all 9/11 and related american political threads, merged here

[Kymus]

You start with references to the disinfo wagon and then 1-8 above are as irrelevant as any other more malicious disinfo.

I've been involved in countless debates about the subject. I posted 1-9 because those are always the most common things that come up first and detract from the subject for 100 posts or more.

our argument is what counts, and I notice in point 9 you tell us of the countless hours you’ve spent researching this but you don’t show us any research

That's because I'm encouraging people to investigate it for themselves; I wasn't trying to "prove" anything in that post.

and yet you expect “detailed analysis complete with sources” if anyone opposes you.

How many debates concerning 9/11 have you been involved in? Based upon the ones I've been in, the most common response to anyone who professes doubt in the official story is "OMG UR A FUGGAN KOOK! TIN FOIL HAT!!!!1111"; not much substance there huh? Hyperbole and strawman arguments are very common short handed responses to initial claims such as mine. I would like to avoid them.

Where’s your “detailed analysis complete with sources”? Just telling us how much ‘research’ you’ve done doesn’t count.

Debate me and I guess we'll find out.

I understand: I’m not a liberal either, but countless times on this board and others people without enough critical faculty to hold a conversation about something they don’t agree with will shoot me down as a liberal (I’m old-fashioned: I don’t even see what’s wrong with being a liberal, despite not being one). But it doesn’t make sense.

Freedom isn't left or right; it's central to this Republic and the phoney left/right paradigm helps to distract people from this, as I assume you have seen.

And if you spent a few seconds on that site you would see that their first article (which YOU later quote) is bullsh!t. If they have such compelling evidence from their 600 mainstream, international and independent media, why do they resort to such ‘Sunday Sport’ kind of ‘reportage’ for their main page?

Their main page consists of numerous reports from different media organisations. It's a compilation of latest news, not 9/11 info. You'll see that in a side tab labeled 9/11.

So what? Parliamentarians of long standing and cabinet ministers are often caught talking complete nonsense. Especially when they try to take on something outside their brief. Even skiving politicians are very busy reading reports and briefs about their own field. And what makes you think that a member of the just post-Cold-War German parliament would have access to the kind of information he would need to make such a definitive statement about things that happened in the US which anyway are highly classified?

1) Your first example is a strawman argument. Please stay away from such disinformation tactics.
2) Andreas Von Buelow has a lot more knowledge about the operations of governments than most do. From what I see, he is citing his opinion based upon his experience.

2) he’s a ‘global intelligence expert’.

Again, so what!? First you’re saying you don’t trust the US’s global intel experts, then you’re saying that this German one is right? Why? Because he doesn’t have anything to gain from lying or selling his story? … think again. Furthermore, again in what part of global intel is he an expert? How much classified info does he have from his (I’m sure) close friends in the 17 (25) US intel services? The benchmark for experts is renowned for being slack. Anyone who works in a university gets awarded expert status half the time from Joe Public.

Another strawman argument.

His claim about Building 7 is in no way substantiated, and let’s be honest is pretty d@mn stupid: why on earth in this remote age would they have a command centre on the same site?

Are you telling me that WTC7 didn't house the FBI, CIA, etc?

The quote ‘the official story is so wrong it must have been an inside job’ is in itself nonsense.

It's nonsense because you say so? Alright, don't read it then. It's not gonna harm my argument any even if the guy is 110% BS

Here your logic seems faulty. Because there are so many intel agencies, the chances of failures are more slight?

I was using logic based upon what I understand. I wasn't using it as a strawman to show that the government was involved in 9/11.

Divide and rule. Divide and conquer. So well known I can’t even remember who said them first. One of the reasons there are so many intel agencies is to prevent any one of them gaining too much power. Is this conspiracy? Do members of the admin sit down and work out ways of dividing the agencies to lessen their power? Of course not! It’s a natural law, it’s common sense, it’s human nature. On the odd occasion that any kind of agency is joined with another it’s for the same purpose: to weaken it. Look at FEMA which was always causing trouble asking for preventative budget allocations for poorer areas of the country, which was then merged with the Dept of Homeland Security so they could shut the f up!

This has nothing to do with my comment. I wasn't saying that having x-ammount of intelligence agencies was a conspiracy against the people.

Yet you’re talking about such a conspiracy to include the govt, silencing 20-odd intel agencies and the military?

Or perhaps you are reaching and misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't think that they silenced all the agencies and military. I think that the folks at the very top are much more in the know than the good folks at the bottom who try to do their job. Take John O'Neill for example. He was inches away from capturing bin Laden, but at every attempt he was stiffled by higher ups and the Clinton and Bush admins.

Don’t get me wrong Kymus, I’m not picking on you and I think what you’re doing is commendable in some ways.

I undrstand that you're just being critical, and that's fine, but the problem is that most of it is based on a misunderstanding.

I don’t know what happened on 9/11 and I think it is important… but what exactly have you achieved?

I've learned a lot about how governments work, world history, the bill of rights, the founding fathers... Even if I am a$$-wrong, I've still learned a lot of things; that makes it all worth it, the knowledge I gain.

[qupte]If you have this kind of research, to whom have you given it?[/quote]

Everyone I know, and when I go to NYC for the 2600 meetings (or this year for HOPE), everyone I don't know.

When can we read your book?

I won't be writing a book; there are others like Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, etc etc etc that are better suited for that and have already written books. If I ever write a book, it'd be on either Kung Fu or Medicine.

How many letters have you written to your govt, to your senator…?

Seeing as how this is a Republic? A lot.

But what should we remember?

What went down. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Kymus]

So, if you’ve really been researching 9/11 so competently and you can hold up your results so confidently, **** you man, show somebody useful: do something to prevent the system from doing this again!

I've been doing this since day 1. I will continue to do this as long as the freedom of speech is protected under the Bill of Rights.

Join the govt!

Would be fun, but I'm better suited to be a doctor and kung fu teacher. All I can do is promote honest politicians; like perhaps Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian presidential candiate.

[/quote]Write a book![/quote]

There are dozens out there; mine wouldn't be a blip on the radar in comparisson.

Otherwise, everything you are so enthusiastic about is more banal chitchat, and nothing more.

Which is why I encourage others to do what you are encouraging me to do.

Already 9/11 is popular mythology: the useful discourse on it gets less and less! The 9/11 commission was defanged and largely ignored.

Didn't you know? What Brad and Angelina are doing is much more important than the Bill of Rights.

The biggest failure of 9/11 was this: Bush (and Blair) got in again. Bush with the whole Pappy Bush, Rumsveld, Cheney self-serving, corporate haves-and-have-mores deal, the whole Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Dyncorp deal who supplied and trained Bin-Laden and his al-Qaeda in the 80s, Hussein and his Republican Guard in the 70s etc etc, the whole ‘civilian’ (corporate) command is still there!

Don't forget the media.

Why are people still insisting on rabbiting on about oil monopolization when there are so many obvious corporate interests in this whole admin?

Actually, I'm more concerned with Diebold than Halliburton.

Why is anybody still wasting time with these conspiracies, when the truth is in front of your noses!? Stop chasing phantoms!

They're chasing the men that bring tyranny to the citizens.

The 9/11 terrorism was horrific. It was an unpardonable act by extremist terrorists. If you want to believe your own admin had some involvement be my guest: I have no idea. BUT the aftermath: the whole War on Terror gag – this is still continuing, and this is directly and obviously attributable to the admin of the US with its’ members corporate connections in the region going back 30 years and who should be held accountable.

The War on Terror was not for WMDs. It was not for the Iraqi people, or democracy, or the American people’s future safety or standard of living. It was not for the ousting of Hussein. It was not to liberate the oil supplies. It is for big, blatant business.

Just a couple of cents. The rest is going to more useful ends.

I think you are grosely misunderstanding me and my views. ALL of this is important, and ALL of it is connected. I do my best to inform myself on ALL of this, not just a single subject. There are subjects I sort of specialise on - like 9/11 - but I think it's important to study any current events.

[Crushing Fist]

I read most of it.

No offense, but the reason it's so long is because it's mostly a political polemic. The last third of it is basically an anti-government diatribe. Which is fine.

it is?


really?




ummm... ok

I don't think so... the politcal sections of this paper account for exactly none of its length. The only politcal anything in it is that he questions the official theory, which is the whole point of this paper.

maybe you could point to how it is a "political polemic" and "anti-government diatribe". That would help a lot. Use specific examples please.

I also don't understand why he talked about stuff staying hot for months. I would expect this. It's perfectly normal fire behavior. You can bury a large wood fire in sand for weeks and it can still be quite hot when you come back - you can even bring it back up to flaming. It looks to me like an effort to create something fishy where none exists.

I think maybe you have a bit of a blind spot here, as I have pointed to it already and you seem to ignore it completely.

He in fact says that it is normal for such a thing to stay hot so long... completely within the laws of natural forces. Not fishy in the least.

