Press for truth!

[Childlike Empress]

Stop for a moment.

Forget about all you are involved in here. Forget about Dylan Avery, the Jones', Controlled Demolition, your fight against the so called "Truth Movement".

Now watch this video: 9/11 Press for truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083)

We need an independent international investigation of 9/11. You have to stop mocking the victims. I feel with the people of the united states of america and hope you will take your country back. Thanks and good luck.

[Oliver]

Thank you so much! I´ve waited so long to see it.

[Class]

Wait what?:confused:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

WE have to stop mocking the victims?

[JamesB]

Stop for a moment.

Forget about all you are involved in here. Forget about Dylan Avery, the Jones', Controlled Demolition, your fight against the so called "Truth Movement".

Now watch this video: 9/11 Press for truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083)

We need an independent international investigation of 9/11. You have to stop mocking the victims. I feel with the people of the united states of america and hope you will take your country back. Thanks and good luck.

Yeah, think how much better off we will be with the French telling us what happened.

It was the Jooooooos....

[Rasmus]

On what grounds should the USA give up their sovereignty and allow for who exactly to investigate precisely what about 9/11? :confused:

[Childlike Empress]

Hi Oliver, willkommen im Forum und geniesse den Film. Deinem offenen Brief an das Loose Change Forum kann ich nur zustimmen, ebenso Deiner Beobachtung daß einige der "Debunker" sich auf dem selben Niveau bewegen. Schon in Antwort vier wurde ich beschuldigt, die Juden zu verdächtigen, obwohl ich meine antifaschistische Motivation hier wiederholt dargelegt habe. Ich denke, das ist selbst für dieses Forum Rekord.

Gruß ausm Pott!

[Gravy]

You have to stop mocking the victims.
Prove that contention or retract it.

[Childlike Empress]

Watch the movie.

[chacal]

We need an independent international investigation of 9/11. You have to stop mocking the victims. I feel with the people of the united states of america and hope you will take your country back. Thanks and good luck.


I watched most if this film. Just how many films there are with "9/11" or "truth" in their name? Childlike can't you see how these film are clearly made with an agenda. Mainly to sell DVDs or for Bush bashing purposes. This is not professional journalism it is propaganda and you are falling for it. If you are worried about insulting the victims doesn't making money of the 9/11 tragedy mock the victims? Try to be objective.

danke schon

[gumboot]

We need an independent international investigation of 9/11.

:confused:

So it's unacceptable for the US to bury its nose in the affairs of other countries, but it's completely fine for everyone else to get involved in the US's affairs?

Huh?

-Andrew

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Prove that contention or retract it.

2nd. Give me one example where anyone on this forum that has supported the mainstream accepted explanation has mocked any victim of that day, or retract that statement immediately

[chacal]

Oh, I loved the part where Bush said "Ofcourse we are after Saddam Hussein uh ... mm ... I mean Osama Bin Laden"

lmao:D

[Sword_Of_Truth]

On what grounds should the USA give up their sovereignty and allow for who exactly to investigate precisely what about 9/11? :confused:

I've pointed out many times before that we in Canada lost 25 of our own that day.

That being said, Rasmus is absolutely correct. It was on American soil and America has sole discretion who they choose to allow in to investigate.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've pointed out many times before that we in Canada lost 25 of our own that day.

That being said, Rasmus is absolutely correct. It was on American soil and America has sole discretion who they choose to allow in to investigate.

Were any non-US individuals involved in the investigation? Have any non-US individuals asked to take part, or to do their own; and subsequently been denied? blah, blah, blah

CE, prove your statement about mocking victims, or retract it; or it will be reported as an abusive post.

[Childlike Empress]

I watched most if this film. Just how many films there are with "9/11" or "truth" in their name? Childlike can't you see how these film are clearly made with an agenda. Mainly to sell DVDs or for Bush bashing purposes. This is not professional journalism it is propaganda and you are falling for it. If you are worried about insulting the victims doesn't making money of the 9/11 tragedy mock the victims? Try to be objective.

danke schon

I followed the development of this whole mess since the first day and the unanswered questions asked in this film are quite exactly my questions that lead me to be 100% convinced that the official story is bogus.

The people on this forum are falling for deception. They still debunk question asked by con artists. It's sad to see how deep your cognitive dissonance goes.

@"international": You seem to be unable to make it on your own and the world('s population, not the governments) is willing to help.

[Gravy]

Watch the movie.
We "pressed you for truth" about your claim that we have mocked the victims of 9/11. You have provided none. You have made a false accusation, and you should apologize for it.

[Childlike Empress]

Shove it, Gravy. Watch the first minutes of the movie. You try to defend the official story and your reality tunnel with all you have (and that's a lot if it comes to the most popular "truth movement" questions). But you don't get to the core of it.

[gumboot]

Now watch this video: 9/11 Press for truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083)

We need an independent international investigation of 9/11. You have to stop mocking the victims. I feel with the people of the united states of america and hope you will take your country back. Thanks and good luck.


I find this a little ironic. You have never hid your significant dislike of the current US government.

And here you are, accusing people here of mocking victims, while peddling a documentary that uses families of 9/11 victims to push a political agenda that you support.

Sick.

I'm ten minutes into the film. So far I've heard the same boring and fact-less "NORAD Stand Down" argument I have heard repeatedly from CTers.

It's very simple CLE. Please pay attention.

...reading?

...

The moment the 19 hijackers were on board the aircraft the nearly 3000 victims' fates were sealed. There was nothing anyone could do to prevent 9/11 happening at that point.

The mighty USA is NOT invincible, anymore than Battleship Row was. The US got beaten by people who were cleverer and more dedicated. Simple as that.

-Andrew

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Childlike, I'm going to put this in terms that you will understand.

I find your attitude of moral supremacy, your presumptuousness and your arrogance to be highly neo-conservative.

[Brainache]

Childlike, I'm going to put this in terms that you will understand.

I find your attitude of moral supremacy, your presumptuousness and your arrogance to be highly neo-conservative.

Don't forget pompous, condescending and insulting.

[Oliver]

Hi Oliver, willkommen im Forum und geniesse den Film. Deinem offenen Brief an das Loose Change Forum kann ich nur zustimmen, ebenso Deiner Beobachtung daß einige der "Debunker" sich auf dem selben Niveau bewegen. Schon in Antwort vier wurde ich beschuldigt, die Juden zu verdächtigen, obwohl ich meine antifaschistische Motivation hier wiederholt dargelegt habe. Ich denke, das ist selbst für dieses Forum Rekord.

Gruß ausm Pott!

Du bist echt Gottes Segen das hier zu posten. :-D
Ich hoffe der Film wird von einem breiten Spektrum
gelsesen und hoffentlich verstanden. Du weißt,
Wahrheit schmerzt manchmal. Etwas was viele
Truth-Seeker im Netz nicht wahrhaben wollen und
ausblenden.

Was mich anbelangt, so kenne ich zwar persönlich
keine jüdischen Mitmenschen, aber ich habe keinerlei
Vorurteile, mal von politischen Vorurteilen gegenüber
der mancher Länder abgesehen.

Ansonten fällt mir nur folgendes zu dem Film ein:

Strike! :D

Oder um jemanden zu zitieren:
"Off course we´re after Saddam Hussein - i mean ehm Bin Laden"
Was für eine Arschbacke.

[Zach]

Stop for a moment.
We need an independent international investigation of 9/11. You have to stop mocking the victims. I feel with the people of the united states of america and hope you will take your country back. Thanks and good luck.
Alright, so what is it that our country needs to be taken back from? Something we might need to know if we're supposed to do that.

[Pardalis]

Could we keep this discussion board in English please?

Si ça continue de même j'vais écrire en français bâtard!

So... That said, for the sake of it Childlike, I'll watch the movie.

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike, I'm going to put this in terms that you will understand.

I find your attitude of moral supremacy, your presumptuousness and your arrogance to be highly neo-conservative.

That coming from a mormon sceptic *giggles*

@gummi: You are the prof in pushing an agenda. I take that as constructive criticism (even if i have to overstretch my optimistic view of the human nature).

[gumboot]

mi: You are the prof in pushing an agenda. I take that as constructive criticism (even if i have to overstretch my optimistic view of the human nature).


Indeed? Perhaps, in that case, you can tell me what my "agenda" is?

-Andrew

[Childlike Empress]

@Pardalis: To sum it up - he likes the movie. Oliver, he's right, let's stick to english.

[Gravy]

Shove it, Gravy. Watch the first minutes of the movie. You try to defend the official story and your reality tunnel with all you have (and that's a lot if it comes to the most popular "truth movement" questions). But you don't get to the core of it.
No, Childlike, I won't shove it. You are unable to give an example of any 9/11 myth debunker here who has mocked a victim.

Here's a similar statement: "Childlike Empress is a Holocaust denier"
"Gravy, where's your evidence of that?"
"Watch the movie Shoah."
"Gravy, if you don't have a specific example of Childlike Empress denying the Holocaust, you should retract the accusation."
"Shove it."

So be an adult, not a little baby, and retract the accusation.

[LashL]

Shove it, Gravy. Watch the first minutes of the movie. You try to defend the official story and your reality tunnel with all you have (and that's a lot if it comes to the most popular "truth movement" questions). But you don't get to the core of it.

The only ones mocking the victims are the conspiracy theorists in the so called "truth" movement, who wouldn't know the truth if it kicked them in the nuts.

See: 9/11 Deniers Speak http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
if you need more proof of that.

You're barking up the wrong tree, pal.

[Childlike Empress]

Indeed? Perhaps, in that case, you can tell me what my "agenda" is?

-Andrew

I give you the first shot. What is my and "Press the truth"'s agenda?

[Oliver]

I find this a little ironic. You have never hid your significant dislike of the current US government.

And here you are, accusing people here of mocking victims, while peddling a documentary that uses families of 9/11 victims to push a political agenda that you support.

Sick.

I'm ten minutes into the film. So far I've heard the same boring and fact-less "NORAD Stand Down" argument I have heard repeatedly from CTers.

It's very simple CLE. Please pay attention.

...reading?

...

The moment the 19 hijackers were on board the aircraft the nearly 3000 victims' fates were sealed. There was nothing anyone could do to prevent 9/11 happening at that point.

The mighty USA is NOT invincible, anymore than Battleship Row was. The US got beaten by people who were cleverer and more dedicated. Simple as that.

-Andrew



I´m not a political guy at all and i don´t vote either,
but i understand the message of the film in a different
way.

If you´re political human beeing, you might hear what
your political side is:

"Looks like a plot from the opposing party".

The families of the victims supported the movie
- to get the truth out, whatever it is.
And that one is a huge step.

Like the movie said - americas massmedia* tells it´s own,
sponsored story. Not what the rest of the world
learns. Let´s hope that the internet stays free...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That coming from a mormon sceptic *giggles*

An ad hom based on my religion... that was open minded and tolerant of you. :p

Would you like to attack my skin color and sexual orientation next?

[Childlike Empress]

Gravy, if you watch the movie this thread is about you will see victims who think that their questions are not adressed since five years. Victims who ensured that the investigation that you admire so much (the 9/11 commission) was made possible in the first place (after 4xx days). After all that happened you buyed to the official version hook line and sinker. You are mocking the victims efforts.

[Gravy]

Gravy, if you watch the movie this thread is about you will see victims who think that their questions are not adressed since five years. Victims who ensured that the investigation that you admire so much (the 9/11 commission) was made possible in the first place (after 4xx days). After all that happened you buyed to the official version hook line and sinker. You are mocking the victims efforts.
Stop denying the Holocaust, Childlike. That's a horrible thing to do.

[gumboot]

I give you the first shot. What is my and "Press the truth"'s agenda?


As I already said, you make no effort to hide the fact that you're rabidly anti-US Government and anti-US mainstream media.

But I am interested in hearing what you think my agenda is...

By the way, up to 20 minutes, we're now into the "no investigation of 9/11" and "investigation into President's blowjob cost more than investigation into 3000 murders" BS. *yawn*

I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that this doco will follow through the commission before revealing that the "Jersey Girls" aren't happy with what the investigation revealed.

Sometimes the truth sucks. There's no government agents to blame for their loved ones' deaths, just a bunch of murderous arabs... oh well...

We'll wait and see if I'm right or not (it's just a wild guess)

-Andrew

[Childlike Empress]

An ad hom based on my religion... that was open minded and tolerant of you. :p

Would you like to attack my skin color and sexual orientation next?

I don't have problems with mormons and not with sceptics but mormon sceptics are a bit of odd in my opinion.

[Oliver]

Stop denying the Holocaust, Childlike. That's a horrible thing to do.

Did i missed something? No one is denying the holocaust...
Otherwise i would tell him something... :mad:

[Pardalis]

You are mocking the victims efforts.

Childlike, it seems to me that these widdows' anger and frustrations are being influenced by the CTists. You say we mock their efforts, but I'm 10 minutes into the movie and they are using the same CT rethoric and logical fallacies (how can these buildings collapse this way, there has never been a building collapse due to fire, WTC7, etc), the very same BS the CTists are using, the CTists you yourself are calling conn artists.

I'll continue the movie, but it ain't looking good.

[LashL]

I don't have problems with mormons and not with sceptics but mormon sceptics are a bit of odd in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with morons or idiots, but moronic idiots are a bit odd in my opinion.

[Gravy]

Did i missed something? No one is denying the holocaust...
Otherwise i would tell him something... :mad:
Sorry, Oliver, this goes back a while. You'll have to take it up with Childlike. I can't talk any reason into her.

[jhunter1163]

Childlike:

I'm fairly new here at JREF, like you. I came here because I had heard about "Loose Change" and, while I was pretty sure its claims were bogus, I wanted to know exactly WHY they were bogus so I could discuss the movie intelligently if it ever came up in conversation. I've reviewed many thousands of posts here, both pro and con of the official story. And, in my opinion, which I know has little if any value to you, there is NO compelling evidence whatsoever of any government involvement in 9/11. ALL of the points CTers raise in support of their theories are adequately explained in other ways.

I'm not saying that there isn't a**-covering and fudging of facts in the official reports, because there surely is. When dealing with a bureaucracy, a**-covering is the watchword. Is it frustrating to me that no offcials were held responsible for the pre-9/11 intelligence failures? Sure. If those failures hadn't happened, one of my best friends would still be alive today. But the official story, complete with a**-covering, is still the best we have, and it's likely to be the best we'll ever have, because it's essentially (although not in every detail) accurate.

And, the idea that we're somehow dishonoring the victims of 9/11 by not allowing other nations to poke around in our internal affairs is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

I'm tired now. That was a lot of typing for me.

[Oliver]

By the way, up to 20 minutes, we're now into the "no investigation of 9/11" and "investigation into President's blowjob cost more than investigation into 3000 murders" BS. *yawn*

"Yawn"??? I refuse that i´ve read that, Andrew...
I hope you know what you´ve said - you should
repeat it to the victims families... :jaw-dropp

[Pardalis]

"Yawn"??? I refuse that i´ve read that, Andrew...
I hope you know what you´ve said - you should
repeat it to the victims families... :jaw-dropp

Appeal to emotions?

[LashL]

Sorry, Oliver, this goes back a while. You'll have to take it up with Childlike. I can't talk any reason into her.

I think Oliver made his proclivities clear with: Thank you so much! I´ve waited so long to see it. despite his best attempts at pretending otherwise.



Oh, and if that wasn't enough, notice "Oliver's" new sig line?

QUOTE: JerryB9105 "The folks at JREF could not dispute this finding."

He's just another phony.

[Brainache]

"Yawn"??? I refuse that i´ve read that, Andrew...
I hope you know what you´ve said - you should
repeat it to the victims families... :jaw-dropp

I know Gumboot can speak for himself, but Oliver I think he just means that he has heard the same arguments many times and they have all been disproven many times. He is not disreguarding the victims. He is bored with people saying the same falsehoods over and over again.

[Oliver]

Appeal to emotions?

"Did you see the movie?" or "How old are you?"

Choose now.

BTW: It would help me to talk in whole
sentences. I guess you was the one
who suggested to talk in english, right?

[Pardalis]

"Did you see the movie?" or "How old are you?"

Watching it right now. 28.

[Oliver]

I think Oliver made his proclivities clear with: despite his best attempts at pretending otherwise.

