BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Twin Towers conspiracy theory site

 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Linus Dunce
12:56 / 11.09.03
Bin Laden's four days' notice is still pretty good for a plan that relied on secrecy and surprise, so it is hardly proof it was nothing to do with him.

The Saudi hijackers must have at least suspected their country was safe from the inevitable retribution. Which leaves the options: will to destroy; some kind of inside job; or local war by proxy ...
 
 
FinderWolf
18:27 / 11.09.03
I applaud your points and thoughtful rebuttals (seriously, I'm not saying that sarcastically), but I repeat that the CNN link provided does not show the plane flying into the Pentagon. It shows the Pentagon and a huge fireball. I have not ever seen pictures of the plane approaching the Pentagon or actually hitting it.

CNN states:

>> The Department of Defense on Thursday released a series of photos taken by a security camera that show the fireball from a hijacked airliner crashing into the Pentagon on September 11.

They're showing the fireball not the plane. And no pictures of the plane about to impact. No pictures of the plane hitting the building. No pictures of the plane approaching the building at all. CNN states the pictures show the "fireball from..." Where's the pictures of the plane approaching and going into the Pentagon?

I'm not saying "It's a missile, this proves it!!" But why would they not show the plane actually hitting the building or approaching it??

I'm not some crazy person who believes anything I read, I'm just saying there are some salient points raised by some of the conspiracy proponents.

Why are there tons of pictures of the plane approaching and hitting the WTC and none of the Pentagon, when the Pentagon must have security cameras surrounding every inch of it (and from every angle across the street)?
 
 
cusm
18:42 / 11.09.03
I dunno, day of the attack I was hearing that it was a van that hit the pentigon, from people in DC, and not another plane. But of course, who can tell in all the panic and confusion?
 
 
MJ-12
18:45 / 11.09.03
If it was a fake, don't you think they'd have dummyed up a nice, convincing set of photos?
 
 
FinderWolf
18:47 / 11.09.03
>> And yeah, it's kinda weird that there are no photos or video of the plane hitting or flying toward the Pentagon, but keep in mind, it's not exactly downtown like the WTC. The military probably does have pictures, but naturally they don't want to release them. Look at how fast they patched the building up. They don't want their vulnerability broadcast throughout the world!

Why would showing a picture of the plane approaching and hitting the WTC show any greater 'vulnerability' than the fact that the plane actually hit and demolished parts of the Pentagon?

And I'll also point out that the CNN article linked has only 1 picture. Just like I mentioned the NY Times cover story a few months after 9/11 which had 2 pix: 1 of the Pentagon sitting there on a sunny day, and the next of a huge explosion at the Pentagon. No plane.

And personally, I don't put any stock in the 'bombs were placed in the WTC' explanation. I'm more curious about the possibility that the gov't might have had knowledge of the attacks and not tried very hard to stop them.

Also, Icke (and many other conspiracy theorists) cite as an example of prior wacko U.S. ideas a CIA proposal to Kennedy in the 60s which involved blowing up a plane while it was over one of Cuba's neighbors and then blaming the attack on Cuba, giving us justification to invade. Now, granted, this proposal was rejected and got a stern "What the fuck are you thinking, putting this on my desk?!?" from Kennedy, and was the product of a time where U.S paranoia was probably far greater than it is now and the CIA even more wacko than it is now.

But the fact that there is a precedent for the CIA even proposing such an idea as a viable plan of action in America is pretty scary.

(And I don't have the facts on the piece right with me but I'm not making this up and just saying "oh gosh, I don't have the book with me so I can't give any specifics." I'll put the details on the thread this weekend, hopefully.)

Also, I'm aware - and the skeptical part of me - which I do have in spades - I was asking the questions above to show that I am entertaining the ideas but I don't believe them 100% or think they're all accurate - that no matter how many 'sources' one provides when talking about this sort of thing, even if it's the Congressional Record or a book, there will always be someone who, perhaps rightly so, says "how do I know that's a real source?"

