Sorry, I'm coming late to the discussion. What is this forum proposing?? LIHOP or MIHOP??
It's one or the other.
Full Version: What Really Happened On 9/11?
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
QUOTE(toeg @ Thursday, 14 December 2006, 9:36 pm) [snapback]82374[/snapback]
Sorry, I'm coming late to the discussion. What is this forum proposing?? LIHOP or MIHOP??
It's one or the other.
It's one or the other.
IHOP, because pancakes are just tasty at 3 am after heavy drinking for the previous 6 hours.
Ooops.
QUOTE
Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Knew people in FAA on day of hijackings who said intercept procedures should have been enacted as normal
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, December 14, 2006
A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.
A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late yesterday by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth organization.
After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job.
"On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses, whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon.
Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace and other emergency procedures.
"I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols," he stated.
Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise.
He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers.
"What you do is you don't wait for the judge, jury and executioner to prove it's an emergency, if things start to go wrong you have the authority to simply say I am going to treat this craft as if it is an emergency, because if everybody's wrong then fifteen minutes later no big thing."
Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed.
He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and knew of the hijacking.
"The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision."
"Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact was at this particular time," said Hordon.
"That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight."
Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight 11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked.
"If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC (NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon.
This highlights the absurdity of Dulles controllers mistaking Flight 77 for a fighter jet as it approached Washington as was reported, and the plane's over 40 minute uninterrupted journey to the Pentagon after a hijack was confirmed.
Hordon debunked the recent Vanity Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response as a consequence of confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible to radar and couldn't be tracked properly.
"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.
"Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon, pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point of hijacking to the impact on their targets.
This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of a conversation between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was ordered to be shredded, because if studies of that evidence were undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the attack.
"What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon.
Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.
Knew people in FAA on day of hijackings who said intercept procedures should have been enacted as normal
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, December 14, 2006
A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.
A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late yesterday by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth organization.
After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job.
"On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses, whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon.
Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace and other emergency procedures.
"I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols," he stated.
Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise.
He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers.
"What you do is you don't wait for the judge, jury and executioner to prove it's an emergency, if things start to go wrong you have the authority to simply say I am going to treat this craft as if it is an emergency, because if everybody's wrong then fifteen minutes later no big thing."
Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed.
He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and knew of the hijacking.
"The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision."
"Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact was at this particular time," said Hordon.
"That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight."
Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight 11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked.
"If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC (NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon.
This highlights the absurdity of Dulles controllers mistaking Flight 77 for a fighter jet as it approached Washington as was reported, and the plane's over 40 minute uninterrupted journey to the Pentagon after a hijack was confirmed.
Hordon debunked the recent Vanity Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response as a consequence of confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible to radar and couldn't be tracked properly.
"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.
"Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon, pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point of hijacking to the impact on their targets.
This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of a conversation between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was ordered to be shredded, because if studies of that evidence were undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the attack.
"What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon.
Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.
QUOTE(toeg @ Thursday, 14 December 2006, 11:36 pm) [snapback]82374[/snapback]
Sorry, I'm coming late to the discussion. What is this forum proposing?? LIHOP or MIHOP??
It's one or the other.
It's one or the other.
There's no official concensus for the forum. Right now the Project, as an organization, is in the LIHOP camp until the majority of the American public can digest that, and then we'll move on to any government involvement.
QUOTE
Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Knew people in FAA on day of hijackings who said intercept procedures should have been enacted as normal
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, December 14, 2006
A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.
A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late yesterday by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth organization.
After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job.
"On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses, whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon.
Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace and other emergency procedures.
"I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols," he stated.
Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise.
He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers.
"What you do is you don't wait for the judge, jury and executioner to prove it's an emergency, if things start to go wrong you have the authority to simply say I am going to treat this craft as if it is an emergency, because if everybody's wrong then fifteen minutes later no big thing."
Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed.
He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and knew of the hijacking.
"The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision."
"Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact was at this particular time," said Hordon.
"That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight."
Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight 11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked.
"If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC (NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon.
This highlights the absurdity of Dulles controllers mistaking Flight 77 for a fighter jet as it approached Washington as was reported, and the plane's over 40 minute uninterrupted journey to the Pentagon after a hijack was confirmed.
Hordon debunked the recent Vanity Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response as a consequence of confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible to radar and couldn't be tracked properly.
"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.
"Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon, pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point of hijacking to the impact on their targets.
This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of a conversation between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was ordered to be shredded, because if studies of that evidence were undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the attack.
"What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon.
Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.
I listened to this on KPFK last night, on the way to the grocery store...had to sit in the parking lot and listen all the way through. As more information comes out, I believe the general public will be able to move through the LIHOP and into the MIHOP camp. Was PNAC, with their connections and access to money and military technology, physically and morally capable of such a horrendous act? I think yes, and have all along. Too many coincidences...you can't fit that many fucking prizes in one box of Cracker Jacks.
QUOTE(POAC @ Friday, 15 December 2006, 4:41 pm) [snapback]82469[/snapback]
There's no official concensus for the forum. Right now the Project, as an organization, is in the LIHOP camp until the majority of the American public can digest that, and then we'll move on to any government involvement.
I just find a very thin wall between Let it Happen on Purpose vs. Made it happen on Purpose.
Certain events have to be made before sitting back and lletting it happen occurs.
Maybe thinner than the line between 1st and 2nd degree homicide.
QUOTE(Southpaw @ Friday, 15 December 2006, 4:02 pm) [snapback]82471[/snapback]
I just find a very thin wall between Let it Happen on Purpose vs. Made it happen on Purpose.
Certain events have to be made before sitting back and lletting it happen occurs.
Maybe thinner than the line between 1st and 2nd degree homicide.
Certain events have to be made before sitting back and lletting it happen occurs.
Maybe thinner than the line between 1st and 2nd degree homicide.
Absolutely. But it's all in how we present ourselves as an organization.
LIHOP is easy to prove.
There is also plenty of evidence to show MIHOP. However, I agree that it is risky business to go that route while most of the sheeple are still in denial. Just as it is easier to prove that Pearl Harbor was a set up (we had broken their code long before they attacked us AND our Pacific Fleet had ALWAYS been stationed at San Diego EXCEPT from February, 1941, to 1944). We know the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, in fact I worked with someone who was on one of the destroyers there. We know that Johnson allowed the USS Liberty to be attacked by Israeli jets and personally stood down the response from a nearby aircraft carrier.
We can demonstrate precedence and we can demonstrate a TON of circumstantial evidence, but just as in the case of Kennedy and the Vietnam War, sensitive topics for the masses, it will be a while before people will be able to admit that we were corrupt "some time in the past."
There is also plenty of evidence to show MIHOP. However, I agree that it is risky business to go that route while most of the sheeple are still in denial. Just as it is easier to prove that Pearl Harbor was a set up (we had broken their code long before they attacked us AND our Pacific Fleet had ALWAYS been stationed at San Diego EXCEPT from February, 1941, to 1944). We know the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, in fact I worked with someone who was on one of the destroyers there. We know that Johnson allowed the USS Liberty to be attacked by Israeli jets and personally stood down the response from a nearby aircraft carrier.
We can demonstrate precedence and we can demonstrate a TON of circumstantial evidence, but just as in the case of Kennedy and the Vietnam War, sensitive topics for the masses, it will be a while before people will be able to admit that we were corrupt "some time in the past."
The "thirty year rule."
Indeed, Gad.
That's about right.
The next generation will be able to say, "My, how gullible and naive our parents were." And they will be able to fall into the same trap without ever realizing it.
That's about right.
The next generation will be able to say, "My, how gullible and naive our parents were." And they will be able to fall into the same trap without ever realizing it.