Yes. And i tell you why. Because it looked like
a serious attemp to the 9/11 issue - not all these
speculations about the CT-Stuff... ;)

Added: ...whatever you mean with: "despite his best attempts at pretending otherwise"
Would you tell me what you mean?

[Childlike Empress]

Sorry, Oliver, this goes back a while. You'll have to take it up with Childlike. I can't talk any reason into her.
Gravy, what in the hell are you talking about? Please point me to a post where i said anything about questioning the holocaust? This is not adding to your credibility, pal. You try to raise my blood and you know that this is a sensible topic for me. Very low.

[Pardalis]

Let's keep WW2 out of the discussion.

[LashL]

Yes. And i tell you why. Because it looked like
a serious attemp to the 9/11 issue - not all these
speculations about the CT-Stuff... ;)



I don't believe you. Your sig line gives you away.

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike, it seems to me that these widdows' anger and frustrations are being influenced by the CTists. You say we mock their efforts, but I'm 10 minutes into the movie and they are using the same CT rethoric and logical fallacies (how can these buildings collapse this way, there has never been a building collapse due to fire, WTC7, etc), the very same BS the CTists are using, the CTists you yourself are calling conn artists.

I'll continue the movie, but it ain't looking good.

No, it is not not the same stuff the people i call con artists are talking about. You think the widdows are lying or are fooled by their own perception? I think they are not because this is the development i was able to follow without direct involvement.

[gumboot]

I´m not a political guy at all and i don´t vote either,
but i understand the message of the film in a different
way.


The first 10 minutes of the film primarily deals with a claim of a NORAD stand down - they point out that NORAD were first informed at 0838, and the last aircraft crashed at 1003. One of the women claims that means "nearly 2 hours in which jets were flying around the US and the military did nothing"

Aside from the fact that 0838 to 1003 is 1 hr 25 mins (quite substantially less than 2 hours), their statements are chocka full of falsehoods and deceptive dishonest comments.

It does not bode well for the rest of the documentary. Any documentary on a sensitive topic, that so grossly distorts the truth and makes outright lies is, in my opinion, pure propaganda.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

I don't believe you. Your sig line gives you away.

@Childlike Empress - was meint er damit???

[Foolmewunz]

Did i missed something? No one is denying the holocaust...
Otherwise i would tell him something... :mad:

Oliver, sometimes as the "new kid in town", it's best to sit back and watch. This is such a time. There are agendas within sub-agendas when you see a thread started by Chide-Like Empress.

Give room and respect the veterans in some cases.
This is a mature forum (as in "has developed") and unless you've read all strings by Gravy and CE, you can't fully understand the players and their comments or attitudes. I've studied them, but I don't presume to speak for anyone on this thread.

[gumboot]

I know Gumboot can speak for himself, but Oliver I think he just means that he has heard the same arguments many times and they have all been disproven many times. He is not disreguarding the victims. He is bored with people saying the same falsehoods over and over again.


Spot on.

Frankly this doco stinks of exploiting grieving widows and their search for answers. I am disgusted at the documentary makers for such crass political tactics.

Maybe the remainder of the doco will improve...:rolleyes:

-Andrew

[Brainache]

Gravy, what in the hell are you talking about? Please point me to a post where i said anything about questioning the holocaust? This is not adding to your credibility, pal. You try to raise my blood and you know that this is a sensible topic for me. Very low.

Where is my irony meter?

You do realise that Gravy is doing to you what you have done to everyone here when you accused us of mocking the victims in your opening post, don't you?

[Pardalis]

@Childlike Empress - was meint er damit???

Quossé?

[Oliver]

General:

Calm down, everyone. You have to see the
whole movie to get the message - especially
the last half of it.

I don´t wan´t to annoy anyone in here and
it is okay for me whatever you think about
me - but you should take the time to judge
for your own >after the movie<.

Finally: The Truth is more than the CT-Crap.

[LashL]

@Childlike Empress - was meint er damit???

Your sig line.... you know, the one sitting there for all to read? The one that says "The folks at JREF could not dispute this finding."

Oh, and just so you know, quoting one person's query and asking someone else a question (other than translation) in another language in hopes that nobody else will notice is also stupid around here.

Sheesh.

It's amazing how your English skills improve and regress at will depending on the subject matter, depending on individual posts, and depending on your willingness and (in)ability to address the topic at issue.

[gumboot]

No, it is not not the same stuff the people i call con artists are talking about.


Are you serious?

25 minutes in and basically ALL I have heard is the same CT garbage.

For the record it's mainly the filmmakers making these claims. The few "CT-like" statements made by the women themselves seem to be ones that are fairly understandable if you don't know the details of the thing being discussed.

Though, having said that, I'm a little alarmed that they claim to have been researching 9/11 for years, yet make claims like that the military did nothing. My NORAD research PDF took only a week to produce.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

Quossé?

i asked: "what does he mean with that????"

I´m out...

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike:

I'm fairly new here at JREF, like you. I came here because I had heard about "Loose Change" and, while I was pretty sure its claims were bogus, I wanted to know exactly WHY they were bogus so I could discuss the movie intelligently if it ever came up in conversation. I've reviewed many thousands of posts here, both pro and con of the official story. And, in my opinion, which I know has little if any value to you, there is NO compelling evidence whatsoever of any government involvement in 9/11. ALL of the points CTers raise in support of their theories are adequately explained in other ways.

I'm not saying that there isn't a**-covering and fudging of facts in the official reports, because there surely is. When dealing with a bureaucracy, a**-covering is the watchword. Is it frustrating to me that no offcials were held responsible for the pre-9/11 intelligence failures? Sure. If those failures hadn't happened, one of my best friends would still be alive today. But the official story, complete with a**-covering, is still the best we have, and it's likely to be the best we'll ever have, because it's essentially (although not in every detail) accurate.

And, the idea that we're somehow dishonoring the victims of 9/11 by not allowing other nations to poke around in our internal affairs is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

I'm tired now. That was a lot of typing for me.

Well, i heard about Loose Change after hearing about a lot of other things before. Then i found the LC Forum and became aware of the "war" between LC and JREF. After reading and learning alot here i decided to register to show the forumites that there are 9/11 Skeptics that don't buy into the "official line" of LC or the Scholars.

My statement that the people here are mocking the victims was on one hand serious (as i explained) and on the other hand provocative (opposing their over and over repeated statement that Dylan and co are mocking the victims).

@gummi: you should adjust your filters.

[Childlike Empress]

@Oliver: He thinks your signature questions the allmighty wisdom of this forum, i think.

[gumboot]

Okay,

30 minutes in and we're now on to the Complete 9/11 Timeline. A useful research tool, but it does have some major issues - for example an enormous chunk of it is pure speculation. There's also no follow-up - it will cite a news article that indicates something out of place, yet that will be a news article that turned out to be a false alarm - like the "hijackers still alive" thing.

A big part of the timeline is "warnings". Most of these have little or no significance whatsoever (the sort of thing that only has significance from the predisposed position of "inside job"). A lot of people critical of the government for ignoring the warnings dump blame on Bush, despite the fact that the vast majority of these links and so-called warnings occured during Clinton's administration. These same people show a severe lack of understanding of what constitutes "actionable intelligence". The same people would froth rabid at the mouth if a cop pulled over someone in the vicinity of a bank robbery because they were black.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

@gummi: you should adjust your filters.


Will you tell my what my agenda is?

Or will you apologise for your remarks and withdraw them?

-Andrew

[Oliver]

@Oliver: He thinks your signature questions the allmighty wisdom of this forum, i think.

I thought it was funny to add this after reading
in the LC-Forum, that they (secretly, i think) ask
in here first what the people in here think when
they find something new.

Here´s the Link to that Thread in the LC-Forum....
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12831

@Childlike

Hab ich da was falsch übersetzt oder wie jetzt?
Translation: Did i translate something wrong or what?

Im out - listening to the veterans as they´ve suggested....

[Gravy]

Gravy, what in the hell are you talking about? Please point me to a post where i said anything about questioning the holocaust? This is not adding to your credibility, pal. You try to raise my blood and you know that this is a sensible topic for me. Very low.
Touched a nerve, did I? Makes you mad, huh? Yes, that really was "low" of me. (ETA) And I see that you want me to prove my accusation by citing an example.

So, Childlike, it's wrong of me to make baseless accusations, but it's fine if you do the same? That's a childlike stance. Remember a similar double-standard that you applied to citing the 9/11 Commission report as evidence: that it was wrong for us but not for you? See a pattern here?

Oliver, I do not believe that Childlike is a Holocaust denier. I'm using that as a similar example to the nasty, unsupportable accusation about me that she has made. Oh, yes, I take it personally.

Oliver (please read this, Childlike), yesterday you were looking into the possibility that the explosions in the elevator shafts in the north tower could have been caused by bombs, and not by jet fuel. You asked me to get involved in the discussion. I replied with this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40), which listed many reports of the explosion combined with a fireball and the smell of jet fuel, going all the way down to the lowest basement level.

The only report that I have found of someone claiming (to this day) that this explosion was caused by a bomb, is that of victim William Rodriguez.

By coincidence, today I had a long talk with Mr. Rodriguez (at right) at Ground Zero.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045037f6498b2b.jpg
It may look as though we were arguing. We weren't! He's a very nice man, and we were having a pleasant, informative discussion.



While he acknowledges the fireball, the burned people in and around the elevators, and smell of jet fuel, he is convinced that there was a bomb in the lower levels. He does not have evidence of a bomb, just a VERY strong belief.

Question: am I mocking Mr. Rodriguez – a victim of the 9/11 attacks – by presenting evidence that does not support his belief?

[Gravy]

My statement that the people here are mocking the victims was on one hand serious (as i explained) and on the other hand provocative (opposing their over and over repeated statement that Dylan and co are mocking the victims).
There's a big difference. We have – over and over – provided specific examples of them mocking victims. We didn't invent the idea. We saw them do it and called them on it. You have merely made an accusation.

[Pardalis]

Besides, to use the victims of 9/11 for provocation, isn't that itself disrespectful?

[Childlike Empress]

Did i translate something wrong or what?
No. They are CTs themselves. You have to take that to account if you want to decipher their messages. :D

Touched a nerve, did I? Makes you mad, huh? Yes, that really was "low" of me.

So, Childlike, it's wrong of me to make baseless accusations, but it's fine if you do the same? That's a childlike stance. Remember a similar double-standard that you applied to citing the 9/11 Commission report as evidence: that it was wrong for us but not for you? See a pattern here?
I explained my statement. You know that you "touched a nerve" here before and by now you should also know why. Stop for a moment and think about what is presented in the movie without prejudice. And keep it civil on Monday.

CU Folks.

[Oliver]

Question: am I mocking Mr. Rodriguez – a victim of the 9/11 attacks – by presenting evidence that does not support his belief?

Hey, someone suggested to sit back and let the
Veterans talk - so stop asking me things that
burn under my nails to answer them. :-D

I did not think bad of anyone in here - i´m a
very diplomatic, friendly and peacefull man in
the thirties.

You should´nt think about willie. I like him because
it´s said that he risks his life and saved many lives,
but i never thought about you, that you´re mocking
him. I only thought that you may have your reasons
to disbeliefe him.

And to all people here - like in the LC-Forum, that
think i´m a "fencesitter" or "spy?" i have to say
this: my english is not perfect and i have big
problems to understand technical stuff, i have
problems to formulate complex questions in a way
that i think, you will understand.

And beside that: I´m not a talker at all. I share
information if i find something interesting and
i also post in here if after reading in a thread.

But i´m new to the Issue9/11 after watching
LooseChange. They did´nt like my questons
about the proofable things beside "the LC own
copyrighted Truth", so i try to find out more
in here. You guys who think i´m "whatever",
i give you this: You´re not better than the
LC Admins.

BTW: Maybe we can go back to the issue
of this thread.

I´m out to listen - so please calm down...


Oliver

[Gravy]

No. They are CTs themselves. You have to take that to account if you want to decipher their messages. :D


I explained my statement. You know that you "touched a nerve" here before and by now you should also know why. Stop for a moment and think about what is presented in the movie without prejudice. And keep it civil on Monday.

CU Folks.
I should have made it clear that my question was also addressed to you: was I mocking William Rodriguez by presenting evidence that does not support his version of events?

[gumboot]

40 Minutes in and we're still on warnings. I'm going to simply respond with this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1909400&postcount=30) excellent post by David Wong:

It's impossible to stop every conceivable method of attack. And it's awfully easy to come back after the fact and say, "WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THAT COMING?!?!?"

We didn't, because those memos warning that Osama might try to hijack planes were buried under other memos warning of cyber terrorism, or poisoning water supplies, or sneaking a nuke on board cargo boxes, or growing biological agents in a lab, or sneaking a shoulder-fired missile to a hill outside an airport, or suicide bombing a shopping mall, or filling a truck full of bombs and running it into a hotel, or...

You get the idea.

50 minutes in and we get the same "no one reacted" BS. "No fighters responded" etc.

This stuff gets tired fast.

-Andrew

[jhunter1163]

Childlike:

The "war" you talk about is between two groups who obviously hold very strong beliefs. The difference is, the JREF crowd bases their beliefs on facts, while the LC crowd bases theirs on distortions, innuendo, and the occasional outright lie. Now, you say you don't buy their line either (smart of you) but remain skeptical about the official story. Can you be a little more specific about what elements of the official story you don't buy?

Sorry if you've covered this previously, I'm even newer than you are.

[Oliver]

40 Minutes in and we're still on warnings. I'm going to simply respond with this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1909400&postcount=30) excellent post by David Wong:



50 minutes in and we get the same "no one reacted" BS. "No fighters responded" etc.

This stuff gets tired fast.

-Andrew

Sorry: Is he watching or making propaganda against
something he does not like?

...or understand?

[Gravy]

Sorry: Is he watching or making propaganda against
something he does not like?

...or understand?
If you read more of gumboot's posts, you'll see that he has no problem comprehending what he watches or reads. Here, he has given specific examples of what he objects to. These things have been discussed in this forum ad nauseum. If you disagree with our conclusions, please be specific about why.

[Childlike Empress]

I should have made it clear that my question was also addressed to you: was I mocking William Rodriguez by presenting evidence that does not support his version of events?
No, not in my opinion. Anyway, what is that strange connection between Rodriguez and Randi about? Insider information availible?

@jhunter: My main concerns are covered in this video. A different line i repeatetly tried to adress here (without resonance) is the infiltration of the "truth movement" by forces payed by the very same people that should be suspects in a criminal investigation. Feel free to use the "find more posts by..." function.

[Pardalis]

OK, finished it.

After the first ten minutes where it seemed to raise questions about the collapse, I started to wonder if it would fall into the CT crap about controlled demolitions. Thankfully, it did not. But that leaves me doubtful as to why they left that in, since they don't pursue the idea. Maybe it was to get our attention... :rolleyes:

All the way through, as Gumboot said about David Wong's quote, it seemed to make the logical fallacy of hindsight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias


But even with that in mind, I acknowledge the film raises interesting questions. By the end of it, it was clear that it was pushing for the LIHOP theory, which is to me, believable but still pending proof. Did the US cover up ties between Al Qaeda and Pakistan? I simply don't know.

Maybe there should be an "international" investigation. Why not?

So OK, go ahead and make this new investigation, what are you waiting for? Why are you asking the Bush administration?

Why are you accusing the Bush administration of not doing an "international" investigation about itself????

And shouldn't you accuse them AFTER the investigation, when (and if) the investigation shows conclusive proof that the US had foreknowledge of the specific attack and covered things up?

[Pardalis]

what is that strange connection between Rodriguez and Randi about? Insider information availible?

Oh no! Please Childlike, don't start making connections... PLEASE! :D

[Childlike Empress]

Oh no! Please Childlike, don't start making connections... PLEASE! :D
:D OK, i have to leave now anyway. You are are real Skeptic, Pardalis! *handsoverbadge*

[gumboot]

Okay, 50 minutes in now...

We get the whole "we didn't catch anyone in Afghanistan" thing. I'm not sure when the doco was made, because at present Al Qaeda's command structure has been decimated.

I'm starting to see American arrogance in the doco now, which isn't surprising. People are arguing there's no way these Al Qaeda fighters could escape from the US. Well... nonsense. Come on people. Do some military history research.