So for the record: I think something fishy was up with 9/11, more on the end of our gov't perhaps knowing more than it let on it and being lazy in preventing it, but I am not stating that I believe this theory to be fact. There are enough odd things about 9/11 that make me wonder and entertain some of these ideas, with a dose of open-mindedness and healthy skepticism. That's what I'm saying.
 
 
w1rebaby
19:52 / 11.09.03
I read a news story recently that someone had come up with a video of both crashes.

here
 
 
FinderWolf
19:58 / 11.09.03
Yep, both WTC crashes. But still no pix or video of the Pentagon crash or plane approaching (sorry, a picture of a big fire/explosion at the Pentagon doesn't do it for me).

Although the point raised about 'if it's all a fake, why not just make a dummy video with digitally inserted planes?' is a valid point to which I don't have an answer. It just bothers me that there is no such pictures or video of the Pentagon crash.
 
 
FinderWolf
20:04 / 11.09.03
Wow, that ABC news link posted earlier is actually very interesting and bizarre:

ABCNews.com

The White Van
Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?

June 21, 2003 — Millions saw the horrific images of the World Trade Center attacks, and those who saw them won't forget them. But a New Jersey homemaker saw something that morning that prompted an investigation into five young Israelis and their possible connection to Israeli intelligence.

Maria, who asked us not to use her last name, had a view of the World Trade Center from her New Jersey apartment building. She remembers a neighbor calling her shortly after the first plane hit the towers.
She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.

Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said.

She found the behavior so suspicious that she wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police. Before long, the FBI was also on the scene, and a statewide bulletin was issued on the van.

The plate number was traced to a van owned by a company called Urban Moving. Around 4 p.m. on Sept. 11, the van was spotted on a service road off Route 3, near New Jersey's Giants Stadium. A police officer pulled the van over, finding five men, between 22 and 27 years old, in the vehicle. The men were taken out of the van at gunpoint and handcuffed by police.

The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.

‘We Are Not Your Problem’

According to the police report, one of the passengers told the officers they had been on the West Side Highway in Manhattan "during the incident" — referring to the World Trade Center attack. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." The other passengers were his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

When the men were transferred to jail, the case was transferred out of the FBI's Criminal Division, and into the bureau's Foreign Counterintelligence Section, which is responsible for espionage cases, ABCNEWS has learned.

One reason for the shift, sources told ABCNEWS, was that the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.

After the five men were arrested, the FBI got a warrant and searched Urban Moving's Weehawken, N.J., offices.

The FBI searched Urban Moving's offices for several hours, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. The FBI also questioned Urban Moving's owner. His attorney insists that his client answered all of the FBI's questions. But when FBI agents tried to interview him again a few days later, he was gone.

Three months later 2020's cameras photographed the inside of Urban Moving, and it looked as if the business had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse.

The owner had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel.

‘A Scary Situation’

Steven Gordon, the attorney for the five Israeli detainees, acknowledged that his clients' actions on Sept. 11 would easily have aroused suspicions. "You got a group of guys that are taking pictures, on top of a roof, of the World Trade Center. They're speaking in a foreign language. They got two passports on 'em. One's got a wad of cash on him, and they got box cutters. Now that's a scary situation."

But Gordon insisted that his clients were just five young men who had come to America for a vacation, ended up working for a moving company, and were taking pictures of the event.

The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally. Two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them to be deported. But sources told ABCNEWS that FBI and CIA officials in Washington put a hold on the case.

The five men were held in detention for more than two months. Some of them were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days, and some of them were given as many as seven lie-detector tests.

Plenty of Speculation

Since their arrest, plenty of speculation has swirled about the case, and what the five men were doing that morning. Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS, said federal authorities' interest in the case was heightened when some of the men's names were found in a search of a national intelligence database.

Israeli Intelligence Connection?

According to Cannistraro, many people in the U.S. intelligence community believed that some of the men arrested were working for Israeli intelligence. Cannistraro said there was speculation as to whether Urban Moving had been "set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area, particularly in the New Jersey-New York area."

Under this scenario, the alleged spying operation was not aimed against the United States, but at penetrating or monitoring radical fund-raising and support networks in Muslim communities like Paterson, N.J., which was one of the places where several of the hijackers lived in the months prior to Sept. 11.

