Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1171    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:39 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

That is nothing new with the U.S. government. Look how the United States ignored warnings regarding the Shah of Iran, which lead to his overthrow and the attack on our embassy, the USS Cole, Pearl Harbor, and 911. Remember, the CIA and the FBI later admitted in public that they made mistakes in not stopping the 911 attacks.
I would settle for mistakes or even incompetence but the fact is they didn't just ignore the warnings, they did nothing  and even went as far as lying. Whether that was to cover up their incompetence or something more nefarious, is something which needs investigating.

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

The Philippine government was shocked that the United States did not take extensive security measures as needed.  I left the Philippines in August 2001, and as I was going through security, I remarked about the lack of heavy security at U.S. airports in comparison to security at the airport in Manila. Three weeks later, my concern about U.S. airport security became valid when terrorist crashed four airliners during the 911 attacks.
Although this is an argument from personal incredulity, I can't comment on how the security compares with the Philippines as I've never been, so I don't doubt it and I'll have to take your word for it.

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

Was Osama bin Laden indicted in the attack on the USS Cole?
I do not think so, he might have boasted and I think they blamed AQ but not him. I could be wrong though it's been a while since I've seen his rap sheet.

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

What action did the U.S. take against Osama bin Laden in that regard?
Not regarding the USS Cole, but Clinton bomb Sudan but hit a pharmaceutical factory and at a AQ base in Afghanistan for OBL other offenses.

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

In other words, what was he listed as.
He is wanted in connection with the bombing of the United States Embassies and suspected in other terrorist offenses.

As I said, he might be suspect no1, but out of all of his offense, he is charged with heinous but less serious crimes than his master plan because they have evidence of his other crimes. The FBI had no hard evidence, even after his so called confession, shows us that critical thinking means that we should look elsewhere.

And I know you are going to hate me for this, but there is a lot more evidence showing that other people within government may have been involved, whether that was just ignoring the warnings and allowing them to happen or covering up something more nefarious like Neo-cons pulling strings and getting there Pearl Harbor.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1172    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,103 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:13 AM

View PostStundie, on 02 March 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

I would settle for mistakes or even incompetence but the fact is they didn't just ignore the warnings, they did nothing  and even went as far as lying. Whether that was to cover up their incompetence or something more nefarious, is something which needs investigating.

The CIA and the FBI later admitted that they made mistakes, but the amazing thing about that is, they continued to make mistakes even after the 911 attacks, and one of those mistakes had resulted in the death of CIA agents in Afghanistan, including Jennifer Matthews.

Quote

Jennifer Matthews, CIA

.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-28/local/35440620_1_cia-base-cia-officials-cia-operatives

As the old saying goes, if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Quote

Although this is an argument from personal incredulity, I can't comment on how the security compares with the Philippines as I've never been, so I don't doubt it and I'll have to take your word for it.

You only have of compare airport security of the Philippines with that of the United States prior to the 911 attacks and security measures undertaken at U.S. airports after the 911 attacks, but by that time, it was too late.

Quote

U.S. Airport Security After the 911 Attacks

http://www.todayseng...un/security.asp

Quote

I do not think so, he might have boasted and I think they blamed AQ but not him. I could be wrong though it's been a while since I've seen his rap sheet.
Not regarding the USS Cole, but Clinton bomb Sudan but hit a pharmaceutical factory and at a AQ base in Afghanistan for OBL other offenses.
He is wanted in connection with the bombing of the United States Embassies and suspected in other terrorist offenses.

It doesn't take much to change from the manufacture of pharmaceuticals to chemical weapons. We learned that during our chemical weapons training. On another note:

Quote

Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft
Indictment for the Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole
Washington, D.C.
May 15, 2003



Both Badawi and Quso are alleged to be long-time al Qaeda associates who were trained in al Qaeda's terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 1990's. As the indictment alleges, they were schooled in Osama Bin Laden's hate and vowed to attack and kill Americans wherever and whenever they can - especially American nationals on the Arabian Peninsula.

The indictment alleges that it was Bin Laden's pronouncements to kill Americans that motivated the defendants to conduct these terror operations.

The indictment also names as un-indicted co-conspirators several high-ranking members of al Qaeda, some of whom have already been charged in other terrorism indictments, such as the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Those un-indicted co-conspirators include:
  • Osama Bin Laden, who the indictment alleges planned the Cole attack and later praised the suicide bombers;
http://www.justice.g...arksusscole.htm

Quote

As I said, he might be suspect no1, but out of all of his offense, he is charged with heinous but less serious crimes than his master plan because they have evidence of his other crimes. The FBI had no hard evidence, even after his so called confession, shows us that critical thinking means that we should look elsewhere.

Let's take a look at what many people were unaware of.