Most of the American troops in Afghanistan had no previous combat experience. Even fewer had any decent experience in the sort of warfare or climate that they had to face (hence why NZSAS ended up playing such a disproportiantly significant role).

In contrast, the Al Qaeda fighters have been fighting around the world, basically constantly, for THREE DECADES. They defeated the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and know the terrain backwards. They have high level friends in Pakistan - the neighbour that the US was relying on for support.

It's is quite plain and simple. Al Qaeda were BETTER than the US Military. It might be a hard pill for arrogant Americans to swallow, but it's true. Al Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups were running circles around the US intelligence community for a decade leading up to 9/11, and in Afghanistan, for the first year or so, Al Qaeda ran circles around the US Military.

I simply don't understand this incredulous "US is invincible" stance that is so often espoused by those claiming inside involvement. Would anyone we so utterly disbelieving if Soviet cold-war intelligence out-foxed US or British intelligence? Of course not. Yet Al Qaeda beat BOTH the Soviets AND the West. We grossly underestimated them. And by fixing blame on "incompetent US officials" we are CONTINUING to underestimate them. They are a REAL threat. They are not a bunch of towel-heads hiding in a cave. They are highly trained, incredibly experienced, thorough, patient, smart, and dedicated.

Want to know what Al Qaeda looks for in its members? This, according to the Al Qaeda training manual (Second Lesson):

Necessary Qualifications fro the Organization's members

1-Islam:
The member of the Organization must be Moslem. How can an unbeliever, someone from a revealed religion [Christian, Jew], a secular person, a communist, etc. protect Islam and Moslems and defend their goals and secrets when he does not believe in that religion [Islam]? The Israeli Army requires that a fighter be of the Jewish religion. Likewise, the command leadership in the Afghan and Russian armies requires anyone with an officer's position to be a member of the communist party.

2-Commitment to the Organization's Ideology:
This commitment frees the Organization's members from conceptional problems.

3-Maturity:
The requirements of military work are nUfflerous, and a minor cannot perform them. The nature of hard and continuous work in dangerous conditions requires a great deal of psychological, mental, and intellectual fitness, which are not usually found in a minor. It is reported that Ibn Ornar -may Allah be pleased with him -said, "During Ahad [battle] when I was fourteen years of age, I was submitted [as a volunteer] to the prophet -God bless and keep him. He refused me and did not throw me in the battle. During Khandak [trench] Day [battle] when I was fifteen years of age, I was also submitted to him, and he permitted me [to fight] .

4-Sacrifice:
He [the member] has to be willing to do the work and undergo martyrdom for the purpose of achieving the goal and establishing the religion of majestic Allah on earth.

5-Listening and Obedience:
In the military, this is known today as discipline. It is expressed by how the member obeys the orders given to him. That is what our religion urges. The Glorious says, "0, ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger and those charged with authority among you." In the story of Hazifa Ben AI-Yarnan -may Allah have mercy on him -who was exemplary in his obedience to Allah's messepger -Allah bless and keep him. When he [Mohammed] -Allah bless and keep him -sent him to spy on the Kureish and their allies during their siege of Madina, Hazifa said, -As he [Mohammed] called me by name to stand, he said, 'Go get me information about those people and do not alarm them about me.' As I departed, I saw Abou Soufian and I placed an arrow in the bow. I [then] remembered the words of the messenger - Allah bless and keep him -'do not alarm them about me.' If I had shot I would have hit him."

6-Keeping Secrets and Concealing Information
[This secrecy should be used] even with the closest people, for deceiving the enemies is not easy. Allah says, -Even though their plots were such that as to shake the hills! [Koranic verse]." Allah's messenger -God bless and keep him -says, "Seek Allah's help in doing your affairs in secrecy."It was said in the proverbs, "The hearts of freemen are the tombs of secrets" and "Moslems' secrecy is faithfulness, and talking about it is faithlessness." [Mohanlned] -God bless and keep him -used to keep work secrets from the closest people, even from his wife A'isha-may Allah's grace be on her.

7. Free of Illness
The Military Organization's member must fulfill this important requirement. .Allah says, -There is no blame for those who are infirm, or ill, or who have no resources to spend."

8. Patience
[The member] should have plenty of patience for [enduring] afflictions if he is overcome by the enemies. He should not abandon this great path and sell himself and his religion to the enemies for his freedom. He should be patient in performing the work, even if it lasts a long time.

9. Tranquility and "Unflappability"
[The member] should have a calm personality that allows him to endure psychological traumas such as those"involving bloodshed, murder, arrest, imprisonment, and rever,se psychological traumas such as killing one or all of his Organization's comrades. [He should be able] to carry out the work.

10. Intelligence and Insight
When the prophet -Allah bless and keep him -sent Hazifa Ben AI-Yaman to spy on the polytheist and [Hafiza] sat among them, Abou Soufian said, "Let each one of you look at his companion." Hazifa said to his companion, .Who are you?" The companion replied, "So-and-so son of so-and-so."

Now. Does that sound like a rag-tag bunch of cave-dwellers? Or a sophisticated unified organisation?

-Andrew

[Pardalis]

:D OK, i have to leave now anyway. You are are real Skeptic, Pardalis! *handsoverbadge*

It's a difficult balance between paranoia and cognitive dissonance, and nobody is immune to either of them. :)

[Childlike Empress]

@gummi: Sorry, forget to name your agenda. A very sophisticated kind of fear mongering.

[Architect]

On what grounds should the USA give up their sovereignty and allow for who exactly to investigate precisely what about 9/11? :confused:

Fair point, but you might want to remember that your Government has a habit of "requesting" that the FBI and other bodies helps with criminal investigations involving American citizens in other countries before you get too bolshy about it.

[jhunter1163]

Childlike:

If I had to guess, I'd say your theory re: paid disinfo agents in the truth movement didn't resonate because it added another layer to the conspiracy. If even one of them gets tired of the game, all they have to do is wave their checks from the NWO in front of a camera and there goes your conspiracy. JREFers will hack you to death with Occam's Razor at any opportunity.

If you'd said something like "I think the Bushies counted on the emergence of nuts after 9/11 and used their CIA media assets to play up the nuttiest of them to discredit the truth movement", at least that would be a starting point for discussion. You'd still be asked for evidence though....

[Architect]

Could we keep this discussion board in English please?

Si ça continue de même j'vais écrire en français bâtard!

So... That said, for the sake of it Childlike, I'll watch the movie.

ce n'est pa une probleme pour moi, francais at allemands sonts sujets obliqitoire dans les ecoles ecossais(e)

[Childlike Empress]

@jhunter: no need to guess. And don't forget the basement of it which is the topic of this thread: the cover-up.

[Pardalis]

ce n'est pa une probleme pour moi, francais at allemands sonts sujets obliqitoire dans les ecoles ecossais(e)

Your french is very good. You are lucky, it's a very good asset to speak so many languages. :)

[Gravy]

Anyway, what is that strange connection between Rodriguez and Randi about? Insider information availible?
There's something strange about someone who likes illusionists liking James Randi? :confused:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There's something strange about someone who likes illusionists liking James Randi? :confused:

I'm often told my "thing" for 80's pop princess Debbie Gibson is rather strange. :confused:

[gumboot]

@gummi: Sorry, forget to name your agenda. A very sophisticated kind of fear mongering.


Hmmm... very interesting observation.

Would I be right in guessing this is due, primarily, from my opinion that Radical Islamic militants pose a genuine and serious threat to Western civilisation and values?

Just asking questions. :boxedin:

-Andrew

[gumboot]

60 minutes in... and it's a return to the "Al Qaeda couldn't have pulled this off alone" argument.

Like the "collapse in own footprint" argument, this is one that has just befuddled me from day one. "Elaborate"? "Complex"? C'mon. They hijacked four planes. All they needed was a bunch of guys, some watches, some knives, a fake bomb or two, and an airline timetable.

How hard could it be? This was hardly Operation Overlord.

Not that I think Al Qaeda can't do complex (see my post above...). But this just didn't require a whole heap of effort. The perfect success of the mission lay in its simplicity. Western, liberal, life-loving societies simply never seriously thought about airliners being used as a weapon. There was no system in place to RESPOND to a threat like that.

-Andrew

ETA. It also goes into the whole "CIA created Bin Laden" argument. Grossly simplified (to the point of being inaccurate).

[MarkyX]

Were any non-US individuals involved in the investigation? Have any non-US individuals asked to take part, or to do their own; and subsequently been denied? blah, blah, blah

CE, prove your statement about mocking victims, or retract it; or it will be reported as an abusive post.

I believe there was one Canadian engineer invited by FEMA. His speciality was dealing with fire damage on material, considered the best in the world or some such.

[tsig]

I find this a little ironic. You have never hid your significant dislike of the current US government.

And here you are, accusing people here of mocking victims, while peddling a documentary that uses families of 9/11 victims to push a political agenda that you support.

Sick.

I'm ten minutes into the film. So far I've heard the same boring and fact-less "NORAD Stand Down" argument I have heard repeatedly from CTers.

It's very simple CLE. Please pay attention.

...reading?

...

The moment the 19 hijackers were on board the aircraft the nearly 3000 victims' fates were sealed. There was nothing anyone could do to prevent 9/11 happening at that point.

The mighty USA is NOT invincible, anymore than Battleship Row was. The US got beaten by people who were cleverer and more dedicated. Simple as that.

-Andrew

Hard to admit easier to deny.

[gumboot]

Right, we're 70 minutes in now...

We've just covered ISI connections to Al Qaeda in more detail. It's really about the money trail. Did the ISI fund it, did they not?

Of course, there's some issues here. As we know the ISI is heavily filled with Taliban/Al Qaeda sympathisers. Not surprising, since they have three decades of involvement with each other. The mistake is to think these connections are official.

In other words, just because an ISI agent is also supporting Al Qaeda doesn't mean the ISI is involved in 9/11.

That logic would determine that the CIA was involved in the 1998 embassy bombings, since CIA agent Ali Mohamed was actually planning the bombings as an Al Qaeda member.

My hypothesis. The US underestimated the level of Al Qaeda infiltration of the ISI (probably partly because Pakistan down-played it) and decided it wasn't enough to hinder operations in Afghanistan. They took the gamble. (Don't forget Pakistan has nuclear weapons...).

-Andrew

[Oliver]

Hello?

[MarkyX]

You can read more information on the ISI rumor here:

http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_07_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#78639317

[gumboot]

Well, I'm disappointed.

This would have to be one of the poorest conclusions I've ever seen. It really makes the entire program fall apart...

It begins with three bold statements:

"The sponsors of the attack yet to be confronted"

A number of international laws passed post-9/11 have strickly clamped down on terrorist funding networks (which were incredibly comprehensive and well-networked). Organisations like Al Taqwa Bank were closed down. These are the people who "sponsor" terrorism. There's certainly holes - a number of nations continue to get away with sponsoring terrorism. This needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure a simultaneous war with Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is a good idea.


"The men named as the culprits allowed to escape"

The key word here is "allowed". The US-arrogance syndrome dictates that, if they escaped, the US must have allowed it. There's an obvious flaw in this logic. Al Qaeda were on their home turf. US forces were not that hot on alpine counter-insurrgent warfare. I'm not surprised so many escaped for so long (I'm guessing this doco is now dated since the coalition has since taken big chunks out of Al Qaeda including KSM - the mastermind of 9/11).


"The government officials who ignored warnings before 9/11 still in their positions"

As I said, I've yet to hear a single example of a credible piece of actionable intel regarding the 9/11 threat. I'm not surprised the admin ignored vague rumours of threats. I'm sure the US public would have gone postal if the US government had clamped down on civil liberties BEFORE 9/11. People like
Michael Moore would have had a field day.


"Despite years of inquiry...the official story of what happened on 9/11 remains little changed"

Yeah. Because it's pretty much spot on. Aside from the brief CT arguments at the beginning (NORAD stand down, buildings don't collapse) the documentary actually offers no argument whatsoever that anything happened on 9/11 other than 19 Al Qaeda operatives hijacked 4 aircraft, flew three into buildings, while passengers on the 4th revolted and caused it to crash. Why would the official story change? Even if it were proved Pakistan officially DID fund the attacks, how does "what happened on 9/11" suddenly change?



Okay, so after this "conclusion" the doco loses it, because it just randomly goes off into a whole new realm that really related only loosely to the rest of the doco...

It basically goes into a rant about the media and how they have to "hold everyone accountable". It seems to imply that after 9/11 the media suddenly stopped doing serious investigating, pushing an agenda instead (never mind all the "failing to connect dots" the doco talks about occured BEFORE 9/11). It's laughable. Did the media only suddenly become subjective, biased, corrupt, political, sensationalist, and straight out false AFTER 9/11? Please. It has been that way for decades.

We get these widows saying no one can get up to speed on everything... it took them thousands of hours of research to learn about 9/11 (yet they still think no fighters were launched...:confused: )

Apparantly there's no one "connecting the dots". Of course, these "dots" are really mainly just "false articles". These days journalists are so desperate to push a story first, they publish stuff that turns out to be false. Instead of retract it with a follow up, they just leave it hanging. Hence you get a "dot" (the Osama kidney dialysis myth is one of the "dots" the doco presents).

There's then a bit about how people are "afraid to consider the truth" which smacks of typical CT logic when confronted with a superior argument. As this subforum demonstrates, there's plenty of people who have managed to gather enormous amounts of information about 9/11, and yet none of the claims made in this documentary have surfaced. Funny that.

My favourite is the argument that basically runs "we should be questioning the official story because governments are evil liars". Bravo. Nice objective reasoning there. It's the same tired "accepting the official story" line. No one here that I've seen "accepts" the official story. They've independently researched everything and come to the conclusion that the official story is accurate.

If you want to take me, for example, I've never read the entire 9/11 Commission Report. Why? Because I've gathered my understanding of what happened from first hand evidence and materials, not from someone else's version of them. My NORAD research is entirely independent of the 9/11 commission report. Yet still I get labelled as "blindly accepting the official story". It's just ridiculous.

The tragedy is these filmmakers of this documentary are oblivious to the irony in their claim that anyone who doesn't have their point of view must be a blind sheep.

Then we have pearls like "Yes they lied, they all lieds, whether consciously or unconsciously" (from one of the widows). How exactly do you unconsciously lie?

Of course, the documentary has never really presented WHAT they apparantly lied about. It just throws in a whole heap of unsupported arguments at the end that don't really reflect the remainder of the doco. Kind of reminds me of a History Channel programme.

And in conclusion?

Well, I'll be a little insensitive here. The four widows are the centrepiece of the documentary. It's pretty clear from this documentary (unless, of course, they have been very badly misrepresented) that they are on a witch hunt, plain and simple. Their loved ones died, and they want someone to burn. The terrorists who did it are all dead, or on the loose. No one has been brought to trial.

They can't accept that the US was simply out-smarted (maybe no one has sat down and talked about this with them, because very few people seem willing to even consider it). Therefore US officials must be at fault. Someone needs to swing.

I think their sentiments are wrong, and their research appears to be flawed, but I understand their feelings - grief impairs reason.

What is sickening is the way the filmmakers have used that to their own advantage, to make a propaganda piece.

I'm not overly impressed.

On a technical and stylistic note Loose Change and Terrorstorm are both better made and better structured documentaries.

-Andrew

[Kent1]

I would recommend a much better video that deals with the same subject is called On Native Soil: The 911 Commission report. I would also recommend
http://www.911myths.com/html/foreknowledge.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/august_6_memo.html

At least this video tends to push LIHOP and incompatance rather than MIHOP.
Although I haven't watched it all yet.

[WildCat]

Now watch this video: 9/11 Press for truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083).
You've been told the truth. And to borrow from another movie, you can't handle the truth.

What the hell is it w/ 9/11 deniers and movies? If you have evidence, post it. This isn't a film discussion board.

[Peephole]

At least this video tends to push LIHOP and incompatance rather than MIHOP.

Oh come on, you know that doesn't matter.

Whether it's MIHOP, or whether it's LIHOP.
We have to find a way to make this war stop.

[gumboot]

Oh come on, you know that doesn't matter.

Whether it's MIHOP, or whether it's LIHOP.
We have to find a way to make this war stop.


