Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the planes that hit the towers were supposedly passenger airliners, yet footage of the 2nd plane shows no side windows. More like a cargo

And the most laughable finds of all...in the rubble of the collapsed towers..

Fair play tho, they've got their priorities sorted. Never mind getting as many hands as possible to help the injured etc. Nope, let's concentrate on confiscating all CCTV footage from every camera (even shops) along the flight path of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon...within hours. 100's of agents out gathering "evidence".  

Personally I think certain elements of the American Govt are the most corrupt, devious and ruthless of any.
JFK, 9/11...I was going to say "what next ?" but I think people are getting a little too near the truth.  I suspect they're gonna think very carefully before another "Extremist" incident of this scale happens.

Yes, I believe the attacks were genuine terrorist "plans"...that were un-hindered, helped along, allowed to happen.
How much time was allowed to pass without any jets being scrambled when the planes left their scheduled flight course ?

There's no conspiracy...it's too blatantly obvious to be called that.

1. Both planes that hit the towers were civilian and hijacked while on  scheduled routes.

2. Fires do not burn uniformly, whatever their heat output. Also, it is highly likely that upon impact, the hijacker's body was catapulted, shredded and exited the building (he would not have been strapped in, methinks). I believe tons of recognisable bits were pulled from the aftermath. To find the terrorist's passport is not unlikely at all.

3. The attack was not assisted. The US had believed itself to be invulnerable to such attacks and the suddenness and coordinated nature of the attack left it stunned like a rabbit in headlights. Also, to this day, there is much argument as to the correct response to such an event. Do you shoot the hijacked aircraft down to save lives on the ground? Maybe there are contingency plans now, but within the short time of the duration of the attack, it is inconceivable that a response policy could have been decided.

Taking up Cem's point, there have been numerous attempts at air hijackings by "eastern" terrorists (especially during the 1970s0. The fascination with using aircraft is well known, since to the terroroists they represent the country they intend attacking, whatever the aircraft's location. To suggest that the 9/11 attacks were "beyond the ability, capacity and behaviour model of an eastern terrorist..even beyond their dreams" is frankly strange. The attackers were well used to western ways, they wanted to attack the US on its own land, and they wanted to die martyrs' deaths. The fact that the attacks were so meticulously planned (even down the attackers' lengthy flying lessons) does not mean that they were not the work of eastern terrorists. Al Qaeda is known to be a sophisticated, well financed organisation. They're not hill-billies.

Enough of this thread, already. 9/11 was a terrorist act unrelated to the US government. End of, as they say.        

In the intentions of its planners, this new
conflict was to be a population war, designed to exterminate large parts of the population
of the developing sector, including the Arab and Moslem countries, and eventually
China. It was the desperate bid of a bankrupt and declining power to re-assert world
domination based on blackmail.

please read when you have time

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf

Cem, if the highlighted sentences state the truth, why didn't the USA immediately blame this "act of war" on the Chinese (non Muslim!), the Arabs along with the Muslim extremists, declaring war and send it's considerable military might on the attack, with nuclear weapons, to exterminate them all in one final conflict??  The 9/11 attack was successful, so why stop?

Why is it that after all that apparently risky planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks by US forces, involving thousands who would have know the truth to create the suggested "blame scenario", did the USA Political Command NOT go onto the next logical step of their 'plan' and attack en mass the "enemy"?  Instead, what happened was they blamed an extremist Muslim organization who represented no country that would hardly fulfill their excuse for a reason for major war??!! :-? :-? :-?  Where is the intention to start a World War in that?  Even the invasion of Iraq was, yes controversial, but not without the involvement of the United Nations, and did not exactly represent a 1939, 1st September, German type invasion of Poland!

Frankly Webster Tarpley, who is a journalist out to sell books, and self styled "historian", is purely producing sensational "stories" that cannot be backed up by any evidence (which is what a true historian requires!) and to suggest 9/11 was a way of creating a World War is  absurd and is insulting to all those multinational people who perished in that attack.

[cem_devecioglu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the planes that hit the towers were supposedly passenger airliners, yet footage of the 2nd plane shows no side windows. More like a cargo

And the most laughable finds of all...in the rubble of the collapsed towers..

Fair play tho, they've got their priorities sorted. Never mind getting as many hands as possible to help the injured etc. Nope, let's concentrate on confiscating all CCTV footage from every camera (even shops) along the flight path of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon...within hours. 100's of agents out gathering "evidence".  