LIHOP, while passivly pushing MIHOP.
Bush and co simply didn't have to get involved, other than to actively remove things that might have stopped or in other ways diminished what was already happening.
No, Bushco didn't actively participate in the planning of 9/11. Yes, they told the US intell people to go look at vacation plans.
I find it very interesting that after 9/11, as a result of the 9/11 Bushco put DHS together, and immediately every US intell group went under intensive house cleaning! In other words, anybody that knew anything, was either fired or put where they couldn't do damage by connecting t he dots and figuring things out.
Active LIHOP
Passive MIHOP.
Bush and co simply didn't have to get involved, other than to actively remove things that might have stopped or in other ways diminished what was already happening.
No, Bushco didn't actively participate in the planning of 9/11. Yes, they told the US intell people to go look at vacation plans.
I find it very interesting that after 9/11, as a result of the 9/11 Bushco put DHS together, and immediately every US intell group went under intensive house cleaning! In other words, anybody that knew anything, was either fired or put where they couldn't do damage by connecting t he dots and figuring things out.
Active LIHOP
Passive MIHOP.
Actually,
My personal opinion is MIHOP. I've been studying it since 2003 quite heavily and the evidence is quite overwhelming.
My personal opinion is MIHOP. I've been studying it since 2003 quite heavily and the evidence is quite overwhelming.
Let us not forget " Remember the Maine ". Who sunk the battleship in Havana Harbor that began the Spanish American War and set off the perpetual war machine.
Very good.
That was the beginning of Yellow Journalism where Willilam Randalph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer tried to outlie each other in NYC.
That was the beginning of Yellow Journalism where Willilam Randalph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer tried to outlie each other in NYC.
This is a total what the fuck???
WTC 7 fell at 5:20pm.
The BBC reports the collapse at 5:07pm.
CNN reported the probable collapse at 4:15pm.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...ustanything.htm
After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11?
The BBC Building 7 farce lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for justifying the invasion of Iraq
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?
Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google - it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere. Watch the clip below. For an extended clip where the Building 7 farce is clearly annotated, click here, and skip forward to 14 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&eurl=
A central facet of the debate raging amongst 9/11 truthers and a charge leveled by moronic debunkers is that there is no time code or clock on the video, so how can we verify the BBC reported Building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it fell?
Does it matter? Does it matter if the BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes before it happened or 30 seconds before it happened? The fact remains that the building is there in the background behind the reporter's head as she is telling us that it has already collapsed! Don't get tangled up in this minutia, the building is still standing after she has reported its collapse! Debates about time stamps and time zones are irrelevant.
Others charge that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?
CNN had also been told the building was about to collapse, as is made clear below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o&eurl=
WTC 7 fell at 5:20pm.
The BBC reports the collapse at 5:07pm.
CNN reported the probable collapse at 4:15pm.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...ustanything.htm
After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11?
The BBC Building 7 farce lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for justifying the invasion of Iraq
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?
Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google - it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere. Watch the clip below. For an extended clip where the Building 7 farce is clearly annotated, click here, and skip forward to 14 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&eurl=
A central facet of the debate raging amongst 9/11 truthers and a charge leveled by moronic debunkers is that there is no time code or clock on the video, so how can we verify the BBC reported Building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it fell?
Does it matter? Does it matter if the BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes before it happened or 30 seconds before it happened? The fact remains that the building is there in the background behind the reporter's head as she is telling us that it has already collapsed! Don't get tangled up in this minutia, the building is still standing after she has reported its collapse! Debates about time stamps and time zones are irrelevant.
Others charge that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?
CNN had also been told the building was about to collapse, as is made clear below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o&eurl=
What seems obvious is that Silverstein was getting the cover story out as quickly as possible before the building was intentionally demolished, and that's how they were so sure it was going to collapse before it eventually did. In addition, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer reported hearing bombs tear down the building as he ran away from it.
Debunkers have scoffed at our suggestion that some kind of press release had to have been issued for the BBC to report this ahead of time. Well how else do you suggest the BBC learned of the building's demise before it happened? A psychic premonition?
This goes to the very heart of why the mainstream media is stuttering and the alternative is burgeoning - the establishment press have become nothing more than ditto heads of the official version of events to the point where they don't even perform a cursory investigation of what they are being told by official sources. Their role is simply to repeat what the authorities tell them with no scrutiny whatsoever.
Nowhere was this more evident than on 9/11 when the corporate media mechanically relayed the 'Osama did it' fraud within hours of the attack, and afforded copious air time to highly suspicious individuals who just happened to know the intricate details of how each building collapsed within minutes of it occurring. This was key to solidifying the dogma of the official story, because anyone who saw the collapse of WTC 7 without having had the official propaganda drilled into them could see plain as day that it was a controlled demolition.
Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day.
Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day.
The BBC Building 7 fiasco lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for the justification of invading Iraq.
Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?
"This was not the result of a new attack," states the anchor, "It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."
How else could the BBC have relayed this information unless by way of some kind of press release or official statement by Silverstein, Giuliani or the NYFD? Who told them that the building had been weakened? In effect, the BBC were working to a 9/11 script and made the error of orating their lines too early.
This damning video is also a commentary on the credibility and impartiality of the BBC as a whole, especially in light of their ludicrously bias, slanted and error ridden Conspiracy Files hit piece that aired last Sunday. Perhaps debunker-in-chief Guy Smith can explain to us how his colleague prophesied the downfall of a building that, almost mockingly, appears in full view behind her head before the live feed is conveniently interrupted.
24 hours after the video first surfaced and was then unceremoniously "pulled" from Google Video (but not before it went viral everywhere else), there is still no response from the BBC and no mainstream coverage whatsoever, not even a 'look what the silly conspiracy theorists are saying' puff piece.
It seems our noble press whores are more concerned today about Helen Mirren eating a beef burger and James Cameron's fictional Jesus tomb.
What if we had unearthed footage of a CNN anchor reporting the collapse of the twin towers as he stood below them? Would that be enough to provoke any interest? How about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld announcing a joint press conference in which they admit they ran the attack? No doubt the noisy negativists would find some harebrained reason to dismiss that also.
Where is the BBC's clarification on this? How about Industrial Risk Insurers, surely they would be interested to find out that Silverstein was rapaciously anticipating their $861 million payout before Building 7 "accidentally" collapsed?
Our sense of outrage on this matter should not be quelled by time and the stubbornness of official channels, namely the BBC and whoever their source for reporting the collapse was, to answer for, in the case of the BBC, their hideous "mistake," and the source for exactly how they were able to predict that a modern steel building that had suffered limited fire damage would suddenly collapse in its own footprint without the aid of explosive demolition.
There are now over a million innocent dead people who would, I'm sure, liked to have known why they were about to be killed and by who and for what. I hope, for the sakes of their souls, that we don't have to wait much longer for the truth to be dragged squalling into the light.
I would even volunteer (against everything I believe in) to waterboard Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney until we get the truth out of them...if it's good enough for innocent Afghani taxi drivers, it must be good enough for the REAL likely suspects.
Water boarding William Kristol I'd do for free, and with a peculiar smirk tugging at the edges of my lips...
Does anyone know whether "Honest Larry" Silverstein actually managed in his bid to get paid TWICE for "two seperate terrorist attacks", and whether anyone has ever actually investigated this obvious insurance scam ?
So many questions, so little integrity in the Justice system.
I would even volunteer (against everything I believe in) to waterboard Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney until we get the truth out of them...if it's good enough for innocent Afghani taxi drivers, it must be good enough for the REAL likely suspects.
Water boarding William Kristol I'd do for free, and with a peculiar smirk tugging at the edges of my lips...
