Kevin MacDonald: Rob Lonaker’s current TOO article “9/11: Media Ignores Evidence for WTC Explosives” was a difficult editorial decision. I have long been very sympathetic to the idea that Israel knew about 9/11 in advance. This was based on reliable descriptions of the Israeli filming crew and the art students, as briefly summarized in the article. But I was very reluctant to go further into 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, I decided that the common denominator here is huge pressure on the media from Jewish activist organizations to prevent discussion and a full investigation—even when there was presumptive evidence of Israeli foreknowledge—and that always rankles me.
The question, as always, is: What do they have to hide? Pressure against public discussion of Jewish issues is very common: the role of neocons in promoting the Iraq war, the bombing of the USS Liberty, the power of Jews in the media and the political process in the US and throughout the West, role of the organized Jewish community in promoting massive non-White immigration and multiculturalism in the West, the status and role of Jews in the early decades of the USSR, the causes of historical anti-Semitism, and on and on.
There is definitely a logic whereby Israel and its agents had a huge motive to ensure maximum destruction. So if they knew about it in advance, then it is not much of a leap to suppose that they went further and made sure that the attack would be a success. I am not concluding that this is what happened, only arguing that it should be investigated by an impartial commission.
Anyway, the point of this post is simply to solicit commentary on this issue. Let the chips fall where they may.
Peter Meyers, Australia
There was some well documented connections between the 9/11 terrorists, and, the Israelies, when members of the terror gang were attending flight school in Florida.
Imagine a dual-citizen Rabbi from Israel being comptroller for the Pentagon!
Imagine this dual-citizen Rabbi from Israel comptroller of the Pentagon was Corporate VP1 at System Planning Corporation, a major player in the “Homeland Security” industry. One of the products that SysPlan sells is the Command Transmitter System, a remote control system for planes, boats, missiles and other vehicles2 . It’s highly customable and configurable to interface with an almost limitless number of vehicle types.!
Who blamed Palestinians?
Note the Israelis in NJ had maps with SEVERAL viewing locations for WTC marked in colored ink when apprehended. They were pre-positioned at the park for perfect viewing and filming of Planes impacting the towers. Their footage had never been released by the government.
BABA WAWA’S WHITEWASH
Israeli spies cheer as WTC burns – not that there’s anything wrong with that, says Barbara Walters
They were going to blame this on the Egyptians in 1967
Two buildings were hit by planes- three buildings collapsed.
It is simply fact that they were brought down by pre-planted explosives.
Lawrence Silverstein, of Silverstein Properties, explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
I lived in NY at the time of the disaster.
On the basis of the dancing Israeli “film crew” caught gleefully preserving the incident for posterity – nearly everybody out to the eastern tip of Long Island heard about that in short order, many by word of mouth emanating from the original witnesses – I and many others quickly began to suspect that the Mossad, in cahoots with highly-placed American criminals possibly including Bush and surely including Cheney, was responsible.
Given that the mounting circumstantial evidence against the official narrative is now so extensive that it might as well be hard proof, it’s hard to believe that there still exist idiots who think, at this late date, after the PATRIOT Act has done its incalculable damage to everything our country used to be, that the WTC tragedy was the result of airplanes being skillfully steered into the WTC towers by incompetent Arab non-pilots who could barely wipe their own noses let alone perform dazzling aerobatics in massive jetliners.
So why don’t we just drop the charade, call a spade a spade, and drag the criminals off to prison where they belong, even if it means flushing the treacherous terroristic farce called “Israel” down the crapper of history where it probably deserves to be?
Here, BBC announces collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before the actual collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&NR=1
(WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.)
Interview with the witness “Maria”, the cop who arrested the ‘dancing Israelis’, and the ‘dancing Israelis’ themselves, who claim they were there to ‘document the event’, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
I think you called it wrong, Kevin. Pointing to real conflicts of interest is one thing, conspiracy theories are something else.
“I think you called it wrong, Kevin. Pointing to real conflicts of interest is one thing, conspiracy theories are something else.”
On the contrary, real conflicts of interest frequently generate actual conspiracies. In this case, the circumstantial evidence for that is overwhelming.
After all, it’s only one of many probable instances.
“What do they have to hide? ”
They hide because they have a nefarious hidden agenda that, if exposed will cause people to realize their agenda is to serve their own tribe, while pilfering from others. They have a documented history of contempt and hatred of the non-Jew, as the latest rabbi has again shown.
This country was and is relatively young and here comes a sophisticated group of European Jews, who were eventually dejected by the German people at the turn of the 20th century, that know how to manipulate the political & media machines and are able to wield it for their own selfish growth trends.
Even if Israel did not exist and US capitol never went to the criminal state, they would have some other agenda that would soley benefit the tribe.
It may be part of their breeding that has cause this selfish way of life.
Antisemitism will always exist, as long as this group has a self serving agenda that is apart from the rest of the greater civilization.
Kevin, 9/11 conspiracy theories are idiotic, and bunk. Please do not sabotage this great project, TOO, by catering to loons. What is being done every day to Europe and America in terms of mass immigration is far worse for us than 9/11, and the focus should be on that.
Consider removing this entry ASAP at the very least, or the smearathons against you, and against White nationalism, will include this discrediting factoid as a permanent fixture.
Did a single Jew die on that day at the WTC? does anyone know?
Personally I beleive it was a moussad plan who in the case of the false flag scenario attacking the USS Liberty they were to gain by craeting a conflict by which US boys go fight there war. Here we would fight the muslims plant military expanions in the middle east that they can control politically from the white house and DOD , etc..
The equation is simple but we know it and average people are begining to see it. We will have our day we allways have as a people and I beleive we will see the end of Israel in the middle east and China will be the one who ensures it..
Before 9/11 it was reported on BBC that a Islamic firebrand was openly advocating hijacking aircraft and crashing them into skyscrapers. A kind of prior knowledge was not the prerogative of intelligence services, it was just that the information was not taken seriously.
Maybe there was surveillance by Israelis but surveillance doesn’t mean they knew what was being planned. As far as suggesting Israeli agents actually helped the plan succeed, well Daybreaker has it right – that’s a lurch into thoroughgoing conspiracy theory. They’re not ten feet tall you know.
Maybe conspiratorial pieces are being given a shot because people remain unmoved by scientific factual arguments like Recent research on Individualism/Collectivism.
The be honest I think the article would work as an expose of ‘pressure on the media from Jewish activist organizations’ much better without the ‘How scornfully must 9/11′s masterminds laugh at us’ stuff because that makes it clear Lonaker truly believes that Israeli ‘special operations units’ blew the towers up, which is a load of crap.
If it worked to convince significant numbers of white people ethnic self defence is necessary, all well and good. But I’m afraid the loss from articles like this will be more than the gain.
Israeli Spying:
The Mother of all Scandals
LINK, by clicking on my name.
Excerpt:
Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the Internet. The manager of the New York office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message.##
PS: The FBI has confirmed this fact. It use to be on the FBI website!
More:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/motherofallscandals.html
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
ReporterNotebook@gmail.com
917-974-6367
Oh, good grief.
Hard evidence against the official story includes nanothermite residue (documented in several peer-reviewed scientific papers); highly convincing reports of timed explosions by firemen and police; evidence of same on video; puddles of melted steel when jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel; hundreds of architects and engineers signing petitions to reopen the investigation while stating that given their structure and composition, the WTC buildings should never have collapsed; the fact that fire has never collapsed any similar building even after burning for days; the sudden collapse of both towers virtually into their footprints at nearly the acceleration of gravity, just as though it were painstakingly engineered by demolition experts; accounts from flight school personnel that the suspects couldn’t fly their way out of a wet paper bag, and from commercial pilots saying that after decades of experience, even they wouldn’t have been able to execute the maneuvers allegedly executed by the suspects; a hole in the Pentagon too small for a jetliner; …
Circumstantial and post hoc evidence includes numerous facts such as: legible incriminating ID “found on the street”, inexplicably unincinerated by all that jet fuel; the WTC security contract being held by a close relative of Bush; Larry Silverstein’s notorious “pull it” admission regarding WTC7, a building which had not been damaged by the planes or any known effects thereof; NYC trucking all the evidence offsite as quickly as possible without a careful forensic examination of any of it; the confiscation of all of the security video from the vicinity of the Pentagon explosion; the alarmingly quick use of the incident to shove through a pile of draconian, spectacularly unconstitutional legislation that had been waiting for such an extraordinary rationalization, all of it strangely conducive to the timeworn agenda of you-know-who; …
And that’s just a fraction of everything that doesn’t add up as required!
I wish I could reasonably be more euphemistic, but anyone who can’t see that there’s a conspiracy afoot here, or recognize the telltale signature of the usual suspects, is a brainless wonder.
Wake up and smell the tyranny.
I am getting tired of seeing the phrases “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorists” used as magic talismans to suppress, intimidate or divert debate and inquiry into an event as momentous and consequential as the alleged terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. If someone has a cite to evidence one way or the other regarding Mr. Lonaker’s thesis (and so many here have already added constructively to this topic – thanks to all of you), let him/her state it. Any further twitting, however, about “conspiracy theories” etc. made without further argumentation and facts should simply not be posted any more – you’ve let the COINTELPRO types make their point already on this comment thread.
It’s always possible another country knew about attacks and it’s a very interesting idea. In addition, the idea that another government lent intelligence and planning support is possible and should be pursued. But I think a little common sense will show us that having our government or the Israeli government actually climb around buildings and put explosives on them would be risky in the extreme. This is not how “conspiracies” work. For example, in the case of Pearl Harbor, there have always been rumors that FDR knew about the attacks and something like is possible. But if we claim that secret American agents actually dressed up in Japanese uniforms and flew zeroes into the harbor, then we have left the land of reality. And all this 9-11 conspiracy stuff feel like that. To be blunt, I don’t think the Israelis would be that stupid. This would be an amateurish way of doing things.
So I think we should focus on the possibility of foreknowledge by some parties as well as behind the scenes support, not a bunch of people climbing around a building secretly blowing stuff up.
I agree with Daybreaker and Someday.
Anti-antisemites have two primary strategies for dealing with Judeo-critics:
First they attempt to intimidate the Judeo-critic into silence with threats of public shaming and social ostracism.
If this fails, they resort to slander, petty harassment and blatant in-your-face hypocrisy in an attempt to radicalize the Judeo-critic. If all goes well, the Judeo-critic will become so enraged he will make a serious mistake and announce his admiration for Adolf Hitler, deny the Holocaust, claim Mossad did 9/11, treat the Protocols of the Elders of Zion seriously, proclaim support for anti-Jewish (but also anti-White) Muslims, or call for violence/lawbreaking/revolution. At this point, the Judeo-critic seriously diminished his ability to influence the general public.
“So I think we should focus on the possibility of foreknowledge by some parties as well as behind the scenes support, not a bunch of people climbing around a building secretly blowing stuff up.”
Well then, how about offering a reasonable non-conspiratorial hypothesis for how this occurred? In the absence of a remotely credible alternative hypothesis, and given that conspiracy (secret advance planning with false-flag options in play) is absolutely the name of the game in modern national and international affairs, we don’t really have an option. And the answer to the question “Cui bono?” is obvious enough to considerably narrow down the likely identity of the conspirators.
I mean, I’d love it if a viable alternative explanation were available – like most Americans, I don’t want to believe our government is evil enough to be a part of something like that even when it’s obviously Zionistic and corrupt as hell. But I’ve yet to hear anything remotely resembling a credible non-conspiratorial explanation. (Even the official story is utterly conspiracy-based, but that one has so many holes in it that it’s not worth a second glance.)
Do you have an alternative explanation?
“And all this 9-11 conspiracy stuff feel like that. To be blunt, I don’t think the Israelis would be that stupid. This would be an amateurish way of doing things.”
On the other hand, you accept the official government conspiracy theory that a bunch of amateur Arab pilots coordinated the most serious terrorist attack in US history, eluding an air defense system designed for hair trigger response to threats?
The hypothesis that Israel was in some way behind 9/11 does not smack of stupidity or amateurism at all. Nor is it in any way naive or preposterous: the World Trade Center buildings were under the control of a Jewish lessor, Larry Silverstein, and housed agencies of a government (the US) that is the laughing stock of the rest of the world because of its abject servility to Israel. Arguably, the 9/11 attacks may have fulfilled goals and brought benefits to Muslim extremists, but the response to them indisputably brought far more significant and longer lasting benefits to Israel: the destruction by proxy of a significant military rival in the Mideast (Iraq), threats of US military action against another (Iran), and an overriding commitment of US resources to an indefinite and ill defined “War on Terror,” meaning of course ISLAMIC terror which has Israel and Zionism as the chief focus of its rage. Although many did suspect Israeli complicity or at least foreknowledge of the attacks very soon after they occurred, as Carl Cameron’s reports on Fox News demonstrate, Israel and its supporters have successfully suppressed most discussion of its involvement in 9/11 with charges of “conspiracy theories” and of course “anti-Semitism,” just as may be seen here.
Note also that historically Israel has felt no compunction about attacking and killing Americans when it feels doing so could advance its interests, as the murderous attack on the USS Liberty in June 1967 proved.
I have to ask the same question a United States Senator asked. Where was the CIA, and why didn’t the CIA get word of the attack, or the possibility of an attack before it happened? Why, and, how did they fail?
Btw, as far as I know the US Senator never pursued his questions about the failure of the CIA on 9/11.
Eurodele, why is an “alternate” explanation needed? Are we so sure that what we saw on television isn’t what really happened? Muslim terrorist groups really do exist and they step up and take credit for atrocities all the time. So why is another explanation necessary? While there are some engineers and physicists involved in the “truther” movement, the vast majority of hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists in this country seem pretty well satisfied with the official explanation. Since the beginning there has been a long list of of “smoking guns” that turned out to be false. One was the idea that the fire couldn’t have been hot enough to melt steel which was hailed as a major point, until it was pointed out that the steel didn’t need to melt, only soften to the point of losing structural integrity. And when that is pointed out, the truthers simply change tactics and find something else to be the new smoking gun. There have been endless claims that were then debunked, only to be followed up with new versions that are slightly tweaked. It comes across as immature and more or less the style of argument that believers in UFOs use. They are always saying “hey, you’re not foolish enough to believe what the gov’t tells you about UFOs are you? C’mon wise up, they have them hidden in area 51″.
So again, if we want to think about how a foreign government (or our own) would handle something like this, obviously they would not literally have their own guys carrying ropes, bombs, and electronic equipment on their backs while planting explosives on towers, like the plot of a bad Bruce Willis movie. The number of people needed to carry it out and who would have some knowledge of it represents a massive risk of exposure that would be too great to any Lex Luthor mastermind lurking in the government.
Again, if the Israelis wanted something like this to happen, there is no shortage of Muslim zealots to take advantage of. It is in the realm of possibility that they heard of an event and found a way to egg it on. Now I have zero evidence for this, but at least this is something that could actually happen.
Don’t forget the album Party Music (The Coup) with commie Boots Riley. Released in June or July of 2001- the cover showing the twin towers in flames:
http://breakfornews.com/3i/images/coup-cover-big.jpg
Jeff Maylor: “It is in the realm of possibility that they heard of an event and found a way to egg it on. Now I have zero evidence for this, but at least this is something that could actually happen.”
What about the dancing Israeli spies caught filming the event? How do you explain that? If the accounts of that are true – and they seem to be – it would appear that some parties had definite foreknowledge. The lack of curiosity about that, by the government, the media, and the public, is very damning. The way it was hushed up and the spies allowed to return to Israel without comment could not be more incriminating.
Jeff Maylor said:
“[I]f we want to think about how a foreign government (or our own) would handle something like this, obviously they would not literally have their own guys carrying ropes, bombs, and electronic equipment on their backs while planting explosives on towers ….”
There’s no need for workers to have known they were placing explosives.
See, for example, the hypothetical blasting scenarios described at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html#installation
Equipment Installation
The scenario allows all of the equipment installation to be disguised so that the very workers doing the installation work are oblivious to the fact that they are installing demolition equipment. None of the equipment looks anything like conventional demolition gear, and there is a fully plausible innocent explanation for each procedure. There are no wires connecting components. Even on close examination the equipment would not reveal its true purpose. If a worker were to break open a ceiling tile and find the nano-thermite film layer, his supervisor would explain what he was told — that the new energy-efficient tiles have an embedded a vapor- and radiative-heat-loss barrier.
“The labor-intensive portions of the operation might be made more secure by using undocumented workers who are naturally disinclined to raise questions about the work.
Steel Work
The only part of the installation work that requires direct access to steelwork is the application of the thermate coating compound and the attachment of high-temperature igniters to the coated areas. Because this treatment is applied only to steelwork in the core around the planned crash zone and the hat truss, the number of access points is relatively small, and can be reached almost entirely through parts of the building controlled by building services.
The use of a spray applicator with a flexible snake hose and integrated borescope allows a worker to treat an entire section of column walled off by sheetrock by drilling a few 2-inch-diameter holes in the sheetrock, perhaps above the level of the ceiling tiles. Such efforts to make the work inconspicuous are hardly critical, given that the work is supposedly to upgrade fire protection of the steelwork. And, if anyone asks, the igniters are vibration detectors used to monitor the structure’s performance in high winds.
Ceiling Tiles
The replacement of ceiling tiles throughout the building may have been done on any of a number of schedules. On the one hand the tiles could have been supplied as part of an maintenance contract and installed using the existing building maintenance staff doing what they thought of as normal building maintenance work. Since the new landlord had just taken over in late July of 2001, it wouldn’t seem at all unusual to see some refurbishing, especially as unobtrusive as swapping out old ceiling tiles.
Alternatively, the tiles could have been installed during overnight hours by a team of maintenance workers unnoticed by tenants. The logistics of such an operation can be imagined, and some estimates of human resources made.
Evidence for the use of explosives in the towers is now overwhelming, based on thermitic material found in the dust and on physics-based analyses of the Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, conservation of momentum, and energy transfer involved.
The butler in the conference room with a ceiling tile. :)
“Eurodele, why is an “alternate” explanation needed? Are we so sure that what we saw on television isn’t what really happened? Muslim terrorist groups really do exist and they step up and take credit for atrocities all the time. So why is another explanation necessary?”
Because in this case, there are too many things that this version of events leaves unexplained. Otherwise, I’d be inclined to accept it.
“the vast majority of hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists in this country seem pretty well satisfied with the official explanation.”
Maybe so, but it just seems to me that if all these other physicists really had a viable causal explanation, they’d have laid it all out it by now. But they haven’t. They’ve done little more than nod their heads obediently like Howdy Doody perched on the lap of Buffalo Bob.
“it was pointed out that the steel didn’t need to melt, only soften to the point of losing structural integrity.”
Rescue workers have reported seeing molten steel in the basement. There’s also the fact that the buildings, being among the world’s tallest, were specifically engineered to survive a plane strike. The support structure of each tower was distributed in such a way that a few pieces of weakened steel wouldn’t have been enough to precipiate collapse, let alone the textbook example of engineered demolition we saw on television.
“And when that is pointed out, the truthers simply change tactics and find something else to be the new smoking gun.”
You’re right. But that’s at least partially a function of the sheer number of problematical points from which they can choose. Quite simply, there are more than the official account can cover.
“The number of people needed to carry it out and who would have some knowledge of it represents a massive risk of exposure that would be too great to any Lex Luthor mastermind lurking in the government.”
I don’t know if I can buy that. This is an argument that has been used time and time again to deflect suspicion regarding events that couldn’t have happened without the participation of many conspirators (in addition to unwitting dupes). As long as the conspirators are chosen wisely – e.g., for susceptibility to blackmail or bribery, or for being soldiers who know the military penalties for revealing classified information – keeping the lid on an extensive project is not always an insuperable problem.
“Again, if the Israelis wanted something like this to happen, there is no shortage of Muslim zealots to take advantage of.”
That’s true. But a mere random assortment of Muslim zealots simply doesn’t have the know-how or entree to handle something like this without a lot of inside help.
Yes, Der weiße Engel, the report about the dancing Israelis is suspicious. Fox carried it several times and I don’t know what the truth behind it is, but it should be fully investigated. And yes, sadly we probably won’t get a full investigation of it. But again, if there is something nefarious going on it seems much more likely to be evidence of behind the scenes logistical support – which the oblivious hijackers never even knew about.
Now while I don’t agree with the 911 truthers, this is a copy of a Fox report that ran a few years ago that is worth looking at. It shows that Israel is known to spy on the US rather extensively.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKj60CqlA-Y
I honestly think our interests are better served by avoiding lunatic-fringe conspiracy theories. Did Israeli intelligence have advance warning of an impending attack? I’m sure they did, although reasonable people can argue about the extent of their knowledge.
The 9/11 attacks were a result of our unqualified support for Israel and our suicidal immigration policies. Let’s focus on these issues and leave the grassy-knoll conspiracy theories to the kooks on the far left like Oliver Stone.
Dr. Alan Sabrosky says he is “one hundred percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.”
His insights are instructive in this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg
Sabrosky finds Israel’s connection to 9/11 apparent from a number of factors including Jewish media control of information about the event.
From http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/09/10/treason-betrayal-and-deceit-the-road-to-911-and-beyond/
Quote:
“[O]nly two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA and Israel’s Mossad. Only one had the incentive, using the “who benefits” principle: Mossad. And that incentive dovetailed perfectly with the neo-con’s agenda and explicitly expressed need for a catalytic event to mobilize the American public for their wars, using American military power to destroy Israel’s enemies. Only the unexpected strength of the Iraqi resistance kept Syria and Iran from being attacked in the second Bush Administration. Thus, the evidential trail for 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq run from PNAC, AIPAC and their cohorts; through the mostly Jewish neo-cons in the Bush Administration; and back to the Israeli government. None of the denials and political machinations can alter that essential reality. Terms such as treason, betrayal and deceit do not overstate the case against them.
“Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media (MSM) have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the US Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath. And the reason is that on this issue, all are on the same side, and the official line is the one they all prefer – “all” meaning the PNAC alumni who took over the Bush Administration’s national security apparatus and their counterparts in the Obama administration, AIPAC and the rest of the numerous Jewish PACs, the MSM owners and Israel.”
Whites Unite says: “Anti-antisemites have two primary strategies for dealing with Judeo-critics:
First they attempt to intimidate the Judeo-critic into silence with threats of public shaming and social ostracism.
If this fails, they resort to slander, petty harassment and blatant in-your-face hypocrisy in an attempt to radicalize the Judeo-critic. If all goes well, the Judeo-critic will become so enraged he will make a serious mistake and announce his admiration for Adolf Hitler, deny the Holocaust, claim Mossad did 9/11, treat the Protocols of the Elders of Zion seriously, proclaim support for anti-Jewish (but also anti-White) Muslims, or call for violence/lawbreaking/revolution. At this point, the Judeo-critic seriously diminished his ability to influence the general public.”
Exactly.
Kevin, your books are vital, and they have proven academically bullet-proof. Their credibility is a priceless treasure, so so is yours. It is a terrible thing if you provide a back-door way for anti-antisemites to destroy the credibility of your books by defining you as a conspiracy nut.
Kent says: “Kevin, 9/11 conspiracy theories are idiotic, and bunk. Please do not sabotage this great project, TOO, by catering to loons. What is being done every day to Europe and America in terms of mass immigration is far worse for us than 9/11, and the focus should be on that.
Consider removing this entry ASAP at the very least, or the smearathons against you, and against White nationalism, will include this discrediting factoid as a permanent fixture.”
Kevin, please heed Kent.
Go back. Diminish the harm done by this false step. Never go there again.
I don’t think this discussion is politically deadly. After all that greasy Roman Catholic Italian stallion from California Leon Panneta is now in charge of the CIA. If anyone knows what really did happen on 9/11 it should be the CIA.
Why it that the DEA reportedly was the only federal police agency that seems to have been interested in members of the 9/11 terror gang before they struck.
I think the only problem with pointing out that Israel was up to its eyeballs in 9/11 is that it proumulgates the notion that there is some kind of material difference between Washington, DC and Israel.
Nevertheless, it’s a third rail Kevin. I think it’s enough for you to allow discussion of the event on this forum, as well as other events that the victors have falsified in their writing of “our” history. I admire your willingness to go there, and I think you’re right. But I think if people read your other works there is enough there to figure out what is going in this world without having to step in something like this. Either way, I’m behind you.
Daybreaker: “Go back. Diminish the harm done by this false step. Never go there again.”
You know, I’ve heard the words “never go there again” or equivalent several times in my life, and every time, it sounded like a threat. Who are you to issue threats?
Professor MacDonald has merely opened an interesting, relevant, and very widely discussed topic for discussion on this site while offering no opinion on it either way and even expressing his reservations about it. The topic in question plainly bears on Jewish pursuit of group interests at the expense of White Americans and their culture, a recurrent theme in his work. To avoid it completely would be unscientific at best.
I suggest that you save your thinly veiled threats for a run-of-the-mill academic coward on whom they are likely to work, as opposed to a man who’s been forthrightly discussing forbidden topics with courage and rationality for years.
Dr. MacDonald, you are a very, very brave man.
Kevin, I am surprised that you can go no further than to suspect Israeli foreknowledge and (covert?) assistance to a Muslim attack.
(1) There is no question that Muslims did NOT do 9/11. You must read David Ray Griffin’s brilliant study called “Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?”
His conclusion is a resounding “No!”
(2) Israeli and American Jewish guilt for the crime is clear. You do not question, do you, that the WTC buildings came down as controlled demolitions? Only Netanyahu intimate Larry Silverstein and his cohorts were in a position to set those buildings up for destruction. Check out the case made by articles in this and other websites:
http://www.Rediscover911.com.
Then PLEASE join the party!!!!!
The only reason the term “conspiracy theory” turns so many people off is because the jewish media has taught them to think that way. This is because jews have been involved in so many horrible, deadly conspiracies over the centuries. Keep in mind that one of the major tenets of the communist jews in the US was to use the media to add a ‘foul stench’ to certain terms and ideas by presenting them over and over in as negative a fashion as possible. Step back from 9/11 and take a look at the massive financial scandals over the last two decades. Obviously the result of conspiracies. Conspiracies among jews. Jews engage in conspiracies all the time to encircle and buy up or destroy targeted businesses. It’s very possible the Mossad knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time, just as it’s possible they could have been behind the attacks, could have been manipulating Arab terrorists or even using the media to convince everyone the culprits were Arabs even if there wasn’t one Arab actually involved. Take a look around you. We’re surrounded by so much manipulation and propaganda, the belief that this is a free country, that we elect officials to do what we tell them, and more, that it is truly amazing. They Live! LOL
There are only a few people in the world with the know-how and experience to bring down buildings as massive as the twin towers. Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) was founded in 1960 by Jack Loizeaux, a pioneer in the art of controlled demolition. CDI was contracted to clean up both the twin tower site and the Murrah Building at Oaklahoma City. The Loizeaux family knows how those buildings came down. To this day the landfill containing the debris of the Murrah Building remains fenced and under armed guard.
OK, the first thing posted by Shiva makes the following claim:
“The Washington Times published an article on September 10, 2001, which says that Mossad is capable of attacking Western targets and making it look as if others (Palestinians etc) did it”
But if you read the article there is a certain context to that. Specifically, “An elite U.S. Army study center has devised a plan for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that would require about 20,000 well-armed troops stationed throughout Israel and a newly created Palestinian state.” So in other words they are doing a study of a proposed plan where the US troops would enforce a peace accord on Middle Eastern soil. Now within that context, several observations were made about both the Palestinians and the Israelis. So yes, it says “Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”".
Of the Palestinians it says, “On the Palestinian side, the paper describes their youth as “loose cannons; under no control, sometimes violent.” The study lists five Arab terrorist groups that could target American troops for assassination and hostage-taking.”
So basically it outlines the capacities of both sides and the potential problems (such as the Israelis doing an attack that is made to look like Arabs). But this is all just brainstorming and an exhaustive report on the problems that could occur for troops if they were stationed in Israel. But the original quote by Shiva makes it sound like the paper was saying Mossad could attack Western targets under “false flag” in some general sense over here on US soil, and that is not really what the paper is saying. Perhaps more importantly, it is simply noting their characteristics and exploring what they could do – not what they probably will do. This is the kind of “evidence” truthers bring forward and it is more or less useless. I’m sure the pentagon has studies of what the Japanese and the Chinese and many others “could do” without it implying that such things are imminent or even likely. And if you go through all the truther evidence, it always looks like this.
I’m afraid this is very dangerous ground for Dr. MacDonald to be associated with, not because it’s true, but because it is so outlandish and weak. Again, the idea that the Israelis knew something and either withheld the information or provided support to the rather sad attackers on 9-11 is something that should be explored if there is real evidence – and that should be a rigorous standard of proof. And frankly,this is not the forum for that. That should be handled by engineers, physicists, military men and other experts. Being known as a truther could pretty much destroy your credibility, unless you are an expert in the field that can counter the accepted version.
Needless to say I agree with Daybreaker, Someday, Whites Unite and Kent (sorry I missed someone). The “truther” stuff is pseudoscience and will certainly be viewed as such by others. Kevin MacDonald’s work is on solid scientific ground and has been sited by academics such as David Sloan Wilson and Frank Salter. That is where the fight belongs. Let’s leave UFOs, Bigfoot, Satanic possession and conspiracy theories to Art Bell.
I have always seen the controlled demolition scenario as much more plausible than the …implosion by a fire at the top floors of a steel-framed tower, something never seen before in history. I remember my first gut thought when I saw the collapse, “how did they (the “terrorists”) plant the explosives?”
I don’t know if the Israelis had immediate involvement (possibly), certainly US government agencies had to be complicit in this at least at their top levels.
I admit this thing is toxic, probably the litmus test of any serious “awakening”. If you can’t live with the notion that your own government is capable of deliberately killing its citizens just to start new wars on the other side of the earth, then you really can’t also accept the fact that your own government is working to ethnically cleanse you and replace you with third world immigration. The most you can go will always be:”they’re good, they ‘re just misguided, if only I could convince them with my reasoned arguments, then what a happy society we could be again”.
Prof. MacDonald, Congratulations on taking another wise and courageous position. I have also wondered how to handle this kind of situation. If you take on one controversial topic, e.g. race realism, it’s tough to take on others, e.g. 911 truth. I have long been out of the closet on 911 truth, but less so on race realism. I hate to alienate absolutely everyone. But I think this is the right move. It has reached the point that it is impossible to talk sensibly about anything of significance in the wider public arena because of political correctness. This simply has to change – it’s a matter of survival now.
Kirk, exactly how can you say “certainly US government agencies had to be complicit in this at least at their top levels”? Certainly? Like there couldn’t be any other conclusion. You entertain no possibility that radical Muslims could have done this, as they themselves claimed? You know, not every event in the world is secretly controlled by Jews or the CIA. Muslims have agency too – they can act. I know literally hundreds of people who watched the attacks on TV and none of them had your reaction. Not one. And I wonder if you really had that reaction or if this a revision of your own memory after hearing a story that caught your imagination. In fact, as far as I can tell the whole truther thing seems to be a kind of status symbol for people who want to stand out as cynical and jaded — not like the “squares” who fall for the government line. It’s a cheap logic-free display of “enlightenment”. This blog should be about true insight, the kind comes from painstaking attention to detail and ruthless application of logic, not something that sounds like UFOlogy.
I congratulate Professor MacDonald. I myself have been an avant la lettre Truther since 9/12/2001, the day I first saw footage of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC building 7. It was plain to me then that the way these buildings fell was so eerily similar to a dozen or more controlled-demolition implosions I’d seen on TV that any claim that they were anything else would require some heavy-duty structural-engineering testimony. Despite the fact that many unrehearsed and unvetted comments on early post-9/11 tapes made open reference to controlled demolitions, no explanatory comments as to why the collapses were not CDIs were ever forthcoming, and the media stooges, from top to bottom and from print to on-air to blog, soon learned and swore allegiance to the official line.
I remained a closet Truther until several years later, when, in a public presentation covered by C-SPAN (which, sad to say, subsequently drank the Kool-Aid), I saw David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, and about ten other scientists and multidegree’d nonscientists discussing the utter absence of non-miracle-assuming documentation underlying the various (and frequently contradictory) federal reports on various aspects of 9/11. By no means all of the presenters were agreed on all of the details—the differences among them were in fact pretty striking and pretty extreme—but they were unanimous in thinking and stating that the official line, however qualified, fit neither the facts nor the physics of the observed events.*
The presentation and its attendant Q&A period went on for about three hours. The hostile questions, without exception, took the form of and were variations on the theme of “You do agree, don’t you, that you must be out of your mind to disbelieve the government?” The questioners, incidentally, were not yobbos. Rather, they were clearly respectable people who, I suspect, saw that the direction in which the hard evidence pointed was one that a conventionally disposed man would be well advised to turn away from. After watching the full presentation and parts of its several C-SPAN repeats and being then in a position where (presumably unlike many of the hostile questioners) I had little to lose—as opposed to now, when I have virtually nothing left to lose—I came out of the 9/11 closet. (Despite my self-outing, neither Oprah nor Ellen invited me to appear on her show. Odd. I guess there are closets and closets.)
Nothing I have seen or read in the past nine years has dented my skepticism anent the official 9/11 line. The point in bringing this Web page to your attention, however, is to give you entrée to as clear a statement as I have ever seen of the reasons for considering the Truther position the default one—so long, that is, as the reader is someone who learned and remembers something, anything, from a high school physics course. The clear statement I refer to is the very first article listed on the page. It’s as straightforward as can be; hardly any politics (though it’s addressed to Lefties), no Trekkieness, just the facts. (If anything, Professor Griffin is more dismissive of miracles generally than I am, though he is quite right to expect the government to describe its explanations as miraculous since the explanations ignore or contradict several first principles of civil engineering and structural physics.) If your fancy is caught, read more, and read more widely (e.g., Morgan Reynolds’s site). At the bare minimum, I sincerely believe, one ignores the astonishing falsity of the official line at the risk of his self-respect.
* One small example among hundreds: Reports of cell phone conversations between doomed passengers on various flights and their loved ones on the ground have been part and parcel of the 9/11 fantasy since the week of the event. The calls, I have been told, feature prominently in a high-budget Hollywood film from several years ago, United 93, and in too many news accounts, government press releases, and politicians’ public statements to count or cite (curiously though, no air-to-ground cell call gets official mention in any federal report). Literally all the C-SPAN broadcast’s participants were in agreement—referring to widely available mainstream-media pieces explaining that air-to-ground cellular communication is virtually impossible under any circumstances, among other bits of telling evidence—that all or almost all the stories were hoaxes and that the folks telling them (most famously Ted Olson, a prominent multiple-administration Justice Department appointee) were flat-out liars. Living as I do in a nation full of people who struggle with cell phone connections every day whilst they get teary-eyed over these patent falsehoods, I can but wonder at the loss of intellectual market share suffered by the Tooth Fairy.
Jeff Maylor said:
“The ‘truther’ stuff is pseudoscience and will certainly be viewed as such by others.”
That statement is so overbroad as to be almost meaningless. Your and Glenn Beck’s pejorative use of the word “truther” attempts dismissively to characterize as insane even those seeking simply to learn facts about 9/11.
Lumping careful scientific inquiry concerning 9/11′s causes together with absurd or nonexistent phenomena like “UFOs, Bigfoot, [and] Satanic possession” would seem improper on a forum read by people with more sense than Beck’s adulators.
In order to avoid falling into your semantic category of “truther,” I assume one must blindly accept the government story of 9/11 and not ask hard questions.
Kevin MacDonald is interested only in provable facts and coherent hypotheses that fit them, and so am I.
If you understand the physical analysis presented in the article and nowhere addressed in your comments, you’d necessarily conclude that the official explanation for why the towers were destroyed is false. That’s why one must seek another hypothesis to explain that phenomenon.
The article says, “At minimum, a proper investigation is warranted.” Do you disagree?
I have not concluded that Israel was responsible for 9/11, but I raise it as a plausible hypothesis in view of the evidence. Like Dr. MacDonald, I wish to follow the scientific method and legal rules of evidence.
There is no doubt that the 3 WTC Bldgs. were brought down by controlled demolition – visit AE9/11Truth for info on this. Lucky Larry Silverstein, who aquired the lease from the Port Authority, with help from a few Jewish Israilis is very much aligned with Jewish Israili interrests, and turning Americans against Muslims very much served israili interests, and 9/11 did that. Our military is now a Muslim killing machine, we are killing Israels enemies. At the WTC there were power-downs, aparantly and the buildings inhabitants asked to leave, which is when large technical crews came in dragging crates of, who knows what. A website that has lots of credible info linking mossad/zionists to this crime is ReDiscover9/11.com. The truth must come out. The mossads credo is “We shall do war through the art of deception”. Peter
Thanks Rob Lonaker for a very good article at TOO. The more people questioning the Official Conspiracy Theory the better . . . it has more holes than the proverbial Swiss cheese. We all know the one: 19 Muslims armed with plastic knives and nonflammable passports penetrating the most guarded airspace on earth unmolested for two hours or so, CONSPIRING with another Muslim dying of renal failure sitting in a cave in Afghanistan with a laptop to make three gigantic skyscrapers collapse at free fell speed through the path of most resistance into their own footprints, etc.
Thanks Pierre de Craon for the link to Dr David Ray Griffin’s article on 911 miracles. My personal favorite among all the many miracles of that day is the miracle of the self-disintegrating passenger jet airliner at the Pentagon, and all it left in its wake was an itty bitty Cruise Missile size hole to mark its passing.
I think of it as the Miracle of Disintegration into Sub-Atomic Particles.
I even went and searched lots and lots of pictures online of other passenger jet airliner crashes just to make sure the Pentagon miracle really was a miracle and sure enough, in every other one I found there were huge chunks of fuselage and massive jet engines and wings and chewed up ground and seats and luggage – and sadly, even bodies – scattered all round. Not so with the Miracle of the Pentagon. Hallelujah!
Thanks Professor MacDonald for placing 911 on the blog. It has provided a wonderful opportunity for a couple of trolls/useful idiot shills to out themselves.
Finally, I doubt any Americans at all were involved in positioning the thermite in the three WTC skyscrapers. If it was good enough for the IDF to machine gun defenseless Americans on the USS Liberty in 1967, the current generation of them would be willing to plant the charges in the WTC buildings in the weeks before September 11, to blow around 3000 more defenseless Americans to pieces.
Half of the 911 Commissioners, including the two chairmen, have all publicly stated that the 911 Commission Report is false, that the Bush administration “obstructed” their investigation, and that there was a “cover up.”
If “911 conspiracy theories” (meaning, anything other than the 911 Commission Report) were so self-discrediting – why the absolute panic to squelch conversation about it, especially in regards to Israel?
Is it now official US policy to disrupt websites that promote 911 “conspiracy theories”?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein
Cass Sunstein … is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.
Please notice that the group of posters who are attacking “911 truthers” using all sorts of various names, “conspiracy theorists” “false step” “discredited” etc.
But none of them have – or likely will – address the fact that the 911 Commission Report has been disowned by its own authors, and that they have publicly stated there was “obstruction” a “cover up” and that they were “lied to.”
It’s not on the “911 truthers” to defend various theories, it’s on the “911 Liars” to defend the 911 Commission Report, against the 911 Commissioners, and all the plain evidence.
It’s a shame about the conservative/Republican bias in the pro-white movement, because most seem to be completely ignorant of the Project for a New American Century, the Neo-Conservative think thank that planned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1990s, or General Wes Clark’s statements that the Bush administration had planned to invade 5 different countries. It was the PNAC that called for a “new Pearl Habor” to instigate a US invasion of the Middle East.
Jeff Maylor says:
Immediately after the attack, the Israelis, along with the Germans and other countries, claimed to have warned the Bush administration in advance, so the first part of “the idea that the Israelis knew something and either withheld the information or provided support” is uncontroversial.
“engineers, physicists, military men and other experts” are not needed to discuss Israeli foreknowledge or complicity.
911 truth is far too mainstream for these silencing tactics to work anymore. The former President of Italy, legislators from Japan, BBC correspondents, a handful of early Tea Party candidates have all questioned the 911 Commission report and the “official story” in public already.
It’s *only* in the US that it’s “taboo” – and that taboo is weaker every day.
I don’t know anything about explosives, but first WTC1 than WTC2 were closed down on successive weekends in the month before 911, including turning off the security cameras, for “maintenance.” These closing were unusual in the sense that even backup electricity was down, requiring the companies to back off data off site, restart systems, etc. This is well attested by a number of witnesses.
Isn’t the U.S. government’s “official” explanation of 9/11 a conspiracy theory? Weren’t Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Lincoln assassination etc. conspiracies? Isn’t the charge of “conspiracy” always thrown in as a part of a federal indictment? My problem with the controlled demolition hypothesis is what would be gained versus the risk of a more complex operation being exposed? Insurance money? Deeper psychological impact?
Nevertheless, I am sick of the term “conspiracy theory” being used repeatedly to dismiss anyone who doesn’t go along with the program.
“I’m afraid this is very dangerous ground for Dr. MacDonald to be associated with, not because it’s true, but because it is so outlandish and weak.”
That which is merely outlandish and weak is not dangerous at all.
Speaking of “terribly unscientific judgments”, we’re still awaiting your plausible, scientifically supported causal hypothesis. Either you have one or you don’t. I’m now certain that you don’t.
Given that the standard crazed-Arab-flyboys hypothesis is scientifically impossible and in fact childlike in its absurdity, that leaves you with a well-known observation from Arthur Conan Doyle:
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. It is stupidity rather than courage to refuse to recognize danger when it is close upon you.”
How about a little less stupidity from you, and a little more courage?
Some families of 911 victims have made television commercials about WTC7 and are raising funds to broadcast them in New York markets.
You can donate to the cause here:
http://buildingwhat.org/
And see the videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or-1GVknJjo
lanceman,
Perhaps I misqualified: I don’t mind the 9/11 truther theory because it’s a conspiracy, I mind the unbroken chain of batshite hypothesising bit. If someone were to say that the government might have known about the attacks and let them happen, or jews hired a bunch of ragheads to do the job, I would at least grant the possibility — with the proviso that everyone agrees it is merely an exercise in speculation. Truthers fail to recognise this nugget of reality. A controlled demolition using nanothermite, on the other hand, is not even narratively logical.
My gripe with the government on 9/11 is jews prying open the borders and assaulting non-Whites on our behalf to have this happen. The fault is multiculturalism and the jews who enabled it, irrespective of the exact actors of 9/11. This would speak much better to people’s own experiences, and is not engaging in speculation but the truth.