For the FBI, deciphering the truth from the five Israelis proved to be difficult. One of them, Paul Kurzberg, refused to take a lie-detector test for 10 weeks — then failed it, according to his lawyer. Another of his lawyers told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.

Sources say the Israelis were targeting these fund-raising networks because they were thought to be channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, groups that are responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Israel. "[The] Israeli government has been very concerned about the activity of radical Islamic groups in the United States that could be a support apparatus to Hamas and Islamic Jihad," Cannistraro said.

The men denied that they had been working for Israeli intelligence out of the New Jersey moving company, and Ram Horvitz, their Israeli attorney, dismissed the allegations as "stupid and ridiculous."

Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, goes even further, asserting the issue was never even discussed with U.S. officials.

"These five men were not involved in any intelligence operation in the United States, and the American intelligence authorities have never raised this issue with us," Regev said. "The story is simply false."

No ‘Pre-Knowledge’

Despite the denials, sources tell ABCNEWS there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies. Many U.S. government officials still believe that some of them were on a mission for Israeli intelligence. But the FBI told ABCNEWS, "To date, this investigation has not identified anybody who in this country had pre-knowledge of the events of 9/11."

Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted.

As to what they were doing on the van, they say they read about the attack on the Internet, couldn't see it from their offices and went to the parking lot for a better view. But no one has been able to find a good explanation for why they may have been smiling with the towers of the World Trade Center burning in the background. Both the lawyers for the young men and the Israeli Embassy chalk it up to immature conduct.

According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal — and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.

While the former detainees refused to answer ABCNEWS' questions about their detention and what they were doing on Sept. 11, several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.

Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

(back to hunterwolf again) Although maybe they were smiling because they figured "Now the US will back Israel even moreso and destory our enemies, who they now see are mutual enemies?" Sick, but maybe that's why they were smiling.
 
 
Nematode
21:40 / 11.09.03
Here's a thought: this is all history now. we've got what we've got. A couple of guerilla wars in Asia, the US involved in an open ended global conflict agains 'terror' and ongoing serious curtailment of our civil liberties. We're up and moving in a very dodgy direction and we're never likely to know what was going on in the run up to and on the day of WTC. We probably aren't ever going to find out who was truly responsible. I've looked at a lot of conspiracy sites and I'm not sure; there are funny little loose ends that don't tie up properly but it doesn't leave me anywhere other than an informational fog with phantom shapes looming at me that might be something more tangible or might not. But the question is does it really matter? I feel like this has all entered the realm of personal mythology. You choose the truth you live by on this. Do you trust the official story or not? I am inclined not to because I basically think it's probably beter for me to remain as cynical as possible in this regard. It keeps me on my toes. I do think it's probably quite important not to get too carred away with conspiracy theories, it's a weird dualistic head space that doesn't actually help you very much in terms of maintaining balance in a world as difficult as this. While we're at it: there's quite enough out there in official sources to justify a belief that Bush et al are very bad people, if they fixed this it wouldn't really make them very much worse. Just to add a little local detail to this. A friend of mine's father is a top member of the security services and was called back from a family holiday the night before 9/11, so there you go....
N.B this would all change if somehow, some way this could just get out to the public that the people who rule us are part of some monstorous conspiracy, just like Watergate but massive and we could all watch the whole house of cards fall as involvement in satanism and alien contact, congress with 9ft lizards flying in black helicopters and what the fuck came out. That would be good but somehow I don't think it's going to happen on this message board and or as a result of the activities of any of those that have contributed [sorry guys] I reckon we're talking about something quite different here but actually equally important.
 
 
GreenMann
12:28 / 12.09.03
HunterWolf, i'm amazed at that ABC report too!

Another conspiracy theory circulating in the Arab world is that 9/11 was carried out by Mossad, with the CIA's knowledge, in order to make the New American Century ideology(http://www.newamericancentury.org/)and internal repression acceptable to the American public.
 
 
cusm
16:53 / 12.09.03
You can't tell the cause, but you can see the effects. I think an interesting approach would be to pursue criminal charges against anyone who profited from the attack, economicly or stratigicly, and hold *them* responsible. It might not be truth, but it would be justice.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:09 / 12.09.03
Hey, a former minister has said that it was all a plot!