Quote



February-Early May 1995: Bojinka Second Wave Fully Revealed to Philippines Investigators; Information Given to US



As Colonel Mendoza, the Philippines investigator, continues to interrogate Operation Bojinka plotter Abdul Hakim Murad, details of a post-Bojinka “second wave” emerge. Author Peter Lance calls this phase “a virtual blueprint of the 9/11 attacks.” Murad reveals a plan to hijack commercial airliners at some point after the effect of Bojinka dies down. Murad himself had been training in the US for this plot. He names the ten or so buildings that would be targeted for attack:

Posted Image CIA headquarters.
Posted Image The Pentagon.
Posted Image An unidentified nuclear power plant.
Posted Image The Transamerica Tower in San Francisco.
Posted Image The Sears Tower in Chicago.
Posted Image The World Trade Center.
Posted Image John Hancock Tower in Boston.
Posted Image US Congress.
Posted Image The White House.



February 22, 1998: Bin Laden Expands Religious Edict against US and Allies


Osama bin Laden issues a fatwa (religious edict), declaring it the religious duty of all Muslims “to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military… in any country in which it is possible.”

http://www.historyco...ne_key_warnings

As you can see, the WTC buildings, Pentagon, and CIA headquarters were targeted by terrorist years before the 911 attacks.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1173    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 March 2013 - 11:57 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

"Don't Know' does not equal 'disagreement', nice try though.  If I say "don't know' to the question, 'do ghosts exist', that doesn't mean at all that I 'disagree' with either proposition that ghosts do or do not exist, I have to have a position on the question in order to agree or disagree (although, "no one can know", I agree would be in disagreement).  

The answer, “Don’t Know” certainly is disagreement with the answer, “Al Qaeda”.  If you say, “Don’t Know” to the question, “Who was behind the 9/11 attacks?” then you do not conclude that Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks.  What the survey indicates is that only an estimated 46% of the world population, a minority, conclude that Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks.  The other 54% either disagree or are undecided, either of which demand that further investigation is required.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

To properly wordsmith it we should state a minority of all people surveyed are of the opinion that Al Qaeda is behind the 9/11 attacks, a wordsmithing whose vacuousness becomes apparent as soon as you look at the actual pie chart.  It's very easy to word it another way that is also accurate but gives the opposite impression: 'of people who have an opinion on who is responsible for 9/11, 61%, a majority, say Al Qaeda', 'the number of people who believe that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11 is more than the number of people who believe some other entity is responsible combined', etc.  

I don’t think we should simply disregard the large number of people whose opinions are undecided about 9/11.  And even if we do, I think 61% of those remaining is terribly low agreement with the official story on such an important event.

Another point I’d like to highlight is the way that answers are grouped in the poll.  Those who oppose the official story are presented individually, e.g. “US govt”, “Israel”, “Other”, which, for one, gives a fractured appearance.  For two, as I hold all of those entities (plus ‘Al Qaeda’) responsible, it is not possible to fit my answer.  Would that make me a, “Don’t Know” seeing as I cannot give a single answer?  Whereas, for three, anyone who answered, “bin Laden”, “KSM”, “Islamic extremists” (which are in fact different areas of responsibility), are all grouped under “Al Qaeda”.

Still, point agreed that it is possible to ‘wordsmith’ opinion polls and figures in all sorts of ways.  I just wouldn’t try holding one of these polls up as beneficial to the official story in any way.  I’m certainly not perturbed by the polls, rather encouraged: -

http://en.wikipedia....1_opinion_polls


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Fun with marketing, and I know you are just responding to another poster; I think you and I both agree that what the polls show really has very limited applicability to the question of what is true.

Yes, that is confirmed by the fact that in June 2007, 41% of Americans polled agreed that Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly involved in the planning, financing or carrying out of the 9/11 attacks – testament to the fine propaganda campaign of U.S. media and Bush administration.

Though, whilst perception might not be truth... it is personal reality.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1174    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:11 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 March 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

The CIA and the FBI later admitted that they made mistakes, but the amazing thing about that is, they continued to make mistakes even after the 911 attacks, and one of those mistakes had resulted in the death of CIA agents in Afghanistan, including Jennifer Matthews.



As the old saying goes, if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.



You only have of compare airport security of the Philippines with that of the United States prior to the 911 attacks and security measures undertaken at U.S. airports after the 911 attacks, but by that time, it was too late.





It doesn't take much to change from the manufacture of pharmaceuticals to chemical weapons. We learned that during our chemical weapons training. On another note:





Let's take a look at what many people were unaware of.



As you can see, the WTC buildings, Pentagon, and CIA headquarters were targeted by terrorist years before the 911 attacks.
Funnily enough, I have nothing to disagree with you on here....I suppose where we part companies is that you think it was just a mistake, where as I think that some of the mistakes were intentional.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1175    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,103 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 04 March 2013 - 05:12 PM

View PostStundie, on 04 March 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

Funnily enough, I have nothing to disagree with you on here....I suppose where we part companies is that you think it was just a mistake, where as I think that some of the mistakes were intentional.

