a year's lead time to actually reconsider whether they wanted to kill themselves! Just think about it! Just THINK!

    But, regardless, it is well established that the total disintegration of the towers as a result of being hit by airplanes is physically impossible. Go to ae911truth.org and it is completely established -- ad nauseam... And, yes! 14 years have gone by! So if you really don't know that this Bin Laden/suicide hijackers story is false, it's because you don't want to know.

    Look, all this limited hangout left gatekeeper nonsense -- surely nobody with a brain is buying this any more, are they? So why don't you just save yourself the bother? You write this kind of garbage and you destroy your credibility with pretty much all the general public that has a clue. Why do that?

    So, look, if you don't have the balls to tell the truth, then just at least just shut up, why don't you? Just shut up.

    Thank you for the reply. I’m speechless after this article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Rurik

    Question to me isn’t that the Arabs didn’t do it. They did . But to me the question are who knew it coming and who knowingly and who unknowingly facilitated it . The question is why .
     
    "They did"

    and you know this based on what?

    the 'terrorists' passport?

    "Osama's" confession?

    President Bush said so? Because they "hate our freedom"?

    perhaps it's more of a general unspoken consensus, like the sun will rise in the East, the Earth is the center of the universe, and sun goes around it once a day. Those things we all tacitly agree on because to question such things would make us a heretic, and put us in bad form with our neighbors

    I'm guessing you're sincere, and there are very many like you to be sure, so it's folks like you who seem to me to be incapable of doubting that Arabs did it- because to do so, would open that door to who really might have done it. And the thought that our own government; the people paid and trusted to protect us, would, or could be that evil - to slaughter thousands of us willy-nilly so that they can pursue demonic wars of aggression against innocent countries, is simply a bridge too far. We humans need a foundation to stand on. We need to wake up in the morning believing in something, so we can build on it. When we're told to look through the telescope at the revolving stars in the heavens, and are forced to accept that the earth is not its center, most of us will become angry and hostile at the man showing us the truth. This is the crux of The Allegory of the Cave that Plato spoke of as he tried to use it to explain this all too human phenomena.

    “They did”

    and you know this based on what?

    Well, this page has gone silent, which is normal once an article gets a little old, I suppose, but I’m just checking back to see whether there is anything new.

    Just thought I’d comment that, surely, it’s not lost on you that, any time you ask any of these guys the obvious question, i.e. what the proof of this is, they just disappear! That, or they just try to turn it around you, like you have to demonstrate something. Or they really just start hurling insults at you…

    But heck, really, it’s the most obvious thing to ask somebody, when they express such certainty. Just in regular life if somebody says so-and-so did something and they’re so utterly certain, then it makes sense to ask them: “Why are you so sure? What is the most convincing proof for this?”

    And then if they won’t answer… Not just this KA guy, all of them…

    I’m guessing you’re sincere,

    Yeah, well, that’s because you’re a generous minded person, but your guess could be wrong… There are a lot of participants on this site (and others, of course) that are bona fide professional trolls. I’m convinced of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Rurik says:

    Hey JR,

    I stopped by to check out the site to see if there was any good blood and guts being flung around- nope. The Ann Coulter thing seems like the juiciest news of late, but I guess it takes awhile before one of these columnists gets around to stuff like that, if they even will.

    I enjoy your efforts here and your passion too. It’s really the issue of the century (literally) if you ask me. It was the crime that launched all these monstrous wars and severed us Americans from our hard won constitutional freedoms. It really goes to show the true nature of our government and the fiends who’re in charge.

    If somehow, through some miracle, some of the bastards who did that deed are ever brought to justice, then every single key that any of us type and every bit of effort we make towards that goal will have been well worth it in spades. It’s no cliché to say the future of the human species depends on it. We’re on the brink of an Orwellian nightmare that could last an eternity, and horrors unimaginable if these people are able to use that crime to consolidate their power even more.

    I’m ranting. Sometimes I do that ; )

    I’m not sure how many people are unable or unwilling to entertain the concept that 911 was obviously an inside job, vs. how many who are trolls. The good trolls you can’t tell, and I agree with you that when they become obstinate it’s often because they’re trolls, but sometimes I think they’re just too scared to even entertain the glairing truth. It is a terrible thing to come to terms with. I myself wrestled with it for a while, until the evidence just became overwhelming.

    I see it as sort of the way some people are unable to question their deeply held religious beliefs. To doubt it is to doubt everything they think they know. Everything they believe and have believed and hold dear and count on. When cracks appear in the foundation they run around with mortar trying to shore it up, rather than accept that everything they think they know is possibly wrong.

    That’s a tough thing for a lot of people.

    I know people that would rather die that admit we humans are genetically, morphologically related to other great apes. I know liberals who are absolutely and fundamentally incapable of questioning the indoctrination they received at their university “education”. All that guilt and knee-jerk stupidity is there forever. Nothing on this side of Valhalla is going to change their minds.