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus

That means it must be true!

The only way to think about the attacks, I think, is in a strict black/ white, on/ off, bad/ good way. These binary oppositions make you feel good and reinforce the fact that there is, somewhere, certainty in the world. That's the way I think of them, anyway.

Some people suggest that I'm being stupid, and there's a little more to things than that. I ignore them.

People tell me that the words 'global network' are important when dealing with al qaeda, and that the whole point of this terrorist 'organisation' is that it is a network of loosely affiliated groups and cells, such as the Hamburg al queda cell which some people suggest plotted the September 11 attacks. And that while funding comes from Osama, among others, it would be wrong to suggest that al qaida cannot have been involved in the attacks as they were not plotted in Afghanistan and Osama has never, supposedly, claimed direct responsibility for them.

People tell me that there is a difference between the US government being behind the attacks, or knowing they were going to happen and not stopping them, and the US Government and its intelligence services just being a bit, well, shit.

People tell me that the war in Iraq has stopped terrorism in its tracks like a marine stopping Iraqi policemen. Or that the war has opened the gates of hell with a hornet's nest of angry fighters ready to engulf the UK (*after stopping off in Sangatte, of course.)

I try to believe either one argument or the other wholeheartedly. It's too difficult to think my own way around the ideas without an architecture of concrete belief surrounding me.
 
 
Jrod
08:25 / 13.09.03
Why would showing a picture of the plane approaching and hitting the WTC show any greater 'vulnerability' than the fact that the plane actually hit and demolished parts of the Pentagon?

Well, I suppose it's the difference between showing pictures of dead soldiers on Omaha beach, and showing German machine gunners actually mowing them down. Of course, during WW2 they didn't show the dead soldiers, either... so I admit, that was a dodgy argument on my part.

Still, if a plane hit the Pentagon it seems certain that the military has photos of this, but the military is going to release the bare minimum that they can get away with. An example would be showing satelite photos focused a mile up, when everybody knows they can count the freckles on your face on a clear day. But surely there must be other evidence of a plane? I don't know if air traffic control radar screens are recorded, but even if they are I suspect a plane hitting the Pentagon would be too low to detect.

I try to believe either one argument or the other wholeheartedly. It's too difficult to think my own way around the ideas without an architecture of concrete belief surrounding me.

I'm just the opposite, I find concrete belief in any form to be too limiting to tolerate. I like the lines from Dogma: "Do you believe?" "No, but I have a pretty good idea." Too bad in this case we have several crappy ideas....
 
 
diz
18:58 / 13.09.03
i think this is going to be my generation's equivalent of the JFK assassination, and phrases like "the white van" are going to be the equivalent of "the grassy knoll" in a few decades.

that said, i am positive that the US government had foreknowledge of this and probably a hand in planning it. the Bush family is part of a larger network which has done all sorts of evil shit. Iran-Contra scratched the surface of that particular iceberg, but they've been busy since then. i think the USS Cole bombing was like the whole "October Surprise" deal with the Ayatollah which kept the Iranian hostages in custody until their puppet Reagan's inauguration, and they just thought there would be more public outrage then there was. the Cole bombing was also meant to work with Sharon's incitement of the second Intifada after the failed peace talks, to illustrate the failure of Clinton's foreign policy and scare the public into voting Republican.

since that didn't really work, they had to steal the election, in the process weakening Dubya's already weakened position. they needed something to justify the PNAC project, and if the Cole didn't work they'd just have to aim higher...
 
 
w1rebaby
22:06 / 13.09.03
I really don't know. It's all undecided as far as I'm concerned, in case I look like an arse later on and have to re-evaluate my entire position.

On the other hand, there are plenty of proven, blatant, evil things that they've done to concentrate on. Planning the whole thing in advance would just be extra evil icing on a big cake full of evil currants.
 
 
Peach Pie
10:59 / 14.09.03
Now I've heard that the hijackers were not from afghanistan (any more than they were from Iraq) but that they were from Saudi Arabia.

Has anyone heard anything which might confirm or disprove this?
 