I highlighted the mistakes of the CIA and of the FBI, and security measures taken at U.S. airports after 911. Why do you suppose such security measures were undertaken at U.S. airports after the 911 attacks?

As you can see in that list which was compiled by the terrorist before the 911 attacks, the WTC Center, Pentagon and CIA headquarters were tagged to be attacked by terrorist using aircraft. On 9/11/2001, the WTC buildings and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorist using aircraft and United 93 was taken down by passengers before terrorist could reached their target. Let's remember what one terrorist told Philippine officials before the 911 attacks.

Quote

Abdul Hakim Murad reveals a plan to hijack commercial airliners at some point after the effect of Bojinka dies down. Murad himself had been training in the US for this plot. He names the ten or so buildings that would be targeted for attack:


Edited by skyeagle409, 04 March 2013 - 05:25 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1176    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,800 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:31 AM

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Hi Psyche :)

Computers, who would have them hey?? lol Luckily it was only a post and not something more important..
I do not doubt OBL is a liar and I wouldn't trust him, but then again I wouldn't trust Bush to comb my hair either, even though I haven't got much...lol I can't comment on Anthony Mundine seeing as I don't lknow that much about him, I know he's suppose to be a pretty good boxer but I know nothing about his conversion to Islam. And of course, there are people who do not think that OBL is a terrorist because he is fighting for their causes, they will likely see the opposite and regard Bush as a terrorist and OBL as a freedom fighter. Personally, I think they are both terrorists. They both have the blood of innocent people on their hands.

Gidday Stundie

That's one thing we have in common! Although sometimes I am not sure if it is going, or just sliding down LOL.
I do not regard Bush as a terrorist. I dot not agree with many of his ideals, particularly gun ownership, but I am not sure he was left with much of a choice after 911 to take the action taken. I do not think he would be regarded as evil if he had just pulled troops from Afghanistan in 1990. The middle East thought he was OK when the US fought alongside Mujahideen, but when they were victorious, The US forgot to go home.  That to me seems really blown out  of proportion. Many took such deep offence to US forces in the Holy land, and how that was contravening the Koran with regards to Holy Ground. I do not think the Middle East have a sound argument in the respect personally.
Such are the benefits if Religion I guess.

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

I would have to disagree with you as I think you will find that Saudi Arabia banished OBL back in the 90's for his involvement with terrorism and Saudi's are no fans of any of the pupils of Sayyid Qutb. I also think these countries shouldn't have to apologise for the misguided brothers of Islam no more or less than the US for it's misguided service men who commit attrocites such as Haditha.

That is OK, we cannot agree all the time or things would be boring.
I feel the US is responsible for atrocities like Haditha, and should be held accountable to provide evidence of justice, proof of action that is approved by the victim, and heavy compensation. I think these processes have to be transparent in a democratic situation or things will keep getting swept under the rug. I can even understand shooting at a car that refuses to stop, these animals use Children as bombs, it is not wonder that many soldiers have such an itchy trigger finger, but this style of Wild West violence must stop some place. Education would be a much better option if that is possible. With the current regime opposed to many Western influence, it is hard to see education being considered acceptable.

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

I've never heard of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali?? So I can't comment on him or this 8 year olds speech.

LINK Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali

Most popular here for his comments concerning rape and female assault. He says the women are like uncovered meat, and would draw cats. He see's rape as a natural act for a man, ands something a woman should be responsible for suppressing. He was the Imam of Australia and The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils appointed him Mufti of Australia in 1988.


And if this is what we hear from the children, it is hard to see this situation moving forward for another generation. Islam seem to want things this way, Shari'ah or nothing. Not all that different from apartheid.

LINK Video captures 8-year-old 'Jihad girl' urging Islamic uprising


Ruqaya was one of nine speakers in a considerable line-up, which included a controversial keynote from Taji Mustafa, described by the Opposition as a "hate preacher".


I find this horrendously irresponsible. This is Australia. My only hope is that the parents of this child are investigated by authorities.


View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

I'm in favour of freedoms and while I am no fan of stoning or even the US death penalty, I think if the people of that country think it is right to stone a family member for speaking to someone of the opposite sex, then it is their right to do so, even if they are foolish enough to believe it's gods law. While I do not condone such tragic behaviour, I do not believe that making the world conform to mine or the west view is good practice.

Just imagine for a second you downgraded Islam to a cult status (not that I think the UN could do that!) do you think they would take it lying down? There would be war on a grand scale and I'm not in the habit of creating a genocide just because people hold different views to me, even if I think they are barbaric and downright disgusting.