Does anyone know whether "Honest Larry" Silverstein actually managed in his bid to get paid TWICE for "two seperate terrorist attacks", and whether anyone has ever actually investigated this obvious insurance scam ?
So many questions, so little integrity in the Justice system.
QUOTE(Rousseau @ Tuesday, 27 February 2007, 2:40 pm) [snapback]86622[/snapback]
Does anyone know whether "Honest Larry" Silverstein actually managed in his bid to get paid TWICE for "two seperate terrorist attacks", and whether anyone has ever actually investigated this obvious insurance scam ?
So many questions, so little integrity in the Justice system.
So many questions, so little integrity in the Justice system.
Yes, he was awarded for EACH tower.
Sly dog !
I guess 3000 lives, plus the millions that followed as a direct result didn't stain the money too much.....
I guess 3000 lives, plus the millions that followed as a direct result didn't stain the money too much.....
+ the movie revenue.
Wonder how Rudy will jump on the 9/11 bandwagon when nominationn time rolls around.
Wonder how Rudy will jump on the 9/11 bandwagon when nominationn time rolls around.
Did Silverstein also got a payout for Building 7? It was "pulled" by firefighters as soon as everybody was evacuated. Made their job easier and helped him divest at the same time. I bet he contributed a lot to their union since then...
QUOTE(Spud Demon @ Tuesday, 27 February 2007, 6:06 pm) [snapback]86626[/snapback]
Did Silverstein also got a payout for Building 7? It was "pulled" by firefighters as soon as everybody was evacuated. Made their job easier and helped him divest at the same time. I bet he contributed a lot to their union since then...
ummmm, yes,
QUOTE
INSURANCE BATTLE
After September 11th, Larry Silverstein claimed a double payout from the consortium of insurance companies covering the WTC, saying the two plane crashes were actually two separate occurrences under New York law. By 2006, after a complicated legal battle involving 30 different companies, Silverstein was set to get two payoffs, if at a lower rate. A fight about how to develop the Ground Zero site now rages between the state and city of New York, the Port Authority, and Silverstein. Under an agreement of April 2006, Silverstein is to build the new site using money raised by selling New York State Liberty Bonds. He will hand over the completed "Freedom Tower," once again the world's largest building at a nominal height of 1776 feet, to the Port Authority, and keep for himself a couple of the smaller, more lucrative buildings surrounding the tower. In addition, odds are excellent that Silverstein will walk off with almost the entire insurance payoff of 2.2 billion to 6 billion dollars - compared to a total of less than $1 billion in investments and rent paid out by his limited partnership as of today.
Meanwhile, the insurance money for WTC 7 was paid, allowing Silverstein to buy out the Blackstone Group's interest and build the new WTC 7. The building was topped out in 2006, to fanfare and awards for ecological design. A glossy brochure ran in the New York Times, addressed "To Those Who Make Their Own Opportunities" and announcing, "Your Office is Ready." The first tenant to rent space in the New 7 was the Chinese government. The building is far more prominent than its predecessor, and still today, relatively few people have ever seen footage from the moments when the old WTC 7 met its end.
After September 11th, Larry Silverstein claimed a double payout from the consortium of insurance companies covering the WTC, saying the two plane crashes were actually two separate occurrences under New York law. By 2006, after a complicated legal battle involving 30 different companies, Silverstein was set to get two payoffs, if at a lower rate. A fight about how to develop the Ground Zero site now rages between the state and city of New York, the Port Authority, and Silverstein. Under an agreement of April 2006, Silverstein is to build the new site using money raised by selling New York State Liberty Bonds. He will hand over the completed "Freedom Tower," once again the world's largest building at a nominal height of 1776 feet, to the Port Authority, and keep for himself a couple of the smaller, more lucrative buildings surrounding the tower. In addition, odds are excellent that Silverstein will walk off with almost the entire insurance payoff of 2.2 billion to 6 billion dollars - compared to a total of less than $1 billion in investments and rent paid out by his limited partnership as of today.
Meanwhile, the insurance money for WTC 7 was paid, allowing Silverstein to buy out the Blackstone Group's interest and build the new WTC 7. The building was topped out in 2006, to fanfare and awards for ecological design. A glossy brochure ran in the New York Times, addressed "To Those Who Make Their Own Opportunities" and announcing, "Your Office is Ready." The first tenant to rent space in the New 7 was the Chinese government. The building is far more prominent than its predecessor, and still today, relatively few people have ever seen footage from the moments when the old WTC 7 met its end.
Could or have the families of Victims sue the owner of the buildings who is to be awarded up to 6 billion from insurance claims, for failing to take adequet safety precautions considering the fact that the towers had already been attacked once before and therefor must have been considered a continuing target for terrorism?
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Tuesday, 27 February 2007, 9:15 pm) [snapback]86637[/snapback]
Could or have the families of Victims sue the owner of the buildings who is to be awarded up to 6 billion from insurance claims, for failing to take adequet safety precautions considering the fact that the towers had already been attacked once before and therefor must have been considered a continuing target for terrorism?
That is exactly why I get cross wize with legal thinkers. Someone HAS to pay....no, no...pay more! Its someones fault. Jesus, what about the fact that people were aware that it was a target who were working there? And for that damned matter, who could protect against a plane going 500 mph anyhow?
QUOTE(Abell9 @ Tuesday, 27 February 2007, 7:29 pm) [snapback]86638[/snapback]
That is exactly why I get cross wize with legal thinkers. Someone HAS to pay....no, no...pay more! Its someones fault. Jesus, what about the fact that people were aware that it was a target who were working there? And for that damned matter, who could protect against a plane going 500 mph anyhow?
True enough, but why pay the man twice for one terror attack? Actually more than twice as the other buildings are seperate claims.
And wouldn't it be nice if a few deserving folks got a share of the 6 billion dollar windfall?
How about a nice large contribution to the fund to support the health claims of those harmed by the air at ground zero?
Question?
How close to 6 bil was market value of the buildings before they came down?
The buildings were a lead anchor around the necks of the Port Authority, and were a white elefant regarding the massive upcoming costs to get them up to federal building standards, due to the massive amounts of asbestos that had been used in their construction.
I read some incredible stuff on the history of the twin towers and the bottomless money pit they had become ages ago, before 9/11. I'll hunt around and see if I can find it again, because it sure gives a good reason for wanting these big ole' buildings being knocked down.....and of course, in normal times, that would never have been possible, or would have been so damn expensive...and then, great Googly Moogly, along came "Ayrab terrorists that hate our freedoms and can fly with pinpoint precision, unperturbed by ground clutter, ably piloting their aircraft like Luke Skywalker in the Death-Star canyon (albeit without laser-canons firing back, or Darth Cheney, he was in control of ops in the White House that day...),in an early morning attack to beat the rush-hour, just before the towers filled up too much with people....and bang on time for live, all day network news coverage around the globe..."
Now if that Silverstein isn't just the luckiest guy ! Gee, good thing he'd just finished blowing dry the ink on the insurance contracts covering "Evil terrorists that hate our real-estate" attacks, otherwise he'd be bumming for change near the subway mouth next to Ground Zero...
I read some incredible stuff on the history of the twin towers and the bottomless money pit they had become ages ago, before 9/11. I'll hunt around and see if I can find it again, because it sure gives a good reason for wanting these big ole' buildings being knocked down.....and of course, in normal times, that would never have been possible, or would have been so damn expensive...and then, great Googly Moogly, along came "Ayrab terrorists that hate our freedoms and can fly with pinpoint precision, unperturbed by ground clutter, ably piloting their aircraft like Luke Skywalker in the Death-Star canyon (albeit without laser-canons firing back, or Darth Cheney, he was in control of ops in the White House that day...),in an early morning attack to beat the rush-hour, just before the towers filled up too much with people....and bang on time for live, all day network news coverage around the globe..."