Personally I think certain elements of the American Govt are the most corrupt, devious and ruthless of any.
JFK, 9/11...I was going to say "what next ?" but I think people are getting a little too near the truth.  I suspect they're gonna think very carefully before another "Extremist" incident of this scale happens.

Yes, I believe the attacks were genuine terrorist "plans"...that were un-hindered, helped along, allowed to happen.
How much time was allowed to pass without any jets being scrambled when the planes left their scheduled flight course ?

There's no conspiracy...it's too blatantly obvious to be called that.

1. Both planes that hit the towers were civilian and hijacked while on  scheduled routes.

2. Fires do not burn uniformly, whatever their heat output. Also, it is highly likely that upon impact, the hijacker's body was catapulted, shredded and exited the building (he would not have been strapped in, methinks). I believe tons of recognisable bits were pulled from the aftermath. To find the terrorist's passport is not unlikely at all.

3. The attack was not assisted. The US had believed itself to be invulnerable to such attacks and the suddenness and coordinated nature of the attack left it stunned like a rabbit in headlights. Also, to this day, there is much argument as to the correct response to such an event. Do you shoot the hijacked aircraft down to save lives on the ground? Maybe there are contingency plans now, but within the short time of the duration of the attack, it is inconceivable that a response policy could have been decided.

Taking up Cem's point, there have been numerous attempts at air hijackings by "eastern" terrorists (especially during the 1970s0. The fascination with using aircraft is well known, since to the terroroists they represent the country they intend attacking, whatever the aircraft's location. To suggest that the 9/11 attacks were "beyond the ability, capacity and behaviour model of an eastern terrorist..even beyond their dreams" is frankly strange. The attackers were well used to western ways, they wanted to attack the US on its own land, and they wanted to die martyrs' deaths. The fact that the attacks were so meticulously planned (even down the attackers' lengthy flying lessons) does not mean that they were not the work of eastern terrorists. Al Qaeda is known to be a sophisticated, well financed organisation. They're not hill-billies.

Enough of this thread, already. 9/11 was a terrorist act unrelated to the US government. End of, as they say.        

In the intentions of its planners, this new
conflict was to be a population war, designed to exterminate large parts of the population
of the developing sector, including the Arab and Moslem countries, and eventually
China. It was the desperate bid of a bankrupt and declining power to re-assert world
domination based on blackmail.

please read when you have time

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf

Cem, if the highlighted sentences state the truth, why didn't the USA immediately blame this "act of war" on the Chinese (non Muslim!), the Arabs along with the Muslim extremists, declaring war and send it's considerable military might on the attack, with nuclear weapons, to exterminate them all in one final conflict??  The 9/11 attack was successful, so why stop?

Why is it that after all that apparently risky planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks by US forces, involving thousands who would have know the truth to create the suggested "blame scenario", did the USA Political Command NOT go onto the next logical step of their 'plan' and attack en mass the "enemy"?  Instead, what happened was they blamed an extremist Muslim organization who represented no country that would hardly fulfill their excuse for a reason for major war??!! :-? :-? :-?  Where is the intention to start a World War in that?  Even the invasion of Iraq was, yes controversial, but not without the involvement of the United Nations, and did not exactly represent a 1939, 1st September, German type invasion of Poland!

Frankly Webster Tarpley, who is a journalist out to sell books, and self styled "historian", is purely producing sensational "stories" that cannot be backed up by any evidence (which is what a true historian requires!) and to suggest 9/11 was a way of creating a World War is  absurd and is insulting to all those multinational people who perished in that attack.

Did you read the book ?

You will have the answers then..

Interestingly today I see the book after a google search.. and his

conclusions are very parallel to mine (and many people)..I dont think

thats a simple coincidence..

Really I recommend you read completely..Worth it..



ps : here is a saying in my language , can be translated as

"there wont be smoke, if there is no fire"

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Ok Cem!!

[Nickbat]

I see that Webster Griffin Tarpley, the author of that paper, is a member of the "world anti-imperialist conference" Axis for Peace, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and of a research Netzwerk of German 9/11 authors founded in September 2006.

In August, 2007, Webster Tarpley issued the Kennebunkport Warning, which claimed an impending "false flag attack" in America in the "coming months." Controversy ensued after Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, and Ann Wright issued a joint-statement claiming that they did not sign this Kennebunkport Warning. In response to this denial, Tarpley sent out a widely distributed and highly publicized email in which he characterized Cindy Sheehan, Anne Wright and other anti-war activists as "lying in appalling fashion" and "wretched individuals."

In January 2008, Tarpley became one of the first critics to assert that Barack Obama is actually managed by right-wing powerbrokers. Tarpley claimed that a shift in power had taken place in the ruling class, with the Brzezinski faction and its presidential candidate Obama ascendant over the lame-duck neocons. The targets of US imperialism would now be Russia, China and its ally Pakistan, instead of Iraq, Iran and Syria. He developed these themes in his two books on Obama.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

A strange chap with strange ideas. Think I'll give the paper a miss.  

[cem_devecioglu]

I see that Webster Griffin Tarpley, the author of that paper, is a member of the "world anti-imperialist conference" Axis for Peace, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and of a research Netzwerk of German 9/11 authors founded in September 2006.

In August, 2007, Webster Tarpley issued the Kennebunkport Warning, which claimed an impending "false flag attack" in America in the "coming months." Controversy ensued after Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, and Ann Wright issued a joint-statement claiming that they did not sign this Kennebunkport Warning. In response to this denial, Tarpley sent out a widely distributed and highly publicized email in which he characterized Cindy Sheehan, Anne Wright and other anti-war activists as "lying in appalling fashion" and "wretched individuals."

In January 2008, Tarpley became one of the first critics to assert that Barack Obama is actually managed by right-wing powerbrokers. Tarpley claimed that a shift in power had taken place in the ruling class, with the Brzezinski faction and its presidential candidate Obama ascendant over the lame-duck neocons. The targets of US imperialism would now be Russia, China and its ally Pakistan, instead of Iraq, Iran and Syria. He developed these themes in his two books on Obama.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

A strange chap with strange ideas. Think I'll give the paper a miss.  

The writings inside the book is not only his ideas and can not be simplified as "strange"

here are some;


It is now proverbial in Washington to remark that there is no proof linking Saddam
Hussein to 9/11, and this is certainly true. But, by the very same token, there is also no
proof in the public domain anywhere that adds up to a case against Osama Bin Laden and
al Qaeda. We should point out that we hold no brief for the misfit sheikh and his
sociopathic followers. Bin Laden was a creation of the C?A, and his al Qaeda followers,
to the extent that they exist at all, are doubtless individuals characterized by a surfeit of
criminal intent. But we must not join the anonymous C?A agent author of the recent book
Imperial Hubris in portraying the inept and unstable Bin Laden as a genius. Taken by
themselves, Bin Laden and his band represent supermarket-caliber terrorists, capable of
bombing a shopping center, or of destroying a bus. Any capabilities above and beyond
this can only be explained through assistance provided by intelligence agencies, primarily
but not limited to the American ones. There is no doubt that Bin Laden and his benighted
gaggle would have desired to inflict destruction on the scale of 9/11. What is at issue is
their physical and technical capability of doing so on their own in the universe as we
otherwise know it to be constituted. From this point of view, Bin Laden and company
emerge perhaps as actors in the plot, but playing the parts of patsies, dupes, fall-guys, or
useful idiots. The main point remains that Tenet, Clarke, Powell, the F?I, and Bush have
produced no convincing evidence to establish the 19 Moslem men, al Qaeda, and Bin
Laden as the authors of the crimes.


In the days right after the attacks, Colin Powell promised the world a white paper or
white book to set forth the contentions of the United States government about what had
happened, with supporting evidence. Powell did this on NBC’s Meet the Press, where the
following exchange occurred on September 23, 2001:
Question: Are you absolutely convinced that Osama Bin Laden was
responsible for this attack?
Secretary Powell: I am absolutely convinced that the al Qaeda network,
which he heads, was responsible for this attack. […]
Question: Will you release publicly a white paper, which links him and his
organization to this attack, to put people at ease?
Secretary Powell: We are hard at work bringing all the information
together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I
think, in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document,
that will describe quite clearly the evidence we have linking him to the
attack. And also, remember, he has been linked to previous attacks against
US interests and he was already indicated for earlier attacks against the
United States. (www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/5012.htm)
The following day, September 24, saw a front page article in the New York Times which
bragged that Powell’s evidence “reaches from the southern tip of Manhattan to the
foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan.” However, there was clearly
something wrong with the US case, since, in an appearance with Bush at the White
House rose garden on September 24, Powell somewhat obliquely retracted his promise.
And on that same afternoon, Bush’s spokesman Ari Fleischer, a past master of
mendacity, said that Powell had been the victim of a misunderstanding. No white paper
would be forthcoming, he suggested. According to Fleischer, much of the information of
Bin Laden was classified, and making it public would compromise US intelligence
methods and sources. Even the press trollops in the White House briefing room rebelled
at this attempted sleight of hand. A reporter challenged Ari, asking if there was in fact
“any plan to present public evidence so that the average citizen, not just Americans, but
people all over the world can understand the case against Bin Laden.” Fleischer
disappeared in a cloud of verbiage: “In a democracy it’s always important to provide the
maximum amount of information possible. But I think the American people also
understand that there are going to be times when that information cannot immediately be
forthcoming.” As of this writing, it still has not been forthcoming.

[cem_devecioglu]

and one more passage;

Some governments found ways to leak their estimate of Bush’s alleged proof. One was
the government of Pakistan, which had been placed under a US war ultimatum to
cooperate in an attack on Afghanistan. Here the distinguished retired military leader
General Mirza Aslam Beg told an interviewer some months after the fact that the
“evidence” provided to Pakistan's Musharraf government “would not hold in a court of
law, because of the inherent weaknesses.” (EIR, December 10, 2001) In a newspaper
interview, Gen. Beg insisted that the attacks had been the work of highly-trained experts
“who used high technology for destruction. He argued that even ordinary trained pilots
could not have carried out the missions observed. (Nawa-Waqt, September 13, 2001)1
Egyptian strategic analyst Tal’at Muslim argued in al-Akhbar of Cairo that the resources
available to Arab and Islamic terror organizations were “well below” what was plainly
necessary to carry out operations on the scale of 9/11. (September 13, 2001) In the
Palestinian paper al-Quds, Hatim Abu Sha’ban found that the US authorities were
searching for the perpetrators in entirely the wrong places. “They accused…the least
likely to be perpetrators in light of the operation’s nature, which requires great planning
capabilities, knowledge of information, and mobility on the part of the criminals who
committed this terrorist operation.” (September 18, 2001)

[stuart30]

Give it another 20 years and we will all be under American dictatorship.

Lets be honest there an unstable country and a succession of unstable leaders...all they ever do is start wars or try too.

Its true....just been on msn with JFK.

[cem_devecioglu]

These names may sound familiar to some people

Another critical view of the 9/11 story came from Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, a former
official in the German Defense Ministry, and an advisor to the former NATO General
Secretary, Manfred Woerner. Koeppl told Mike Ruppert: “The interests behind the Bush
administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission – founded by Brzezinski for
David Rockefeller – and the Bilderberger group, have prepared for and are now moving
to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting
against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.” (From the Wilderness, November 6,
2001)

and some cother ideas

Leading British academics also found the US official version unpalatable. Fred Halliday,
London School of Economics Professor of International Relations and a well-known
expert on the Middle East, told the BBC on September 11 that he would look for a
domestic origin within the US of the September 11 events, along the lines of the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing. He had underlined that it would be a mistake to depend on Bin
Laden/Islamist track, since, in the Middle East, bin Laden has often been derided as an
American agent. (London Observer, November 25, 2001)

[Nickbat]

These names may sound familiar to some people

Another critical view of the 9/11 story came from Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, a former
official in the German Defense Ministry, and an advisor to the former NATO General
Secretary, Manfred Woerner. Koeppl told Mike Ruppert: “The interests behind the Bush
administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission – founded by Brzezinski for
David Rockefeller – and the Bilderberger group, have prepared for and are now moving
to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting
against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.” (From the Wilderness, November 6,
2001)

They're two years late. Can we have our money back?