Foolish enough. They are the words that I feel are the reason for such a radical notion. I do not feel such barbarism has a place in todays society, I also feel the same way about hippies who refuse to immunise their kids. Just because something is tradition does not mean it should go on costing lives. And too many lives are lost like this. Not only that, but it surely is a waste of life. How many fathers have killed teen daughters for this very action? I have read quite a few over the years, and to make a father sink so low as to murder his child is not living. I cannot agree that stoning is acceptable under ay circumstance whatsoever.

Well I was not speaking so much of Islam, but Shari'ah. And yes, we would see one heck of an uprising, but my hope is there would only be one, not endless years of terrorism for some ridiculous religious notion and countless innocents unjustly trialled and murdered for archaic ideals.. That is letting the human species down as a whole IMHO. As such, I feel we have a right to speak out, it wont change anything I understand that, but people might start to become aware enough to start acting some time in the future.

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

You appear to know more about him than I do but at least we agree the FBI dropped the ball.

I am not sure about the FBI as a whole, ONeill was FBI, and he was very much on the ball. Just some self important cow who felt she was at the top of the world let the team down, and because she is so high  up the ladder, the team are taking the hit.

His wife was Christine Oneill, his Mistress, Valerie James. An interview with her at this link.

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

I think the only reason he understood the value in a western life style was that he was a puppet dictator who was installed against the wishes of the people who already had a democratically elected government. I thought SAVAK was closed down and most of its members were hunted down.  know that Iran doesn't have a great human rights record and I'm not a fan of them either, but after watching a documentary about Iran and their relationship with the west, I think it's fair to say they are a little paranoid, but have every right to be.

However I think this is a conversation for another thread on another day.

Now called SAVAMA as far as I know.
Do you not feel though, that a Western influence would eventually lead to outlining such practises as unacceptable though? Had the region undertaken the direction the Shah had pushed it in, we might well be fighting to remove a Spanish Inquisition style of secret police force, but it took Russia a while to tone down the KGB too, it seems likely that Westen ways would evolve this secret police out of the picture.

But you are right, I digress this would be an interesting conversation I think.

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

I think that the representative from the UK families thinks that he was Meghari was innocent and I seem to think there were others too. I know that those in the US were determined to keep him in jail because the courts had already found him guilty. In Scotland, they have compassionate grounds, so that if someone has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have been given a short time to live, providing they are not a danger, the Scottish legal system allows for that person to be released. Some people are not a fan of it while others think it's very humane. However, I thnk this is another discussion for another day.
Thanks for the compliments.

Again, I would have to agree, it could almost be regarded a philosophical question really. All in all, I just feel aven one in one million is too much a chance for Bin Laden.

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Sky might well be a pretty bang bloke, he might even be in the company of fine people and I'm sure he might be a top bloke when you shove a beer in his hand. However on this forum, I do not see anything that would suggest that but I do not know him to make a judgement.
I might appear to be hard on Skyeagle and this might change in the future, as you say who knows, but as it stands, i have very little respect for his debating style and until I see an improvement in his debating style and some honesty, then he will get the respect he deserves, which is little to none.

Fair enough, I wont have any more to say, my only intention was just to lessen what seemed to be a heated argument. I think you both have good input, especially you Stundie, I must say this discussion has been a very pleasant surprise.

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Well I hope so. I think the thing with most 9/11 conspiracists, is that most if not all of them believed in the official story, but came to question it when they examined or researched the subject. However, I'm sure there are those who still believed the official story, even if they don't agree with all the facts and data after they had researched it. There are extreme ends of the polar opposites, but chances are, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle.

I would agree, I do  not think the CT'ers are on the right track in trying to absolve the killers of what they needed to do for their religion, but as we can see, the FBI for one could have been much better. They have professionals on staff, but do not take their advice. And as I have mentioned, I have little faith in the CIA, it seems a bit of a joke to me to be frank. But I think where some people tried to cover their behinds over the blatant stuff ups that might have avoided this as much more than it really is. I think someone dropped the ball, tried to cover their mistake, mistakes always have a hole in them, it was discovered and now it has become this bottomless pit of conspiracy.

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Well I wouldn't say Icke got lucky or guessed this about him, I think it's hard/nigh on impossible to guess something like that about someone and then it turns out to be correct without having some kind of knowledge about it. Even though Saville was a weird looking fella and eccentric and there were plenty of rumours, I think most people would have said you were nuts if like Icke, you claimed that Saville was a pedophile/necrophile. Not that I'm a fan of Icke either. Again, it's another subject for another day

I'll continue this in another post, possibly later on.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Sorry, I did not mean so much lucky as in just taking a stab in the dark, but in that he was harassing the royals at the time for being reptiles, and this is where he happened upon the information. I think even Icke's natural instinct to protect another human being kicked in, proving is may not be rotten to the core, just on the surface ! :D But yeah, not much more to say, other than I agree with everything on this, and it is only a shame he was not caught out decades ago, and that nobody came forward. I hate seeing evil have a win.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 05 March 2013 - 04:49 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1177    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,800 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:47 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 February 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I have no problems with, and do not doubt your qualifications Psyche.  No sir, not at all.

