Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

I see why you can see a difference but I really do not see a difference at all. The US allows for women and children to be killed but they are classed as casualties of war. Wikileaks release of the classified Iraq War Logs showed that over 150,000 people died a violent death with 122,000 being innocent civilians. Although the US armies didn't directly kill all of these people, they are still culpable.

After the overthrowing Saddam and the Iraqis realised that the US were not leaving, the Sunni and Shia's were united against the occupation and even held marches against the occupation back in 2004. Even the Sadrist and Sunni MPs were united. There was no civil war but the US couldn't have that. Sunnis were soon banned from employment in major enterprises and Lewis Paul Bremer dissolved 400,000 former soldiers putting them out of work which helped create an insurgency. The coalition was collaborating with Shia extremists known as the Wolf Brigade targeting Sunni civilians, the Iraqis were more terrified of Wolf Brigade than the occupying forces. Then in 2007, there was a redirection when the US paid Sunni Militias they had previously been fighting against including Al-Qaeda fighters, to fight the Sunni extremists and the Shia Madhi army who are portrayed as pro-iranian. They have manage to divide and conquer by creating a civil war and help promote sectarianism. This would not have happened without US involvement.

You can't blame the UN or France for the responsibility of the genocide in Rwanda, you could argue that by doing nothing, they allowed it to happen, but that doesn't make them responsible for it. And yes, I would blame Putin for the killing of Chechen civilians. And I would also argue that US thinks the killing of innocent civilians as collateral damage, look at the van of innocent people that pulled over to help the people shot down by the gunship in the Collateral Murder video released by Wikileaks for evidence of that.

Hi Stundie

My apologies for the lateness of my reply, I have been extraordinarily busy of late, and have been mostly doing shorter postings. I have been intending to return to this for some time to adress the points you have brought up.

And this is a good place to start, I cannot see how you see it as intent. I think the US is realising that War offers casualties, and they are trying to be realists and account for what has taken place. It is also not the sort of information that is published because of the situation with CT'ers. I do not think they deny culpability do they? But tis gruesome information is required to analyse a war, and Americas impact.

With the situation in the early 2,000's what do you mean by "The US couldn't have that"? The uprising had nothing to do with the US, these people were grateful for the help against the Soviets, but then turned on the US, like some sort of mass paranoia. Get out or we will kick you out! It seems rather ungrateful to me to be frank.

As far as I know, the terror of the Wolf Brigade exceed the US involvement, with even local legends about them, but the US only helped them in Mosul, and as far as I know, for a just cause. I cannot see much corroboration beyond this, and I think Bremer is as much a casualty of the press as anyone mentioned in this thread. Bremer stated that many soldiers simply left after the fall of Baghdad, some to protect their own families from the rampant looting. From what I read, the decision was not made lightly, and the others that were involved in this decision such General John Abizaid seem to have faded into the sunset. Bremer claims they did consider two alternatives: To recall the old army or to rebuild a new army with "both vetted members of the old army and new recruits." According to Bremer, Abizaid liked the second alternative. All in all, at least this decision has thought and reasoning behind it, the reactions from those who were rampaging is just wanton violence.

I agree with Rawanda, but I think the same applies to the US, if they could stop all civillian casualties, I am sure they would have, but somethings, like soldiers who lose it, are out of their control.

I agree that religion is not an argument. I think the term Jihad has been misused and misunderstood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Violence is the last option and that is where extreme forms of Islam come into it.

As someone once said "Immoral wars, breed immoral behaviour".

I do not think the term is misused, whilst it has many meanings, and I understand the ideal is a personal struggle, but this meaning is abhorrent. The Jihad to make the globe Muslim is not honorable. No matter how you look at Islam, I fail to understand how Muslims justify worshiping the Hadith. All it is is a handbook of violence.

If the US did prosecute and treat others as they would like to be treated so to speak, then there would be a lot more people sympathetic to US causes but the truth is, that it highlights the lengths the US will go to, even if it's doing things immoral, to protect it's hegemony over the region.

I think that people taking religion and using it for the own gains and ends is something which has happened throughout history. Look at the Catholics church in response to child abuse it committed.

As I said, killing is killing and there are plenty of ways to justify it, whether it is for religious reasons, revenge, pre emptive attack or reason X. As for religion, it doesn't matter whether they are using a child as bomb or as a sexual partner, they are both abhorrent.

I see all religions the same, whether it is Islam or Christianity, they can be very good for people but of course in the wrong hands, they can be very, very bad. Not all Imans preach hate, there might be a few that do but we can't use the actions of a few, to outlaw something that is good for many other people.

Again, it would be like saying that because the Catholic Church didn't little to nothing to stop the child abuse and turned a blind eye to such evil doings within it's own society, that we should outlaw it.

I see what you are saying about the US, but I think all countries and organisation try to protect their own, that is part of being in an organisation. And I agree, sometimes organisations make the wrong decision for what they call "The Greater Good", as with the Catholic Church. If you look at the support the Bali Bombers received for their murderous rampage, this is more than alive in the Muslim Faith just as much as it is in the Catholic faith. Peadophillia I agree is abhorrent, and to my way of thinking deserves castration at the very least, so does murder.

