Pic of the day in Israel

Post Reply New Topic

You're merely blind when it comes to stupid insults from people of a left wing inclination. They're just as guilty.

to get back to the original topic, this article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 80,00.html

by george monbiot in the guardian on tuesday i found interesting...

There is more than just circumstantial evidence. To name just a few things here:

1. the very structure and architecture of the buildings refutes the claims that a "fireball" took down the towers
2. the fact that scientists and engineers who have tried to refute the government's assertions via research about how the towers came down have been fired or lost grants
3. the videotape taken of those buildings at the time of the attacks which shows minor explosions not in relation to when both towers "pancaked" down
4. eye-witness accounts at ground zero who said explosions were seen throughout the structure-- particularly at its base-- just before the buildings went down (New York is still calling for a solid, uncorrupted independent investigation of 9/11)
5. the very fact that the billions of dollars of gold had been moved a few days before, underground, out from under the two towers
6. that "bomb squads" had been moving about the towers for about a week beforehand, evacuating floors at a time, and then suddenly the day of the attacks they didn't return back
7. that 6 of those "dead" hijackers have been reported by other countries to be alive and well and were not in the US or on planes at all (one such man was reported by the UK government to still be alive and miraculously hadn't been "blown up" at all)
8. that ground zero was closed off by Mayor Giuliani just after the attacks and not even FEMA was allowed in while the debri was cleared
9. that an aircraft cannot enter American airspace WITHOUT air traffic control knowing about it and if a plane goes off course it is standard procedure to intercept it
10. Rumsfeld, himself, stated that in order to get into war with Iraq another "Pearl Harbor" was needed
11. ALSO the very fact that once the first plane had hit the towers and GW was informed he did NOT order all other planes going offcourse to be intercepted nor did he instigate a grounding of all flights or a national alert
12. and the BIGGEST thing of all, since 9/11, the Bush adminstration and friends have been able to get whatever they wanted from Congress with the support of the American people. Do you EVER think that without 9/11 and these constant threats of terrorism above our heads, that the Patriot Act would've EVER went through? NO WAY IN HELL.



Bin Laden has said he wasn't to blame for the attacks. However, there was also a tape which was put out just after with "Bin Laden" claiming he'd been responsible. But there were a few things wrong with this tape.

1. if you look closely enough at the man in the tape and an actual picture of Bin Laden, you can see that, despite they look similar, they are not the same man
2. The "Bin Laden" in the tape is wearing a gold ring. It is against Muslim religious beliefs to wear gold. The real Bin Laden has never been seen wearing gold or such a ring.
3. The "Bin Laden" in the tape is right-handed. Bin Laden, IRL, is left-handed

As for the details of this whole Bin Laden/Bush family tie, it's difficult to say. Ossama is the black sheep of the Bin Laden family. It's possible the remainder of the family "sold" him for use to the Bush administration. Or it's also possible Bin Laden has been taken into custody, paid off, and is sitting pretty somewhere where nobody can find him.

The government essentially controls the larger media through intimidation. Anyone can see the difference between what the US media reports on and what, say, BBC American news reports, despite that it's sometimes subtle.

The biggest thing that's worked in favor of keeping this knowledge from the majority of the American public is that anyone who starts making sense is branded a "Conspiracy Theorist" and unfortunately the term "conspiracy" also has the connotation "crazy" attached to it.

I'll admit it. Before I looked over all the multitude of evidence, I thought people proposing this idea were crazy and radical and totally into conspiracies and it was just another passtime-- mainly because I didn't want to believe that a country's government could actually willingly do something like this to its people. I'm definitely not into conspiracies. But from all the evidence that is actually out there though is kept quiet and anyone who speaks it is either called crazy or is silenced, I can't deny it anymore. Making someone out to be crazy actually has a greater effect of not letting their message be heard than taping their mouth shut, because no one believes a crazy person. But if they silenced someone, people would notice and would wonder why. "Crazy" is far more effective.

The thing about this is that ignoring the evidence and calling anyone with this idea "crazy" can have disasterous effects, because just think about what this means if all this is true...

Getting the US into war by attacking our own isn't unheard of in our history. It's actually quite common. Polk did it with the Mexican War down around Rio Grande, Lincoln did it with Fort Sumpter to get us into the Civil War, Roosevelt did it with Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII, and now the Bush administration did it to get us into Iraq.