Evidently, an article barraging people with YouTube videos about the author’s pet issue will inspire precisely zero people to any sort of real world action other than making further YouTube videos, as the impotent rage of the whole truther movement shows.
“A controlled demolition using nanothermite, on the other hand, is not even narratively logical.”
Yet that’s what the videos show, and sure enough, we find nanothermite residue in the dust.
Instead of worrying about “batshite” from 911 truthers, how about considering that which fills the minds of people unable to believe the evidence of own eyes, and preferring some narrow sense of plausibility to hard chemical assays?
Just a thought.
@Jeff Maylor
“This blog should be about true insight, the kind comes from painstaking attention to detail and ruthless application of logic.”
And that’s what this case is also about Jeff, believe it or not. When it looks a duck, walks like a duck etc., it’s not a UFO, it’s a duck.
The most appropriate comment made about the 9/11 events were made by Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu and was paraphrased; ” what happened on 9/11 in New York will benefit Israel”.
So the Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11 were a crack Mossad team of undercover infiltration agents, experts in not attracting attention, who were expecting the towers to be hit.
That explains why they spent the rest of the day whooping it up and dancing around in full view like a bunch of clowns.
The problem for me with these “Commission Reports,” whether for 9/11 or of some lesser incident, is that they are staffed by lawyers who are as fluid in their thinking as the law is in it’s daily fluctuations. Until lawyers gain a modicum of trust people like me have to rely on truth seekers such as our editors. I’d rather get my facts from the morning newspaper but until those twits sober up I’ll be sending my subscription to our editors. I also wish that I could find that quote by Cheney who wished he could tell the American people the truth but that they weren’t up to it. If wishes were horses!
“So the Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11 were a crack Mossad team of undercover infiltration agents, experts in not attracting attention, who were expecting the towers to be hit.”
The purported 911 hijackers were not exactly adept at practicing tradecraft. Getting lapdances at strip clubs, drinking shots at bars and getting speeding tickets is not keeping a low profile.
I think its plausible that Israeli intelligence was conducting surveillance on Islamic terrorists in the US. After all, didn’t the ADL get cited for this as well? They may well have determined that witholding info from US intelligence and allowing the attack to proceed would have political benefits for Israel. There was a large scale Israeli effort to penetrate federal offices across the US in the year preceding the attack. This could have been a distraction. Additionally, it was even reported in the NY Times that the uncle of one of the 911 hijackers was an Israeli intelligence asset in Lebanon.
I agree that further investigation of 9/11 might be warranted, but I don’t think it would show Israeli involvement. Maybe foreknowledge, but probably not involvement.
I was most convinced by the “9/11 Debunked” videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4
The Holocaust, on the other hand – there is overwhelming evidence to show that there was NO plan to genocide the Jews, there were NO gas chambers, and there were NO 6 million dead Jews. Despite that evidence, the hoax is their greatest weapon of mass indoctrination.
You’re missing the point, would those 5 Israelis have reacted that way to 9/11 if they had been expecting it to happen.
The fact that the initially proposed chair of the 911 Commission was Henry Kissinger, that Phillip Zelikow was on the Bush Transition team and co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice, that commission member Jamie Gorelick was responsible for some of the actions under investigation should be enough to convince even the most comatose American that this was not an investigation it was an effort to construct a narrative that would, exonerate those in charge, provide a good story the the sheeple and provide justification for even more military adventures abroad and restictions of the dwindling freedoms at home.
Note also that Lee Hamilton was a co-chair. That is a giveaway that this was a coverup. Hamilton is a utility infielder for this type of duty that requires a “bi-partisan” appearance.
“…would those 5 Israelis have reacted that way to 9/11 if they had been expecting it to happen.”
Yes, if they were so arrogant to believe or have been told that they would be “untouchable” in the US? After all who would believe that such actions were possible by “our good friend and ally, Israel”? Did you also know that they are the only democracy in the middle east? are you some kind of anti-semite?
“You’re missing the point, would those 5 Israelis have reacted that way to 9/11 if they had been expecting it to happen.”
Yes, actually, since the mission is accomplished.
‘Yes, if they were so arrogant to believe or have been told that they would be “untouchable” in the US”
Yeah, making a public spectacle of themselves celebrating the operation is standard procedure for Mossad agents, especially the ones in foreign countries as part of a fiendishly complicated plan to commit mass murder.
“Yeah, making a public spectacle of themselves celebrating the operation is standard procedure for Mossad agents, especially the ones in foreign countries as part of a fiendishly complicated plan to commit mass murder.”
The rat-crafty, way-too-perfectly-timed, insurance-juggling financial gymnastics of mudcrawler Larry Silverstein, a veritable octopus of Israeli connectivity, is enough to establish key Jewish/Israeli involvement in the increasingly transparent 9/11 conspiracy. “Pull it!” indeed – the vicious little sneak was obviously counting his gigashekels from square one.
Add to that the van full of dancing, jubilant Israeli circus monkeys, the frank “good-for-Israel” admissions of Bibi Netanyahu, US involvement in multiple bloody anti-Islamic wars, tens of trillions of free bailout money to Jewish International bankers and their investment houses under Hank “Vulture” Paulson’s threat of martial law against the US Congress, and the way the PATRIOT Act set us up with our very own Stalinesque Mossad branch office called “DHS” (complete with ADL “partnership”) and even an “Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism” (SEAS), and Israeli guilt is a dead lock. “Cui bono?” never had it so easy.
Why don’t you pusillanimous egg-walking anti-truther pipsqueaks slap yourselves in your simpering punims, empty out your smelly underpants, and get a whiff of reality for a change? Trust me, it will be a load off your quivering little chests.
Perhaps a good way to approach the subject of the conspiracy theory mindset is to study closely Vincent Bugliosi’s 1600+ page, 1,535,791-word book about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?
@ “I’m afraid this is very dangerous ground for Dr. MacDonald to be associated with…” Jeff Maylor
@ “I think you called it wrong, Kevin. Pointing to real conflicts of interest is one thing, conspiracy theories are something else.” – Daybreaker
@ “Kevin, 9/11 conspiracy theories are idiotic, and bunk. Please do not sabotage this great project, TOO, by catering to loons. What is being done every day to Europe and America in terms of mass immigration is far worse for us than 9/11, and the focus should be on that. Consider removing this entry ASAP at the very least, or the smearathons against you, and against White nationalism, will include this discrediting factoid as a permanent fixture.” – Kent
Ditto. Real conspiracies such as the Lincoln assassination, Watergate or Iran-Contra always come up to the surface as uncontroversial historical happenings. Imaginary conspiracies such as the US government’s Hangar 14 hiding UFOs or the JFK assassination don’t. In 1994 I assisted a conference of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Claims of the Paranormal about both Hangar 14’s “UFOs” & the JFK conspiracy theory. Carl Sagan himself attended it. Fascinating…
May I recommend OO readers to approach conspiracy theories from the POV of deep psychology, what psychiatrist Silvano Arieti called “paleologic thought”. OK, it’s pretty complex (cf. the first six chapters of my online book The Return of Quetzalcoatl). In a nutshell I would say that what we are dealing with 9/11 truthers is more than a logical fallacy: a “psychological fallacy” of the pre-Aristotelic (“schizoid”) stage of the human psyche.
The paleologician confuses the physical world with the psychological one. Instead of finding a physical explanation for an event, he looks for a personal motivation as the cause of prosaic events. Just as the primitive man, in a definitive breakdown of the Aristotelian superstructure, for the disturbed individual (or the conspiracy believer) the world turns itself animist; each external event having a profound meaning. There are no coincidences for those who inhabit the world of magical thinking. Both the primitive animist and the modern schizoid (or the conspiracy theorist) live in distinct dimensions compared to the rational man. The conceptualization of external happenings as impersonal physical forces requires a more advanced level of cognition than seeing them as personal agents. Arieti wrote: “If the [Homeric] Greeks are afflicted by epidemics, it is because Phoebus wants to punish Agamemnon. Paranoiacs and paranoids interpret almost everything as manifesting a psychological intention or meaning. In many cases practically everything that occurs is interpreted as willed by the persecutors of the patient.”
Willed by the internal persecutors of the truthers may apply here too. IMHO the heavy reading of both Bugliosi’s perfect paradigm of a conspiracy theory—so thoroughly debunked by Bugliosi himself—along with Arieti’s treatise, which in the middle 1970s won the National Book Award, explains why otherwise intelligent anti-Semites relapse into tribal magical thinking when dealing with the very real and thorny JQ. Kent’s advice to remove this entry ASAP might not be over the top. Now that I am reading Albert Lindemann’s academic treatise I see that even a Jew is starting to recognize that anti-Semitism may not be as irrational as the PC world maintains it to be!
We don’t need to build our edifice on the shaky grounds of paleologic conspiracy thought.
The government would have us believe a handful of low-IQ Muslims pulled off something this big. Seems implausible to me, always has.
“First WTC1 than WTC2 were closed down on successive weekends in the month before 911, including turning off the security cameras, for “maintenance.” These closing were unusual in the sense that even backup electricity was down, requiring the companies to back off data off site, restart systems, etc. This is well attested by a number of witnesses.”
I find this immensely troubling, if it is true.
Eurodele said
“‘Cui bono?’ never had it so easy.”
Good post.
Kent said:
“Consider removing this entry ASAP at the very least”
In other words, you want Kevin to pull it?
‘So if they knew about it in advance, then it is not much of a leap to suppose that they went further and made sure that the attack would be a success. I am not concluding that this is what happened, only arguing that it should be investigated by an impartial commission.’
Being the world authority on the Jews’ destruction of White society may have the occupational hazard that you start to think they could be behind everything that works to their advantage (or maybe it’s just that this post is part of a Machiavellian strategy beyond my understanding.)
I think your unparalleled knowledge of Jewish culpability is giving you an exaggerated idea of their capabilities. A certain style of thinking that came up with the perspective that led to the theory in CoC is not any guide to 9/11, the Liberty, or Stalins death; please don’t go the Revilo Oliver route.
Someday, all your elaborate theories and presumed motivations – not to mention the snark – are wholly irrelevant to the evidence presented in the article, the admitted fabrications in the 911 Commission Report, and the question of Israeli culpability in the 911 attacks.
Assuming you have read the 911 Commission Report, do you agree with the conclusions?
Israel got away with it in the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty and Jonathan Pollard (except for Pollard himself and they are working on that). They are not supermen. But they are indeed arrogant.
Chechar: “Perhaps a good way to approach the subject of the conspiracy theory mindset is to study closely Vincent Bugliosi …”
Nonsense. The way to study conspiracy theory is through game theory, as practiced since the Cold War by think tanks from RAND and the Brookings Institute through PNAC and scores of other organizations, e.g. the CIA, NSA, DHS, and other official masters of skullduggery who are IN THE CONSPIRACY BUSINESS. That’s what they do all the time, 24/7, with our money, whether or not we give them permission. They do it very seriously, with every intention of applying their calculations, and they get a lot of practice at it. That’s how they make a living.
In game theory – that’s a theory of mathematics, by the way, as opposed to an academic repository of neo-Freudian quackery – only one question matters to these people: is a given move or position “rational”? That is, can it be tweaked, its gain be maximized and risk minimized so that it becomes a winning proposition for the player in all (or most) probable futures as the game unfolds?
In the case of 9/11, the answer was clearly yes. The potential gain to Israel was huge, as I’ve already explained above. The only question is, was Israel in a position to minimize the risk?
In the minds of highly placed Israelis, the answer was almost certainly yes. With a mere cry of “Anti-Semitism!”, Israel and its watchdogs such as the ADL can effortlessly silence, marginalize, and end the career of virtually anyone who dares criticize them. Israel has scores of ruthless black operatives, in and out of the Mossad, who do its bidding without question. Its spies crawl all over the US, its telephone lines, its websites. It has infiltrated virtually every aspect of our lives. It owns the US Congress, the US Judiciary, the US education system, and the US media. In Europe, Canada, and Australia, it can even have people sent to prison for criticizing it!
So you see, in the game-theoretical prospectus of Israel, 9/11 was such a winning proposition that it must have appeared absolutely irresistible to them.
Do you understand how it all works yet?
Someday: “Being the world authority on the Jews’ destruction of White society may [cause you to] think they could be behind everything that works to their advantage.”
Exactly!
Someday: “I think your unparalleled knowledge of Jewish culpability is giving you an exaggerated idea of their capabilities.”
Not really. After all, we all know what their capabilities are: less than 3% of the American population has hijacked the entire country and its government. That’s pretty impressive!
Once you reveal yourself to be that good at something, why complain when people give you all the credit you so royally deserve?
Among many other things, Chechar wrote, “Carl Sagan himself attended it.”
There is damn little certainty to be had in this vale of tears, but one thing I am certain of is that I was not the only one who lost all confidence in the bus driver when he heard Chechar making that announcement.
On page 172 of my copy of the 911 Report (Yes I have actually read it) it says that “The origin of the funds used by the attackers was never determined. Ultimately, this is of little practical significance…” Now wouldn’t you think that the origin of the funds would logically point to the culpable party(ies)? Wouldn’t this knowledge be more than of little “practical significance”? If this is the case, why enact all the extensive laws that track financial transactions we are subject to?
Is it possible that knowing this information or at least revealing this information might have been hazardous to somebodies interests?
The gross psychologizing seen here is astounding. Calling those who list facts crazy? It astounds- it is amazing that you think you could gain any traction. Viewers can see the calm, reasoned listing of facts. Assertions are offered about the mental health of those who list provable facts.
It must be that in the bad old days these ad hominems worked- just say tin-foil and you’re home free. The public could never hear the other side. But now the public can see who has arguments, and who has name-calling. The name-callers are exposing themselves, but they don’t seem to see that.
I have no problem with the idea that israel was involved at some level with these crimes. However, I must repeat my position of an earlier post; that only a few people in the world have the expertise and experience to pull off multiple building implosions of this magnitude. Again, I point out the fact that CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INC. (CDI), the foremost pioneer in this field, was the company contracted to clean up the debris at both the WTC site and the MURRAH BUILDING at Oaklahoma City. Controlled demolition leaves distinct signatures on building superstructures that cannot have been missed by the experts who planned the clean-up/salvage operations at both locations.
“Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism”
I thought this might be hyperbole. But no, it actually exists.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/seas/
A slight qualification – Kevin’s speculation of Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks or even assistance through a cut-out is not an impossible scenario. However what is being suggested by Lonaker goes far beyond that. Saying that Israeli (or even US!) agents may have blown up the WTC is not a credible position for a White advocate.
I simply don’t believe that the Israelis would ever think they could pull it off; you may think they’re ten feet tall but they know better.
Nor would they dream of trying anything remotely that risky unless their backs were to the wall. And for all their bleating Israel was, and is, totally secure.
“Nor would they dream of trying anything remotely that risky unless their backs were to the wall. And for all their bleating Israel was, and is, totally secure.”
If only the owners of Israel were satisfied with Israel alone!
But of course, they’re not, and never have been.
Even if they thought they’d got away with it there would no way to know what the effect on the US economy would be o 9/11. It could have easily have caused a recession or depression led to the kind of populist political movements that Jews fear above all else. And Israel would be risking it’s trump card of Jewish power over US policymaking for what exactly?
The label “Conspiracy Theory” was first used as a derogatory, abusive and contemptuous epithet to discredit doubters of the Warren Commission Report on the assination of John Kennedy. Since that time the phrase has been employed times without number- and always in a negative context- to the point that it’s use in any discussion might be taken as evidence of successful brainwashing in the person using the term. I am dismayed at the number of times this poison pill has been employed in this conversation. If your motives are plumb, square and level, find a more benign tag for your observations. This one is a weapon of your enemies.
27 archived threads about 9/11’s conspiracy theories in Wikipedia… and the result of that mammoth exchange is that the lead paragraph is skeptical of the POV of conspiracy theorists.
I have years of experience editing the wiki. While I concede that it’s run by nasty, anti-white, far-left liberals, on the other hand the Wiki articles that debunk the paranormal and extraordinary claims are quite good (I know this because with other skeptical editors I was heavily involved in a Wiki article on an extreme subject: Satanic Ritual Abuse).
Occam’s razor makes rational people skeptical of both the paranormal and *any* conspiracy theory, at least in the sense of saying that Israeli and/or US agents may have blown up the WTC.
Checar, Occam’s razor shows the exact opposite – instead of a loosely organized conspiracy of hundreds or thousands of widely dispersed radical Muslims defeating the world’s only super-power’s high tech defenses with civilian planes, the theory will the least moving parts is that an intelligence agency was the culprit.
You continued attempts to discuss the “paranormal” and to shift the debate away from the facts surrounding 911 to the supposed psychological defects of dissidents is patently obvious.
We have a collection of facts and evidence from 911. Those facts and evidence do not support the 911 Commission Report, and the 911 Commissioners themselves agree there was a “cover up” and an “obstruction.”
It’s the POV of the Israelis I am talking about. Even if they’d thought they’d get away with it there was no way to know what the effect of 9/11 on the US economy would be. It could have easily have caused a recession or depression and led to the kind of populist political movements that Jews fear above all else.
And this gigantic gamble would be for … what?
“Nor would they dream of trying anything remotely that risky unless their backs were to the wall. And for all their bleating Israel was, and is, totally secure.”
I’m skeptical of the controlled demolition hypothesis for reasons I’ve given before. It’s not clear to me what would be gained beyond what would be achieved if the hijackings were successful. And if they were not successful, how would bringing the towers down by explosives be explained? Why even carry out the hijackings?
However, I do believe that Israel is run by those with a paranoid mindset. They are all collected in a small geographic region with no natural resources, surrounded by nations whose land they illegally occupy as well as a declining demographic position. I think such a paranoid mindset makes actions we would consider brazen or even reckless within the realm of serious consideration. That is why they jealously guard their nuclear monopoly. A previous post put the JFK assassination “conspiracy theory” was put in the same category as UFOs and Bigfoot. However, JFK was very determined to put an end to Israels nuclear program. His efforts led to the resignation of the Israeli government. I think such an existential threat was more likely to lead to JFK’s assassination than eliminating the oil depletion allowance. Perhaps Jack Rubenstein was performing a duty rather than sparing Jackie from testifying at a trial.
Pace Someday, the days when organized Jewish interests feared “populist political movements” are long dead and buried. Every feature of modern-day political, economic, and even social and cultural life bespeaks the solipsism and egomania of the people who rule it. They scorn to conceal any longer their contempt for the great, foolish masses of enfeebled Americans and Europeans in whose confiscated societies they advance their agenda of self-glorification and universal hegemony.
These deep defects of character are not now appearing for the first time in history, of course. They thought their effective rule of Islamic Spain would never end, and 1,460 years earlier, they thought they could destroy forever first the despised and rejected Man foretold by Isaiah, then the transformation of human history He brought, and finally the followers His life and teaching engendered both within their own nation and in the larger world.
Their egomania and loathing for others undid them on those earlier occasions. It will undo them again. It’s simply a matter of time.
Not that we shouldn’t all work at hastening the day!
Someday: “Even if they thought they’d got away with it there would no way to know what the effect on the US economy would be o 9/11. It could have easily have caused a recession or depression led to the kind of populist political movements that Jews fear above all else. And Israel would be risking it’s trump card of Jewish power over US policymaking for what exactly?”
The economy, which is controlled by international banking houses through their financial leverage over smaller banks, corporations, and governments, is rigged to the advantage of those who run it. When the economy is running well, they profit; when the economy is not running well, they profit even more. For example, during the Great Depression, the banks made a very great deal of profit as they reeled in the collateral of bankrupt individual Americans and large corporations alike. It was a great wealth transfer for them; a sizable percentage of our real property, including much of the national commons, ended up in their hands. (This is why so many people are now up in arms regarding the US Federal Reserve; they have awakened to the fact that its owners have been self-dealing and robbing the nation blind ever since it was established.)
So why, given that Zionists like the Rothschilds have been in undisputed charge of the International banking system for the last two centuries – and by the way, that’s their corporate symbol on the Israeli flag, with nothing more than a color change – would they risk it all?
Obviously, because they could in fact LOWER their long-term risk by turning the US into a police state in which their opposition can be quickly and efficiently leashed and muzzled before it can get off the ground. As long as the US was free, it was a wild card; it remained possible that its citizens would grow enraged, expel the bankers, and take back their stolen property, as certain US Presidents from Jackson through Lincoln and Kennedy made bold moves to accomplish (and for which they paid the price). But if the Zio-bankers could turn the US into a locked-down Zio-flunkey police state, this threat could be neutralized!
As we now know with hindsight, their plan has been wildly successful. Thanks to 9/11 and the Patriot Act, the big banks have been able to extort trillions of dollars from US taxpayers in coverage for worthless derivatives with minimal fear of violent revolution. Under the PATRIOT Act and similarly treasonous orders, the US Government – which, as we now know, is owned and controlled by the Zio-bankers themselves – has unprecedented power to suppress the dissent and civil unrest that would otherwise follow the economic turmoil sure to be caused by their ruthless financial predation, including the deepening depression now in progress.
Meanwhile, the Zio-bankers – for whom Israel is merely a political tool – have consolidated their control over a supreme engine of military conquest capable of crushing their enemies and propelling them to world supremacy, exactly as they have been promising themselves through their religion for the last several millennia. As we can plainly see, they have already used it to release a river of blood which they are even now in the process of widening. (Can everyone spell “Iran”?)
I hope this helps answer your question.
“It could have easily have caused a recession or depression and led to the kind of populist political movements that Jews fear above all else.”
The flight training materials ostensibly used by Atta and the gang were conveniently left in the trunk of their rental car which was found at the airport. There would be no question who precipitated 9/11 and any subsequent economic collapse.
A big issue for Truthers are the inconsistencies and contradictions in the various 911 reports. I can only assume they have never been involved in reporting on any large scale event. When you are dealing with thousands of people and the collapse of two major buildings, with multiple federal and local agencies, there will be contradictions in the reports. That is not evidence of a conspiracy. Even in financial reporting, there are similar problems for performing an audit for say, Exxon. There will be discrepancies and basically a certain number of them are accepted. So finding a mismatch in the 911 reports simply proves that a mismatch occurred, not that shape-shifting reptiles from another dimension have landed the mothership underwater and are directing all world events with telepathic power. M’kay?
“So finding a mismatch in the 911 reports simply proves that a mismatch occurred, not that shape-shifting reptiles from another dimension have landed the mothership underwater and are directing all world events with telepathic power. M’kay?”
I was listening to you, Jeff, on the off chance that perhaps you had a persuasive case, until you started with the old, well-discredited by KMac, tactic of mocking sincere, thoughtful truth-seekers as delusional.
No one with substantive arguments in the 9-11 Truth movement argues that shape-shifting reptiles from another dimension have landed the mothership underwater and are directing all world events with telepathic power. Only YOU fantasize that they think so. Or if you don’t think so, then your sole purpose here must to distract and disrupt, lest the (detrimental to your Tribe?) truth come out.
Kindly go away and stop wasting KMac’s bandwidth.
Pierre de Craon says:
Literally all the C-SPAN broadcast’s participants were in agreement—referring to widely available mainstream-media pieces explaining that air-to-ground cellular communication is virtually impossible under any circumstances, among other bits of telling evidence—that all or almost all the stories were hoaxes and that the folks telling them (most famously Ted Olson, a prominent multiple-administration Justice Department appointee) were flat-out liars.
Ok, here is yet another example of the Truther logic. I know for a fact that cell phones work in the air, because I have used them in small aircraft myself. The major reason cell phone use is prohibited in America is fear it would interfere with navigational equipment. Now it is legal to use cell phones in Europe and will probably become legal in the US soon. And to anticipate objections, yes European planes do have special antenna to improve the quality of the call. But rest assured, it is possible to make cell calls from the air. In fact, instead of trying spin conspiracy theories, just go ask a pilot! Seriously, go ask one. Geez, did it ever occur to you that 911 Truthers might have their own agenda?
Take a look at one of the videos debunking the allegations made against cell phone calls. And remember, they are accusing hundreds of people who lost loved ones on 911 of being liars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z96MZOZyilo&feature=related
“Geez, did it ever occur to you that 911 Truthers might have their own agenda?”
But…but…wouldn’t that be a *conspiracy theory*?!!
(Now, what’s all this inane babbling about cell phones, when they’ve barely been mentioned here if at all?)
Eurodele, it seems like you are making a lot of Zio-assertions without a lot of Zio-facts behind them. You know there are many events that happen in the world that have nothing to do with Jews. Chinese civilization has been around for thousands of years without benefit of Jewish controllers. The Mayans never heard of them.
The great value of Dr. MacDonald’s work is that it has taken the concern over Jewish influence from the land of superstition and folklore into the land of science. It can be explained in terms of group conflict and evolution not old wives’ tales. In fact, as I believe MacDonald has pointed out, Jews have often seized upon silly conspiracy theories and wild tales to discredit all whom raise serious concerns about Jewish influence. Powerful Jews love to portray their enemies as believers in “blood libel” for example. If they can convince people that those who question Jewish influence are people who think Jews drink Christian baby blood for dinner, than they will have won. Jews are neither sub-human animals nor super-human demons (nor angels that are the light of the world, as some of them may believe). They are simply normal human beings with certain traits that are typical for their population. They have tremendous influence in banking, finance, law, politics and other areas where their form of intelligence tends to flourish, and due to their evolutionary group strategy, this tends to bring them into conflict with the larger population that hosts them.
Eurodele, if you think the babbling about cell phones is inane, than direct your comments to Pierre de Craon who brought it up, or to the Truthers that make a big deal out of it. And if the whole issue is inane – which it is – what do you make of the 911 Truthers for constantly bring it up while defaming the loved ones who lost children on 911? Honestly, have the 911 Truthers no shame? Those are real mothers and wives that have lost sons, daughters and husbands, and you all blithefully call them liars.
“You know there are many events that happen in the world that have nothing to do with Jews.”
OK.
“They are simply normal human beings with certain traits that are typical for their population. They have tremendous influence in banking, finance, law, politics and other areas where their form of intelligence tends to flourish, and due to their evolutionary group strategy, this tends to bring them into conflict with the larger population that hosts them.”
Alright then. So I take it we can assume that there are many events that happen in the world that DO have something to do with Jews, and that many of them involve banking, finance, law, politics and other fields which tend to determine the course of world events, as opposed to which side of their bagels get the cream cheese in the morning?
It’s of note that none of the anti-911 truth posters have even attempted to defend the “official story” in the 911 Commission Report, and have so far avoided referencing it at all.
Instead, it’s simply an attack on various “conspiracy theories” – some thought up by the very same “debunkers” – and all sorts of speculations.
In case anyone hasn’t actually read the “official story” in the 911 Commission Report (even at this late date) don’t worry, they helpfully provided a comic book version:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809057387/sr=8-2/qid=1154708925/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-7132035-3764667?ie=UTF8
Every time I go and look at some new assertion by Truthers it turns out to be spurious – and often malicious. Take building 7. Here is a video that debunks that myth. Oh and by the way, I keep hearing from Truthers that “the towers looked like a controlled demolition because of the way it fell straight down vertically”. Well guess what, buildings are now designed to do just that. In case of hurricanes or earthquakes, they want buildings to collapse vertically, if possible, to minimize damage to nearby by buildings. Also, the physics of the building make it more likely to collapse downward. They don’t topple over like in the old Godzilla movies. Again, fellas, why not go ask someone who does construction for a living, someone who knows how buildings are actually built and how they fall down. You know, do some real investigation if you have honest doubts. Of course, the sad truth is that Truthers are like believers in UFOs. These theories will be circulating 20 years from now. The key is for us not to be associated with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8
It’s of note that none of the anti-911 truth posters have even attempted to defend the “official story” in the 911 Commission Report, and have so far avoided referencing it at all.
Instead, it’s simply an attack on various “conspiracy theories” – some thought up by the very same “debunkers” – and all sorts of speculations.
In case anyone hasn’t actually read the “official story” in the 911 Commission Report (even at this late date) don’t worry, they helpfully provided a comic book version:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809057387/sr=8-2/qid=1154708925/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-7132035-3764667?ie=UTF8
Optimistic Truther, as a I said, the fact that a report that involves thousands of pages and thousands of people, both living and dead, has some discrepancies is not proof of that the CIA and Israel climbed on the buildings, planted bombs, took remote control of airplanes, shot missles at the buildings, faked the phone calls, enlisted the help of families to carry on a cover up or any of the other silly ideas that Truthers have put forward. You can go look at the audited financial report of any major corporation and find lots of discrepancies. And the fact that agencies try and cover for their own failures or play political games with the report does not mean anything other than that is going on. If the FBI lies about something to protect their image – well that is politics as usual.
Yes, a variation on their tired old tactic of ‘smear the message carrier’ and NEVER try to refute the message by allowing open investigation and questioning of the holes in whichever holey manufactured miracle they are currently foisting on the gullible.
They are doing it all over again right now with Kevin Bracken in Australia for refusing to genuflect at the altar of their 9/11 dogma.
Shouldn’t be long before their bought and paid for traitors in government make 9-11 Denial a thought/speech crime, right up there with their other heresy.
Life under jewish Bolshevik rule has a certain sameness about it, no matter which century or country you are in.
–
Chechar, Oswald got the Secret Service to stand down?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpPjjKdUds
Stand down. Hmmm. Sound familiar?
Optimistic Truther says:
“Please notice that the group of posters who are attacking “911 truthers” using all sorts of various names, “conspiracy theorists” “false step” “discredited” etc.
But none of them have – or likely will – address the fact that the 911 Commission Report has been disowned by its own authors, and that they have publicly stated there was “obstruction” a “cover up” and that they were “lied to.”
It’s not on the “911 truthers” to defend various theories, it’s on the “911 Liars” to defend the 911 Commission Report, against the 911 Commissioners, and all the plain evidence.”
That’s a straw man. You are not merely claiming that there are problems with the report. You are making specific claims that CIA agents, Mossad agents and whoever else were directed by people at the highest levels in government and banking, to go out and put explosives on buildings, take remote control of jet airplanes, fake phone calls, shoot missiles at buildings and a million other things that would have to be done, along with the help necessary from hundreds of accomplices. This would require the involvement of literally thousands of people. Thousands of people from different ethnic backgrounds, many of whom would have no natural reason to trust each other. As we know, most criminal gangs are comprised of only one ethnicity due to trust issues. There are not a lot of multi-racial gangs out there. The Mafia is usually Italian for this reason. So it would be extraordinary indeed if thousands of Whites, Jews, Blacks and Asians had cooperated in this scheme and yet managed to keep their mouths shut about it.
Look, Historysbunkbunkbunk, go talk to some pilots, go talk to some experts in building construction, go talk to an air traffic controller, go talk to engineers and you’ll begin to see how silly the claims are. This is like spreading the equivalent to the notion that Jews have horns and turn into cockroaches at night. It does not promote an educated understanding of Jewish influence. It just provides grist for a future Borat movie.
Jeff Maylor: I claimed no such thing in any of my posts, and nothing in my post you quoted suggests as much.
I also didn’t claim that there are “problems” with the report. I mentioned that the 911 Commissioners themselves said they were lied to, and their investigation was “obstructed.”
The Lonaker article lists a number of facts that the anti-truth crowd has also simply ignored.
While details about 911 are probably not really in the scope of TOO’s general readership, the blatant silencing tactics of the anti-truth crowd – especially when it comes to Israeli complicity – is certainly on-topic here, as well as extremely evident. We have Obama administration officials proposing “cognitively infiltrating” websites that suggest Israel or the US were complicit in 911. If that is not government censorship, what is?
Ok well what “truth” do you claim to be hidden? Everyone has already stated that the Israelis could have known about the attacks before hand and I posted a report that FoxNews carried on it. And I stated it is not impossible they knew of it and lent support, although I have no evidence of that.
But that is not what the Truthers are saying. They make a much stronger claim. So besides stating that political reports like the 911 report are often crappy, what are you saying?
“A big issue for Truthers are the inconsistencies and contradictions in the various 911 reports. ”
This is a true statement. Human perceptions of what happened are imperfect. However, the same could be said about the 9/11 report itself. What is disturbing about the 9/11 report is that it was adverised as the result of a supposed sober, objective look of the evidence.
Jeff Maylor: “So it would be extraordinary indeed if thousands of Whites, Jews, Blacks and Asians had cooperated in this scheme and yet managed to keep their mouths shut about it.”
Jeff, do you always think before you say things like this?
First, a 9/11 conspiracy of the kind being discussed here wouldn’t have required anywhere near a thousand people. At most, it would have required a few dozen major participants and a tiny handful of people in key positions to make clerical exceptions, falsify or destroy records, and schedule maintenance and security activities around the dirty work to keep it from being witnessed or impeded. The whole idea in designing a conspiracy is to minimize the number of people involved and select them for loyalty, reliability, and discretion.
But even if that weren’t possible, where’s the problem?
The Mossad has between one and two thousand employees. When was the last time one of them spilled his/her guts to the press regarding a secret project? The CIA must have at least twenty or thirty times that number; yet when was the last time we had a big spill of classified information from a CIA spook? The CIA hires every race under the sun; does that stop its personnel from cooperating in their secret shenanigans?
What about military intelligence for the various branches of the armed services – any big whistleblowers giving away classified information there? Anyone refusing to work with, say, Blacks or Latinos?
You might try stepping back and reviewing your more controversial claims before hitting the send button.
Eurodele, I reviewed it and still pressed send. If the issue is US involvement in 911, up to and including bringing down the buildings, and then covering up the evidence, and then making it look like Muslims didit, it would involve a large number of people. All of the people we hear crying over their loved ones calling on the phone would have to be lying, as has been asserted by 911 truthers. Unless of course their voices were fabricated by an as yet unknown technology, that is good enough to fool their mothers. So that alone would require people of different ethnic backgrounds.
It is not possible to imagine a scenario were only a few dozen people inside the US gov’t pulled this off alone and pinned it on Arabs and were able to cover it up. You would need the cooperation of a some Muslim or Arab agents as well. Do you remember Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM)? Are people like him not Arabs? What about all the Arabs that went to flight schools? Were they just doing that to make it look like Arabs were involved? Were they all agents of the conspiracy, deliberately working to help Whites and Jews?
And now there have been investigations by the FBI, the CIA, the US military and local police, all of which would need to be have been co-oped in order to make sure they kept quiet about issues they would find.
So are you backing off the claim some truthers have that the US was up there fabricated all the events that took place that day, and saying it was all a Mossad operation?
Israel did 9/11 – ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5367
Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World
http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book
Optimistic Truther I am sure that the government infiltrates all kinds of websites all the time. The FBI has infiltrated organizations for over 70 years. And it has been done for political reasons. None of that proves anything about the 911 Truther claims.
I’m not even sure what the claims are at this point. What exactly is your belief? Do you believe the airplanes were hijacked by Muslim hijackers? Do you believe they were flown into the buildings? Do you not believe that those crashes were the reason the buildings came down? Do you believe people actually called on their cell phones to say goodbye to their loved ones? I mean just on those points, do you disagree with anything?
For any of you idiots here who think that Israel “couldn’t” pull off a terrorist attack like 9/11, you’d better do some basic research and learn that Israel has a long and documented history of carrying out false flag terrorist attacks and blaming them on Arabs.
People like Jeff Maylor will get tired, and people hooked on what Chechar calls paleologic conspiracy thought won’t.
If countenanced as though they were credible, exciting claims without adequate evidence eventually take center space from much milder (but still very important!) claims that can be backed up by normal, well-respected scholarly standards.
As sure as counterfeit money drives out real money, there goes the intellectual neighborhood.
“go talk to some pilots, go talk to some experts in building construction, go talk to an air traffic controller, go talk to engineers”
Good point:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Eurodele, it is true that the CIA has a big staff and is involved in secret operations. However, there is a difference between the secrecy of intelligence agencies and the secrecy of criminal syndicates. Ultimately, the operations of intelligence agencies are legal in their home country. So the agents know they have explicit government support for their actions, and implied support from the population they support. This means you can have a much higher level of trust.
But when it’s criminal activity (meaning an illegal attack on the society in which they live), the need for secrecy is much greater, because if uncovered there would be hell to pay from the people themselves. So a more primal form of trust is needed. That is why the Mafia is Italian, the Triad is Chinese, etc. So yes, you can get a multi-ethnic group to cooperate in secret operations if those operations are sanctioned by the society at large – say operations against the Soviet Union.
But no, it would be much, much harder to secretly carry out a massive deadly attack on the US, using US citizens, if they all came from different ethnic backgrounds. A group of Whites, Asians, and Blacks working together to carry out a secret operation in Afghanistan is one thing, but working to murder thousands of US citizens is quite another.
OK, Kirk, the first thing I find on that “patriots” 911 page is a quote from General Wesley Clark where he states that the administration may have misused some intelligence information. Well so what? He is simply talking about how intelligence may have been misused (and engaging in some everyday partisan politics), he is no way endorsing 911 Truther claims. Not in the slightest. Yet the website tries to use his prestige as a general to give them stature. That’s purposely misleading.
Actually the first thing is a quote by Major General Albert Stubblebine, you missed that I presume.
Clark’s quote isn’t an “endorsement” of anything, it’s just a call that more investigation of 9/11 is needed.
I have come to the conclusion that contributors to this blog who deny, or refuse to look at, the obvious visual evidence of the collapse of the three buildings at the World Trade Center being brought about by controlled demolition, are either living in a state of delusion, or have some kind of axe to grind. The puffs of smoke emanating from various windows preceding the collapse of the buildings, and that are clearly visible from a variety of angles in a number of videos, are called “SQUIBS” in the jargon of professional explosive demolition experts. These “SQUIBS” are the visual evidence of internal explosions taking place inside the building. These relatively small explosions progressively compromise the structural integrity of the structure so that it comes down in a CONTROLLED manner. Watch the videos of the WTC collapses, then look up some films of building demolitions in other places. you will see the “SQUIBS” are identical in a building with a similar structure.
Okie dokie, Kirk, let’s take a look at the first name on that “patriot” list, General Albert Stubblebine. According to wikipedia he is “A proponent of psychic warfare, Stubblebine was involved in a U.S. military project to create “a breed of ‘super soldier’” who would “have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls”
Now isn’t that grand. Just use your psychic power to turn invisible. Damn shame he didn’t finish his work. Coo-coo, coo-coo. Thanks for making me check that out. Isn’t Google a grand thing?
What a minute Kirk! Maybe you are on to something! Maybe the good general successfully created his legion of invisible psychic soldiers and they carried out the 911 attacks! Zio-Psychics! It all makes sense, that is how they were able to plant the bombs unnoticed. Good lord we are doomed!
“According to wikipedia”
According to wikipedia a man “at the heart of America’s military machine” is “coo-coo”? Talk about “conspiracy theories”.
Good job Jeff, now start “debunking” the rest in a similar ad hominem fashion, you’ve got a lot of work to do.
I mentioned above that it’s extremely incriminating that the Israeli agents filming the event obviously had to have had advance KNOWLEDGE of what would take place. It must have been not a mere suspicion, not a gut-feeling, not a speculation, but advance KNOWLEDGE. Most here seem to agree with that, perhaps even including Jeff Maylor. So long as that can slip by the attention of both the sheeple and the wolves that are their so-called protectors, what hope can there be of resolving any of the other issues? If something as glaringly obvious as that can be overlooked, it’s clear that all other pathways will lead into grassy-knoll style arguments that will never go anywhere. The chemistry and physics of high-temperature metallurgic reactions is the province of specialists, but surely even the greatest dullard can appreciate how incriminating it is for Israeli spies to be captured in the act of filming the planes impacting the Towers. One might even go so far as to suppose that most of the brouhaha focused on minutiae only intelligible to experts is a deliberate effort by the conspirators to keep attention off this one element which is so easy for anyone to understand. These Israeli spies, later let go without explanation and allowed to return to Israel by the US government – also very damning – are like a loose thread hanging off the carefully-woven official explanation. Give that thread a tug, and it’s likely the whole threadbare garment of lies will rapidly come unravelled. But unless that can be done, the rest of the case that can be made is meaningless, and will serve mainly to let opponents of further investigation paint the Truthers as conspiracy nuts.
That said, I would like to pose a question to our distinguished group of 9-11 heads we have assembled here. I will preface it with the observation that thermite is an incendiary that is not particularly difficult to make. All it takes is aluminum powder and iron filings, and something to serve as an igniter. It also burns at a temperature quite hot enough to melt steel; in fact, steel cutting is one of its primary uses in industry. On 9-11 it is beyond dispute that two very large masses of aluminum crashed into two of the Towers, the support members of which consisted largely of iron. Therefore, the question is, isn’t it at least possible that whatever thermite considered necessary to explain the fall of the towers was generated “naturally”, as a by-product of having great masses of molten aluminum in contact with the iron of the support members for hours, a thermitic reaction ignited perhaps by acrid by-products of the fire, or even the fire itself? I’ve never seen this possibility mentioned by anyone. I would think that Steve Jones would have considered it if only to discard it. Anyone know for sure?
Kirk, go look at the Wikipedia page. They didn’t say he was a coo-coo, that was my comment. They did point out his interest in parapsychology and the use of psychics that could turn themselves invisible. If you research him, he has been known as an enthusiastic supporter of occult and new age practices. You can find this information from other than Wikipedia.
He goes on Alex Jones and believes “they” are about to wipe out 9 out of 10 humans. Whatever his accomplishments in the past are, I think (hope?) you will agree he has become a strange bird.
I am afraid that if I went through every last name on their list, they would almost all turn out to have issues.
@ Der Weibe Engle: How would your theory explain the collapse of building 7, which was not hit by masses of aluminium? This is getting silly.
The Army itself was interested in parapsychic research back then, during the Cold War. That’s irrelevant to his personal field of expertise (Photo Intelligence) and his professional opinion on the photos of the Pentagon hit by an “airplane”.
Please do go through the other officers, engineers, pilots, scientists etc. Use your google magic. Who knows, maybe you’ll discover they all part of a …ee..hmm…conspiracy to tease you with unpleasant thoughts.
But I’m afraid you won’t, because that’s how the anti-”conspiratorial” tactics work: stay off the actual issues, focus on a peculiarity, fret about a particularity, raise doubts about the integrity, composure, mental state of selected individuals. Now generalise. There you have it, “conspiracy theories debunked”.
Yes, Der weiße Engel even Jeff Maylor (me) agrees that it is suspicious that Israelis appear to have been caught filming the towers. I think it deserves more investigation, and Fox did carry a 4 part story on it but nothing else recently. And of course ABC carried a report on it. Now that does suggest one thing: If the upper power structure of the US, including the media were fully involved in a 911 conspiracy, that story would have never aired in the first place. Surely Murdoch is part of any big power structure.