 
Jack Fear
12:05 / 14.09.03
Now I've heard that the hijackers were not from afghanistan (any more than they were from Iraq) but that they were from Saudi Arabia.

You're just hearing this now?

Dude, where have YOU been for the last, oh, 22 months?

To review, for the chronically underinformed: the core members of al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden himself, are Saudis. Indeed, some have argued that al Qaeda's real beef is less with the Evil West than with the Saudi royal family (who bin Laden feels have betrayed Islam by kowtowing to US interests), and that its war with the Western world is a civil-war-by-proxy.

The Taliban are a whole 'nother story (for one thing, they're ethnically South Asian, rather than Arab): though their beliefs grow out of a more distinctly Indo-Pakistani reading of Islam, rather than the Arabic Wa'habi sect, they share ObL's anti-Western, antimodern stance. This sympathy led them to offer him sanctuary in his exile: but al Qaeda continued to operate autonomously—meaning that the Taliban themselves played no role in the planning or execution of the 9/11 hijackings...

Jesus, this would be a lot easier if you appeared to have been paying attention at all to the events of the last two years...
 
 
FinderWolf
15:23 / 15.09.03
Congress is keeping mum about a lot of what they learned in recent 9/11 investigations...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/12/saudi.report/index.html
 
 
■
19:09 / 15.09.03
Just as an aside (and to qualify myself as an "I think they knew, but reasonable doubt applies to the Bush boys, too" person), here's a flip little article I wrote in March:


You may have been amused recently by the site (gulfwardrinkinggame.com) which proposed the Iraq war drinking game where drinks are taken every time a 24-hour news anchor spouts some clichéd inanity. My favourite is to drink when “Al-Jazeera is referred to as the Arab CNN. Finish your drink if CNN is referred to as the American Al-Jazeera.”
I would like to propose a new spin-off, which could lead to a run on off-licences everywhere: “Ari Fleischer’s wasn’t us! ™ drinking game”. It’s very easy. Take a small drink every time the current White House press secretary denies something.
It’s unsurprising that this chap should have the need to deny an awful lot, but do a quick count of every use of the word ‘not’ in any White House press briefing (available at whitehouse.gov). You’ll find he’s very fond of it. Ari brings it out an average 30 times per briefing. It’s his motif, his thing. Denial is the official line of the Bush White House, and Ari is great at using the ‘no’ words.
While such a game might sound predictable, it is at least a consistent way to take your mind off the war, and further offers the opportunity of great excitement when Ari pulls out his surprise (finish your drink)… the double negative.
You remember them? That mangling of grammar that makes you wince when someone proclaims, “I ain’t done nothing.” Generally only noticed by pedants and prissy Merchant Ivory characters, but likewise usually only used by people who really have done something.
With this in mind, what is Ari telling us here?

“The possibility of a traditional hijacking, in the pre-September 11th sense, has long been a concern of the government, dating back decades. The President did not -- not -- receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers.” (16/5/2002)

This was a widely broadcast riposte to the speculation that the Bush administration had prior warning of the 9-11 attacks. It was clearly intended to be parsed as presented: an emphatic, reinforced rejection of accusations of incompetence.
Nice and clear, yes? Well, try this:

“Here's what we do know to date. The chemical warheads found by the inspectors were not -- not -- on the declared list that Iraq provided to the world indicating what weapons it said it possessed.” (17/1/2003)

So, Ari and his scriptwriters forcefully let us know that the Iraqi weapons declaration (that no-one but the White House and Pentagon has yet seen) contains no reference to recently found warheads that could be used for chemical warfare.
Now call me paranoid, I’m sure everyone does, but there is at least an interesting level of ambiguity in these two statements. It’s true that they could both be examples of drama, pausing for effect before pushing the point home. Yet out of context, in textual records, these double negatives take on a different sense. The more you read these, the more they seem like admissions of guilt: that the President did know, that the weapons were on the list; and that Ari isn’t going to lie on record, just in case history sniffs them out.
It may seem disingenuous to use written records, but the whitehouse.gov site has been around for years. The government have ensured that they can be quoted out of context and write speeches accordingly.
I’d like to institute the next round of the wasn’t us! ™ drinking game, if only to ensure that everyone is alert to see what the next big truth the West Wing will try to sneak out under the cover of a denial. Cheers!
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:20 / 15.09.03
Sorry, man. Us over here in the UK don't actually care, apparently. All we care about is who's the biggest bastard out of the BBC and the government?

