1211 replies to this topic

[Flibbertigibbet]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Like it was Muslims responsible for the Lavon Affair?
And Poles responsible for the Gleiwitz incident?
And Cubans responsible for planning Northwoods?

And so on.

Muslims were involved in the attack, but it was others closer to home who facilitated and had lead motive for the operation.

I don't believe in a world of conspiracy theories like that. Yes, governments do conspire. But they always do it so incompetently that it's always exposed. Never underestimated human stupidity.

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 19 April 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Anything attributed to OBL, including his recent death, is highly suspect, and most likely part of the script.

How do you know that three quarters of the hijackers did not know their fate?  I thought they were all looking for 72 virgins?

How do you reconcile your claim with the fact that several men with the same names, and pilots all, went public to the (other than US) media that they were, in fact, still alive and gainfully employed elsewhere in the world?

I was wondering how long it would take for you guys to turn on each other.

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 19 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

I saw the documentary, and while 3 women may have done most of the talking and played some sort of leadership role, the group was much larger than that, and included at least 1 older gentleman whose son was lost in the towers.

As to Obama being in on the coverup--Yessir, you are absolutely right on that point.  But let's keep things in perspective--Obama was not in office in 2001.

That is, while Bush & Cheney MAY have been in on the actual conspiracy, Obama was not.

Frankly, I doubt Bush was in on any of the details.  Plausible Deniability is a driving concept in government circles, right up there with Cover Your Ass.  

Can't give you the pass on that one.  If Obama is still covering it up, then he is as much a part of the conspiracy as those who planned it.  

Frankly it all points to the fact that all of this conspiracy nonsense was more anti-Bush/Cheney than anything else.  As soon as they left office, the conspiracy talked dropped off dramatically.

[Q24]

Flibbertigibbet, on 20 April 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

I don't believe in a world of conspiracy theories like that. Yes, governments do conspire. But they always do it so incompetently that it's always exposed. Never underestimated human stupidity.

None of the examples I mentioned were “conspiracy theories”, but “conspiracy fact” – false flag planning and attacks by Israel, the U.S. and Europe’s pre-eminent power at the time – it happened.  It is recent historical precedent and I’m sure you have heard the saying, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes”.  You would be brave to believe similar could not happen again, today.

And no, not ‘the government’ but individuals and groups within government, with their own agendas.  The whole government was not involved in any of the examples provided, and neither were they in 9/11, just a few individuals to which the attack suited their aims.

You say they are stupid, but they took Afghanistan and Iraq and fulfilled their military roadmap set out prior to 9/11 didn’t they?  All based on their pre-stated “new Pearl Harbor” pretext, which so happened to arrive within the same year of them coming to power.

If you don’t think false flag operations are real, don’t believe wars are for material gain, don’t accept there are ruthless politicians with entirely different interests to your own, if you believe it’s all just how they paint it on the TV, then I don’t think the subject is for you.

I’d rather know the truth and determine my own fate than live in a bubble and be herded to war for others’ gain.

[Rafterman]

Leonardo, on 20 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Kool-aid?

[Rafterman]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

None of the examples I mentioned were “conspiracy theories”, but “conspiracy fact” – false flag planning and attacks by Israel, the U.S. and Europe’s pre-eminent power at the time – it happened.  It is recent historical precedent and I’m sure you have heard the saying, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes”.  You would be brave to believe similar could not happen again, today.

1962
1954
1939

Yeah, that's recent.

[Q24]

Rafterman, on 20 April 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

1962
1954
1939

Yeah, that's recent.

In context, it is extremely recent – history goes a long way back.

Especially when we consider that the 1962 Northwoods document was not discovered until 1998.

There is no difference in political motivations between then and now.

[bee]

quillius, on 20 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

hello Stundie, I feel you are right and Q knows most of what is contained in the programme. As far as when they were actually released, I am not sure, I havent researched 9-11 no where near enough to be able to seperate old info from new...its mostly new to me.

hiya quillius....I thought the programme was quite good...but very selective of what was used. It only supported the Official Account.
which isn't surprising, really.

I don't know why they called it the 'Lost Tapes'...because I had heard all/most of it before. Mainly from this link from 2006.

http://www.vanityfai.../08/norad200608


Unfortunately the recorded PLAY links are now dead.. which is a shame because they were from the rooms
where it was all going on and there was all the background noise and other people speaking (in the background but not clear)


Re. the selection of what was used in the programme...I also think we can take it as read that the military had
their own seperate channels and communications going on...especially as the country was under attack and on red alert.


And THAT is where the orders to shoot down and the real-time military action would have been? Although there was certainly going
to be some cross over because of it being to do with domestic airliners/airspace.

(IMO)  


.

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 20 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Hey Boon,

I must say the programme last night with the recordings indicated that the order to shoot down any aircraft came in 10minutes AFTER the crash....I suppose the wording above 'just about to intercept' doesnt conclusively confirm that the order was already received although it does sound that way, which is not accurate according to the time scales and events in the programme.

Hi quillius,

I tried to watch using bee's link but it doesn't work for me here in the US.

However, one small point...

Regardless of when the shoot down order was given, that does not mean that a suspicious aircraft wouldn't be intercepted for the purposes of close observation and to await additional orders.  Remember, this statement from Kuczynski was in April of 2002, when he would have had more information to work with.  It is entirely possible that on the actual day of events he and the F-16s were ordered to intercept for these very reasons, never did intercept because the plane had crashed, continued to look for Flight 93 well after it had crashed, and then received the order that if they did intercept the aircraft to follow through with actually shooting down the plane.