Now if that Silverstein isn't just the luckiest guy ! Gee, good thing he'd just finished blowing dry the ink on the insurance contracts covering "Evil terrorists that hate our real-estate" attacks, otherwise he'd be bumming for change near the subway mouth next to Ground Zero...
QUOTE(Rousseau @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 7:40 am) [snapback]86649[/snapback]
The buildings were a lead anchor around the necks of the Port Authority, and were a white elefant regarding the massive upcoming costs to get them up to federal building standards, due to the massive amounts of asbestos that had been used in their construction.
I read some incredible stuff on the history of the twin towers and the bottomless money pit they had become ages ago, before 9/11. I'll hunt around and see if I can find it again, because it sure gives a good reason for wanting these big ole' buildings being knocked down.....and of course, in normal times, that would never have been possible, or would have been so damn expensive...and then, great Googly Moogly, along came "Ayrab terrorists that hate our freedoms and can fly with pinpoint precision, unperturbed by ground clutter, ably piloting their aircraft like Luke Skywalker in the Death-Star canyon (albeit without laser-canons firing back, or Darth Cheney, he was in control of ops in the White House that day...),in an early morning attack to beat the rush-hour, just before the towers filled up too much with people....and bang on time for live, all day network news coverage around the globe..."
Now if that Silverstein isn't just the luckiest guy ! Gee, good thing he'd just finished blowing dry the ink on the insurance contracts covering "Evil terrorists that hate our real-estate" attacks, otherwise he'd be bumming for change near the subway mouth next to Ground Zero...
I read some incredible stuff on the history of the twin towers and the bottomless money pit they had become ages ago, before 9/11. I'll hunt around and see if I can find it again, because it sure gives a good reason for wanting these big ole' buildings being knocked down.....and of course, in normal times, that would never have been possible, or would have been so damn expensive...and then, great Googly Moogly, along came "Ayrab terrorists that hate our freedoms and can fly with pinpoint precision, unperturbed by ground clutter, ably piloting their aircraft like Luke Skywalker in the Death-Star canyon (albeit without laser-canons firing back, or Darth Cheney, he was in control of ops in the White House that day...),in an early morning attack to beat the rush-hour, just before the towers filled up too much with people....and bang on time for live, all day network news coverage around the globe..."
Now if that Silverstein isn't just the luckiest guy ! Gee, good thing he'd just finished blowing dry the ink on the insurance contracts covering "Evil terrorists that hate our real-estate" attacks, otherwise he'd be bumming for change near the subway mouth next to Ground Zero...
Firstly, let me just say
Secondly, "I read some incredible stuff on the history of the twin towers and the bottomless money pit they had become ages ago, before 9/11. I'll hunt around and see if I can find it again". Even if you can just give some vague indication of where this stuff might be it's be much appreciated. Thanks.
QUOTE(karen @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 2:44 pm) [snapback]86651[/snapback]
Firstly, let me just say
Secondly, "I read some incredible stuff on the history of the twin towers and the bottomless money pit they had become ages ago, before 9/11. I'll hunt around and see if I can find it again". Even if you can just give some vague indication of where this stuff might be it's be much appreciated. Thanks.
Secondly, "I read some incredible stuff on the history of the twin towers and the bottomless money pit they had become ages ago, before 9/11. I'll hunt around and see if I can find it again". Even if you can just give some vague indication of where this stuff might be it's be much appreciated. Thanks.
The following article throws some light on the these matters. I can't vouch for the integrity of the article but I do think the Zionist connection to the events in question is highly relevant.
You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million
http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/1494/58/
Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.
Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks.
The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.
Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.
Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”.
Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.
There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.
WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.
How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:
"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."
As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, “Pull” is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history — including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building’s tenants:
US Secret Service
NSA
CIA
IRS
BATF
SEC
NAIC Securities
Salomon Smith Barney
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
Federal Home Loan Bank
The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.
Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.
What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.
Incidentally, it’s worth noting that one of Lucky Larry’s closest friends — a person with whom it’s said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Check out the following site which contains some very interesting material:-
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/lehrman.htm
I hadn't asked if the towers turned a profit. I asked what their value was. The basic real estate value.
I believe that answer in there and it looks as though insurance will pay out something about twice the listed value of the real estate.
Now, if I had a $200,000 house, and lets say the fire started in two places and it burned to the ground.
How do I convince the insurance company to give me $400,000 for a 200k house? (and get away with it)
Lemme know and I'll change professions in a heart beat.
This doesn't mean though that 9/11 was anything other than what is claimed. What this clearly is, is one of dozens of very good questions that have not been properly answered, that the people of America desperately need answers too, and deserve the answers too.
As sheepish as we might have been, we still deserve the complete truth.
I believe that answer in there and it looks as though insurance will pay out something about twice the listed value of the real estate.
Now, if I had a $200,000 house, and lets say the fire started in two places and it burned to the ground.
How do I convince the insurance company to give me $400,000 for a 200k house? (and get away with it)
Lemme know and I'll change professions in a heart beat.
This doesn't mean though that 9/11 was anything other than what is claimed. What this clearly is, is one of dozens of very good questions that have not been properly answered, that the people of America desperately need answers too, and deserve the answers too.
As sheepish as we might have been, we still deserve the complete truth.
QUOTE(BillCo98 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 9:21 am) [snapback]86654[/snapback]
The following article throws some light on the these matters. I can't vouch for the integrity of the article but I do think the Zionist connection to the events in question is highly relevant.
[color=#0000FF]You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million
http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/1494/58/
Check out the following site which contains some very interesting material:-
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/lehrman.htm
[color=#0000FF]You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million
http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/1494/58/
Check out the following site which contains some very interesting material:-
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/lehrman.htm
I was specifically interested in the state of the the Twin Towers prior to 9.11 and this article answered that nicely, thank you.
I'll take some time later to look more closely at both of the sites you've liked here.
Much obliged. Thanks.
I do know that the CIA installation at the site was the largest outside of Langley. Not sure which Tower it was in, but very interesting connection and moreso if it was in the WTC 7.
BTW, just confirmed the CIA insatallation was in #7.
Ahhh. The plot thickens.
BTW, just confirmed the CIA insatallation was in #7.
Ahhh. The plot thickens.
QUOTE(karen @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 4:05 pm) [snapback]86657[/snapback]
I was specifically interested in the state of the the Twin Towers prior to 9.11 and this article answered that nicely, thank you.
I'll take some time later to look more closely at both of the sites you've liked here.
Much obliged. Thanks.
I'll take some time later to look more closely at both of the sites you've liked here.
Much obliged. Thanks.
I have to say that the 'Ziopedia' site would appear to express more than just opposition to Zionism. Judging by the titles of the articles in the index they openly express anti-Jewish sentiments which I abhor.
QUOTE(BillCo98 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 10:13 am) [snapback]86660[/snapback]
I have to say that the 'Ziopedia' site would appear to express more than just opposition to Zionism. Judging by the titles of the articles in the index they openly express anti-Jewish sentiments which I abhor.
Noted. You're not alone in your abhoration of such things.
Thanks again.
QUOTE(BillCo98 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 11:13 am) [snapback]86660[/snapback]
I have to say that the 'Ziopedia' site would appear to express more than just opposition to Zionism. Judging by the titles of the articles in the index they openly express anti-Jewish sentiments which I abhor.
Are you making a correlation between Zionist movement/politics and Jewish religion? If so, you are blurring the line of distinction.
QUOTE(Southpaw @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 4:26 pm) [snapback]86662[/snapback]
Are you making a correlation between Zionist movement/politics and Jewish religion? If so, you are blurring the line of distinction.