Ask yourself why it was Afghanistan "terrorists" that attacked us and we spent a minimal amount of time there with minimal forces and then moved right into Iraq? We've taken down Hussein but have never caught Bin Laden. Why?

If people just sat and thought and questioned everything that's going on, they'd see that a great many things don't add up about this administration.

All you have presented in circumstantial evidence, you have not presented one shread of solid causational evidence. Like I said, there are only "random coincidences conveniently strung together by someone who needs a hobby."

on a related note, the presbyterian church has just published a book claiming that it was an inside job....

http://story.malaysiasun.com/p.x/ct/9/c ... 7f00576d2a

He claims that "after investigation" he determined that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition... bullcrap. Real experts, who actually know what they're talking about, have proven conclusively that the towers were not brought down by controlled demolitions.

Just because someone publishes their stupid wrong opinions in a book, doesn't mean that their opinions are any less stupid and wrong. Hell, Happeh's published numerous books...

yeah i haven't read the book and don't necessarily agree with anything he says. i just thought it may be of interest to some of the posters in this topic.

What is circumstancial about scientists having come out and shown conclusively that those towers could not have been taken down the way the government said it happened? Or that they've lost their jobs and careers because of it?

Have you even bothered to look at the architectural evidence yourselves? Or are you just flapping your gums on suspicion?

How about the fact that an airplane, let alone three, could not enter American airspace and go of course without air traffic control not knowing about it and those planes then being intercepted? Hundreds of craft are intercepted yearly in such a way. WHY NOT THESE THREE?

Are you all purposely BLIND??????????????????????????

For anyone actually willing to listen to why all this is happening, visit here for information on the Project of the New American Century-- a group spear-headed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle. And before you go shouting "conspiracy" at me, take a look at their own site here-- a legitimate group which all these men are founders of and are very willing to admit it.

pnac actually have a document on that site that says a "new pearl harbour" was needed to speed up the likelihood of military action in the middle east, with the aim of strategic dominance in the area. the document was published in september 2000.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf

serendipity indeed that exactly a year later it actually happened.....


michael meacher makes some interesting points in this article published in 2003 by the guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/com ... 87,00.html

Never happened. Some nutball made it up.



http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 27842.html



Because it's common knowledge that airplane control is focused outwards over international waters and territory, rather than in the US mainland?



No, but you obviously are.

Just FYI, Structural steel looses 90% of its strength at 1000 Deg. Farenheight. It was EASILY 1000 Deg on those floors. So the structure lost at least 90% of its strength. You would have us believe thats sufficient to stand up. What kind of cheap ass crack do you smoke??

The article says that the group was started in 1997, before Bush got into office. Are you saying that Bush started the conspiracy before he knew he was going to be president? Or, that the conspiracy was in place and that they convinced Bush to go along?



I agree with some points about 9/11 being used as an excuse for expanding American influence, but his claims about the towers are just way off-base. Bush himself has said a few times that our goal is to "spread democracy throughout the middle east", which is of course politician speak for "regime change". But, this makes sense when fighting the war on terror. All of the worst terrorists come from poor dictatorships. Their inability to express anger at their own government (which is punished by death or dissapearences) is replaced by a hatred for america (which gets them praise as being hero's), so it is natural that dictators place heavy emphasis on "evil America" in order to deflect anger away from themselves. Democracies are just not as hostile to America as dicatatorships, so if the whole world consisted of democracies, wouldn't america be safer? Of course it would be. Now, whether the US has the right to initiate "regime change" is another question entirely, but the premise makes total sense.

Of couse every president gets THOUSANDS of warnings coming there way each week. Should they act on them all, America would be in a state of frozen inactivity. So, of course after something like pearl harbor or 9/11 happens, everyone goes back and goes, "but look, they had the warnings!". YEah, along with THOUSANDS of other possible attacks that never happened. Hindsight is always 20/20, and conveniently based on tunnel vision. I sure we had warnings for almost every single attack ever made, but would it be plausible to take EVERY lead seriously? No, it would be a waste of time and effort, there are just too many warnings that pop up everyday.