    So I try to go easy on them, until I’m absolutely convinced they’re a troll. Like the ‘wizard’ for instance, or some of the others I’ve lost patience with.

    So anyways, kudos to you my friend. God speed and God bless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi, Rurik.

    I enjoy your efforts here and your passion too.
     
    Well, thank you, Rurik. Of course, I'm pretty sure that some people here have most definitely not enjoyed their interaction with me!

    But, to tell the truth, I'm getting a bit tired of this scene. I intend to write some needed replies to a few people on that Ann Coulter related thread, but after that, I may drastically curtail my participation here. Well, at least until the itch starts up again....

    You see, the thing is that I'm starting to feel that interacting with some of the people that I've been interacting with here kind of affects me negatively emotionally. I don't mean you, of course, but these utterly dishonest people -- Wizard, Geokat, Shama... and others...

    But, in terms of all the dishonest people, obviously, one can't affect them, but I think I've been pretty effective in terms of showing other people who come across these threads how dishonest they are. Like this Geokat guy was reduced to cussing me out (as was Shama here also) when I pointed out that he had earlier said that he was sitting on the fence regarding 9/11 being an inside job (which was why there was no onus on him to tell me what the proof of the government story was) and then he writes something else just tacitly assuming that Bin Laden was responsible. ("Oh, you should read Bin Laden's "Letter to America"...)

    (Geokat, by the way, is the guy I am most certain is some sort of real disinformation agent.)

    And I don't know what to make of that Ronald Thomas West character. He has engaged in bizarre attacks against me that make no sense whatsoever.

    I deal with these people, and I think I'm increasingly effective at it, but it takes a lot of energy out of me at times, and I am thinking I will cut back quite a bit.

    So I try to go easy on them, until I’m absolutely convinced they’re a troll. Like the ‘wizard’ for instance, or some of the others I’ve lost patience with.

    So anyways, kudos to you my friend. God speed and God bless.
     
    Well, thanks again. You're right that it's very hard to know for sure who is really a professional troll. But even giving them all the benefit of the doubt on that, one can say that, at the very least, there are some real, serious big-time assholes here.

    Anyway, even if some people are just deluded or whatever, and others really are professional disinfo agents, what they have in common, is that they don't participate in good faith. To me, it's exhausting to engage in dialogues with people who are simply acting in bad faith, intellectually dishonest,.... (Maybe I shouldn't admit in public that they get me down, so as not to give them any satisfaction, but... what the heck...)

    But then there are people like yourself, obviously participating in good faith. Honest people. So, I thought to say that if you want to open up a channel of communication outside of this site, by the way, you can write me at revusky (at) gmail (dot) com. I say that to you and it's directed at any other real, good-faithed participant here, since I may soon be reducing my participation on this site quite a bit. So, you know, anybody who wants to talk, exchange views, in a less stressful.... asshole-free environment.... (Sounds like a catchy marketing line... "Come to our smoke-free, asshole-free environment..." :-))
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. KA says:
    @Great Battle for Blair Mountain
    No muslims...or an epsilon of Muslims=0 probability of 9/11 occurring..or with an epsilon of 0 of 9/11 occurring.....we have already significantly reduced the possibility of 9/11 occuring. Which raises the bigger question: why is a Muslim Voting Bloc being imported into the US?..Answer:to vote Whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 3 2016.

    9/11 Truther Tard science is unpublishable "scientific" sewage...whereas:NIST researchers have been recently awarded with a Noble Prize for research on atomic clocks...or, are all the NIST Scientists and Engineers in on the 9/11 cover-up?

    9/11 Truthers=a Treasonous Cabal that wants to flood the US with high fertility highly racialized Muslim Male Yuts and Female Yuts. Retired Philosophy Professor David Ray Griffith is an enthusiast for importing Muslim yut immigrants.

    9/11 Truthers=TREASON IS THE REASON!!!!!

    Average GOP Tea Party Leftie Americans have more in common with the ineffective rage of FOX crews and MSNBC dullards They are like the ostriches with head buried under the sand thinking the danger wont resurface once they resurface . They are more like the pre K student who stomp on the chair after a fall to take revenge against the chair.

    FOX judge poses the question not the average American to the candidate. What is the question? Will Saudi remain our ally in support of Israel against Iran’s dangerous nuclear development who are willing to murder millions to kill Israelis so that Mehdi Imam takes over the world?
    He could have as well asked the candidate if American even need to vote when Israelis not only do it but also write all the ME policies,various liberation acts and advise on esrmarking of money.

    and would have gotten same thunderous ovation from the stupid moron average Americans who populate these events.