And before you say that's just a triviality... we killed a guy purely so we could figure this one out.

War? Fuck? There was a war?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:23 / 15.09.03
Sorry to post again so quickly here... just thought it'd be better if it was a separate post.

Having just re-read my previous post, I figure it could be construed as argumentative. Not intended. I've just read TOO MANY English newspapers in the last few days and I'm kind of pissed off.

And of course I know it's "biggER" rather than "biggEST". Doh!
 
 
■
19:31 / 15.09.03
Yeah, still not sold on that being suicide. Guy with a reasonable knowledge of biology (enough to know how biological weapons work) decides the best way to die is full of painkillers and one wrist slit? Nah. You'd expect him to know where he could have found some Fly Agaric in those wood to OD on, or something.


[experiences feelings of trollism...]
 
 
w1rebaby
22:38 / 15.09.03
I'm fairly sold on it. It seems a very, very stupid thing for the government to do - it's brought them immensely bad publicity, even from people who think it was suicide, and he'd already done the damage. You have to predicate some sort of really extraordinary untold secret to make it worth all that.

Unless it was a faction opposed to Tony Blair that killed him....
 
 
Morpheus
23:24 / 15.09.03
Go to: www.guerrillanews.com/media/doc2925.html

This movie is some real tough news for all of you. Read it and weep...steep your tea in sweet misery.
 
 
Mr Tricks
23:33 / 15.09.03
haven't read the whole thred yet but I thought I would toss this log into the fires...


%runs and hides....%
 
 
Quantum
09:30 / 16.09.03
I think it's fair to say the truth is being occluded and the US government is hiding a lot. For me that's enough to suspect them of bearing some responsibility for 9/11.
I don't think anyone planted explosives in the towers, but several (UK French + Israeli IIRC) security forces informed them about the plan in advance, they have to bear some of the blame. I think the behaviour of GWB and the whole oil stealing war machine subsequent to the events have clearly shown that they are evil lying bastards with a long and distinguished history of being evil lying bastards from families of evil lying bastards (the Bush-nazi link, Bush senior, his cronies and bosses in the oil industry etc). It makes me more likely to believe crazy conspiracies when I *know* the government involved is lying to me.
We may never know what happened exactly, but we know that the powers that be are lying about it.
 
 
GreenMann
10:26 / 16.09.03
More fuel to the fire:

http://lexiana.mine.nu/lexiana/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=42
 
 
Jrod
10:52 / 16.09.03
I agree, Quantum. This administration has taken the tragedy of 9/11 and used it as an excuse to do whatever they fucking want. Tax cuts? Invade and occupy several countries? Alienate every other country on the globe? Detain citizens without trial? Burn the First Amendment? They've been allowed to do these things only because of the terrorist attack, and that points to their involvement.

I feel like a damn paranoid talking about "them", but we don't really know who pulls the strings, do we? Shrubya just isn't clever enough to mastermind all this, IMO. The guy can barely run a baseball team.

All we really know is that the US gov't is not to be trusted. Hell, their lying over the Iraq was has been blatant and obvious. It's not a great leap of whimsey to assume that those in power want hegemony over the mideast. Cripes, Rumsfeld is practically winking and crossing his fingers when he talks about WMDs and Saddam. For all we know Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are hanging out at the Crawford ranch sipping on Margaritas. Amazing that for all our military and intelligence power we can't capture a couple of guys we had surrounded! And I could go on and on, but we all know this stuff.

However, what's frightening, if you assume that Cheney et al. were behind or aware of the 9/11 attacks, then you have to assume that it will happen again. Once public opinion really starts to turn against the administration, or if Bush starts to trail in the polls to Diddly McDemocrat.....

I'd almost rather have evil giant lizards running the show.
 