I see Zionism as a secular political movement which supports the expansion of the State of Israel beyond its 1948 UN constituted boundaries. I am opposed to that principle.
I acknowledge that there are many, both Christian and Jew, who support Zionism from a purely religious standpoint. It does not follow that if one opposes Zionism one is anti-Jewish.
QUOTE(BillCo98 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 11:49 am) [snapback]86664[/snapback]
I see Zionism as a secular political movement which supports the expansion of the State of Israel beyond its 1948 UN constituted boundaries. I am opposed to that principle.
I acknowledge that there are many, both Christian and Jew, who support Zionism from a purely religious standpoint. It does not follow that if one opposes Zionism one is anti-Jewish.
I acknowledge that there are many, both Christian and Jew, who support Zionism from a purely religious standpoint. It does not follow that if one opposes Zionism one is anti-Jewish.
Zackly. ..and maybe we could remember that the Zionist movement is what forced the U N hand to recognize the State of Israel. David Ben Gurion and the boys started this mess that may never end.
QUOTE(BillCo98 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 8:49 am) [snapback]86664[/snapback]
I see Zionism as a secular political movement which supports the expansion of the State of Israel beyond its 1948 UN constituted boundaries. I am opposed to that principle.
I acknowledge that there are many, both Christian and Jew, who support Zionism from a purely religious standpoint. It does not follow that if one opposes Zionism one is anti-Jewish.
I acknowledge that there are many, both Christian and Jew, who support Zionism from a purely religious standpoint. It does not follow that if one opposes Zionism one is anti-Jewish.
The difficulty has always been, is that when ever anyone questions the activties of the Zionists,
the Zionists them selves loudly wave the anti-semitism card.
So far they have done an excellent job of not allowing these two seperate aspects to be seperated.
Sadly true, Sky. This hinders much serious investigation, as the slightest ferreting around and attempts to uncover the truth or oppose the party-line gets the investigator slammed as a "jew hating anti-semite, rah rah rah..."
Thanks Bill, thats close to the info I had. A lot of the stuff on the WTC, construction docs, photos, and some of the murkier history seems to have disappeared off the Web...guess I'll just have to go and rummage around in libraries with real books...but you hit the crux of the subject. By the way, the sources I'd seen after 9/11 which exposed "Lucky Larry" were not particularily overtly anti-zionist, but they drew conclusions of a Mossad "black-ops" false-flag sting, as they are the only secret service with the feet on the ground in the Middle East capable of passing themselves off as Arabs, and pushing their patsy with the plan into Al Qaida, without being exposed. This level of infiltration hints at a long-term plan and a lot of painstaking steering of people into places.
I've always wondered where the loyalties of the guy who carried the plan to OBL and insisted in it being carried out lay. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the supposed "mastermind" of the attack, but I sense something deeper...and so far all the evidence and "Cui Bono" speculation and supposition seems to back this up...
My kingdom for a full, independent international investigation, which is even more urgently needed now, before we go to war with Iran or the Bush's slip off to South America.....
Thanks Bill, thats close to the info I had. A lot of the stuff on the WTC, construction docs, photos, and some of the murkier history seems to have disappeared off the Web...guess I'll just have to go and rummage around in libraries with real books...but you hit the crux of the subject. By the way, the sources I'd seen after 9/11 which exposed "Lucky Larry" were not particularily overtly anti-zionist, but they drew conclusions of a Mossad "black-ops" false-flag sting, as they are the only secret service with the feet on the ground in the Middle East capable of passing themselves off as Arabs, and pushing their patsy with the plan into Al Qaida, without being exposed. This level of infiltration hints at a long-term plan and a lot of painstaking steering of people into places.
I've always wondered where the loyalties of the guy who carried the plan to OBL and insisted in it being carried out lay. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the supposed "mastermind" of the attack, but I sense something deeper...and so far all the evidence and "Cui Bono" speculation and supposition seems to back this up...
My kingdom for a full, independent international investigation, which is even more urgently needed now, before we go to war with Iran or the Bush's slip off to South America.....
QUOTE(Rousseau @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 9:41 pm) [snapback]86697[/snapback]
Sadly true, Sky. This hinders much serious investigation, as the slightest ferreting around and attempts to uncover the truth or oppose the party-line gets the investigator slammed as a "jew hating anti-semite, rah rah rah..."
Thanks Bill, thats close to the info I had. A lot of the stuff on the WTC, construction docs, photos, and some of the murkier history seems to have disappeared off the Web...guess I'll just have to go and rummage around in libraries with real books...but you hit the crux of the subject. By the way, the sources I'd seen after 9/11 which exposed "Lucky Larry" were not particularily overtly anti-zionist, but they drew conclusions of a Mossad "black-ops" false-flag sting, as they are the only secret service with the feet on the ground in the Middle East capable of passing themselves off as Arabs, and pushing their patsy with the plan into Al Qaida, without being exposed. This level of infiltration hints at a long-term plan and a lot of painstaking steering of people into places.
I've always wondered where the loyalties of the guy who carried the plan to OBL and insisted in it being carried out lay. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the supposed "mastermind" of the attack, but I sense something deeper...and so far all the evidence and "Cui Bono" speculation and supposition seems to back this up...
My kingdom for a full, independent international investigation, which is even more urgently needed now, before we go to war with Iran or the Bush's slip off to South America.....
Thanks Bill, thats close to the info I had. A lot of the stuff on the WTC, construction docs, photos, and some of the murkier history seems to have disappeared off the Web...guess I'll just have to go and rummage around in libraries with real books...but you hit the crux of the subject. By the way, the sources I'd seen after 9/11 which exposed "Lucky Larry" were not particularily overtly anti-zionist, but they drew conclusions of a Mossad "black-ops" false-flag sting, as they are the only secret service with the feet on the ground in the Middle East capable of passing themselves off as Arabs, and pushing their patsy with the plan into Al Qaida, without being exposed. This level of infiltration hints at a long-term plan and a lot of painstaking steering of people into places.
I've always wondered where the loyalties of the guy who carried the plan to OBL and insisted in it being carried out lay. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the supposed "mastermind" of the attack, but I sense something deeper...and so far all the evidence and "Cui Bono" speculation and supposition seems to back this up...
My kingdom for a full, independent international investigation, which is even more urgently needed now, before we go to war with Iran or the Bush's slip off to South America.....
As time goes by I am more convinced of Zionist involvement in 9/11. The following factors, to my mind, point to the possibilities of a conspiracy:-
- The PNAC wish for a 'New Pearl Harbor' in order to justify in the eyes of the US people their objective to take out 'enemies' of the US by pre-emptive warfare.
- The cosy convenience that many of the perceived enemies of the US were also enemies of the Zionist State of Israel
- It follows logically that Israel might just bend over backwards to assist in the creation of the circumstances where Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc would be subjected to regime change by means of pre-emptive war.
- The logistics for such 'co-operation' were after all already in place. The Zionist neo-cons, many with close ties to Likud and Sharon, were embedded in the US administration.
- The Mossad/CIA links which would be vital in implementing the conspiracy.
- Compliant/pro-active Zionist 'fellow travellers' in the macro sector of business with controlling interests in, amongst other areas, the buildings in the WTC complex and who more importantly are active mainline supporters of the Great Zionist Plan.
Obviously it is difficult to prove the case but my suspicions are nonetheless very strong.
Like you Rousseau, I would love to see a proper international investigation carried out. It might not result in conclusive proof but I think it would throw up sufficient evidence to cast considerable doubt on the current official line.
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 12:52 pm) [snapback]86693[/snapback]
The difficulty has always been, is that when ever anyone questions the activities of the Zionists,
the Zionists them selves loudly wave the anti-Semites card.
So far they have done an excellent job of not allowing these two separate aspects to be separated.
the Zionists them selves loudly wave the anti-Semites card.
So far they have done an excellent job of not allowing these two separate aspects to be separated.
Sky,
is it the Zionists that ills America?
Really?
Think about it.
Agreed, Zionism has it's own issues. But isn't the larger issue that must be addressed not one of Zionist influence of US policy but of a US Government that has allowed foreign influence and interests to dictate policy from within. It is our Government that let them in. It is our Government that needs to shoo them out. NO?
The Zionists might be rats...
But if you leave your door open to the rats and they come in and invade and take up residence, it is only you that are to blame, not the rats for the holes they create in your foundation. They are doing what rats always have done... they seek out opportunities.
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 5:26 pm) [snapback]86702[/snapback]
Sky,
is it the Zionists that ills America?
Really?
Think about it.
Agreed, Zionism has it's own issues. But isn't the larger issue that must be addressed not one of Zionist influence of US policy but of a US Government that has allowed foreign influence and interests to dictate policy from within. It is our Government that let them in. It is our Government that needs to shoo them out. NO?
The Zionists might be rats...
But if you leave your door open to the rats and they come in and invade and take up residence, it is only you that are to blame, not the rats for the holes they create in your foundation. They are doing what rats always have done... they seek out opportunities.
is it the Zionists that ills America?
Really?
Think about it.
Agreed, Zionism has it's own issues. But isn't the larger issue that must be addressed not one of Zionist influence of US policy but of a US Government that has allowed foreign influence and interests to dictate policy from within. It is our Government that let them in. It is our Government that needs to shoo them out. NO?
The Zionists might be rats...
But if you leave your door open to the rats and they come in and invade and take up residence, it is only you that are to blame, not the rats for the holes they create in your foundation. They are doing what rats always have done... they seek out opportunities.
The analogies are cute but don't address the issue. If the influencers commit the atrocity, then they can't be ignored or excused. It is not the blame game.
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 10:26 pm) [snapback]86702[/snapback]
Sky,
is it the Zionists that ills America?
Really?
Think about it.
Agreed, Zionism has it's own issues. But isn't the larger issue that must be addressed not one of Zionist influence of US policy but of a US Government that has allowed foreign influence and interests to dictate policy from within. It is our Government that let them in. It is our Government that needs to shoo them out. NO?
The Zionists might be rats...
But if you leave your door open to the rats and they come in and invade and take up residence, it is only you that are to blame, not the rats for the holes they create in your foundation. They are doing what rats always have done... they seek out opportunities.
is it the Zionists that ills America?
Really?
Think about it.
Agreed, Zionism has it's own issues. But isn't the larger issue that must be addressed not one of Zionist influence of US policy but of a US Government that has allowed foreign influence and interests to dictate policy from within. It is our Government that let them in. It is our Government that needs to shoo them out. NO?
The Zionists might be rats...
But if you leave your door open to the rats and they come in and invade and take up residence, it is only you that are to blame, not the rats for the holes they create in your foundation. They are doing what rats always have done... they seek out opportunities.
Interesting take on the subject:-
Israel and the US – Two nations under one flag?
by William Bowles • Tuesday, 24 October, 2006
http://www.williambowles.info/ini/2006/1006/ini-0457.html
Review: The Power of Israel in the United States by James Petras
There is perhaps no better example of the corrosive and divisive nature of racism as a weapon of imperialism than the debate (such as it is) about the power of the (misnamed) ‘Jewish Lobby’ and its relationship to or influence over US imperial strategy. I say misnamed because in reality it should be called the Israeli lobby. After all, there are many Jews who not only do not support Israel’s colonial and genocidal policies but who also do not even subscribe to the idea of a ‘Jewish Homeland’, thus the connection between being Jewish (whatever that is) and Israel has first to be defined, not in racial/ethnic or religious terms but in interests, both real and perceived, before we can attempt to get a handle on the issue.
“Close to 60% of Democratic Party and 35% of Republican Party funding comes from pro-Israeli Jews.” (p.36)
My mother, although both a Communist and an atheist, also thought of herself as Jewish, largely through her ‘inheritance’, that is, her folks were refugees from Russia (and also Communists and atheists) and she had experienced anti-Semitism growing up in a Leeds ghetto and her family exterminated in the then Soviet Union during WWII by the Nazis. But she never believed in the ‘Jewish homeland’ nor ever supported its existence or its policies. Thus what made her Jewish? I’ll let others scratch their heads over the apparent contradiction but it does point to why trying to deal with the issue of ‘Jews’ and especially their relationship to their alleged adopted countries is not only difficult but as slippery as an eel.
This apparent paradox also highlights why, in dealing with the ‘Jewish Lobby’, especially in the United States, the concept of ‘Jew’ slips and slides between definitions; one minute a ‘race’, the next, a nation and then both at the same time!
Consider and compare the current hysteria surrounding Moslems who now occupy a comparable position in Europe and the US to the one allegedly occupied by Jews. Imagine the outcry if the same racist stereotypes of ‘outsider’ and ‘separate’ were applied to Jews! Moreover, by treating Moslems as a ‘race’, it highlights the contradictions of what it is to be Jewish and why having multiple definitions makes the issue of analysis so difficult. One minute a race, then a religion, then a nation, all very convenient for the ideology of Zionism as it enables it to move the goalposts to fit the state of play.
The relationship that Jews, in all their various incarnations, have to Israel exemplifies the contradictions that exist between Israel as a religious fundamentalist, settler state and those who for whatever reason, consider themselves Jewish.
The relationship between Israel and the US is unique, not only in our time but in history. One would be hard-pressed to find two countries whose relationship is so intertwined that it is virtually impossible to disentangle them. And in fact, implicit in Petras’ book is the idea that Israel as a ‘nation state’ is in fact no more than the 51st state, a real irony considering it purports to be the ‘Jewish Homeland’. Petras makes one reference to the idea when he says in the context of the relationship between AIPAC (American/Israeli Political Action Committee) and the US state and the AIPAC’s role as a spy for Israel
“Or is the very notion of hard-edge (as opposed to blurred) sovereignties separating the two countries moot?” (p.79)
It’s a pity that Petras doesn’t explore this further. But even the idea of Israel as a 51st state is perhaps misplaced as it can be argued that the economy and thus the very existence of Israel is so dependent on US ‘aid’ and support, that without it, Israel simply wouldn’t exist. Thus, Israel exists more in the minds of those who rule it than it does as a genuine nation state, based on common interests of history, language, culture and so forth. It was after all, created by white Europeans with all that this entails, Europeans who brought with them the same attitudes, ideas and above all, economic imperatives that drove Europeans to colonise Africa, Asia and the Americas.
But I contend the relationship goes much deeper even than the obvious economic dependency of Israel on US ‘largesse’, as does Petras but not, I think for the same reasons that Petras advances.
But if nothing else ‘The Power of Israel’ demonstrates in sordid detail the degree to which the very existence of Israel depends on the totally symbiotic relationship between the two nations and at every level. This is not merely a financial one but goes to the very heart of US strategic policies for the Middle East (and beyond).
“The Bush regime represented a qualitative advance in Zionist power in US policies, both foreign and domestic. The key economic policymaker was Alan Greenspan, head of the US Central Bank (Federal Reserve Bank), a long time crony of Wall Street interests and promoter of the major pro-Israeli investment houses—responsible for the speculative boom and bust economy of the 1990’s.
“The influence on US Middle East policy of this neo-conservative cabal far exceeded their formal positions because they were backed by an array of influential Zionist academic ideologues (Kagan, Cohen, Pipes), political pundits (Kristols, Krauthamer, Peretz etc), and directors of war think-tanks (Pipes, Rubin) who continue to be given constant access to the opinion pages of the major US newspapers, or interviewed as Middle East “experts” on pro-Israeli television and radio shows—advancing their war propaganda designed to promote US defense of Israel’s Middle East agenda, despite the evident quagmire in Iraq, and growing public rejection of that war.” (p.49)
Make no mistake, Petras supplies us with all the facts concerning the Faustian pact that unites the US ruling elite with Israel’s including large tracts of the Labour movement, organised crime, (including the ‘Mafia’), the ‘intelligence’ agencies, the media and so forth. These are simple enough to demonstrate and the book does it in spades.
The question which taxes all who attempt to unpack the US-Israeli axis is which came first? The proberbial tail wagging the dog. Petras makes some unsupported assumptions about this, for example when looking at the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq, he pours scorn on the ‘it’s all about oil’ thesis, claiming that there is no evidence that Big Oil is behind the invasion. But by the same token, there is no overt evidence that Big Weapons are behind the invasion any more than there is overt proof that Big Banks are behind the invasion.
Petras asserts
“The only major beneficiary of the war has been the state of Israel, which has succeeded in having the US destroy its most consistent adversary.” (p. 28)
But this is a highly dubious claim given the history of Saddam Hussein’s relationship to the US and in any case, in the larger scheme of things, as Petras paradoxically admits, the invasion is at best a Pyrrhic victory given the mess it’s got both the US and Israel into. Indeed, he admits as much when he says
“What the intellectual colons and other Israeli publicists forget to mention is that Israeli security policy in the Occupied Territories is a total disaster.” (p. 38)
Now clearly it’s not just about oil anymore than it’s just about the military/industrial complex, it is after all, about capitalism and its continued survival. The question that those who oppose Israel’s expansionist objectives ask is whether US policies are driven/derived from Israel’s objectives rather than the traditional view that Israel is the US’s Middle Eastern rottweiler?
Petras maintains that US Middle Eastern policies are dictated more by Israel than by US imperial designs (even to the point of supplanting them) but the problem is that in spite of the incestuous relationship between the two states, he doesn’t prove his thesis, firstly because Israel would never have been created in the first place without the initial British and then US support (who, following the so-called Suez Crisis of 1956, supplanted a waning British imperialism).
In the attempt to prove his thesis that Israel is the ‘tail that wags the imperial dog’, Petras uses the argument that the US is acting against its best interests when it comes to its support of Israel, that for example the invasion of Iraq was done at the behest of Israel and what appears to be the coming invasion of Iran is also driven by Israel.
He does this by illustrating the disproportionate power and influence that some very rich and powerful Jews occupy in the US capitalist class and its corresponding political elite. And it’s true that Jews do occupy a disproportionate percentage especially in the media, banking and ruling elite but what of the overwhelming number of American Jews who don’t? Petras argues that here too, through an interconnected network of relationships via a number of very powerful organisations such as AIPAC and the AJC (American-Jewish Committee), Israel is able to harness their support both financially (through financial contributions to Israel) and politically, through their contributions to both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
“Pro-Israeli Jews are disproportionately represented in the financial, political, professional, academic, real estate, insurance and mass media sectors of the American economy. While Jews are a minority in each and every one of these categories, their disproportionate power and influence stems from the fact that they function collectively: they are organized, active, and concentrate on a single issue—US policy in the Middle East, and specifically in securing Washington’s massive, unconditional and continuing military, political and financial support for Israel.” (p.40)
All true no doubt, but it is also an accurate description of the ruling capitalist class as a whole and indeed as if to confound Petras’s thesis he goes on to say
“The politics of Washington’s new imperialism coincides splendidly with the Sharon-Olmert conquest and destruction of the Occupied Territories.” (p.40)
The problem for Petras is that Israel as a weapon of imperialism predates the current US-Israeli relationship by almost 100 years, going right back to the initial Balfour Declaration and indeed right back to the founding of the Zionist Congress in the late 19th century.
But to get back to the nitty-gritty of Petras’s argument, he has to conclusively prove that Israeli objectives have actually completely replaced US strategic policies and objectives to the point whereby they actually work against US interests, not only in the Middle East but ultimately, globally. And this is what Petras claims has happened.
In an attempt to do this, he argues that by demonising Islam and the Arabs, attacking Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and exterminating Palestine, Israel (the US?) has turned not only the millions of Moslems and Arabs against the US, but indeed the great majority of the world’s population as well as increasing the threat of terrorism.
“The American alliance with Israel has been one of the great energizers of anti-imperialist movements, crossing racial, religious and gender boundaries—everywhere but among the American Left.” (p.56)
But equally and for precisely the same reasons, one could argue that these policies also work against the interests of Israel but it doesn’t stop them from pursuing genocide and imperial-colonial expansion anymore than it stops the US.
The issue of the American ‘left’s’ inability to deal with its own demons is in this context, a bit of red herring (if you’ll pardon the pun) and has more to do with Petras’s anger and frustration with the ‘comrades’, let alone the power of Zionist propaganda to confuse.
Once again, I argue that in fact, true to form, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Lebanon have been successful insofar as they have resulted in unprecedented profits for US capitalism. In addition, the $3 billion a year the US gives to Israel also benefits big business, especially the arms industry. There are therefore, very sound economic reasons for the US capitalist class to tie itself totally to the ‘little imperialism’ of Israel regardless that specific sections of US capital don’t benefit (directly anyway) from this ‘unholy’ alliance.
Okay, such actions might well work against the interests of Capital in the long term, but when has big business thought about the long term? It is driven by the needs of the owners of capital, who want profits today, not tomorrow. Much is predicated on the hope that they will be successful in crushing opposition to their plans. When they go to war, they go in the belief that they’ll be successful, else why go to war in the first place? And anyway, it’s not big capitalists and politicians who die on the battlefield but ordinary working people, so the question of winning and losing has to be considered on the basis of the economics of capitalism, not on winning or losing specific wars.
In fact, it can be argued on the basis of Petras’s analysis that the rulers of Israel and the United States are both equally stupid and shortsighted but in the final analysis, it matters little whether US interests are defined by Israel or not, what matters is that both think that pursuing such policies are in their joint interests.
That the US/Israeli relationship is unique and even bizarre should not divert us from understanding the underlying logic of capital that propels both ruling classes to operate as they do. The crying shame of the Zionist project is that it has managed to coopt so many millions of Jews (and others) into swallowing the line and created so much devastation in the process.
It’s also a shame that Petras, in his desire to create a Jewish ‘conspiracy’ (for this is how the book as whole reads) in order to explain the insane, genocidal policies of capitalism, loses sight of the simple fact that what unites the people and institutions of the US and Israel (as it does those who rule the UK) is the desire to hang on to what they have and apparently at any cost, including the destruction of the very thing they desire.
Review: The Power of Israel in the United States by James Petras. Fernwood Books, November 30, 2006. Order it at Amazon Books (UK) or (US).
QUOTE(Southpaw @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 2:37 pm) [snapback]86705[/snapback]
The analogies are cute but don't address the issue. If the influencer's commit the atrocity, then they can't be ignored or excused. It is not the blame game.
Correct, let me address the issue then.
The current system of government that exists in America has allowed foreign interests to influence and dictate US policy. IF part of this infiltration has resulted in crimes committed against this Nation, then yes, that influence must be dealt with along with the cause.
The cause was ours, weather through ignorance or conscious choice, the current US Government's policy has allowed a situation to arise; the influence of the US Government by a foreign government. What the fuck was the US Revolution all about? Freedom from foreign governments dictating to the people.
To insist that the Zionists must pay, IF they perpetrated the events of 9/11, yet to be proved, and NOT(!) address the situation that allowed such infiltration to arise in the first place then you can just keep on setting the rat traps and keep on catching them rats forever, as long as you keep that door of opportunity open. FOREVER... until you decide to close it. Then, and only then will the real clean up begin.
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 5:55 pm) [snapback]86709[/snapback]
Correct, let me address the issue then.
The current system of government that exists in America has allowed foreign interests to influence and dictate US policy. IF part of this infiltration has resulted in crimes committed against this Nation, then yes, that influence must be dealt with along with the cause.
The cause was ours, weather through ignorance or conscious choice, the current US Government's policy has allowed a situation to arise; the influence of the US Government by a foreign government. What the fuck was the US Revolution all about? Freedom from foreign governments dictating to the people.
To insist that the Zionists must pay, IF they perpetrated the events of 9/11, yet to be proved, and NOT(!) address the situation that allowed such infiltration to arise in the first place then you can just keep on setting the rat traps and keep on catching them rats forever, as long as you keep that door of opportunity open. FOREVER... until you decide to close it. Then, and only then will the real clean up begin.
The current system of government that exists in America has allowed foreign interests to influence and dictate US policy. IF part of this infiltration has resulted in crimes committed against this Nation, then yes, that influence must be dealt with along with the cause.
The cause was ours, weather through ignorance or conscious choice, the current US Government's policy has allowed a situation to arise; the influence of the US Government by a foreign government. What the fuck was the US Revolution all about? Freedom from foreign governments dictating to the people.
To insist that the Zionists must pay, IF they perpetrated the events of 9/11, yet to be proved, and NOT(!) address the situation that allowed such infiltration to arise in the first place then you can just keep on setting the rat traps and keep on catching them rats forever, as long as you keep that door of opportunity open. FOREVER... until you decide to close it. Then, and only then will the real clean up begin.
All true, but Americans seem to need absolute proof, which will never be found. My theory says if it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and craps like a rat, it is a rat. Some of those enablers you speak of are the ones who refuse to seperate " their " religion from "their" politics. Shall we statrt there? Not gonna happen as long we all fall for the well worn rant about the anti semitism.
As far as catching the rats ad nauseum, that is fine with me. Lets just ratchet the sanctions up to the max.
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 2:26 pm) [snapback]86702[/snapback]
Sky,
is it the Zionists that ills America?
Really?
Think about it.
Agreed, Zionism has it's own issues. But isn't the larger issue that must be addressed not one of Zionist influence of US policy but of a US Government that has allowed foreign influence and interests to dictate policy from within. It is our Government that let them in. It is our Government that needs to shoo them out. NO?
The Zionists might be rats...
But if you leave your door open to the rats and they come in and invade and take up residence, it is only you that are to blame, not the rats for the holes they create in your foundation. They are doing what rats always have done... they seek out opportunities.
is it the Zionists that ills America?
Really?
Think about it.
Agreed, Zionism has it's own issues. But isn't the larger issue that must be addressed not one of Zionist influence of US policy but of a US Government that has allowed foreign influence and interests to dictate policy from within. It is our Government that let them in. It is our Government that needs to shoo them out. NO?
The Zionists might be rats...
But if you leave your door open to the rats and they come in and invade and take up residence, it is only you that are to blame, not the rats for the holes they create in your foundation. They are doing what rats always have done... they seek out opportunities.
I wasn't addressing that issue. I was refering only to the fact that it is very difficult to talk about the Zionists without being called anti-semetic
QUOTE(Southpaw @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 3:07 pm) [snapback]86710[/snapback]
All true, but Americans seem to need absolute proof, which will never be found. My theory says if it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and craps like a rat, it is a rat. Some of those enablers you speak of are the ones who refuse to separate " their " religion from "their" politics. Shall we start there? Not gonna happen as long we all fall for the well worn rant about the anti semitism.
As far as catching the rats ad nauseum, that is fine with me. Lets just ratchet the sanctions up to the max.
As far as catching the rats ad nauseum, that is fine with me. Lets just ratchet the sanctions up to the max.
Actually, I would have to say it begins where people don't want to look. Bring out what is kept hidden and protected and call it what it is. America needs a fresh dose of revisiting the separation of Church and State. America needs to acknowledge, that currently we are operating through a theocratic government that discriminates against other forms of religion so as to favor some.
This is why I say that the problem isn't the rats but rather how they got in, in the first place. As long as you leave the opportunity open for the rat to come in, rats, being the opportunists they are, will find that way. Close off that opportunity... rat problem solved. FOREVER!
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 6:18 pm) [snapback]86714[/snapback]
Actually, I would have to say it begins where people don't want to look. Bring out what is kept hidden and protected and call it what it is. America needs a fresh dose of revisiting the separation of Church and State. America needs to acknowledge, that currently we are operating through a theocratic government that discriminates against other forms of religion so as to favor some.
This is why I say that the problem isn't the rats but rather how they got in, in the first place. As long as you leave the opportunity open for the rat to come in, rats, being the opportunists they are, will find that way. Close off that opportunity... rat problem solved. FOREVER!
This is why I say that the problem isn't the rats but rather how they got in, in the first place. As long as you leave the opportunity open for the rat to come in, rats, being the opportunists they are, will find that way. Close off that opportunity... rat problem solved. FOREVER!
America never has practiced seperation of church and state. It definitely is not a "part" of the U S Constitution. America needs to come to a consensus that will leave religious /political alliances out of the picture. Problem with that concept is some will call it Fascism, so forget about that happening. Maybe an anti guilt campaign would have more effect.
QUOTE(Southpaw @ Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 5:04 pm) [snapback]86720[/snapback]
America never has practiced seperation of church and state. It definitely is not a "part" of the U S Constitution. America needs to come to a consensus that will leave religious /political alliances out of the picture. Problem with that concept is some will call it Fascism, so forget about that happening. Maybe an anti guilt campaign would have more effect.
Call it what it is...
Religious ideology has found a way to influence American political policy. And when the politics begins to prefer a religious doctrine and ideology as it's source of influence and direction, that IS an endorsement of a national religion. It becomes even more evident when the political policy requires conformity by other religious beliefs so as to gain acceptance.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Thursday, 1 March 2007, 4:48 am) [snapback]86741[/snapback]
Call it what it is...
Religious ideology has found a way to influence American political policy. And when the politics begins to prefer a religious doctrine and ideology as it's source of influence and direction, that IS an endorsement of a national religion. It becomes even more evident when the political policy requires conformity by other religious beliefs so as to gain acceptance.
Religious ideology has found a way to influence American political policy. And when the politics begins to prefer a religious doctrine and ideology as it's source of influence and direction, that IS an endorsement of a national religion. It becomes even more evident when the political policy requires conformity by other religious beliefs so as to gain acceptance.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Agreed, but the bolded quote taken from the First Ammendment, only means there can be no National religion as established by the Congress.
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Thursday, 1 March 2007, 4:48 am) [snapback]86741[/snapback]
Call it what it is...
Religious ideology has found a way to influence American political policy. And when the politics begins to prefer a religious doctrine and ideology as it's source of influence and direction, that IS an endorsement of a national religion. It becomes even more evident when the political policy requires conformity by other religious beliefs so as to gain acceptance.
Religious ideology has found a way to influence American political policy. And when the politics begins to prefer a religious doctrine and ideology as it's source of influence and direction, that IS an endorsement of a national religion. It becomes even more evident when the political policy requires conformity by other religious beliefs so as to gain acceptance.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The concept of separation of church and state is that the government doesn't support or persecute any church.
It does not mean that churches are prohibited from seeking to influence politics. If a bunch of Catholics want to form "The Catholic Party" and nominate a top US-born bishop to run for president, that's their right.
But I'm getting off-topic. This thread is supposed to be about 9/11.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.