What I have questions about is your ability to think in an analytical fashion, your tendency to accept without question a story that simply cannot be true.

I do not believe that is the case, I can agree with Stundie that the FBI could have handled the case better, and that evidence to connect Al Qaeda and therefore OBL to the slaughter might well be much easier to produce had they given O Neill the benefit of the doubt.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 February 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

We can agree to disagree on anything you would like, but please do not hold up as true and acccurate a story already proved many times to be false and contrived.  It is 11 years after the fact, and much more has been learned in that time, even though you might be completely unaware of it down there in Oz.

I am yet to see anything substantiated with regards to the controlled demolition claims. As I say, this is my bread and butter, and from what I see the "truthers" have more alcohol under their belts from spending all their time in ground zero lounge ranting away with nonsense than they do facts. I am unaware of the Fox race, I do not have Fox TV in my house, my wife forbids it truth be told, although she enjoys cable when on Holiday, at home she is convinced Pay TV is only porn channels. But this is what I am looking for the debates that claim the towers destruction are not the result of terrorist actions.

Edited by psyche101, 05 March 2013 - 04:48 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1178    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,800 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:50 AM

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

Actually that puts you in the minority under the question, 'Was Al Qaeda behind the 9/11 attacks?'

The split is 46% in your favor and 54% in disagreement.

No it doesn't it means some people do not give a rodents rectum.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1179    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,800 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:26 AM

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Hi psyche.  I’m going to take a few bits we’ve been around the block with which are perhaps now unproductive (descending off-topic or into pointless argument) and drop them into this post.  The following is to tie up some loose ends and I’ll probably not respond on these points again.  Please see the post after this one for hopefully more productive discussion which I will respond to.


Fair enough, I appreciate clarifying and consolidating.

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

I am not ‘doing’ anything with Al Jazeera.  Usama’s personal release network?  You don’t seem to have a clue about Al Jazeera.  I... it’s just... what are you talking about?  You seem to be under the false impression that Al Jazeera is held to the bin Laden or ‘Al Qaeda’ network.  Never mind, please just read up on Al Jazeera: -

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Al_Jazeera

Look, it’s very simple...
  • Bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’ released a videotape to Al Jazeera.
  • The videotape contained English subtitles inserted by bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’.
  • The subtitles are the message that bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’ wanted to convey.
  • Al Jazeera reported the complete subtitles under the headline, “Full transcript of bin Ladin’s speech”.
  • Fox News reported only excerpts of the subtitles intersected with opinion under the headline, “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11” (despite that no such claim is found in the transcript).

Then you go on some nonsensical/unfounded attack against Al Jazeera and myself.  Perhaps it would be better to congratulate Al Jazeera for factual reporting in this case, accept that Fox News got it wrong and draw a line under it.

I think you are doing what you accuse Skyeagle of, and I think that it is ludicrous to suggest the a news source who is sympathetic to the fundamentalists and has to suffer the wrath of insane religious die hards if they step out of line is not coerced to report the news in a fashion not all that different to the Chinese system. Just because you say it is impartial, and they claim the same does not make it so, Al Jazeera has two faces.



Abderrahim Foukara, the Arabic channel's Washington bureau chief, told the Council on Foreign Relations,


The way the truth may be defined in the Arab world, and associate it with Al Jazeera, is not the way Americans, for example, would define the truth and associate it with, say, CNN or MSNBC or Fox. … Al Jazeera Arabic, because it is so connected to a turbulent part of the world, the tone is different … it's much feistier … The broad majority of Arabs identify with the channel, not only in terms of political coverage, but the nuances, the reading between the lines.[32]


In truth, the bulk of AJA's content has all the nuance of a right hook to the jaw. The non-Arabic speaker is immediately struck by the station's frenetic tone and imagery, and a viewer with even a moderate command of the language is likely to be all the more taken aback.


Over the past decade, however, Al Jazeera's sectarian impulse has been moving ever closer to garden-variety Sunni Islamism, a shift dramatic enough to catch the attention even of the liberal bulwark The Nation. In 2007, the weekly's Kristen Gillespie wrote that 9/11 "brought a new anti-imperialist and, many argue, a pro-Sunni Islamist bent to the network ... The field reports are overwhelmingly negative with violent footage played over and over, highlighting Arab defeat and humiliation. And there's a clear underlying message: that the way out of this spiral is political Islam."
"t doesn't take much viewing of the channel to discern a dual message," Gillespie wrote. "Sunni religious figures are almost always treated deferentially as voices of authority on almost any issue, and Arab governments as useless stooges of the United States and Israel."
In the words of Alberto Fernandez, then-director for press and public diplomacy in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, "We see the unconditional support of Islamic movements, no matter where they are: Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan. … How things are covered, the prominence of things, what words are used—sometimes you do see that very clear Islamist subtext."