The fact that pressure came to bear to stop covering the stories suggests that it was the typical Jewish desire to protect the image of Israel and Jews in general.
Now I would remind all the Truthers out there that all we need prove is that Israel knew. If it were ever known to the general public that Israel knew of the attacks beforehand and withheld that information, they would be cooked. But if you notice the Truthers (not here but in general) are more interested in blaming the US – NOT Israel.
Ok, Kirk, so what really happened at the Pentagon? There was no airplane crash there? Then what really happened?
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
Well, it’s obvious isn’t it. A bunch of arabs after training for a few months on Cessnas, managed to manoeuvre a 757 jet onto the building, sadly leaving very few remainders of it behind. Elementary, dear Jeff.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
Maylor presents a number of logical fallacies, including denying the antecedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
For example, he implicitly presents this invalid syllogism, among others:
If the cell phone calls were faked, then the government lied about 9/11.
The cell phone calls were not faked.
Therefore, the government did not lie about 9/11.
This fallacy leads to Maylor’s unfounded implication that all 9/11 “conspiracy theories” (apparently defined as any disagreement with the government’s theory) are false and can be derogated under the detestable title of “truther.”
Maylor said:
“They have tremendous influence in banking, finance, law, politics and other areas where their form of intelligence tends to flourish, and due to their evolutionary group strategy, this tends to bring them into conflict with the larger population that hosts them.”
Having the host group go to war for one’s enemies based on tricking the population, costing the host much of its youth and money, could also be viewed as a group evolutionary strategy.
Other possible group strategies include requiring the host to deepen its debt to one’s agent banks to pay for those wars, and influencing mainstream media to avoid public awareness of (a) the tower destruction physics contradicting the official story, (b) the many extra explosions reported by hundreds and that collapsed a tower lobby onto firemen’s heads before either tower came down, and (c) reports of nanothermite found in the dust.
If the media are so sure of the official story, they should welcome a full and independent investigation of these issues. Surely they’d find it was al-Qaeda who obtained military grade nanothermite and placed it in the buildings, right?
As Kevin MacDonald said, “The question, as always, is: What do they have to hide?”
Seriously, Kirk, what happened at the Pentagon? You might be surprised to know that training in a Cessna does give you a few skills that can be used to aim an aircraft. The landing is the hardest part, but obviously the hijackers weren’t concerned with a safe landing.
But again, what happened really at the Pentagon?
|
9/11 Missing Links:
http://www.prothink.org/911-2
|
“training in a Cessna does give you a few skills that can be used to aim an aircraft”
I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force (taken from the aforementioned site)
Are you a pilot, Jeff?
As for the “what happened really” question, now THAT would be conspiratorial to assume without evidence.
The issue here is whether what they tell us happened did and could in fact happen.
Der weiße Engel said:
“[I]sn’t it at least possible that whatever thermite considered necessary to explain the fall of the towers was generated “naturally”, as a by-product of having great masses of molten aluminum in contact with the iron of the support members for hours, a thermitic reaction ignited perhaps by acrid by-products of the fire, or even the fire itself?”
Harrit and colleagues reported that the unreacted thermitic material found in the dust appears specially engineered and ignites at 430 degrees C.
They note at http://bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm that “[n]umerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
The size, highly organized arrangement, and intimate mixing of iron oxide grains and aluminum “plates” in the chips rules out the possibility of spontaneous formation of the chips from the plane crash alone.
From http://bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm
“The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material.”
From http://bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
“The red material is … composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper. …
“As measured using DSC [differential scanning calorimetry], the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite. …
“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Rob Lonaker, that is not the argument that I gave. I am looking at the evidence that 911 Truthers put forward. That’s it. You seem to forget that you are the one making a claim and therefore the onus is on you to present evidence. When evidence turns out to be false, well that hurts your argument … don’t you think? I am not making some bizarre claim that the government is incapable of lying, I am stating that this particular claim is false. And I am saying that so far every claim seems to be false and the whole story becomes incredible the more you think about it. But again, it is up to you (or them) to prove it.
I have never said or implied that disagreeing with the government constitutes an unfounded conspiracy theory. People disagree with the government on all sorts of issues and so do I. I’d love to see the Fed audited and I’d love to know exactly what FDR knew before Pearl Harbor.
And yes, all sorts of events could be part of the Jewish evolutionary group strategy (consciously and unconsciously) but that doesn’t prove anything in a particular case. It’s just a general statement. If you want to prove a particular case there needs to be credible evidence for it.
By the way, I assume, that you agree that the claim the cell phone calls were faked is false. You agree the phone calls were real?
As for the thermite, this counter argument seems pretty convincing:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Kirk, I do know something about aviation without going into details, but I don’t pilot 757s. However, look at Russ Wittenberg’s statement. The actual process of moving the controls around is easy. You learn all about altitude indicators and directional gyros in training. And with flight simulator you can learn quite a bit about glass cockpits. The flight dynamics and instrumentation of Flight Simulator are actually pretty good. Once you know how to move any plane around the sky you have some idea how to all planes around — note I said move around in a rough fashion, not properly take off and land. As far as exceeding the speed limit, well why is that amazing? What would you expect with an inexperienced pilot? All you have to do to exceed speed limits is push the nose down enough.
So that guy is just making some general speculative statements but it doesn’t prove anything. I have never heard pilots in general say there was anything impossible about 911, and I know a few.
I guess he knows a little more than your something about aviation.
In any case, you are “pretty convinced” already so what’s the point really in continuing this.
The rest can read what all those pilots say about whether this thing could be pulled off the way they told us it happened.
Jeff Maylor, I have not studied the cell phone argument much, so I can’t judge its merits.
Certainly, many ideas about 9/11 are false, including that aliens did it. But those false ideas are not essential components of the main idea that the official story is false.
I’m fully ready to accept that the phone calls (via air phone or cell phone) were real, or not. I don’t care. It does nothing to affect the main problem: the physics of the towers’ destruction show the official story to be false.
For example, you cite a number of such nonessential ideas, none of which need be true or false in order for there to have been a controlled demolition:
1. General Stubblebine is kooky. (I don’t know him, but let’s grant this.)
2. Buildings are designed to go down straight. (Agreed.)
3. Whites, Jews, Blacks and Asians couldn’t cooperate in this scheme and yet manage “to keep their mouths shut about it.” (False, if they were select agents, but who says any more than one of these ethnic groups was used?)
4. US citizens wouldn’t want to murder thousands of their own. (Agreed, but my article does not suggest US citizens did anything of the sort.)
5. “CIA and Israel climbed on the buildings, planted bombs … shot missiles at the buildings, faked the phone calls, enlisted the help of families to carry on a cover up.” (All nonessential things. No need for any agent to place explosives, if those explosives were concealed in common items. See the Hoffman article I quoted above. No need for CIA to participate.)
I have not had time to read the entire article you linked about thermite, but it appears to focus on the column angle cuts. Another red herring, nonessential to the argument that nanothermite was used. The direct evidence we have is reported in the paper by Harrit et al.
I would love to be wrong about this. Will you support a new investigation, including an examination of the nanothermite found in the tower dust, so we can settle the issue?
Rob Lonaker, oh yes, more investigations are fine. I would hope that civil engineers continue to study 911 in order to build safer buildings.
With regard to thermite – nanothermite – or superthermite, what Harrit and Jones need to do is present their findings before an audience of qualified scientists and debate their proofs in an open forum, not focus on impressing laymen who don’t know a therm from a mite. Unlike the social sciences, an actual demonstration of the truth tends to get a lot more positive reaction.
In fact, I feel pretty sure that there are magazines like Skeptics and others that would love to deal with this issue, if they have something real. Since they are making a high technical argument it needs to be directed to others with the necessary technical knowledge. Why would they even want to impress laymen at this point?
…the gentleman doeth protest too much, methinks….
Just notice the language used by the “debunkers”
“CIA and Israel climbed on the buildings, planted bombs”
Of course, no one “climbs” “on” a skyscraper. People use the elevator, or stairs. But the tactic of the “debunkers” is to create a fanciful “conspiracy theory” then challenge others to “prove” it.
The 911 “conspiracy theory” is the 911 Commission Report, which has been “debunked” by its very own authors. That is a pretty wild “conspiracy theory” itself, yet the “debunkers” do not defend it, merely assume that the 911 Commission Report is the “default position” merely because the government said so.
The burden of proof is on those defending the official 911 Conspiracy Theory, which is the 911 Commission Report. They can’t defend it, because it is false, so they simply try to shift debate.
The real story here is silencing and propaganda tactics used by those defending the government, and the fact that government officials have proposed “cognitive infiltration” of groups that do not accept the government story.
Here’s another:
“the fact that a report that involves thousands of pages and thousands of people, both living and dead, has some discrepancies”
Again, the assumption here is that the 911 Commission Report is mostly true, while granting some “discrepancies.” The 911 Commissioners use words like “obstruction” and “cover up.”
I’m curious if anyone is familiar with the Comic Book Version of the 911 Commission Report I linked above, and if they feel like that is a “mostly true” representation of the events of 911.
Jeff: “In fact, I feel pretty sure that there are magazines like Skeptics and others that would love to deal with this issue, if they have something real.”
…that is, aside from possible conflicts of interest between their (Jewish or Jewish-allied) owners and those in favor of honest investigation, given the most likely answer to the question of “cui bono?”
Jeff: “Since they are making a high technical argument it needs to be directed to others with the necessary technical knowledge. Why would they even want to impress laymen at this point?”
Of course, they would “want to impress laymen” because popular opinion can lead to popular dissent, popular unrest, and popular uprisings inimical to the interests of the true culprits. On the other hand, it can also help silence any questioners by subjecting them to mass ridicule.
Come on, Jeff. Just try being objective and humoring the notion that conspiracies exist in high places (because, as game theory shows and history amply corroborates, they can be highly rational for highly-placed individuals in good positions to execute and benefit from them), and that for any particular high-level conspiracy, mass psychology is a key parameter of success.
This has been understood by psychologists for at least a century, and by politicians and demagogues for much, much longer. What’s your excuse for ignoring it?
Rob Lonaker , Sorry but your article is going far beyond calling for an inquiry into Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11, it’s saying there was ‘Evidence of WTC Explosives’ (ie nanothermite) in buildings on 9/11. The explosives are suggested to have been placed there by Israelis to ensure the attack would cause maximum destruction, (ie bring the WTC towers down). It is implied that the Israelis needed the towers brought down and the passenger jet impact/fire could not have done that.
(IMO This is like saying that British knew about Pearl Harbor and had their agents sink the USS Arizona by detonating pre placed explosives as the Japanese dropped a bomb on it in order to make sure the Japanese would sink a big ship.)
I think the Israelis would’ve been sticking their necks out like a giraffe for virtually no advantage to do that. If they knew the details of 9/11 all the had to do is sit pretty.
And I repeat, even if they expected to get away with it (something that would indeed have required the knowing collusion and assistance of the US government) there was no way to know what the long term effect of 9/11 would be. It could easily have caused a major economic recession and sparked a populist movement that was against US Jewish interests and hence Israeli ones.
Without credibility TOO will achieve nothing, an article like “9/11: Media Ignores Evidence for WTC Explosives” does not belong here.
Jeff Maylor says: “While there are some engineers and physicists involved in the “truther” movement, the vast majority of hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists in this country seem pretty well satisfied with the official explanation.”
Below is William Pierce’s “rough guide” to behaviour types which I think is quite useful in looking at the problems faced and solutions applied by those who are in pole position in the managerial control of the distribution of allowed ideas, i.e, the State apparatchik class and those who control the images and bias that permeate the message delivery systems of the broadcast and hard copy medium …the “4th Estate” (not to be confused with WP’s 4th Category!).
http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs0110c.html
“There are four basic types of people — White people — in the world:
First there are the Sally Soccer-Moms and the Joe Six-Packs. They constitute about 95 percent of the White population. Some are rich, and some are poor; some are factory workers, and some are lawyers; some are barely literate couch potatoes on welfare, and some are academics with pretensions to intellectualism. What characterizes all of them is an inability to think independently or to hold any opinion not held by the herd. I often call them lemmings.
Second, there are the exploiters. They are rational people, who see the world as it is and attempt to use the world — including the rest of the population — for their own advantage. They recognize the lemmings for what they are and manipulate them in order to use them, nearly always through deception….
…Third, there are the Judases: White people who might be considered a sub-type of the exploiters, but whose behavior is more in the nature of knowingly cooperating with the exploiters or knowingly letting themselves be used by the exploiters rather than engaging in exploitation themselves….Many lower- and middle-echelon Gentile media people fall into the Judas category, while other Gentile media people — especially those in the lowest echelon — are merely lemmings. ….
…Fourth, there are the independent-minded people who understand much of what is happening in the world — that is, they are not lemmings — and are not inclined to be either exploiters or Judases”
9/11 isn’t an isolated occasion of a pressurised “consensus” where the majority of “experts” agree that the official party-line is just fine with them. There is nothing new about a “scientific” consensus where miraculously the vast majority agree with the “findings” of studies meant to reflect the ideological belief system that gave rise to them.
The history of Soviet science is permeated with Lysenkoism, their version of Lamarckism and if you wanted a job of a certain status then you did “believe”.
A similar US example is the media support of Al Gore’s assertion that the “science is settled” to support his promotion (and self-enrichment) of man-made CO2 being a climate driver of cataclysmic consequences.
And the vast majority of academic position holders in the US and the West subscribe to the notion of the supposed sameness of the races when one would have though it is the thing which needed to be proved (when the whole of human history suggests otherwise) rather than to start with its acceptance.
A “consensus” among job and contract hunting conformists is not the equivalent to “Truth”.
It is not surprising that as the West creaks and groans under the burden of Judeo ideas and its wealth/power transfer & impoverishment implications for the historic Euro population that it becomes more and more like a modern version of the consolidated period Soviet State (altho with the ever increasing risk of becoming annihilationist early-Soviet as the racial demographics change against the Euros) as the imposition of another brand of Judaeo “egalitarian sameness”; this time of Political Correctness; ideology makes itself felt.
Current ideological inspired demographic changes increase both the centralised control of the State/Media nexus whilst unleashing centrifugal forces which simultaneously damages wealth production whilst preventing any resolution solution, like immigration prevention, the abolition of pro-ethnic race discrimination or the staunching of the haemorrhaging of manual and office based skilled jobs to the East and South Asia.
Rather than see a rise in Category 4 people the need to earn a crust in straightened circumstances is more likely to lead to an ever deepening conformity which is why Tribe Psycho’s leadership has no interest in economic prosperity for the masses as it thinks that we will be more easily controlled in poverty than prosperity and I think they could well be right.
A last point about the appellation of “Truther” to an opponent made by Jeff Maylor.
This is the same tactic as some “leftist” conformist trendy calling someone a “Racist”. You try to discredit by means of applying a label which has neon flashing lights saying “You are a nut-job” to believe this stuff.
This appellation of “Truther” is a carbon-copy of the constant pejorative refrain used to attack those who ask for proof that Obama was “Born in the USA” with “Birther” riding tandem with “Truther”. (although as well as problems with proving BHO’s place of birth I am given to believe there is also a citizenship problem with the fact that the mother was a minor whilst the father was a foreigner at the time of his birth)
Merely to ask the ? is presented as proof of insanity by the State/Media nexus echoed faithfully by the lemmings…and more and more methinks of the faded images of the Soviet State being renewed and come to mind again like Frankenstein’s Monster.
Asking awkward ?’s those who control the State/Media nexus do not want us to ask is not proof of being a “conspiracy nut-job”. Although we cannot stop those who wish to discredit those awkward ?’s by infiltration by those seeking to use the Sunstein method of false-flag extremism this should not stop us from asking perfectly pertinent ?’s in the 1st place.
Solzhenitsyn always said that in all the years in the different camps he slave-laboured in that he didn’t ever once get it wrong on who were the camp informers trying to report incorrect ideas and those who he talked to who were genuinely of an independent mind and could be trusted.
It goes similarly for 9/11, the Global warming/Climate change shakedown, the BC issue, the truth about the Financial Banksters crippling of the economic with humongous amounts of debt, the mortgage meltdown and its Ethnic dimension none of which is ever discussed in the Media in an honest and open way due to the need to control the allowed agenda within increasingly narrow confines but which should also be sceptical of those who would deliberately use this artificial confining of open debate to spin extreme ideas in order to sow dissension and confusion and discredit perfectly legitimate enquiry.
Silverstein DID Want to PULL Building 7
Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.
“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.
However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.
In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.
In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.
Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.
For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.
Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.
Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.
Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.
EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”
The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”
Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.
Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.
Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.
In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.
Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.
Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.
However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.
Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=211_1272033029
“I think the Israelis would’ve been sticking their necks out like a giraffe for virtually no advantage to do that. If they knew the details of 9/11 all the had to do is sit pretty.”
That’s patently ridiculous. Every good conspiracy involves a confluence of interests; that’s what holds it together.
A certain Jewish real estate mogul, Larry Silverstein (along with partners and financial associates), enjoyed a huge windfall which he would not have enjoyed had the towers not come down *all the way to the ground*. Has is occurred to you that this may have been a required condition of obtaining Larry’s full cooperation with the plot?
It certainly should have occurred to you, since this is how all good conspiracies are constructed.
@ TABULA RAZA: Good post. very informative.
One of the landmarks of my education was subscribing CSICOP’s (now called Committee for Skeptical Inquiry or CSI) Skeptical Inquirer for some years, reading lots of skeptical books on fringe subjects published by Prometheus Books and corresponding with Paul Kurtz, the headperson of both CSI and Prometheus Books.
Since the study of the paranormal and of extreme claims is huge, in my CSI years I only researched thoroughly two fringe fields: the Turin Shroud and the Bélmez Faces, but the lesson I learned applies to other fringe fields, including conspiracy theories.
@ “People like Jeff Maylor will get tired, and people hooked on what Chechar calls paleologic conspiracy thought won’t.” – Daybreaker
Skeptics do get tired. Just look at the figures. There are about two thousand books by believers on the diverse, mutually-exclusive conspiracies about the JFK assassination against two skeptical books: Gerald Posner’s and Vincent Bugliosi’s. Nevertheless, the JFK conspiracy theories are so dumb that a single book (Bugliosi’s) demolished them all, what in chess terms I call, “Problem: White plays and checkmates 2000 black kings in one move”).
What I gathered from reading Skeptical Inquirer for years is that we are dealing with a quasi-religious phenomenon. People just don’t swallow this stuff—astrology, parapsychology, UFOlogy, New Age, miraculous healing, conspiracy theories on Satanic Ritual Abuse—for rational considerations. They are a symptom of something going horribly wrong within the human psyche, like the psychotic mindsets and religious ideation that Silvano Arieti studied in his Interpretation of Schizophrenia.
As I said in a previous post, the psychological analysis if it, as a subject, is huge; and even a typical CSI contributor limits himself to debunk the claims (e.g., showing how 9/11 truthers represent a massive pseudoscientific movement based on faulty physics, cherry-picked data and demonization of opponents as complicit in the “conspiracy.”). But CSI, a by-product of the brain’s left-hemisphere, doesn’t psychoanalyze the minds of the fruitcake claimers who suffer a regression into paleologic thinking. Instead, in my writings I focus on the by-products of the right-hemisphere, including the whys of magical thinking. This said, perhaps only those who subscribed Skeptical Inquirer for a while have become familiar with the multimyriad manifestations of the paleologic mindset (again, too huge a subject for discussion in this thread)?
This blogsite is becoming an embarrassment for those seriously concerned about the JQ. I am tempted to remove the link to it from my blogroll and reinsert it again once the present thread is sufficiently buried under the forthcoming (saner) threads.
Chechar: “I am tempted to remove the link to [this site] from my blogroll and reinsert it again once the present thread is sufficiently buried under the forthcoming (saner) threads.”
I’m sure that will be a terrible blow to the site! ;-)
Someday: “(IMO This is like saying that British knew about Pearl Harbor and had their agents sink the USS Arizona by detonating pre placed explosives as the Japanese dropped a bomb on it in order to make sure the Japanese would sink a big ship.)”
A good observation…and one which, for all we know, was in somebody’s mind at the time. After all, mass psychology is extremely important to those in high places.
The spectacle of the WTC towers being razed adds critical insult to the injury of merely seeing them impacted by a couple of airplanes. It’s that final irrevocable punch in the gut of the viewing public, conveniently occurring when all eyes, and all cameras, would surely be trained on the flames of the impacts.
It made an irresistible package. The twin towers – key symbols of American capitalism – getting slammed, the towers tumbling all the way down to the ground, Osama and company applauding their great “symbolic victory” and gleefully thumbing their noses in America’s face! Just the touch of Madison Avenue one would expect from Jewish conspirators steeped in the discipline of mass psychology so crucial in two of their favorite fields, advertizing and politics.
You need to learn to think these things through just as the conspirators would have been thinking (again, that’s all they do, 24/7). The conspirators were confronted with two possible scenarios
A: towers merely impacted, and
B: towers completely razed,
with B carrying the additional advantage that it could be used to enlist the general cooperation of the owner/lessor of the WTC as a sympathetic front-man who would sit back, keep his mouth shut, collect his money, and would not – here’s the most important thing by far – push for a deeper inquiry or express doubt about the official story.
Call me crazy, call me sick, but I hesitate to believe in 9/11 as one man’s insurance scam ( ‘Jewish lightning’) coordinated with the Israelis by ‘confluence’.
OK, lets say they had a motive to let it happen (though in fact vastly less than the British had to assist in making Pearl harbor a success for the Japanese) and some prior knowledge, and allow they are trying to stop discussion of their espionage on US soil. A post on that would be interesting. But that is not what is being argued as the title makes clear – “9/11: Media Ignores Evidence for WTC Explosives”.
Why would they take such a gigantic risk as to actually try and coordinate a TC demolition with a terrorist attack, that level of coordination would require more than confluence they’d need to be actually calling the shots. Their fingerprints would by all over it; US intelligence would know it was Israel in a heartbeat.
Let’s pretend the ‘we’ll get caught’ problem didn’t exist, there still would be no way to predict how the US support for Israel would be affected by a maximal 9/11 event. It could have caused a depression that led to a populist political revolution. As Israel controls US policy they could have very little to gain but everything to lose by a extremely devastating 9/11.
Some Israeli foreknowledge is possible but as for them actually physically destroying the buildings with explosives ?
Not a chance!
Between 10-22-10 @ 3:23 P.M. and 10-24-10 @ 3:49 A.M. JEFF MAYLOR contributed a total of THIRTY posts, with the longest break between any being three hours and twenty minutes. Perhaps Jeff has a JOB to do. By the way, OPTIMISTIC TRUTHER did a good job of pointing out deliberate tactics and techniques of professional (or merely obtuse) skeptical debunkers.
Col. Mustard in the library with a ceiling tile.
Director Panetta in the Eye-talian booodago with a ton of classified Iraq documents. :)
eurodele says: ”
Chechar: “I am tempted to remove the link to [this site] from my blogroll and reinsert it again once the present thread is sufficiently buried under the forthcoming (saner) threads.”
I’m sure that will be a terrible blow to the site! ”
It is.
Many people have wandered into the minotaur’s maze of the Jewish Question and not come out sane. Ariadne’s thread is the habit of skepticism that Chechar has been advocating, and that Kevin MacDonald’s books demonstrate. It is a grave mistake to let go of that thread. Having let go of it, the right thing to do is not advance a single step further, but go back and pick it up, and never let go of it again.
I have fundamental differences with Chechar, but he is a cultured, courteous, intelligent and sober influence. When people like him start to go out of a site that was designed to appeal to a better-educated group of readers, because they no longer agree that what is happening is critical inquiry rather than the indulgence of quasi-religious appetites, that’s bad. It means you’ve lost focus.
Right, we need a bit of psychoanalysis here, it seems (and what a place to say that).
After all resisting authority could be a sign of mental illness:
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=3403
“Sceptic”: someone who uses expert opinion to question the official story of events and its falsehoods, contradictions, pseudo-science etc. Right? WRONG.
Sceptic apparently is someone who …questions the sceptics, while taking the official story for granted and defending it against the sceptics.
A good piece on “conspiracy theories” by M.Rothbard:
http://mises.org/daily/2809
Someday: “Their fingerprints would by all over it; US intelligence would know it was Israel in a heartbeat.”
Who, exactly, do you think is running US Intelligence (aside from the Old Guard including GHW Bush, father of then-President Dubya Bush, who has kept his feelers deep in the CIA ever since he was there in title)?
Obviously, US intelligence personnel are appointed by those who run the government in general, who are now known to be the pawns, puppets, and paid agents of supremely wealthy Zionists. It follows that those who receive appointments are, so to speak, “with the program”.
For that matter, who do you think invented the all-purpose Al Qaeda boogieman now derisively called “al CIA-da”? (Sing it to the tune of “Osama, Won’t You Please Come Home”.)
“It could have caused a depression that led to a populist political revolution.”
You may be underestimating the degree of economic control actually exercised by the international banking cartel. It owns and controls the money supply, and once you have your tentacles wrapped around that, the game is over. Everything becomes as predictable as you need it to be.
“Some Israeli foreknowledge is possible but as for them actually physically destroying the buildings with explosives? Not a chance!”
You’re entitled to your opinion. However, I trust you understand that by issuing a hard determination like “not a chance!”, you incur a burden of proof no less onerous than that which rests on the 9/11 Truth movement itself.
You can start to meet that burden by sharing with us your scientifically-supported causal 9/11 hypothesis, taking care not to ignore any key detail not satisfactorily explained by the official narrative.
Indulgence of quasi-religious appetites? Like when you believe the party line no matter what bloody a ugly liar the party has proved itself to be, again and again and again? YOU”VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! That’s religious freakdom beyond compare.
@ CHECHAR: Sayonara buddy! Your attempt to pathologize honest inquiry actually does border on the pathological, and in a way that would be almost comical if it were not so viscious: Primitive animist =’s modern schizoid =’s conspiracy theorist =’s disturbed individual; paranoiacs and paranoids displaying paleologic conspiracy thought. Shades of Frankfurt
school, and Freudian Marxism.
Take a look at one of the videos debunking the allegations made against cell phone calls.
Mr. Maylor “debunks” scientists’ and engineers’ dismissal of the veracity of the cell phone stories with a link to a YouTube video?!? Is this an earnest example of his ratiocinative powers or a virtual fun-house outing? Let each reader decide for himself.
And remember, they are accusing hundreds of people who lost loved ones on 911 of being liars.
Hundreds, my Aunt Fanny! Jim Hoffman’s site, 9-11 Research.com—which is anything but a conspiracy-mongering site—describes the number of phone-call–recipient claimants as maybe two dozen, at the maximum (including both cell and onboard seat-back phones). The number of demonstrably false Holocaust™-related claims is in the thousands, yet their demonstrable falsity hasn’t slowed that particular industry even a step from its best pace ever. Accounting for twenty-odd tales, few if any of which brought the tellers fame or fortune, is by comparison child’s play.
Incidentally, there is excellent reason to conclude that even the government disbelieves Ted Olson’s stories. The alleged calls from his wife were, he has consistently said, made collect and were routed through the DoJ switchboard—that is, they were not direct-dialed to one of his several private lines. No federal report on 9/11 has ever mentioned the calls, which, had they occurred, would have carried whopping collect-call charges and thus have been logged into several government-expense databases.
I shan’t bother to list any of the half-dozen or so scientist- and engineer-moderated sites dealing with this issue (occasionally, by no mean always or usually, exclusively) that I know of—there must be thrice that number, if not many more—simply because finding them is a matter of a five-minute investment of the time of anyone with a DSL or faster connection and an interest in learning something that isn’t dropped ready made into his hand.
Those are real mothers and wives that have lost sons, daughters and husbands, and you all blithefully call them liars.
Oh, get over yourself, Mr. Maylor. You’re not auditioning here for Keith Olbermann’s chair. The only person I myself am calling anything is Mr. Maylor himself: in the practiced dexterity with which he distorts, dissembles, and deflects, he shows himself to be a pharisee and a hypocrite. Whom or what does he serve, I wonder? Certainly not the truth.
@Someday
First you say: “OK, lets say they had a motive to let it happen” and that “A post on that would be interesting”, but then you go on to doubt about that motive yourself rather unconvincingly, I must say.
2 towers demolished in Manhattan, with all the deaths and suffering combined, can cause neither depression nor populist political revolution. Quite to the contrary, they stimulate anger for the alleged enemy and conform public opinion to support its current leadership.
It is what it is. A bold but largely symbolic blow to America’s image as the untouchable superpower.
What they actually can cause though are retaliatory wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq AND public support for them, which would have been non-existent pre-9/11.
How is that a “risk”? If you carry a stick, and I come and slap you in the face, do I “risk” that you will use that stick and hit me? Hell yeah and it’s a good solid bet that you will, isn’t it?
Why do you think Netanyahu exclaimed “It’s very good” for Israel, on September 12 2001? http://nyti.ms/bhZclk
And again in 2008? http://bit.ly/aVry32
eurodele, Yeah but someone toying with an idea is different to a country’s leadership accepting the consequences of a failure and taking the fateful step to risk actually attempting it .
You may believe they are ten feet tall but they know they’re not.
The focus of my comments is the capability of Israel to do what is suggested and their assessment of the risks that would be involved in trying. I think the idea of them mounting an actual attempt to ensure a maximal 9/11 has to be seen in the light of the danger of Israel being compromised and Jews losing their political influence in the US.
So even if they thought they could get away with it (because they’d completely co opted US intelligence) there still is the matter of the effect of a maximal 9/11 on the economy and hence Jewish influence over US policy . How could they know that would be favorable? Almost any change would be for the worse if, as you and others have pointed out, they already run things .
3D, Maybe Jeff is bothering to do all that commenting because he cares about a future for Whites; thinks TOO is our best hope; wants to protect it from being discredited.
Kirk, Many people were expecting a economic recession after 9/11, that would be likely to benefit populist movements that wanted to put the US’s house in order rather than invading the Arab world , it would aso make immigration much more difficult to argue for.
Here is my Israel-did-it theory:
http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/
http://911notes.blogspot.com/
Someday: “3D, Maybe Jeff is bothering to do all that commenting because he cares about a future for Whites; thinks TOO is our best hope; wants to protect it from being discredited.”
No problem with that (if that’s actually what’s going on there).
But the opposite purpose would be served by cravenly running away from a frank open discussion of what can only be described, by any honest scientifically and politically literate person, as serious inconsistencies in the official account of important events. That includes whatever conspiratorial hypotheses may be in the air, given that high-level conspiracy is often the most reasonable default explanatory assumption given the trend toward increasing governmental reliance on clandestine warfare.
Once the purveyors of tyranny realize that an opponent can be easily cowed, they interpret it as a sign of weakness and an incentive to finish the job. Let’s make sure that nothing of the kind happens here.
“Many people were expecting a economic recession after 9/11, that would be likely to benefit populist movements that wanted to put the US’s house in order rather than invading the Arab world , it would aso make immigration much more difficult to argue for.”
Massive US immigration is practically a done deal – we’ve already been pretty well “divided and conquered” with it. Strategies evolve, moving from one phase to another; uncontrolled immigration has now largely served its purpose and may no longer be the top priority it once was (unfortunately, it will continue anyway due to bureaucratic inertia unless we move powerfully to stop it).
Locking down the American Police State and accelerating the transfer of wealth to the Zio-banksters is now the dominant priority.
I moved into Park Slope in Brooklyn in october 2000 because my wife was working close to the Twin Towers and the moving company was Urban Moving Systems the Israeli company whose members were arrested as the “dancing israelis” on 9/11.
I had moved ten times already and I was used to the typical moving crowd, these were people were not large, strong and proletarian, they looked more like educated professional. They were talking some arabic language among themselves and their office and I asked what it was. They said “hebrew” in un unfriendly tone, me and my wife were stunned to find israelis working in a moving company, we were used to graduate students or financial professionals, but I was very pro-israel at the time and I tried to find out in a friendly way why they were here without being to obvious (” is the first time I meet jews in America doing manual labor…”). They did not like to talk at all unlike regular workers happy to take a break chatting even though I was making effort to show my simpathy for Israel, one just told me of a friend sitting next to him drinking when he was a soldier and killed by a palestinian sniper, he implied that this job was better than being killed in Israel. We talked about them with my wife because it was obvious that they ere an all Israeli company and we were wondering why they did not employ immigrants or low skilled labour. They were quick and efficient thoughm, in spite of the lack of apparent body strength, they just did not look like manual workers at all
In 2008 I read about Urban Moving Systems how five were arrested after being seen filming the Twin Towers and giving high fives and “vey happy” of the destruction and how the whole company left for Israel the same day leaving the furniture of clients. Also one of their trucks was stopped and found by police dogs having carried some kind of explosives
There is no doubt in my mind that those guys at Urban Moving Systems were working for Mossad, at the time We just felt they were the strangest movers we met
After I stumbled in their story I started reading the whole enchilada about 911/conspiracy/Mossad and there was no return…. so now I read sites like this one
Bugliosi spent almost two decades of his life researching and demolishing the JFK conspiracy myths. In our bookstores sooner or later we will get the equivalent, 1½-million word, maximum opus about the 9/11 conspiracy theories published by a recognized author and publishing house.
I said way above that I hate Wikipedia because it’s run by liberals, but that the articles about conspiracy theories (such as the SRA article I edited under my real name) are relatively good. I also pointed to the link to 27 threaded discussions in the Wikipedia article on 9/11 conspiracies. Since the equivalent to Bugliosi’s maximum opus has still to be printed, those closely debated threads where the minutiae of the 9/11 theories are scrutinized may serve as a guide as to why the conclusion is: “The civil engineering establishment generally accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.” [quoted from the lead paragraph of the main article]
@ eurodele says:
“Chechar: ‘I am tempted to remove the link to [this site] from my blogroll and reinsert it again once the present thread is sufficiently buried under the forthcoming (saner) threads.’
I’m sure that will be a terrible blow to the site! ” [sarc.]
[Daybreaker responds:] “It is. Many people have wandered into the minotaur’s maze of the Jewish Question and not come out sane. Ariadne’s thread is…”
I have tried to introduce white counter-jihadists to the JQ and have noticed that I started to plant the first tiny seed of doubt against their philo-Semitism and irrational love for Israel only when quoting a Jew, Albert Lindemann’s book (not my kind of pal BTW) since it’s published by Cambridge University.
And now… Will I have to hide this blog from my blogroll list only because a psychogenic regression is taking hold of some commenters of this site? What would those counter-jihadists think of me if they hit this OO thread?, after I tried to prove to them that the scientific approach to the JQ has little if anything to do with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and similar ways to describe a macabre plan to achieve global domination by the Jews?
I hope this will be the last time we see a thread like this one, or that those who still hold Ariadne’s thread—but who have opened this thread to those who advance extreme claims—start studying seriously 9/11 from the skeptical viewpoint (e.g., something like starting with the Wikipedia article).
Many more others were expecting what actually happened: a declaration of “war on terror” and new crusades in the Middle East, any opposition from the right slandered as “unpatriotic” by the neoconservatives (that’s where media control comes into play).
And as we’ve already seen they didn’t hesitate the least from advancing an amnesty bill in 2007, only to be stopped by immense grassroots protests. A strategy aptly put as “invade the world, invite the world”.
Chechar said:
“What I gathered from reading Skeptical Inquirer for years is that we are dealing with a quasi-religious phenomenon. People just don’t swallow this stuff—astrology, parapsychology, UFOlogy, New Age, miraculous healing, conspiracy theories on Satanic Ritual Abuse—for rational considerations.”
Chechar, I preface my remarks by saying that I truly appreciate your writing and website.
Will all due respect, however, you are wrong to group (a) all skepticism of the government’s account of how the towers were destroyed, with (b) falsehoods and scams based on no evidence, like “astrology, parapsychology, UFOlogy, New Age, miraculous healing, conspiracy theories on Satanic Ritual Abuse.”
I’ve read Skeptical Inquirer for many years, too. While it is excellent at debunking many commonly held beliefs by examining evidence, its October 2002 treatment of 9/11 did not address the issues at hand in this thread, instead focusing on how one shouldn’t overestimate the risk of terrorism based on the attacks of 9/11.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptical_look_at_september_11th
The article properly addresses the bias occurring when people misunderstand probabilities, but it assumes, and does not attempt to prove, that the event was caused by Muslim terrorist hijackers exactly as the government said.
Similarly, Michael Shermer’s Skeptic magazine September 2006 article succeeded in knocking down a straw man that it set up:
“As someone who does not share the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I have another objective. I want to listen to their arguments and view their evidence, and understand the reasons why so many likable and otherwise intelligent people are convinced that the United States government planned the murder of nearly 3,000 of its own citizens.”
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11
The Skeptic article implies that if it can show that the US government didn’t do it, all questions about the official 9/11 story can be dismissed.
The Skeptic article also attempts to psychologize “truthers,” as you do, painting all who are skeptical of the government’s story as trying to fulfill some deep-seated psychological need:
“With the standards of evidence used by conspiracy theorists, there is no reason why the Freemasons, the Bavarian Illuminati, or the Elders of Zion cannot also be involved in the 9/11 plot — it just depends on what you find the most solace in believing.”
Some of us do wish to use strict standards of evidence, and that is how we found the government’s 9/11 story to be false. We’re not making things up to find solace.
Are there loony ideas associated with 9/11 truth? Of course, but one should not let those ideas cloud the subjects for which we have hard evidence: the physics of how the towers were destroyed, the eyewitness and video evidence of extra explosions, and the apparent finding of nanothermite in the dust. These warrant further investigation.
Rob Lonaker: “Are there loony ideas associated with 9/11 truth? Of course, but one should not let those ideas cloud the subjects for which we have hard evidence: the physics of how the towers were destroyed, the eyewitness and video evidence of extra explosions, and the apparent finding of nanothermite in the dust. These warrant further investigation.”
…and of course, this immediately requires that we objectively entertain any reasonable causal hypothesis intended to explain the phenomena in question.
“Further investigation” is nothing but a platitude unless we are willing to follow the investigation to its logical conclusion; we have nothing to gain from an investigation that stops dead as soon as the official narrative is debunked, and therefore no incentive to pursue it. There is nothing scientific in dismissing such hypotheses out of hand as “conspiracy theories” when in fact, conspiracy (purposive secret activity with advance planning) is a well-known and utterly indisputable fact of governmental strategy and behavior.
Just a reminder. (Great job, by the way, Rob.)
Freddie T., instead of psychoanalyzing everyone, just present some facts. If the factual basis behind the more extreme 911 conspiracy wasn’t so flimsy, it wouldn’t be dismissed by most people. Just go gather some real data and quit grasping at straws.
Why are some of you wasting words and words just talking you opinions ?
This article is simply too short, we need to show the whole mass of facts and coincidences and then a rational persons understands that 3 or 4 may not matter and can be explained away but 30 facts pointing all in one directions cannot
For instance do you know that
1) a month after 911 two Israeli men, one of them a former Israeli Colonel and Mossad agent, were arrested INSIDE the Mexican congress carrying 9mm pistols and dynamite, but were released following intense pressure from the Israeli Embassy ?http://www.rense.com/general17/mossadagentsarrested.htm
Expect for the Mexican press no other TV and printed media reported it. An Iranian intelligence officer caught with explosives inside a Mexican Parliament would have made news right ? Why doesn’t an Israeli ?
2) all the security of the 4 airports from which Mohamed Atta and the supposed 19 terrorists passed control with knives and maybe also a gun were handled by an Israeli company whose directors and managers are ex Mossad and Shin Beth officers according to its website itself ? And that company was not sued and brought to trial for having failed to detect 19 people carryng weapons in one day because a provision was inserted to exclude foreign company from 911 related liabilities ? Basically Israeli military and intelligence officers were in charge of airports controls on 911.
3) Take the time to listen to who were the arabs terrorists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIdC95dtIsE and read the rest. Nobody in the US media except this independent journalist went to the Florida Flight School that they attended and found it out. Amanda Keller afterwards has disappeared, she left to some journalist a message that she was not Atta’s girlfriend, but nobody has found where she is since then. Other people confirm though facts in her interview. Atta and the others were hanging around with “people coming from Europe who spoke German ” in Florida and were pretty loud (sex, drugs, nightclubs. fights with the lingerie model girlfriend killing her cats…).
4) None of the 19 arabs had any combat training, except for maybe a month spent in Afganistan. 4 of them have never been indentified by the way
The “muscle” terrorists, supposed to be able to overcame 8 pilots and other 4 male stewards in a few seconds (one of which had special foreces training and was a boxing champ), plus a young ex-comando of the Israeli special forces seated next to them in 1st class, were all small and light weight
THESE YOUNG ARABS were fanatics but DID NOT PERFORM THE MOST SOPHISTICATED COMMANDO MILITARY OPERATION in history, something that even special forces operators could have had botched
5) last week a British Embassy source was quoted to have reported to the UK governement that the famous Entebbe highjacking was orchestraded by Mossad using a terrorist arab faction against the OLP
6) Under Thatcher the Mossad was expelled from the UK after a palestinian terrorist was found with explosives and plan to use them in London and at its trial he turned out to be a Mossad asset, working for them you know…. The day after his convictions Thatcher asked Israel to have all Mossad activities stopped in the UK… read
…there are other 20 or 25 facts but I do not get paid to list them all…
Chechar, great post. It really is pseudoscience and magical thinking, as well as a lot of motivated thinking. Is it not obvious to everyone that the same tactics used by believers in UFOs and Bigfoot are used by those that believe in the more extreme 911 conspiracies?
eurodele, you, or more importantly Dr. MacDonald, had better worry about rational people bailing out of the blog. If it is left to people who tell themselves tales of the paranormal, it’s finished.
kirk, not every kook is a noble warrior fighting for truth. Sometimes they are just kooks. You and others like you have enormous evidence that should make you skeptical of the Truther conspiracies. Now, would everyone at least agree that the phone calls were real? Or do you maintain that all these women we seeing crying on TV are liars?
Chechar Said: “I started to plant the first tiny seed of doubt against their philo-Semitism and irrational love for Israel only when quoting a Jew”
Exactly.
Rob Lonaker,
It is difficult enough to get a respectful hearing for Judeo-criticism when you base your arguments on universally acknowledged facts.
Attempts to base Judeo-criticism on disputed facts, particularly relating to 9/11 or the holocaust, is in my opinion a completely hopeless task.
There is a place for a more thorough investigation of unexplained/disputed aspects of 9/11, but I do not think a Judeo-critical venue such as TOO is the appropriate forum.
On the other hand, the ADL’s suppression of Fox’s “5 Dancing Israelis” story is ideal content for TOO.