Um. What? :confused:

-Andrew

[WildCat]

The key word here is "allowed". The US-arrogance syndrome dictates that, if they escaped, the US must have allowed it. There's an obvious flaw in this logic. Al Qaeda were on their home turf. US forces were not that hot on alpine counter-insurrgent warfare. I'm not surprised so many escaped for so long (I'm guessing this doco is now dated since the coalition has since taken big chunks out of Al Qaeda including KSM - the mastermind of 9/11).
The US has an entire division trained specifically for mountain warfare. The problem is, Tora Bora was just a few months after 9/11. We just didn't have enough troops or materiel over there yet, and really had no choice but to let local allies fight the battle.

[Brainache]

Um. What? :confused:

-Andrew

You haven't seen Abbyas's charming doco on the nutters at GZ?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...54424113&hl=en

[WildCat]

Um. What? :confused:

-Andrew
See the video Abby and realitybites made...

[Gravy]

See the video Abby and realitybites made...
...And run the risk of having that damn song run through your head in every single waking moment for three days!

:eek:

Seriously, though, watch the video. It's hilarious.

[gumboot]

The US has an entire division trained specifically for mountain warfare. The problem is, Tora Bora was just a few months after 9/11. We just didn't have enough troops or materiel over there yet, and really had no choice but to let local allies fight the battle.


I'd really like to know the date that doco was made. They talked about "the war in Afghanistan was over and no one was caught". Yet as we know, fighting is still ongoing in Afghanistan, and every now and then another prominent Al Qaeda member is either captured or knocked off.

Perhaps people just expected instant results?

Sorry, I don't meant to deride the excellent 10th Mountain Division. :)

But the US Military is not geared to fighting a guerilla war. IIRC the 10th Mountain had not seen alpine combat since Korea, which means none of the troops in Afghanistan had alpine combat experience.

What the US really needed was highly skilled alpine trackers - that's why NZSAS were called in so early, and used so extensively - they're widely accepted as the best trackers in the world.

Of course, the Americans learned FAST, which is why they later rapidly proved far more successful. I was reading a USMC newspaper recently that talked about a single USMC infantry platoon that was testing new techniques and tactics for warfare in Afghanistan that were producing exceptional results.

You're also certainly right in that all that early stuff happened too early - it takes time to invade a country! (Kind of discredits CT claims that the US had forces poised to invade as well).

I think it might have been Huntsman who was talking about the enormous number of troops that would be required to secure the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. You practically need a guy every hundred paces!

As a result you guys had to rely on Pakistan to do the deed. Well, we know how big an issue that is. Osama bin Laden is a hero for a good chunk of the country.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

.
Seriously, though, watch the video. It's hilarious.


:o I feel stupid.

I have seen the video. I just completely missed the reference. I thought Peephole was a raving CTer who had totally misunderstood Kent1's comments.

Man I feel like a dummy... :boxedin:

-Andrew

[calebprime]

You haven't seen Abbyas's charming doco on the nutters at GZ?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...54424113&hl=en

I'm getting an error message from Google. Working for others?

[David Wong]

I think somebody accidentally copied and pasted the truncated address. This forum software shortens links and puts ... in the middle of them.

It works fine if you try to click it, but if you try to copy it into another thread you get a broken link.

[WildCat]

What the US really needed was highly skilled alpine trackers - that's why NZSAS were called in so early, and used so extensively - they're widely accepted as the best trackers in the world.
Yeah, lots of gorgeous mountains in NZ, I'd love to visit there some day. Looks dangerous though w/ all those Orcs running around... you should really do something about them.

[calebprime]

I'm a mac user: Tried Firefox (logged in) and Safari (not logged in), but got the same Google "video may not be available" message.

liked your writing about LC, Mr. Wong.

[Brainache]

I think somebody accidentally copied and pasted the truncated address. This forum software shortens links and puts ... in the middle of them.

It works fine if you try to click it, but if you try to copy it into another thread you get a broken link.


D'oh. Yes find the footage from GZ thread. By Abbyas.

[gumboot]

Yeah, lots of gorgeous mountains in NZ, I'd love to visit there some day. Looks dangerous though w/ all those Orcs running around... you should really do something about them.


They keep us on our toes...

And yes, it is a rather pretty place:

http://photo-origin.tickle.com/image/147/0/1/O/147017500O713860331.jpg

-Andrew

ETA. Eek! How do I get the picture up smaller with the little "thumbnail" box around it?

[Pardalis]

Oh come on, you know that doesn't matter.

Whether it's MIHOP, or whether it's LIHOP.
We have to find a way to make this war stop.

It makes a hell of a difference.

And please, this is not about politics.

[Dog Town]

Whether it's MIHOP, or whether it's LIHOP.
We have to find a way to make this war stop.

Thanks for putting that freaken song in my head, again!
All it makes me think about is breakfast at you know where. Rooty tooty fresh and fruity, anyone? Not you reality bites!

FUDGE.... it won't get out of me head!

[Pardalis]

I think their sentiments are wrong, and their research appears to be flawed, but I understand their feelings - grief impairs reason.

What is sickening is the way the filmmakers have used that to their own advantage, to make a propaganda piece.


This has some some elements of truth to it.

But I also tend to believe one of the women at the end when she comments on Bush's remark that "the government needs to be right all the time, and the terrorists right only once". I think she's right that this is over simplifying things. Al Qaeda were right a bunch of times, they could have been detected a number of times before 9/11. On the day of 9/11, that was too late. You have to be accountable for your incompetence. She's right about that. But yet most of these guys are still in office.

Whether they let them pass throught their security and intelligence on purpose, that is yet to be proven, I tend to believe more on incompetence than malevolence.

[Peephole]

:o I feel stupid.

I have seen the video. I just completely missed the reference. I thought Peephole was a raving CTer who had totally misunderstood Kent1's comments.


Who said I wasn't....


Mwhahahaha

[realitybites]

See the video Abby and realitybites made...
I have to admit, I had nothing to do with the making of this film any more than LIHOP/MIHOP guy did. It was all Abby and her ex.

[realitybites]

Rooty tooty fresh and fruity, anyone? Not you reality bites!
Haha. You can double check with Abby and Gravy, but I'm pretty sure I'm the least fresh 'n fruity gay guy you'll ever come across. :cool:

[Soapy Sam]

I wonder how many 9/11 CT -ers used to believe in alien abduction?

The whole affair has the same whiff of government in the know, but covering up.
I know there are still otherwise sane folk in the USA who deny the US military was run out of Vietnam by a bunch of Asians- that was a gummint plot , too.
Even harder to accept the whole US military / intelligence community was caught on the pot by a bunch of amateurs who had read the bit in some martial arts mag. about using your opponent's strength against him.

Did anyone expect the US air force to shoot down airliners full of civilians?
That's the Navy's job.

[MarkyX]

But I also tend to believe one of the women at the end when she comments on Bush's remark that "the government needs to be right all the time, and the terrorists right only once". I think she's right that this is over simplifying things. Al Qaeda were right a bunch of times, they could have been detected a number of times before 9/11. On the day of 9/11, that was too late. You have to be accountable for your incompetence. She's right about that. But yet most of these guys are still in office.


And it's people like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and other members of 9/11 Deniers that make the government stronger. When Dylan Avery cheers for each Israeli killed because some 6 year old Palestine kid blows himself up or KillTown denying the holocaust or Alex Jones tries to label all those in power as "Satanists"...this only gives the government every piece of authority to stay on the defensive. All it has to do is point out the nuts in the population and they win.

So thanks 9/11 Deniers, for making the government stronger and stubborn by making up fairy tales about them.

[Dog Town]

Haha. You can double check with Abby and Gravy, but I'm pretty sure I'm the least fresh 'n fruity gay guy you'll ever come across. :cool:

Uhh yeah...., that ain't gonna happen. Good to know though. LMAO!
Sorry, couldn't resist! Peace.

[Pardalis]

So thanks 9/11 Deniers, for making the government stronger and stubborn by making up fairy tales about them.

I'm not sure I understand your argument.

I think the 9/11 Deniers are throwing off the debate entirely, they focus the attention on these idiotic details when we should really focus on the main two key issues: Islamic terrorism, and government incompetence.

[MarkyX]

I just watched the entire thing..

A little disappointing, due to the fact that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of investigation but much speculation.

They complain to the press about not doing their job, yet use the press as evidnece of their point.

I'm suprised I watched it all. Being one of the guys that the 9/11 Deniers hate and studying this event for the past few months, I kept gagging at some of their BS and quote mining.

[MarkyX]

I'm not sure I understand your argument.

I think the 9/11 Deniers are throwing off the debate entirely, they focus the attention on these idiotic details when we should really focus on the main two key issues: Islamic terrorism, and government incompetence.

Exactly.

9/11 Deniers pratically HOLD HANDS with the islamic terrorism. They call them freedom fighters or cheer when Iran sides with them. Their arguments are based on personal attacks (lol George Bush is Hitler) to downright threats of the president.

When you have an opponent is that literally cries out for blood and tries to dehumanize you, why should you co-operate with them?

[Pardalis]

I think the CT movement is also throwing off the more sane and realistic aspects of some the legitimate doubts that people might have about 9/11. I don't think the world is black and white, and there may very well be some kind of a politically motivated cover-up of some elements of the story. But we have to be careful of not falling ill to the Conspiracy bug and start to see ramifications leading down to Nazi Germany, or even the Crusades. Maybe there are some links between AlQaeda and Pakistan that the US doesn't want to admit, because of the diplomatic and political stresses it would create whithin the global geopolitic arena.

But all that Illuminati-controlled demolition-fake phone calls BS is just fueling the extremist that want to do us harm. It's counter-productive and downright misinformation.

[Gravy]

Haha. You can double check with Abby and Gravy, but I'm pretty sure I'm the least fresh 'n fruity gay guy you'll ever come across. :cool:
To me, you taste like white chocolate.

[Abbyas]

To me, you taste like white chocolate.

Whoa, I missed something at ground zero!

[Axiom_Blade]

Alex Jones tries to label all those in power as "Satanists"

It always bugs the crap outta me when CTers pick on Satanists. When was the last time you even met a Satanist?
And they run the world? WTF?

(Actually, if Bush really were a Satanist, that'd be pretty fun. All dressed in black, rockin' out to Slayer...remodelling the White House into a gothic cathedral...

Yeah, Jones, you and your filthy, camo-clad gun-lovers hiding up in the woods pretty much SUCK IT compared to any Satanists.)

[Dog Town]

To me, you taste like white chocolate.

How do you know what Jason Williams tastes like? Ok...done!

[Architect]

But I also tend to believe one of the women at the end when she comments on Bush's remark that "the government needs to be right all the time, and the terrorists right only once".

Actually, it's a rehashed IRA phrase from the 1980's - they said the British security forces had to get lucky all the time, but they only had to once". I don't have a link, but remember it getting some media coverage.

Can't the CT mob even come up with their own soundbites?

[Architect]

Alex Jones tries to label all those in power as "Satanists"...


Maybe he means "stalanists", but is as bad at spelling as he is at meaningful analysis of evidence? :D

[MikeW]

Actually, it's a rehashed IRA phrase from the 1980's - they said the British security forces had to get lucky all the time, but they only had to once".
You're right, it was re: the Brighton bombing:

Party conferences have been recognised by the police and security services as a prime terrorist target ever since the IRA attack on Margaret Thatcher at the 1984 Conservative conference in Brighton.

The then-Prime Minister narrowly escaped death because she was in her bathroom when the 100lb bomb exploded, but five people, including an MP, were killed.

Afterwards, an IRA statement read: "Today we were unlucky, but remember, we only have to be lucky once; you will have to be lucky always."http://www.nw-enquirer.co.uk/politics/politics_news/labour_conference_security_fears_after_dossier_deb acle_20060526443.html

[Cylinder]

The first 10 minutes of the film primarily deals with a claim of a NORAD stand down...

That claim has been well-refuted in this forum by the good work from you and others. Far from standing down or getting caught flat-footed, the NORAD responders discharged their duty that day in a manner that (should at least) cast honor upon themselves, their organization, their command and the United States Air Force.

NEADS worked to push the ROEs in order to get alert aircraft wheels-up and was backed by higher headquarters. The ID technicians actively sought out information to better illuminate the battle space. The Mission Crew Commander, with the aid of his battle staff, displayed admirable initiative in trying to find his best play from an empty contingency list and no real satisfactory options. Especially poignant was the NEADS MCC demonstration of his ability to lead men in the midst of chaos. When shock, frustration and disbelief began to filter into the decision tree, Major Nasypany calmed his men with a simple directive to keep all communications professional. (An example you would do well to study, Gumboot, if you are also granted command.) Aircrew without sufficient weapons loads openly discussed using their own aircraft as guided missiles in order to save lives on the ground and those with teeth contemplated the reality of pulling the trigger on a loaded civilian airliner.

This is all taken from a record for anyone with a rational mind to see and understand.

[Cylinder]

It looks as if the Press for Truth! crowd will be getting their moment in the sun tommorow on C-SPAN. Hopefully I can find the time to call and ask a NORAD question.

[T.A.M.]

Well it looks like I missed CLE...too bad.

Seems like a deliberate antagonistic remark...that worked, unfortunately. She riled up everyones tempers, and then cut and ran.

The fact is that she knows Fetzer, Avery, Bermas, and many of the other public figures in the "truth" movements have OPENLY mocked many of the 9/11 victims. I am sure she has watched the video where said mockery can be found.

The wonderful thing, is unlike that other forum, she was able to speak her mind, as viscously as she did, and yet was not banned or suspended.

Take pride in that.

TAM

oh and re: the taste testing...that was just funny...white chocolate...lol

[gumboot]

Especially poignant was the NEADS MCC demonstration of his ability to lead men in the midst of chaos. When shock, frustration and disbelief began to filter into the decision tree, Major Nasypany calmed his men with a simple directive to keep all communications professional. (An example you would do well to study, Gumboot, if you are also granted command.)


Well stated (you're entire post, by the way).

The actions of the NEADS team, especially Nasypany, were exemplary. Far from the stand-down CTers claim, the NEADS response was as good a "race to the finish" as any Hollywood action flick. Despite starting well on the back foot, they struggled right until the end (well past it, in truth).

Being familiar now with how badly the odds were stacked against them, their response was exceptional.

(In case you didn't notice NORAD is my baby when it comes to 9/11 CT's ;) )

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Maybe there are some links between AlQaeda and Pakistan that the US doesn't want to admit, because of the diplomatic and political stresses it would create whithin the global geopolitic arena.


I think it's pretty thoroughly established that there are clear and strong links between Al Qaeda and important members of the ISI. The mistake this documentary makes is to assume OFFICIAL connections APPROVED by the US Government.

Bear in mind, the purpose of this doco is to attack the government. Had the US invaded Pakistan, they would be pointing to vague links to some other country the US *should* have gone after instead of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They're not interested in "truth", they're interested in claiming the US government did "the wrong thing".

-Andrew

[Stellafane]

Stop for a moment.

Forget about all you are involved in here. Forget about Dylan Avery, the Jones', Controlled Demolition, your fight against the so called "Truth Movement".

Now watch this video: 9/11 Press for truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083)

We need an independent international investigation of 9/11. You have to stop mocking the victims. I feel with the people of the united states of america and hope you will take your country back. Thanks and good luck.

First off Childlike, no one here is mocking the victims, and you have zero right to claim that they are. Indeed, you owe everyone here an apology for even suggesting it.

You want to talk about mocking victims? How about Photoshopping feces onto images of the victims' graves? Or suggesting that a father knowingly sent a son to his death? Or claiming passengers were cowards for not laughing at the boxcutters wielded by the terrorists? That's what I call mocking. And guess who's doing it? Not the folks here at JREF, but your buddies over in in LC forum. (Yeah yeah I know, they're not your buddies...spare me, OK?

You may be incapable of recongizing it, Childlike, but in fact we do endeavor to "press for truth." The problem is, no matter how hard we press, the truth just doesn't seem to penetrate into your little world.

[Oliver]

First off Childlike, no one here is mocking the victims, and you have zero right to claim that they are. Indeed, you owe everyone here an apology for even suggesting it.

It seems to me that theres a lot of missunderstanding
in here.

If Childlike meant it the same way i understand it (wich
seems to be a CT for it´s own for some people), she
talks about that "every discussion about the pentagon,
bombs, shanksville and so on is like "twisting a knife in
their wounds".

The Documentary was >supported< by the victims
families. You have to listen what >>>>they<<<<
really want to know - all people in here do ignore
this and i don´t know why(?).