Now I don't know the content of this show from channel 4, and perhaps it offers more detail from which to piece things together, but I currently don't see Kuczynski's statements to be incongruous with those of video lady as Q24 has claimed.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 20 April 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

I don't know why they called it the 'Lost Tapes'...because I had heard all/most of it before. Mainly from this link from 2006.

http://www.vanityfai.../08/norad200608

I'd be surprised if the audio used in the show isn't available at 911datasets.org.  I'd bet it is in the FAA_RADES_NORAD_FOIA_Data torrent.  I haven't listened to all of the audio, but there is a lot in there.

[Flibbertigibbet]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

None of the examples I mentioned were “conspiracy theories”, but “conspiracy fact” – false flag planning and attacks by Israel, the U.S. and Europe’s pre-eminent power at the time – it happened.  It is recent historical precedent and I’m sure you have heard the saying, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes”.  You would be brave to believe similar could not happen again, today.

And no, not ‘the government’ but individuals and groups within government, with their own agendas.  The whole government was not involved in any of the examples provided, and neither were they in 9/11, just a few individuals to which the attack suited their aims.

You say they are stupid, but they took Afghanistan and Iraq and fulfilled their military roadmap set out prior to 9/11 didn’t they?  All based on their pre-stated “new Pearl Harbor” pretext, which so happened to arrive within the same year of them coming to power.

If you don’t think false flag operations are real, don’t believe wars are for material gain, don’t accept there are ruthless politicians with entirely different interests to your own, if you believe it’s all just how they paint it on the TV, then I don’t think the subject is for you.

I’d rather know the truth and determine my own fate than live in a bubble and be herded to war for others’ gain.

Of course wars are for gain, but it's always very obvious what the motive is.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 20 April 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I'd be surprised if the audio used in the show isn't available at 911datasets.org.  I'd bet it is in the FAA_RADES_NORAD_FOIA_Data torrent.  I haven't listened to all of the audio, but there is a lot in there.

ok thanks. Just popped onto it and doesn't it all get a bit complicated? Maybe that's me being lazy..

but what I liked about the Vanity Fair extracts (when they were there) was you just clicked on play...

I'm sure that link will be useful for some people though.



edit to say @ Flibbertigibbet...nice to see another woman getting into 9/11 on these threads

I thought Babe Ruth was a woman at first LOL...but he wasn't.


.

Edited by bee, 20 April 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Q24]

Flibbertigibbet, on 20 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Of course wars are for gain, but it's always very obvious what the motive is.

I agree, but have a feeling for different reason.  What would you say is motive for the Afghanistan war?

[bee]

bee, on 18 April 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

In general regarding why the cover up?


I suppose it would have opened up a can of worms if it was made public. Close scrutiny on how and why the decisions were made?

And imagine the headlines world-wide about it....it would have taken the focus away from the Islamic Jihadists.

Also it would have been a major embarassment for the US government/military...to have been put in a position to
have to do that....on top of everything else that went on that day.


The Cover Up...fuels the Inside Job theory...but I actually think that a lot of the 'Truth Movement'...taking things
to extremes...convoluted theories about this and that...is PART of the cover up!! To confuse and mislead.





.

Babe Ruth, on 18 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Bee

If you were the President of the US during the month of September 2001, and this happened on your watch, would YOU order an investigation into the events of the day?

I ask this because of your comments to Quillius regarding the reason for any sort of coverup at all.

Sorry for late response, I meant to answer before then got sidetracked.



First of all...If I were president then or any other time...I would not be in a position to order

anything on my own, especially anything to do with National Security....without the involvement of

special interest groups like the Army, Navy, Air Force, Intelligence Services etc etc.

The President is the figure-head, spokesperson and representative of an administration...not

an individual with powers that can over-ride collective decision making and law...(correct me if you think I'm wrong)

So...basically...if I were president then, it wouldn't, in reality be up to me? At least not alone.



I know this doesn't help supporters of the Inside Job Theory Conspiracy...which relies on a very small group of all

powerful individuals with 'machiavelian powers' to sneakily and ruthlessly murder thousands of US citizens etc etc etc.

With a plan that is insanely complicated and defies all logic....

Quote

If you were innocent of any wrongdoing, would you order an investigation, or would you stonewall any investigation?

as you might have gathered by now....I believe there has been a cover-up of three main things to do with 9/11,

that was done on the day for purposes of damage limitation...some kind of energy weapon used to bring down the

the Towers and WTC7, to reduce the debris and protect the wider area... and the shooting down of flights 77 (over the Atlantic)

and Flight 93.

If these three things were made highly classified.... I would know (if I were president) that an investigation was

going to be tricky, to say the least. The special interest groups would also know how tricky it could

get....so a collective decision might be made to stonewall...but I and everyone else party to the classified info

would know that it was only to create some space between events and the investigation...because an investigation

was absolutely inevitable.


hope that helps....


.

Edited by bee, 20 April 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Especially when we consider that the 1962 Northwoods document was not discovered until 1998.

There is no difference in political motivations between then and now.

Did we go to war after terrorist blew up our embassy in Tanzania and another in Kenya?








Did we go to war when terrorist blew up the USS Cole?







Did we go to war after terrorist detonated explosives in one of the WTC buildings in 1993?




If you want to know who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks review this chilling video of terrorist plans to bomb other buildings, tunnels, bridges and plans to topple one of the WTC buildings upon the other.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 April 2012 - 05:45 PM.