Pierre de Craon – Don’t you realize that those 2 dozen phone calls represent 2 dozen families? That it would be difficult over time for the rest of the family not to be suspicious about those phone calls if they were not real? If someone’s mother was murdered on an airplane and another family member lied about getting a phone calle from her, it most cases other family members would become very suspicious.
The government disbelieves Ted Olson? I thought the government was in on the conspiracy according to Truthers?
As to your last statement:
“Oh, get over yourself, Mr. Maylor. You’re not auditioning here for Keith Olbermann’s chair. The only person I myself am calling anything is Mr. Maylor himself: in the practiced dexterity with which he distorts, dissembles, and deflects, he shows himself to be a pharisee and a hypocrite. Whom or what does he serve, I wonder? Certainly not the truth.”
If you don’t feel the need to at least show some sensitivity to those that lost loved ones on 911, then you are not a normal human being.
I am not a hypocrite or a “pharisee” whatever the hell that means in this context. And now you accuse me of serving some other power. Tell me, am I a minion of Satan? Am I really a Zionist in hiding? Or perhaps I am a paid CIA agent whose job it is to mislead the readers of this blog?
3D: “@ Der Weibe Engle: How would your theory explain the collapse of building 7, which was not hit by masses of aluminium? This is getting silly.”
Theory? I merely asked a question. In my opinion, when trying to solve a mystery, peremptory dismissal of any line of thought is what is silly. To answer your question, which I will do you the courtesy of not considering silly, I would say that unique conditions also obtained in Building 7. How much aluminum did it contain, for example? I don’t think we know. However, we do know it contained thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in the basement and, just like the other two towers, it was on fire for hours before it came down. Perhaps the electrical conduits were made of aluminum, or even the wiring. Maybe some debris from the plane fuselages landed on Building 7. There may have been other sources unknown to us. It’s acknowledged by everyone that it suffered a large amount of structural damage from falling, flaming debris – debris which the “Truthers” themselves now are claiming contained thermite and which could have served as an igniter. I will grant that if there was no aluminum in Building 7 then a thermitic destruction of Building 7 is highly unlikely, based on my limited understanding of this matter. But questions like that are what need to be answered.
Rob Lonaker: “The size, highly organized arrangement, and intimate mixing of iron oxide grains and aluminum “plates” in the chips rules out the possibility of spontaneous formation of the chips from the plane crash alone.”
This appears to be your own conclusion. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, of course, but this conclusion would be more interesting and persuasive coming from someone with a background in metallurgy, demolitions, and physics. Even then, however, I would still point out that these were entirely unique conditions, not comparable to other skyscraper fires: Literally tons of molten aluminum were held in contact with structural supports consisting largely of iron at temperatures well in excess of 1000 degrees C for hours. Recall that thermite itself ignites at only 900 degrees C. At the temperatures in question, with all the acrid smoke and possible electrical energy from high voltage lines in the buildings, who can really say for sure what kind of reaction products could have been produced? If certain people were curious enough about this to do experiments, we might be able to find out. That’s unlikely to happen, however, for a lot of reasons.
At any rate, this explanation has the advantage of doing away with the necessity for supposing a conspiracy to deliberately plant explosives. Spontaneous formation and ignition of thermite in the fire could also explain the reports of explosions and the residual thermite found in the dust, which seems to have existed in vast quantity, amounting to many tons. (That’s also rather strange. If it was a case of deliberately-placed nanothermite, why was so much used, and why didn’t it all react? Mixture at the nano level should have enhanced its reactivity and led to little incriminating residue.) Further, the report you cite itself contains some remarks suggestive of a haphazard composition in the suspected “nanothermite”, which would be evidence against its manufacture, since uniformity would be expected of a manufactured product, viz.:
Unfortunately, this line of thought is not as fun as supposing an elaborate conspiracy, nor does it meet the kind of psychological needs that some have observed to be in play here, so such investigations are not likely to be carried out.
eurodele said:
“‘Further investigation’ is nothing but a platitude unless we are willing to follow the investigation to its logical conclusion; we have nothing to gain from an investigation that stops dead as soon as the official narrative is debunked, and therefore no incentive to pursue it.”
Great point, eurodele. Thanks.
We get it Chechar, Wikipedia may be “run by nasty, anti-white, far-left liberals” as you said, but on this particular issue it is the gold standard, no way they could lie or hide anything.
Good luck with planting seeds of doubt, perhaps after 100 years they will grow into cactuses, we may not be around long enough to witness any effects, but it is a consolation for those who need it – psychologically, if you know what I mean.
Jeff, you didn’t finish the job yesterday. Start “debunking” all these “kooks” too:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Jeff Maylor: “eurodele, you, or more importantly Dr. MacDonald, had better worry about rational people bailing out of the blog. If it is left to people who tell themselves tales of the paranormal, it’s finished.”
Well, Jeff, to tell you the truth, I don’t think you’re rational. I think you and your buddy Chechar have cognitive screens in place that you don’t even know are there, and I’m quite sure they have nothing whatsoever to do with science or reasonable standards of evidence.
Conflating the sober enumeration of unexplained facts regarding 9/11 with “tales of the paranormal” … wow, talk about paleophrenic! Not since the Salem Witch Trials has anyone seen the likes of it.
eurodele, what have I done but engage in frank open discussion? I have chased down almost every crackpot theory you guys have put forward from the 911 Truther crowd. It’s the same thing over and over again. If you guys would practice a little skepticism you’d come to the same conclusion. These theories suck. They really do.
Now the real value of Dr. MacDonald’s work isn’t affected by this. But there is always the possibility that others will be dissuaded from reading this site if it takes on a UFO/Area 51 feel. What’s interesting and unique about this blog is the scientific approach it takes to issues like ethnicity, White interests, and conflicts between Gentiles and Jews, etc.
Really eurodele, you have to go back to the Salem Witch Trials to find anyone like me?
There is no “cognitive screen”. We have dealt with issues like the phone calls for example, and everyone except for Pierre seems to think they were real. Do you?
I’ve mentioned my belief that enlisting the US government in a massive conspiracy to bring down 2 buildings, kill 3,000 people, remote control or fake hijack four airplanes, fake phone calls to the families (or enlist people who would lie about their own family members death) and then covering it up would require the use of thousands of people of differing ethnicities and backgrounds to carry out an illegal psychopathic act against their own people, which seems very unlikely.
We have the ever changing thermite, nanothermite, superthermite (soon to be uber-thermite?) issue that seems to be of dubious value.
We have the fallacy of assuming that just because there are contradictions and political shenanigans in the 911 report (like in every single big political report ever generated) that this constitutes some kind of evidence for government involvement in 911.
So are we dealing with a real theory, or some kind of wish fantasy? Yes, it would really cool if we could prove that all of 911 was run by Mossad and/or CIA and then show the people how bad our opponents really are.
And by the way, have any of you noticed that most of the 911 conspiracy sites are not remotely anti-Israel? They are almost all focusing their attacks on the US alone.
And Someday, great point. Let me repost a snippet of what you said:
“Rob Lonaker , Sorry but your article is going far beyond calling for an inquiry into Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11, it’s saying there was ‘Evidence of WTC Explosives’ (ie nanothermite) in buildings on 9/11 …”
I assume you are a paid CIA agent as well.
Der weiße Engel said:
“Literally tons of molten aluminum were held in contact with structural supports consisting largely of iron at temperatures well in excess of 1000 degrees C for hours. Recall that thermite itself ignites at only 900 degrees C. At the temperatures in question, with all the acrid smoke and possible electrical energy from high voltage lines in the buildings, who can really say for sure what kind of reaction products could have been produced?”
The unreacted thermite found ignites at 430 degrees C. As I’m sure you appreciate, it seems unlikely for temperatures above 1000 degrees to produce any byproduct that is ignitable at 430 degrees but that does not ignite.
Here’s a video of chemistry professor Niels Harrit, lead author of the nanonthermite paper, discussing at 8:05 how nanothermite is made not by mixing the iron and aluminum in a conventional way, but by a process of building the structure from its constituent atoms from the ground up. He further indicates that although his team made a material that behaves similarly, they could not reproduce the nanothermitic material found in the dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnBT3SwMRQE at 8:05
Whites Unites, your point is well taken, it is difficult enough to make a case with incontrovertible evidence. I would mention that when given real evidence to deal with there can be a chance. Fox did carry a 4 part series on Israel spying in the US and speculated that Israel could have had foreknowledge of 911.
Let that sink in. Fox News (Brit Hume, Carl Cameron, the big boys) ran a 4 part story on Israel spying in the US. Yes it probably was pressured to stop running it, but just the fact that it is out there on youtube now means something. It means that if we go forward with facts we have a real opportunity to make a case.
Jeff Maylor: “These theories suck. They really do.”
Now, Jeff. Even if I were to play along for the sake of argument, it’s quite clear that however badly our explanatory hypotheses may suck in your estimation, the official narrative absolutely blows like a three-dollar hooker with clap, crabs, and a bone through her nose.
“Now the real value of Dr. MacDonald’s work isn’t affected by this. But there is always the possibility that others will be dissuaded from reading this site if it takes on a UFO/Area 51 feel.”
Maybe so. But even more people, having been attracted by reports that the good Doctor tells it like it is, would be dissuaded by the impression that instead of taking the bull by the horns as advertised, he timidly flees from sensitive issues like a standard-issue academic wimp.
Fortunately, and I quote, his position on this discussion is “Let the chips fall where they may” (end of transmission). That affords him, and this site, all the plausible deniability they will need should Mike Shermer et al decide they have a bone to pick with the rest of us regarding this particular thread.
“What’s interesting and unique about this blog is the scientific approach it takes to issues like ethnicity, White interests, and conflicts between Gentiles and Jews, etc.”
I agree. But there are two sides to any scientific discussion – theory and observation – and usually, the idea is to tie them together. We can’t do that by pretending that our precious little Israeli brethren, some of Dr. MacDonald’s most frequent objects of study, are absolutely incapable of false-flag atrocities when we know for a 100% rock-solid fact that they have so much of that kind of dirt under their fingernails, they can’t even scratch their behinds without leaving streaks.
I remember the William Pierce broadcast quoted below about the arrests of Israeli spies which clearly indicated that the FBI knew the essentials of that organisation which went far beyond the fortuitous sighting of the high 5ing “removal men” and have viewed the 4-part Carl Cameron report where he even states that US security personnel stated, given the extent of the Israeli spying operation against the Muslim terrorists, is “How could they not know?” and I’ve seen nothing since to convince me to the contrary.
Sadly the hopes that WP had in the Tribe not being able to keep a lid on the allegations never came to fruition. That was something I did not find surprising given their level of control over stopping investigations into and God forbid punishing Israeli, AIPAC and ADL spying activities. Perhaps he was hoping that as the crime committed was so enormous that the pressure to ascertain the truth would be high for the Tribe and their allies to control but this was not to be so.
I can see Kevin’s dilemma in going beyond what most people can comprehend as a possible scenario. There are many unanswered ?’s especially in relation to WTC7′s strange collapse. The problem is that pro-Tribe State apparatchiks and their twin-parters in crime in the media can squeeze and choke off awkward ?’s, even ?’s that were initially posed by the Carl Cameron Fox reports by stalling and then spiriting away the offending spies by legal expulsions and then closing down any avenues which might have found the answer to the ? of what did the Israelis know.
Having successfully fenced that avenue off many skeptics took to looking at (a) the forensic material evidence, versions of the Alex Jones route which is to promote an “inside job” theory that may or may not be true but which most people would not be able to comprehend (and then you can be dismissed as “kooks”) and (b) the motivations laying behind the attack to see who benefited from having their agenda significantly advanced.
In many ways this would suit the Tribe handlers as pursuit of whether the Israelis knew but didn’t tell the US security services is sent instead into a cul-de-sac which is fertile territory for false-flag agents to promote weird-sounding theories guaranteed to scare off rational thinking people as well as the lemmings and so label all those who have awkward ?,s surrounding 9/11 as “conspiracy theorists”.
I also think that what 9/11 also shows is the ruthlessness of the political leadership of the Tribe, which, just as their terrorist act against the King David Hotel in July 1946 killed Jewish personnel working for the Mandate military authority, are prepared to sacrifice a number of their “ordinary” run-of-the mill types for a strategic advantage. There has been no indication that American-Jewish workers had been given any foreknowledge of the attacks though it would seem their Israeli compatriots were warned.
http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs0201d.html
“One aspect of the problem recently came to light after the September 11 attack, when the FBI began rounding up and interrogating illegal aliens who came here from Middle Eastern countries, including Israel. What the FBI uncovered is the largest espionage ring ever to operate in America.
Actually, the investigation of Israeli spying began before September 11, and many Jewish spies already had been identified.
According to a Fox News report two weeks ago, as many as 140 Jewish spies already had been arrested before September 11, but there had been very little publicity about these arrests. The Bush government and most of the media were hoping no one would notice.
The post-September 11 roundup of Middle Easterners uncovered another 60 or so Israelis engaged in espionage inside the United States and brought the previously secret investigation of Israeli espionage into the open — or at least, more nearly into the open than before. The lemmings still are so busy watching their ball games that they haven’t noticed.
Several very disturbing revelations have come out of this roundup. One is a very strong hint that the Jews here, through their spying on other Middle Easterners in the United States, had gained prior knowledge of the September 11 attack but did not share their information with the U.S. government.
I reported my own suspicions in this regard immediately after the attack, but since then Fox News has reported even stronger suspicions among FBI investigators. A Fox News report of December 12, by reporter Carl Cameron, says:
There is no indication the Israelis were involved in the September 11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared it.
Well, of course, we expect that sort of behavior on the part of the Jews. Once they had gathered their own information about the impending attack, which they anticipated with glee because it could only generate hostility between the United States and Israel’s enemies in the Middle East, they saw no reason to warn Americans and thereby forestall the attack. So they waited quietly for the attack and then as soon as it happened began urging that the United States wage war against Israel’s enemies.
This is the sort of thing that both the Israelis and the Israel-worshipping Bush government would like to keep quiet, and the FBI is being very tight-lipped about it now, but I will not be surprised to see the beans spilled about the Jewish foreknowledge of the attack as the investigation proceeds.
The reason I say that is that the roundup of Jewish spies has revealed many other things about Israeli activities that are damaging to Americans, and it will be very difficult for the government and the media to keep everything covered up.”
@ “We get it Chechar, Wikipedia may be “run by nasty, anti-white, far-left liberals” as you said, but on this particular issue it is the gold standard, no way they could lie or hide anything.” – kirk
While “agnostics” about this controversy should read the Wikipedia 9/11 conspiracy article—and perhaps the extremely long debate that produced it—, I didn’t imply that it was the gold standard. Only that most wiki articles on the paranormal & conspiracy theories (like the one who I edited under my real name—this is my User Page in Wikiland) are not bad at all.
And yes: once you study classic conspiracy mindsets like those poor souls who produced literature on the Roswell incident or JFK, you see that the dissociative cognition process among the proponents of these various belief systems—what I call psychological fallacies—is exactly the same, even if the specific claims (e.g., 9/11) are wholly different.
“Now the real value of Dr. MacDonald’s work isn’t affected by this. But there is always the possibility that others will be dissuaded from reading this site if it takes on a UFO/Area 51 feel.”
We’re going in circles now and this statement is disingenuous. Dr. MacDonald’s work already has a “UFO/Area51″ feel to it. So does the U.S.S. Liberty Memorial website. Just ask your colleagues.
Present/potential contributors to TOO are exerting pressure on MacDonald to bury the 911 issue, for the same reason Eniss and the USS Liberty Memorial disavow the “anti-Semitism” of sites like this one – money.
Freddie T says:
“I can see Kevin’s dilemma in going beyond what most people can comprehend as a possible scenario.”
I don’t think most people have difficulty comprehending these scenarios. It’s not like we’re dealing with quantum mechanics. The difficulty with the Truther theories is a lack of evidence (and contradictions with known evidence).
Now as far as foreknowledge by Israel is concerned, that seems like a much more plausible scenario (not conclusively proven but worthy of investigation). The very fact that Fox News carried a 4 part story on it sounds like not every last part of the American new media is under total “Zio-control”. Of course, we know they are very much influenced by the Israeli lobby, but “highly influenced by” and “total control” are two different things.
Praxis says:
“We’re going in circles now and this statement is disingenuous. Dr. MacDonald’s work already has a “UFO/Area51″ feel to it. So does the U.S.S. Liberty Memorial website. Just ask your colleagues.
Present/potential contributors to TOO are exerting pressure on MacDonald to bury the 911 issue, for the same reason Eniss and the USS Liberty Memorial disavow the “anti-Semitism” of sites like this one – money.”
Dr. MacDonald’s work does NOT have a UFO/Area 51 feel to it. If it did, it wouldn’t have been quoted by David Sloan Wilson and Frank Slater. If you are confusing his work with UFOology then you have misunderstood it completely.
Now I don’t know who my “colleagues” are supposed to be. But I am not asking anyone to buy 911 issues if they have some validity to them. As I have repeatedly said, and if you were honest you would acknowledge, I belief further investigation into what Israel knew before 911 is warranted. OK? But yes, I would say it is wise to leave the more magical theories of 911 to Art Bell.
“Dr. MacDonald’s work does NOT have a UFO/Area 51 feel to it.”
Really? Is that why he is always a hair’s breadth away from being drummed out of academia? Because he has embarked on a generally accepted field of study and subject matter? What planet are you on, man?
Eurodele says”
“We can’t do that by pretending that our precious little Israeli brethren, some of Dr. MacDonald’s most frequent objects of study, are absolutely incapable of false-flag atrocities …”
That is not the argument anyone is making and you should know that. Of course, every intelligence agency on earth is capable of false-flag operations. We are talking about the validity of this particular allegation. I’m sure Anthens ran false-flag operations against Sparta.
Just because someone has a general capacity to do something doesn’t mean they did it in a particular case (as I have stated repeatedly). And it doesn’t mean every false-flag scenario we can spin is operationally possible. OK?
Jeff, are you current or former military or do you come from a military family? I’m not saying you’re part of a “cognitive interference” program but often when one sells their soul to the empire they have a difficult time believing it was the wrong thing to do. Especially if it’s part of a family identity.
Spooky says:
““Dr. MacDonald’s work does NOT have a UFO/Area 51 feel to it.”
Really? Is that why he is always a hair’s breadth away from being drummed out of academia? Because he has embarked on a generally accepted field of study and subject matter? What planet are you on, man?”"
Ok so this is disturbing. Apparently some of the readers of this blog cannot distinguish between legitimate work being done to academic standards and the sort of schlock you see on the Art Bell show. Dear god, where to begin.
Are you seriously saying that his work has a UFOlogy feel to it? The actual substance? If you feel that way, why are you reading his work?
It has been quite depressing reading this article and many of the comments that follow. Sadly, people will believe what they want to believe.
Can I prove that Israel did not plant explosives in the basement of the World Trade Towers? No, it is difficult to disprove a negative. I also cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist, but it is my opinion that he does not.
Did the Israel lobby use the 9/11 tragedy to advance their own agenda? Absolutely, but that does not mean they were actively involved in carrying out the attacks. Likewise, the far left used Kennedy’s assassination by a Marxist drifter to advance their own sinister agenda. When you control the levers of power, you can twist significant events to your advantage as they occur.
“Now I don’t know who my “colleagues” are supposed to be.”
More dis-ingenuousness.
Your professional associates. Employer. Coworkers. Ask them about MacDonald and whether or not his work has a “UFO/Area 51 feel” to it.
Ask your neighbors. Perhaps you don’t know who they are supposed to be, either.
“Dr. MacDonald’s work does NOT have a UFO/Area 51 feel to it. If it did, it wouldn’t have been quoted by David Sloan Wilson and Frank Slater.”
I’m afraid that your neighbors, colleagues, the ADL, and the U.S. Air Force would disagree with you.
“If you are confusing his work with UFOology then you have misunderstood it completely.”
As you are intentionally misunderstanding me?
No, it doesn’t have the feel of UFOlogy to me, but I’m not a believer in UFOs. But if you judge the reaction of the average “non-believer” when presented with Prof. MacDonald’s work, you might as well be talking UFOs. It ain’t real, they don’t want to hear it, and if it is real it’s too scary to contemplate.
Ultimately one is bound to fall on one side or the other of the broader issues. My thought is if you’re aware of the JQ and it’s implications for the way the world works, ultimately it’s a question of belief. A belief that to many is as strange as a belief in UFOs. And certainly crazier. To nearly anyone in the MSM, belief in Kevin MacDonald’s work is nuts. You really are better off talking UFOs.
This is the air we breathe. This is the culture that guides us and infiiltrates nearly every nook and cranny of collective unconscious. And it is a big, fat lie. You’re here. You believe. Yet you refuse to embrace all the implications of that belief. Your bias falls on the wrong side. If you believe in further investigation, why do you need to debunk the “truthers”? Wouldn’t the more rational position be to side with those who desire what you desire, with those whose bias should match yours? Or have you reverse engineered your bias, from the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan, to the idea that you couldn’t have fallen for such an outrageous lie?
It just doesn’t make sense. To us, you deniers are the ones seeing little green aliens.
Jeff Maylor: “Just because someone has a general capacity to do something doesn’t mean they did it in a particular case (as I have stated repeatedly). And it doesn’t mean every false-flag scenario we can spin is operationally possible. OK?”
Sure, Jeff. I see what you mean.
It’s just that when we put Israel’s notorious false-flag track record together with the sheer gobsmacking good fortune enjoyed by Israel, American Jewry, and International Zio-bankers at our expense as soon as 9/11 conveniently facilitated the PATRIOT Act, thus precipitating a big steaming pile of cui-bono right into our laps where we couldn’t possibly miss it, and add to that the ugly, roiling black cloud of misery that simultaneously parked itself over the incredibly unfortunate heads of Israel’s traditional enemies, something starts to smell mighty rotten in Denmark.
And when we then find error after inconsistency after incongruity after misrepresentation after mystery in the official story, and see the government running away from all of our questions, and hear the shrill, hysterical tone in the voices of anti-truthers as they try to shut down rational discussions with cries of “nutter!” and bizarre pseudo-psychological claptrap, two and two start to add up inexorably to four whether we like it or not.
In other words, while not every false-flag scenario we can spin is operationally possible, neither is it possible that 9/11 and its consequences were accidental. They’re related by an unmistakable pattern which, for want of a better description, we might as well call “World Jewry rolls lucky sevens a thousand times running, hits the lotto ten times straight, and cleans out Vegas for good!” Thus, it grows increasingly certain that somewhere, somehow, there exists a false-flag scenario that is completely factual and dwells at the root of it all.
We can argue about what’s possible and plausible until the cows come home, but one thing’s for sure: the official narrative is 100% bullshit, right down to the paper it’s printed on, and anyone who still places the slightest stock in it is an overcredulous imbecile. So even if we end up taking a few wild shots, we can’t afford not to explore every lead we might conceivably have, no matter how flimsy it seems, in order to find a non-accidental explanation that actually works.
Are you catching my drift?
Praxis, when I mention the presence of an abnormally large number of Jews in the media and finance to people that I know I can confide in, they usually acknowledge it. Even the hideous Bill Maher has made jokes about the large number of Jews on Wall Street. Although it is not talked about too openly, it is just under the radar screen.
The problem people have with talking about Jewish influence is like the problem they have with talking about Black IQ numbers: It makes people uncomfortable due to political correctness and fear of social sanction. Most people really suspect Black IQ is lower.
But the feelings of people with regard to UFOs is totally different. Most people think the UFOlogy is crazy. Not just that it is “considered crazy” but that it really has no substance to it. People think of it as a true pseudoscience (and rightly so).
This really isn’t a subtle distinction. There is no reason to think we have some brothers-in-spirit over on the Art Bell show. Regardless of how some people may perceive work in evolutionary psychology, they absolutely do not think of it as on par with Graham Hancock’s work.
So I guess I don’t understand you. Surely you don’t think there is any commonality in the substance of MacDonald’s work and the work of Graham Hancock?
Jeff,
We’re not talking about the substance of anyone’s work at this point. Your argument is that if someone sees a 9/11 conspiracy article on TOO they will think it is a UFO site.
We’re saying that to most, it already is.
Spooky, I don’t fail to embrace the implications of ethnic conflict (of which the JQ is a subset I think), I just don’t embrace every theory regardless of evidence.
And the fact that some people may consider a set of theories as out of the mainstream, doesn’t mean that all those theories have anything else in common. For example, the theory of continental drift was laughed at and so was idea that you could find water with a divining rod. But there is no reason to say that these two theories have anything in common. They are not just matters of “belief”. One has hard evidence behind it and the other is total bunk.
MacDonald’s work has a lot of evidence behind it. The Truther theories have almost nothing other than references to how evil the other side is.
“MacDonald’s work has a lot of evidence behind it. The Truther theories have almost nothing other than references to how evil the other side is.”
Now you’re just drooling on yourself, Jeff. Nanothermite residue, credible eyewitness reports of timed explosions from numerous rescue workers, video anomalies up the yin-yang, molten steel, a pile of circumstantial evidence…you’re ignoring them all.
That’s totally irrational.
MacDonald is an anti-Semite. When it comes to Conspiracy Theorists anti-Semites are on a level lower than UFOlogists. Doubt me? Put your family’s welfare where your online ego is. Inform your neighbors, coworkers, employer, and your child’s school that you agree with MacDonald. Ask them what they think. Can I make it any clearer to you Jeff?
“That’s totally irrational.”
Indeed it is.
Eurodele, the “official” story is not 100% BS. There was a general consensus of what happened in broad outline soon after the event. Most of us believe 4 planes were hijacked and driven into targets and that it is was done at the direction of Muslim terrorists and then celebrated throughout the more radical parts of the Islamic world.
And Jews do not always win. Daniel Pearl didn’t win. Jews suffer and die too. They are not magical creatures. They are human beings with a somewhat above average IQ that are more ethnocentric than most and are using their collective power in ways that harm the traditional American way of life. The more aggressive elements in the Jewish community embrace a hostile attitude towards the US and Western Europe. But they can’t pull of every scheme we can imagine.
Praxis, MacDonald is NOT an anti-Semite. This blog is not about anti-Semitism. I am not an anti-Semite. Even the very term is a bit of a made up term used to discredit any criticism of Jews or Israel.
I don’t wish Jews ill at all and neither does Dr. MacDonald from what I can tell. He simply wants to preserve Western Civilization and White culture and protect White interests.
Eurodele, we went through all that stuff … I watched the videos about so-called timed explosions and there is nothing to it. Why don’t you spend some time on the debunking sites and see if it changes your mind.
What can I say, all I see is evidence. But you have an interesting psychological quirk, which I’ve taken as evidence of retroactive decisional trauma. Fox airs a series on the Dancing Israelis and this is all the evidence you need to promote the idea that if there was something important “the people” need to know, the media will tell us.
Likewise, you take each piece of evidence, debunk it in its own vaccuum chamber, and move along. As if after each item you recreate your fantasy world where everything we talk about on this site does not exist, and the world is a happy place, presumably where your army enlistment wasn’t a huge mistake or, more probably, your decision to remain a Jew isn’t fraught with all the inconsistencies that make you rage daily about the awful logorithm of the puzzle when seen as a whole.
Anyway, kudos for sticking it out. You’ve kept your cool admirably.
“Praxis, MacDonald is NOT an anti-Semite.”
Of course not. And neither are you for agreeing with him. I presume you believe in free speech? Yes? Then you know what to do. Be sure to include the disclaimer: MacDonald is NOT an anti-Semite!
You do have neighbors, coworkers, and children, don’t you?
Praxis, I don’t think you understand MacDonald’s work at all. It is not the equivalent of an ethnic slur. It is the enemies of MacDonald that accuse him of anti-Semitism, not those who find his work intriguing.
Jeff Maylor: “Eurodele, the “official” story is not 100% BS.”
It certainly is, Jeff. But if you still deny it, then why don’t you go through the problematical details one by one and show how the official narrative explains them? You can start with the nanothermite particles and the eyewitness reports of “explosions” preceding collapse (I’m afraid I’ll have to take the word of heroic NYC firemen over yours).
@ Anti-Conspiracy Theorist
“Did the Israel lobby use the 9/11 tragedy to advance their own agenda? Absolutely, but that does not mean they were actively involved in carrying out the attacks. Likewise, the far left used Kennedy’s assassination by a Marxist drifter to advance their own sinister agenda. When you control the levers of power, you can twist significant events to your advantage as they occur.”
I’m afraid you’ve got a probabilistic fallacy going here, Anti.
Two highly improbable random events occurring near each other can be chalked up as a coincidence only if they are verifiably independent. But 9/11 was non-accidental; somebody with the resources must have put it together, and due to the difficulty, there must have been a definite motive (positive utility value). This rules out randomness or causal independence and shifts the focus to means, motive, and opportunity.
Thus, given a subsequent event or event-complex dependent on the first event – passage of the PATRIOT Act, multiple no-win wars against the enemies of Israel, tens of trillions stolen in broad daylight by Zio-bankers – that country and/or group must be considered as the possible perpetrator(s) of the first event.
In this case, there are exactly two possible main perpetrators to consider: the American government (or a faction thereof), and Israel (or a faction thereof), with both having the resources to commit the crime but the latter enjoying far more potential gain than the former. Logic therefore dictates that we focus on just two possibilities: one acting alone, or both acting in collusion.
Try instead to pin it on Muslims, who come in dead last for means, motive, and opportunity among all of those involved, and you’re thinking irrationally, period. It’s simple logic.
Spooky I’m not sure what “retroactive decisional trauma” is. But in the statement I made about Fox I specifically said I wouldn’t be surprised they were pressured to stop covering it due to pressure from the Israeli lobby. That hardly is a view that “all is well and we can trust the media”.
And can you explain what this statement of yours means: “and the world is a happy place, presumably where your army enlistment wasn’t a huge mistake or, more probably, your decision to remain a Jew isn’t fraught with all the inconsistencies that make you rage daily about the awful logorithm of the puzzle when seen as a whole.”
Huh?
Translation: You’re in denial.
Eurodele, almost every video of firemen reporting many explosions is a non-story. Almost none of them find it strange. Firemen expect multiple explosions in a collapsing building. There is a lot of stuff to blow up, you know? They simply described hearing explosions of at various times. So? Again the magical thinkers are trying to make something of it.
There is the one janitor that seems to have changed his story as time went on, if you actually look at the videos. Just go look at how the story grows from what he initially said to what he reports later. So, it’s hard to take the janitor seriously. So stop with the cheap rhetorical stunt of acting like you are on the side of “heroic firefighters”.
We’ll have to let experts sort out the nanothermite issue, but I’m pretty certain a year from now, when it’s been debunked, Harrit and Jones will have a new iteration to throw at us.
And I don’t think this is being pinned on poor Muslims. There are many good Muslims – most of them – but there are radical terrorists among them.
There is no evidence supporting the official 9/11 story and absolutely no reason to believe a story told by the prime suspect with a notorious history of telling Big Lies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is still a slave of his TV.
Yeah Spooky I just don’t get the metaphor … I don’t know if you are drinking but your thing about the army and remaining a Jew went right over my head. I haven’t been in the army and I am not Jewish – either by birth or conversion.
No, Jeff. Explosions are not “magical”, except to those who think that random Muslims trigger them with jetliners and thereby collapse skyscrapers in their footprints.
After all, the eyewitness reports are accompanied by video evidence of squibs. (I’ve seen those videos, and find them highly convincing. So do a lot of other people. If you don’t … well, I’m afraid that in the final analysis, that just doesn’t count for much.)
“So stop with the cheap rhetorical stunt of acting like you are on the side of heroic firefighters.”
Listen, dingbat. I was in NY when this happened. My best buddy was a volunteer physician at St. Vincent’s attending the wounded. I know several NYC firemen, but I don’t know a goddamned one who doesn’t find it all very strange indeed.
So who the hell are you, and where were you when 9/11 went down?
I thought for sure you were one or the other. So I guess you’re just a clear-headed scientific type. Like Darwin or Dawkins. Do you think a jury could be convinced that 9/11 was inside job?
Eurodele says to Anti-Conspiracy Theorist: “I’m afraid you’ve got a probabilistic fallacy going here” ….. “Two highly improbable random events occurring near each other can be chalked up as a coincidence only if they are verifiably independent. But 9/11 was non-accidental….”
Ok, there is no “probabilistic fallacy” going on there. There was nothing highly improbable about the passing of the Patriot act and going to war, etc, after the attacks. Once the first “improbable” event happened, the rest is very likely to occur.
And how random was the first attack? What about the original attack on the WTC back in ’93 when they used a truck bomb? What about the attack on the USS Cole? Isn’t there a serious of attacks by an organization called Al Qaeda that declared war on the US years ago?
Spooky, not everyone that disagrees with you is a Jew or a CIA agent, OK? I assure you I am nothing of the kind.
And yes, if there was real evidence of 911 being an “inside job”, I think a jury could find them guilty. Juries convict people on RICO charges all the time.
Jeff Maylor: “Ok, there is no “probabilistic fallacy” going on there. There was nothing highly improbable about the passing of the Patriot act and going to war, etc, after the attacks. Once the first “improbable” event happened, the rest is very likely to occur.”
Are you stupid, Jeff, or do you just not pay attention?
The PATRIOT Act could not have been passed without 9/11 or equivalent. It was DEPENDENT on 9/11, and it was a high-utility event for Israel. That means that its main beneficiary, Israel, plugs directly into the “means”, “motive” and “opportunity” slots in the first event (9/11). When tested, Israel comes up A++ for all three.
Now do you understand?
Bugliosi spent almost two decades of his life researching and demolishing the JFK conspiracy myths. In our bookstores sooner or later we will get the equivalent, 1½-million word, maximum opus about the 9/11 conspiracy theories published by a recognized author and publishing house.
There are already several books debunking the conspiracy theory advanced by the prime suspect (i.e., the one party with both a motive and an opportunity to commit the crime: the US government).
Eurodele, the “official” story is not 100% BS. There was a general consensus of what happened in broad outline soon after the event. Most of us believe 4 planes were hijacked and driven into targets and that it is was done at the direction of Muslim terrorists and then celebrated throughout the more radical parts of the Islamic world.
Of course. And you believe that for one reason: That’s what your TV told you.
No, I’m asking with the evidence as it stands, do you think a jury could be convinced of an inside job. Equally talented lawyers, unlimited funds both sides. Not in your head, in the courtroom. We know juries find all kinds of strange things. Do you find it outside the realm of possibility that a jury, not you, but John Q. Public, COULD find that 9/11 was an inside job with the evidence as it stands.
Jeff Maylor said:
“[A]lmost every video of firemen reporting many explosions is a non-story. Almost none of them find it strange. Firemen expect multiple explosions in a collapsing building. There is a lot of stuff to blow up, you know? They simply described hearing explosions of at various times. So? Again the magical thinkers are trying to make something of it.”
Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
The WTC lobby collapsed on these men following a third explosion occurring after the planes hit but before the towers fell. As they speak, both towers have been struck, but neither tower has yet fallen.
NIST would not release this video for nine years, until forced to do so in a FOIA suit few weeks ago. Why?
Eurodele, The last attack on 911 was part of a long series of attacks by Al Qaeda against the US. OK? Not improbable, not random. This is what happens when a group declares war on the US and then carries out a series of attacks. OK? Not random and not improbable. It is to be expected that attacks will take place when they have happened before. We forget that the building collapsed back in 1993. Is that Muslim – that blind sheik in prison – is he really a Mossad agent?
So yes, Henry Ford may have greatly benefited from the need for army vehicles due to World War 2, but I don’t think he helped pull off Pearl Harbor. If you start thinking that way, there are thousands of events the criteria you laid out.
I should say the building nearly collapsed back in 1993. People were arrested for that who happen to be Muslim extremists. And there were many attacks after that on USS Cole and others.
Yeah thanks Ben Tillman. I believe everything on TV. Thanks for your thoughtful input.
In 93 the FBI instigated the whole thing. Found the patsies, cooked the bomb, everything. But for the FBI in 93, it wouldn’t have happened.
Spooky, I can’t imagine a jury finding 911 was an “inside job” based on the evidence shown so far. Why are you asking, you know I think the case is very poor.
The whole case seems to be based on “raising questions”at best, not any real evidence that shows who supposedly did it.
Perhaps that would be a good exercise for the Truthers. Imagine what a really good case would like, strong enough to convict. Not “raise doubts” but convict someone. Pictures of men planting bombs, intercepted communications, etc … things that don’t just “cast doubt” on the so-called official story but actually prove who really did it.
OK help me out Spooky, you are saying that the bombing back in 1993 was actually an inside job too? Done by the FBI?
@ “Yeah thanks Ben Tillman. I believe everything on TV. Thanks for your thoughtful input.”
One of the most infuriating behavior I get from leftists is that, when I continue arguing a point (conspiracy theory or not), they usually resort to claim, out of the blue, that I got TV brainwashed—when in fact I got rid of my TV set since 1994! (and they are the ones who actually are plugged to the tube!).
Jeff Maylor: “We forget that the building collapsed back in 1993. Is that Muslim – that blind sheik in prison – is he really a Mossad agent?”
Sweet Jesus.
Obviously, the explosion of a car bomb in a basement did not require the extraordinary level of resources required by 9/11. Due to the resource requirements of 9/11, a blind sheik would not qualify as a prime suspect. A very strong case could be made that only one or more a sovereign nations would qualify. That’s one of the major differences between the two cases, and it’s enough to render them almost completely incomparable.
“So yes, Henry Ford may have greatly benefited from the need for army vehicles due to World War 2, but I don’t think he helped pull off Pearl Harbor. If you start thinking that way, there are thousands of events the criteria you laid out.”
It just gets better and better with you, doesn’t it? The causes of WWII were known to be independent of Ford and his car business, and the existence of the car business was in no way dependent on WWII. (Have you never had a clue, or is this just a bad night for you?)
Rob Lonaker, yes I saw that video. These firemen describe what sounded to them like secondary and tertiary explosions after the plane hit. I don’t understand why that is so unusual. Is it surprising that there is a series of explosions after a big plane hits a building? How long after the impact was this? As time goes by and burning fuel and fire work their way on a building it doesn’t seem that strange that there would explosions along the way.
Yes. The FBI was conducting a sting and sent their informant in with a live bomb. Of course all of you conspiracy freaks believe Institutions instead of actual individuals involved in the event. After all, what do Institutions have to gain by lying?
Ironically, I do believe that TWA flight 800 was masterminded by the blind sheikh and was an act of Islamic terrorism. It is ironic because this is the one event that was not actually blamed on muslims in the MSM. In a real act of terrorism they never give the real terrorists the credit because that would give them exactly what they want – kind of like paying a ransom. It would only be coincidental if the actual terrorist is named, and this only because government can never let a good tragedy go to waste and the actual terrorist happens to be the Target of Choice. This is reason #7000 why 9/11 was not done by muslims, in a cave or otherwise. It wasn’t even an act of terrorism. It was an act of War, and as such practically meaningless unless you consider the US Government the perpetrator. And when seen as such, especially in light of our Jewish culture and neoconservatism in general, it makes perfect sense.
Jeff Maylor, the lobby that collapsed due to an explosion, according to the firemen, was either 77 or 93 floors below where the plane hit, depending on the tower.
Eurodele, you are simply lying now. The events between 1993 and 2001 are comparable because the intent of both attacks was the same – to bring down the WTC. The first attempt did not require the resources of the second, but the point, which every sane person on the planet understands, is that there is pattern of attacks by Muslim terrorists against the WTC and other Western targets. So the second attack, while more elaborate, was not out of character for Al Qaeda. It is not random or improbable. Can you grasp that?
Tell me Eurodele, do you even believe there is such a thing as a Muslim terrorist? Do you think Al Qaeda even exists? Is it all a CIA front? What about those Muslims that chant “death to America”. Is that all faked footage? To anticipate your slurs, I don’t think all Muslims are bad but I do think there are terrorists among them that attack the West. Do you?
Rob Lonaker, I just don’t find it all that earth shattering. Was this 15 minutes after the planes hit? 20 minutes? Was it while the second plane was hitting the other tower? As steel and concrete buckle and fires rage, I assume all kinds of things will give way in a structure like that. I’m not a civil engineer but it doesn’t strike me as evidence of a literal bomb being set off by Mossad agents or the CIA.
I don’t think a jury would be impressed. The debunking site has a lot of information about the accounts of explosions.
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
Spooky, who do you think Bin Laden really is then? Does he even exist? Or he is a CIA agent? He wrote a very long and detailed account of why he believes the US has violated sacred Muslim soil. He wrote that our actions were worthy of attacks – acts of war. Does Bin Laden really exist? What’s his story? Why did he take credit for 911?
@ “Tell me Eurodele, do you even believe there is such a thing as a Muslim terrorist? Do you think Al Qaeda even exists?”
It’s them Jeff, not us, who are in denial: that’s why my above comments deal with heavy psychology stuff.
People who are in denial or clueless about Islam (not “radical Islam”, not “militant Islam” or “Islamism”, put Islam pure and simple) ought do well to watch a video at the top of this entry.
Jeff Maylor: “The point, which every sane person on the planet understands, is that there is pattern of attacks by Muslim terrorists against the WTC and other Western targets.”
No, dingbat. That’s not “the point”.
Due to the vast difference in resource requirements for the 1993 and 2001 WTC attacks, and the fact that the perpetrator convicted of the first attack was out of commission in 2001, the same suspect cannot have committed both crimes.
The fact that various Muslims have committed isolated attacks on the US is merely circumstantial; they are not the same suspect and cannot be so-treated, UNLESS you can prove that they were all working coherently, e.g., for a particular government or agency in a position to commit every such attack (e.g., Al CIA-da).
Unfortunately for your legal career, it is impossible to demonstrate that Al CIA-da even exists as a discrete entity, let alone that it has the means, motive, and opportunity to accomplish anything on the scale of 9/11. (Not even the CIA itself has been able to do so.)
Thanks Chechar, I needed that. I get wrapped up in trying to point out the illogic of the other side and forget that logic is not really the issue. Very interesting website by the way.
Gotcha eurodele, it’s “Al CIA-da”. The scales have been lifted from my eyes.
Talk about lying…
It was dumb to run the piece. It only opens your great site to slander.
Yes, there are intresting parts to what happened on 9/11. Let infowars do that stuff.
Jeff Maylor, NIST deliberately chose not to look for chemical evidence of explosives and dismissed accounts of other large explosions that hundreds of eyewitnesses gave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
The 9/11 Commission also ignored all such evidence.