It´s like they all give a f. about the victims and their
family, correct me if i´m wrong.

[Regnad Kcin]

I followed the development of this whole mess since the first day and the unanswered questions asked in this film are quite exactly my questions that lead me to be 100% convinced that the official story is bogus.In that case you are 100% wrong.

The people on this forum are falling for deception. They still debunk question asked by con artists. It's sad to see how deep your cognitive dissonance goes.Boo-frickety-hoo.

[gumboot]

The Documentary was >supported< by the victims
families. You have to listen what >>>>they<<<<
really want to know - all people in here do ignore
this and i don´t know why(?).

It´s like they all give a f. about the victims and their
family, correct me if i´m wrong.


Some of the family members of victims are not happy with the commission report. Some of them expected the report to blame someone. Some of them wanted someone in government to go to jail for 9/11. Some of them believe things about 9/11 that simply aren't true (no military response, for example).

I have utmost sympathy for their loss, but that doesn't mean I'll accept anything they claim blindly. I am interested in understanding the TRUTH about what happened for the sake of the VICTIMS, and for the sake of all of us.

Not, frankly, to make the families of victims feel better.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

I have utmost sympathy for their loss, but that doesn't mean I'll accept anything they claim blindly. I am interested in understanding the TRUTH about what happened for the sake of the VICTIMS, and for the sake of all of us.

Not, frankly, to make the families of victims feel better.
-Andrew

You get the message wrong, Andrew. We talked about why are people
mocking the victims. If you ever lost a very loved one and you know that
he died and how he died:

What would you think if thousands of people claim that it was different to
what you first thought how it happend.

What would you think if thousands believe, they did´nt die in Shanksville.
Would´nt that mean a lot of pain to you? Questing yourself: "May he or
she still alive?". "How did they die?", "Was it a lie what we´ve been told?".

Now if this is not mocking the victims, what is it then?

Off course the families have different wishes, but as longer the discussion
lasts, the more get involved to it. And it was shameful from the government
to pay them off if they agree to not sue them - (if the story is true).

But i´m glad to see that you´re trying to find the truth, and i´m glad that
you´re following your own way and intuition.

So do i. Even if i only use to talk if it´s necessary or to move someting.
It seems to me, that a lot of people in here are stucked in millions of
details, loosing sight of the whole thing itself. And it seems to me that
other, btw. very smart people, use to ignore some things because of their
politcal views. (Fading things out.(General: Don´t take it personal, think
about it.))

I want to know the truth about 911, not my truth - just like you, i guess.

[gumboot]

You get the message wrong, Andrew. We talked about why are people
mocking the victims. If you ever lost a very loved one and you know that
he died and how he died:

What would you think if thousands of people claim that it was different to
what you first thought how it happend.


If the "evidence" for their claims were as weak as the ones these people are pushing, I'd be utterly furious. If they then used their claims to make money and push a political agenda, like the 9/11 CTers are, I'd be pathological.

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support ANY of their claims.

Please absorb that statement. Their claims are utterly devoid of evidence. Not a shred exists.



Off course the families have different wishes, but as longer the discussion
lasts, the more get involved to it. And it was shameful from the government
to pay them off if they agree to not sue them - (if the story is true).


It is standard practise that a compensation claim involves an agreement not to seek further damages. This is and has been standard practise throughout the western world for a very long time.

Frankly I find the entire litigation culture of the US utterly disgusting. It simply encourages the witch-burning blame-mentality that seems to be rampant in the States.

In New Zealand, for example, you cannot bring a civil case against someone for personal injury or loss.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support ANY of their claims.Please absorb that statement. Their claims are utterly devoid of evidence. Not a shred exists.

Call me stupid, but i´m working on that. :D Do you think
that "somethings rotten in state of denmark" concerning
the foreknowledge and coverup? pm? For me it looks like a
real chance to find something - and i´m no LIHOP, MIHOP,
HIBOB, HIPHOP at all. Still searching...

[gumboot]

Call me stupid, but i´m working on that. :D


This may be a language barrier thing, but a statement like that worries me. Why would you specifically look for evidence of a particular thing? Surely the point of investigation is to gather ALL evidence and base a conclusion on that, not go hunting for specific evidence that supports a given point of view.




Do you think that "somethings rotten in state of denmark" concerning
the foreknowledge and coverup? pm? For me it looks like a real chance to find something - and i´m no LIHOP, MIHOP, HIBOB, HIPHOP at all. Still searching...

To a degree. But I don't see it as overly significant. The way I see it the US administration was (quite rightly) afraid that the US people would want to see them hang for allowing an attack to happen on their watch.

Bear in mind the 9/11 Commission Report was not an investigation into the attacks. The investigations into the attacks were carried out by the various departments that are responsible for such things - the FBI, NTSB, FAA, NIST, and so forth.

In simple terms, the commission report was a witch hunt. The families of victims wanted to blame someone in government for the attacks, and they pressured for the establishment of the commission to do just that. While I think governments should be as transparent as possible, and while I think the Bush administration really behaved wrongly in many ways, I completely understanded their resistance to the investigation.

The fact that the main instigators of the report so thoroughly rejected its conclusion that no one in government had been negligent to me confirms their bias and the simple fact that they were out for blood, not the truth.

And that doesn't surprise me either. It's just like the parents of a boy killed in a high speed police chase here who wanted the police to swing for the crime.

Typical blame mentality. It's part of the grieving processes. I'm not especially keen on societies indulging it, because it's irrational and it's a stage that victims' families need to get over. Otherwise they will never be able to get on with their lives.

In the end I don't believe there was a coverup. There were delays, and questionable tactics by the administration. But I see no evidence of anything being covered up.

As I've said before, for me the only gaping hole in the "official story" is why Bush remained where he was so long. That's a decision someone in the Secret Service made, and I've never ehard why. I'd like to know. Otherwise, the entire storyline fits together, in my opinion.

As for foreknowledge. As I've said in this thread. I've yet to see any evidence of specific actionable intelligence regarding the attacks. The "dots" that people so often bring up were not all that was out there - they were grains of sand on a beach. In hindsight they stick out, of course. At the time? No.

I've said it many times. The US was hit because of three flaws:

1) Treatment of terrorists as criminals who need to be brought to justice in a fair trail in a liberal western court of law.
2) US reluctance to act (militarily) in the international arena (this reluctance is evident throughout America's history but became especially prevalent in Clinton's administration)
3) US over-confidence in the capabilities of their military, security, and intelligence assets (combined with gross underestimation of the threat)

None of these, IMHO, point to incompetence or negligence. These above are all aspects of American SOCIETY, not American government or policy. These are features of the nation the American people WANTED (and mostly, still want).

In fact, these three features are the very same reason Islamic Terrorists target the US in the first place.

The choice for the US is, do we continue being as free as we want to be, and simply absorb a 9/11 attack every now and then, do we have a back-lash and become a sort of police state, or do we try find a balance?

The current administration seems to be trying to do the latter (which is what I'd recommend). Some think they're trying the second option, and others think the first is the best.

I go for the third, and I think the US government is too. I also think it takes trial and error. Like flicking a branch on a tree, the oscilations bounce side to side for a while before equilibrium is found. 9/11 was a horrific event, and I think the government have swung back too far, in their efforts to find balance. I think another government will probably react to that by swinging it back too far the other way. And so on. hopefully, one day, a government will find a balance between the two. I'd expect it to have more constraints than the pre 9/11 America, but it won't be a police state by a long shot.

-Andrew

[Stellafane]

Call me stupid, but i´m working on that. :D Do you think
that "somethings rotten in state of denmark" concerning
the foreknowledge and coverup? pm? For me it looks like a
real chance to find something - and i´m no LIHOP, MIHOP,
HIBOB, HIPHOP at all. Still searching...

No Oliver, I won't call you stupid. But I will say that the theories pushed by Childlike Empress, Loose Change, and the entire CTist community certainly are. 9/11 has got to be the most well-observed, well-documented, well-understood, well-explained, and public event in the history of mankind. Everything points to the official explanation -- that 19 identified Middle Eastern terrorists carried out the plot as observed by millions of people -- being correct. Nothing points to it being an inside job. It's as simple as that. With so many things in this world to which one could devote time and effort to that would benefit society, it's such a waste for anyone to spend a single second persuing the phantom pixels and shadows that exist only in the minds of CTists.

A few members of the victim's families may feel there's more to 9/11 than meets the eye. Given the sheer numbers involved -- probably many thousands, considering all the people that died -- it would be surprising if it were otherwise. Most victim comments that I've seen, however, condemn the CTists and their theories. One said something to the effect that the only thing Loose Change got right about 9/11 was the date. It is my utter conviction that if anyone is doing any mocking of victims, it's not those of use who disagree with the CTists.

[gumboot]

A few members of the victim's families may feel there's more to 9/11 than meets the eye. Given the sheer numbers involved -- probably many thousands, considering all the people that died -- it would be surprising if it were otherwise.


Given the Average american family has 2.3 children, that's an average of 3.3 immediate family-unit members for each victim, or 9,886.8 in total - and that's just immediate family members.

If 1% of Americans believed in some form of 9/11 CT, that would mean you'd expect almost 100 of the direct family-unit relatives of the victims to believe in some form of 9/11 CT too.

-Andrew

[CptColumbo]

As I've said before, for me the only gaping hole in the "official story" is why Bush remained where he was so long. That's a decision someone in the Secret Service made, and I've never ehard why. I'd like to know. Otherwise, the entire storyline fits together, in my opinion.


From what I understand, the President was asked to wait there until the building was secure and the route back to Air Force One was secure. Since the President's visit was public knowledge, it would not be unreasonable to think that the attacks might lead to an attack on where the President was.

As an example of how they secure the route, I'll tell you of my own personal experiences. A couple of years ago I was moving to Mankato, MN. Unfortunately, I chose the day that Pres. Bush was going to visit the Vikings training camp to move. My sister, who until recently had lived near a military base, was helping me, she paused a moment and said "blackhawks." Then two Blackhawk helicopters flew directly overhead, about 100 ft off the ground. If this level of security was true for Presidential Motorcades prior to 9/11, this is probably one of the things they had to set in motion before they could get him to Air Force One. Also, during the Carter Administration, I saw Air Force One at the airport terminal that would later be named for the man Pres. Carter was visiting (former VP Hubert H. Humphrey). He never left the tarmac, but gave a speach from the base of the steps. Meanwhile, helicopters were flying nearby. I was about 8 years old then, so can't tell you what kind they were.

[LashL]

Now watch this video:

Well, that was a waste of 85 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. There appears to be nothing new or recent in that video except for some of the shots of a few family members of victims . It left me with the distinct impression that it was created a few years ago, shelved, and then with the 5th anniversary approaching, someone dusted it off and added some current human interest shots but didn't bother to update the "factual" content and didn't bother to add any current factual content.

It also struck me as odd that the entire premise of the video seems to be that "the media never covered this" while basing everything in the video upon reports from the very same media that purportedly "never covered this".

[CptColumbo]

You want to talk about mocking victims? How about Photoshopping feces onto images of the victims' graves?

WTF?! Where did this happen?

I hope all of us here at the JREF Forum, while we may be driven to mock the CTer and their CTs, we never the victims and the event itself.

[Dog Town]

WTF?! Where did this happen?


Think Kkk Clown! Shanks crater.

[Oliver]

This may be a language barrier thing, but a statement like that worries me. Why would you specifically look for evidence of a particular thing? Surely the point of investigation is to gather ALL evidence and base a conclusion on that, not go hunting for specific evidence that supports a given point of view.

Because i´m far more interested in "who did and who was involved"
instead of "was there a plane or not"-kind of stuff, wich has not much
to do with each other. You know: even if someone finds evidence, for
example chemical evidence for bombs, it would´nt bring someone further.
And they have to look into the "involvement"-side anyway. So i skip
these - for me useless parts. But i would appreciate if you think it´s
important nevertheless and why.

The choice for the US is, do we continue being as free as we want to be, and simply absorb a 9/11 attack every now and then, do we have a back-lash and become a sort of police state, or do we try find a balance?

You gave me a lot of ideas to think about and to include in my part
of research but you have to excuse me, that i don´t want to speculate
on that right now, you know - new, knewing to less and still learning.

But let me ask this: what about the fourth option to the gov to strike a
new path: the pre-9/11 constitution but a more friendly curse in it´s
foreign policy. I wonder why they don´t choose this option. (maybe a
key for some hate against america).

I keep your information in my mind during my time to catch up with all
things i missed so far, Andrew - and i also would appreciate if i may ask
you questions when i find something that does not sum up.

Thank you very much.

@Stellafane: I don´t think it that it was´nt the 19 Terrorists and i don´t
agree with most parts of LC and co. But as i said. New to the issue,
highly interested and still learing.

@lashL: Do something usefull - debunk it to its atoms and
write a book about it, please. I would buy it right now. :D
Was: "He's just another phony"

[gumboot]

But i would appreciate if you think it´s
important nevertheless and why.


Sorry, I'm meaning specific evidence hunting. In other words...

I might look for evidence for who carried out 9/11. And That might evidence might point to Al Qaeda.

A CTer will ignore all that evidence, and specifically (and only) look for evidence (no matter how questionable) that the US government carried out 9/11.




But let me ask this: what about the fourth option to the gov to strike a
new path: the pre-9/11 constitution but a more friendly curse in it´s
foreign policy. I wonder why they don´t choose this option. (maybe a
key for some hate against america).


I'm not sure that foreign policy is relevant. The question is how well the USA was protected from threats. I suppose you could add a fourth option that the USA could downgrade their security even further and become MORE free, but I can't really see anyone thinking that's a good idea...




and i also would appreciate if i may ask you questions when i find something that does not sum up.


Of course. You will find the many knowledgable members of JREF (far more knowledgable than me!) are quick to provide answers to genuine questions.

-Andrew

[LashL]

@lashL: Do something usefull - debunk it to its atoms and
write a book about it, please. I would buy it right now. :D


Either you haven't been paying attention or you deliberately misconstrued what I wrote. What I said is that there is nothing new in the "press for truth" video (other than the additions of the more recent human interest bits), that it all appears to be based on old news, and that it's odd that its main premise is that the news has not been reported by the media even while it cites the very same media as its sources.

Did you not understand my post or are you deliberately trying to be a jerk with your unresponsive response and your wholly inappropriate grinning smiley face?

[Oliver]

Sorry, I'm meaning specific evidence hunting. In other words... I might look for evidence for who carried out 9/11. And That might evidence might point to Al Qaeda. A CTer will ignore all that evidence, and specifically (and only) look for evidence (no matter how questionable) that the US government carried out 9/11.

Well, Al Quaida seems to be a "hard nut" if the gov itself did´nt
find enough dots to blaim the hijackings on Osama. It would be
great to have a Forum with lot of foreign people with their different
languages to find far more about the events. There might be a lot of
things in articles, we all just can´t read. How multilingual is this board
in terms of members? (general question)

I'm not sure that foreign policy is relevant. The question is how well the USA was protected from threats. I suppose you could add a fourth option that the USA could downgrade their security even further and become MORE free, but I can't really see anyone thinking that's a good idea...

Mhmm, i think the reasons for the attack on 9/11 was americas
foreign policy. So it looks very relevant to me. No matter if LIHOP,
MIHOP or "WHATHAPPEND" was the case.

Of course. You will find the many knowledgable members of JREF (far more knowledgable than me!) are quick to provide answers to genuine questions. Andrew

Thanks, Andrew. I keep an eye to the other threads, too
- to get a better picture who´s knowledgable in here. Hard
to differ right now.

[Oliver]

Either you haven't been paying attention or you deliberately misconstrued what I wrote. What I said is that there is nothing new in the "press for truth" video (other than the additions of the more recent human interest bits), that it all appears to be based on old news, and that it's odd that its main premise is that the news has not been reported by the media even while it cites the very same media as its sources.

Did you not understand my post or are you deliberately trying to be a jerk with your unresponsive response and your wholly inappropriate grinning smiley face?

:D (Quote this too, please: ("He's just another phony."))

[CptColumbo]

I'm afraid there is a language problem here. There are some Quebecois posters, and a few others from continental Europe.

Oliver, what are you saying? Please spell it out for us, or you could start your own thread for non-English speakers. I don't think there is any rule against that, but be sure to double-check that.