LINK

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Yes, that’s it!

The whole problem comes when people like skyeagle spam media headlines and editorial as ‘evidence’.


Because they are quoting the headline. Al Jazeera says the same thing!


May 23 2006: Bin Laden says he masterminded the September 11 attacks and that Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted for the attacks, had no part in them, in a recorded message posted on the internet.


LINK - AL Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera...2955828212.html

And not as a headline, and not claiming it is context, but an actual claim.

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

I mean, since you still say that I, “dismiss the forum at the wave of a hand”, that you have not taken onboard where I said, “It was mostly tongue in cheek, I actually read every page and there were some interesting points.”


No, I did miss that, and if that is the case, I apologise. It was not intentional.

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Actually, you quoted editorial from the report (not the headline) and ended by asking, “As a news article  I agree verification is required, so perhaps proving what elements are incorrect might be a good start I think, do you agree?”  I also later addressed bin Laden’s comment regarding Lebanon and Palestine.  I addressed what you asked and more, and it’s here for all to see.  You seemed quite content with my responses at the time, until you got caught out and went on your backtrack rant, “I was never here to discuss media reports...” here.  Anyway, never mind, like I said, it’s free for all to see.

Yes, elements, being the key word, and with that you kept producing newspapers. Lets just post it huh?



Now that seems a good place to start. Do you feel this is not at all the case, and that Bin Laden did not feel the US had interfered? Because it seems to be a pretty common theme from what I hear. I do not care what the article says, but I would like to break it down to little pieces for accuracy. Is that an accurate stament? Did Lebanon and Palestine have a friendly relationship with the US before 911, or is this at least true? Lets determine the level of exaggeration in this article, and see if it is deserving of your mockery. As a news article  I agree verification is required, so perhaps proving what elements are incorrect might be a good start I think, do you agree?

This is not the case: -

“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so...”

That is a lie, fed to millions.





So why did you revert straight back to the headline, when I asked you if the claim in the headline was true? That being:


Did Lebanon and Palestine have a friendly relationship with the US before 911, or is this at least true? Lets determine the level of exaggeration in this article

I can understand that across seas much is lost in language, so perhaps that is the stumbling block. If you care to start again, I was looking at the facts within the article, not the article itself, to determine a starting point with regards to the claim in the article. However, as I have linked above, they could have got such information for this headline from Al Jazeera.

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

It is fine to present what’s written in a newspaper until such reports contradict proven fact.  Especially when that is pointed out and, ok not you, but skyeagle continues to spam the same report.


But it is not. The article compensates for the headline. The Headline is opinion, the articles explains it that opinion quite clearly. Spamming the same report is showing you that is what the majority think, despite claims to the contrary. I think Sky has as much right to demand that you acknowledge that this is by far the majority opinion, and what Bin Ladens history, not to mention his reason for living indicates is surely the truth, as was known by John O Neill.

Edited by psyche101, 05 March 2013 - 05:27 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1180    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:59 PM

Just a couple of things psyche...

View Postpsyche101, on 05 March 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

I think you are doing what you accuse Skyeagle of, and I think that it is ludicrous to suggest the a news source who is sympathetic to the fundamentalists and has to suffer the wrath of insane religious die hards if they step out of line is not coerced to report the news in a fashion not all that different to the Chinese system. Just because you say it is impartial, and they claim the same does not make it so, Al Jazeera has two faces.

The red text appears to be an unfounded view only as result of your prejudice.  Al Jazeera has upset all of the Palestinian authorities, Egypt and China on occasion.  The worst wrath Al Jazeera has suffered came from U.S. bombing and killing of its journalists, in violation of international humanitarian law.

And you are still missing the point...

It is not a general battle of ‘which media is better’.  We were discussing one particular bin Laden videotape from 2004.  In this specific case, Al Jazeera, the initial media source of the videotape, simply reported the full transcript.  In this specific case, that is a better source than Fox News who reported only excerpts and misleadingly presented editorial opinion as though it were fact.

In all of your responses you ignore the above finding, which is fairly straightforward, and go on some general attack against Al Jazeera which, as I say, misses the point in this specific case – even if Al Jazeera were headed by the devil himself, it would still be correct/the most accurate source when it comes to the 2004 bin Laden videotape.


View Postpsyche101, on 05 March 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Because they are quoting the headline.

And, as headlines by your own admission, “often take a leap” (demonstrably so, in case of Fox News reporting on the 2004 bin Laden videotape), then the view of anyone who spams those headlines must also, ‘often be a leap’ (demonstrably so, in case of Fox News reporting on the 2004 bin Laden videotape).


The following is new so I’ll address it: -

View Postpsyche101, on 05 March 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Al Jazeera says the same thing!


May 23 2006: Bin Laden says he masterminded the September 11 attacks and that Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted for the attacks, had no part in them, in a recorded message posted on the internet.


LINK - AL Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera...2955828212.html


And not as a headline, and not claiming it is context, but an actual claim.

Ah, now this is a completely different tape that you have moved onto.  To begin, media reported the 2001 videotape as a bin Laden’s first ‘confession’ (it was nothing of the sort), then the 2004 videotape became bin Laden’s first ‘confession’ (again, it was not), then the 2006 audio recording became bin Laden’s first ‘confession’...

And I can agree to this one – the 2006 audio tape does finally appear to contain a legitimate confession from bin Laden (which is no doubt why Al Jazeera reported just that).  The pertinent statement, in context of bin Laden defending Zacarias Moussaoui, is this:  “I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers...”

There are however reasons to reject this alleged ‘confession’: -
  • The audio tape was never verified and earlier recordings were found to be fraudulent.
  • The tape superbly justified the U.S. government prosecution failure to convict Moussaoui...
  • Whilst having no benefit to Moussaoui or bin Laden whatsoever.
  • The ‘confession’ contradicts that of KSM: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z”.  It is likewise a KSM counter-confession that was used by the Omar Sheikh defence to get him off charges of killing Daniel Pearl – if it works for Omar Sheikh (a British/Pakistani agent), then why not bin Laden also?
  • The tape was released at a time when bin Laden was under control/house-arrest in Pakistan.
In all, the above is reasonable cause for concern that the tape was coerced/edited/fabricated to implicate bin Laden and serve the U.S. government.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1181    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:44 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 05 March 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

I do not believe that is the case, I can agree with Stundie that the FBI could have handled the case better, and that evidence to connect Al Qaeda and therefore OBL to the slaughter might well be much easier to produce had they given O Neill the benefit of the doubt.



I am yet to see anything substantiated with regards to the controlled demolition claims. As I say, this is my bread and butter, and from what I see the "truthers" have more alcohol under their belts from spending all their time in ground zero lounge ranting away with nonsense than they do facts. I am unaware of the Fox race, I do not have Fox TV in my house, my wife forbids it truth be told, although she enjoys cable when on Holiday, at home she is convinced Pay TV is only porn channels. But this is what I am looking for the debates that claim the towers destruction are not the result of terrorist actions.

While your bread & butter might be CD claims, mine is the aviation side.  Simply put, no Boeing at Shanksville, and no Boeing at the Pentagon.  Everybody except the feds at Shanksville reported no Boeing, and pictures and videos confirm it. 11 years later we discover that Flight 93 was still communicating within the ACARS system, and was somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes after the fictitious crash at Shanksville. Impossible flying at the Pentagon, no evidence of Boeing there, and the Flight Data Recorder provided by NTSB was bogus.

As for CD at WTC, the chemical byproducts of the thermite reaction were identified years ago.  Molten steel for a month afterward CANNOT be the result of jetfuel fires and gravity.


#1182    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,695 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:45 PM

View PostQ24, on 04 March 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

The answer, “Don’t Know” certainly is disagreement with the answer, “Al Qaeda”.  If you say, “Don’t Know” to the question, “Who was behind the 9/11 attacks?” then you do not conclude that Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks.  What the survey indicates is that only an estimated 46% of the world population, a minority, conclude that Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks.  The other 54% either disagree or are undecided, either of which demand that further investigation is required.

The problem is with the word 'disagree'.  Here's an example of the problem:

Q: Who is the team with the most wins in the National Hockey League?
LG:  I don't know, I don't follow hockey.
Q: LG disagrees that Chicago has the most wins in the NHL.

All I can say is that is not how we use the word 'disagree' 'round these parts.

And you seem to want to have it both ways.  You note correctly that polls are fairly meaningless as far as what is true because of all kinds of factors, including people's disinterest and stupidity, but then want to use what the polls show to justify a further investigation.  Should we go back and 'demand' that scientists re-review all of our evidential support for evolution just because so many people disagree with it also, using the same logic?

Quote

I don’t think we should simply disregard the large number of people whose opinions are undecided about 9/11.  

That depends.  There are a large number of people, and I don't think 25% is at all a high number, who simply haven't looked at the evidence and arguments either way; I do think those people should largely be disregarded in this context.  I'm sure there are some that have looked at the issue and are indeed 'undecided', but I don't know how to tease that number out of this 25%.

Quote

And even if we do, I think 61% of those remaining is terribly low agreement with the official story on such an important event.

I don't; see 'evolution' above.  People believe all sorts of things without good reason and evidence, people are mistaken, people are apathetic, people are stupid, etc.

Quote

For two, as I hold all of those entities (plus ‘Al Qaeda’) responsible, it is not possible to fit my answer.

Yes you can, it's called 'Other'.

Quote

I just wouldn’t try holding one of these polls up as beneficial to the official story in any way.  

Agreed, as long as we wouldn't hold it up as beneficial to any non-official story in any way either.

Quote

Though, whilst perception might not be truth... it is personal reality.

Agreed, although personal reality has no bearing on the truth.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1183    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:54 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 March 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Simply put, no Boeing at Shanksville, and no Boeing at the Pentagon.  Everybody except the feds at Shanksville reported no Boeing, and pictures and videos confirm it. 11 years later we discover that Flight 93 was still communicating within the ACARS system, and was somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes after the fictitious crash at Shanksville. Impossible flying at the Pentagon, no evidence of Boeing there, and the Flight Data Recorder provided by NTSB was bogus.

Uh... trying to help you out here BR...

There is considerable photographic evidence of airliner debris at the Pentagon, not to mention a pile of corroborating evidence (numerous eyewitnesses, video footage, radar data, etc) confirming an airliner impact.  If you entertain that an airliner crashed but claim lack of evidence that it was specifically a Boeing... then you are still on shaky ground... given that the aircraft dimensions and some parts match those of a Boeing.  It is safest of all to simply maintain there is no evidence the aircraft was specifically Flight 77 – this is impossible for OCTs to prove given the admitted lack of investigation audit trail and identifying serial numbers.

I accept the evidence is not so clear in the case of Flight 93, though as the saying goes, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’.  Caspian Airlines Flight 7908, similar to Flight 93, resulted in a crater and lack of apparent debris.  Does this mean the former airliner did not crash?

Flight 7908: -

Posted Image


Flight 93: -

Posted Image


Is there such a difference?

Also like Flight 77, there is eyewitness evidence and radar data of Flight 93 at the crash site.

Further, your understanding of ACARS is inaccurate.  Attempted uplinks after the crash times and non-communication of the aircraft were based on the flight plan, not physical location of the aircraft.  The evidence is available online and the process is clearly set out in the ACARS manual which has been discussed on this forum.  There is nothing in this ACARS claim at all – the system performed exactly as it was supposed to and indicates an airliner crash.

The flying at the Pentagon was not ‘impossible’ though somewhat ‘improbable’ for a poor, nutcase, first time pilot – the manoeuvre reminiscent of a guided approach according to known systems and ATC first impressions.

I won’t argue against the fact that the FDR of either flight is possibly bogus – not only is there notable lacking evidence of the authenticity usually found in crash reports, but there is precedent for an FDR switch after a crash in the case of Air France 296, showing that it is certainly possible.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1184    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,695 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 05 March 2013 - 03:07 PM

View PostQ24, on 05 March 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

It is safest of all to simply maintain there is no evidence the aircraft was specifically Flight 77 – this is impossible for OCTs to prove given the admitted lack of investigation audit trail and identifying serial numbers.

Hmmm, you don't consider the fact that American Airlines is missing a plane, the one they designated Flight 77 on 9/11, to be 'evidence'?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1185    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 March 2013 - 03:30 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 March 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

The problem is with the word 'disagree'.  Here's an example of the problem:

Q: Who is the team with the most wins in the National Hockey League?
LG:  I don't know, I don't follow hockey.
Q: LG disagrees that Chicago has the most wins in the NHL.

All I can say is that is not how we use the word 'disagree' 'round these parts.

Yes, I see your point.  But you would still not be in the group that concludes Chicago has the most wins in the NHL.  You were right when you pointed out it all depends how we ‘wordsmith’ it.  I’ll call a truce at that, otherwise we could go round in circles for the rest of time.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 March 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Yes you can, it's called 'Other'.

And lump me in with those 41% of Americans who believed Saddam Hussein was directly involved?

No thank you  :lol:


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 March 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Agreed, as long as we wouldn't hold it up as beneficial to any non-official story in any way either.

Sure.  If you look where I talk about these polls it is usually, if not always, in response to some OCT who has raised it in attempt to support their case or who claims there is a lack of support for alternative theories.  I seek only to redress the balance, no more than that.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 March 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Agreed, although personal reality has no bearing on the truth.

Agreed, though I have come to the conclusion that personal reality is more important than the truth – that is why false flag and propaganda are so effective.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 March 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Hmmm, you don't consider the fact that American Airlines is missing a plane, the one they designated Flight 77 on 9/11, to be 'evidence'?

It is evidence that American Airlines are missing the airliner designated Flight 77 on 9/11.

It is not evidence that specific airliner impacted the Pentagon.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users