It’s improper for the government now to place the burden on citizens, who lack subpoena power, to make the case so completely as to convince a jury. The government should explain why it hid, destroyed, and ignored evidence.
The best we can ask for is an investigation that looks at that evidence now. Videos of the towers’ destruction show, through physical analysis, that the official story is false.
Chechar said:
“People who are in denial or clueless about Islam (not “radical Islam”, not “militant Islam” or “Islamism”, put Islam pure and simple) ought do well to watch a video at the top of this entry.”
You are right about Islam. It is a major threat. Look how Muslims take over Paris streets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7oezVO1Bk
Many of us are not in denial about this. This does not mean, however, that Israel could not have been behind 9/11.
The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.
Rob Lonaker I certainly have no problem with further investigations, particularly on the ‘did the Israelis have foreknowledge’ front. To me, if that was ever proven it would be explosive by itself.
@Chechar
I didn’t imply that it was the gold standard. Only that most wiki articles on the paranormal & conspiracy theories (like the one who I edited under my real name—this is my User Page in Wikiland) are not bad at all.
Most wiki articles “are not bad” in general, that doesn’t mean they are supposed to settle historical/scientific/whatever issues. So pointing to a discussion over there isn’t much of a argument.
And yes: once you study classic conspiracy mindsets like those poor souls who produced literature on the Roswell incident or JFK, you see that the dissociative cognition process among the proponents of these various belief systems—what I call psychological fallacies—is exactly the same, even if the specific claims (e.g., 9/11) are wholly different.
If “specific claims are wholly different”, then that is where you should be focusing on, isn’t it? What you have tried so far, however, is to use the guilt-by-association smear in order to discredit scepticism and further inquiry of these “specific claims”.
Something like “you remind me of Hitler, who was a nutjob, ergo you are a nutjob”. In other words, you are using the very same leftist tactics that have probably been used already against you too.
@ Praxis
Dr. MacDonald’s work already has a “UFO/Area51″ feel to it. So does the U.S.S. Liberty Memorial website.
Great point. That’s the irony with the deniers here. It’s as if suddenly just being labeled an “antisemite”, “racist”, “nativist”, “white supremacist” and so on is now somehow manageable or even marginally acceptable by the establishment, but a “truther” …no, heavens no, that would be terrible.
I remember hearing a radio talk show host say once, that if you ever mention UFOs or JFK conspiracies on the air, the lines light up like wildfire. You get tons of calls from very passionate people. And you also lose most of your audience.
When Confucious was asked what he would do if he were lord of the universe, he replied: “I would call things by their right names.” This is a most profound observation, and becomes more profound the more you experience the insidious mental gymnastics of those who, in our own time, dedicate their energies to the art of obfuscation. There are a thousand answers to every question until you know the truth. Then there is only one.
INSIDIOUS: (1) Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner. (2) Intended to entrap; wily, treacherous. (3) Sly, Beguiling. (4) Lying in wait. OBFUSCATION: To render indistinct or dim; darken. (2) To confuse or becloud.
Rob: “It’s improper for the government now to place the burden on citizens, who lack subpoena power, to make the case so completely as to convince a jury. The government should explain why it hid, destroyed, and ignored evidence.”
Yes. But of course, it won’t, because it is bought and paid for by those hostile to our interests, because its members are overtly treasonous, because it has had almost a decade to cover its stinking tracks, and because the legal system is now so corrupt that even if one could get the traitors into court, some black-robed Zio-flunkey would issue them a pass before you could say “al Qaeda eats bad little children for breakfast!”
We’ll have to get some limited reform before this problem can be properly addressed. If there’s one thing the whole mess proves beyond doubt, it’s that governmental corruption now runs too deep to be removed by the fall of a gavel. We’re in for something more like double amputation with a carpenter’s handsaw, no whiskey.
First of all, many thanks to Mr.Lonaker and Prof.KM for posting this article. Some fellas here, Jeff Maylor above all, have tried to ridicule 9/11 truthers as if they have no real arguments. Thats a load of BS. To say that the thousands of engineers, architects, scientists, pilots, politicians, former CIA officials, military people, etc, who have doubted the official account, are kooks or idiots, is simply malicious idiocy. People like ret Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski, Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, former Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Reagan, Dr.P.C.Roberts, Dr.Alan N. Sabrosky, former CIA analyst Ray MacGovern, David L. Griscom, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Physical Society, Physicist Steven Jones, Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA, Professor of Sociology James Petras, Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer and Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq, Scott Ritter,certified quality engineer K Ryan, architect Richard Gage, Danny Jowenko, proprietor of Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V , Prof David Johnson, civil engineer Scott Grainger, Dr. Hugo Bachmann, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and hundreds of others, too numerous to list without putting people to sleep. They all kooks and idiots Maylor? Right. Btw, I have no idea what happened on 9/11 but clearly the official dossier stinks up to high heavens and a new thorough investigation is needed.
Prof MacDonald wrote:
“However, I decided that the common denominator here is huge pressure on the media from Jewish activist organizations to prevent discussion and a full investigation” AND “pressure against public discussion of Jewish issues is very common”. Exactly. I could not help noticing however the fact that the biggest of all such issues, the Holocaust religion, wasn’t even mentioned. Yet there is NOTHING more heavily guarded against investigation than the alleged extermination phase of the big H. Huge taboo there AND a decisive one with consequences that make subsequent discussions about the validity of race, racial differences, euros keeping their culture, white guilt, the rational core behind anti-semitism, mass immigration ,etc, IMPOSSIBLE, at least as far as msm goes. The funny thing is that the extermination phase of the Holocaust is based on the weakest evidence, as inadvertently admitted from time to time even by a few Holo big wigs. On the other hand the beleaguered H revisionists have presented much evidence showing that no such extermination took place. In other words, the official version is a baseless conspiracy theory. At some point white nationalists will have to face this reality, no matter how unpalatable or not tactical they may consider it to be. A demand that the holocaust be treated as a historical set of events, instead of impenetrable dogma is of paramount importance. Possibly the big h is the greatest source of power organized Jewry has had at its disposal since WWII.
BTW, good posts eurodele! ;-)
Spooky, who do you think Bin Laden really is then? Does he even exist? Or he is a CIA agent? He wrote a very long and detailed account of why he believes the US has violated sacred Muslim soil. He wrote that our actions were worthy of attacks – acts of war. Does Bin Laden really exist? What’s his story? Why did he take credit for 911?
These are things we sinply have no way of knowing. Our knowledge, or more accurately our beliefs, regarding such things are mediated. They all depend on hearsay from people we can’t cross-examine and whom in many cases we have reason to distrust.
If it ever becomes mainstream knowledge that 9/11 was a Mossad operation, the Jews are finished. Nobody is going to trust or feel sorry for them ever again. This is one thing (besides a complete economic collapse) that could bring down our corrupt government, and stop the Jews from genociding our people.
Some links about 9/11 and the Israel lobby:
Interview with Controlled Demo Expert, Danny Jowenko, confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc&feature=related
Dr. Alan Sabrosky (former Directer of Studies at the US Army War Collage) says in this interview that the military brass now know Israel and traitors within our nation committed the 9/11 attacks.
9/11 The Military Knows Israel Mossad and rogue US Gov. Did It – Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYNg6abWIc
9/11 The Military Knows Israel Mossad and rogue US Gov. Did It – Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EV4SIG9NIs&feature=related
9/11 The Military Knows Israel Mossad and rogue US Gov. Did It – Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcCiyKFPC08&feature=related
9/11 The Military Knows Israel Mossad and rogue US Gov. Did It – Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx6I9bOhWrM&feature=related
More recent interviews with Dr. Alan Sabrosky:
Alan Sabrosky Pt1 of 7 100% Sure Israel – Rogue US Gov.did 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GemBPvSsbG4
Alan Sabrosky Pt2 of 7 100% Sure Israel – Rogue US Gov.did 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77zuDv5zIc0&feature=related
Alan Sabrosky Pt3 of 7 100% Sure Israel – Rogue US Gov.did 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycCaRaabBRI&feature=related
Alan Sabrosky Pt4 of 7 100% Sure Israel – Rogue US Gov.did 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t634gwFeutI&feature=related
Alan Sabrosky Pt5 of 7 100% Sure Israel – Rogue US Gov.did 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c1mqoYR4B0&feature=related
Alan Sabrosky Pt6 of 7 100% Sure Israel – Rogue US Gov.did 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brg0RI1rOJA&feature=related
Alan Sabrosky Pt7 of 7 100% Sure Israel – Rogue US Gov.did 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOsho6Yd1Hs&NR=1
Iranian TV interview with Alan Sabrosky part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LauNdT0X3XM
Iranian TV interview with Alan Sabrosky part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvWQWBGkzxo&NR=1
Iranian TV interview with Alan Sabrosky part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZw_HbdBCvk&NR=1
WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo&feature=related
Former Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent Alan Hart: Israel did 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDsW4DyyZvU&feature=related
Police recordings confirm Mossad Truck Bomb explosion on Sept 11th
From police transcripts:
it’s a big truck with a mural painted of a of a airplane diving into New York City and exploding….
two men got outta the truck ran away from it, we got those two [inaudible] under….
we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drive….
drove in the van, the van EXPLODED we have both of them under kay let’s get some help over here….
The video shows this incident was reported on the major news networks that day, but the story was mysteriously dropped soon afterwords, and never mentioned again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKj6uJ5Mt4&feature=related
Rick Sanchez was one of the reporters near the scene of the truck explosion. How could this not have fueled his cynicism of Jewish power in America over the years. Did knowing this detail of 9/11 help trigger those anti-Semitic comments he made during that radio interview?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti8eyZL_7Co
NEW PROOF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! Richard Gage. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth
It just so happens that in the months leading up to 9/11, the elevators at the WTC complex were being modernized. This would have given the Mossad a perfect cover, and needed access to the main support columns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us&feature=related
Foiled Israeli terrorist plot to bomb the Mexican Parliament building on October 10, 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKtnqH47tA&NR=1
MI5 Agent Annie Machon alludes to Mossad link with 9/11 in interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_4nmAqVqco&feature=player_embedded
More about how they did 911.
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367&start=0
The Israel Lobby (in America) – A Dutch TV documentary about America’s most powerful lobby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98
Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby – From UK’s channel 4 TV
“Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H88gVDrIlPs
Former nine-term Ohio Democratic congressman Jim Traficant: “Israel controls America”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsVLnaHmMjE
EXPOSED This is how Israel controls your media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18TRLG8Gwqs&feature=player_embedded
Press TV talks to Mark Dankof on Truth about 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxeCtH1HDvs&feature=player_embedded
Cynthia Mckinney: Israel owns the US Government – Ex Congresswoman interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyiIvuoL77c
Former CIA Officer: Israel Controls U.S. Government & Media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-SszJkjy60&feature=related
About UFOs
Someone asked a scientist on TV about what chance humans would have against an ‘Independence Day’ style invasion by aliens. he replied “If they had the technology to get here … In other words no chance at all.
If a fraction of what eurodele and like minded commenters
say is true then we can give up in the certain knowledge that nothing we could do would make the slightest difference because we have been defeated – finally, totally, and irrevocably.
@ “Chechar… What you have tried so far, however, is to use the guilt-by-association smear in order to discredit scepticism” – kirk
Oh boy: I thought that we were the skeptics and you the believers…
I use the term “skepticism” as those guys who have published in Skeptical Inquirer have done since 1976. You are the ones who are violating Occam’s razor and inverting the meaning of language. By definition, “skepticism” means to be skeptical of any conspiracy theory that violates the parsimony principle: what you have done throughout this thread.
Do I have to enter the minutiae of the 9/11 discussions? Of course not: that’s why I stated above that in my CSI years I only researched, and published my stuff, on two fringe subjects, the Shroud and a case of purported “wall face” appearances in a little Spanish town that I visited (I am the main contributor of a Wikipedia article about it). On the other hand, those skeptics who have published about JFK or 9/11 either in Skeptical Inquirer or spoken in CSI conferences have obviously entered the specifics of the JFK & 9/11 debates.
I don’t need to become a scholar in every fringe subject of every Skeptical Inquirer issue—there are literally thousands of fringe claims; what I heard Carl Sagan say in one of the CSI conferences—to recognize (1) a blatant violation of Occam’s razor and (2) a pitiful regression to paleologic thinking.
Since the 1980s my area of interest has been the latter. And it’s fairly obvious to me that if we are to convince the white race that the Jewish problem is not a protocol-elders-Zion hallucination we better get rid of our magical thinking; of denying the genocide of Jews in WW2, and start focusing on the genocide committed by Stalin’s willing executioners against our people (cf. one of my blog’s entries, here).
Only getting rid of our paleologic regression will win the day for OO.
Chechar: “You are the ones who are violating Occam’s razor and inverting the meaning of language. By definition, “skepticism” means to be skeptical of any conspiracy theory that violates the parsimony principle: what you have done throughout this thread.”
Clearly, this includes the bizarre, blatantly counterfactual conspiracy theory offered by the US Government as an explanation for 9/11.
For you to deny this would be completely irrational, and disqualify you from pontificating on anyone else’s thought processes … that is, unless you’re “rational” in the specific game-theoretic context occupied by hirelings or co-beneficiaries of those whose interests are served by your claptrap.
Deny this, and you’re either falsely accusing anyone who disagrees with the government of being mentally unbalanced – and we all know what kind of person does *that*, don’t we – or you’re proving that you, yourself, are mentally unbalanced in every legitimate sense of the phrase.
Take your pick – either shut up, or prove yourself a nutter or Zionist agent. It’s entirely up to you.
Thank you Dr. MacDonald for allowing examination of
the 9/11 “controversy.” I taught physics and chemistry
for 25 years. The arguments of Dr. Jones, a former
physics professor at BYU, in my opinion are convincing.
The Twin Towers were blown up.
Several things made me suspicious immediately:
1) the collapse of the Towers look exactly like the
planned demolitions of buildings show on TV;
2) A third building NOT hit by a plane collapsed
in the same manner as the other two;
3) the cheering Israelis;
4) death toll in lethal zone was far less
than estimated by Dan Rather on 9/11/2001.
why would 20,000 people be absent unless
they had warning?;
5) 9/11 precipitated the endless “wars against
terrorism” so favored by Israelis and the passage
of the fascist so-called Patriot Bill championed
by the rabid Zionists in our government.
“. . .anyone who disagrees with the government of being mentally unbalanced. . .”
The Soviets called it sluggish schizophrenia.
“Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia or sluggish schizophrenia (Russian: вялотекущая шизофрения) (vyalotekushchaya shizofreniya) was a category of schizophrenia diagnosed by psychiatrists in the Soviet Union. At the time, Western psychiatry recognized only four types of schizophrenia: catatonic, hebephrenic, paranoid, and simple. The diagnostic criteria for this fifth category were so vague that it could be applied to virtually any person not suffering from mental function impairment and having interests beyond survival needs. The diagnosis was sometimes applied to dissidents who were not in fact mentally ill, so that they could be forcibly hospitalized in mental institutions and subjected to treatments including powerful antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy.
Dissidents who were diagnosed with sluggish schizophrenia included Leonid Plyushch and Zhores Medvedev.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggishly_progressing_schizophrenia
>>>”You walk in, plant yourself squarely on both feet, look the other fella in the eye, and tell the truth.”
James Cagney
Someday says:
“We can give up in the certain knowledge that nothing we could do would make the slightest difference because we have been defeated – finally, totally, and irrevocably.”
In our current iteration, certainly. As certainly as Wilhelm Marr knew that Germany had been defeated.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Marr-Text-English.pdf
That list of links given by Jim above – thanks, Jim! – contains interviews with Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College.
Sabrosky says, absolutely clearly, that “the military brass now know that Israel and those traitors within our nation committed the 911 attack.” He is using words like “Islrael will be destroyed.”
This is no small development (I know someone who taught at the War College, and you’d better believe there’s nothing small-time about it or its personnel).
This could change things rather markedly indeed. In fact, it could be the beginning of the end of the status quo.
You better watch what you’re smoking and so had Dr. Alan Sabrosky.
“You better watch what you’re smoking and so had Dr. Alan Sabrosky.”
We all know who *you’re* smoking, pal, and it ain’t Joe Camel.
One minute you argue the Jews control the US military, intelligence – everything. Then ( according to you) they’re about to be taken out by the very same people .
This is the ‘whiff of reality’ is it?
Someday: “One minute you argue the Jews control the US military, intelligence – everything. Then ( according to you) they’re about to be taken out by the very same people.”
Well, Someday, it’s like this. When you’re a White man in modern America, you take it as it comes. You can’t be too picky. News rolls in; you read it and try to be as optimistic as possible about it. You hope that maybe White cerebral and testicular function will eventually have a comeback.
Now, there can be no doubt that Jews have been running the show here in America. That’s a given. But here’s the thing: 2-3% of the population can only spread themselves so thin. So there may be certain subsets of real (as opposed to Jewish, Israel-first) Americans who, precisely because they’ve been hoodwinked into thinking it’s “business as usual” in the USA, aren’t yet under the microscopic realtime control of the wizened lox and gefilte fish swimming like fearsome sharks through the waterways and spillways of power.
If we get lucky, some of those Americans may turn out to be in the armed services, with control over military hardware capable of repelling sharks! Or at least hardware that can be prevented from responding to the control levers inside the spillways.
That would be really great, wouldn’t it? ;-)
Now go back to eating your chicken soup and matzoh.
Chechar: “And it’s fairly obvious to me that if we are to convince the white race …”
To add a new twist to an old quote, it’s when I hear talk of “convincing” the white race of anything that I reach for my revolver.
What makes you think that the mass of Whites is governed by intellect? These are the same people who have carefully averted their eyes while the Jews sank their fangs into their country and now begin to suck it dry. They are, despite this, a Christian nation that knows – and, most significantly, wants to know! – very little about Jews beyond the fact that their sweet baby Jeebus was one. All that they’re “convinced” of is that they’ll receive a kiss from him after they die if they can just avoid anti-Semitism and racism while on this earth. To them, that’s a fair exchange. Does that sound rational to you?
Apropos our current topic, if the masses had been governed by intellect, then there would have been full-scale investigations of the Israeli spies angle. There would have been outrage at their plainly apparent foreknowledge of the attacks. Instead … NOTHING. Here’s a little secret: If the average guy doesn’t know about all this by now, it’s because he doesn’t want to know. The status quo obtains mostly because of self-censorship.
As The Gulag Archipelago should be enough to prove to anyone, any plan that depends on the masses rising up is a bad plan.
To JIM, 10-25-10 @ 8:52 AM: A “complete economic collapse that could bring down our corrupt government” is likely in the works. But it will not “stop the Jews from genociding our people.” It would/will, in fact, help facilitate that outcome.
I understand what you say Der weiße Engel, except that Göring quotation “…I reach for my revolver”. When Borislav Geremek visited my town twenty years ago, just after the Berlin Wall fell, he said on national TV that communism had flourished in his native Poland only because of the passivity of the civil society. I happen to be reading Harold Covington’s 735-page novel The Brigade and it looks like whites will have to be plunged hellishly deep down into the circle of the joys of multiculturalism before daring to wake up.
As to our current topic, it’s not that I reject aprioristically that the Jews knew it before 9/11, it’s rather the astronomical leap of faith of believing religiously that the operation was orchestrated by the US and/or Israel what worries me.
What you say about today’s Christians is true. Jim Giles said something quite similar in the radio Free Mississippi interview of Alex Linder on 2008-11-7.
I’d write something but I haven’t received orders from my Zio-masters today. I’ve been accused of being a Jew, a CIA agent, an Army intelligence officer, and someone who mindlessly believes what he sees on TV (which is why I’m on THIS site, right?).
But I will say this, it is valuable for people to gain a mature sense of how power is actually exercised. It’s not quite done like a witch’s coven of people whispering beneath Satanic symbols.
@Chechar
Oh boy: I thought that we were the skeptics and you the believers…
No, it’s the other way around. You believe in something and you don’t want it challenged or investigated.
You see a building going down at near free fall speed, the way it is supposed to go down if it is has been planned for demolition. This happens nearly 1 hour after it has been hit by a plane.
Then they tell you that the reason the building went down was that fire up there, which by the time of collapse had already almost burnt out. Numerous occasions of explosions in the buildings reported or even recorded are simply disregarded.
What does Occam’s Razor tell you and who’s the sceptic in this?
Look, at the end of the day you can believe whatever you want. Just don’t pretend that you are still a “sceptic” while denying the most basic forms of reasonable doubt there exist, to say the least, in any decent meaning of the word, because it sounds -and it is- more than ridiculous.
Everything that you just wrote my dear kirk is pure projection.
Kirk, you should know full well that all that has been addressed by experts. If you are an example of the reasoning powers of “White nationalists” than Jews have nothing to fear. They will run rings around you.
Chechar, likewise. Plant a few more seeds for a change.
Jeff, it is your patriotic duty to save this country from all those evil kooks who want to disturb our faith in our benevolent and truthful government, media and our closest allies (Israel in particular). Please don’t waste any more time and start discrediting all of them:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
We are counting on you, let us know when you finish.
Kirk, can you only battle straw men you create? Sure Kirk, I am arguing that every last thing the government tells us is right. That’s always been my position. I don’t want anyone’s faith disturbed in the infallibility of our government. That’s it.
If you want to truly have people question the motives of people in powerful positions inside the US you do need to separate yourself from silly theories.
For example, if you want to convince people that the North American Union is a threat and is being promoted in a more or less hidden manner, it does help if you aren’t also promoting silly theories.
“Sure Kirk, I am arguing that every last thing the government tells us is
right.”
Obviously. But don’t let me interrupt you, keep up the good work!
To highlight any aspect of 911 other than WTC-7 is obfuscation, whether intended or not.
Nearly all 911 truth sites have been effectively co-opted by Jews and their Jewthink stringers. Theories and arguments abound everywhere — except WTC-7. Note how discussion is often directed away from this smoking gun.
WTC-7 is OBVIOUS Controlled Demolition!
Bob
As obvious as the CIA involvement in the assassination of JFK; as obvious as the cover up of The Truth about UFOs in the Roswell incident by the State; as obvious as the government control of the media in the heinous cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse, as obvious as…
Bob said:
“To highlight any aspect of 911 other than WTC-7 is obfuscation, whether intended or not.”
Bob, you’re right that WTC7 is a smoking gun. I mention it and include a link in my article at http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Lonaker-9-11.html
For example, NIST admitted in its final report, after it was forced by public comment to amend its draft report, that WTC7 fell symmetrically at free-fall acceleration (9.8 m/s^2) for at least 2.25 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
NIST did not mention the huge implication of this free-fall acceleration: that (1) resistance to collapse at each floor was removed simultaneously around the floor, and (2) resistance to collapse of each floor beneath was removed either (a) sequentially, immediately after the floor above, at the acceleration of gravity, or (b) sooner. This is inconceivable without explosives.
But believe it or not, the twin towers’ explosive destruction are even greater smoking guns. See the discussion and linked references in the article above.
Another fact not mentioned in the article:
David Chandler shows how multi-ton steel wall modules were propelled hundreds of feet from the South tower at a horizontal velocity of more than 70 miles per hour. If the building fell from a gravity-based collapse without aid of explosives, it would not be expected to produce horizontal force vectors of such magnitude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A
Another thread that went to 300 comments was Jews and American Renaissance. (2006) Saved by the Wayback Archive.
Jews and American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, May 2006
[This article appears in the forthcoming issue of American Renaissance.]
“I started American Renaissance 17 years ago in order to awaken whites to the crisis they face and to encourage them to unite in defending their legitimate interests as a race. To these ends, AR has deliberately avoided taking positions on questions about which racially-conscious whites are likely to disagree. Some of these have been foreign policy, abortion, the role of homosexuals in a white consciousness movement, and whether Christianity helps or hinders our efforts. By taking no position, AR has served readers who may be sharply opposed on these questions but who agree on the central importance of race, and are committed to our survival.
AR has likewise taken no explicit position on Jewish matters. Readers have always included both Jews and people who believe Jews play no useful role in a movement that promotes white interests. It has been my intent to emphasize questions crucial to our interests and on which we agree.
To put it more accurately, AR has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR conferences. It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts. There has always been a minority in the AR constituency that has criticized me and AR for welcoming Jews, and there has been another minority that has criticized me and AR for not denouncing the first minority. These groups have generally treated each other with polite reserve, and expressed their bitterness only among themselves or to me—as was proper.
There are other divisions within AR. There are Christians and atheists, Democrats and Republicans, evolutionists and creationists, and advocates of different foreign policies. There has been tension within AR on these questions, but always good manners.
That changed at the most recent American Renaissance conference. At least one participant told a Jewish conferee that Jews were not welcome. One participant well known for strong views rose to denounce Jews as the historic enemy of the European people. Another called him “a f***ing Nazi,” and stormed out of the conference hall.
There will be no more disgraceful behavior of this kind if people who attend AR conferences bear in mind that Jews have a valuable role in the work of American Renaissance, and are welcome participants and speakers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has the choice of staying home or keeping his views to himself.
AR does not, on the other hand, have litmus tests for subscribers or conference participants. There will always be disagreement and debate in our ranks on many issues, including the role Jews may or may not have played in creating the crisis we face. Some people in the AR community believe Jewish influence was decisive in destroying the traditional American consensus on race. Others disagree.
Gentile whites—without help from anyone else—have repeatedly shown themselves capable of egalitarian excess. The French Revolution, the Clapham abolitionists, John Brown and his backers, the miscegenist enthusiasms of the Grimke sisters and other radical integrationists are all products of purely gentile delusion. Even if it were possible to prove that Jewish influence derailed what used to be a healthy American racial consciousness, that is a historical question not directly relevant to what we must accomplish now.
Today, even groups that openly resist Jewish influence are deeply liberal-egalitarian. In 2005, the Presbyterian Church angered many Jewish groups by voting to divest itself of stock in companies it considered to be supporting injustice against Palestinians. In 2006, the Church of England voted to do the same. These churches are prepared to ignore the wishes of many Jewish organizations, yet their members are as relentlessly suicidal on race as any group in either country. Whatever its origins may have been—and they are hardly exclusively Jewish—white ethnomasochism has a life and momentum of its own.
The role of Jews in a society, the morality of abortion, the influence of Christianity, the appropriate foreign policy, and the place of homosexuals should all be discussed openly in a free society, all in their appropriate places. AR is not that place. We cannot afford dissension that distracts us from our goal.
We have vital work to do. Our civilization, our way of life, even our continuity as a distinct people depend on whether we succeed or fail. It is a distraction from our proper work to hunt for culprits, to blame others for our own loss of will.
We may still be a small minority, but we have history, human nature, and morality on our side. Success for us lies in demonstrating that our views are right, healthy and moral—and that liberal-egalitarianism is wrong and immoral; not in trying to “unmask” it as a Jewish conspiracy.
Postscript
In light of the events described above, it was clear to me that a statement of some kind was necessary. Apparently, others thought so, too. In March I received a letter from several people associated with American Renaissance, insisting not only on a statement but on changes in editorial policy and in the organization of AR conferences.
AR has always welcomed advice, but condescending, shape-up-or-else letters are more likely to have the opposite effect of whatever may have been intended. The tone of the letter was one that would suggest that what appears above was drafted under pressure—so much so that some, in my place, would have written nothing at all.
One should not, however, let the mistakes of others deflect one from decisions already taken, and I believe AR’s position is now clear.
We are no longer accepting comments on this article.
(Posted on April 14, 2006)
Read the 329 comments:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060422155524/www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/jews_and_americ.php
Jared Taylor: “The role of Jews in a society, the morality of abortion, the influence of Christianity, the appropriate foreign policy, and the place of homosexuals should all be discussed openly in a free society, all in their appropriate places. AR is not that place. We cannot afford dissension that distracts us from our goal.”
Which is precisely what, formulated in terms general enough to embrace these crucial issues and span disagreements regarding them?
Either such a general formulation exists, or it doesn’t. To me, it seems quite obvious that it doesn’t, and that even if some kind of big-tent consensus is achieved in its absence, it will disintegrate as soon as discourse necessarily moves on to these essential issues.
Taylor says ““I started American Renaissance 17 years ago in order to awaken whites to the crisis they face and to encourage them to unite in defending their legitimate interests as a race. To these ends, AR has deliberately avoided taking positions on questions about which racially-conscious whites are likely to disagree.”
However, “racially-conscious Whites” cannot afford to disagree on certain issues, inasmuch as thinking the wrong way about them totally invalidates any rational form of “White racial consciousness”. These issues run the gamut from tolerance of “All Gentiles Must Serve Us As Donkeys and then Die!” Jewish supremacism as recently voiced by a leading Israeli rabbi, to non-White Immigration, to the discombobulated Alex Jones war cry of “Damn Family Planning and Evil Eugenicists Like Margaret Sanger, We Need All The Precious Black Babies We Can Git In This Country!”
It’s time to get real on some of these issues. Whites who refuse to do so are not only as useless as feathers on a frog, but an obvious impediment to White survival. Making tacit accommodations for them only convinces them of their rightness and encourages their folly.
The value of consensus is easy to understand. But catering by omission to those Whites who are offended by rationality is hardly a viable option.
911 conspiracy theories are, in my opinion, an example of chaffing (sic, not chafing), that is, flooding the wheat with chaff in order to bury and/or discredit it. The “wheat” being Israeli prior knowledge, film crew, etc.
“911 conspiracy theories are, in my opinion, an example of chaffing (sic, not chafing), that is, flooding the wheat with chaff in order to bury and/or discredit it. The “wheat” being Israeli prior knowledge, film crew, etc.”
Sorry, but that’s inconsistent and we can’t accept it.
As soon as you assert the existence of “Israeli prior knowledge, (an Israeli) film crew, etc.”, the immediate implication is a cover-up of same by the US and Israeli governments. That’s as much a conspiracy theory as the original government “explanation” of the disaster.
Similar reasoning can easily be applied to almost anything new or useful that can be said about 9/11. Thus, there is no easy way to draw a clear line between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” causal theories thereof…or as you put it, between the “wheat” and the “chaff”.
Some here have insinuated that they can use science and scientific methodology to make that distinction, but have then resorted to arguments from authority and (their own personal senses of) plausibility, implying that they actually know nothing whatsoever about science or its methodology (Chechar, Jeff Maylor, etc.).
Obviously, such protestations are both impudent and ridiculous.
We know “nothing whatsoever about science or its methodology”? Sure. Those 30 Prometheus books on science and pseudo-science (including those of Martin Gardner) that I purchased and studied for years plus the hundred issues of Skeptical Inquirer plus the CSI conferences I attended plus my university studies resulted in “nothing whatsoever about science or its methodology”? And, of course, swallowing the conspiracy claims about JFK, SRA, 9/11 and Roswell is good science and good methodology?
Jeff: you say you’re the “skeptic”. Jesus. In the 35 years of existence of the CSI it’s the first time I hear that those who believe in conspiracy theories are, in fact, the “skeptics” (and the conspiracy skeptics the “believers”)!
This embarrassing OO thread is looking more and more like the Alice world behind the mirror. Hope Dr MacDonald deletes it…
OOps sorry:
Instead of Jeff I should have written KIRK
“Those 30 Prometheus books on science and pseudo-science (including those of Martin Gardner) that I purchased and studied for years plus the hundred issues of Skeptical Inquirer plus the CSI conferences I attended plus my university studies resulted in “nothing whatsoever about science or its methodology”?”
No, I’m afraid not.
Let me be more specific. You obviously
(1) don’t understand what science is;
(2) don’t understand scientific methodology or its limitations;
(3) don’t understand scientific standards of evidence or associated ambiguities;
and
(4) don’t understand the philosophy of science.
Nothing personal, but I’m afraid those are my findings.
I “don’t understand what science is; don’t understand scientific methodology or its limitations; don’t understand scientific standards of evidence or associated ambiguities”. But don’t worry Eurodale, you *do* understand all that :)
“But don’t worry Eurodale, you *do* understand all that.”
Let’s not go to extremes…after all, these are pretty big subjects!
But on the basis of your comments in this thread, I can only surmise that I understand them much, much better than you do.
Sorry, but that’s my honest understanding of the situation.
Eurodele says,
“Thus, there is no easy way to draw a clear line between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” causal theories thereof…or as you put it, between the “wheat” and the “chaff”.
Yeah, science, evidence, logic … things like that can probably help you get an idea which theories are probable and which are improbable, instead of using the rush of adrenaline you feel when thinking about the unraveling of a super-massive conspiracy as a guide.
It’s like when you are a teenager and you get thrilled by some fantastic idea; it’s annoying when adults throw cold water o it. It’s always great fun to imagine you are making a great discovery that skips all the hard work real thinkers have to do.
Eurodele, Truthers saying things like “now it is conclusively proven that 911 was an inside job because of building 7- we have proof that it was all faked” gives your side a very bad image in public.
You realize that is overheated rhetoric, right? All you can say, if we are generous, is that we have questions. It is not “proof” of who did anything. Questions about the 911 report does prove whoever you claim really did it.
As I stated long ago – try to imagine what a real case would look like in court, a case good enough to convince a jury. Imagine a case against Mossad or the CIA. What would you need to present? What kind of evidence would be very persuasive of a particular claim? Saying in effect, something doesn’t smell right here, is just a beginning point. And I don’t see much desire to go beyond that among Truthers.
There is certainly enough evidence to convince a jury that something doesn’t smell right. I don’t think anyone is saying it’s an obvious conclusion about who, ultimately, is responsible. Two entirely different cases.
You seem to be saying it’s not enough to be saying it’s not enough to say something doesn’t smell right. Yet you agree something doesn’t smell right. So truthers have to have a case against someone or something specific to make their efforts worthwhile in your opinion? Then your own position is worthless.
But investigations don’t begin unless someone thinks something doesn’t smell right. Police don’t say “well, we don’t know who did this so even though something doesn’t smell right we won’t look into it.”
So what is your case? That everything smells fine or that don’t waste your time unless you know who it is? You don’t think everything smells fine. So don’t spread skepticism. They’re not listenting anyway, so it doesn’t benefit your position to have fewer people calling for an investigation, no matter what their issue. Or does it? I mean you’ve got hordes of people saying something isn’t right, and you’re yelling, no this is right, this is right, this is right. But Truthers are pathetic because they don’t “go beyond” what they can’t really prove? In other words the exact culprit? Seriously, why are you bothering? Your position is almost meaningless.
Jeff Maylor: “What would you need to present?”
That’s obvious enough, isn’t it?
Since 9/11 was certainly a criminal act whose alleged perpetrators are now known to have been incapable of committing the crime, and of which, after considerable investigation, the conventional account is now known to be absurd, one would need to present a combination of physical evidence (e.g., nanothermite residue), expert testimony regarding that evidence (plenty of which is available), documentary evidence (e.g., numerous video and audio recordings), and credible eyewitness testimony establishing means, motive, and opportunity for any given defendant, all linked together in a convincing way , perhaps with a few character witnesses thrown in for good measure.
As I’ve already observed, Israel – especially in collusion with a rogue faction of the US government – is the prime suspect. That is, Israel immediately looks far better for the crime than anyone else aside from the original suspects, save certain treasonous US politicians and bureaucrats who would probably be named as codefendants. So let’s just go ahead and proceed on the assumption that the defendant is Israel.
For this particular defendant, means is easily established given the known resources of Israel and the Mossad, especially in cooperation with some potent faction of the US government; motive is given by the fantastically improbable military and economic advantages that Israel has enjoyed strictly as a predictable function of 9/11, in conjunction with the security advantages dependently enjoyed by certain US political and business interests; and opportunity is given by various factors including the known worldwide distribution of Israeli intelligence operatives and saboteurs (especially in the US), thus precluding any decent alibi. Add to this the aforementioned physical and documentary evidence, expert and eyewitness testimony, and the fact that the crime perfectly fits Israel’s long and reliable pattern of false-flag atrocities against other nations including the United States, and any remaining doubt quickly evaporates.
Convincing a reasonable, open-minded, and above all, uncontaminated jury of all this would no doubt be a piece of cake. The problem resides in the difficulty of obtaining such a jury, and the even greater difficulty of obtaining a fair and uncorrupted judge and prosecutor. If not for these problems, an adequate defense budget would practically ensure successful prosecution.
Given an unbiased judge and jury and a decent budget, the case would be a slam-dunk.
(correction: defense budget–>prosecution budget)
Spooky, I am not saying I believe something doesn’t smell right (in the sense 911 conspiracy believers mean it), I’m just saying that is the strongest case I could imagine anyone making at this point.
But there are a lot of notes that are saying, in effect, “we now know with certainty that 911 was in inside job or that Israel did it”. No we don’t.
Eurodele, you say “Convincing a reasonable, open-minded, and above all, uncontaminated jury of all this would no doubt be a piece of cake.”
I think you would need some kind of direct evidence linking it to someone. I suppose juries do convict husbands of a wife’s murder in the absence of any evidence directly linking him to the crime, if he had a motive, a motivation and an opportunity, but that thought scares me. A man could, in some way benefit from his wife’s death (insurance policy, now free to pursue younger girls), have had the opportunity to kill her (easy access to her) and had the means (his hands, his gun, his knives), and yet still be totally innocent.
I’m familiar with the MOM (Motive, Opportunity, Means) idea but there must be a need for more. Perhaps if no one else had a motive, means or opportunity – meaning all other suspects ruled out.
In the absence of physical evidence directly linking it to Mossad or rogue US elements, I think you would need to rule out the possibility that Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of Al Qaeda were involved, as they have stated. You would need to show in some way, that those taking credit for the blast were not really the criminals.
And the fact that the CIA helped some of these people fight the Soviet Union at one point years ago would not convince me the CIA was currently directing their activities.
Another related issue for a case on 911:
What role did Osama Bin Laden and KSM play in 911? None? Patsies? Willing liars? Are all the stories about KSM being “water tortured” and then giving details about how it was carried out simply a myth?
What about the hijackers – did they really exist? There are pictures of them in the airport terminals. That would need to be explained.
What was happening with regard to the planes flying into WTC I and II? Were they remote controlled? Were there really any people on them like the hijackers?
If a jury had no direct evidence linking CIA/Israel, they would need to deal with the party that has taken credit for 911.
Jeff Maylor: “I think you would need some kind of direct evidence linking it to someone.”
Defendants can be convicted by process of elimination; if, when everything is considered, one is the only known suspect who can possibly have committed a given crime, then this is often judged sufficient for conviction. It’s always nice to have the defendant’s prints on a murder weapon, but not always necessary.
“A man could, in some way benefit from his wife’s death (insurance policy, now free to pursue younger girls), have had the opportunity to kill her (easy access to her) and had the means (his hands, his gun, his knives), and yet still be totally innocent.”
Right. So a decent lawyer tries to find at least one other likely suspect in order to create reasonable doubt and thus avoid conviction by process of elimination, where “likely” means “looks just as likely to have committed the crime, all considered”.
“You would need to show in some way, that those taking credit for the blast were not really the criminals.”
That’s easily done: they’re cave dwellers, and their former crimes – or if not theirs, the crimes of others like them – have been extremely low-cost and low-tech compared to 9/11. They also lack known US connections that could have opened the right doors for them.
I’ll own up to not having read the majority of these posts. I stopped around #50.
Anyway, has it occurred to anyone here as unusual the way the two aeroplanes slide smoothly into the two skyscrapers instead of crashing against them? Or would this be standard procedure for large planes making contact with large buildings? And how could we possibly know (or not) since there is no previous events to go by?
In the absence of physical evidence directly linking it to Mossad or rogue US elements, I think you would need to rule out the possibility that Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of Al Qaeda were involved, as they have stated. You would need to show in some way, that those taking credit for the blast were not really the criminals.
Everything you have said is wrong. And really stupid.
“Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of Al Qaeda” have not stated anything of the sort. Instead, the mass media have presented statements from people whom they call by these names.
But even if these people are who the media claim they are, and even if they are in fact taking “credit” for the attack, that means absolutely nothing. It’s obviously possible that criminals could achieve their criminal goals because they received — without their knowledge — help from others. Proving the culpability of the central government absolutely DOES NOT require you to rule out the involvement of ANYONE else.
The central government was in charge of the airport security and air defense systems that the criminals managed to defeat. The common-sense default assumption is that at least someone in the central government — which had put a motive in writing (a “new Pearl Harbor”) — was in on it. The central government also destroyed evidence at the crime scene. That alone is enough to convince an un-indoctrinated jury of the central government’s guilt.
Eurodele, you say with regard to removing those who take credit for the attacks:
“That’s easily done: they’re cave dwellers, and their former crimes – or if not theirs, the crimes of others like them – have been extremely low-cost and low-tech compared to 9/11. They also lack known US connections that could have opened the right doors for them.”
But they are not simple cave dwellers. KSM has a degree in mechanical engineering which he got in North Carolina. Any jury is going to want to know why Osama Bin Laden and KSM should be eliminated as suspects, especially since they take credit for the event. They are also going to want to understand how they can eliminate the hijackers. I believe most of the hijackers, were engineers with college degrees as well. Doesn’t Osama have a personal fortune of $300 million ? I believe he ran a construction business at one time. He is also an articulate spokesman as evidenced in writing and video.
Eurodele, by way of removing those that publicly take credit for 911 as suspects, don’t you need to explain what was happening with those planes in the first place, if the generally accepted story is wrong? The jury will be shown airplanes going into towers that we all saw on TV. They will hear conversations between Air Traffic Control and pilots on board describing a hijacking. They will hear testimony from family members that talked to their soon-to-be-dead loved ones, who tell them terrorists are taking over the plane.
It seems any jury would want to be comfortable explaining all that away, before they could eliminate Muslim hijackers as part of the operation.
Any jury is going to want to know why Osama Bin Laden and KSM should be eliminated as suspects, especially since they take credit for the event. They are also going to want to understand how they can eliminate the hijackers.
Absolutely not. They’re not going to want to know those things because those things are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Ben Tillman, why must Truthers get so angry when people try and flesh out their conspiracy theories?
Now, as we already said, if there is no direct evidence of any kind linking Israel or the US gov’t to the attacks, before the MOM prinicple of motive, opportunity and method can convict them, other suspects would need to be ruled out.
If there is no direct evidence, no pictures of men planting bombs, no intercepted commands from the CIA or Israel, no Air Traffic Controller that says he was told to fake an audio recording, no family member that says they were paid to lie about talking to their loved ones – assuming nothing of any kind like that – you need to eliminate the other big suspect, Al Qaeda.
And simply referencing disagreements over what should be put in a report and how an investigation was done won’t prove a conspiracy. Cops screw up reports and investigations all the time.