 

[BigAl]

"there wont be smoke, if there is no fire"

Our one is slighty different "where there's smoke, there's fire"

[cem_devecioglu]

and now bingo...

some other famous names.. now do the puzzle

John Lehman was Secretary of the Navy from 1981 to 1987, during the Reagan-Bush
administrations, working with Caspar Weinberger and Frank Carlucci. His current role
was that of Wall Street corporate raider in his capacity as chairman of J. F. Lehman &
Company, a private equity investment firm specialized in leveraged buyouts. Lehman
counts as a Kissinger clone; he got his start as special counsel and member of the senior
staff in Kissinger’s Nixon-era National Security Council. He was one of the more
accomplished practitioners of psychological warfare among the commissioners, as
reflected in his expert baiting of the FDNY representatives during the commission’s last
hearings in New York City. Thanks in part to this arrogant performance, the last
commission session in New York almost turned into a riot against the 9/11 commission,
and the commissioners were no doubt glad to get out of town that day.
Jamie S. Gorelick, a partner of Wilmer, Cutler, & Pickering, was also the vice-chair of
Fannie Mae, a purveyor of mortgage-backed securities which was reportedly in deep
financial trouble as a result of the Greenspan housing bubble. She had been deputy
Attorney General during the Clinton years. Gorelick, who served on the C?A’s National
Security Advisory Panel as well as on the President’s Review of Intelligence, counted as
a personal creature of C?A Director George Tenet, to whom she displayed fawning
deference whenever he appeared for testimony before the 9/11 commission. Her lines of
questioning typically tried to deflect guilt and opprobrium away from Langley, and
towards such favored scapegoat agencies as the FAA.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I see that Webster Griffin Tarpley, the author of that paper, is a member of the "world anti-imperialist conference" Axis for Peace, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and of a research Netzwerk of German 9/11 authors founded in September 2006.

In August, 2007, Webster Tarpley issued the Kennebunkport Warning, which claimed an impending "false flag attack" in America in the "coming months." Controversy ensued after Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, and Ann Wright issued a joint-statement claiming that they did not sign this Kennebunkport Warning. In response to this denial, Tarpley sent out a widely distributed and highly publicized email in which he characterized Cindy Sheehan, Anne Wright and other anti-war activists as "lying in appalling fashion" and "wretched individuals."

In January 2008, Tarpley became one of the first critics to assert that Barack Obama is actually managed by right-wing powerbrokers. Tarpley claimed that a shift in power had taken place in the ruling class, with the Brzezinski faction and its presidential candidate Obama ascendant over the lame-duck neocons. The targets of US imperialism would now be Russia, China and its ally Pakistan, instead of Iraq, Iran and Syria. He developed these themes in his two books on Obama.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

A strange chap with strange ideas. Think I'll give the paper a miss.  

Exactly Nickbat, and I am sorry to disagree with you Cem on all your well put argument, but the fact remains there is no actual proof given  by Tarpley, who is neither a Professor or Doctor in the History or Political profession. He is just an individual with a BA, who makes assertions and assumptions and, as I said before, is a journalist who wants to gain fame and sell books by making outlandish claims.

All of us can state our opinion of fact after researching facts; state papers, multiple sources of papers, witness statements, film,  CCTV, voice recordings, etc, which will then be challenged by others who have different points of view once they have properly researched  the evidence like we have using qualitative and quantitative methods.  i.e as you would comparing the arguments of Chomsky v. Newman conspiracy theory over JFK's assassination and whether or not Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam.  Opinions on this generally favour Chomsky conclusion that there is no proof to support Newman's claims, even once all academic measures of analysis is applied. 8-) 8-)

Tarpley is a wild cannon who has not carried out such detailed research and gained conflicting evidence as Chomsky and Newman, recognized experts in their field did, producing just a rhetoric of assumption and assertion which I have yet to see any reputable historian or political expert / academic support.  Therefore whatever he writes carries no validity and would not stand up to challenge.

Once he produces real evidence that would stand up in a court of law or inspection by academics then I will take notice.

But the truth is he will not be able to, just as the disgraced historian David Irvin couldn't over his wild and factually absurd claims that the Holocaust never  transpired due to his political affiliations.  


 

[hotel21]

I honestly think, in this age of mobile phone camera's and the like that there is simply an overwhelming burden of evidence that the event did happen with passenger jets etc.

That it was allowed to happen is and always will be, open to conjecture - as was/is the Pan Am 103 bombing and knowledge of the probability of such an event beforehand and not acted upon sufficiently, for whatever reason.

As an aside, (and to keep the pot boiling, as it were) anyone got links to the suspect fake pics of the moon landing?  As I recall, there are location crosshairs in each image (wet film era, remember) to allow images to be correctly aligned/joined, if I recall correctly.  On some, such things are simply missing, giving rise to the false moon landing 'conspiracy'.

[Cumbria]

On the subject of conspiricies. I also think Princess Dianes death is also a cover up.

[Turk]

Oh no, here we go !!  

Something strange there tho', I must agree !