    Poor pathetic creature cant even get the chnce of evaluating a Ron Paul or Kucchinich or Mike Greveal brcause a Corbyn ( UK) wont be allowed near judges deciding the electabillity.
    Moron still go back to those judges for guidance,for hope,and for psychological healing

    Only their fear of being seen as insubordinate ,fear of being seen as not tean player,fear of being seen as not sufficiently American can explain why these moron known as American voters thump their chest and bray for violence against Rusdia,China,Iran,Syria,Somalia,Rwanda when those very wars are based on lies fear,loathing,greed,and those wars are nothing but the creators of pain,death losses and dislocation and of terrorism.

    The moron agree with the judges that Muslim are enemy Africaners don’t support Americn dream as if their duty is to support American dreams ,agree with. The judges that Russia is showing recidivism when the psychopathic Neocons get to recommit crimes after crimes in front of democratic religious secular pro liberty and pro peace souls of those very Americans.

    They read the material on Iran deal provided to them by the same forces that shaped their support for Iraq war and still they believe the Iran deal the worst things that ever happened to them after 911.

    They swallow hook line and slinker the myth of exceptionalism ,of manifest destiny,of being number one nation of having special position in the ranking of power and above all being innocent participant in all major wars .

    Unless the citizen challenge the paradigm in which they cast their foreign policy ,chances of any change is remote . Public weakness stems from this fountain of stupidity . The ruling class masterfully uses this stupid weakness . A few minutes attention to the presidential debate will confirm where and how these candidates get the staying power from.
    And even these loosers don’t believe themselves . Look at abscence of Bush in 2008 and 2012 election . Even now he is still absent but those stupid American still support the series of wars he initiated .Vandidates won’t refer to Bush but will refer to his action as guidance
    These impotent block of the citizen think that their country is being ruined by ISIS,Muslim brotherhood,Saudi oil,Muslim cell, Sharia and jihadism .

    Same judges and the neocon owners asked these ostriches in Bush administration to bury their heads under the sand when the storm of 911 was brewing . They assured them the American life would plod along smoothly .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Rurik
    Hey JR,

    I stopped by to check out the site to see if there was any good blood and guts being flung around- nope. The Ann Coulter thing seems like the juiciest news of late, but I guess it takes awhile before one of these columnists gets around to stuff like that, if they even will.

    I enjoy your efforts here and your passion too. It's really the issue of the century (literally) if you ask me. It was the crime that launched all these monstrous wars and severed us Americans from our hard won constitutional freedoms. It really goes to show the true nature of our government and the fiends who're in charge.

    If somehow, through some miracle, some of the bastards who did that deed are ever brought to justice, then every single key that any of us type and every bit of effort we make towards that goal will have been well worth it in spades. It's no cliché to say the future of the human species depends on it. We're on the brink of an Orwellian nightmare that could last an eternity, and horrors unimaginable if these people are able to use that crime to consolidate their power even more.

    I'm ranting. Sometimes I do that ; )

    I'm not sure how many people are unable or unwilling to entertain the concept that 911 was obviously an inside job, vs. how many who are trolls. The good trolls you can't tell, and I agree with you that when they become obstinate it's often because they're trolls, but sometimes I think they're just too scared to even entertain the glairing truth. It is a terrible thing to come to terms with. I myself wrestled with it for a while, until the evidence just became overwhelming.

    I see it as sort of the way some people are unable to question their deeply held religious beliefs. To doubt it is to doubt everything they think they know. Everything they believe and have believed and hold dear and count on. When cracks appear in the foundation they run around with mortar trying to shore it up, rather than accept that everything they think they know is possibly wrong.

    That's a tough thing for a lot of people.

    I know people that would rather die that admit we humans are genetically, morphologically related to other great apes. I know liberals who are absolutely and fundamentally incapable of questioning the indoctrination they received at their university "education". All that guilt and knee-jerk stupidity is there forever. Nothing on this side of Valhalla is going to change their minds.

    So I try to go easy on them, until I'm absolutely convinced they're a troll. Like the 'wizard' for instance, or some of the others I've lost patience with.

    So anyways, kudos to you my friend. God speed and God bless.

    Hi, Rurik.

    I enjoy your efforts here and your passion too.

    Well, thank you, Rurik. Of course, I’m pretty sure that some people here have most definitely not enjoyed their interaction with me!

    But, to tell the truth, I’m getting a bit tired of this scene. I intend to write some needed replies to a few people on that Ann Coulter related thread, but after that, I may drastically curtail my participation here. Well, at least until the itch starts up again….