Eurodele, by way of removing those that publicly take credit for 911 as suspects, don’t you need to explain what was happening with those planes in the first place, if the generally accepted story is wrong? The jury will be shown airplanes going into towers that we all saw on TV. They will hear conversations between Air Traffic Control and pilots on board describing a hijacking. They will hear testimony from family members that talked to their soon-to-be-dead loved ones, who tell them terrorists are taking over the plane.
It seems any jury would want to be comfortable explaining all that away, before they could eliminate Muslim hijackers as part of the operation.
You’re a damn automaton.
There is no need to eliminate the Muslims as part of the operation.
Ben Tillman are you paying attention? Once again we are talking about how you would convict those supposedly responsible for the “inside job” of 911 in front of a jury without any physical evidence to pin it on them . Again, not just to “raise questions”, Ben, but to actually pin it on someone specifically, which Eurodele claims is easy.
Ben Tillman, why must Truthers get so angry when people try and flesh out their conspiracy theories?
You’re arguing in bad faith. I don’t subscribe to any conspiracy theories.
Now, as we already said, if there is no direct evidence of any kind linking Israel or the US gov’t to the attacks, before the MOM prinicple of motive, opportunity and method can convict them, other suspects would need to be ruled out.
There aren’t any other suspects to rule out. But, if there were, ruling them out would be trivially easy. All you would have to do is show the jury that, for instance, the defendants destroyed the crime scene.
Ben Tillman are you paying attention? Once again we are talking about how you would convict those supposedly responsible for the “inside job” of 911 in front of a jury without any physical evidence to pin it on them.
That doesn’t even make sense. “Physical evidence”? What is that supposed to mean?
But the real question here is, why are you acting as the government’s defense counsel? Obviously, there is no reason to believe the government’s story, but instead of seeking the truth, you defend — without any basis whatsoever — the self-serving story of the prime suspect in the case. You’re not on the side of truth and justice.
Well I’ll try and have better faith Ben.
What is so fascinating about the Truthers is the insistence that was 911 an inside job … but … but … that it is trivially easy to prove to a jury! Getting a conviction is a piece of cake!
Like no one on earth would be interested in silly ‘ol KSM or the idea that Muslim terrorists could have done it.
Now, surely you need to be honest with yourselves and admit that, unless you get some compelling evidence, you would not have an “easy” case that would convict the CIA or Israel in front of jury.
Ben didn’t you know … I’m a member of the satanic NWO (Shhhhh)
Ben this isn’t just the “government’s story”, as if they told us about the event months after it happened. We all saw it on TV in real time. People formed opinions about it pretty quickly before the government was saying much of anything (except to be nice to Muslims and don’t judge them all). So it’s not a matter of defending the “government’s case”.
So what’s the scoop with Barbara Olsen? Why do ya’ll think Ted Olson, a very powerful insider, allowed his wife to be sacrificed? Was he just ready to trade up? Or is she not really dead?
To obtain a murder conviction, prosecutors do not need to prove motive, although motive can be helpful to show intent, a necessary element of the crime.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
The elements of common law murder are:
1. the killing
2. of a human being
3. by another human being
4. with malice aforethought.
[O]riginally “malice aforethought” carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes “malice”.
The four states of mind recognized as constituting “malice” are:
1. Intent to kill,
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the “felony-murder” doctrine).
With 9/11, we have clear intent and lots of dead people. An investigation needs to find out who did it, and a prosecutor needs to prove it.
We have direct evidence that the official story is false.
We have circumstantial evidence that Israel is behind it.
We need US leaders to permit a real investigation. Our leaders are unlikely to allow an investigation as long as Israel controls Congress, IMO, unless there is mass public demand.
Public support for such an investigation may depend on media and may be unlikely to occur as long as the media are under heavy pro-Israel influence.
Rob Lonaker, I certainly have no problem with more investigations. And if it makes it easier to get media cooperation, you don’t even have to push the idea that the US or Israel did it, only that other intelligence agencies including Israel may have known about it beforehand.
I do think that with regard to the veracity of the 911 report, a distinction will have to be made between run-of-the-mill mistakes, contradictions, and routine political butt covering on the one hand, and something more serious on the other. I can only imagine the massive mistakes, contradictions and even minor coverups that would take place in any event that killed 3,000 people.
A lot of what I have been thinking of as direct evidence is really circumstantial evidence. So circumstantial evidence can be fairly strong, but it seems to involve more than just a general capacity to commit a crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Our government detained 60 Israelis right after 911 for some period of time. Maybe getting a detailed report of what those investigations uncovered would be a good start
Jeff Maylor: “I certainly have no problem with more investigations.”
Sorry, but that’s not good enough.
Say you’re stranded on a desert Island with just one other fellow named John. Rescuers arrive to find you sitting comfortably on a rock, looking well-fed. On a nearby rock, they find the bloody, dismembered carcass of John, bullet hole in his back, missing various internal organs and other delectables.
The rescuers have a photograph of you and John just before you embarked on your voyage together, with you wearing a gun and casting a wistful eye on the solid gold disco chain around John’s neck. They also have your list of provisions for the voyage, which can only have run out some time ago. The gun is now missing, but John’s solid gold disco chain is now around your neck instead of his.
You are soon asked: “Did you murder John?”
“Absolutely not,” you respond. “John was murdered by natives.”
“How did they get a gun?”
“They stole mine from me.”
“How did they know how to use the gun?”
“I don’t know. Perhaps trial and error.”
“What have you been eating?”
“Well, since John was dead anyway, I took the liberty of indulging a little. No choice, you see.”
“Where are these natives now?”
“I’m sorry, but I can’t tell you that. I can, however, reveal to you that they are consummate bad-asses and call themselves al Qaeda, and that their leader is a veritable demon in human skin who lives in a cave and goes by the name Osama!”
A search is launched. Unfortunately, an intensive and extremely well-funded search for “Osama” turns up nothing (not even after a decade). A routine criminal background check reveals that back on the mainland, you are known to have made Jeffrey Dahmer look like Little Lord Fauntleroy. Your appropriation of John’s belongings and readiness to dine on his remains fits a lifelong pattern.
It goes without saying that you look good for the crime. In fact, you look too good for the crime to be acquitted on any point of law. You had means: the missing gun. You had motive: you were hungry and plainly covetous of John’s disco chain (the investigation reveals that you had told many people that it would one day be yours). And you had opportunity: John was stranded with you on the island. There are no other suspects, because although you keep rambling on about “al Qaeda” – you swear that they routinely commit primitive spear-and-club crimes resembling the one of which you are accused – nobody can find them, let alone catch them.
Now consider these questions: can you be accused of murder, and if so, can you be acquitted?
The answers, of course, are (absolutely) yes to the first question, and (probably) no to the second.
In order to get out of your predicament, you will need to do more than point out the absence of a murder weapon and adduce relevant points of law; you will have to build a near-airtight case that somebody else did indeed commit the crime.
Obviously, your position vis-à-vis the murder of John is not identical to Israel’s position with respect to 9/11. But on close examination, we see that there are certain key similarities between the two cases, and thus that the outcome – if both cases are fairly judged – will probably be similar as well.
Eurodele, I am simply encouraging an approach to the investigation that will actually work, Telling people there are questions about who knew about the attacks before 911 could generate interest (and get the ball rolling), whereas, laying out a conspiracy theory that indicts the US and Israel will be ignored. Almost everyone will be like me and associate it with leftwing drivel. So you have to get a foot in the door somehow and you don’t want to strike them as Lyndon LaRouche types.
Now the island we are on is the whole world and the natives (Al Qaeda) and Muslim terrorists are known to exist. They are not phantoms. One acting in the name of jihad just killed 30 people in Texas last summer at Fort Hood (no one seems to dispute that). We had the silly underwear bomber over Christmas. These natives have attacked the USS Kole. There was that rather stupid sniper with the teenage boy that killed 10 or 15 a few yeas ago. Some of their brothers were fierce warriors/killers against the Soviet Union.
We have had the more moderate Muslims come out and condemn the attack on WTC by radical Isamists, which is strange if they don’t think Muslims did it.
Again, these were not primitive natives. KSM had a degree in mechanical engineering. Osama, who is more of a figurehead, nonetheless owned a big construction company. Many of the others had engineering degrees. Most of them spent a lot of time in the West. So they did not come out of a cave and do this. They were better educated than the average American.
So sure, they had to think up a good plan and handle the logistics of it, as well as learn how to aim an aircraft into a building. But these were college educated men in technical fields. They didn’t have to invent any new technology, simply use existing technology for an evil purpose.
As to whether we can find the natives now, again who is KSM? What are the pictures of the hijackers at the airport about? Why were there reports of hijackers on board in conversations between pilots and air traffic control? Why do people claim to have gotten phone calls from doomed loved ones on the plane? What happened to these men if they did not go up in flames? Did these Muslim men – men who held jobs in the US – did they flee or go underground in order to help the Israelis and/or the CIA?
Please address some of those issues.
Actually can you just address these issues:
1. Who then is KSM? Do you think he is a CIA or Mossad agent?
2. Why do people claim to have gotten phone calls from doomed loved ones on the plane (describing Muslim hijackers)? I believe it was about 25 calls.
3. If the planes were not hijacked, who flew the planes into the buildings?
4. What happened to these accused hijackers if they did not go up in flames? Did these Muslim men – men who held jobs in the US – did they flee or go underground in order to help the Israelis and/or the CIA (because if one was found alive that would cause trouble)
5. What about Barbara Olsen? Do we assume Ted Olsen, a powerful insider simply let his wife die? Or did she not die?
Responses for your thinking about those 5 issues would be interesting.
Jeff Maylor: “Now the island we are on is the whole world and the natives (Al Qaeda) and Muslim terrorists are known to exist.”
We agree that Muslim terrorists are known to exist. However, we do not agree that al Qaeda is known to exist as a discrete, coherent entity. The burden of proof for its discrete, coherent existence falls on those who accuse it of committing specific crimes. Calling information about such an entity “classified” does not qualify as proof of its existence, especially when those who classified it are accusing it of crimes for which the accusers would otherwise be among the prime suspects.
“Again, these were not primitive natives.”
Granted, to an extent. But neither were they remotely qualified to execute difficult maneuvers with massive jetliners, manufacture nanothermite and get through WTC security to deploy it, effect (what closely resembled) the engineered demolition of three (3) skyscrapers due to fire when not a single similarly-constructed building had ever collapsed for that reason, and so on.
Add to that the fact that the “natives” in question are hereditary enemies of the main suspect (Israel), and everything clicks into place.
There’s no absolute guarantee that a fair and impartial jury could be convinced of Israel’s guilt, but it’s not something that one would want to bet against.
Regarding your five points (just off the top of my head): I don’t see that KSM is necessarily relevant; his confession occurred in a secret hearing at Guantánamo, where coercion is routinely applied to suspects. (Most Guantánamo inmates were turned in for bounties; while this doesn’t mean that none are guilty as charged, it casts additional doubt on everything that goes on there.) In-flight calls could have been faked, and their content amounts to hearsay – even if the calls were genuine and the callers accurately described their impressions, these cannot be confirmed. The planes may well have been hijacked, but not necessarily; the hijackers could have been Israelis in disguise or Muslims who were coerced or otherwise manipulated, and remote control technology might even have been utilized (it applies not just to model airplanes, but to real ones as well; there is nothing preventing its application to commercial airliners). If the hijackers existed, they could now be dead or underground; it makes no difference either way. Without getting inside the head, or the four marriages, of Ted Olsen, it’s pointless to speculate about the nature or degree of his involvement.
Like no one on earth would be interested in silly ‘ol KSM or the idea that Muslim terrorists could have done it.
You can’t be serious. Of course, no one would be interested in this. It’s entirely irrelevant. Their guilt, if proven, does not preclude anyone else’s.
Now, surely you need to be honest with yourselves and admit that, unless you get some compelling evidence, you would not have an “easy” case that would convict the CIA or Israel in front of jury.
We have compelling evidence to convict the US government in a civil suit — the destruction of evidence, the failure to intercept the hijacked planes, etc. I don’t have any specific personal defendants to name for a criminal trial.
Now the island we are on is the whole world and the natives (Al Qaeda) and Muslim terrorists are known to exist. They are not phantoms.
You don’t know whether Al Qaeda exists. To believe in Al Qaeda, you have to take your government’s word for it, and that is not a trustworthy source.
@ “why are you acting as the government’s defense counsel? Obviously, there is no reason to believe the government’s story [...]. You don’t know whether Al Qaeda exists. To believe in Al Qaeda, you have to take your government’s word for it, and that is not a trustworthy source.” – Ben
@ “Ben… People formed opinions about it pretty quickly before the government was saying much of anything” – Jeff
Exactly.
We don’t know whether Al Qaeda exists?? Taking about Occam’s razor!
Jeff: you are doing heroic work here and ganged up on by people still under the grip of what Julian Jaynes called the “bicameral mind”. These guys will never, ever see the obvious.
Their irrational incredulity against the obvious is easily refuted. You know, I was in Mexico City back in 11 September 2001 and remember the Mexican news on that very day in the radio. Long before the US government said anything about Al Qaeda, a Mexican commentator was asked who would he guess was behind the attacks. He mentioned Osama bin Laden while the other Mex interviewer was still skeptical.
I mention this because who on Earth would think that a known Spanish-speaking Mexican radio speaker was a CIA spokesman, etc? But of course, in conspiracy theories (like JFK’s) the violation of Occam’s principle always runs so amok that you fall into a runaway spiral of increasingly more and more accusations of innocent people and institutions—CIA, FBI, the Italian mafia and even Jacqueline Kennedy—in order to never see the obvious (Oswald acted alone). The same with the Roswell incident. The same with the moral panic of the 1980s in day-care centers that became known as Satanic Ritual Abuse. The same with the Spaniards’ conspiracy theories about March 11 in Madrid. The same with…
No matter how ridiculous and how astronomically all of these conspiracy theories violate the law of parsimony, the people who espouse them will die with their sincere beliefs. Actually, the best way to understand the phenomenon is not to study the evidence, but the foremost proponents of these various silly theories. That’s why I’ve been harping on about CSI, who has studied the conspiracy theorists and paranormal theorists and presented their readership the big pic. The Spaniards’ conspiracy theories about March 11 in Madrid are quite interesting because all the American logical fallacies you see in 9/11, like denying any Al Qaeda involvement—and what I call psychological fallacies—, are present in3/11 too.
Exactly the same can be said of the Mexicans’ preferred conspiracy theory that millions of silly Mexicans still believe and will believe until their silly deaths: the 1994 murder of the politician Luis Donaldo Colosio that the poor Mex attribute to a huge conspiracy within the Mexican government.
I was in Los Angeles during the Reagan assassination attempt of 1981. I dare to say that if John Hinckley, Jr. had managed to puncture Reagan’s heart instead of his lung, by now we would have hundreds upon hundreds of books sparing Hinckley and blaming the US government. Since I mentioned what the Mexican radio said in the very day of 9/11, an hour or two after the incidents, let me tell what did I hear after the 1981 incident: that the Cubans and the Russians were behind since “Reagan and Alexander Haig had gotten really tough” against the commie block…
Of course Reagan didn’t die and another gigantic, stupid myth was never born.
But even a sort of CSI-discussion of all of these conspiracy theories under the same perspective is only the tip of the iceberg. The real, big picture only emerges when studying deep psychology, specifically, the persistence of the “bicameral mind” in our time.
Alas, Jeff, you will never beat the bicameral (or paleologic) mind with rational arguments. You can quit this thread now if you wish and you will be seen by non-paleologicians as the winner of the debate…
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
What did Mr. Silverstein mean with this statement?
Come on now. We all know exactly what the despicable little weasel meant.
He meant “Hey, I got some bang-up insurance fraud going here, and if you shitty goyim don’t pull (collapse) this building, my payoff is in jeopardy. We’re talking real money here, so @#$%ing pull it already! If you don’t think that’s what’s supposed to happen, just call the Mayor! Oh, the tragedy, the poor families! (And by the way, I love New York!)”
I’ve watched that tape a couple of dozen times looking for an alternative explanation. Sadly, it’s not there.
No reason to overthink the obvious.
Chechar: “Alas, Jeff, you will never beat the bicameral (or paleologic) mind with rational arguments.”
Nonsense. You’ve already been beaten soundly. Your paleological bicameral mind is just concealing it from you…that’s how it works!
Don’t worry – you can use your Skeptical Inquirer credentials to prescribe yourself the medication of your choice.
My dear eurodale: are you getting a little angry…? Have you really read Jaynes or Silvano Arieti to understand what do I mean by “psychogenic regression” as to what the conspiratorial mindset is concerned? (Not even the CSI guys that I know personally have read them…)
I’m perfectly willing to entertain the concept of “psychogenic regression”, Chechar.
But in your case, we are clearly dealing with a form of psychological regression that carries you back to a fetal state wherein you relate to the soothing intonations of government authorities – “Don’t worry, Chechar! You need not question; you need not think; you are eternally in the safe and powerful hands of all-knowing authorities!” – just as you related to the soothing, rhythmic beat of your mother’s heart in utero. Further regression is simply not possible.
Now may we ask that you leave the womb for a few moments, stop the gratuitous psychologizing, and address the actual content of the discussion? Thanks.
“Not even the CSI guys that I know personally have read them.”
How precisely is the sentence above formally different from the one in the old TV commercial for a brokerage: “My broker is E. F. Hutton, and E. F. Hutton says . . .”?
Chechar’s gnosticism is as tiresome, as jejune, and as transparent as Mr. Maylor’s pharisaism is serpentine. Despite their claims to the contrary, both insist that their auditors submit to their authority, not their argumentation. Their repeated calls to heed the views of scientists, engineers, and pilots (and in Chechar’s case, the ramblings of other perpetual grad students) are a smokescreen, in that they ignore the fact that, from the outset, the leaders of the charge against the Establishment’s explanation of the 9/11 events have been scientists and engineers and pilots.
The one substantive difference between these gentlemen is that Chechen keeps playing the same cards, whereas Mr. Maylor changes the deck every time he is called out for stacking it. [I assume that there are psychobabble terms apposite to these modes of conduct. Other posters are welcome to insert them.]
Paleologic doesn’t mean fetal my dear eurodale. Obviously you haven’t read them.
We can address the minutiae or “actual content” of any conspiracy theory. But what one? The diverse and mutually exclusive claims of the two-thousand conspiratorial books on JFK? (was it the CIA or the Mafia?).
Similarly, was the US government or the Israeli government the culprit of 9/11 (of course, never Al Qaeda)?
And as to the 11 March, 2004 Al Qaeda bombings in Madrid, should I instead believe that ETA conspirators caused it or ETA’s foe, the very government of Spain (the Spanish conspiracy buffs I saw on TV proclaimed it both ways)?
Or why don’t we better start addressing the “actual content”, as you put it, of the SRA conspiratorial literature? Take for example an abstract of Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America: “a compelling book for readers interested in conspiracy theory”. It has a chapter, “How the ClA uses cults to lay the groundwork for trauma-based programming, such as in the shocking McMartin preschool case”, you know?: those bastards who are kidnapping thousands of our little kids across the US to sacrifice them horribly in black masses?
…and still another conspiracy theory. In the book The Covert War Against Rock the well-known conspiracy theorist Alex Constantine covers the cases of the mysterious deaths among the rock stars. “This long-overdue report offers disturbing evidence that there may be more behind these deaths than accident, psychosis, and indulgence”, writes a reviewer who has as fair a grasp of science and Aristotelian thinking—the antithesis of paleologic thinking—as you have shown throughout this sorry thread.
Chechar: “Paleologic doesn’t mean fetal my dear eurodale. Obviously you haven’t read them.”
Actually, Chechar, you’re right…but I don’t have to. The original meaning of “paleologic” is related to paleology, “of or being the knowledge or study of antiquities”.
Insofar as human psychological “antiquities” range from last year’s assumptions or mental habits to something like the primitive R-complex (“reptilian brain”) and its occasional tendency to overrule logic, we don’t really need to read your favorite psycho-hacks in order to get your gist, or to recognize you as a probable case of the very syndrome you deplore. You’re simply irrational, having surrendered any hope of clear and balanced cognition to (approximately) the emotional homeostasis of a fetus. This is more or less consistent with your bloviations on the topic.
Nevertheless, you bravely mention a couple of actual points in the discussion. Kudos! Unfortunately, it appears to be some other discussion than the one in progress on this page.
When I typed “Chechen keeps playing the same cards,” I should obviously have typed “Chechar.” Apologies to Chechar (and to any Chechens hereabouts) for my carelessness.
If I am as irrational as a fetus my dear eurodale, why don’t you debate your POV with my wikipedian pals and help the many truthers arguing against the Aristotelian logicians over there to fix the horrible and misleading article that pretty much debunks what you have been promoting here? I am sure that your insightful arguments and flawless (paleo)logic will convince the skeptics—pardon me: the “believers”—that you finally got them.
I think that I’m pretty much done here. But this endless chess-game continues in the above-linked Wikipedia talk page of the article “9/11 conspiracy theories”. This is the wrong blog and the wrong thread to discuss the intricate and labyrinthine minutiae of those theories: a wholesale orchestration by the Israelis (or the American government?—please clarify at least this issue) of the 9/11 incident. Never the fanatic Muslims, never the fanatic jihadists who blew my people (“Chechar” is a nic that has nothing to do with Chechnya, Pierre) in the Madrid 3/11 bomb incident.
I hope you are brave enough and accept this challenge.
See you et al. at the wiki…
(P.S. “Paleologic” in the Arieti sense doesn’t mean anything related to the R-complex either. Once more: you don’t know what I’m talking about.)
Chechar: “I hope you are brave enough and accept this challenge.”
Brave enough, yes; stupid enough, no. I’m sorry, Chechar buddy, but I don’t have a spare lifetime to waste arguing with the “Wikipedia Jews” about an article presumptively entitled “9/11 Conspiracy Theories”.
To anyone who knows Wikipedia, such a title can only mark a permanent roost of Wikipedia’s infinite population of trolls, moles, and ‘holes, along with their auxiliary legions of “revert you once, revert you twice, I’ll change my name and revert you thrice!” sockpuppets.
When it comes to that kind of content, Wikipedia is a notorious cognitive sink, a black hole of lost time. But if you’re the type who can have fun with that, go for it (in which case I can only express my boundless surprise that you were able to make the time for us over here).
Chechar: “Paleologic in the Arieti sense doesn’t mean anything related to the R-complex either. Once more: you don’t know what I’m talking about.”
…and you know what? Given that it likely refers to nothing more than a bit of fashionable speculation regarding possible right-brain-left brain interference, I don’t really want to, either. ;-)
Wrong again. Arieti’s “paleologic” thinking doesn’t mean right vs. left hemisphere: it means a catastrophic schizoid regression back to the mental processes of an individual or group of individuals (magical thinking among the primitive tribesmen for example).
If you don’t like the title of the above-linked article, there is still the main “September 11 attacks” wiki article.
Come on!: let’s leave Prof. MacDonald’s decent place and step outside for a minute. But you didn’t pick my glove and have a little gladiatorial fun in the entire blogosphere’s main Coliseum, Wikipedia, to discuss all of the truthers’ claims that you promote. What does that mean? I myself have been taken to the wiki’s Arbitration Committee for editorial warring. But you…
Chicken?
Eurodele, you are rather blase about the issue of the phone calls from the plane, but the public and any jury will take them very seriously. They will not simply shrug them off as hearsay.
Not when there are 25 or so of them. There will be records that prove the phone calls took place – phone records that show the time of the calls. There are voice messages that were left as well that a jury would be able to listen to. A jury would listen to a husband saying he was afraid he was going to die and telling her he loved her for the last time. So you will need to demonstrate that those were faked in some way. And if you agree that the planes were indeed hijacked by someone, then your case changes.
If you concede that there was a hijacking but maintain Muslims weren’t responsible, then you have to demonstrate that on all four planes the hijackers posed as Muslims and were willing to go to their death (not quite the norm for Israeli or CIA agents). Unless you are saying they all bailed out in secret parachutes (oh god now that will show up on 911 sites!).
Now this is just with the phone calls, and this just scratches the surface of trying to discredit the calls and the witnesses who lost family members on that day.
As to Barbara Olsen, no one is simply going to say, “oh well that was wife number so-and-so, so Ted didn’t care. He’s probably a psychopath anyway”. You go ahead and try that stunt in front of a jury or the public in general and see how far you get.
I don’t even like Ted Olsen but no one will dismiss the whole issue that airily. So do you think Ted knows 911 was an inside job and cooperated or do you think he just doesn’t care?
And Barbara Olsen had a family. Parents, siblings, other family member. They don’t feel the need to raise any issues about 911? If you thought your sister or daughter or cousin or mom had been murdered by a CIA or Israeli plot, and it was being covered up, you wouldn’t say anything? Especially given all the 911 sites that would be ecstatic to have you join them?
Why haven’t the Insurance companies that insured these planes for the airlines tried to recover any money? If these planes were actually captured by remote control devices by the CIA or Israel, then the US and Israeli government would be liable for hundreds of millions in damages. And the insurance company that insured the WTC could recover many billions of dollars. They have no interest? They were paid off secretly?
Normally if there was any good evidence it was a faked inside job, these companies would lawyer up in order to recover the many billions they lost. And if they are part of the conspiracy or were somehow paid off, the number of people involved in the conspiracy becomes even larger than I imagined (and therefore unwieldy). Aren’t you curious why they don’t want their money back?
And if the case can so easily be proven against the US and/or Israel, why haven’t some of the various “Hammer” lawyers advertising on TV grabbed some family members from those that died and brought the mother-of-all wrongful death cases against the US and/or Israel?
In fact, if you are so certain of your case, why aren’t you pitching this to some defense attorneys now? The settlement would be in the tens of billions against the government — and it would be a civil case where the burden of proof is lower!!
Jeff Maylor: “A jury would listen to a husband saying he was afraid he was going to die and telling her he loved her for the last time. So you will need to demonstrate that those were faked in some way. And if you agree that the planes were indeed hijacked by someone, then your case changes.”
Maybe it changes a little, but not enough to make any real difference.
Let’s return to the murder analogy I gave for a moment. Your conviction does not require a precise theory of how you committed the murder; all it requires is that in all possible scenarios, you be wholly or partially responsible for causing the death of John with malice aforethought. Even if it were later to emerge that you had provided your gun to a murderous native knowing that he would use it to shoot the victim so that you wouldn’t have to do it yourself, you would remain on the hook for the crime (along with the native in question, implying no reduction in your guilt or your penalty and perhaps the very opposite).
Similarly, the question of whether or not the planes were actually hijacked, or whether the in-flight telephone conversations were real, does not affect the arguments I’ve given. Even if there were 250 in-flight telephone calls on 9/11, the Muslims hijackers therein reported cannot have been wholly or even primarily responsible for the disaster. It was simply too complex and well-coordinated for them to have pulled it off alone, and the guilt of the actual planners and facilitators would not be lessened one iota by their participation.
That being given, I almost hesitate to mention that with current speech synthesis and simulation technology, the CIA or Mossad is perfectly capable of rigging it so that with the right hardware and software and a sample of your voice, they could have PeeWee Herman urgently read a script into a telephone and fool your mother into thinking she’s getting a desperate message from you. With expert testimony, this could easily be brought home to a jury (as might be required by any particular theory of the prosecution).
Chechar: “Arieti’s “paleologic” thinking doesn’t mean right vs. left hemisphere: it means a catastrophic schizoid regression back to the mental processes of an individual or group of individuals (magical thinking among the primitive tribesmen for example).”
OK. I take it you’re aware that you’re using what sounds like antiquated terminology, suggesting that you’ve latched onto a theory from the bad old days of Freud and Jung.
And that’s not your only problem. It’s impossible to measure the “rationality” of the mental states of primitive tribesmen using a different model of reality than theirs; their thought and behavior could be perfectly rational within a model of reality well-supported by their environment, but ill-understood by you. Also, without some notion of mechanism, the whole concept of psychological regression is rather useless. You’ve already wrinkled up your snout at the R-complex and cerebral bicamerality; maybe you’d better state your/Arieti’s theory so that others need not make speculative assumptions about how it works.
Or then again, maybe you’d better not. ;-)
“Why haven’t the Insurance companies that insured these planes for the airlines tried to recover any money?”
Because they’ve subjected that possible course of action to cost-benefit analysis and decided that they can’t go into a courtroom against the US Federal Government in this particular case and get a fair shake.
After all, the government has everything at stake, thousands of lawyers on permanent retainer, more crooked judges working for it than you can count, and every reason in the world to play dirty rather than own up to what it allowed Israel to do.
Eurodele you say “Muslims hijackers therein reported cannot have been wholly or even primarily responsible for the disaster. It was simply too complex and well-coordinated for them to have pulled it off alone …”
Are their brains less capable of pulling off attacks than White or Jewish brains? I mean there are highly intelligent Muslims out there. Ever look at an IT dept? So why is it impossible? They can hitch a flight like anyone else. Remember, these were college educated engineers, not literal cave dwellers. They can get plane schedules online. Arafat and his boys carried off hijackings 40 years ago, so that is nothing new. And they were Arab “cave dwellers”. DB Cooper alone hijacked a plane back in the 1970s. Hijacking is not impossible for Muslims. Reading plane schedules is not impossible. They are not retarded. They are college educated engineers.
So yes it was a larger operation than a single hijacking, and certainly it would help if they had the support of a man worth, say, half a billion dollars like Osama, who had experience in the construction business.
Eurodele says:
“Because they’ve subjected that possible course of action to cost-benefit analysis and decided that they can’t go into a courtroom against the US Federal Government in this particular case and get a fair shake.”
You don’t even believe that. So you literally think they did a cost benefit analysis of suing the government and all other parties and decided against it, yet news of this never leaked out? They have hundreds of lawyers on staff and hundreds of risk management specialists on staff who would have heard of it, along with all their construction experts.
In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff wins. So it’s much easier than even the “piece of cake” you described for a criminal case.
But you literally believe the insurance companies and all the big time trial attorneys have examined this and all decided against their share of $100 billion+ in damages? And there are a lot of parties to sue and multiple venues. The attacks impacted people in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania (at least those in the immediate sense).
Pierre de Craon says that my “pharisaism is serpentine” and that I restack the deck when called out. Not sure what that even means. Yes, I do pay attention to details, but the serpentine nature you refer to is simply called thinking through all the facts logically.
Chechar said:
“[W]hy don’t you debate your POV with my wikipedian pals and help the many truthers arguing against the Aristotelian logicians over there to fix the horrible and misleading article that pretty much debunks what you have been promoting here?”
Read carefully the Wikipedia section on 9/11 advance knowledge by Israel at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advance-knowledge_debate#Israel
The article in no way refutes the circumstantial evidence that Israel is responsible for 9/11, let alone that it had foreknowledge. The only two statements indicating that the public should go back to sleep are these:
1. “The report contended that Mossad agents were spying on Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehi, two of leaders of the 9/11 hijack teams. In 2002 several officials dismissed reports of a spy ring and said the allegations were made by a Drug Enforcement Agency who was angry his theories had been dismissed.”
2. On March 15, 2002, [Jewish newspaper] The Forward claimed that the FBI had concluded that the van’s driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America “spying on local Arabs”. ABC news cited this report on June 21, 2002, adding that the FBI had concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.
So we have confirmed Mossad agents whom the FBI apparently mindread to conclude the agents had no foreknowledge, despite their allegedly “spying on local Arabs.” And we have “several officials” (who? from where?) saying an angry DEA agent made up the idea of an Isreali spy ring.
All other statements in that Wikipedia section tend to confirm Israeli foreknowledge, not refute it. Examples:
1. “The men were held in detention for more than 2 months, during which time they were subjected to interrogation and lie detector tests, before being deported back to Israel; one of the men (Paul Kurzberg) refused to take the test for 10 weeks, and then failed it.”
2. “The five [dancing Israeli] men worked at the company Urban Moving Systems, owned and operated by Dominick Suter. After the men were arrested the FBI searched their offices and questioned Suter, however Suter fled to Israel before he could be questioned further. Eventually, Suter’s name appeared on the May 2002 FBI Suspect List, along with the Sept. 11 hijackers and other suspected extremists.”
3. “The Associated Press reported that “Israeli intelligence services were aware several months before Sept. 11 that bin Laden was planning a large-scale terror attack” and that this information was passed on to Washington.”
4. “According to Fox News, In August 2001, Israel warned the US that an al-Qaeda attack is imminent. Reportedly, two high-ranking agents from the Mossad came to Washington and warned the FBI and CIA that up to 200 terrorists have slipped into the US and are planning ‘a major assault on the United States… [on a] large scale target.’”
5. “On February 18, 2009, The New York Times reported that Ali al-Jarrah a Palestinian activist and cousin of 9/11 hijacker Ziad al-Jarrah, was arrested in Lebanon on charges of being a paid Mossad asset over the last two decades.”
6. “In March, 2001, the US Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive had issued a warning about people identifying themselves as “Israeli art students” attempting to bypass security and gain entry to federal buildings, and even to the private residences of senior federal officials. A French intelligence agency later noted “according to the FBI, Arab terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida, from December 2000 to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells”. The report contended that Mossad agents were spying on Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehi, two of leaders of the 9/11 hijack teams.”
That Wikipedia article, like articles in Popular Mechanics, Skeptic, and Skeptical Inquirer, and like TV shows by National Geographic and the History Channel, in no way disproves Israeli involvement or the use of explosives in the buildings.
But many in the public, on hearing just that such articles have been written, don’t pay attention to the details, and just assume the government story must be true. Apparently like you, not bothering to inquire as to the scientific merits, some blindly think any deviation from the official story must be pathological.
Jeff Maylor: “Are their brains less capable of pulling off attacks than White or Jewish brains?”
That’s not the issue. The issues include, but are not limited to, money, technology, and security access.
Perhaps the biggest problem was security access. The feasibility of 9/11, even as described by the official conspiracy theory, hinged on a near-zero probability of apprehension, implying a level of entrée (immigration, airport, WTC, etc.) that Muslims – very much unlike Jews in this country – have never possessed, and that these particular Muslims could only have possessed with government angels perched on their shoulders every step of the way.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve been “caught” at an airport security gate because I’d forgotten to remove a sewing kit from my shirt pocket. Another time I was apprehended with a tiny pair of folding scissors – the kind of mini-multitool that a lot of men like to carry around. For a long time now, it hasn’t been at all easy to get aboard a commercial jetliner with any sort of weapon, even a boxcutter.
The fact that the alleged hijackers managed to walk right through multiple airport security checkpoints – indeed, that they were even disposed to try – tells quite a tale in itself, and it just gets more incredible from there.
“You don’t even believe that. So you literally think they did a cost benefit analysis of suing the government and all other parties and decided against it, yet news of this never leaked out?”
You don’t really understand how the insurance busness or the US government actually work, do you, Jeff?
“But you literally believe the insurance companies and all the big time trial attorneys have examined this and all decided against their share of $100 billion+ in damages?”
The point, of course, is that for all practical purposes, such a suit has a 0% probability of success in the current corrupt legal environment, especially without a prior criminal conviction. Big-time civil attorneys and the corporations which employ them understand how it all works, and are quite picky about how they choose their cases. Litigation gets very expensive very quickly; it’s a mistake to underestimate the pragmatism of Big Business when it comes to ROI.
I’ve already said that at least limited reform will be required before a lawsuit becomes remotely feasible. You need to learn to pay attention.
@ “Chechar… suggesting that you’ve latched onto a theory from the bad old days of Freud and Jung.” – Eurodale
Wrong for the nth time. “Schizoid” is not a psychoanalytic word, it’s a psychiatric term. I’ve written a lot debunking Freud & psychoanalysis.
@ “And that’s not your only problem. It’s impossible to measure the “rationality” of the mental states of primitive tribesmen using a different model of reality than theirs…” – Eurodale
When I wrote that sentence I had in mind animism and what some psychologists call the infanticidal psychoclass and the paleologic/magical thinking that that form of schizophrenogenic childrearing produces in the surviving children.
Rob Lonaker says:
“That Wikipedia article, like articles in Popular Mechanics, Skeptic, and Skeptical Inquirer, and like TV shows by National Geographic and the History Channel, in no way disproves Israeli involvement or the use of explosives in the buildings.”
What would such (dis)proof look like? How would we disprove that India or Pakistan or Australia weren’t behind it? I understand there is no reason to suspect them, but how do we ‘disprove’ that US or Israel did 911, in the sense you mean it? What would an item of disproof be?
And it’s not deviating from the “official” story that is “pathological”. It is the particular form of deviance that is the problem. If someone says maybe Israel had some kind of foreknowledge …well OK that seems plausible. After all there are reports they warned the US. If someone the CIA kept things out of the report because they didn’t want to look bad, I doubt anyone would question that. If you even say that they should have easily thwarted this attack and are trying to hide it for political reasons, everyone would agree that sounds reasonable.
But the case being made is much stronger than that and there seems to be a willful blindness to all the facts on the other side that would need to be explained.
Jeff Maylor said:
“In fact, if you are so certain of your case, why aren’t you pitching this to some defense attorneys now? The settlement would be in the tens of billions against the government — and it would be a civil case where the burden of proof is lower!!”
Assuming you mean plaintiffs’ attorneys, there are two problems:
All 9/11 tort litigation against the government by individuals and family members directly affected by 9/11 is handled by Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who promptly dismisses all cases. You can infer why he may do that.
http://www.bollyn.com/judge-hellersteins-unethical-connection-to-key-defendant-in-9-11-lawsuit
A lawsuit brought by someone who themselves or whose family member was not injured or killed in 9/11 lacks standing to sue. Such cases have all been dismissed for that reason.
Even if plaintiffs could get past Hellerstein’s dismissals, all evidence is unavailable to them, hidden by the government (the White House, CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, military, etc.) under national security secrecy laws.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/08/09/glenn-greenwald/the-digital-surveillance-state-vast-secret-and-dangerous/
Eurodele, many of the security measures you are describing were put in place AFTER 911. I seldom saw anyone pulled aside before 911, although I am sure it’s happened. You do remember that security was much laxer before 9-11 right?
The building I worked in never required a badge or a security check in before 9-11. All that changed later. And why would Muslim hijackers need access to WTC anyway?
Even now, but especially before 911, there were tons of immigrants, including Muslims, that were in the country with expired visas … what are you talking about?
“Eurodele, many of the security measures you are describing were put in place AFTER 911.”
So you claim that metal detectors were not in use at airport security checkpoints prior to 9/11?
Yeah, you’re a real expert on airport security, alright. ;-)
Jeff Maylor said:
“What would such (dis)proof look like? How would we disprove that India or Pakistan or Australia weren’t behind it? I understand there is no reason to suspect them, but how do we ‘disprove’ that US or Israel did 911, in the sense you mean it? What would an item of disproof be?”
For example, the FBI, AP, and Fox News reports of Israeli foreknowledge could be disavowed by those organizations, with a public explanation of how they reached the original conclusions and how those reasons were later shown to be incorrect.
It’s true that that sort of backpedaling by the government and media would not entirely disprove any party’s involvement, but if proper supporting documentation of the later-found exculpatory evidence, contradicting the original evidence, were made public, we could be more assured.
Eurodele, so it is your opinion that it is really hard to bring a civil case in the US? It’s too hard, right Eurodele?
You realize the country is full of fully employed lawyers because there is so much legal business. Civil cases are filed all the time that are very frivolous. In fact, did you know that there was a huge lawsuit over whether 911 was a series of attacks or just one attack, because that would limit how much the insurance company had to pay out in one of the cases? They spent millions just on that one issue.
And you most certainly do not have to prove a criminal case first to get a civil case victory. Remember OJ?
You haven’t given an answer to the lawsuit issue, either by insurance companies, building owners, firefighters, or the families of the 3,000 dead. And yet you still insist on claiming this case would be easy to prove in court. Now I am just wondering if you are dishonest (I hope) or if you truly have a thinking disorder.
“Eurodele, so it is your opinion that it is really hard to bring a civil case in the US?”
No, you idiot. In fact, I’ve brought a couple of such cases, from scratch, and won.
“And you most certainly do not have to prove a criminal case first to get a civil case victory. Remember OJ?”
But we’re not talking about OJ here. We’re talking about the Big G. You do understand the difference, don’t you?
No, you probably don’t.
Rob Lonaker says:
“A lawsuit brought by someone who themselves or whose family member was not injured or killed in 9/11 lacks standing to sue. Such cases have all been dismissed for that reason.”
But there are 3,000 families that would have standing! That must represent around 15,000 people.
Eurodele, you are the one that implied there was difficulty in the insurance companies bringing a lawsuit. You are the one that said I didn’t understand how the real world of big business really works – without explaining how it really works.
So I pointed out that it is easy to bring suits. Which you just conceded.
People do sue the Big G and win. It happens all the time.
Jeff Maylor said:
“But the case being made is much stronger than that and there seems to be a willful blindness to all the facts on the other side that would need to be explained.”
Israeli responsibility for 9/11 would not be inconsistent with the existence of Muslim hijackers, who in at least some cases were reportedly government agents, and who may have thought their mission was something other than flying into buildings.
Reports of Atta’s prior behavior – partying, getting lap dances at strip clubs, snorting coke, and drinking heavily – are inconsistent with a truly zealous and suicidal jihadist. This is speculation, but he may have been a patsy who found that, once in the air for a mock hijacking mission assigned to him by an intelligence agency, remote controls took over the flight.
The phone calls may have been real or not. Either way does not argue against Israeli involvement.
It’s hard to believe that 9/11′s planners would risk having pilots, who did poorly in small Cessnas in flight school, miss the buildings or “chicken out” rather than commit a suicide to which they were reportedly neither psychologically nor religiously disposed.
While some members of al Qaeda are certainly zealous Muslims who hate America and are terrorists, al Qaeda’s origins and handling have had heavy input from intelligence agencies, according to many sources like Wayne Madsen, Webster Tarpley, Ray McGovern, etc.
http://files2.fluxstatic.com/00991F2C00E176D3000744FDFFFF/Jpg/B-700/AR560x560
Jeff Maylor said:
“But there are 3,000 families that would have standing! That must represent around 15,000 people.”
The problem with all these families:
All 9/11 tort litigation against the government by individuals and family members directly affected by 9/11 is handled by Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who promptly dismisses all cases. You can infer why he may do that.
http://www.bollyn.com/judge-hellersteins-unethical-connection-to-key-defendant-in-9-11-lawsuit
“People do sue the Big G and win. It happens all the time.”
No, it doesn’t. Most suits by private parties against the federal government are failures. Virtually everyone knows that. But that’s almost beside the point here.