The point is HOW hot it is. Not that it is hot. The point is that the was molten iron/steel in large quantities at the time of collapse and immediately after.

yes it stayed very hot, as is natural.

how did it get this hot if the fires never reached a temperature that could melt iron/steel?


that is the point you seem to keep missing/aren't concerned with

and that is, to me, a pretty big question regardless of how plausible the official theory of the collapse is. Where did this come from?



all other points aside


how did it get that hot?

[fa_jing]

I was talking to my boss, about how voting has failed us in the US primarily because of the two-party lock. I said, it would be better if no one voted one election to shake things up. His response, hilarious as we were drinking, was "You want Lyndon LaRouche to be President???"

That's it in a nutshell. Fear of a Lyndon LaRouche world, that's what stops Americans from voting outside the box.

[fa_jing]

The one truly striking thing when I watched the Loose Change video were the stills released by the government of the Pentagon impact -- no plane could be seen, and the damage also looked inconsistent with a plane crash.

I wonder if there were in fact bombs aboard these planes?

[Kymus]

The one truly striking thing when I watched the Loose Change video were the stills released by the government of the Pentagon impact -- no plane could be seen, and the damage also looked inconsistent with a plane crash.

I wonder if there were in fact bombs aboard these planes?

I saw a news article that claimed one of the planes (forget which) was grounded due to a bomb threat. The story was later pulled because basically they said that can't be true cause the government says that flight # hit X.

I'm currious how Barbara Olsen is alive if she was supposedly on one of the 4 planes.

[Kymus]

I was talking to my boss, about how voting has failed us in the US primarily because of the two-party lock. I said, it would be better if no one voted one election to shake things up. His response, hilarious as we were drinking, was "You want Lyndon LaRouche to be President???"

That's it in a nutshell. Fear of a Lyndon LaRouche world, that's what stops Americans from voting outside the box.

Our voting system has been fuXored for a while now. Half of it - it appears to me - is rigging, and the other half is blind a$$ed people who either vote one party down the line all the time or don't realise that there are other parties to vote for. A friend of mine honestly thought that there was only Democrat and Republican.

The only way we will see a real change in America is with a 3rd party (or a very very good rep from one of the Dem or Repub sides) guy. A decent politician will never get elected to office untill the media wh0res stop selling out to the controlled duopoly and start putting the People before their share holders.

I'm amongst many who feel that the choice is either vote 3rd party (save for rare exceptions) or just don't vote. The lesser of 2 evils isn't going to do much but screw things up and half the time he's really just as bad.

[chud]

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7,
and the 9/11 Demolition

Also I noticed that USAToday is reporting on the National Security Agency's goal to create a database of every call made in the USA: click here

[Hieronim]

so is it true the japanese would have given up without the atomic bomb and truman dropped them just to show off the american *****?

[@PLUGO]

so is it true the japs would have given up without the atomic bomb and truman dropped them just to show off the american *****?

That's a rather racist term you just used there Hieronim, I'd sugget you edit your post and rephrase that. Quickly.

[Sifu Darkfist]

so is it true the japanese would have given up without the atomic bomb and truman dropped them just to show off the american *****?

This is a deeper debate than the original thread. I have examined the primary documents on this issue and i find that both the Emperors advisors, the Japanese military and the growing tensions between Truman and the Soviets (so called showing off) are all to blame for the deaths of those wonderful dedicated and nationalist people in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In short the Japanese would have fought to the end and the American War Department wanted to show off the weapon (at Churchills urging as well) quite frankly because Stalin did have enough power to raise nine kinds of H ell in Europe at will (although documents prove he never intended aggressive movement).

[Crushing Fist]

Darkfist -

I agree that an invasion of the mainland would have been a massacre.

Certainly they also wanted to show off the weapon...


but why did they drop the second bomb? and only days after the first?


the only reason I can think of is that it was for experimental purposes

to see which bomb was better, fatman or little boy.

seems like they went with the fatman design.

I guess they liked how it destroyed things better.

[Sifu Darkfist]

in all actuality it seems through certain suggestive documents that the second bomb was to ensure the world that we had more than one. It is known worldwide that this weapon is very hard to produce and the fact is we had only two, but by using two it seemed we had several. This of course is all conjecture until the documents with definitive proof is released (never?).

[chud]

Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 released:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html (scroll down about half-way)

[Kymus]

Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 released:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html (scroll down about half-way)

I wonder when the other 84 will be released. Not like it matters; none of them can explain how that boeing avoided going into a mid-air stall or how 2 idiot "pilots" could perform aerial maneuvers that are next to impossible for even the most experienced of pilots...