[Oliver]

I'm afraid there is a language problem here. There are some Quebecois posters, and a few others from continental Europe.

Oliver, what are you saying? Please spell it out for us, or you could start your own thread for non-English speakers. I don't think there is any rule against that, but be sure to double-check that.


Sorry Coloumbo. My message was a response to a personal
attack of him - earlier in this thread (#44)

[gumboot]

Well, Al Quaida seems to be a "hard nut" if the gov itself did´nt find enough dots to blaim the hijackings on Osama.

They did.



Mhmm, i think the reasons for the attack on 9/11 was americas
foreign policy. So it looks very relevant to me. No matter if LIHOP,
MIHOP or "WHATHAPPEND" was the case.

Well if it was MIHOP you can hardly argue it was a result of American foreign policy. Al Qaeda attacked the USA because they hate the west, and the USA is the most visible symbol of the west. Simple that.

US Foreign Policy during Clinton's admin was increasingly withdrawn (relatively speaking).

-Andrew

[Oliver]

I´m astound, Andrew.

They did.

I will investigate this later.

Well if it was MIHOP you can hardly argue it was a result of American foreign policy. Al Qaeda attacked the USA because they hate the west, and the USA is the most visible symbol of the west. Simple that.

US Foreign Policy during Clinton's admin was increasingly withdrawn (relatively speaking).

-Andrew

As far i can argue as an german citizen, all i´ve ever heard
is, that nobody really was wondering why this happened.

Even if the whole world was shocked and we never heard
of Al Quaida or Osama Bin Laden before...

People talked even years before 9/11 about the us
foreign policy and felt it is wrong. Also in the Media there
were reports about all the "Install- Deinstall leaders"-
politics, wich build this position here.

And i know from muslim people, too, that this mind
exits in their head and in the muslim world, too.

But i can only speak for my expieriences, i don´t
know if this mind exists everywhere in europe.

I´m confused. No kidding.

ADDED:

And because you did´nt know that, what did you
Guys in here think, was the reason for Al Quaidas
hate???

[Oliver]

Would it be annoying anyone if i ask this in a new
thread. I really would like to know what people
from other countries have to say to this?

I ask you because you know the people in
here better than me...

[gumboot]

Would it be annoying anyone if i ask this in a new
thread. I really would like to know what people
from other countries have to say to this?

I ask you because you know the people in
here better than me...


I think that would be better suited to the politics subforum.

Osama bin Laden cites his main grievance against the US being their presence in Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia invited US forces into the country after Iraq invaded Kuwait).

However he also also offered up any other excuse that is available, and has, on a number of occasions, demanded that the entire US convert to Islam.

What they present as arguments is actually irrelevant. All that matters is what they are saying amongst themselves.

Al Qaeda's stated goal in their training manual is as follows:


The main mission for which the Military Organization is responsible is:

The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime. Other missions consist of the following:

1. Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors.
2. Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.
3. Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.
4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.
5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.
6. Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.
7. Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.
8. Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities.

-The Al Qaeda Manual
First Lesson: General Introduction

As you can see, Al Qaeda's actions have nothing to do with foreign policy, and everything to do with religious extremism. Westerners need to stop making up excuses for their actions and confront the ugly truth about these people. Until we do we will never beat them.

-Andrew

[sleahead]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Mhmm, i think the reasons for the attack on 9/11 was americas
foreign policy. So it looks very relevant to me. No matter if LIHOP,
MIHOP or "WHATHAPPEND" was the case.

Oliver, please state which aspects of US foreign policy you consider relevant.

[gumboot]

I will investigate this later.


19 Hijackers have been identified from the four flights, all of whom are linked to Al Qaeda. Some of them have been with Al Qaeda for years. There is video of them meeting with Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - the mastermind of 9/11. Their "martyr tapes" are available on the internet. Al Qaeda has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attacks, and captured members have collaborated this.

The 9/11 attacks fits the Al Qaeda M.O. perfectly, and is a modified version of stage two of an earlier thwarted Al Qaeda plot called "Bojinka" (the recent thwarted London airline bombing plot is a fresh attempt at Bojinka One).

Zacarias Moussaoui, an Al Qaeda member and the so-called "20th Hijacker" is serving six life sentences for the following crimes:

Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy
Conspiracy to destroy aircraft
Conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction
Conspiracy to murder United States employees
Conspiracy to destroy property

As you can see, there is ample evidence that Al Qaeda committed 9/11. I recommend watching the video "The Usual Suspects" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu6pZ6BPSuo) created by a fellow JREFer named Karim.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Oliver
Oliver, please state which aspects of US foreign policy you consider relevant.

Every non-friendly intervention, especially military
intervention. I´m shocked - i really thought american
people knew why this happend. But i don´t want
to discuss this any further before i don´t get a
general picture of other people thoughts about
that. It´s not my intention to step into trouble.

All i can say is:

There is a general negative mind about american
foreign policy -where i live-. And i´m talking about
foreign politics, not american people.

[Dora]

Wow, my first post :)
I’m not as educated as you people so I tend to lurk

Since I saw several remarks from Childlike Empress “We need an independent international investigation of 9/11” (or the likes) I’m very glad to inform her that the Technical University of Delft (The Netherlands) has been studying the possibility if the attacks of 9/11 could have been the works of an American conspiracy.

They will be presenting their findings more detailed this afternoon, but the main findings are that – hang on to your seats here – the collapse of the WTC and the damage on the pentagon has been caused by airliners crashing into them.

I’ll keep an eye on this, since their site has an English part too, I assume there will be an English version for you non-Dutch speakers, as soon as any info about it pops up on their site, I’ll post a direct link (just got a message I need to post a bit more to do that so I’ll do my best k. )

[Oliver]

As you can see, there is ample evidence that Al Qaeda committed 9/11. I recommend watching the video "The Usual Suspects" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu6pZ6BPSuo) created by a fellow JREFer named Karim.
-Andrew

I know all about this, Andrew. I meant about the
FBI-site, wich seems to have still not enough proof
to blame so for the hijackings.

Maybe this is also discussed and disproofed before.
But i had no time until now to read more about it.

But thank you for your help, Andrew. I appreciate
that you take that time of yours, really. :)

[The_Fire]

Wow, my first post :)
I’m not as educated as you people so I tend to lurk

Since I saw several remarks from Childlike Empress “We need an independent international investigation of 9/11” (or the likes) I’m very glad to inform her that the Technical University of Delft (The Netherlands) has been studying the possibility if the attacks of 9/11 could have been the works of an American conspiracy.

They will be presenting their findings more detailed this afternoon, but the main findings are that – hang on to your seats here – the collapse of the WTC and the damage on the pentagon has been caused by airliners crashing into them.

I’ll keep an eye on this, since their site has an English part too, I assume there will be an English version for you non-Dutch speakers, as soon as any info about it pops up on their site, I’ll post a direct link (just got a message I need to post a bit more to do that so I’ll do my best k. )

Just post with out the http://www part. And welcome.

[gumboot]

Every non-friendly intervention, especially military
intervention. I´m shocked - i really thought american
people knew why this happend. But i don´t want
to discuss this any further before i don´t get a
general picture of other people thoughts about
that. It´s not my intention to step into trouble.


Oliver you should have no fear of "stepping into trouble". You are entitled to your opinion, and for the most part the members of JREF will respect your opinions. You will only run into fierce resistance if you make unsupported claims and refuse to withdraw them when proven false.

Or if you post in a Palestine/Israel thread... ;)

I think Americans are well aware that there is strong criticism of them throughout the world. Most of that criticism, IMHO, is not justified. But that's just my opinion. :)

What I don't agree with is that Al Qaeda is motivated by this. They use it as an excuse and a justification, but in my opinion what motives them (by their own words as I posted above) is a desire to establish a Muslim caliphate "from Spain to Indonesia". According to their own beliefs, it is prophecised that Allah will not come to earth until the entire globe follow Islam. For whatever reason they are keen to see Allah returning to earth ASAP.

If you have any doubts about Al Qaeda's true identity I suggest you track down the Al Qaeda Manual and have a read of it. It's a rather eye-opening document.

Another I would recommend would be the Muslim Brotherhood document entitled "The Project". You can read a translation here (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415).

-Andrew

[gumboot]

I know all about this, Andrew.I meant about the
FBI-site, wich seems to have still not enough proof to blame so for the hijackings.

Maybe this is also discussed and disproofed before.
But i had no time until now to read more about it.

But thank you for your help, Andrew. I appreciate
that you take that time of yours, really. :)


The problem with the FBI site is they can only list people as wanted who have been indicted for crimes. That is, formal charges have been brought to bear. As you probably know, the western world has very stringent and robust requirements for evidence in our courts, to ensure people are not falsely accused and convicted.

This means lots of evidence is not acceptable. In the case of people like Osama bin Laden, the evidence that exists is sufficient to prove him guilty in a "common" sense - in that we may amongst ourselves look at the facts and go "yup he did it" but this same evidence cannot be used to lay charges against him (most of it, I gather, is due to the chain of custody requirements for all evidence). As such, he cannot be indicted, and thus the FBI cannot add details specifically about 9/11 to his wanted poster (hence the referral to "other terrorist attacks").

It's like if a cop catches a guy in the act of killing someone, but forgets to say his rights properly, or whatever.

I am sure someone here more familiar with the US legal system than me can provide a more thorough and more useful explanation for how it all works.

-Andrew

[Dora]

Every non-friendly intervention, especially military
intervention. I´m shocked - i really thought american
people knew why this happend. But i don´t want
to discuss this any further before i don´t get a
general picture of other people thoughts about
that. It´s not my intention to step into trouble.

All i can say is:

There is a general negative mind about american
foreign policy -where i live-. And i´m talking about
foreign politics, not american people.

Well, Oliver, since I'm not American either (born in Germany, live in Belgium now) I do understand your question to the American people.
I just think you are confusing the American news with what American people think.
The few American friends I have and with who I discussed the issue, they do realise their governments actions have been one of the reasons (if not one of the biggest)
the other reason being of course that the people that commited these crimes are fanatics - the kind of fanatic that thinks for example having your women running around on the streets not covered up from top to bottom is a sin because they might tempt the men into sinning.
For the people that do not agree with our way of living (you know,equal rights for everyone - I'm not even going to go into the "who's praying to the correct god" part) America is the most clear example of their so much dispised western way of living.

I know a lot of people in Europe think America had this coming, I'm one of them, but that does not mean I have been cheering when it happened, tbh, the first minute, I was really waiting for Bruce Willis to jump into the picture and it all being a commercial for DIE HARD 5 (or something)
when the truth hit me I tried calling my husband at work and was bawling so hard it took him a while to understand what I was saying.

[Oliver]

Oliver you should have no fear of "stepping into trouble". You are entitled to your opinion, and for the most part the members of JREF will respect your opinions. You will only run into fierce resistance if you make unsupported claims and refuse to withdraw them when proven false.
Another I would recommend would be the Muslim Brotherhood document entitled "The Project". You can read a translation here (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415).

-Andrew

You´re from New Zealand, Andrew. Not America. And it´s a
general question about 9/11. I would prefer to ask that
in here - also because this is a more international forum
then politics with just americans in it.

It´s an international question i have.

[Dora]

ok, going to clarify the had it comming a bit since I can't seem to get this foot out of my mouth now.

the way I see it was that America being so proud of never having fought a war on their own soil it was almost inevitable that some fanatic attacked them.
well, at least, that's how I see it, can't speak for all the others of course.

[Oliver]

I know a lot of people in Europe think America had this coming, I'm one of them, but that does not mean I have been cheering when it happened, tbh, the first minute, I was really waiting for Bruce Willis to jump into the picture and it all being a commercial for DIE HARD 5 (or something)
when the truth hit me I tried calling my husband at work and was bawling so hard it took him a while to understand what I was saying.

Hello Dora and welcome to the forum, as well. :)

I´m sorry, i could´nt translate "dispised".

This day, i was surfing
the Internet for hours before i switched the television
on and did´nt realized it, i did´nt want to see bad news,
"a burning skyscraper" so i switched to another channel,
the same thing, other channel, same thing.

I turned my tv louder, sat down and listened for
i don´t know how long. And when i realized what happend,
it was like a hit in the face - even if i did´nt understand
it completly - till now.

I even don´t remember who i´ve called or what i did the
rest of the day.

[Oliver]

ok, going to clarify the had it comming a bit since I can't seem to get this foot out of my mouth now.

the way I see it was that America being so proud of never having fought a war on their own soil it was almost inevitable that some fanatic attacked them.
well, at least, that's how I see it, can't speak for all the others of course.

Yeah, that´s the same way the people around and me
thought about it. But it was a horrible shock. I remind
that the people in my firm did´nt talk about it for
some days. They all "worked" on that issue.

[Oliver]

I just think you are confusing the American news with what American people think.

I´m sorry, Dora - i lost the context to referring to "people-media".
Why do you think i´m confused between people and media?
I was confused that Andrew did´nt thought "america had it´s coming".
I automatically thought if he does´nt know that beeing a lot
of time in here as "Neuseeländer" - the americans might think the same".

[sleahead]

Every non-friendly intervention, especially military
intervention. I´m shocked - i really thought american
people knew why this happend

Oliver, Please elaborate on this. BTW, I'm not american.

[Oliver]

Oliver, Please elaborate on this. BTW, I'm not american.

Sorry, i´m wrong with "why it was happend". Doras
translation (was:explanation) is the better explanation because her
higher english skills.

[sleahead]

Sorry, Oilver, what I was looking for is more details on this:

Every non-friendly intervention, especially military
intervention

[gumboot]

You´re from New Zealand, Andrew. Not America. And it´s a general question about 9/11. I would prefer to ask that
in here - also because this is a more international forum
then politics with just americans in it.

It´s an international question i have.


Yes I know I am from New Zealand. :)

Sorry, what is the specific 9/11 related question? I may have missed it, for which I apologise.

Also, I think you will be pleasantly surprised to discover there are a wide range of nationalities heavily involved in the politics subforum. Certainly there are many Americans, but I get the impression the majority of this entire forum are Americans. Still, there are very vocal folks from around the globe.

:)

-Andrew

[Oliver]

Sorry, Oilver, what I looking for is more details on this:

And i said:

"But i don´t want to discuss this any further before i don´t get a
general picture of other people thoughts about
that. It´s not my intention to step into trouble."

But let me ask where do you come from and
what do you guys thought that days on and
after 9/11? I think you know exactly the same
about interventions then me, i guess even more
since i´m not very political at all, if you live in
an european country.

[gumboot]

Why do you think i´m confused between people and media?
I was confused that Andrew did´nt thought "america had it´s coming".
I automatically thought if he does´nt know that beeing a lot
of time in here as "Neuseeländer" - the americans might think the same".


Oliver are you saying it was inevitable that this attack would occur? If you are, I agree totally, and apologise for my misunderstanding.

The phrase "had it coming" is more commonly used to imply that the attack was somehow deserved. Hence my feelings that the US did not "have it coming". However I agree an attack was inevitable - indeed it was not the first Al Qaeda attack on American soil. I also do not expect 9/11 to be the last.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

Yes I know I am from New Zealand. :)

Sorry, what is the specific 9/11 related question? I may have missed it, for which I apologise.

Also, I think you will be pleasantly surprised to discover there are a wide range of nationalities heavily involved in the politics subforum. Certainly there are many Americans, but I get the impression the majority of this entire forum are Americans. Still, there are very vocal folks from around the globe.

:)

-Andrew

The general Question was: (especially to non-american people)

Did you wonder that 9/11 happend? And if not. Why?

[gumboot]

The general Question was: (especially to non-american people)

Did you wonder that 9/11 happend? And if not. Why?


Sorry, just to clarify...

Are you meaning, were we surprised that the attack happened? Or are you meaning something more like, did we ask outselves at all WHY the terrorists had attacked the US?

-Andrew

Edited for clarity.

[Oliver]

Oliver are you saying it was inevitable that this attack would occur? If you are, I agree totally, and apologise for my misunderstanding.

The phrase "had it coming" is more commonly used to imply that the attack was somehow deserved. Hence my feelings that the US did not "have it coming". However I agree an attack was inevitable - indeed it was not the first Al Qaeda attack on American soil. I also do not expect 9/11 to be the last.