Too many Imans preach hate, but what gets me is these are indeed Imans, people in power, the Catholic Church covered up, and whilst that is abhorrent I agree, it did not promote people who outwardly preached Peadophillia.

When the Catholic Church was ousted, it was red faced, it regretted the actions, and made apology, and that might mean nothing to the victims, I understand that, but does Islam show remorse for Bali? 911? They could have done more to begin with, and I agree, lost their morals altogether when they allowed a cover up, but I do not see the crime as the intent of the Church, whereas those that worship the Hadith each and every day promise Allah that they will cut of our Western heads and fingers. How does one do that, and then state they believe in peace?

I think this is a discussion for another day, but lethal injection is not painless.

http://www.newscient...m-painless.html

I know where you are coming from, but I cannot condone state executions, especially when they get it wrong. A prime example of that being Derek Bentley who was hung here in the UK. If we still had the death penalty here in the UK, the Birmingham six, Guildford four and many others would have been put to death when they are later found to be innocent.

Killing people is barbaric and its doesn't matter how it is done and I'm not a fan of killing innocent people.

I did not know that, thank you for the link, but I feel the link also explained the problem here.

But doctors and nurses are prohibited by healthcare professionals' ethical guidelines from participating in or assisting with executions, and the technicians involved have no specific training in administering anaesthetics

Trained executioners might be the answer to the pain question. I respect your position so I will not argue the point, but feel we shall simply agree to disagree here. But in favour of your argument, I feel eyewitness testimony needs to be seriously re-evaluated, the Griffith Innocence Project I feel is indeed direct proof of this. I have no doubt innocent people have died. The evidence must be absolute, not as it has been in antiquity.

I think he might have uncovered more than that, but unfortunately we will never know.

Indeed, and such a shame. I would pay money to know what he thinks of Truthers.

I'm much prefer the western society than that of the Islamic world, but just because I think it's better, that doesn't mean I think it is best for everyone else too. And even though I think it's better for everyone, I'm not a fan of dictating how others choose to live their lives, whether it benefits just the men. You have to look at what you call the benefit, Islamic societies from many years ago had a fairly relaxed attitude to alcohol but as time went on it was outlawed and seen as sinful. Here in the UK we have major binge drinking issues, so I'm sure there would be some people converted but I'm sure there would be some that are horrified by the things that go off in western culture.

I do not just prefer the Western way of life, I completely feel Islam had it's chance, and has made a mockery of society Being able to kill your daughter in this day and age for speaking to another non family male, or stoning adulterers to death should not be allowed to happen in today world under any law or religion. This cannot happen in the west, no court will order stoning or honor killing. It should not even be considered today, that is truly barbarism at it's very worst, and that fact that people have been brainwashed to accept this barbarism even worse. For me, that alone is reason to abandon Islam altogether. And it shows to me that the Middle East has people on power more evil than most US citizens could ever imagine. They make Bush look like a girl scout.

Oh I wouldn't say I was a fence sitter but I wouldn't call myself a CTer either. I swing more of the way of a conspiracy being true than the official story but I'm open to all possibilities.

As I've said before, I had no reason to doubt the official story and it wasn't until I watched a great documentary called The Power of Nightmares that made me question it. There was a part in it where British troops were in the Tora Bora looking for Bin Laden and being sent by Americans to various locations, only to find startled sheep herders and that there was a suspicion that Bin Laden was given a safe passage to Pakistan. (This was back in 2006!) That is when I really started questioning it. I think the whole Iraq has WMDs and the case made by Blair for the UK involvement had already made me think, if they can lie about this, what else could/are they lying about.

Give me time :P

Thank you for the title, I will procure a copy of The Power Of Nightmares, and watch it.

I have read quite a bit about Tora Bora, PBS has a program specifically dedicated to it in it's Al Qaeda files series as well. There was no doubt that Bin Laden was there, but there was also a high possibility of civillian casualty and repercussion. The risk was great, however, altercation was still to be had. The plan was to only keep 800 US boots on Pakistan soil. Some called it a plan, some called it military incompetence, in the end however, the traget was acquired.

I do not believe the official story to be true based on my own investigation and research, this doesn't mean that I automatically think there is a conspiracy either, all it means is that I think it's a possibility. It could also be possible that the official story is true too, but I'm not really seeing the evidence to support it.

What threw it for me was the movement and actions of those in power like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Other than Bush, all of there accounts from the moment the first plane hit to the last one (If a plane crashed at Shanksville... ;)...lol) are sketchy to say the least and I would call them criminally negligent. But again, it's a discussion for another day.

Part two coming up.....lol

I guess it depends on what official story that is, at the end of the day, I think it is well proven that some maniac religious zealots killed a great many people for a religious war, that started with the US helping the middle east stay safe from the Soviets. Really, they should have pet the Soviets sort the problem.

I am not surprised that some details are sketchy, I doubt these men ever envisaged themselves coming into this situation. They probably did make a few things up too look good, but I do not see that as supporting the Truther Movement. Those guys have no morals, and are almost as bad the the fundies themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the term is misused, whilst it has many meanings, and I understand the ideal is a personal struggle, but this meaning is abhorrent.

"Jihad" simply means "struggle". That includes both personal struggle as well as armed violence. There is no particular limit in the term; only the islamopologists want you to believe that islamic jihad is always peaceful. Duh! The world is brimming with violent jihadist groups, typically lead by clerics who have studied the koran and hadith more intensively than you ever will.

I fail to understand how Muslims justify worshiping the Hadith. All it is is a handbook of violence.

Because by definition, if you become a muslim, you have to worship the Haddith. The Haddiths are the sayings of Mohammed, who is the perfect man, and beyond criticism. There is no such thing as a "muslim" who disputes the Haddiths --- by definition! (Not to mention that your co-believers would kill you as heretic, if you tried to.)

Now tell us again: Why would anybody organize a gigantic conspiracy just to add another jihadist attack to a preceding long list of jihadist attacks (including a previous jihadist bombing of the WTC in 1993 by the way?)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Catholic Church was ousted, it was red faced, it regretted the actions, and made apology, and that might mean nothing to the victims, I understand that, but does Islam show remorse for Bali? 911? They could have done more to begin with, and I agree, lost their morals altogether when they allowed a cover up, but I do not see the crime as the intent of the Church, whereas those that worship the Hadith each and every day promise Allah that they will cut of our Western heads and fingers. How does one do that, and then state they believe in peace?

That is simply a question of definition. I think this comment from Bassam Tibi sheds some light on the confusiont:

"Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms, these mean different things to each of them. The word peace, for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or House of Islam -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought. Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or House of Peace." (Bassam Tibi)

Edited by Zaphod222
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not really follow any particular conspiracy theorists and I'm not really sure who they are to be honest.

I think it helps if you understand that these people are like me and do not think the official story is true, I do not know what they are claiming, whether they think no planes hit the WTC or whether it was a laser beam, but it might help you understand that the reason these people think the way they do is because they do not believe in the official story.

Again, I do not have a hatred of those who gain from 9/11 conspiracies, even if there conspiracy theories are bonkers because if we look at what others had to gain from 9/11 as a whole, what these guys earn is peanuts in comparison to the money being earned by those in power who had more to gain from it.

I must say I envy you not knowing who those people are.

My problem with the Truthers is they are hurting people who have already suffered. The faces I posted make claims such as these people are still alive, nobody was killed, it was all set up. Those who lost loved one's in this insanity do not deserve this. They have suffered enough. All they are doing is hurting people. They are not making any progress, they have not made one validated claim, like the Sandy Hook Truthers, I cannot see this bunch of loud mouthed red faced people making a difference, they are only causing more pain.

I do not see them like you, and I do not seem the accepting rational explanations at any time in the future.

But its not just her, there are plenty of others who have not been held accountable for screw ups.

I do feel she is a strong key. Had she done her ob properly, I have little doubt there was good reason to believe 911 may well have been as successful as Bojinka.

I would have to disagree, of course there are some delusional conspiracy theorists but there are plenty of rational, logical people who believe in the 9/11 theories too.

I think that to tar most of them with the same brush is just a simple way of dismissing arguments which may have validity. There are plenty who do have engineering capabilities and will tell you that the WTC was a controlled demolition, I certainly believe it was possible, more possible than the official collapse theory.

I do not know who Bee is??

I would also say that instead of taking the attitude that all of the thermite and even laser beams theories do not hold water is to look at it like a true skeptic. In otherwords, don't hold any thing as true and work with possibilities and I'll assure you that you will see some validity to the claims.

OK, maybe not the laser beam, but I am open enough to accept the possibility, even though I think there truly isn't any chance of the laser beams being used.

I understand that religion is strong motivator and I'm sure there were many cheering when the towers collapsed. I would accept the bungled investigation argument but it appears that even the commissioners knew they were set up to fail.

LINK - Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

I have not seen a claim that holds water. Hence the broad brush. The entire CT as far as I can tell comes from Governmental actions, and to be fair, I am not sure why so many people consider themselves tactical military experts.

Bee is our resident Lady who tends to float with flights of fancy. If an underdog claims any scientific nonsense, you can be sure Bee will be banging that drum. Hence the Lasar beams. No technology claim is too wild for our Bee. But it is heartwarming to see Sandy Point was too much for her. She went up a step in my book on that one.

The Thermite and Laser beams claims do not hold water, I already explained the poetic license used with the thermite theory, and Laser beams are just not at a point where we can destroy buildings with them yet. If they ever will be. It's not true skepticism, it's knowledge. There is no reason to even consider Laser beams. Thermite's at least had an argument, albeit an erroneous one.

Why would something be set up to fail? You have to remember than the White House didn't want an investigation but bowed to public pressure from the families, then when they tried to set up the first one, they were going to get Kissinger to do it initially until there were obvious signs of a conflict of interest.

Not quite following you there, did I say something was set up to fail? I was surprised that the US would consider anything as not possible when it comes to war. Some cultures have very different values.

Lies can be hindsight too, and as far as I can tell, that seems to be the larger cause for any misleading information.

But it's not even a bungled investigation, there was blatant lying which really makes the whole point of an investigation pointless if you allow people to lie or do not have the power to punish those who perjure.

Are you referring to a specific incident, or the entire Bodine mess?

As Skyeagle as pointed out, the idea of using planes as weapons was not beyond the scope of the US government, we knew of Operation Bojinka many years before.

Even less than a year before, the US military were holding exercises with a large model of the Pentagon planning for terrorist attacks.

019_pentagon_drill2050081722-9957.jpg

There were even military drills of planes hitting the WTC initially planned just after the 9/11 which were then cancelled.

The problem is that there is a pattern to these mistakes.

If you look at the FAA, the commission blamed them for allowing the planes to hit their targets by y not notifying the right people, even though they had done this for many years before, yet the did a really good job of grounding all of the planes in the sky, even though they had never done this before.

When you look patterns, mistakes on stuff they were doing for years and

In your own words, how do you think this could have been handled better?

I do not think he is a liar, a bit crackers maybe but I wouldn't call him a liar.

Icke? I'd call him a liar, and many other things. Reptillian Governments?

I think it was the times, this was back in the 1950s. Child abuse was never spoken about and I would say that here in the UK, it was only discussed after consumer programs like That's Life which brought it to the attention of the public.

It is and I'm sure you could find some people out there willing to defend his actions.

Does not seem to be the case. All media, people I speak to, I am yet to hear a sympathetic word.

Well I can't comment on truthers seeing as I do not know any personally. Other than a few I have spoke to on forums and the ones I've dealt with via email, they all come across as nice people, even the CIT guys who are often labelled and name called.

Although it's a pleasure chatting with you, I think we need to shorten the conversation down a little because we are going off on all kinds of subject matters such as the death penalty and Iran. Also formulating a response is taking a while and sometimes frustrating, especially when your mouse as a back key that you hit it occasionally, wiping off everything you have typed...Arrgghhh!! lol

Cheers

Stundie :)

I find the Truther movement unsettling. I am surprised that people would deny outright confessions and witnesses to come up with some anti government proposal, but that is true paranoid CT/FTB stuff. If people do not have an answer they used to say "It's God's Will" now they say "The Government stuffed it" And whilst they have made some tremendous stuff ups, I would expect that. If you have a look at some f the Ground Zero Lounge crapola, you might be able to see what I mean. Drunks with attitude seems be the driving force behind Trutherism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is simply a question of definition. I think this comment from Bassam Tibi sheds some light on the confusiont:

"Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms, these mean different things to each of them. The word peace, for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or House of Islam -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought. Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or House of Peace." (Bassam Tibi)

Doesn't Bassam Tibi support reform of Islam?

I cannot understand how such violence can be translated, even if it can, I really struggle to see these words as being anything to do with a movement devoted to peace, as is claimed.

I saw a very good debate on TV a few weeks ago with Australia's current Iman, there was a show - this one in fact LINK A Muslim, a Buddhist, a Catholic and two atheists walked into the ABC - a Muslim gay man called in on video phone, which I thought was quite game, and asked how to maintain his sexuality and remain Muslim. This "Deeply understanding" Iman, whom the tweets seemed to support even as stupid as they were, simply told this young man he is not welcome. He said Islam does not allow a gay lifestyle, so if you want to be gay, you do not want to be Muslim. Then the debate turned on the Catholic Priest, and by crikey did he cop a grilling. But the crowd left the Iman alone. Catholics accept the gay lifestyle, and as a creature of God, they accept gay rights, the problem lies in gay marriage, but that is a whole new subject. Suffice to say, the Cathlic Priest got hammered about Gay Marriage, whilst the crowd lef t the Iman alone. We all know Islam is what it is, and it is not willing to change. The Muslim religion has little scope for movement, despite the apologists and I have no idea how one rationalises violence. I do not feel a good explanation for such horrific religious advice, this is cutting of fingers and removing heads has been offered to date, do you? SImilar is stated in Christian version, I realise, but every single, not just sane, Western person has considered these an analogy for at least 400 years - since the 30 years war pretty much. And I suppose that is why we have no Christians flying planes into buildings. Considering in Islam that one may "honor kill" is enough to seriously question this faith that is also law.

May I ask, how do you feel these atrocious passages can be rationalised? Specifically murder as seen in 5:33 and 5:38?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Jihad" simply means "struggle". That includes both personal struggle as well as armed violence. There is no particular limit in the term; only the islamopologists want you to believe that islamic jihad is always peaceful. Duh! The world is brimming with violent jihadist groups, typically lead by clerics who have studied the koran and hadith more intensively than you ever will.

As far as I know, it is supposed to mean "Internal Struggle" Or so the Iman on the ABC show I referred said. He made it very clear, but he also indicated to me at least that one might have many Jihads, personal Jihads, as well as social, however the reason for Jihad is to struggle to be the best one can. As such, I think 911 is anything but Jihad, so I figure Jihad has a new interpretation, just as the Bible is interpreted differently in different eras, and in different social structures. In todays Shari'ah lands, Jihad seems to mean kill anyone who is not Muslim.

But in all, I agree, those who have looked at the Hadith as a reason to be violent and try to turn the world Muslim. Maybe they should have affairs and m********e, they seem to have some unbelievable pent up tensions, did you hear about that Mufti who said women should not handle cucumbers and carrot because they lead to penis temptation? A Muslim leader! Not much upstairs by the sound of it.

Because by definition, if you become a muslim, you have to worship the Haddith. The Haddiths are the sayings of Mohammed, who is the perfect man, and beyond criticism. There is no such thing as a "muslim" who disputes the Haddiths --- by definition! (Not to mention that your co-believers would kill you as heretic, if you tried to.)

Indeed, but I think some groups consider it as something to be interpreted some believe it is to be followed to the letter.

Now tell us again: Why would anybody organize a gigantic conspiracy just to add another jihadist attack to a preceding long list of jihadist attacks (including a previous jihadist bombing of the WTC in 1993 by the way?)

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Bassam Tibi support reform of Islam?

Yes he does. But he is getting nowhere with that. Because any reform of islam runs smack into the dogma that the koran is the literal word of god, and Mohammed the perfect man.

Something has to give... you can not have both literalism and reform.

May I ask, how do you feel these atrocious passages can be rationalised? Specifically murder as seen in 5:33 and 5:38?

You´d have to ask that to a muslim representative. But don´t wait for our media (or our troothers) to do that.

Edited by Zaphod222
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed that many 911 Truthers are anti-government.

Indeed, it seems to be a stronger motivator than Truth from the arguments I have seen, despite the labels these conspiracists apply to themselves.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he does. But he is getting nowhere with that. Because any reform of islam runs smack into the dogma that the koran is the literal word of god, and Mohammed the perfect man.

Something has to give... you can not have both literalism and reform.

Indeed, as such, he will continue to get nowhere. Well said, something does have to give, but it likely wont from what we are seeing.

LOL, yes, the "perfect" man, so much so that they will kill any person who makes even a light hearted comment. Seems they are very paranoid about his perfection.

You´d have to ask that to a muslim representative. But don´t ask our media (or our troothers) to do that.

LOL, I wont be holding my breath, that much is for sure! There does not seem to be a lot of leeway on those ones does there :D

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, it is supposed to mean "Internal Struggle" Or so the Iman on the ABC show I referred said.

The Imam at the ABC show was feeding you Taqiya (the islamic term for deception of infidels). There is nothing in the term "jihad" that implies "internal" or "external". Ask any Arabic speaker to confirm (well, not your local imam, I suppose). You will find that e.g. the agriculture ministry in Saudi Arabia has called for an agricultural jihad, which means neither blowing up things nor praying for things, but simply making a big effort.

That the jihadists preach and practise violent jihad is not something I need to document for you, do I now?

By the way, Hitlers "Mein Kampf" also simply means "My struggle". That does not make the book harmless.

And I am still waiting for a troother to come forward and tell me why he thinks a gigantic conspiracy deemed it necessary to add another jihadist terrorist attack to a long line of preceding jihadist attacks. No taker, it seems...

Edited by Zaphod222
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Imam at the ABC show was feeding you Taqiya (the islamic term for deception of infidels). There is nothing in the term "jihad" that implies "internal" or "external". Ask any Arabic speaker to confirm (well, not your local imam, I suppose). You will find that e.g. the agriculture ministry in Saudi Arabia has called for an agricultural jihad, which means neither blowing up things nor praying for things, but simply making a big effort.

That the jihadists preach and practise violent jihad is not something I need to document for you, do I now?

By the way, Hitlers "Mein Kampf" also simply means "My struggle". That does not make the book harmless.

And I am still waiting for a troother to come forward and tell me why he thinks a gigantic conspiracy deemed it necessary to add another jihadist terrorist attack to a long line of preceding jihadist attacks. No taker, it seems...

You know, I would not be surprised at all, the last Mufti that spoke out down here told us our women are like uncovered meat.

Such diplomats huh?

I had a look, but unfortunately, the show I mentioned does not seem to be online, shame that. Worth the watch I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it doesn't challenge or refute the possibility...lol

I do have a case because they were never looked for or tested for.

Therefore it is possible that bomb/explosive were used to bring down the WTC.

...and therefore it is also possible that a gigantic invisible rabbit appeared from outer space and brought down the WTC.

That does not mean that that we need to seriously entertain the possibility that a gigantic invisible rabbit appeared from outer space and brought down the WTC,

Now, Mr. Troother, please tell me:

WHY exactly would anyone organize a gigantic conspiracy to add another jihadist terrorist attack to a long line of preceding jihadist terrorist attacks? What is the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY exactly would anyone organize a gigantic conspiracy to add another jihadist terrorist attack to a long line of preceding jihadist terrorist attacks? What is the point?

You clearly have not read much on the topic, but I am happy to summarise the situation.

The Neocon government that came to power in 2001 believed that a new Pearl Harbor type attack was a necessary pretext to quickly achieve the goals that would safeguard American pre-eminence into the 21st century. 9/11 was that attack. No prior attack was comparable. Lacking that driving force, the Neocons noted a downward spiral that weakened American foreign influence to a level not seen since before WW2; a time prior to the U.S. becoming the world’s predominant power. Please don’t argue with me about this, you would need to take it up with those Neocons who stated it in their own policy documents. The motive of these individuals to execute the 9/11 false flag attack is therefore clear.

But then, we know that motive may or may not be acted upon. So where it becomes ever more interesting, is when we consider the additional fact that 9/11 as we know it could not have occurred without Neocon intervention. It is those Neocons who came to power in 2001 who, through intelligence services connected to bin Laden and the hijackers, paved the way to 9/11. It was a simple matter of basic law enforcement to shutdown the attack but those in a position to do so and knowing of the severe threat at hand, were consistently thwarted by the Neocon intelligence apparatus within the U.S. system itself.

Thus came FBI agent Steve Bongardt’s outrage and warning prior to 9/11: -

Whatever has happened to this – someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems’. Let’s hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decision then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most ‘protection’.

Bongardt was right – bin Laden and the hijackers were getting protection. It is one of numerous examples of deterrence and complaint that came from FBI agents connected to the case. It is a conclusion shared by former U.S. counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that the hijackers were “shielded” from within the U.S. system prior 9/11. This is documented fact; not up for debate.

1. Neocons had a powerful motive to enact a new Pearl Harbor type attack

+

1. Neocons protected the hijackers and paved the way to 9/11

=

2. The 9/11 false flag

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly have not read much on the topic, but I am happy to summarise the situation.

The Neocon government that came to power in 2001 believed that a new Pearl Harbor type attack was a necessary pretext to quickly achieve the goals that would safeguard American pre-eminence into the 21st century. 9/11 was that attack. No prior attack was comparable.

(snip)

That is nonsense right there. The Embassy bombings in Daressalam and in Nairo were comparable. The bombing of the USS Cole was comparable. The previous attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993 is certainly comparable.

Are you saying all these terrorist attacks were arranged by "the Neocons" too?

Tell us, Mr. Troother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is nonsense right there. The Embassy bombings in Daressalam and in Nairo were comparable. The bombing of the USS Cole was comparable. The previous attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993 is certainly comparable.

You think WTC ’93, the U.S. Embassy and USS Cole attacks are comparable to 9/11, or Pearl Harbor? Ok, that would be the end of our visage of ‘discussion’. I appeal that you reconsider the scale of destruction and loss of life inherent to each attack so that we might talk sensibly on the topic.

Also consider the Neocon reference to “a new Pearl Harbor” type attack is dated after the WTC ’93 and U.S. Embassy attacks, clearly indicating the authors did not consider those previous occurrences sufficiently comparable. Like I said, it’s really not me you need to take the argument up with, it’s those Neocons whose documented belief and ideology I’m reiterating.

It is not wise to argue against the obvious and/or documented fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Neocon government that came to power in 2001 believed that a new Pearl Harbor type attack was a necessary pretext to quickly achieve the goals that would safeguard American pre-eminence into the 21st century. 9/11 was that attack.

Well, let's take a look at where we stand now in the 21st century, 11 years after the 911 attacks.

Huge Military Spending Cut Looming

WASHINGTON — Pending automatic spending cuts have put the U.S. armed forces on a path to being so unprepared for combat that it would be "immoral" to use them, the Defense Department's top leaders told lawmakers Tuesday in their most dire warning yet of how looming budget reductions could undercut military readiness.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in response to a question during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that neither he nor any of the four-star officers in charge of the military services have considered resigning to protest the billions in dollars in cuts that will begin on March 1 unless Congress acts to stop them.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2669769.html

Pentagon’s $527 billion budget includes new base closures, military benefit cuts

President Obama’s Pentagon budget includes a new round of base closures, increases in military healthcare fees and a reduction of the annual pay increase for service members.

http://thehill.com/b...s#ixzz2Q8HSiUuR

Panetta Warns of Dire Consequences to Military From Budget Cuts

WASHINGTON — In the wake of President Obama’s appeal to Congress to stave off across-the-board military and domestic spending cuts, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned Wednesday that reductions from the automatic cuts would curtail American naval operations in the western Pacific by as much as a third and force one-month furloughs for as many as 800,000 Defense Department civilian employees starting this spring.

http://www.nytimes.c...-from-cuts.html

Panetta: Military cuts to hit 'all 50 states

The Pentagon proposed budget cuts on Thursday that would slash the size of the U.S. military by eliminating thousands of jobs, mothballing ships and trimming air squadrons in an effort to shift strategic direction and reduce spending by $487 billion over a decade.

The funding request, which includes painful cuts for many states, sets the stage for a new struggle between President Barack Obama's administration and Congress over how much the Pentagon should spend on national security as the country tries to curb trillion-dollar budget deficits.

http://usnews.nbcnew...-50-states?lite

Deep Military Cuts Begin as Congress Dawdles

Congressional leaders appear to have reach consensus that it is safer politically to allow deep and arbitrary cuts to military budgets than it is to negotiate a large debt-reduction deal that would have names attached. With Republicans and Democrats unwilling to make difficult decisions to address budget deficits in a balanced way, the military is being forced to cut training, cancel construction projects, defer maintenance of ships, aircraft and vehicles, cancel professional conferences, halt most temporary duty assignments, and interrupt supply and equipment purchases.

Quality of life for the military also is being impacted as dependents lose jobs, local economies and businesses lose contracts, and base operations, including family support programs, take immediate budget cuts.

http://www.military....ss-dawdles.html

Defense contractors rally against budget cuts

With automatic, across-the-board federal budget cuts slated to begin next January, defense industry leaders warned of deep wounds to America's backbone if Congress fails to act to avoid the roughly $1 trillion in reductions.

At a rally Monday in Crystal City, Va., some Northern Virginia-based defense contractors said the mandatory cuts, which will take effect if Congress doesn't craft an alternative budget-cutting package, would cost millions of American jobs and ripple across the entire economy.

http://www.armytimes...nst-budget-cuts

Federal budget cuts ground Air Force aircraft

Budget cuts ground 3rd of Air Force warplanes; those headed to Afghanistan to be mission ready

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) -- A top general says federal budget cuts that will ground one-third of the U.S. Air Force's active-duty force of combat planes including fighters and bombers means "accepting the risk that combat airpower may not be ready to respond immediately to new contingencies as they occur."Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia, issued the warning Tuesday as the Pentagon braces for more effects of the automatic spending cuts triggered by the lack of a budget agreement in Washington.

Hostage said that only the units preparing to deploy to major operations, such as the war in Afghanistan, will remain mission-ready. Other units would stand down on a rotating basis, he added.

The Air Force didn't immediately release a list of the specific units and bases that would be affected, but it said it would cover some fighters like F-16 Fighting Falcons and F-22 Raptors, and some airborne warning and control aircraft in the U.S., Europe and the Pacific.

The Air Force says, on average, aircrews "lose currency" to fly combat commissions within 90 to 120 days of not flying. It generally takes 60 to 90 days to train the crews to mission-ready status.

Returning grounded units to be ready for missions will require additional funds beyond Air Combat Command's normal budget, according to Air Force officials. The "stand down" will remain in effect for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 barring any changes to funding.

"Even a six-month stand down of units will have significant long-term, multi-year impacts on our operational readiness," Air Combat Command spokesman Maj. Brandon Lingle wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

http://news.yahoo.co...-113356244.html

So much for the benefits of the "New Pearl Harbor."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think WTC ’93, the U.S. Embassy and USS Cole attacks are comparable to 9/11, or Pearl Harbor?

Let's take a look. In addition to attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7, the Japanese attacked the Philippines and Singapore as well. In 1995, the Philippine government revealed terrorist plans to bomb airliners out of the sky and to attack CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Capitol building, and other American landmarks.

I might add that one of the terrorist revealed by the Philippine government was Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist responsible for that huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993, and nephew of the mastermind of the 911 attacks; Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who has admitted his involvement in the 911 attacks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was behind the 911 Attacks?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

September 11, 2001 attacks

The first hijack plan that Mohammed presented to the leadership of al-Qaeda called for several airplanes on both east and west coasts to be hijacked and flown into targets. His plan evolved from an earlier foiled plot known as the Bojinka plot, which called for 10 or more airliners to be bombed in mid-air or hijacked for use as missiles. Bin Laden rejected some potential targets suggested by Mohammed, such as the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles.

In late 1998 or early 1999, bin Laden gave approval for Mohammed to go forward with organizing the plot. A series of meetings occurred in spring of 1999, involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama bin Laden, and his military chief Mohammed Atef. Bin Laden provided leadership for the plot, along with financial support. Bin Laden was also involved in selecting people to participate in the plot, including choosing Mohamed Atta as the lead hijacker. Mohammed provided operational support, such as selecting targets and helping arrange travel for the hijackers. It was also accepted that Atef was the one who had organized the hijackers.

After Atta was chosen as the leader of the mission, "he met with Bin Laden to discuss the targets: the World Trade Center, which represented the U.S. economy; the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military; and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel. The White House was also on the list, as Bin Laden considered it a political symbol and wanted to attack it as well."

"Bin Laden had been pressuring KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) for months to advance the attack date. According to KSM, bin Laden had even asked that the attacks occur as early as mid-2000, after Israeli opposition party leader Ariel Sharon caused an outcry in the Middle East by visiting a sensitive and contested holy site in Jerusalem that is sacred to both Muslims and Jews. Although bin Laden recognized that Atta and the other pilots had only just arrived in the United States to begin their flight training, the al-Qaeda leader wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel. He allegedly told KSM it would be sufficient simply to down the planes and not hit specific targets. KSM stood his ground, arguing that the operation would not be successful unless the pilots were fully trained and the hijacking teams were larger."

In a 2002 interview with Al Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda, Mohammed admitted his involvement, along with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, in the "Holy Tuesday operation". KSM, however, disputes this claim via his Personal Representative: "I never stated to the Al Jazeera reporter that I was the head of the al Qaida military committee."

http://www.fas.org/i...tatement_16.pdf

Osama bin Laden

At a meeting with bin Laden and Mohammad Atef, al-Qaida's chief of operations, Khalid sheikh Mohammed presented several ideas for attacks against the United States. One of the operations he pitched, according to Khalid sheikh Mohammed, was a scaled-up version of what would become the attacks of September 11. Bin Laden listened but did not yet commit himself.

According to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 1998 east Africa embassy bombings demonstrated to him that bin Laden was willing to attack the United States. In early 1999, bin Laden summoned Khalid sheikh Mohammed to Kandahar to tell him that his proposal to use aircraft as weapons now had al-Qaida's full support. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed met again with bin Laden and Atef at Kandahar in the spring of 1999 to develop an initial list of targets.

The list included the White House and the Pentagon, which bin Laden wanted; the U.S. Capitol; and the World Trade Center, a target favored by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

http://www.pbs.org/n.../911_06-16.html

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and therefore it is also possible that a gigantic invisible rabbit appeared from outer space and brought down the WTC.

That does not mean that that we need to seriously entertain the possibility that a gigantic invisible rabbit appeared from outer space and brought down the WTC,

Now, Mr. Troother, please tell me:

WHY exactly would anyone organize a gigantic conspiracy to add another jihadist terrorist attack to a long line of preceding jihadist terrorist attacks? What is the point?

The points are very many indeed, probably more than can be counted, but ONE of the points is to trick the gullible into believing as you do. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bongardt was right – bin Laden and the hijackers were getting protection. It is one of numerous examples of deterrence and complaint that came from FBI agents connected to the case. It is a conclusion shared by former U.S. counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that the hijackers were “shielded” from within the U.S. system prior 9/11. This is documented fact; not up for debate.

1. Neocons protected the hijackers and paved the way to 9/11

Let's take a closer look.

CIA details errors it made before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON — A report released by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency's missteps prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to fully assess the threats streaming into the spy agency during the summer of 2001.

The 19-page report, prepared by the agency's inspector general and released Tuesday, also says that between 50 and 60 CIA officers knew of intelligence reports in 2000 that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, may have been in the United States. But none of those officers thought to notify the FBI about the potential domestic threat, the report says - evidence of what it calls a systemic failure.

The inspector general recommended that several top agency officials, including the former director, George Tenet, be held accountable for their failure to implement a strategy to dismantle Al Qaeda in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks. General Michael Hayden, the current CIA director, and his predecessor, Porter Goss, have declined to seek disciplinary action against Tenet and others named in the report.

The basic outlines of the report have been known since shortly after it was completed in 2005, but it had never been made public, and its release reignited a debate about whether the CIA should have done more before the attacks, and whether Tenet and other officials should be held accountable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/world/americas/22iht-cia.1.7207793.html

FBI Chief Acknowledges 9/11 Errors

FBI Director Robert Mueller, acknowledging serious lapses in how the FBI mishandled some information prior to Sept. 11, suggested for the first time that investigators might have detected the terrorist plot if they had pursued leads more diligently.

Mueller's acknowledgment came amid two new disclosures of what could be missed hints about Sept. 11.

The first was a warning from another agency to the FBI that a Middle Eastern country was seeking to buy commercial flight simulators. The second was a memo from an Oklahoma City FBI agent who reported observing large numbers of Middle Eastern pilots and flight students in his area. Neither memo apparently drew much attention at the time.

"The jury is still out on all of it," Mueller said Wednesday at FBI headquarters. "Looking at it right now, I can't say for sure it would not have, that there wasn't a possibility that we could have come across some lead that would have led us to the hijackers."

On Thursday, Mueller told ABC's "Good Morning America":

"I do not believe, based on what I know now, that we could have prevented the attack. I'm not ruling out the possibility at all. We could have gotten lucky. Absolutely. But from what I've seen now, I do not believe we could have prevented the attack."

Mueller's remarks came after his announcement of a broad reorganization of the FBI, partly because of its failure to predict the attacks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-510607.html

2. The 9/11 false flag

The facts above proved beyond any doubt there was no "911 false flag" operation; and those facts highlight a number of missteps, blunders and errors committed by our intelligence agencies prior to the 911 attacks, which the CIA and the FBI have now admitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The points are very many indeed, probably more than can be counted, but ONE of the points is to trick the gullible into believing as you do. :tu:

Theories of 911 Truthers have been debunked and refuted with facts and evidence, which explains why after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government in the 911 attacks and why no U.S. government employee has been charged nor imprisoned.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no tangible evidence that it (9/11)was an inside job, all hearsay and conjecture.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, it seems to be a stronger motivator than Truth from the arguments I have seen, despite the labels these conspiracists apply to themselves.

Some of those labels they give themselves make me wonder, such as 'Pilots for 911 Truth.' I am still waiting for the folks at that website to make much needed corrections but it seems they refuse to do so.

Until it makes much needed corrections on their website, the name should be changed to 'Pilots for Spewing 911 Disinformation.'

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts above proved beyond any doubt there was no "911 false flag" operation; and those facts highlight a number of missteps, blunders and errors committed by our intelligence agencies prior to the 911 attacks, which the CIA and the FBI have now admitted.

Your so-called "facts" above "prove" no such thing in any way, shape or form.

Now please tell us: Why, in your mind, would someone, after a long string of jihadist terrorist attacks, concoct a gigantic conspiracy to produce.... yet another terrorist attack and blame the jihadis for it, who happily accept the honor of course?

It sounds like the very definition of insanity. Please explain why in your mind, this makes sense.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think WTC ’93, the U.S. Embassy and USS Cole attacks are comparable to 9/11, or Pearl Harbor? Ok, that would be the end of our visage of ‘discussion’.

Of course I am. In the real world, blowing up another country`s embassies and warships is an act of war. Of course, the world-wide jihad does not represent a country, so it is hard to declare war in return. Especially since our idiot political leaders do not even recognize political islam as a threat.

Anyway, I am glad that is the end the discussion, so please spare this forum more troother nonsense from now on.

It is not wise to argue against the obvious and/or documented fact.

Most certainly. Now please tell that to your fellow troothers.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.