Watch the video, its obvious that the towers top halves fell first, exactly at the point of impact. If you have any videos showing that they fell from the bottom all at once, I would be very interested. So, are you implying that the government planted explosives in the middle of the towers, then the hijackers flew into those EXACT floors where the charges were planted, but managed to miss the charges in order so that they could be detonated later? These indeed were "experts" at flying then. Nonsense.



If you can't answer my questions above, this point is mute.



So, you are saying that hundreds of people working in the field are also in on the conspiracy? Because when things like this happen, the president is not in control, its people at the FAA working with military leaders. So, all these people at the FAA are in on it too? In order for your conspiracy to work, thousands would have to be in on it, and out of all of them, no ones talking? Nonsense.



No, in fact our eyes are wide open, more open then yours. Open enough to look at the big picture and see that the questions that follow from such a claim are non-sensical. When you look at the small picture, yes, I admit things do look fishy, but when compared to the ENTIRE situation, the claims become more and more riduculous.



So what? They have a foundation. A foundation whos conspiracy ties you claim depend on all men being in power forever, which is just not true. Unless you are claiming that they already know who the next president is an have already convinced him to join their little "cult", your claims are mute. Again, look at the big picture.

CONSPIRACY!! !! !!

jonathan, i have not claimed that bush was involved in any "conspiracy". i am simply highlighting points which it may be wise to consider in analysing the situation. it is quite telling that many of the memberrs of pnac have ended up in key positions in the bush government.
you talk as though before gw bush got into power he was just a little insignificant man in the street. i am sure you are aware that the bush family have held power and influence in us politics and industry since at leaest world war 2.






then why is it that throughout the 20th century the us has given support to so many military dictatorships?
even in several cases assisting them in forcibly overthrowing democratically elected governments?
i would cite as examples suharto in indonesia, batista in pre-castro cuba, noreaga in panama, pinochet in argentina, the shah of iran, mubarak in egypt, saudi arabia, branco in brasil, haiti, the dominican republic, and even saddam hussein. and the list goes on.
your reasoning here is highly over simplistic, almost to the point of naivety.
the reason for us involvement in the middle east is to secure strategic dominance in an area important for several reasons in terms of maintaining the global hegemony that you country is trying to achieve. this is made clear in the pnac document i linked in my previous post.



that may be so, but your government was given advance warning of the wtc attack by security agencies from at least 11 countries including israel, uk, france, germany, italy and russia. surely that would be enough to warrant being taken seriously?

"highlighting points which it may be wise to consider" What does this mean? It means that these are points which you are linking to a conspiracy. If these statements hold no value on their own, then there is no sense in bringing them up, unless you are linking them to some bigger picture. If they have no bearing on the situation, then they are mute points, is that what you're saying?

You say that, a ""new pearl harbour" was needed to speed up the likelihood of military action in the middle east, with the aim of strategic dominance in the area." Then after pasting the link to your document you say, "serendipity it happened a year later". If this is not implying conspiracy, then you are not being very truthful with the meaning of your posts.

Where have I said that bush was a "little insignificant man in the street", or even implied that, you are making statements up in order to have something to rebut against. Of course I am aware of their influence. George Soros holds influence, Bill Gates holds influence, executives from fortune 500 companies hold influence, lawyers hold influence, the list goes on and on, I'm not sure how holding sway in politics links anyone to 9/11, or to middle east dominance. Of course the people involved in these things have sway, otherwise they wouldn't even be there!! !!

You talk as though holding sway in politics is not a pre-requisite for being in politics!! Its like saying "all baseball players are athletic". Okay, but how does this prove they took steroids???



And? Every administration runs in packs, what does this prove?




Go back and read my post. I said that BUSH said that it is his priority to spread regime change througout the middle east, which happened AFTER 9/11. You conveniently lump a whole slew of former presidents actions together when they were not who I was talking about at all. Your reasoning is beyond simplistic, it is based on making up positions for me in order to have something to rebut against (2nd time). Go back and read my post, I said "spread democracy throughout the middle east ", you start naming places from all over the globe. Read my posts carefully before responding please.