-Andrew

No, i did not think that it was time that this occours.
I said that nobody really wondered in the aftermath,
that someday something like this must happen with
their foreign policy. That´s what people here thought
about it. Sorry, maybe i can not translate it the same
was as i would say it in german.

[sleahead]

Oliver, you made this statement:

Mhmm, i think the reasons for the attack on 9/11 was americas
foreign policy. So it looks very relevant to me. No matter if LIHOP,
MIHOP or "WHATHAPPEND" was the case

I cannot see why you should not provide details as to why you believe this to be so.

[Oliver]

Sorry, just to clarify...

Are you meaning, were we surprised that the attack happened? Or are you meaning something more like, did we ask outselves at all WHY the terrorists had attacked the US?

-Andrew

Edited for clarity.

I´m sorry, Andrew - both of these points, i think.
The first point in the aftermath. But as i said, it´s
hard to translate nuances in my sentences. This is
why there is a problem in understanding in here.

Maybe Dora is able to translate it better, just be-
cause she said the same thing and translated it
far better then me.

[gumboot]

Oliver,

Is perhaps, your proposal that the United States was throwing its weight around, all about the globe, doing as it please, interferring in other nations, and as such it made a lot of people angry, and really the US should have known some of those angry people would hit back?

-Andrew

[Oliver]

Oliver, Is perhaps, your proposal that the United States was throwing its weight around, all about the globe, doing as it please, interferring in other nations, and as such it made a lot of people angry, and really the US should have known some of those angry people would hit back?
-Andrew

If "doing as it please" means "doing for fun", then
this is not what i meant.

The rest is true:
People here thought that way - if i don´t make mistakes in
Phrases like "throwing weights around". I don´t know typical
english phrases you all are familiar with - so i have to guess
instead knowing. U know?

[sleahead]

To put it simply, Oliver, which non-military and military interventions are you taliking about?

[gumboot]

If "doing as it please" means "doing for fun", then
this is not what i meant.

The rest is true:
People here thought that way - if i don´t make mistakes in
Phrases like "throwing weights around". I don´t know typical
english phrases you all are familiar with - so i have to guess
instead knowing. U know?


"Doing as it please" means more "doing as it wants".

Fear not. Your English is far superior to my Deutsch! :)

Now we're on the same page. :)

In short, no I don't think that (and didn't after 9/11, although one of my first thoughts was that a lot of people would think that)

The main reason is I don't agree with the stance that the USA has been throwing its weight around. Quite the opposite. The thing is, the USA's relationship to the rest of the world has a long history. I don't think it's appropriate to look at it purely in the context of recent history.

Now, before I go further, let me just make it clear, YES, there have been times when the US ahs done stuff it had no place doing. It has interferred in other countries. It has thrown its weight about. It has made a lot of people angry. It is primarily concerned with its own interests. But what I am interested in a general trend. I am sure a German, of all people, can appreciate that it is unfair to judge an entire nation based on the actions of a single administration. :)

Germany was the setting for the most destructive and horrible administration in human history. But that was only for a few years, and it was decades ago. It would be as unfair to judge Germany on Nazism as it would be to judge the USA on its dealings in Iran in the 1950's with Operation Ajax (as an example). I love German people. I lived with a pair of Germans for a year or so, and they are still dear friends to me. I don't even know rightly WHY I like German people so much. But every German I have ever met I have just really liked.

So what I am looking for is a trend.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

To put it simply, Oliver, which non-military and military interventions are you taliking about?

Do you work for the FBI? ;) What makes you care about it?
If you still try to bore me after i allready made my point, you´re
my very first guest on my ignore-list.

[sleahead]

Do you work for the FBI? ;) What makes you care about it?
If you still try to bore me after i allready made my point, you´re
my very first guest on my ignore-list.

I thought we're supposed to exchange views and ideas on this forum. Perhaps, I was wrong. Sorry if asking you to clarify your reasoning bores you, but that is how we make progress in discussion.

[Oliver]

"Doing as it please" means more "doing as it wants".

Fear not. Your English is far superior to my Deutsch! :)

Now we're on the same page. :)

In short, no I don't think that (and didn't after 9/11, although one of my first thoughts was that a lot of people would think that)

The main reason is I don't agree with the stance that the USA has been throwing its weight around. Quite the opposite. The thing is, the USA's relationship to the rest of the world has a long history. I don't think it's appropriate to look at it purely in the context of recent history.

Now, before I go further, let me just make it clear, YES, there have been times when the US ahs done stuff it had no place doing. It has interferred in other countries. It has thrown its weight about. It has made a lot of people angry. It is primarily concerned with its own interests. But what I am interested in a general trend. I am sure a German, of all people, can appreciate that it is unfair to judge an entire nation based on the actions of a single administration. :)

Germany was the setting for the most destructive and horrible administration in human history. But that was only for a few years, and it was decades ago. It would be as unfair to judge Germany on Nazism as it would be to judge the USA on its dealings in Iran in the 1950's with Operation Ajax (as an example). I love German people. I lived with a pair of Germans for a year or so, and they are still dear friends to me. I don't even know rightly WHY I like German people so much. But every German I have ever met I have just really liked.

So what I am looking for is a trend.

-Andrew

I agree with what you say - but there is a general, "public
mind" that america is digging to deep in other countries interests.
And the reasons for this "public mind" are such things, you refer as
"done stuff it had no place doing". But anyway: I don´t talk very
much about american politics, you hear such ideas if someone talks
about american foreign politics. For example: People here would´nt
wonder if there were military operations to "get rid of the iran"-problem.

After going to irak without UN-support, america as military
dominance is getting something dangerous to many people.
Another thing is Quantanamo without any international laws.
This kind of stuff is an invitation to all kind of CT, like
the "New World Order"-stuff.

And i ´m not even able to realize what the muslim world must
think with their non-western media and rare knowledges
about the western world.

All in all - the middle east is something people and media
use to call: "A hot iron" - something you should´nt touch
or handle with extreme care - ...tending to "not touch".

[Oliver]

I thought we're supposed to exchange views and ideas on this forum. Perhaps, I was wrong. Sorry if asking you to clarify your reasoning bores you, but that is how we make progress in discussion.

It does not bore me very much, but i thought it
was a strange question from a non-american
guy. However - it´s going really off-topic in
here.

[Dora]

The main reason is I don't agree with the stance that the USA has been throwing its weight around. Quite the opposite. The thing is, the USA's relationship to the rest of the world has a long history. I don't think it's appropriate to look at it purely in the context of recent history.

-Andrew

well, I actually agree with this as well. But with a slight difference.
I think America has been throwing it's weight around BUT if there are situations where military interventions are necessary, the Western World also turns to America to throw their weight in, if you get what I mean.

It's imo a way to have a "clear" consciense, so yes, it's a bit hypocrit to first except America to come and help us, then blame them for being such warmongers.

Ah, and thanks to all for the warm welcome

[sleahead]

Ok, no more questions from me...

but i thought it
was a strange question from a non-american
guy

....leaves me speechless.

[Dora]

Maybe Dora is able to translate it better, just be-
cause she said the same thing and translated it
far better then me.


Well, like mentioned in the private message, if you feel your english doesn't bring your idea clearly across I'll be happy to help you out, but I don't like to assume I know what you mean,

I suggest you just put what you think it should be in english and add the (in germany we say XXX) and I'll be happy to translate.

just inform me in private message when you have done this, cause I don't feel like stalking you around the board :p

[Oliver]

Well, like mentioned in the private message, if you feel your english doesn't bring your idea clearly across I'll be happy to help you out, but I don't like to assume I know what you mean,

I suggest you just put what you think it should be in english and add the (in germany we say XXX) and I'll be happy to translate.

just inform me in private message when you have done this, cause I don't feel like stalking you around the board :p

Hä? :-D Achso, ich glaub ich hab´s...

But i thought you might have some of your own opinions
to the thread and the discussion, anyway. ;)

[gumboot]

well, I actually agree with this as well. But with a slight difference.
I think America has been throwing it's weight around BUT if there are situations where military interventions are necessary, the Western World also turns to America to throw their weight in, if you get what I mean.

It's imo a way to have a "clear" consciense, so yes, it's a bit hypocrit to first except America to come and help us, then blame them for being such warmongers.

Ah, and thanks to all for the warm welcome



I thoroughly agree with you. If you look at the majort American military actions post-WW2 there's a pattern of the USA basically doing the UN's dirty work.

We must remember the UN's number one primary absolute task is military intervention. Their primary job is to use military force to prevent threats to world security and stability.

And yet, if we look at the permenant members of the UN security council - the leaders of this quest for world stability - only the UK and the USA have consistantly provided significant forces to contain threats. France's only major contribution to a UN mission was the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. This is shocking, considering how furiously France fought to be included as a permenant member of the Security Council.

The Soviet Union and China have both consistantly failed to provide troops to the UN - indeed in the Korean War China fought AGAINST the UN.

The UN is suffering from the same fate the League of Nations did - loud words, but no actions to back them up. This led to World War Two, with the LoN. The USA seems determined to avoid that happening again, thus is bearing the brunt of UN military action. The US is one of the few members of the UN that takes Chapter VII of the Charter seriously.

I can hardly blame them, therefore, if they pick and choose which scenarios to get involved in.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

I thoroughly agree with you. If you look at the majort American military actions post-WW2 there's a pattern of the USA basically doing the UN's dirty work.

We must remember the UN's number one primary absolute task is military intervention. Their primary job is to use military force to prevent threats to world security and stability.

And yet, if we look at the permenant members of the UN security council - the leaders of this quest for world stability - only the UK and the USA have consistantly provided significant forces to contain threats. France's only major contribution to a UN mission was the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. This is shocking, considering how furiously France fought to be included as a permenant member of the Security Council.

The Soviet Union and China have both consistantly failed to provide troops to the UN - indeed in the Korean War China fought AGAINST the UN.

The UN is suffering from the same fate the League of Nations did - loud words, but no actions to back them up. This led to World War Two, with the LoN. The USA seems determined to avoid that happening again, thus is bearing the brunt of UN military action. The US is one of the few members of the UN that takes Chapter VII of the Charter seriously.

I can hardly blame them, therefore, if they pick and choose which scenarios to get involved in.

-Andrew


I know what you´re saying, Andrew. It´s just that a lot
of people like me want to see more peace in the world.
Making war to make peace is not what these people
mean with their hearts.

And do you know why i personally feel this way?

Because of the Holocaust.

This must never happen again.

[Diazo]

I know what you´re saying, Andrew. It´s just that a lot
of people like me want to see more peace in the world.
Making war to make peace is not what these people
mean with their hearts.

And do you know why i personally feel this way?

Because of the Holocaust.

This must never happen again.

Except that another holocaust is almost exactly what these people want.

They are not attacking us in defense, or because we are doing something morally wrong, they are attacking us because we do not follow their definition of Islam.

These people do not want peace, and it takes both sides to achieve peace. They are going to attack us, even if we don't want them to.

Which means we either fight back, or let them roll over us. Since we are fighting back turns into a war, which pretty much puts us where we are today.

Almost everyone in the world does want peace, it's just these few people don't. Therefore they attack us, forcing us to defend ourselves and keeping us from being at peace.

[Belz...]

I followed the development of this whole mess since the first day and the unanswered questions asked in this film are quite exactly my questions that lead me to be 100% convinced that the official story is bogus.

100% ? So, you're close-minded, you say ?

The people on this forum are falling for deception. They still debunk question asked by con artists. It's sad to see how deep your cognitive dissonance goes.

I love it when kooks dish out that term.

@gummi: Sorry, forget to name your agenda. A very sophisticated kind of fear mongering.

Fear ? Terrorists of all kinda have caused trouble around the world for who knows how long! Terrorists ARE a threat, and islamic terrorists, fueled by religion, are even more dangerous, in my opinion. Or do you contend that they ARE just cave-dwelling barbarians ?

[gumboot]

I know what you´re saying, Andrew. It´s just that a lot
of people like me want to see more peace in the world.
Making war to make peace is not what these people
mean with their hearts.

And do you know why i personally feel this way?

Because of the Holocaust.

This must never happen again.


In that case we need to learn from history. How did the holocaust happen? Because the world sat there for a decade and watched while Hitler rose to power, and did NOTHING, in the interests of peace.

Something to think about.

-Andrew

[Belz...]

I'm afraid there is a language problem here. There are some Quebecois posters, and a few others from continental Europe.

Ain't a problem for me.

[Oliver]

Except that another holocaust is almost exactly what these people want.

They are not attacking us in defense, or because we are doing something morally wrong, they are attacking us because we do not follow their definition of Islam.

These people do not want peace, and it takes both sides to achieve peace. They are going to attack us, even if we don't want them to.

Which means we either fight back, or let them roll over us. Since we are fighting back turns into a war, which pretty much puts us where we are today.

Almost everyone in the world does want peace, it's just these few people don't. Therefore they attack us, forcing us to defend ourselves and keeping us from being at peace.

You don´t understand whats going on the planet
if you did´nt understood the thread so far. Nothing
personal at all.

[Oliver]

In that case we need to learn from history. How did the holocaust happen? Because the world sat there for a decade and watched while Hitler rose to power, and did NOTHING, in the interests of peace.

Something to think about.

-Andrew

It happend because nobody wanted to see it.
Many even did´nt now what´s happening or
what happens exactly in the camps.

I don´t compare these to things, but the whole
world thinks it´s wrong to invade iraq or violate
international laws in Guantanamo, or the depleted
uranium. We in germany are upset about this and
i know this from muslim friends, too - and their
worries are much bigger, because it is muslim
ground, not european.

It´s the way it started in germany. "Let´s see how
far we can go." - and if people are with us. And
somehow everything went out of control. The
Nazis had their "war on terror".

But keep in mind: i said started.

[gumboot]

It happend because nobody wanted to see it.
Many even did´nt now what´s happening or
what happens exactly in the camps.


both Churchill and FDR warned their countries. They got criticised for it. Churchill used to get locked out of parliament by his own party!

They all KNEW Hitler was an aggressor. They just convinced themselves if they buried their heads in the sand and gave him some more land, he'd stop. This is not a new trait. The Romans did exactly the same thing with the Goths.



I don´t compare these to things, but the whole
world thinks it´s wrong to invade iraq or violate
international laws in Guantanamo, or the depleted
uranium.


Woah, hold on there. First, not all the world agree that it's wrong to invade Iraq.

Second, what international laws are being violated at Guantanamo Bay?

Third, a vast amount of medical research has been done into Depleted Uranium by a number of different organisations. The health risks are considered minute.

In addition, while troops in the Gulf War suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, troops in Bosnia - also exposed to Depleted Uranium - have not experienced these symptoms. Logic says their illness is caused by something else.

Lastly, how does this relate to what we're talking about?




We in germany are upset about this and
i know this from muslim friends, too - and their
worries are much bigger, because it is muslim
ground, not european.

It´s the way it started in germany. "Let´s see how
far we can go." - and if people are with us. And
somehow everything went out of control. The
Nazis had their "war on terror".

But keep in mind: i said started.


Wait, so you're saying the AMERICANS are like the Nazis? :confused:

-Andrew

[Oliver]

both Churchill and FDR warned their countries. They got criticised for it. Churchill used to get locked out of parliament by his own party!
They all KNEW Hitler was an aggressor. They just convinced themselves if they buried their heads in the sand and gave him some more land, he'd stop. This is not a new trait. The Romans did exactly the same thing with the Goths.
Woah, hold on there. First, not all the world agree that it's wrong to invade Iraq.
Second, what international laws are being violated at Guantanamo Bay?
Third, a vast amount of medical research has been done into Depleted Uranium by a number of different organisations. The health risks are considered minute.
In addition, while troops in the Gulf War suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, troops in Bosnia - also exposed to Depleted Uranium - have not experienced these symptoms. Logic says their illness is caused by something else.
Lastly, how does this relate to what we're talking about?
Wait, so you're saying the AMERICANS are like the Nazis? :confused:

-Andrew

You did not read carefully or maybe you
think in a different way about it, Andrew.
I don´t know the news you get in the media.
Off course the americans are no nazis - that
was´nt my message.

BTW: I found this today concerning torture.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Today-Lauer-Bush.mov

General: Maybe some people from other countries
knows what i´m talking about and willing to share
it in here?

[twinstead]

Oliver just because something isn't in the American media doesn't make it automatically true. Media can be biased or even simply wrong no matter where it is from.

Even German media.