Do you have any idea what the stakes are for the government in this case? They are the bureaucratic equivalent of life and death. For the government to lose a 9/11 lawsuit and accept culpability would, to a high degree of probability, bring it down. Not much more than the furniture would survive, and our national prestige, security, and respect would instantly go to zero.
If you think, for five seconds, that the government is willing to take that risk, you know absolutely nothing about anything.
Ah yes, Eurodelle, so the entire federal government leadership fears 9-11 being exposed as an inside job. Which means they must think it was an inside job and needs to be covered up. So the number of people involved in the conspiracy just grew to tens of thousands.
Luckily for them, they can all keep quiet. All those different races, ethnicities – Italians, Hispanics, Jews, Whites, Asians … all cooperating for fear that the truth of the “inside job of 911″ would be exposed.
“So the number of people involved in the conspiracy just grew to tens of thousands.”
Manischewitz.
Again, the object of any conspiracy is to minimize the number of participants and select them for reliability and discretion.
I quote Rob Lonaker: “All 9/11 tort litigation against the government by individuals and family members directly affected by 9/11 is handled by Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who promptly dismisses all cases.”
With just a few well-chosen bottlenecks like Hellerstein, there’s no need to expand the conspiracy.
At least try to read the posts of those you’re badgering. Try to make the simple connections without people having to repeat themselves to you and explain the obvious.
Rob Lonaker I don’t know about the Alvin Hellerstein issue, I’ll have to research. But I do notice the site refers to him as a pawn of Rothschild and seems promote the case that 911 was done by Israelis.
Some evidence about him from a more neutral site would help.
Eurodele, I am reading the posts and you know it.
I understand perfectly well that an effective conspiracy needs to haveas few people as possible. We’ve already established that. I am arguing that there is no way the conspiracy you are describing (truther stuff) could be carried out by a small number of people. I was mocking you, dumbo.
The number of areas where things would have to be covered up is vast. People would have to be co-opted in almost every field for an event like 911 that touched so many lives and left so much evidence.
And so now the conspiracy supposedly involves judges that we can add to the list. You seem to believe that this entire thing could be coordinated by a few dozen people at the top of the government. It couldn’t.
Jeff “The Brain Trust” Maylor: “You seem to believe that this entire thing could be coordinated by a few dozen people at the top of the government. It couldn’t.”
Right. A clique of highly placed, well-connected officials of two of the world’s most powerful governments can’t handle a 9/11 conspiracy.
But a handful of drunken Muslim patsies can.
We’re so honored to be in the presence of genius.
Just let us know when your book comes out. ;-)
TWEETY SAYS: “I TINK I TAW A PUDDY TAT!! Yes! And I Tink I taw some Pwofessionals woiking dis site: Endless verbage. Circuitous argumentation. A veritable cloud of minutia. Sounds like Talmudic dissembling to me, and my bird.
Eurodele – My point is that a coverup and misdirection of blame for a huge event like this requires a lot more manpower than just the actual attack. A smaller number of people could perpetrate the attack then would be required to cover it up and pin the blame on someone else.
But if you think the case is proven, well good luck with that.
Look 3D, I’m not a damn Jew OK? Neither are any of my ancestors. I am in no sense a Jew. This is annoying because I’ve been accused of this 3 times now I think on this thread. Which makes me question the thinking ability of those commenters.
Why does this bother me? I would like to build an intelligent and sophisticated critique of Jewish influence in the US and the World. I think it’s the only way to really understand the 20th century (and more).
But maybe it doesn’t matter. An amazing number of people have been on Alex Jones, who I think sells cheap conspiracy theories but is still entertaining. Even big time Jews like Chomsky and Naomi Wolf have been on his show. And I guess it didn’t hurt their credibility.
You don’t have to be a Jew to be Talmudic. Talmudic mentality is a primordial virus that can infect any brain pan given enough exposure. I learned a long time ago never to trust a person who laughed all the time, or any person who delivered a ten word message in fifty. I also learned that people who depend on labels to express an intellectual viewpoint have no real information to offer at all. The use of labels, like “conspiracy theory”, is just a cheap way to win an argument without ever presenting one. No matter how much verbage one might fluf up around the label, the offering is still just a cheap shot.
Heh… check this out:
A funny thing happened on the eve of 9/11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel
They even had their strawmen in place, how clever.
And you know what happens to strawmen: they get punched!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronauts_Gone_Wild
(by Masonic astronauts, no less!)
The moonlanding was a hoax?
What’s next… Jews did 9/11??
Leave me alone, I’ve heard it all before! =p
Israel would be culpable in failing to pass on any information about suspicious activity or individuals in the US. A certain amout of pre 9/11 Israeli knowledge about people US of people they suspected were terrorists but didn’t tell the US authorities about is quite likely. There should be an enquiry into that.
Israeli knowledge of the actual plot is far less likely, ( the FBI didn’t find out much about John Gotti even with a massive surveillance effort).
Israeli knowledge of the plot sufficient to coordinate it with a WTC demolition is very difficult to believe. What would be the motivation for wanting such a maximal attack on the US and taking huge risks to achieve it?
Sorry about those typos here’s the comment tidied up.
Kevin MacDonald’s first suggestion is reasonable.
Israel would be culpable in failing to pass on any information it had about suspicious activity or individuals in the US. A certain amout of pre 9/11 Israeli knowledge about people in the US of they suspected were terrorists but didn’t tell the US authorities about is quite likely. There should be an enquiry into that.
Rob Lonaker’s WTC demolition suggestion ( although ‘suggestiion’ is not really accurate, he presents wild speculation by dubious sources as proven scientific fact) is not.
Israeli knowledge of the actual plot is most unlikely, ( the FBI didn’t find out much about John Gotti’s ongoing activities even with a massive surveillance effort). With their lesser resources and freedom of action in the US for Mossad to have knowledge of the plot sufficient to coordinate it with a WTC demolition was impractical. Israeli demolition of the WTC could only have happened as part of a 100% Israeli directed fase flag operation that co opted Arab terrorists without leaving any trace of that direction, something which would be virtually impossible.
What would be the motivation for embarking on such an insanely risky and impractically difficult attack on their tame superpower against very long odds and almost certain destruction of Israel as the penalty for failure?
Note: I’m not saying that they wouldn’t if it was practicable for them and they had something to gain, just that it wasn’t and they didn’t.
“Reports of Atta’s prior behavior – partying, getting lap dances at strip clubs, snorting coke, and drinking heavily – are inconsistent with a truly zealous and suicidal jihadist.”
Sounds like a typical soldier to me
Likely Suicide Bombers Include Profiles You’d Never Suspect
“What would be the motivation for embarking on such an insanely risky and impractically difficult attack on their tame superpower against very long odds and almost certain destruction of Israel as the penalty for failure?”
As you admit yourself, Israel regards the US as “tame”. They’ve made this apparent in many ways, from insulting high US officials to ignoring our most urgent requests to being caught on video explaining that the US is an easily-controlled paper tiger. They literally think they can get away with anything.
It’s the Jewish way. They never learn, and enough is never enough. It’s been getting them into terrible trouble for thousands of years. They’re just not nearly as smart as they crack themselves up to be.
But neither are those who uncritically eat up their obvious bullshit, ignoring a mountain of inconsistencies in the official 9/11 story, refusing to entertain alternative hypotheses as “too conspiratorial” when the official narrative is by far the most outrageous conspiracy theory of all, tacitly condoning the PATRIOT Act and its immediate consequences including loss of US liberty, multiple bloody wars for Israel and tens of trillions of dollars openly stolen from the US people, and letting Larry “Big Jew” Silverstein stuff a quick seven billion in his pocket and walk away laughing on a red carpet of over 3000 American corpses.
Yeah, that’s brains, alright. And courage as well.
Keep up the good work.
Look Eurodele, you are basically a jerk. Stop accusing everyone that doesn’t see the pattern you do of being unpatriotic. You endlessly insult anyone that doesn’t immediately fall in awe of some Jesse Ventura/Alex Jones bit of stupidity. You became angry when anybody tried to work through the details to see the problems. You won’t even admit there is anything challenging about proving the case. It’s like listening to Art Bell say “of course UFOs are proven”. No one with any sense thinks this is some slam dunk.
But no, you are like someone that sees the picture of Jesus or Elvis in a potato chip and gets furious when others don’t see it too.
You respond with the same stupid line: “You all just accept whatever the gov’t tells you”. And you know perfectly well that isn’t true. Honest to god, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones?? Those idiots? Idiots like them that deny Jews have any unusual power. Why don’t you just contact Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura and see how they feel about too much Jewish influence. They won’t touch it. They simply have a hate-on for the US. and they have found a marketing gimmick.
Oh where is 3D accusing me of being a Jew? That’s brilliant. How about that other freak calling me a serpentine Pharasie or what the hell ever he came up with. If the site is just devoted to hurling ethnic slurs and cheap laughable conspiracy theories, then it will never go anywhere.
How embarrassing. Alex Jones! You can go back and literally hear the same old conspiracy theories being peddled 30 years ago in different forms by other guys – in between commercials for MREs and bomb shelters.
Hopefully the main articles will continue to be good on this site, it just means that a fair number of useless conspiracy/UFO/Jesse Ventura wankers like to leave comments. However, it may point to a flaw in the sites concept after all. Trying to mix people that enjoy science on the one hand with people that quote Bible verses all the time or love Alex Jones conspiracy theories is a bad plan.
“Oh where is 3D accusing me of being a Jew? That’s brilliant. How about that other freak calling me a serpentine Pharasie or what the hell ever he came up with. If the site is just devoted to hurling ethnic slurs and cheap laughable conspiracy theories, then it will never go anywhere.”
Now, now. Don’t take it too personally. It’s just that if you’re not a Jew, then you should be paid a pretty penny by World Jewry, Inc., for so fiercely defending the Jewish line on this issue.
We just want you to get everything you so richly deserve for your tenacity and “rationality”, that’s all.
Eurodele (Jesse Ventura’s boy) says: “But neither are those who uncritically eat up their obvious bullshit, ignoring a mountain of inconsistencies in the official 9/11 story, refusing to entertain alternative hypotheses as “too conspiratorial ….”
And just what has everyone been doing but entertaining these theories? By entertain you seem to mean accept regardless of all the big problems we see. By entertain allow ourselves to enter that state of “willful suspension of disbelief” that is necessary to watch a movie.
You just want people to “get with the program” and accept the theory regardless of whether it’s been proven. Maybe you think it’s good propaganda even if not true. Well say so. But don’t try and use cheap intimidation tactics to make us say we really believe it. Well in case you didn’t know it, whatever “badgering” your side has taken here, it is nothing compared to the brutal beating you would get in the real world. So you better toughen up, unless this site is just for mental masturbation.
Ok, gotta go work on my serpentine deck shuffling skills to please my Zionist masters. Idiots.
“Ok, gotta go work on my serpentine deck shuffling skills to please my Zionist masters.”
Very good then.
Eurodele you are dishonest. I am not defending the Jewish line. In fact, maybe you are deliberately pushing stupid conspiracy theories as a way of discrediting this site?
Could that be the case? Are you in the pay of Zionists, Eurodele? It is a well known Jewish trick to put out ridiculous conspiracy theories as a way of discrediting legitimate criticism. They love to point to theories that Jews have horns or drink baby blood as a way of showing how “silly” any criticism of Jew is. And that is what you are doing.
It is rather interesting that you refuse to start with just questioning whether Israel knew of the attack beforehand. No, you insist on going for something that is considered laughable by most and blasphemous by many … and we have to ask why? Is it because you want to discredit the site?
Who are you really working for Eurodele? Do those those Shekels spend well? How many pieces of silver did you get Eurodele, 30?
Well you have served your Jewish masters quite well Eurodele. You have successfully helped discredit anyone that questions Jewish influence and brought them down to the level of people who claim we never landed on the moon.
There was the Praxis genius that called MacDonald an anti-semite all the time. There are others that use ethnic slurs and make jokes about turning Jews into soap. Who are these freaks? They are a minority but they do not represent the views of anyone that simply wants to preserve Western Civilization. I suspect many of them really are working for the SPLC. As apparently Eurodele is.
Two buildings were hit by planes.
Three collapsed.
The un-hit building needed explosives to collapse.
Such explosives must have been pre-placed.
The owner of the un-hit building, with help from the fire department, admits to activating these explosives.
“It is rather interesting that you refuse to start with just questioning whether Israel knew of the attack beforehand.”
That’s not a question, Jeff. That’s a known and quite incontrovertible fact (to all but you, that is). Properly speaking, it’s just a starting point.
“You have successfully helped discredit anyone that questions Jewish influence and brought them down to the level of people who claim we never landed on the moon.”
Actually, Jeff, I don’t recall mentioning “the moon”…even though you’ve been baying loudly and tirelessly at it, patriotic defender of American liberty and TOO intellectual integrity that you so obviously are.
“I suspect many of them really are working for the SPLC. As apparently Eurodele is.”
Yes. Well, your suspicions are very directional in nature. As I’ve said, your associates should be paying you quite well for them.
And now may we please have some peace and quiet from you?
Thanks!
eurodele said “They literally think they can get away with anything.”
Yes eurodele, but the poor fools hadn’t reckoned with your trenchant analysis. Your claim is that the evidence is so overwhelming for 9/11 whaving been an Israeli false flag operation that only a Jewish hireling, idiot, or traitor could disagree, that is not a reasonable position; anyone who is associated with that viewpoint will immediately begin to hemorrhage credibility.
You still can’t explain what was in it for them, if they controlled the US to the extent you say, to have 9/11 occur. They could easily have the US attack anyone they want or pass any law they want if they had the degree of controll you suggest, in that event 9/11 wouldn’t be necessary would it? And I repeat they could have no way of knowing what the effect of 9/11 would be onthe US economy, so they would’ve been risking an economic recession which could easilly have led to an political upheaval and the Jews losing influence to populism.
I’m not saying that Israel and/or the US wouldn’t have done it if it was practicable for them and they had something to gain, just that it wasn’t and they didn’t. Niels Harrit seems to be qualified but one study’s conclusion is not reliable scientific evidence that explosives were used on the WTC. You need far more backing for your assertions.
Remember Kevin MacDonald made no assumptions, he called for an investigation by an impartial commission into Israeli knowledge of terrorist activities in the US which is reasonable given their proven espionage activity in the US.
Sorry eurodele but you still can’t come up with any reason to think they would want to or why they would try, or even that they could (Israel in the 2006 Lebanon War war suffered a defeat, hardly suggesting they have the capabilty for a 9/11 false flag operation ). Basically you seem to be saying over and over again that the Israelis did it because ‘it was there’ and lucked out because almost everyone is really stupid.
That’s the eurodele way, eurodeles never learn, and enough is never enough. It’s been getting eurodele into terrible trouble for … years; eurodeles are just not nearly as smart as they crack themselves up to be.
eurodele’s position is that his opinion (9/11 was done by Israel with the assistance of the US authorities) is the only reasonable one
No, it isn’t reasonable to think that on current evidence, moreover anyone who is associated with such views will immediately begin to hemorrhage credibility.
Someday: “You still can’t explain what was in it for them, if they controlled the US to the extent you say, to have 9/11 occur.”
No one with more than half a brain should require such an explanation.
First, control and security are two different things. One can have total or near-total control of something, but still be able to improve one’s level of security. For example, a football player with total control over the ball can tuck the ball closer to his body in order to decrease the chance that it will be dislodged.
By facilitating the PATRIOT Act, 9/11 vastly increased the security (probability of non-interruption) of Israel’s control over the US people and their government.
Secondly, different kinds of control can often be applied to the different parts or subsystems of a complex system. Controlling a nation involves multiple channels and mechanisms, one of which is exploiting the mass psychology of its citizens. Rather than being evidence of non-control of the US, episodes like 9/11 are tried and true means of exercising control over Americans and their government through mass psychology.
All that is required for the use of control mechanisms based on staged disasters and false-flag events like 9/11 is that the perpetrator
(a) have the means and opportunity to execute them, and
(b) be able to get away with them.
Israel obviously has the necessary resources to have caused 9/11, and for the last nine years, has indeed gotten away with causing 9/11.
(Apparently, you and your co-partisans need to start using your heads as more than air filters.)
“eurodele’s position is that his opinion [that] 9/11 was done by Israel with the assistance of the US authorities is the only reasonable one”
Yes, that’s a reasonable approximation of my position.
“No, it isn’t reasonable to think that on current evidence, moreover anyone who is associated with such views will immediately begin to hemorrhage credibility.”
In case you missed it, I place no value whatsoever on the opinions of people for whom one “hemorrhages credibility” by merely stating the obvious.
The one who is is in danger of hemorrhaging credibility is the most valuable advocate and thinker the White cause has.
Were he to given an interview in a major mainstream media outlet tomorrow he would be mercilessly badgered about comments on this post.
[typos corrected]
The one who is in danger of hemorrhaging credibility is (IMO) the most valuable advocate and thinker the White cause has.
Were he to be given an interview in a major mainstream media outlet tomorrow he would be mercilessly badgered about comments on this post.
Jeff Maylor: “There was the Praxis genius that called MacDonald an anti-semite all the time. There are others that use ethnic slurs and make jokes about turning Jews into soap. Who are these freaks? They are a minority but they do not represent the views of anyone that simply wants to preserve Western Civilization. I suspect many of them really are working for the SPLC. As apparently Eurodele is.”
If you can’t enjoy a little humor about turning Jews into soap, you’ve got no business posing as a friend of the White race. In fact, it must be said that condemning Rebbes Yosef, Schneerson, and Kook for their racism is a losing move. One should say instead “See what racial pride and confidence these Jews have! Wouldn’t it be great if Whites had such pride and confidence too?” And by the way Jeff, as I’ve tried to explain previously, Western technological civilization is part of the problem; a very large part. Technique is anti-racist in itself, as it cares only about efficiency, not who applies it or for what end. If social efficiency demands the abolition of race, as it certainly does, then that outcome is what will ultimately descend from a system of applied technique; i.e., from technological civilization.
Tabula Rasa: “Two buildings were hit by planes.
Three collapsed.”
That fact alone should raise serious doubts about a planned demolition. What kind of idiots would demolish three buildings with explosives while hitting only two with planes? Don’t you think someone would have noticed the little flaw in that plan? A little obvious, innit? Sheesh.
Tabula Rasa: “The un-hit building needed explosives to collapse.
Such explosives must have been pre-placed.
The owner of the un-hit building, with help from the fire department, admits to activating these explosives.”
One can also read his remarks (i.e.,”pull it”) as referring to the fire department’s efforts to save the building. Was it just a shorthand way of saying “pull the firemen from the building and let it collapse”? Or here are you claiming that the fire department itself was in on the subterfuge, and detonated the explosives? If so, that’s a new twist I’ve never heard before.
“That fact alone should raise serious doubts about a planned demolition. What kind of idiots would demolish three buildings with explosives while hitting only two with planes? Don’t you think someone would have noticed the little flaw in that plan? A little obvious, innit? Sheesh.”
Well, just as an exercise, for fun, let’s imagine for a moment maybe those same idiots actually intended for 3 planes to hit 3 buildings.
After all, we don’t know for a fact one way or the other which building was the target of Flight 93 that crashed into that Penn field.
If its real target was building 7, which, being pre-strung with explosives like the other towers, too, in prep for its own hit, HAD to come down to hide that evidence, but the plan went awry because 93 failed to hit its target, then what could ol’ Silverstein DO but, all Oh-shit-whatta-we-do-now?-like, splutter something along the lines of: “There’s been such loss of life, let’s pull it”?
Someday: “Were he to [be] given an interview in a major mainstream media outlet tomorrow he would be mercilessly badgered about comments on this post.”
Dr. MacDonald was the one who opened this topic for discussion. He knew exactly where it would go: exactly where it always goes. He did it anyway. It follows that he neither wants nor needs anyone’s advice about what should be said on the topic, and what shouldn’t. He’s a big boy, and he can obviously watch out for himself.
In case there remains any confusion, the cause of White Identity is obviously not furthered by avoiding hard issues. If you think yourself right on such an issue, then just speak what you regard as the truth and let it stand on its own. Don’t try to silence those with different opinions using PC scare tactics.
Remember, unless your opinion can stand on its own merits, it’s not worth defending. All we’ve done here is test it as it needs to be tested.
DwE: “That fact alone should raise serious doubts about a planned demolition. What kind of idiots would demolish three buildings with explosives while hitting only two with planes? Don’t you think someone would have noticed the little flaw in that plan?”
As I’ve said, almost every successful conspiracy involves a confluence of interests. In this case, the interests of Larry Silverstein were of no small import, as his cooperation would have been required for the success of any reasonable 9/11 conspiracy. Significantly, we can attach a dollar amount to that portion of Larry’s interests represented by the collapse of WTC7: half a billion, which Larry had made damned sure he got 100% straight with the insurance people before the building was wired and pulled.
Most people, especially those who know nothing about NYC and the kinds of problems it deals with, fail to understand that those buildings were near the end of their duty cycles and a dangerous albatross around the city’s neck. Their useful life spans were nearly exhausted, and the twin towers were full of asbestos and other hazardous materials (I know a building inspector or two in NYC, and that was the word). The problem of how to level them without mishap had already begun to loom large on the horizon.
9/11 didn’t work to the advantage of NYC – not by a long shot. It was a horrendous tragedy in every sense of the word. But let’s be honest and say what more than a few New Yorkers noted at the time: it obviated the need for what might have ended up being a costly headache for the city, and looked very much like it would fulfill the presidential ambitions of the Mayor in a spectacular way.
While this need never leave the realm of speculation, we’d clearly be remiss if we failed to consider that it may have had an effect on any accord between Larry Silverstein, the City of New York, and certain other parties.
That’s not necessarily my own opinion, by the way; it’s just one of the darker possibilities that people were quietly discussing in the metro area around that time.
Der weiße Engel says:
“If you can’t enjoy a little humor about turning Jews into soap, you’ve got no business posing as a friend of the White race”
Ok, Der weiße Engel, you are one of the darkest creeps I’ve ever run into. I seriously suspect you are working for the SPLC. No one posing as an advocate for Whites would say something so hateful and inflammatory. To write that in a public forum is designed to hurt the credibility of this site. While Eurodele peddles cheap Jesse Ventura level stupidity, statements like yours are designed to provide a public record for SPLC to reference at some later point.
I continue to suspect both of you are paid by SPLC or related organizations.
It’s clear that anyone trying to promote rebellion by Whites must try to incite more racism among them, not less; and more racist hate, not less. Is “credibility” among those offended by a little joke about lampshades and soap more important than that? What, indeed, could be more important than that? Most such people will be Jews or Jewish sympathizers anyway. I’m not sure which category fits you, but it sure sounds like you have other priorities, Jeff.
We can address the minutiae or “actual content” of any conspiracy theory. But what one? The diverse and mutually exclusive claims of the two-thousand conspiratorial books on JFK? (was it the CIA or the Mafia?).
How about the conspiracy theory that you are so religiously devoted to? The US government’s conspiracy theory regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Eurodele, you are rather blase about the issue of the phone calls from the plane, but the public and any jury will take them very seriously. They will not simply shrug them off as hearsay.
Not when there are 25 or so of them.
THEY’RE NOT RELEVANT!
A jury would listen to a husband saying he was afraid he was going to die and telling her he loved her for the last time. So you will need to demonstrate that those were faked in some way.
You are dumb as a stump. Or depravedly dishonest.
Why haven’t the Insurance companies that insured these planes for the airlines tried to recover any money? If these planes were actually captured by remote control devices by the CIA or Israel, then the US and Israeli government would be liable for hundreds of millions in damages.
1. Because they believe what the government tells them, which you of all people should be able to understand.
2. Because sovereign immunity prevents recovery from the government in such a case.
What would such (dis)proof look like? How would we disprove that India or Pakistan or Australia weren’t behind it? I understand there is no reason to suspect them
What in the hell are you talking about? There most certainly is evidence implicating the Pakistani government. God, you are one dumb ass.
@ Barb
It’s unlikely that Flight 93 was targeting Building 7, since it was headed southeast when it crashed, and that was the wrong direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UA93_path.svg
Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal
by Glenn Greenwald
Jan 15, 2010
from http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein
Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.”
In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).
This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”
So according to Eurodale and 3D we are now “defending the Jewish line on this issue”?? Jesus. On TV I’ve even heard a couple of Muslim (Egyptian) journalists say that though they’d love that the Jews were behind 9/11 those theories “are BS”.
@ “Ok, Der weiße Engel, you are one of the darkest creeps I’ve ever run into. I seriously suspect you are working for the SPLC. No one posing as an advocate for Whites would say something so hateful and inflammatory… I continue to suspect both of you are paid by SPLC or related organizations.” – Jeff
I sensed something really weird way above about Der weiße Engel, as if he was a Jew or something (hope not getting as paranoid as Eurodale & 3D), when s/he commented about my post:
“Chechar: ‘And it’s fairly obvious to me that if we are to convince the white race…’
To add a new twist to an old quote, it’s when I hear talk of ‘convincing’ the white race of anything that I reach for my revolver.”
Why would Der weiße Engel feel so threatened when a patriot tries to convince whites of something?
Rob Lonaker, interesting that you’re assuming that the tactics used would be disputing the conspiracy. OK let’s take that seriously, how could they ‘undermine the credibility of conspiracists’ by arguing against a conspiracy theory. Anyone disputing a CT is immediately tagged as an enemy agent as can be seen from the comments on this post (and many similar ones elsewhere). In practice a stealth debunking tactic is kind of difficult to use because CT proponents never accept the good faith of those who contradict their opinions.
A better strategy for Sunstein’s putative Net Ninjas is this. Take an idea which is close to the truth like ‘Israel had knowledge of suspected terrorist activity or individuals in the US ‘ and push an extemely ridiculous conspiracy theory version of it (e.g. Israel directed a Arab terrorist hijack and suicide attack and coordinated it with the use of pre placed explosives for maximum destuction , it was able to do this because it controls the US and it’s motive was to get control of the US’ )
Such a ludicrous farrago would discredit the original idea rather well.
Funny enough the ADL publicizes 9/11 conspiracy theories
Note how they conflate a reasonable idea (Jews and Israelis pushed the U.S. into war against Saddam Hussein) with a silly one (Israel was complicit in the destruction of Space Shuttle Columbia).
I’d love to believe that you are such a net Ninja but the sad, depressing, and frightening thing is that you are sincere.
“e.g. Israel directed a Arab terrorist hijack and suicide attack and coordinated it with the use of pre placed explosives for maximum destuction , it was able to do this because it controls the US and it’s motive was to get control of the US’ ”
You’re not exactly a rocket scientist, are you, Someday.
9/11 was a control-response event designed to provide Israel and its minions and controllers with security (via the PATRIOT Act) as they pursue their outrageous exploitation of the US and their predation on its citizens at a level of insanity that would otherwise be quite dangerous to them. This was patiently explained to you (by me).
What a sad and dejected little moron you must be in your life, assuming that you have one at all. Waddling around with a perpetual load in your pants, fuming about all that confuses you, hating reason with all your might. What a picture!
Why not just give it up, call for a pizza delivery, and go back to your Xbox? That way you can be sure of not blowing any more gaskets upstairs.
Just a bit of friendly advice.
And although it’s clearly over the heads of people like Someday, Chechar, and Jeff “Brain Trust” Maylor, let’s not forget that 9/11 – in addition to enabling a police-state lockdown of America via the PATRIOT Act – also provided Israel and its fools with a national and international pretext for the US invasion of Israel’s enemies and another frantic resource-grab on behalf of Israel’s founders in the banking business.
It was a dual-purpose affair, a win/win proposition – heads they won, and tails we lost. Could it possibly be clearer?
Just another tragic and transparent piece of recent US history that apparently flew directly over the heads of our pathetic little band of naysayers.
eurodele says:
October 29, 2010 at 6:31 AM
” And although it’s clearly over the heads of people like Someday, Chechar, and Jeff “Brain Trust” Maylor ….”
Many things are over my head but the last two posts by Chechar and Someday were awesome. Someday, the program you outlined seems like a likely method of discrediting any criticism of the Israeli lobby – link it to really dubious theories that will never be taken seriously.
“the last two posts by Chechar and Someday were awesome”
Trust someone like you to be so easily impressed.
@ “Take an idea which is close to the truth like ‘Israel had knowledge of suspected terrorist activity or individuals in the US’ and push an extremely ridiculous conspiracy theory version of it (e.g. ‘Israel directed a Arab terrorist hijack and suicide attack and coordinated it with the use of pre placed explosives for maximum destruction, it was able to do this because it controls the US and it’s motive was to get control of the US’). Such a ludicrous farrago would discredit the original idea rather well.” – Someday
So who are really the ones defending the Jewish line and ADL on this issue? You can imagine how whites would be awakened by now if, instead of using such million-hours of fanatical work ideating silly theories, truthers had studied the sane on- and off-line literature that will lead whites to an ethnostate.
I must repeat what I said above. Presently I am reading Harold Covington’s magnum opus, the Northwest Quartet, and it’s thrilling to see how these four novels can invigorate the feelings of its readers for actual combat against ZOG in the coming future.
Chechar: “You can imagine how whites would be awakened by now if, instead of using such million-hours of fanatical work ideating silly theories, truthers had studied the sane on- and off-line literature that will lead whites to an ethnostate.”
Translation:
“Here are some books for you, Goyim – pay them heed! They explain how and why you must surrender the vast majority of your territory to Big Jew, aka the World Banking System. Just choose a little corner of what used to be “your” country and get yourselves over there right now!
“Oh, yes – you must continue to trust in the Jews, for after all, they’re “White” too. By all means, take some Jews with you into your new (vastly shrunken) territory! Why, you’ll need bankers, won’t you – whatever will you do without them?
“But remember this at all times: you may question the Jews, perhaps even demand investigations of the Jews, but only on the condition that such questions are sensitively worded, and such investigations are under the control of Jewish authorities and their approved “experts” and never lead to specific anti-Semitic accusations!
“Above all, take care never to accuse the Jews of specific wrongdoing! They might get in a snit, accuse you of propagating outrageous anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and refuse to perform for you those financial services which you must never, ever attempt to perform for yourselves!”
You’re not fooling anyone, Chechar. Stick to your pseudoscientific psychobabble between mouthfuls of borscht and babka.
eurodale, Your response makes no sense. It’s like you are responding to another guy in another thread in another blog. Are you *really* accusing me of philo-Semitism??
Israeli foreknowledge and the demolition of World Trade Center 7 is enough prima facie evidence to demand a real investigation. It’s clear there has been a “cover up” of some very ugly truths.
Bush’s new book supposedly reveals a “shoot down order” that was never previously acknowledged. Many foreign government officials have openly questioned whether or not 911 was an “inside job” by the Israelis or the US itself.
Even our own CIA director Leon Panetta has all but admitted that Bin Laden has probably been dead since 2001.
“eurodale, Your response makes no sense. It’s like you are responding to another guy in another thread in another blog. Are you *really* accusing me of philo-Semitism??”
Close, but not quite. I’m saying that whether you are or are not a Jew or a philosemite, you might as well be one, because you’re faithfully parroting the Jewish line.
You even exhibit the corresponding (meta)psychological signature: despite the obvious bias of your position, you don’t seem able to recognize it as anything but neutral and objective.
It’s really quite amazing.
It’s the first time in my long life that someone confuses me with a Jew. What is really really amazing, eurodale, is that apparently for you any CSI reader who is skeptical of the 9/11 conspiracy theories is either a Jew or someone promoting Jewish interests. According to that (paleo)logic, I wonder if you would also consider skepticism of the many non-9/11 conspiracy theories mentioned in my previous posts as coming from either Jews or crypto-Jews? Are you saying that all those dozens of thousands of people who subscribe the Skeptical Inquirer magazine and are skeptical of every single conspiracy theory (including 9/11) are crypto-Jews?
If this is not paleologic (magical) thinking what else could it be?
Someday said:
“In practice a stealth debunking tactic is kind of difficult to use because CT proponents never accept the good faith of those who contradict their opinions.”
Someday: My Greenwald post was not meant to imply that anyone on this board is part of Sunstein’s suggested government program of debunking “conspiracy theories” through message board posts. I don’t have evidence of that, and I assume that many here, if not all, are sincere and acting in good faith.
But I think the type of “conspiracy theories” that Sunstein says need government “debunking” is relevant:
“This program would target those advocating false ‘conspiracy theories,’ which they define to mean: ‘an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.’”
In other words, in Sunstein’s view, and perhaps that of some on this board, any theory involving powerful people who conceal their role in an event is false a priori, and is something that the goverrment should fight hard to prevent people from accepting. No need to look at the evidence.
Why would a government use propaganda, instead of reasoned analysis, to accomplish this? Have there been no real events caused by powerful people who wish to conceal their role? What about the Lavon Affair? What about the USS Liberty? The Tuskegee syphilis experiment?
The direct physics evidence showing the official 9/11 story to be false is clear. Some here have avoided this issue by saying that any “conspiracy theory,” e.g., anything that contradicts the government’s preposterous account of how the buildings were destroyed, is false, and that therefore we need not look closely at the evidence involved. This is exactly the approach recommended by Sunstein.
So whether the approach of saying “Contradicting our government constitutes magical thinking; I don’t need to look at the evidence, so neither should anybody else” in any given case is sincere or part of a government disinfo program is, I would assume, sometimes hard to determine.
Chechar,
Your leader, the person who most personifies and forwards your worldview, Michael Shermer, is the Jew personified. The skeptic outlook is quintessentially Jewish. It comes from being skeptical of Christ. Is there anything skeptical in Skeptical Inquiry about why Jews are ascendant in declining cultures, or about Jewish genetics or anything contrary to Jewish thinking? Or is it all about being skeptical of things that Jews can’t control? Because when I listen to Michael Shermer he sounds like the biggest religious nut on the planet. He’s just constantly repeating in his mind the phrase “Christ wasn’t the Messiah” and applying that to whatever he can get his claws into in the fervent Jewish hope that eventually a world will emerge where Christ doesn’t exist.
Culture will always be 99% of what you don’t see, 1% of what you do see, even if you or Michael Shermer run it. In other words, it’s equally religious. The thing is, Shermer and skeptics like him smell like death. I have a feeling he’d run like the dickens from Holy Water and wooden stakes. Because it’s not really the lack of fact that frighten he or you, it’s the culture behind them and the desperation to explain it away or destroy it.
That’s why you’re Jewish.
Chechar: “eurodale, … apparently for you any CSI reader who is skeptical of the 9/11 conspiracy theories is either a Jew or someone promoting Jewish interests.”
The problem, of course, is that you’re not merely skeptical of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general, but only of those which threaten to upset your PC applecart.
For example, you appear to have no problem with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, i.e., the standard government narrative. You’re only skeptical of those unofficial conspiracy theories which seem to accuse Israel or the US government of possible wrongdoing.
This makes you appear to be saying
“Official, good; unofficial, bad!”
or equivalently,
“Muslims as the sole 9/11 culprits, good! Israel or the US government as 9/11 culprits, bad!”
No other interpretation of your position is possible, given your evident belief that any theory which attributes a specific crime to Israel or the US government in connection with 9/11 is “paleological” (magical, irrational).
Insofar as it tends to shield Israel and Israel-owned US bureaucrats from being credibly accused of any specific 9/11-related crime, this kind of selective skepticism certainly amounts to “promoting Jewish interests”.
Hence, my observation that you might as well be a Jew.
Jesus Christ, Spooky! It’s the first time in my life that I hear the name “Michael Shermer” and you are calling him “my leader”. Talking about paranoia and magical thinking…!
My “PC applecart” eurodale?? Have you ever bothered to click on my moniker and read a couple of my blog’s entries, where I even have a word of praise about Hitler?
@ “… you appear to have no problem with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, i.e., the standard government narrative.”
Are you deaf? I told you way above that I got my 9/11 views from a Spanish-speaking radio show here in Mexico City many hours before either the Mexican or the US government made any official pronouncement on the September 11 attacks or Osama bin Laden.
@ “Hence, my observation that you might as well be a Jew.”
Himmelkreuzsacrament! You ARE serious eurodale. You are REALLY believing that I am a Jew! Now it’s altogether clear that my original suspicion was true. You are a pathetic paranoid theorizer who’s suffering from a bad schizoid regression like all those cranks debunked in Skeptical Inquirer who believe in other equally silly conspiracy theories.
P.S.
Spooky again:
I’ve now goggled “Michael Shermer” and learnt that he’s founder of The Skeptics Society and editor of its magazine Skeptic. As I said, never heard of him before. CSICOP (now called CSI) is a totally independent group, founded in 1976, whose big stars were the late Carl Sagan, James Randi and the recently deceased Martin Gardner.
Rob, I think the White activity that would terrify them would be based on solid scientifically based analysis such as is being done by TOQ, this site and virtually no one else.
Mearsheimer and Walt’s ‘ The Israel Lobby’ is the levelof evidence based work that convinces me, you can can bet they are more feared than the 9/11 theorists
Lavon is not disputed, USS Liberty is, I’m afraid the 9/11 narrative you are a proponent of lacks all credibility for reasons I have discussed.
@ Chechar
I have a little admission for you, Chechar. You don’t really interest me. For example, I don’t care where you were when you heard about 9/11, or the JFK assassination, or what was tumbling around in your head when you mysteriously made up your mind about it. At most, I care about whatever content you might be able to offer, and that’s if you’re lucky (damned lucky).
Now, as I see it, here’s the problem: you don’t seem to have an opinion on 9/11, but only a kind of “meta-opinion” on 9/11. That is, your insight on 9/11 seems to be confined to impromptu judgments on the opinions of others. When I say “impromptu”, I mean that you have some sort of catch-all “logic | paleologic” distinction bouncing around in your head, which you apply with great conviction but no particular rhyme or reason, instead flipping it like a quarter and letting it bounce off the floor.
I’m afraid that’s not good enough. It’s too easy for you to sit up there on your pee-stained cloud pissing on everyone else’s comments, when you have nothing of your own to say on the matter, instead issuing snide little zingers that, whether you like it or not, leave people with the exact impression I described above.
If you really want to be involved in this kind of discussion, you have to do more than just make a judgmental little pain in the ass of yourself. You have to say something meaningful, as opposed to “Oh Dr. MacDonald, I can only hope that you and your precious work won’t be dragged down by the lamentable paleologic of the magical thinkers in this most deplorable thread!”
Are you capable of understanding this?
I “don’t really interest you”. But with my continuing and obnoxious “meta-opinions” on 9/11 at least I managed to expose you as a conspiracist paranoid who sees Jews under every stone.
Mission accomplished.
“I “don’t really interest you”. But with my continuing and obnoxious “meta-opinions” on 9/11 at least I managed to expose you as a conspiracist paranoid who sees Jews under every stone.”
So that’s it then … you’re just a snide little pain in the ass after all.
Gee, what a surprise! ;-)
Someday said:
“Note how [the ADL conflates] a reasonable idea (Jews and Israelis pushed the U.S. into war against Saddam Hussein) with a silly one (Israel was complicit in the destruction of Space Shuttle Columbia).”
Exactly. That is a common tactic of theirs.
Someday: “A better strategy for Sunstein’s putative Net Ninjas is this. Take an idea which is close to the truth like ‘Israel had knowledge of suspected terrorist activity or individuals in the US ‘ and push an extemely ridiculous conspiracy theory version of it (e.g. Israel directed a Arab terrorist hijack and suicide attack and coordinated it with the use of pre placed explosives for maximum destuction, it was able to do this because it controls the US and it’s motive was to get control of the US).”
There are fields of scarecrows inhabited by fewer straw men.
Someday: “Israel directed a Arab terrorist hijack and suicide attack ….”
If you mean real suicides, there’s no need. The pilots need not have known they would fly into buildings if aircraft remote controls took over in mid-flight — you know, the type of aircraft remote control systems in which Dov Zackheim specialized.
http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/Dov_Zakheim_911.html
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml
Someday: “coordinated it with the use of pre placed explosives for maximum destruction ….”
No need for Israeli operatives themselves to place the explosives. This could have been done by illegal alien workers, unknowingly placing the explosives and radiofrequency detonators through ostensibly innocent painting, fireproofing, and placing of ceiling tiles, wall panels, fire extinguishers, etc.
Someday: “it was able to do this because it controls the US ….”
No need to control the entire US to pull it off.
Someday: “and it’s motive was to get control of the US ….”
The perpetrators’ motive would have been to control something they didn’t already control, as they are not irrational.
A motive may have been to implant a “searing event” in the minds of the American people, not in the minds of leaders already controlled, to get support for wars, a worsening surveillance state, and deeper national debt to banks for those wars and surveillance state.
The companies through which all our electronic communications (Internet, email, phone, text, etc.) are captured, archived, and surveilled are Israeli-owned. Through those companies’ apparently miraculous great fortune, their business expanded massively after 9/11 and enactment of the Patriot Act and other spying legislation.
9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow made the “searing event” a focus of his academic research. He understands how the public operates under psychological assumptions that are shaped by myths based on large tragedies.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow#Expertise
Someday: “Rob, I think the White activity that would terrify them would be based on solid scientifically based analysis such as is being done by TOQ, this site and virtually no one else.”
Agreed. Dr. MacDonald and I have identical conclusions in his statement:
“So if they knew about it in advance, then it is not much of a leap to suppose that they went further and made sure that the attack would be a success. I am not concluding that this is what happened, only arguing that it should be investigated by an impartial commission.”
Watch out for errors of commission, as well of omission.
” it is not much of a leap”
Depends who and what you are, in a ’76 movie King Kong leaps from one WTC tower to the other. A human actually did cross on a tightrope but he took it one step at a time, that is how I think Nationalists ought to procede over 9/11. The first step is to establish whether Israeli withheld knowledge of terrorist suspects in the US that could have alerted the authorites and prevented 9/11.
The difficulties in running two operations which had to be perfectly coordinated while getting Arab time scheduling to mesh with a huge scheme they were not even aware of would make it a non-starter., rejected at the first meeting Friction of War
(A viable plan would be to use a small nuke.)
Placing the explosives and radiofrequency detonators through ostensibly carrying out renovations and fireproofing would have to be done by explosive experts because a controlled demolition depends on the careful placing of explosives. And if they didn’t control the US at this point they would be the immense dificulties in not arousing suspicion during the placing. There had already been an Arab attempt to blow up the towers remember. It would be easy for any suspicion to lead to evidence of the disguised explosives. US intelligence would know who was behind it in a heartbeat.
Re. the quotes by Zelikow. He was musing about what would happened if the 1993 attempt to destroy the World Trade Center with explosives had succeeded! Does it not seem a little odd that a member of the conspiracy would tell the world about what they were intending to do?
And yet again I have to point out that what Zelikow talked about was only one aspect of the aftermath. Israel had no way of knowing what the effect of 9/11 would be on the US economy, so they would’ve been risking an economic recession which could easily have led to an political upheaval and the Jews losing influence to populism.
I still can’t see how Israel could have done it without control over the US, yet if they already controlled the US what was the motive for doing it in the first place?
Here’s a little IQ test.
Can anyone figure out what’s wrong with the responses to the following statements?
Statement 1: The user controls the computer by tapping keys on his keyboard.
Response: But if the user truly controls the computer, then why would a keyboard be necessary?
Statement 2: Throughout the game, the Jets controlled the football.
Response: But if the Jets truly controlled the football, then why bother to have a football game?
Statement 3: The CEO exercised minute control over the daily operations of the corporation.
Response: But if the CEO really exercised minute control of the corporation, then how did corporate raider Shlomo Sheinbein manage to acquire most of the stock?
Caution: Don’t pop a breaker trying to untangle these brain twisters! ;-)
OK so the Jews /Israel get the the US to do what they want by staging events such as 9/11 that is manpulation and suggests they really don’t have control, nor does Scooter Libby’s fate or investigations into Israeli spying.
But, my point revolves around the difficulty of doing what you say they did. ( fake an Arab terrorist 9/11 )
They could (and surely would) just have used a nuke and left no evidence (like film of the buildings coming down which would show tell tale signs of demolition).
The surest way of tying a government to a false-flag event is to see that it involved a nuke. Only governments are supposed to have them, and only a few governments at that. Even if one can be stolen, it must be smuggled through customs on two ends of a transfer, under the noses of at least two government agencies. And even if the nuke can be moved without passing through customs, the uranium or other essential ingredients can usually be traced, allowing a reconstruction of the conspiracy.
Nukes also have a way of permanently destroying the surrounding real estate, some of which may be owned by the terrorists themselves.
eurodele,Your 9/11 scenario has snafu written all over it; using crazy Arab terrorists as a cat’s paw and coordinating that with separate and totally covert op which would be orders of magnitude more risky than you imagine. No one person could order a operation of that nature and such a plan would be shelved in favor of saner options at the first planning meeting.
Planting tons of explosives inn the right place – even if they were disguised – in a building on red alert after it had already been bombed would be difficult even with the cooperation of the owners. But what would be truly impracticable is having a controlled demolition that would pass for a legit collapse, remembering that (as was was predictable) the event was filmed and analysed. And the rubble would contain all sorts of evidence.
A nuke would have decisive advantages. Too destructive ?; as long ago as the 50′s nukes were being made with a yield equivalent of 10 or 20 tons of TNT as with the Davy Crockett.
If an WTC destruction was required the easier and safer way was to nuke it. A little nuke with a radioactive signature indicating it’s an Iraqi or Iranian lash up effort and then blow up the WTC . And it would be simple to pin it on Iraq or Iran or both. Cheney warns about terrorist nukes
Author: Brian D. Hill
It is now confirmed by USWGO News that the DSM-IV-TR Manual labels free thinkers, non conformers, civil disobedient advocates, those that question authority, and people considered hostile toward the government (aka Oath keepers and local militias) as mentally ill with the illness titled “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.
It was reported on October 8 2010 from OffTheGrid News that anybody who is disobedient, defiant, a free thinker, or even considered hostile toward authority was to be labeled by psychiatrists as ‘Mentally Ill’.
Now I have got my hands on a ebook version of the year 2000 version of the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision) By the American Psychiatric Association version DSM-TV-TR (The non TR Version was said to be older and so I got the newer one which had the information that Off The Grid News warned about).
Now as I search up the keywords “oppositional defiant disorder” on adobe reader I found exactly what Off The Grid News was talking about. So it is now Confirmed basically that anyone who disobeys authority or even questions authority is now considered mentally ill and can be thrown in a prison-like mental institution under tax payers dollars.
http://uswgo.com/confirmed-psychiatric-manual-dsm-iv-tr-labels-free-thinkers-non-conformers-as-mentally-ill.htm
Someday said:
“The difficulties in running two operations which had to be perfectly coordinated while getting Arab time scheduling to mesh with a huge scheme they were not even aware of would make it a non-starter.”
You assume someone has argued that the plan was “using crazy Arab terrorists as a cat’s paw and coordinating that with [a] separate and totally covert op.”
There need not have been two operations. The official story about “crazy Arab terrorists” does not deserve the credence you give it.
The Arabs could have been patsies controlled by Mossad or another group. Their mission could have been to conduct an exercise that they thought was a drill or mock hijacking. And the only thing they didn’t know was that the planes would fly into the WTC (assuming the planes they were in were the ones that flew into the WTC).
It’s clear that at least five of the 19 “hijackers” were trained in US military facilities.
from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/offi-j21.shtml
Someday, how about doing us all, including yourself, a big favor?
Try not to make the mistake of construing helpful attempts to clarify your various points of confusion as invitations to generate new points of confusion. Most of us don’t have time for that.
“eurodele,Your 9/11 scenario has snafu written all over it …”
…even if, in all the world, only you can read the language in which it is “written”.
“…using crazy Arab terrorists as a cat’s paw and coordinating that with separate and totally covert op which would be orders of magnitude more risky than you imagine.”
Yes, it was risky indeed. As we see by the fact that the whole thing is now coming unraveled.
“No one person could order a operation of that nature …”
Nobody said anything about “one person”.
“Planting tons of explosives in the right place – even if they were disguised – in a building on red alert after it had already been bombed …”
…almost a decade previously, in a relatively ineffective attack using a primitive truck bomb, which I guess means that we must be talking about some kind of world record for a “red alert”. And don’t forget who held the WTC security contract.
(Can you spell “Marvin B…U…S…H”?)
“But what would be truly impracticable is having a controlled demolition that would pass for a legit collapse, remembering that (as was predictable) the event was filmed and analysed.”
But as already observed, nanothermite can easily be carried in paint buckets and sprayed on by unwitting dupes.
“And the rubble would contain all sorts of evidence.”
And indeed it does, in the form of…you guessed it, nanothermite particles in the dust. And let’s not forget that the net weight of the rubble suggests that a very great deal of it was turned into that selfsame dust, which could only be explained by something like…you guessed it again, nanothermite!
“A nuke would have decisive advantages.”
If you actually believe that – even after I explained why it’s false – then you’re even dumber, or crazier, than you previously appeared to be.
And now, if you don’t mind, a brief respite.
My point was one person could think it would work, but they’d never get it through an initial planning meeting , its just too risky. There’s too many loose ends and things which might go wrong. If Clausewitz and his modern admirers knew more about these things than you (and I think they might) his concept of friction would explain why a plan that complex was probably incapable of being executed. And this is assuming that remote controlled passenger jets and /or high tech nanothermite paint ect would actually work and (most importantly) work reliably enough to hinge an operation on.
This is nothing but a highly antiquated argument from authority, and it’s easy to spot its main flaws.
First, warfare has changed rather profoundly since the days of Clausewitz. There is a much greater emphasis on clandestine techniques such as those involving false flag events, with a corresponding elevation of understanding and expertise in those areas. Not to mention the advanced hardware technologies now available.
Secondly, the problem with becoming an icon of military strategy is that subsequent strategists specialize in trying to break out of your underlying assumptions and models, thereby to recapture the element of strategic novelty. For example, they establish clandestine think tanks for the purpose of mathematically exhausting all possible causal scenarios and designing robust strategies maximally tolerant of “friction”.
Thirdly, conspiracies do not evolve in the same way as military planning; rather than being distributed over an entire governmental or military establishment, they are confined to a very small number of like-minded individuals among whom friction is minimal, and for whom secrecy and containment are paramount.
We’re talking about the 21st century here, not the 19th.
Re: Someday’s reference to Clausewitz’s observations at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/clauswtz/clwt000b.htm
“Clausewitz terms ‘friction’ the ‘only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper.’ Friction is caused mainly by the danger of war, by war’s demanding physical efforts, and by the presence of unclear information or the fog of war.”
True, but 9/11 was conducted on American territory during peacetime. Its planners had little worry of the fog of war existing before the event.
“[T]he intrinsically dangerous nature of war means that in an atmosphere of blood, bullets, and bombs, ‘the light of reason is refracted in a manner quite different from that which is normal in academic speculation.’ Only the exceptional soldier keeps his incisive judgment intact during the heat of battle.”
All the more reason to use remote control and not rely on men who couldn’t pass flight tests in Cessna 172s to commit suicide by flying into buildings accurately at 500+ mph in jumbo jets, especially when those men had a history of being nonreligious “party animals.”
“To offset the friction of war which results inevitably from human frailty, Clausewitz advocates pushing ahead with all one’s might: ‘Perseverance in the chosen course is the essential counter-weight, provided that no compelling reasons intervene to the contrary.’”
Evidently, 9/11′s perpetrators followed that philosophy, pushing ahead in the manner recommended by Clausewitz.
Re friction and viability of a plan decreasing with its complexityOperation Eagle Claw
JFK’s brother was killed after volunteering for an extremely dangerous WW2 op that used a remotely piloted bomber as a guided missile. Fact is terrorists are young men and young men facing imminent death, even the most religious ones, often do some partying. Read this again to understand terrorist motivations .
Israelis do have technology for remotely piloting drones but taking over and remotely piloting a passenger jet would surely require extensive modifications to the aircraft prior to the flight . This further complicates things because the Arabs now have to be got onto a specific aircraft. In effect you are saying that the US government was in on it because Israeli agents could not make the necessary modifications to the correct aircraft covertly: they would need the airline maintenance and scheduling, staff to cooperate. Using remote controlled aircraft enlarges the operation and makes it more complex to the point that only the US government could do it, eurodele has that right.
I have to admit that there is nothing impossible (against the laws of physics) in what you are saying but one could say the same about the plots of Mission Impossible The trouble is Israelis are not that good at the things one might expect them to be good at How Israel Bungled the Second Lebanon War and I think you are giving them too much credit.
It seems both eurodele and Rob believe the US government colluded in the attacks.
If, as eurodele says, the evidence that the US government blew up the WTC is overwhelming and undeniable (“mounting circumstantial evidence against the official narrative is now so extensive that it might as well be hard proof, “) then there is something bothering me. Why doesn’t the government stop internet warriors pointing all these scientific proofs of a controlled demolition by explosives?
I find it odd that these putative guilty parties no running the country with special powers of arrest and surveillance do not deem the Israel-and-the-US-government-did-9/11 theory a threat to law and order and national security and shut down the sites which allow it to be promoted, moreover don’t they go after the authors of the theories and any commenter who goes on and on about it?
Could the guilty people in power ignore someone pointing to the evidence if ( as eurodele and others say) the evidence is conclusive proof of 9/11 being a US/ Israel false flag operation? No , clearly they would have to act against those pointing to their guilt if their guilt was patently obvious once you look at the evidence.
There are a couple of possible explanations, one is the conspirators are really stupid and don’t realize the power of eurodele and like minded commenters to start the mass realization that 9/11 was a US/Israeli false flag op. The second is that the conspiracy theories of US government agency involvement in 9/11 are not true.
“There are a couple of possible explanations, one is the conspirators are really stupid and don’t realize the power of eurodele and like minded commenters to start the mass realization that 9/11 was a US/Israeli false flag op. The second is that the conspiracy theories of US government agency involvement in 9/11 are not true.”
Third possible explanation: If the government, or any faction thereof, were to begin arresting 9/11 Truthers, it might as well hang a flashing neon sign on itself reading “GUILTY AS CHARGED!”
In other words, luckily for us, the “guilty parties no(w) running the country with special powers of arrest and surveillance” still have to use those powers in such a way as not to appear that they have something to hide regarding 9/11.
Admittedly, this situation might not last. But this makes it all the more important to speak out now while it still has the potential to do us some good.
“It’s unlikely that Flight 93 was targeting Building 7, since it was headed southeast when it crashed, and that was the wrong direction.”
Since there’s some rather weird evidence that 93 was shot down (no large debris in the spot where it crashed) it may be, we don’t know, the plane changed course
trying to evade the fighter jet.
OR, it could be as speculated, that there were more planes with hijackers, one intended for building 7, and the hijackers simply lost their nerve, or were on planes that got grounded before they got their nerve up.
“Arab Passengers Become Aggressive – After the passengers are told their flight has been canceled, the Arab men become upset. They stand up and start urgently consulting with each other, and then refuse to return to their seats. [Associated Press, 9/13/2001; New York Times, 10/20/2001] One official will later describe: “These guys got belligerent, and said something like, ‘We’ve got to be on this plane.’ They expressed a desire to remain on the plane and resisted getting off.” [New York Times, 9/14/2001] According to the Associated Press, “The argument with a member of the flight crew became so heated that the crew member called airport security. But before security arrived, the men had vanished.” [Associated Press, 9/13/2001]
Evidence Indicates Plans for Hijacking Plane – Authorities will later check the men’s unclaimed baggage and find box-cutters, copies of the Koran, and al-Qaeda instruction sheets. [Chicago Daily Herald, 4/14/2004; Spencer, 2008, pp. 105] In 2002, apparently referring to this incident, Lt. Gen. Ken Pennie, the deputy commander of NORAD, will state, “We suspect there might have been more than just the four aircraft involved” as targets for the 9/11 attacks. [Globe and”
Israel has worked with Arabs/Muslims before in staging commercial airline hijackings:
“British document: Israel initiated Entebbe hijack”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3407333%2C00.html
“The state of Israel was behind the hijacking of an Air France plane to Entebbe in 1976, and cooperated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in staging the affair, a UK government file compiled at the time of the occurrences and published by the BBC Friday revealed.
According to the file released by the National Archives, an unnamed contact told a British diplomat in Paris that the Shin Bet and the PFLP collaborated to seize the plane, which was hijacked in Athens and flown to Entebbe in Uganda, where 98, most of hem Israelis, were held hostage.
The crisis was brought to an end after Israeli commandos stormed the airport. Three Israeli hostages and one Israeli commander, Yonatan Netanyahu, were killed during the raid.
In the document, written on 30 June 1976 when the crisis was still unresolved, DH Colvin of the Paris Embassy wrote that according to his source, “the hijack was the work of the PFLP, with help from the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet.
“The operation was designed to torpedo the PLO’s standing in France and to prevent what they see as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans.”
He added: “My contact said the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis.” “
As the article in my previous comment reveals, the Israelis were perfectly willing to infiltrate and work with Arabs/Muslims in order to hijack a commercial airplane full of THEIR OWN PEOPLE and risk their lives, losing 3 Israeli civilian and 1 Israeli commando lives in the process, all for the purpose of fulfilling their political goal of making the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) look bad in France and the US.
eurodele said
<blockquote.Third possible explanation: If the government, or any faction thereof, were to begin arresting 9/11 Truthers, it might as well hang a flashing neon sign on itself reading “GUILTY AS CHARGED!”
But you’re saying that the evidence is so clear cut any reasonable person who looks at it must conclude that Israel and the US governmant organised the hijack and attack on the WTC , and also blew the buildings up.
If that really was the case then the conspiracy would have no option but to act to suppress those voices which are pointing to all this evidence which form (what you say) is a solid case. Does anyone seriously believe that people with the capability to stage a false flag 9/11 and WTC demolition couldn’t close down those sites if they wanted to , come on!
They could easily stop those sites working though Denial-of-service attack people could claim to have been libeled and take legal action aganst the internet service providers, they could flood the internet with sites ant comments that proposed insane, preposterous and puerile versions of the truth.
Oh no! I just realized; they are doing the last one.
Look at it this way, Someday. Just put yourself in the position of a wrongdoer…say, a little Jew trying desperately to saturate this thread, and this site, with obvious Jewish propaganda.
Suppose that most of those on the site wise up to your game, if only because you keep on generating absurdities so transparent that Stevie Wonder could see through them in muddy water at 3 AM on the new moon. Do you then respond by creating one or more sock puppets and spamming each of your accusers with poison-pen attacks damning their critiques of you?
If you do, then pretty soon, everybody will realize they’re having the same problem, and that you are the common denominator. So how long do you think it will be before everybody puts it all together and positively identifies you, Someday, as the slimy little Jew who’s spamming them all to death, and infers that you are every bit the propagandist you’re accused of being?
Notice that your denial-of-service / legal action scenario is merely the same thing on a larger scale involving multiple sites.
The government, and its Israeli manipulators, cannot afford to have people identify them conclusively as the perpetrators of 9/11. Even if they could use the American police and military to crush all internal dissent, they’d still have the international community to worry about, including Russia, China, and other countries not yet thoroughly controlled by Big Jewry, Inc. All around the world, their name would be mud. Jewish international bankers would become a sick joke, unable to loan out ten more counterfeit shekels at their accustomed usurious interest rates.
It would obviously be much better, from their perspective, to quietly keep 51% of the population hoodwinked (or at least use the media to create that illusion) so that they can proudly claim that only a “deluded minority” believe them guilty. Just like it’s better for you to lay back and coast between nonsensical outbursts in the hope that no more than 49% of the site’s contributors will see you for what you are.
So how about using your head for more than holding up that yarmulke for a change?
Defamation and the Internet: Name Calling in Cyberspace
eurodelite, this thread contains statements about named individuals which are actionable, and these are individuals with the resources to take down Internet Service Providers by keeping financially draining legal actions going for years. They could shut up any number of people like you, (suing for defamation is not an admission that the allegation is true, quite the opposite). And that is before we get into the issue of the US government being in on it,it should be obvious they could have phony 9/11 and comments sites that advocated illegal activity and introduce laws against incitement to violence, that would be the end of comments such as yours.
So, if 51% of all non Jews would be convinced by the case for an Israeli/ US gov. false flag operation to kill thousand of Americans why do they let people continue to point to the evidence
It is not true that I am commenting on this or any thread under multiple names, as anyone can be anything on the net let’s stick to addressing the arguments rather than muppetry. The discussion has developed some good points I think:- “Nukes also have a way of permanently destroying the surrounding real estate, some of which may be owned by the terrorists themselves.” Yes , eurodele but an economic recession which could easily have led to an political upheaval and the Jews losing influence to populism would also have the effect of destroying Jews wealth as well as influence. make no mistake there was a very real possibility of 9/11 causing a recession or even depression.
I’m sure you know Nationalists who think a full fledged economic depression would benefit Whites, so why would Israel and their US pals risk just that?
You don’t know much about the law, do you, Someday?
In personal injury litigation, the plaintiff usually bears the burden of proof … that is, the burden would ordinarily be shouldered by any public official(s) accusing me of “defamation”. An exception is sometimes made for what’s called “defamation per se”, but even then, several defenses are possible.
Perhaps the best-known defense is truth. The truth is, everything I’ve said here is implied by known facts, and as I’ve already explained, that would be easy to prove in court. On the other hand, it would be very, very hard to prove that these implications are “patently false”, largely because there’s a sufficient likelihood to rule that out.
Another defense is opinion; only an allegation of fact can (ordinarily) give rise to an action for defamation. I’ve stated in this thread that these are my (well-meant) opinions expressed for the good of my country, an eminently reasonable presumption in a discussion of this kind.
Yet another is “fair comment”; where one’s statements are considered “fair comments on matters of public interest”, defamation is unsupported. E.g., if a politician has been accused of involvement in a known corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that the allegations are credible is not ordinarily a problem.
Let’s face it, shall we? For obvious reasons, Bush, Cheney, and the Israeli government want this whole matter kept OUT of court, and this means that it could safely and freely be discussed even if there were a nearly impossible burden of proof on anyone actually accused of defamation.
You know, it might not be a bad idea for you to clam up before proving your ignorance even more decisively than you already have.
“…an economic recession which could easily have led to an political upheaval and the Jews losing influence to populism would also have the effect of destroying Jews wealth as well as influence … make no mistake there was a very real possibility of 9/11 causing a recession or even depression.”
As I’ve already explained, that’s false. Banks need to periodically consolidate their wealth by converting their funny money into real property, and economic depressions give them the unparalleled opportunity to do exactly that.
Regarding Jewish influence, it was nearly certain that 9/11 would be followed by something like the USA PATRIOT Act (which was in fact already sitting there waiting for it), thus increasing Jewish influence in the form of police-state powers.
“I’m sure you know Nationalists who think a full fledged economic depression would benefit Whites, so why would Israel and their US pals risk just that?”
Unlike the benefits of economic depression to Jewish bankers, the “benefit” to whites is rather speculative and quite dismal by comparison. It comes down to something like “Maybe losing everything, and being reduced to nothing, will finally galvanize Whites to stand up and take action!”
I don’t think we can really call that an immediate benefit. It’s more like a possible long-term benefit that would only slowly restore our former quality of life if at all, and only with considerable luck.
Barb: “Since there’s some rather weird evidence that 93 was shot down (no large debris in the spot where it crashed) it may be, we don’t know, the plane changed course trying to evade the fighter jet.”
Sure, the highjackers could have decided to turn back towards the WTC, but apparently they didn’t. The flight path depicted is presumably based on radar tracking, and if so it’s clear the southeasterly trajectory of the plane wasn’t a last minute maneuver.
Also, there was an engine allegedly found at the crash site of Flight 93, and that certainly qualifies as large debris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Flight_93
Another problem: Building 7 (the brown building behind the Twin Towers in the photo below) was considerably shorter than the Twin Towers. That would have made it a tougher target, especially with all the smoke in the air. It seems only logical that any conspirators planning such an event would have had to take that into account. But really, how could they, unless they hit it first? Depending on which way the wind happened to be blowing that day, Building 7 could have been entirely obscured.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Wtc_arial_march2001.jpg
The fact they didn’t hit it first is another bit of evidence against a conspiracy involving controlled demolition. It seems to me the whole plan of controlled demolition concealed by simultaneous plane strikes is entirely too complicated, took too long (allowing possible interception by fighters or interdiction by grounding of planes, as you note), and would have been rejected as too risky by any sane planners. Also problematic for me is the nanothermitic residue, of which there were apparently many tons. There was no need for tons of nanothermite. In my opinion much less was capable of doing the job if it was indeed a controlled demolition. Besides that, we also need an explanation for why the alleged residue didn’t ignite. In carefully placed charges it should have, otherwise it’s a bit like half a stick of dynamite not exploding, but blowing off and ending up out in the street. It just doesn’t work like that.
It would not be necessary to win, ISP’s would be intimidated by the prospect of legal action backed by unlimited funds. The accusations of mass murder by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists provide a way to get the public to lose all sympathy, an assassination of someone slandered as being in on the conspiracy and threatened by an agent provocateur for example would get such internet activity banned. And why can they not manage to win under the current laws if they’re are able to stage 9/11 under current safeguards and laws eh? Lots of rich lying bastards manage to win against the truth in court.
One minute they run the country and the next minute they can’t win a case or change the law in a way that would make the 9/11 conspiracy theories illegal. You can’t say they did 9/11 to get the USA PATRIOT Act suite of police-state powers and in the next breath claim that they are unable to actually use those powers. One minute they’re ten feet tall and the next they’re imbeciles.
Like I said before don’t worry about people directly attacking; that’s too obvious and won’t work. Actually the easiest way is what they could (and surely would) try first: saturate the internet with red herring theories, sites, and comments and drown you out.
Economic depressions give only paralleled opportunity to Jews because you seem to be saying they thrive in boom and bust both.
For Nationalists the opportunities would be much better only in a depression, relatively speaking the advantageousness would lie with Nationalism. I can’t see the cabal you suggest being rash enough to risk Whites getting out of their box.
“It would not be necessary to win, ISP’s would be intimidated by the prospect of legal action backed by unlimited funds.”
Nonsense. It would be absolutely necessary for them to win. Not all ISP’s would back down, and anything but a win would be perceived as evidence that the “defamation” was accurate.
“why can they not manage to win under the current laws if they’re are able to stage 9/11 under current safeguards and laws eh?”
Again, they can’t take the risk of letting the issue into court, even via a defamation suit. They rightly see it as a recipe for disaster. There’s too much evidence against them.
“Lots of rich lying bastards manage to win against the truth in court.”
Not with this amount of evidence against them, they don’t.
Don’t confuse governments with private parties. Governments, having no legitimate self-interest aside from public service, are required to follow much stricter rules than individuals. Privacy is perhaps the main exception; they attempt to “classify” various kinds of information so that not even the courts can get their hands on it. (If an individual tried this, it would be perceived as a massive conflict of interest.)
“Actually the easiest way is what they could (and surely would) try first: saturate the internet with red herring theories, sites, and comments and drown you out.”
Tell the truth – you have no idea what they “surely would” try first. You’re not that smart. For example, you fail to comprehend that alternative “red herring” theories are evidentially deficient and can’t compete with straightforward variations on the main alternative theory (Israeli-US collusion using nanothermite with Muslim-piloted airplanes as decoys). The main alternative theory has so much evidence going for it, it’s virtually unbreakable.
“Economic depressions give only paralleled opportunity to Jews because you seem to be saying they thrive in boom and bust both.”
As a matter of fact, historical analysis reveals that the Jews have a two-phase group strategy (one phase for good times, one for bad). It’s been an occasional topic of discussion on this site.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the top parasites, the international bankers sitting atop the Talmudic pyramid. They do indeed thrive under all conditions, responding quite expertly to the economic cycles they intentionally cause.
“For Nationalists the opportunities would be much better only in a depression, relatively speaking the advantageousness would lie with Nationalism.”
You must be @#$%ing kidding me. These freaks will bring down the entire economy on our heads the instant we attempt to change the rules. That’s really the main source of their power.
Now stop running around in circles. It’s boring everyone to tears.
You can’t explain why the accusations of mass murder by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not used to provide a way to get the public to lose all sympathy, an assassination of someone slandered as being in on the conspiracy would get the mass of the public agreeing such internet activity ought to be banned That would be child’s play compared to 9/11 but ‘they’ don’t do it – why?
That explains why they want to stay out of court does it; you believe that the judge would let them bring cast iron evidence that Cheney and co were guilty of mass murder. The cabal that pulled off 9/11, faked countless mobile calls, hid tons of evidence, and then fixed the inquiry into it is suddenly powerless against a few intrepid internet posters and the integrity of the US legal system
But who said this on October 27, 2010 at 10:13 PM ?
eurodele that’s who!
So in fact a short while ago eurodele was saying they can block any legal action they wish, and thus presumably would be able stop the Israeli/US 9/11 CT theorists presenting their case. Now he explains that they don’t shut the CTs up with a defamation case because the very same conspiracy dare not go to court and face the airtight case that the defense would present that the allegations are true.
Trying to have it both ways yet again; the conspiracy is incredibly resourceful and powerful and can strike with impunity – until someone asks why these cast iron internet assertions that named individuals are mass murderers are not interfered with by the guilty men; if the CT case is so convincing how can the conspirators afford to risk letting more and more people be convinced by the evidence and themselves go on to to spread the allegation. It could go viral at the drop of a hat. The explanation is that the conspiracy fears the integrity of the US legal system Then again when someone like Jeff Maylor asks why don’t the CT s go to court they switch feet and say, as quoted above, that the CTs are blocked from presenting their case in the US legal system.
Here is another example
eurodele said
So relative to Jews, Whites do badly whatever the economic cycle. But that does not invalidate the point that in a recession Whites would fare very badly; suffering Whites would have greater motivation to re-orientate their political allegiance and ethnic attitudes. defense. Hence doing anything which could precipitate a deep recession would be extremely risky for Jews from an ethnic power politics perspective.
The response from eurodele will be that Jews will win no matter what because the Patriot act lets them control any explicitly white mass movement. If anyone asks how did they dare risk being caught during or after attempting the incredibly complex and risky without-a-trace 9/11 false flag hijack/demolition operation? The answer from the conspiracy theorists is the conspiracy already had effective control of the US security and intelligence before 9/11. Yet the motive is alleged to have been get control of those very things in the first place!
.
Someday: “The answer from the conspiracy theorists is the conspiracy already had effective control of the US security and intelligence before 9/11. Yet the motive is alleged to have been get control of those very things in the first place!”
Your post contains almost no correct statements. It’s full of logical errors, too many to bother correcting. I’m a busy man, so I have to cut my response short.
Therefore, I’ll merely observe that your whole incoherent rant was apparently designed as a pretext to repeat the above argument, which Mr. Lonaker and I have already falsified from different angles (in my case, repeatedly).
You can’t simply repeat the same bad argument over and over again even after you’ve been corrected, and still expect people to listen to you.
DwE: “In carefully placed charges [all the nanothermite] should have [ignited], otherwise it’s a bit like half a stick of dynamite not exploding, but blowing off and ending up out in the street. It just doesn’t work like that.”
To make a long story short, it does work like that.
Sticks of dynamite are compact; the particles are all stuck together so that heat radiation and/or mechanical shock from those first ignited reaches the others before they can be dispersed. But where the explosive is widely distributed, e.g., painted on beams and girders, it cannot all be ignited in perfect simultaneity. Shock waves transmitted through the air from the first-ignited concentrations of explosive can thus “beat the heat” to distant concentrations of unignited explosive, knocking particles loose before they reach the heat of ignition. (Basically, this is why you can be knocked off your feet by an explosion without necessarily being burned or even feeling much heat; you’re hit first by the atmospheric shock wave as the heat lags and dissipates.)
As this objection is more or less representative of the post from which it came in point of sophistication, I’ll address just it for now. (I have to get to the polls.)
Bub: “To make a long story short, it does work like that.”
I don’t think so. But even if we grant that it did, then that would make painting nanothermite on girders a rather stupid method of delivery, wouldn’t it? According to you, most of it would be blown off and fail to ignite, and so what would be the point? Of course, another problem with your scenario is that thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, and so there is no shock wave. But even if we assume there is a shock wave of some kind involved with nanothermite, although different in character from the brisance of dynamite or other high-explosives, is paint really and necessarily going to be less cohesive than a stick of dynamite? No, of course not. But let’s be generous and assume that it is. You could compensate for that by enclosing the paint layer with a layer of steel on top of it to hold it in place, or perhaps mixing it with epoxy for additional adhesion. We also should realize that not knowing these things would seem a very strange oversight for what you are supposing to have been an ultra-sophisticated conspiracy. Finally, even if we, solely for the sake of argument, grant your analysis is correct, using conventional high-explosives to blow up the buildings would have been much simpler and would not have led to so much incriminating residue. In order for your scenario to be true, we have to suppose either that the conspirators did not know that many tons of incriminating residue would be left, or didn’t care. Both alternatives seem ridiculous.
In short, your analysis makes no sense at all.
Here is another account of Eagle Claw which makes it a bit clearer what I was trying to get at about a plan being too complicated to be executed
Furthermore they would have had to get the 9/11 demolition exactly right it had to look right and bring the whole thing down. That would have required an exquisitely balance between to much and not enough. They didn’t have a precedent for that kind of thing being done on a skyscraper the structure was an unusual design and the size alone would make it very very difficult to know how much explosive or nanothermite to use to get it looking right . It was predictable that it was going to be filmed. I don’t think any technition woud have said ‘oh yeah I can predict exactly what will happen’.
Here is an analogy The Gunpowder Plot – Exploding the Legend The first 4 minutes are most relevant.
Dweezlestein: “I don’t think so. But even if we grant that it did, then that would make painting nanothermite on girders a rather stupid method of delivery, wouldn’t it?”
I’m afraid not. In order to compromise the structural integrity of a building with distributed structural support in such a way as to facilitate vertical collapse, wide structural distribution of the nanothermite would obviously be required. Again, this makes perfectly simultaneous ignition next to impossible.
You know, based on the “scientific expertise” you’ve thus far demonstrated on this site, I’d have thought you’d know better than to trust your physical intuition about something like this. After all, neither you, nor we, possess any good reason to suppose that you have any.
“According to you, most of it would be blown off and fail to ignite, and so what would be the point?”
I said nothing of the kind, nor did I imply it. Where on earth do you get this stuff?
“Of course, another problem with your scenario is that thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, and so there is no shock wave.”
Nanothermite isn’t just thermite, dweezlestein. It’s in a whole different league.
Wikipedia: “Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy.”
“But even if we assume there is a shock wave of some kind involved with nanothermite, although different in character from the brisance of dynamite or other high-explosives, is paint really and necessarily going to be less cohesive than a stick of dynamite? No, of course not.”
You don’t know a whole lot of geometry, do you? On one hand, we have a near two-dimensional surface whose thickness limits the rate of ignition from a point source, and which may not even be continuous. On the other, we have a solid three-dimensional object with no such limitations.
“But let’s be generous and assume that it is.”
Yes, let’s. ;-)
“You could compensate for that by enclosing the paint layer with a layer of steel on top of it to hold it in place, or perhaps mixing it with epoxy for additional adhesion. We also should realize that not knowing these things would seem a very strange oversight for what you are supposing to have been an ultra-sophisticated conspiracy.”
Hold it there, dweebs. Merely that you know how to sabotage any thread on any topic doesn’t necessarily make you a demolitions expert. Applying steel plate over the explosive would quadruple the difficulty of placement, and mixing it with epoxy wouldn’t be much better. (By the way, mixing it with nonflammable epoxy could absolutely bugger it as anything but a construction adhesive.)
“Finally, even if we, solely for the sake of argument, grant your analysis is correct, using conventional high-explosives to blow up the buildings would have been much simpler and would not have led to so much incriminating residue.”
Horse shit. In fact, it would certainly have been much harder to smuggle conventional explosives into the buildings, to place them, and to conceal them, especially given the sheer tonnage that would have been required. After all, most conventional explosives don’t generate enough heat to vaporize tons of structural steel and collapse a skyscraper within seconds.
“In order for your scenario to be true, we have to suppose either that the conspirators did not know that many tons of incriminating residue would be left, or didn’t care.”
Quite so. But then again, I don’t recall saying they were geniuses. In fact, they’ve got to be some of the dumbest people on the planet.
As they probably began to realize some time ago.
Bub: “In order to compromise the structural integrity of a building with distributed structural support in such a way as to facilitate vertical collapse, wide structural distribution of the nanothermite would obviously be required. Again, this makes perfectly simultaneous ignition next to impossible.”
The 84 girders holding up Building 7 could have been destroyed with comparatively small amounts of explosive charges, instead of the ten tons of nanothermite estimated by Jones. It’s like cutting a tree down. Only a relatively thin slice would need to be removed from each support. Shaped charges using RDX or other conventional high explosive could have done it very easily. Such charges can cut through the armor plate of a tank. Construction-grade steel would be much easier.
Bub: ““According to you, most of it would be blown off and fail to ignite, and so what would be the point?”
I said nothing of the kind, nor did I imply it. Where on earth do you get this stuff?”
Right here, dolt:
Bub: “Applying steel plate over the explosive would quadruple the difficulty of placement, and mixing it with epoxy wouldn’t be much better. (By the way, mixing it with nonflammable epoxy could absolutely bugger it as anything but a construction adhesive.)”
Quadruple? Did that figure hurt when you pulled it out of your ass? And what makes you think that ANY KIND of epoxy wouldn’t burn when subjected to high enough temperatures? Thermite burns at 2500 degrees C. You want to peddle the notion it burns hot enough to go right through steel, but not epoxy? You’re just embarrassing yourself now, fool.
Bub: “After all, most conventional explosives don’t generate enough heat to vaporize tons of structural steel and collapse a skyscraper within seconds.”
Now you’re really grasping at straws. What do you think is usually used to collapse a skyscraper within seconds when one is demolished? Aren’t conventional explosives the stuff that’s used in all those controlled demolitions to which the WTC collapses are constantly compared? Yes, I do believe so.
Bub: ““In order for your scenario to be true, we have to suppose either that the conspirators did not know that many tons of incriminating residue would be left, or didn’t care.”
Quite so. But then again, I don’t recall saying they were geniuses. In fact, they’ve got to be some of the dumbest people on the planet.”
This is just retarded.
Dweeberger: “The 84 girders holding up Building 7 could have been destroyed with comparatively small amounts of explosive charges, instead of the ten tons of nanothermite estimated by Jones.”
First, you don’t seem to grasp the size of the steel posts and girders in the WTC towers. They’re way too big and massive for you to stick in your nose when your index finger gets tired, and way too big to be cut by the pie-sized limpet mines you evidently envision.
Secondly, we have the matter of application. Instead of, say, a few illiterate illegal aliens wearing paint masks and humping innocuous spray tanks conveniently fitted with long wands capable of reaching almost anywhere, the operation would have required scores of agile, highly qualified explosives experts climbing around the walls, floors, and ceilings fastening charges at scientifically determined locations.
(Incidentally, anyone who thinks that “Shock waves … can thus beat the heat to distant concentrations … knocking particles loose before they reach the heat of ignition” is logically or physically equivalent to “MOST of it would be blown off and fail to ignite” is even more stupid than most of us already figured you were. You’re definitely a man of superlatives, Der kleine Wiesel!)
“Quadruple?”
At least. As welding such plates would be out of the question, and chemically adhering them to a layer of explosive wouldn’t hold them once ignition occurred, they would have to be drilled and riveted. (Of course, you wouldn’t know how noisy and difficult that is, would you, you little pantywaist – you’d have to have worked a little construction in your life, as opposed to never having held a real job because mommy and daddy insist that real work is for goyim.)
“And what makes you think that ANY KIND of epoxy wouldn’t burn when subjected to high enough temperatures?”
Of course it would. The problem is maintaining sufficient nanothermitic density in all that epoxy you want to smear all over everything in such amounts as to hold it all in place so no telltale residue is left unburned. And, of course, igniting it in the first place when it’s encased in rock-hard gobs of inflammable resin.
“What do you think is usually used to collapse a skyscraper within seconds when one is demolished? Aren’t conventional explosives the stuff that’s used in all those controlled demolitions to which the WTC collapses are constantly compared?”
Yes, but in very large amounts, painstakingly distributed over several months by large, conspicuous crews that couldn’t be missed by even a deaf, dumb, blind, and brain-dead stooge like you, let alone the reasonably intelligent occupants of the WTC buildings.
Give it up, Dweeberstein. As usual, it’s just not working.
I’m going to continue to humiliate you, idiot. Just because I can, and you deserve it so well. :-)
Bub: “First, you don’t seem to grasp the size of the steel posts and girders in the WTC towers. They’re way too big and massive for you to stick in your nose when your index finger gets tired, and way too big to be cut by the pie-sized limpet mines you evidently envision.”
Again, the very small amounts of explosive in a shaped charge, such as that used in an RPG (maybe 5 or 6 lbs.), can cut through several inches of armor plate. With high explosive generally you don’t need vast quantities. The US M183 satchel charge, used effectively in military applications against tanks or steel bridge girders under far less than optimum conditions, weighs only about 20 lbs. If you have time to place the charges strategically and tamp them properly so that the energy of the blast is directed exactly where you want it, as these alleged conspirators did, then you can do a lot with only a little.
Bub: “(Incidentally, anyone who thinks that “Shock waves … can thus beat the heat to distant concentrations … knocking particles loose before they reach the heat of ignition” is logically or physically equivalent to “MOST of it would be blown off and fail to ignite” is even more stupid than most of us already figured you were. You’re definitely a man of superlatives, Der kleine Wiesel!)”
Oh, I see. You MEANT, but somehow mysteriously forgot to state, that only a tiny, insignificant percentage of particles would be knocked off. So exactly what percentage would be knocked off, dolt? Let’s see your calculations. It’s entirely unclear to me why you think air pressure would knock any of it off, but if it was strong enough to knock any of it off, why not just about all of it within whatever blast radius you are supposing it is strong enough to do so? Why some particles and not others? (This should be entertaining…)
Obviously, however, quite a bit got knocked off and didn’t explode, since unexploded particles were readily apparent in the dust. Since the nanothermite is so highly reactive, this is especially difficult to explain. Any method of delivery that leaves lots of unreacted nanothermite is a poor one from the point of view of a conspiracy that wishes to remain secret. Again I ask, did these supposed conspirators not know about this, or did they not care? Either alternative is absurd.
Bub: “As welding such plates would be out of the question, and chemically adhering them to a layer of explosive wouldn’t hold them once ignition occurred, they would have to be drilled and riveted.”
According to your screwy theory, lady, it’s just air pressure you’re trying to shield the nanothermite layer from. Bolting them down would be sufficient. Didn’t you take a class on bolting stuff down at Vassar, or whatever girls’ school you attended? Again, this is called tamping, as opposed the the tampons you are more familiar with.
Bub: ““And what makes you think that ANY KIND of epoxy wouldn’t burn when subjected to high enough temperatures?”
Of course it would. The problem is maintaining sufficient nanothermitic density in all that epoxy you want to smear all over everything in such amounts as to hold it all in place so no telltale residue is left unburned. And, of course, igniting it in the first place when it’s encased in rock-hard gobs of inflammable resin.”
Here you offer more proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about, as though we needed any. Thermite doesn’t need access to air to burn, girlie. The iron oxide component provides all the oxygen it needs. Under water or encased in epoxy, it will burn just fine once the reaction is touched off. The much-vaunted enhanced reactivity of nanothermite should mean that the reaction would spread throughout the material in milliseconds.
@ Rob Lonaker
One can speak of something drenched in gasoline “exploding” in flames, but that doesn’t mean that gasoline is an explosive. It remains an incendiary. Similarly, thermite, and even nanothermite, is still technically an incendiary, because the reaction is one of oxidation. As with gasoline, the explosion comes from the fast rate of burning. High explosives are different. The explosive power of TNT or RDX doesn’t derive from an oxidation reaction at all. It’s an exothermic chemical decomposition that proceeds according to the travel of a shock wave throughout the explosive material. You can even light the stuff on fire and it won’t explode. Unlike thermite or nanothermite, it requires a shock wave to detonate – a subtle but important distinction.
Der weiße Engel said:
“Of course, another problem with your scenario is that thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, and so there is no shock wave.”
Actually, nanothermite can be used as either an incendiary or a very powerful explosive, whose properties are customizable to a desired situation.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
“Through selection of materials (the range of which includes virtually all metals) and size scale of the layers, functional properties of [] multilayer structures can be controlled, such as the reaction front velocity, the reaction initiation temperature, and the amount of energy delivered by a reaction of alternating unreacted layers of the multilayer structure.”
Also see http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists.” –J. Edgar Hoover
Now a Jewish member of the Australian parliament asks the Prime Minister to discipline a trade unionist simply for saying:
“I believe the official [9/11] story is a conspiracy theory that doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UntixeRiEK8&t=2m31s
A science-based approach would be to say, “Let’s examine the evidence to see if the speaker is correct.”
The approach of Jewish leaders is to say, “Let’s say we’re offended, punish the speaker, and ‘send a message to others’ to suppress such speech.”
no planes.