And, or course the US will support SOME dictatorships, you cannot have a general rule in world politics, it will never work, each situation is determined on a case by case basis. Dictatorships that we once supported (Iraq in the in Iran-Iraq war) are now the enemy. The situation is fluid, you claim a linear non-changing formula for the world in order to support your arguments. Which is very naive.

Ah, so the pnac document is being linked to a bigger picture? Namely that we needed to carry out a pearl harbor attack on ourselves in order to bring democracy to the middle east.

CONSPIRACY!! !! !




Sure it would, but did the warining say, "hijackers will take over flight so and so, and fly them into so and so, on this exact date, at this exact time"? No. So, were we suppossed to shut down the entire aviation industry for an undetermined amount of time on a vague warning? We must get several warnings like this a month. We get them for the trams, the mail, the airports, the buses. What are we suppossed to do? Shut down the whole US economy at every warning? The US would collapse. Again, there are just too many warnings, and hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. Heck, I could prevent every major attack that ever occured sitting here at my computer and looking at all the warning flags that appeared. Its easy to be an armchair defense minister.

no it doesn't. it simply means what it says.

yes, the points are indeed wise to consider, as they may indeed have a bearing on the situation.


i didn't say a "new pearl harbour" was needed. PNAC said it. it is in the document i linked, i think page 63 or thereabouts of the pdf file. you should perhaps actually read it before engaging in an argument about it. serendipity it was indeed. to say this, in no way implies conspiracy. you dont think it was an unexpected piece of good fortune that the "new pearl harbour" happened no more than a year later? of course it was, it is undeniable.

this goes back again to your accusing me of claiming bush organised some conspiracy, which is attributing to me things that i didn't say. the point is moot.



it simply proves that the current us administration is under heavy influence of an organisation who's stated aim is global hegemony, starting with strategic control of the middle east.




Go back and read my post. I said that BUSH said that it is his priority to spread regime change througout the middle east, which happened AFTER 9/11. You conveniently lump a whole slew of former presidents actions together when they were not who I was talking about at all. Your reasoning is beyond simplistic, it is based on making up positions for me in order to have something to rebut against (2nd time). Go back and read my post, I said "spread democracy throughout the middle east ", you start naming places from all over the globe. Read my posts carefully before responding please. [/quote]

you said this:


i was simply pointing out that this is not the case. even in the middle east. look at the middle eastern nations who have enjoyed us support, such as saudi arabia, kuwait. they are not democracies.
also, this is not just about the middle east. bush's "axis of evil" that he spoke of when embarking on his "war on terror" included north korea.



i do not. i simply pointed out the fallacy in the point you were trying to make above, that i just quoted from your post.


i have not the time to respond to the rest of your post at the moment. i will try and reply tomorrow or tuesday if i have the chance.

So, are you saying that this was dumb luck, or the government was involved? If it was dumb luck, then there is no need to bring it up. If the government was involved, then you are saying conspiracy.

What else could the statements "unexpected piece of good fortune", and "of course it was, its undeniable" mean besides dumb luck or conspiracy?




Exactly, but what does that prove? I would've admitted that that was the goal of this administration. You don't have to bring in a group that they belong too to prove that. Their goal is to reshape the middle east because they think it will cut down on Islamic terrorists. And?



But, the kingdoms in Saudi arabia and kuwait are pro-american (mostly, to our faces), if we could replace them with men we knew we could trust, and not destabilize the region further, we would. Bush is mainly worried about North Korea because he thinks they will sell nukes or missles to terrorists. If they weren't building bombs and weren't desperately in need of cash, we could care less about them because they couldn't hurt us.

This obviously is the case in an ideal world, but in reality, you have to work with people you have to work with.




No, because while it would be better if ALL governments were democracies, this is an unrealistic world picture at the moment. Again, you are trying to peg me into stating a general rule about international relations, which is not possible.

The only reason to support some dictatorships would be that it would be too costly to overthrow them. Of course having a pro-american government in place with people we knew we could trust would be better than persuading a government to become pro-american. But, that takes wars or coups, better to just bribe some. It is not realistically possible to turn EVERY government into a democracy at the moment, while it would be the ideal situation. But, so is world peace, but we ain't getting that anytime soon.

I was stating an ideal situation (a world of democracies) vs. reality (we can't overthrow everyone right now). There is no contradiction here.