[gumboot]

You did not read carefully or maybe you
think in a different way about it, Andrew.
I don´t know the news you get in the media.
Off course the americans are no nazis - that
was´nt my message.


It kind of sounded like it... with the whole "we'll see if people go along" and "war on terror" references.

-Andrew

[Oliver]

It depends on wich side you stand to
claim - the ones on the other side are
the terrorists.

But you have to view it from a neutral
place to see: they´re both - or none
of them.

Like little kids - everyone claims: "He started."
"No, it was him". "Thats not true, he did it."

What do parents say in this case - from their
neutral position? "i don´t care who started..."
That´s exactly my point of view: I don´t care
what you say - because i don´t care who
started.

Think about it. I know you´re still in your old
position. Think neutral.

Added: Beside usa, 911, presidents, rights, terrorists,
al quaida and so on. Try to leave this side out of your
mind for a moment.

You may miss the other side right now, am i wrong?

[dirtywick]

You did not read carefully or maybe you
think in a different way about it, Andrew.
I don´t know the news you get in the media.
Off course the americans are no nazis - that
was´nt my message.



The news you get isn't dependant on where you live. I can open my internet browser and find any point of view I want on any topic I want in any language I want.

[Hellbound]

It depends on wich side you stand to
claim - the ones on the other side are
the terrorists.

But you have to view it from a neutral
place to see: they´re both - or none
of them.

No.

I find this not only wrong, but reprehensible and highly insulting, as well as showing an utter lack of the ability to apply a moral standard.

You are here equating the intentional targetting of civillians, with an intent to harm as many as possible, not for military reasons but to instill fear and terror, with a declared, above the board war that attempts to follow international laws of warfare?

You equate those of use who watched our friends get killed because of restrictive ROEs that would not allow us to shoot first with those who plant IEDs along roadways and set them off in the middle of a group of children, just because a HUMMV rolls by?

You equate the capture of an enemy military leader, who is then fed, cared for, and put on trial to be judged by his own countrymen with the capture of a non-combatant reporter or truck-driver, who is beheaded on camera for propoganda reasons?

I'm sorry, but you have just accused the entire U.S. of being terrorists, murderers, and torturers.
You have specifically accusssed me, as a member of the U.S military, of participating in these acts.

And you are wrong. You are biased. You are morally bankrupt.

The fact that you can't see a difference in the actions taken by the U.S. and those taken by Islamic fundamentalists simply proves this.

I can't begin to express mny utter contempt for your view on this, It is entirely without merit. It is unsupportable unless you slide so far into moral relativism that you'd allow genocide.

[Oliver]

No.I find this not only wrong, but reprehensible and highly insulting, as well as showing an utter lack of the ability to apply a moral standard.


You don´t understand it - i´m not talking about al quaida
or the usual terrorists thing. Read the thread again. Try
to read slowly if my translation is not perfect.

[Pardalis]

The 3000 victims of 9/11 didn't start the war, that's for damn sure.

[Oliver]

The 3000 victims of 9/11 didn't start the war, that's for damn sure.

I know that, Pardalis.

[Hellbound]

You don´t understand it - i´m not talking about al quaida
or the usual terrorists thing. Read the thread again. Try
to read slowly if my translation is not perfect.

Sorry, but now you're either trying to weasel out of responsibility for what you said, or you're just an idiot. Your exact words:

It depends on wich side you stand to
claim - the ones on the other side are
the terrorists.

But you have to view it from a neutral
place to see: they´re both - or none
of them.

Bolding mine.

So if we aren't talking about terrorists, why did you say you were?

[Oliver]

Sorry, but now you're either trying to weasel out of responsibility for what you said, or you're just an idiot. Your exact words:
Bolding mine.
So if we aren't talking about terrorists, why did you say you were?

Read it again if you don´t get it. It´s right in front of
you. So don´t bore me in a serious discussion if you
don´t know. I reply later to open questions. To all
of you who raise them.

[Pardalis]

Oliver, how can you be neutral when 3000 people are murdered?

[Hellbound]

Read it again if you don´t get it. It´s right in front of
you. So don´t bore me in a serious discussion if you
don´t know. I reply later to open questions. To all
of you who raise them.

Then I'm writing you off.

ALl it would take is a simple, clear statement of what you meant. Instead, you want to further insult me.

If you're talking about Iraq, the same thing applies. Iraq invaded and took over a soveriegn nation (Kuwait) for no reason. Iraq consistently and constantly violated the UN sanctions against it (those that authorized force) after Kuwait was liberated. Iraq conducted chemical weapons trials against it's own people. Iraq (specifically, Saddam) drive what was once a rising power in the Middle East into a third world nation. Saddam used torture amd intimidation against his own people, denied them the benefits of technology, disallowed freedom of speech and action, and forced compliance from the populace through various means.

Even this is an insult.

You are, at best, a moral relativist who does not have the cajones to actually take a stand, and you allow your prejudice against the U.S. to color your perception.

The U.S has done wrong, yes. But certain comparisons are not valid, yours among them.

Besides, even this doesn't apply. The U.S. never labelled the Iraqi citizens as terrorists, or even most of the Iraqi military. Only specific elements of the government and specific factions in the country, those we are still fighting (and those that are still targetting innocents, using children as shields, and attacking non-combatants).

One side is the terrorist, I've seen no justification for applying that label to the other side yet.

[Pardalis]

Let's see your post once again, I don't understand it.

It depends on wich side you stand to
claim - the ones on the other side are
the terrorists.

Well, when it comes to 9/11, the ones who perpetrated the attacks are terrorists. Maybe the terrorists see themselves as "freedom fighters", and think their attack was legitimate, but it was a terrorist attack.

But you have to view it from a neutral
place to see: they´re both - or none
of them.

What does that mean? Are you saying either everybody is a terrorist or nobody is?

Think about it. I know you´re still in your old
position. Think neutral.

Added: Beside usa, 911, presidents, rights, terrorists,
al quaida and so on. Try to leave this side out of your
mind for a moment.

Then what are we talking about?

You may miss the other side right now, am i wrong?

If you leave everything out, what is the other side?

[Oliver]

Let's see your post once again, I don't understand it. Well, when it comes to 9/11, the ones who perpetrated the attacks are terrorists. Maybe the terrorists see themselves as "freedom fighters", and think their attack was legitimate, but it was a terrorist attack.
What does that mean? Are you saying either everybody is a terrorist or nobody is?Then what are we talking about?If you leave everything out, what is the other side?

Did i wrote it in chinese? :-D Read the thread and don´t
bore me - i won´t answer until someone understands
the disccussion itself - not the last comment i made.
Geeesus.

If you leave everything out, what is the other side?

Congratulations, Pardalis. I see you´re getting closer
to what i said.

Out.

[Pardalis]

What is the discussion about Oliver?

(I mean this seriously, I'm not making a joke.)

[Pardalis]

Congratulations, Pardalis. I see you´re getting closer
to what i said.

????

Are you saying this thread is about nothing?

If it's not about 9/11, the terrorists, or the Bush administration, WTF is it about?

[Pardalis]

Stop for a moment.

Forget about all you are involved in here. Forget about Dylan Avery, the Jones', Controlled Demolition, your fight against the so called "Truth Movement".

Now watch this video: 9/11 Press for truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083)

We need an independent international investigation of 9/11. You have to stop mocking the victims. I feel with the people of the united states of america and hope you will take your country back. Thanks and good luck.

:confused:

[Stellafane]

:confused:

..I feel with the people of the united states of america and hope you will take your country back...


If we listen to 9/11 deniers like Childlike, we'll take our country back all right -- all the way back to the Dark Ages.

"Press for truth"? They wouldn't know the truth if it got pressed up their backsides.

[Oliver]

If we listen to 9/11 deniers like Childlike, we'll take our country back all right -- all the way back to the Dark Ages.

"Press for truth"? They wouldn't know the truth if it got pressed up their backsides.

Where are you from, Stellafane? If you´re an american
citizen, you might not understand the conversation between
Andrew and me. Pardalis should - as a man from Frankreich.

ADDED: Andrew may not know the whole issue of our
conversation, too, i guess. But i´m waiting for his response.

[Class]

Third, a vast amount of medical research has been done into Depleted Uranium by a number of different organisations. The health risks are considered minute.

In addition, while troops in the Gulf War suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, troops in Bosnia - also exposed to Depleted Uranium - have not experienced these symptoms. Logic says their illness is caused by something else.

New study says that Gulf War syndrome is not real. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14801666/)

[Childlike Empress]

@Belz: Don't be fearful, Fiend God: Terrorism in context (http://www.jimpix.co.uk/words/terror.asp)

In that case we need to learn from history. How did the holocaust happen? Because the world sat there for a decade and watched while Hitler rose to power, and did NOTHING, in the interests of peace.
No, it happened because the germans followed him. They thought he was the man that would do the "right" thing and secure them from the versailles treaty, unemployment etc. In general: their fears. The majority first thought he and his obsession with the JOOOS were a bit strange but nearly no one wanted to really look at the horrific consequences "Mein Kampf" implied. Propaganda did the rest.

Wait, so you're saying the AMERICANS are like the Nazis?
Perhaps they are like the germans.

Nuremberg Trials, Indictments:

Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity

[Childlike Empress]

I think it's pretty thoroughly established that there are clear and strong links between Al Qaeda and important members of the ISI. The mistake this documentary makes is to assume OFFICIAL connections APPROVED by the US Government.

Bear in mind, the purpose of this doco is to attack the government. Had the US invaded Pakistan, they would be pointing to vague links to some other country the US *should* have gone after instead of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They're not interested in "truth", they're interested in claiming the US government did "the wrong thing".

-Andrew

You missed the man with the mustache and the uniform.

And re: Tora Bora you missed the fact that they let the "North Alliance" do the dirty work despite the fact that high ranking military warned that these people weren't trustworthy (beeing criminals, drug barons, fanatics not much better than the taliban).

Surprise, surprise, they let OBL escape.

[Pardalis]

Where are you from, Stellafane? If you´re an american
citizen, you might not understand the conversation between
Andrew and me. Pardalis should - as a man from Frankreich.

ADDED: Andrew may not know the whole issue of our
conversation, too, i guess. But i´m waiting for his response.

Actually, I'm from Québecreich, and I'm not sure what you are talking about anymore. Are we talking about the events of 9/11?

[Pardalis]

No, it happened because the germans followed him.
snip
Perhaps they are like the germans.
snip
Nuremberg Trials, Indictments:


So you are comparing Bush to Hitler?

[twinstead]

You missed the man with the mustache and the uniform.

And re: Tora Bora you missed the fact that they let the "North Alliance" do the dirty work despite the fact that high ranking military warned that these people weren't trustworthy (beeing criminals, drug barons, fanatics not much better than the taliban).

Surprise, surprise, they let OBL escape.

Do you honestly believe these criminals, drug barons, and fanatics would pass up the money on OBL's head?

[Pardalis]

Childlike, was the whole point of this thread to compare Bush to hitler?

All I see in that movie "Press for Truth" are some hindight accusations, government incompetence and Intelligence failures and ambiguous connections between Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Intelligence.

If you want an "international" investigation about 9/11, go right ahead. No one is stopping anybody, do it already. I'l be glad to read the final report, I'm pretty sure it's conclusion will state something like this: " 19 members of Al Qaeda highjacked four planes and slammed them into the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville."

But don't accuse people of such crimes without having made that investigation first. Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

[Childlike Empress]

No, Pardalis. The point was to present the excellent movie. These people are not "the families of victims" as gumboot said, they ARE victims. To a much lower degree we are all victims of 911. The people that died on 911 are dead and no one can help them, but the aftermath of the event threatens us all.

This crime was not thouroughly investigated and many people here are closing their eyes to it.

Beeing a german i want to warn you that it is VERY dangerous to trust authorities and that there ARE parallels between germany 70 years ago and the US (and the whole west) today.

I really wish i am wrong concerning 911 and the rise of fascism in the west today (Bush=Hitler is an extreme oversimplifiing of the situation) but i doubt it and i will do everything i can to stop this development, even if i annoy the people here with my efforts.

[WildCat]

And re: Tora Bora you missed the fact that they let the "North Alliance" do the dirty work despite the fact that high ranking military warned that these people weren't trustworthy (beeing criminals, drug barons, fanatics not much better than the taliban).

Surprise, surprise, they let OBL escape.
NATO had no choice but to let the Northern Alliance fight the Tora Bora battle. NATO simply did not have the men or materiel in place to fight the battle at that time, this was only a few months after 9/11 remember. About all NATO could do was provide a few special forces soldiers and air support, which they did.

[Axiom_Blade]

In that case we need to learn from history. How did the holocaust happen? Because the world sat there for a decade and watched while Hitler rose to power, and did NOTHING, in the interests of peace.

Something to think about.

-Andrew

Proposal: We should attack Iraq.
Reason: HITLER.

This is just as dumb as saying

Bush sucks.
Reason: HITLER.

For some reason, neocons can see that one is stupid, but not the other.
There are tons of despots in the world, so it's relatively easy to justify war by saying, "Well, we have to stop this guy before he turns into Hitler."
So, how is Hussein like Hitler? Or, better, how was Hussein a threat to the safety of the world comparable to the threat that Hitler was?

[Childlike Empress]

That's simply not true, WildCat. Tora Bora isn't Mordor.

[Pardalis]

but the aftermath of the event threatens us all.

Yes, islamic terrorism is very dangerous.

Beeing a german i want to warn you that it is VERY dangerous to trust authorities and that there ARE parallels between germany 70 years ago and the US (and the whole west) today.

Being a German doesn't give you any right to compare the Bush administration to Hitler. Nazi Germany was 70 years ago, you don't have anymore special insights on fascism than I do.

Prove your case first.

[WildCat]

That's simply not true, WildCat. Tora Bora isn't Mordor.
Yes it is true. And it may as well have been Mordor. There were no airfields nearby capable of handling large cargo aircraft for starters. In fact, the first thing NATO had to do in Afghanistan was secure the old Soviet airfield at Baghram. Once that was done, it had to be repaired and made capable of landing said large transport and cargo aircraft. This takes months, not days. And once repairs are complete it takes at least another month to get the required men and materiel in place. And once that is done guess what? It's not like Tora Bora was just around the corner. It was in mountainous terrain w/ few roads hundreds of miles away.

In short, there was no way in hell you were going to insert thousands of NATO troops in that battle. Dream on CE.

[Dog Town]

Or, better, how was Hussein a threat to the safety of the world comparable to the threat that Hitler was

Worse, larger one strike weapons,...well maybe. If he wanted, Allah(pic not avail at release)knows he would when he could. Invaided local country, no real reason( 893 province don't count)! Threatened US every chance he got...etc..!
Damn sorry... done!

Next

That's simply not true, WildCat. Tora Bora isn't Mordor.

NO! It's the size of Cali ***** fornia! Without the "Thomas Bros. Guide"!

[Axiom_Blade]

You are, at best, a moral relativist who does not have the cajones to actually take a stand, and you allow your prejudice against the U.S. to color your perception.

The U.S has done wrong, yes. But certain comparisons are not valid, yours among them.

Moral relativism? Isn't that where you evaluate each action to see if it is right or wrong, without dogma? Seems downright reasonable.

Consider this video. (http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=3532)
If this action had been carried out by militant Islamists, instead of US troops, it would've been considered terrorism, right?

[Childlike Empress]

you don't have anymore special insights on fascism than I do.
I honestly doubt that, Pardalis.

@WildCat: Says Tommy Franks?

[Parsman]

No, moral relativism is where you impart equivalence of behaviour/action to people or groups. In this case, much as I am wary of the actions of the Bush administration, and much as I believe that the role of the neo-cons caused them to misjudge their course of action vis a vis Iraq, I see no equivalence between their actions and those of a terrorist group which deliberately sought to kill as many thousand of civilians as they could.

[Pardalis]

Childlike, you may know fascism from your history classes in school and from your grandparents, but what do you know about US politics, except the anti-Bush propaganda you read? What do you know of their long tradition of democracy and liberty? Have you ever been to the US?

[Dog Town]

What do you know of their long tradition of democracy and liberty? Have you ever been to the US?

Not to get toooo patriotic, but here goes! The US is like the "cool party" on the week-end growing up! If you get invited to it, it rocks, if not it sucks!!!
Then again 20 million illegal aliens can't be wrong!