    You see, the thing is that I’m starting to feel that interacting with some of the people that I’ve been interacting with here kind of affects me negatively emotionally. I don’t mean you, of course, but these utterly dishonest people — Wizard, Geokat, Shama… and others…

    But, in terms of all the dishonest people, obviously, one can’t affect them, but I think I’ve been pretty effective in terms of showing other people who come across these threads how dishonest they are. Like this Geokat guy was reduced to cussing me out (as was Shama here also) when I pointed out that he had earlier said that he was sitting on the fence regarding 9/11 being an inside job (which was why there was no onus on him to tell me what the proof of the government story was) and then he writes something else just tacitly assuming that Bin Laden was responsible. (“Oh, you should read Bin Laden’s “Letter to America”…)

    (Geokat, by the way, is the guy I am most certain is some sort of real disinformation agent.)

    And I don’t know what to make of that Ronald Thomas West character. He has engaged in bizarre attacks against me that make no sense whatsoever.

    I deal with these people, and I think I’m increasingly effective at it, but it takes a lot of energy out of me at times, and I am thinking I will cut back quite a bit.

    So I try to go easy on them, until I’m absolutely convinced they’re a troll. Like the ‘wizard’ for instance, or some of the others I’ve lost patience with.

    So anyways, kudos to you my friend. God speed and God bless.

    Well, thanks again. You’re right that it’s very hard to know for sure who is really a professional troll. But even giving them all the benefit of the doubt on that, one can say that, at the very least, there are some real, serious big-time assholes here.

    Anyway, even if some people are just deluded or whatever, and others really are professional disinfo agents, what they have in common, is that they don’t participate in good faith. To me, it’s exhausting to engage in dialogues with people who are simply acting in bad faith, intellectually dishonest,…. (Maybe I shouldn’t admit in public that they get me down, so as not to give them any satisfaction, but… what the heck…)

    But then there are people like yourself, obviously participating in good faith. Honest people. So, I thought to say that if you want to open up a channel of communication outside of this site, by the way, you can write me at revusky (at) gmail (dot) com. I say that to you and it’s directed at any other real, good-faithed participant here, since I may soon be reducing my participation on this site quite a bit. So, you know, anybody who wants to talk, exchange views, in a less stressful…. asshole-free environment…. (Sounds like a catchy marketing line… “Come to our smoke-free, asshole-free environment…” :-))

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Rurik says:

    Hey JR,

    It’s a pleasure reading your efforts, and I urge you to keep it up!

    these utterly dishonest people — Wizard, Geokat, Shama… and others…

    the wizard is a troll, but you can use them JR! A troll can be a very useful tool as a foil. What Ron’s site offers is the opportunity to speak the truth that most people are not privy to. We have an opportunity to edify people, even if it’s just one or two, those one or two who read and absorb the truth can be like a pebble in a pond, and the ripples can reverberate to yet others and hopefully exponentially more people. The truth is a beautiful and contagious thing when it’s available. People thirst for it, their souls cry out for it, especially these days when the truth is so inundated by so many lies from every corner of the MSM.

    So I would urge using the trolls like the ‘wizard’ and others as foils to bounce the truth off of and watch it hopefully redound to other parched vessels- people like us a few years ago before we knew how much mendacity filled the matrix we all live in.

    As for some of the others like Geok, he’s just looking for intellectual validation. Sam is a true believer and a fount of kosher wisdom. I like Sam. He seems to me to be sincere, even if he’s a bit of a tribalist. Don’t expect him to get on board the 911 truth parade as long as the truth might be considered harmful to the tribe. RTW is a smart cookie and even tho his frame of reference is somewhat hostile to that of us children of Western civilization, I value his knowledge, wisdom and perspicacious perspective.

    There are others here who are natural allies to yourself if you were perhaps just a tad more patient with them I suspect JR. Your intellect and integrity doesn’t leave a lot of room for error on other’s parts sometimes it seems to me. There are times when people just need to be gently nudged to the truth, rather than prodded – then they might become resistant and hostile and then it turns into a flame thing. And the discussion devolves into pissing contests, from what I sometimes notice.

    I just read an exchange between you and some poster named Todd. Everything I’ve read by both of you makes me think you’re both on the same page, but then someone senses a slight, and it all goes to hell. It’s a shame.

    There are psyop types that troll places like this and their agenda is to rankle and irritate, hopefully to eventually exasperate. That’s how they shut you down. And there are a lot of people for whom the truth getting out to a wider audience would be not good. So they are motivated and some of them are quite good too. They’ll draw you in and ply you with guile and try to wile you into a trap, but that’s all part of the fun! Out thinking the more adept trolls and beating them at their own game. Part of the fun is that we have truth on our side. I wouldn’t stand a chance against many of these very intelligent writers here if all I came armed with was my pedestrian rhetoric and stumbling verbiage. But with the truth on our side, we’re ascendant against dishonesty and treachery and deceit. And that feels darn good, no? I suspect you agree with that. It’s a good feeling to watch the liars (and war mongers and hate-consumed assholes) get owned. ‘To crush our enemies, see them driven before us… and to hear the lamentation of their women!’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower