chelle Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 A UK MP's views/analysis on whether there really is a war on terrorism and US motivation. Quote
whirlwind Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 sounds like the first step to control, he controls the energy (OIL) controls whom ever is in need of it. Quote
Dave_Schuldt Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 Very interesting....thanks for posting the link. Quote
vegetablebelay Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 Bush most certainly has his fingers all over this too! Quote
mattp Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 What's your point, Veggie? Do you not believe that those guys authored the document outlining their plan to control the world or is it the idea that they may have allowed 911 to happen that you disagree with or what? Quote
scrambler Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 mattp said: What's your point, Veggie? Do you not believe that those guys authored the document outlining their plan to control the world or is it the idea that they may have allowed 911 to happen that you disagree with or what? You may find this site interesting: independent media tv The complete website is at the root directory. Nietzsche said ”When the ends are great, humanity employs other standards and no longer judges crime as such even if it resorts to the most frightful means.” Makes ya wonder who or what our politicians hold as their highest authority. Is it the US Constitution, an ineffable God, a tribal mind meme, a particular think-tank agenda, what? Quote
JayB Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 mattp said: What's your point, Veggie? Do you not believe that those guys authored the document outlining their plan to control the world or is it the idea that they may have allowed 911 to happen that you disagree with or what? The latter notion is quite offensive and ranks right up there with the theory that the Air Force is holding the cryopreserved bodies of aliens that crashed in Roswell at area 51, the notion that there is a Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) attempting to soften up the US for an invasion by the UN, and various other conspiracy theories in both its logic and the weight of the evidence behind it. Such beliefs reveal very little about the world as it is, or the events that they purport to explain, and a great deal about the and ideological predispositions and analytical capabilities of those that believe them. If you believe that the current administartion knew in advance that Al-Queda intended to use commercial airliners to destroy the Pentagon, the Twin Towers, and possibly either Capitol Building or The White house but allowed it to happen so that they could use the incident as a pretext to conquer the world - you are in rare company indeed. Quote
chelle Posted October 2, 2003 Author Posted October 2, 2003 JayB - I don't follow your points. There is an increasing amount of evidence about what has gone into their thinking/policy making and more people have come forward with statements about what the admin knew prior to the attacks. How can you just dismiss this as some crazy conspiracy theory? Yes, it is unthinkable that our government would actually sit back and do nothing about the hijackings, but they didn't even follow FAA policy to immediately scramble fighter jets. Why? Also, Bush's comments about "casualties of war" makes me inclined to believe he could actually rationize 9/11 events as necessary means to his end. Quote
chelle Posted October 2, 2003 Author Posted October 2, 2003 There's some interesting items on this site too. Quote
JayB Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 The absence of any conclusive evidence to suggest that this theory has any validity whatsoever is probably the main obstacle at this point. There's also the sources. Contrary to popular opinion - one should always take the source of any rumor or speculation into consideration, and ponder what interest they have in believing and circulating such theories. None of the figures involved in promoting this theory - which in its original incarnation claimed that the Mossad was behind the attacks so that the US would give Israel cart blanche to attack the Palestinians - should be given any special credence as any claim that they have to objectivity is utterly compromised by their all too obvious biases and unconcealed hostility towards the putative "culprits" in this disaster, be they the Mossad, Israel, the US, or the present administration. Was there not a committee that investigated every facet of the intelligence communities efforts and shortcomings for at least 18 months? Did they not report their findings to Congress? It would be miraculous indeed if they found anything that even hinted at such a conspiracy and the Democrats, NGO's, the media et al just decided to let it slip - not much of a story there, I'll admit - but you'd think it would at least make it onto page three. Clinton can't get blown in his office, Nixon can't rob an appartment, and if the story turns out to be true - a whitehouse aid can't leak the name of a CIA operative to a reporter - without the truth coming to light but a conspiracy of this magnitude can be perpetrated without a shred of factual evidence implicating the actors coming to light despite two years of the most intense scrutiny of any event in our history? Seems just a tad far-fetched to me. When serious people and/or publications with reputations for integrity and impartiality come forward with factual evidence to support such a claim - then I'll give the theory its due. Every rational person should do the same IMO. Quote
chelle Posted October 2, 2003 Author Posted October 2, 2003 JayB said: None of the figures involved in promoting this theory - which in its original incarnation claimed that the Mossad was behind the attacks so that the US would give Israel cart blanche to attack the Palestinians - should be given any special credence as any claim that they have to objectivity is utterly compromised by their all too obvious biases and unconcealed hostility towards the putative "culprits" in this disaster, be they the Mossad, Israel, the US, or the present administration. This is where you lose me. Got any links to articles/info? Quote
JayB Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 ehmmic said: JayB said: None of the figures involved in promoting this theory - which in its original incarnation claimed that the Mossad was behind the attacks so that the US would give Israel cart blanche to attack the Palestinians - should be given any special credence as any claim that they have to objectivity is utterly compromised by their all too obvious biases and unconcealed hostility towards the putative "culprits" in this disaster, be they the Mossad, Israel, the US, or the present administration. This is where you lose me. Got any links to articles/info? One of Many Punch "Israel 9-11," or "Mossad Responsible 9-11," or "Zionist Conspiracy 911," or "Jews Responsible 9-11" into Google and have a look. Quote
mattp Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 Jay- I agree with you that the idea that they knowingly let 911 happen sounds like one of the wildest conspiracy theories I've ever heard of. But I can't really figure out why they didn't scramble any jets and nobody has really proposed any explanation for that as far as I can tell. In light of this, I believe it MAY in fact be true. Meanwhile, the fact that they used 911 as a pretext to execute plans that had little or nothing to do with a war against terrorism seems pretty much undeniable. And that cynical manipulation of the situation is part of why I am wondering if the former noted conspiracy theory may actually be correct. Quote
JayB Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11 - By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Real explanations generally lack the simple, compelling narrative found in the average conspiracy theory, and such is the case with the real report – hence their limited appeal relative to such tracts. The culprits are much more prosaic – bureaucratic turf protection and bungling, critical failures of inter-agency communication, data overload, etc – in sum, a classic intelligence failure. To make the leap from the very obvious and evident failure of American intelligence agencies to detect and thwart the attack beforehand to a sitting President and his cabinet engaging in a conspiracy to permit such an attack in the hopes of advancing their nefarious plot to achieve global domination is, to put it mildly - reaching just a bit - and certainly represents an abdication of one’s responsibility to ground one’s beliefs upon factual information. At least read the abridged findings on page 27-33 of the actual report. Quote
chucK Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 I didn't read any of the links above, but perhaps the reason that jets were not scrambled is maybe because people had a hard time with the idea of shooting down a passenger jet full of people? I've always thought (without a shred of evidence mind you) that there is a good chance that that PA plane actually did get shot down, and that hero story was just made up to make people feel better and derail any shooting-down-a-passenger-plane full-of-americans controversy. Quote
JayB Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 There's also the fact that virtually everyone assumed that the first collision was an accident, and it wasn't until the second hit that it was clear to anyone that an attack was underway. Also, consider for a moment, the sheer number of airliners in the sky just after the first (and even the second) attack - all in close proximity to major urban centers. Good luck shooting down the right plane. Quote
erik Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 jay i might be wrong....but i had a friend who's dad was an air traffic controller and when we visited the old facility all the planes on the large air space screen as well as at the consoles were marked with flight # and carrier. and the jets are tracked constantly. a plane flying way outside its intended flight path is quite noticable... Quote
j_b Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 JayB said: Was there not a committee that investigated every facet of the intelligence communities efforts and shortcomings for at least 18 months? Did they not report their findings to Congress? bush did not let congress and the commission see the intelligence reports for august about bin laden (daily brief reports). i tend to not believe in a conspiracy to let it happen, but the evidence seems to point to, at least, a serious lack in judgement. Quote
JayB Posted October 2, 2003 Posted October 2, 2003 j_b said: JayB said: Was there not a committee that investigated every facet of the intelligence communities efforts and shortcomings for at least 18 months? Did they not report their findings to Congress? bush did not let congress and the commission see the intelligence reports for august about bin laden (daily brief reports). i tend to not believe in a conspiracy to let it happen, but the evidence seems to point to, at least, a serious lack in judgement. Uh-oh. j_b and I agree on something. I sense a conspiracy..... Quote
j_b Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 hey, hey. don't get carried away, i still mostly agree with the ideas expressed in the original article. Quote
Beck Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 american rumors about denying intelligence goes back at least as far as the attack on pearl harbor and was probably a tactic used during the war of 1812, as far as i can tell. i'm not saying we knew and ignored it, nor am i saying we let it happen, but the FAILINGS of the us intelligence arms seem a bit sophmoric... "the NSA knew but didn't tell the CIA" "the CIA knew but didn't tell the INS. " "The INS knew but didn't tell anyone" is both emblematic how US gov operates, as well as a indicator of complete inability to act in a forward thinking, prememptive way in order to combat terrorist threats Quote
babnik Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 JayB said: ehmmic said: JayB said: None of the figures involved in promoting this theory - which in its original incarnation claimed that the Mossad was behind the attacks so that the US would give Israel cart blanche to attack the Palestinians - should be given any special credence as any claim that they have to objectivity is utterly compromised by their all too obvious biases and unconcealed hostility towards the putative "culprits" in this disaster, be they the Mossad, Israel, the US, or the present administration. This is where you lose me. Got any links to articles/info? One of Many Punch "Israel 9-11," or "Mossad Responsible 9-11," or "Zionist Conspiracy 911," or "Jews Responsible 9-11" into Google and have a look. nice website... i think the nazis had a similar one with their chancellor on it Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.