 
GreenMann
11:30 / 16.09.03
This year's top 25 censored media stories:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_press&Number=875440&t=-1
 
 
Not Here Still
17:55 / 16.09.03
Wow, they've been lying to me all along! I don't even feel I can trust what I read in the Sun any more!

I wish I'd had a keg and pizza party to watch that movie about Osama, dude. That would have been sweeeeet.

Man, all these censored stories which don't make it into the media. I wish I could use the internet and my critical faculties to work out which of them made sense.

They've got to fit into my concrete belief structures that one side is good and the other is bad, though, or I find myself getting all confused. I wish more people would tell me what to think about stuff like this.

Then again, someone told me the other day that most conspiracy is actually more likely to just be cock-up, but I can't see it myself. Doesn't fit the worldview.
 
 
Jrod
03:00 / 17.09.03
Dude, whoever told you that conspiracies are bunk is obviously working for them. They also call during open lines on George Noory with really crazy stories to obfuscate the truth, and they spread untrue rumors on the internet to discredit those of us who know the truth. Who are you working for, Not Me Again? WHO PAID YOU?!?

Sarcasm aside, here's what we know: we don't know shit about what really happened on 9/11 besides the part with explosions and death, and the US is run by evil, evil men. Certainly the rest is, for the most part, speculation. We're the peanut gallery here, sad to say. Except for those of you working for them.
 
 
Quantum
08:44 / 17.09.03
most conspiracy is actually more likely to just be cock-up
Doubtless. But people are doing reaally bad things and getting away with it, and their allies are helping them and covering it up. Isn't that enough of a conspiracy? I don't think that there's a world spanning group of freemason lizards controlling our lives, but I do think there are rich and powerful people making decisions that affect us without concern for our welfare, and casually sending us to our deaths. It worries me that these people can lie so blatantly and get away with it, that they win fucking elections, that they are so obviously corrupt and yet prosper.
If there were a megaconspiracy, at least someone would be in charge of it all instead of noone.
 
 
Quantum
09:02 / 17.09.03
What I mean is, the many 'conspiracies' are each out for their own ends and fuck everyone else (whether it's suppressing the electric car or killing JFK) which means the whole world is getting fucked up, and nobody is taking responsibility for it.
So back to the twin towers, perhaps it was blunder that allowed it to happen- the US 'intelligence' forces fucked up and allowed 3,000 people to be killed horrifically. Isn't that pretty bad by itself? It's their job to stop these things, they're given massive powers and people accept great restrictions on their freedom specifically to prevent such things happening.
Why didn't they? If it was a cock up, why haven't a load of them been sacked or imprisoned for it?
 
 
GreenMann
09:44 / 17.09.03
Not Me Again, i agree this subject is confusing at times, and there is an old saying "the less you know the better".

Why not make life easier for yourself and forget these conspiracy theories. Accept the official explanation that Osama carried out the 911 attacks; that Saddam was planning a WMD attack on US/UK but, in the end, just didn't, and that, because Iraq is so big, we haven't found evidence of the WMD "programmes" (i.e. paperwork) just yet and, at the end of the day, as the Sun says, it's all the BBC's fault.

See, it all makes sense now doesn't it?
 
 
Jack Fear
11:18 / 17.09.03
Quantum:

But people are doing reaally bad things and getting away with it, and their allies are helping them and covering it up. Isn't that enough of a conspiracy?

Isn't the whole point of a conspiracy that it's a secret?

But your evidence for this "conspiracy" is the very obviousness of it—that if you look at the public record, you see glaring evidence of these atrocities and alliances—and even of the cover-ups, for fuck's sake! A cover-up that's on the public record! I ask you! Does the word "oxymnoron" spring to mind?

If there were a megaconspiracy, at least someone would be in charge of it all instead of no one.

Exactly. he word you're looking for is "conspiracy, but system. A system, once set in motion, can perpetuate itself for a long time with very little conscious, organized direction. No single gear drives the big machine: the motion of the machine is the sum totality of the motion of all the individual gears.

The conspiracy mindset is attractive because it simplifies things: We can fix everything if we just track and eliminate one root cause. But the poison weed has no single root, only branches and stems, and must be fought back on a thousand fronts at once.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply