"911 Truth" Candidate exposes his antisemitism

by 911 Thu May 10, 2007 10:09

he's not stupid because he refuses to accept the government line on 911. They are lying and they are hiding something. He's an idiot because he bought into the 'jews did it' propoganda. He didn't write the article you have a screen shot of, but he reposted it on his site, without disclaimer, which suggests he fully agrees with it.

911 was planned and carried out by the hidden hands of the military industrial complex, not by the 'jews and commies' who control everything. The media helps due to vested power interests, not religion.

Morgan sets himself up as a straw man easily knocked down, and used to tar other people who have looked rationally at the events of 911 without prejudice.

Considering the strike on the Pentagon hit the only side that had recently been re-inforced, had the least amount of personnel, and destroyed financial files which were sought by Congress to explain a HUGE black hole in taxpayers money.
Considering that there was no successful interception by the worlds most modern airforce of planes over a 90 minute period,
Considering that obviously false evidence was used - the fire proof passport of one of the named bombers.
Considering the almost free fall destruction of the two towers and WT7

One has to say it doesn't add up, and ask who benefits, and the answers lead to those in power, not to the door of a synagogue, but the corridors of power in Washington, and those people in the arms industry, oil industry.

by radical jonny Thu May 10, 2007 10:14

For my part, I don't think he'll win now...

by maccoby Thu May 10, 2007 10:58

As if all 'Hollywood Jews' would be in agreement! His article sounds decidedly unbalanced, but let's not be too right on here, as there are anti-gentilic Jews, just as there are all sorts of racism in all 'races' (of which there is only one, human, in many breeds & hybrids).

by Deirdre Clancy Thu May 10, 2007 12:05

It's about time someone posted a critique of these conspiracy theorists and their underlying motives. I find it very disturbing that people within the anti-war movement actually buy into these people's drivel. It's just a distraction from the real issues, but also promulgated by people with dangerous connections.

by excuse me? Thu May 10, 2007 12:41

"It's about time someone posted a critique of these conspiracy theorists and their underlying motives. "

To whom are you referring Deirdre?
For your information, quite a lot of people support the theory that agents of the Military Industrial Complex are behind the attacks of 911 because they believe it to be the truth. The views expressed about it being the work of 'the Jews' do not represent the majority of people who question the official explanation of how 911 happened.
If some racists decide to tack that on to their bandwagon, that's not the fault of the people seeking the truth. If you don't question the official explanation for 911, that's your business, but don't compare this ludicrous anti semite to the rest of us.
Unlike the author of the article quoted, we're not spreading hate speech by asking people to look closely and objectively at the crime and the crime scene and the inconsistencies. We're not scapegoating a religion or a 'race'. The crime as we see it, was pulled off by people in positions of power, with access to technology, security passes, and the ability to hamper NORAD. the spectre of "the Jews" does not fit this criteria. Many Jews died in 911 and the lie that thousands of them were warned by Mossad not to turn up for work is nothing more than a dirty rotten lie.
Rich powerful vested interests (surely of various religions or none) in the military chain of command, and ex black ops people would be able to pull this off. And the puppets in suits knew how to make the most out of it. The country scrared sh!tless and willing to support a retaliation against somebody, anybody, and accepting limits on their freedom to do it.
If you want to, you can continue to believe that a bunch of badly trained arabs with limited training on Cessnas managed to pull this amazing flying feat off (including the 270 degree diving turn near the Pentagon) without being blasted out of the sky by the Pentagon air defense system, without jets being scrambled from Edwards AFB, that they executed high speed accurate strikes on relatively narrow targets in busy New York airspace, and in such a way that the twin Towers collapsed at almost freefall speed from fires near the top (think about what that means from a structural point of view), and with NOBODY claiming responsiblity in the aftermath, unlike all the other spectacular terrorist events - if you continue to believe that, you have that right, but don't label us all as having hidden agendas if we find it a bit implausible.

by Chekov Thu May 10, 2007 13:02

"911 was planned and carried out by the hidden hands of the military industrial complex"

This is at least as stupid a theory as the one that the jews did it. It would require tens of thousands of people to be complicit in mass murder of their own citizens, with perfect secrecy. That's impossible. At least the barmy idea that "the jews did it" contains a mechanism, however implausible, for the secret planning and subsequent cover up of the operation - the age old 'elders of zion' worldwide consipracy of jews.

Military planners, technologists and officers do all sorts of nasty things, but they only do them if they have been persuaded that they are doing their duty. I doubt you'd find a single military planner who would go along with a plan to murder thousands of their colleagues and the citizens that they are sworn to protect. They are not monsters.

The funny thing about the conspiracy theories is that there aren't any actual conspiracy theories. There's a whole load of context-free factoids which sort of look funny when they are stripped of their context. There's really no point in arguing against such things, since their proponents never actually attempt to develop a theory as to what happened, they just look for curious details in the so-called 'official theory' to pick at - a method of analysis which is entirely without merit at all. If any event at all didn't have curious details that were counter-intuitive and difficult to explain, you would be sure that something funny was going on.

So, please, please don't waste peoples time with random factoids that look unlikely on the surface (unlikely to the amateur eye that is, any engineer in the world who thinks that the so-called 'pancake theory' of collapse is impossible, or who thinks that there is any huge mystery about the collapse of WTC7 should be fired at once, for obvious and total incompetence). That approach is entirely and utterly unscientific and it is a signature of a paranoid mind - which is why it is fair to refer to such people as conspiranoids.

If you want to put forward an alternative theory as to what happened, go for it, explaining how, why, and by who the attack was carried out. If you can't come up with such a theory, just shut up.

by Manus Mac An Ultaigh Thu May 10, 2007 13:22

Fair play for blowing this nonsense out of the water.

by excuse me? Thu May 10, 2007 13:41

"911 was planned and carried out by the hidden hands of the military industrial complex"

"This is at least as stupid a theory as the one that the jews did it. It would require tens of thousands of people to be complicit in mass murder of their own citizens, with perfect secrecy.
That's impossible. "

No Chekov, it's not impossible. And it doesn't require tens of thousands of people to be involved. They just have to be at the right place to throw other people off the track. The government does keep secrets. Really big ones. Look at how rare whistleblowers are. Look at what the penalties are for divulging state secrets. The Johnson and Nixon governments would have kept really really big secrets about the Vietnam war if ONE man had not leaked the Pentagon papers. That means that lots and lots of other people who knew the truth, decided that the public did NOT need to know.

"At least the barmy idea that "the jews did it" contains a mechanism, however implausible, for the secret planning and subsequent cover up of the operation - the age old 'elders of zion' worldwide consipracy of jews."

No it doesn't explain anything. How on earth would "the Jews" prevent NORAD from scrambling interceptors to the off course jets?

"Military planners, technologists and officers do all sorts of nasty things, but they only do them if they have been persuaded that they are doing their duty. I doubt you'd find a single military planner who would go along with a plan to murder thousands of their colleagues and the citizens that they are sworn to protect. They are not monsters.

Really? The death squads in Latin America were not monsters? The ones who decided to carpet bomb Cambodia were not monsters?
I'm not sure what santised idea you have of the CIA and their fellow travellers but they blow up things and people on a regular basis. Louis Posada Carilles had no problem blowing up Cubans for the CIA.
There's no shortage of mercenaries out there, if you don't want to involve the ordinary service man or woman. And what about the Northwoods Document Chekov?

"The funny thing about the conspiracy theories is that there aren't any actual conspiracy theories. "
Actually there are plenty of actual theories. But like the CIA -Contra cocaine smuggling scandal, the accountability never reaches the higher level where the decisions are actually made because of the veil of secrecdy and deniability. But these plans didn't just happen by themselves.

The rest of your comment is pretty much your opinion, and I can't say what level of analysis you have put into checking out anything from the aviation or engineering point of view.

"If you want to put forward an alternative theory as to what happened, go for it, explaining how, why, and by who the attack was carried out. If you can't come up with such a theory, just shut up. "

Wow, are you an EDITOR of indymedia? Free speech is it now Chekov?
I won't shut up. I'm perfectly free to ask why the scrap from the towers was shipped out to China and not preserved as evidence. I'm free to ask how the national air defense system did not operate as it should have after the first plane went wildly off course. Normal operating procedure would have seen a response a lot earlier, when it missed it's first marker.
I'm perfectly free to ask how come a single passport survived a fireball and landed on the street to be used as evidence.
I'm free to ask how the military headquarters of the US, which has had drills specifically about planes hitting it, did nothing to prevent that scenario, despite having the equipment, and the knowledge that 2 planes had already been used to hit buildings in New York.
I'm free to ask for an explanation of what Mineta testified before the 911 commission about Cheney's order re shoot downs.
Those are not a few simple inconsistencies.
I can't tell you the name of the man who lit the fire at the Reichstag, but does that mean the Nazi's didn't do it?

It's obvious Chekov that you don't agree, but where do YOU get off telling ME to shut up?

by Fintan Lane - AWI and ISN (pers cap) Thu May 10, 2007 15:08

"I'm perfectly free to ask why the scrap from the towers was shipped out to China and not preserved as evidence."

Isn't it obvious? They shipped it out to China because those commies can be completely relied on to support the US running dogs of imperialism military-industrial complex! Clear as mud.

Apart from registering my dismay at this nonsense, I'm not getting into this. My brain doesn't need this level of stimulation.

by Joe Thu May 10, 2007 15:17

I can't tell you the name of the man who lit the fire at the Reichstag, but does that mean the Nazi's didn't do it?

Err yes - in fact the idea that the Nazis were 'really' behind the Reichstag is yet another conspiracy theory, this one created by the German Communist Party to explain why their slogan of the previous election 'After Hitler, Us' had not quite worked out as planed. In fact the fire was started by the Dutch left communist Marinus van der Lubbe as a blow against the Nazis but one which back fired as the Nazis were able to use it as an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. (hmm not so different from 9-11 then?)

by Fintan Thu May 10, 2007 15:20

In fact, he was a council communist. Not his best idea within the existing circumstances, I would venture.

by Stackist Thu May 10, 2007 16:36

More of Morgan Stack's "Judeo-christian conspiracy" http://bb.ucc.ie/viewtopic.php?t=14063 including the audio from a Law Society debate http://bb.ucc.ie/viewtopic.php?t=12021 and very shirty responses from yer man himself http://bb.ucc.ie/viewtopic.php?t=10460 upset at postings of his own words.

Seems that they let just any old anti-semite, paramilitary convict (Felim O hAdhmaill) or bully (http://www.google.ie/search?q=ucc+bullying) lecture in the redneck rebel college - but then who needs education when fantasy is so powerful?

We don't need no educashun

by chekov Thu May 10, 2007 17:17

"Really? The death squads in Latin America were not monsters? The ones who decided to carpet bomb Cambodia were not monsters? I'm not sure what santised idea you have of the CIA and their fellow travellers but they blow up things and people on a regular basis. Louis Posada Carilles had no problem blowing up Cubans for the CIA. There's no shortage of mercenaries out there, if you don't want to involve the ordinary service man or woman. And what about the Northwoods Document Chekov?

It's a well known and extraordinarily well documented fact that people do awful and horrendous things to those who are identified as the enemy. You don't have to be a monster to do really nasty things to other people if you are in an ideological space where you are convinced that you are doing it for the greater good - for your duty. It's not only the Americans who take advantage of nationalistic ideas to get their grunts to do really nasty things to enemy non-combatants. Guernica, Dresden, Hiroshima, Birmingham, Enniskillen, Darkley, Dublin, Monaghan, Guildford and the list goes on.

That's completely and utterly different than getting people to wipe out those who they identify with and who are supposed to be on their side. As an example, consider the fact that the IRA was able to plan and carry out the pub-bombings in Guildford and Birmingham without too much trouble. The equivalent to 9-11 would have been an IRA plan to blow up the Sinn Fein headquarters on the Falls road and the bogside Republican Businessmen's Association in the bogside, with a few hundred random civilian casualties thrown in, in order to implicate the brits. I'd guess that anybody who even raised such an idea within the republican movement would have been labeled a psychopath and been shown the door extremely quickly.

"The rest of your comment is pretty much your opinion, and I can't say what level of analysis you have put into checking out anything from the aviation or engineering point of view."

Lots actually. I have, for my sins, looked in great detail into the engineering claims of the conspiranoids. I'm good at sums; I have lots of qualifications and professional experience in scientific subjects; I understand the principles of the conservation of energy, the conservation of momentum, how potential energy is converted into other forms of energy, and various other relevant bits and bobs of mechanics. In my opinion, none of those who claim that the 'official theory' of the collapse is impossible understand very much at all about these things (I'm including the borderline-bonkers ex-professor from BYU in this). I look at the sums and I just don't see anything surprising at all about the collapse. In fact, I clearly recall saying to my TV "get out of there it's going to collapse" again and again as I watched the pictures of onlookers gazing up at the burning towers.

"I'm free to ask how the national air defense system did not operate as it should have after the first plane went wildly off course. Normal operating procedure would have seen a response a lot earlier, when it missed it's first marker. I'm perfectly free to ask how come a single passport survived a fireball and landed on the street to be used as evidence. I'm free to ask how the military headquarters of the US, which has had drills specifically about planes hitting it, did nothing to prevent that scenario, despite having the equipment, and the knowledge that 2 planes had already been used to hit buildings in New York. I'm free to ask for an explanation of what Mineta testified before the 911 commission about Cheney's order re shoot downs. Those are not a few simple inconsistencies."

They're not even inconsistencies. The US defense forces are probably the most Taylorist, bureaucratic organisations that exist in the world today. They are famously incapable of taking decisions on the fly when situations occur which are not explicitly planned for - in such situations their response is normally paralysis. Their responses to events are centrally planned and codified in various operational rules. There is virtually no allowance for operational autonomy except in very small scale battle-field groups (and even that is a recent innovation). Each layer waits for orders from above and just does nothing. That's how they work. They are also unparalleled for their culture of ass-covering. If you expected them to react with precision and decisiveness to such an unexpected event (the simultaneous hijacking of four passenger airplanes was mind-bogglingly unexpected), then you're not familiar with the first thing about how they operate. None of this is secret either, have a look at the academic literature, or go along to some of the DARPA backed communications technology conferences where you can hear their senior engineers describe the various problems in great detail. Some of the problems are comical in what they reveal about the rigidity of these organisations.

Just to look at their communications systems. They employ a highly rigid Mandatory Access Control Model across their IT systems. This means, for example, that large chunks of their defence forces aren't even capable of communicating with each other, never mind quickly coming to joint agreements. US air force colonels complain that it can take months for them to receive clearance to communicate with their counterparts in the army. They also have a ludicrous amount of inter-agency competition.

There is actually a huge amount of evidence which supports the theory that their lack of response was due to paralysis, incompetence and ass-covering. The establishment of the department of homeland security was explicitly intended to enhance organisational inter-operation, but still, almost 6 years after 911 the various emergency response units can barely talk to each other over secure channels - because they won't let each other access to their secure cryptographic IT systems and they insist upon having their own autonomously managed systems and won't use centeralised federal systems.

"It's obvious Chekov that you don't agree, but where do YOU get off telling ME to shut up?"

Either put forward a theory of your own about what happened, or please do shut up. I am so effing tired of responding to people who are overnight experts on US command and control systems, mechanical engineers and so on. One more time, the correct way to advance an alternative theory is to put it forward yourself and see how it stands up. Picking holes in another theory, without putting forward a better one is USELESS, UNSCIENTIFIC and A COMPLETE AND UTTER WASTE OF TIME.

by Loose Change Thu May 10, 2007 19:27

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-72189207243397...66288

by Chekov Thu May 10, 2007 19:53

I've seen Loose Change and it is total and unmitigated rubbish. Aside from the large number of well documented factual errors (see link below) which caused it to be remade on at least 2 occasions, it is a perfect example of the pseudo-scientific method. A random collection of factoids devoid of context, without anything like a credible theory of its own. Many of the inferences that the makers want the viewers to draw from the factoids are amusingly self-contradictory. For example, it contains a piece of information which effectively disproves all of the theories about the building being wired for explosives, yet it presents that factoid as evidence of something funny going on in a different part of the film (the newspaper clipping which shows that the building was inspected by bomb-sniffer dogs only a few days before it was hit by the planes).

It is slickly made rubbish, but it's still total rubbish.

by Darth Vader - A galaxy far, far away Thu May 10, 2007 20:33

There's only one thing dumber than a crazed conspiracy theorist - that's trying to convince a crazed conspiracy theorist that he's wrong.

by Conspiracy buff Thu May 10, 2007 21:06

All the evidence clearly demonstrates that Lee Oswald shot at President Kennedy with three shots from the Book Depository in Dallas.

But for conspiracy nuts who think that the US government could launch a massive conspiracy by LBJ and the CIA to kill the President and get away with it for 45 years it is not much of a leap to assume that they could bring off 9/11as an excuse for an unending War on Terror.

I don't buy it.

I mean if such a crafty politician Bill Clinton couldn't have a blowjob in the Oval office without the world knowing, I don't think a moron like Bush or an idiot like Cheney (the guy shot one of his drinking buddies on a grouse hunt for christsake) who were unable to convince the world that Saddam had WMD would be able to pull off 9/11.

The real conspiracy were 19 Muslim hijackers who saw that border and immigration control and airport security in the US were a joke and took full advantage.

Bill Clinton was too busy fighting impeachment in the late 1990's to do anything about Bin Laden.

Dubya was preoccupied with "No Child Left Behind" (a sop to White folk who think it is high time their black servants kids learned their ABC's) and "Compassion Conservatism" bullshit when he was sitting like a fool reading "My Pet Goat" at that Florida kindergarten.

Bush Snr had once been CIA director and later US Vice President at just the time when Reagan was throwing dollars and guns at the Islamic Holy War in Afghanistan.

Kennedy got killed by parading through downtown Dallas (the US capital of nut country in the 1960's) full of high buildings with thousands of open windows riding in an open limousine.

by R. Isible Thu May 10, 2007 21:59

How on earth could ordinary fuel cause an structure (designed by engineers no less and inspected by the government) to collapse? I small something fishy:

by DF! Thu May 10, 2007 22:12

" or who thinks that there is any huge mystery about the collapse of WTC7 should be fired at once, for obvious and total incompetence)"

agreed.

if you read Report From Ground Zero, a great book by a retired member of the FDNY, who served at the Ground Zero site, Denis Smith- he writes a bit about WTC 7.

Basically, the building was allowed burn itself out. The FDNY got their men out of there pretty quick, as it was deemed unstable. Once they were sure nobody was inside, the decision was made to clear the area directly around it, and search through the remains of the main buildings for survivors.

It was also clear for some time the North Tower was going to fall, it wasn't as sudden as some portray it to have been. As for booms within the complex, common at any such fire in conditions like that, no proof of explosives what so ever.

"NYPD helicopter pilot reported early, before the fall of
the South Tower, that the North Tower was going to fall, but the
fire chiefs did not hear of this."
Smiths testimony

by Conspiracy buff Thu May 10, 2007 22:25

Some 9/11 conspiracy people claim that the planes were hijacked and then landed at US military bases and that cruise missiles or airborne refueling tanker planes were flown into the Twin Towers which were destroyed by controlled demolition. They also claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been caused by an airplane - so presumeably a truck bomb or some other sort of explosion caused the damage.

How do the US government keep all the mouths shut?
Since when is the US government so powerful?
If the hijacked flights were landed at the airbases what happened to all the passengers? Murdered? By soldiers? Surely the soldiers would have talked to the US news media and blown the US government out of the water?
How did the US government keep the guys remote controlling the cruise missiles or the remote control air refueling tanker aircraft from talking?
How did thousands of people who were working in the Twin Towers not notice the enormous numbers of demolition crews that would have been needed to blow up the building?
How come none of the demolition crews have spoken about it?
How did the US government convince the thousands of civilian employees in the Pentagon not to tell the truth about the fake plane crash?
How did they convince hundreds of eye witnesses to give fake testimony?

Because the 9/11 conspiracy is complete bullshit

by avi15 Thu May 10, 2007 22:46

What I love is the way so many posters and editors here define anti-semitism themselves and the moment a Jew tries to tell them that they have defined it too narrowly, they jump on him. I couldn't count the number of times my posts are deleted by the editors from this site This is simply because I support Israel, which is the country of the Jewish people, the place where we have tried to seek refuge from the onslaught of the world's hate.

by paul o toole Thu May 10, 2007 22:53

Look at 650,000 tonnes of mass concrete turn to dust in 10 seconds....twice. Then bldg 7 goes down 23 minutes AFTER it had been reported collapsed on BBC World news. The only three steel frame buildings in history to go down by fire. Firemen report from 77th floor that they need two hoses to put it out, minutes later down goes No. two. William Rodregiuez the main keyholder of wtc-1 reported a 'massive' explosion in sub basement 7 , 12 seconds before the first plane hit. You can see it happen on u tube. But if you prefer to obey Bush when he says 'we will not tolerate conspiracy theorists' then go ahead. Personally, i dont think it's a theory any more. A conspiracy yes.
Why did RTE (Refuse to Tell the Electorate) purchase 'exclusive rights for loose change and have refused point blank to show it.
The 9/11 investigation was led by Henry Kissinger for___ sake. They spent less than half a million on it. They spent almost 50 mil impeaching Clinton for having oval sex huh huh.
I donno, its good to be skeptical, specially when we know roosvelt knew pearl harbour was gonna get it and sent his best ships out and left the old fleei in the harbour.
Anyhow, big difference between Jews and Zionists. Like Christians and Nazis. Im with Morgan on this one. At least he is tackling the issue.

by open question Thu May 10, 2007 23:05

Poor example
author by Joepublication date Déar Beal 10, 2007 15:17Report this post to the editors

I can't tell you the name of the man who lit the fire at the Reichstag, but does that mean the Nazi's didn't do it?

"Err yes - in fact the idea that the Nazis were 'really' behind the Reichstag is yet another conspiracy theory, ... In fact the fire was started by the Dutch left communist Marinus van der Lubbe as a blow against the Nazis "

and the fact that In 1981, a West Berlin court posthumously overturned his 1933 verdict and declared him not guilty?

As for DV thinking that Oswald killed Kennedy... I am baffled. You have no problem believing that governments will kill thousands of people in other countries, or assasinate foreign leaders in other countries, but you believe there is some mystical property that prevents them from seeing citizens of their own country as 'collateral damage'? Ever heard of Frank Kitson? Anyone here heard about him or read his book?
While I'm waiting for the answer to that one, may I ask on what evidence do you convict Oswald for the JFK shooting?
I mean, Kennedy's head was clearly shot at least once from the front. The Zapruder film is not hard to find. Tell me how Oswald did it from behind.

As for 911, I don't expect many people in Ireland to be skeptical of the government line, but in the US, a LOT of people do not trust the governments version of events. Some have their whacky theories that the Jews did it, others think it was the same cabal who soldified their power after 22/11/63. And some people choose to believe the official story, that it was 19 guys who could barely pilot single engine aircraft, who managed to outwit even the Pentagon air defense system.

by paul o toole Thu May 10, 2007 23:52

Wait a minute, Ijust read the article on top and the accusations about anti -semitic stuff and the link he (aidan) got his 'proof' from theres nothing anti-semetic, nothin, what a waste of a read
Aidan must be FF,FG LAb or somethin trying to discredit a good man for pointing out Berties collusion with BushBlair Genocide machine. Wake up and smell the coffee, before it's napalm you smell.

by casement fan Fri May 11, 2007 00:00

A few weeks ago a fuel tanker 'crashed' on a freeway interchange coming off the bay bridge between SF and Oakland. A section of the freeway 'collapsed' during the inferno caused by the tanker 'catching fire' leading to chaos and congestion for months to come. It was a little piece of Oaklands 9 11. Less than 6 months earlier George Bush's brother Erwin had used this section of freeway. Both the Trilateral Commission (Erwin is a member) and the American Enterprise Institute (Cheney) have described just such incidents in their estimates of likely terrorist targets. Hardly a surprise that, as this link below reveals, there were no Jews on the interchange at the time of the collapse.

http://www.429truth.com/

by Darth Vader - in a UFO hovering over your bed Fri May 11, 2007 01:11

FFS

In a 1997 Time magazine survey 22% of Americans believed the Earth is regularly visited by aliens from space. A Gallup poll found that 12% have actually seen a UFO. A 1991 study conducted by the Roper Organization titled "Unusual Personal Experiences: An Analysis of the Data from Three National Surveys" found that one in fifty Americans reported having actually been abducted by aliens. Yup, 4 million americans abducted by aliens.

A recent Newsweek poll found that 48% of the American public don't believe in evolution and accept the biblical story of creation as an absolute fact. They think that the earth was created by God in the last 10,000 years or so just like it says in the bible. More worryingly, 34% of college graduates agree as do 3 of the 10 Republican candidates for the presidency - Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Mike Huckabee, and Representative Tom Tancredo.

I can't help suspect that these are the same people that lap up the 911 conspiracy theory.

by Terence Fri May 11, 2007 01:17

9/11 has spawned many conspiracy theories and being such a major event, that's not surprising. A huge number of the theories are plainly wrong or crazy, but there there are the grey areas as is often the case with all theories.

My own view on 9/11 ranges from something is definitely not quite right, and at a minimum it is clear there was some fore-knowledge to entertaining the possibility of some kind of inside job. Now there is a huge amount of claims and counter claims on the technical and physical aspects of the attack and I recognise the flaws in some of those arguments, but that is not too say that the opposite is then automatically true.

In many ways the most significant aspect of 9/11 was it's political convenience and the subequent usage made out of it. That alone causes great unease. The official story seems like rubbish to me, but I can't and probably never really will know what actually happened, but just because I don't accept the official story and question it, does not mean that I believe every conspiracy account or that I automatically accept all the 'factoids'. Nor does it make me a right-winger or anti-semitic. I do recognise that many of the main voices in conspiracy issues tend to be on the extreme edge and are often both right wing and anti-semitic, but running away from the topic because of that is like the way during the troubles in Ireland people avoided waving the national flag because it had become a symbol of the fighting end of republicans in the North.

We must accept that if there is any truth buried in any of the conspiracy theories about, that it is of great advantage to the powers that be that they can be easily associated with the UFO and anti-Jew clan. Its the quickest way for a story not to be taken seriously. In a slightly similar vein during the Soviet era in Russia, pollution was often considered to afflict capitalism only and there were many who believed it. As a result it was near impossible to get any serious recognition of the enormous damage being done. What this shows is that by creating a space in the media of a given society which is for loonies only, we can associate it with other issues too and ensure they are never examined properly. UFOs, crazy religions and the extreme end of conspiracies is that dumping crowd for us today.

Another curious fact is that on the Left in general, there is widespread discussion and acceptance of the class divisions in society and how capitalism uses, manipulates it and even creates it all to it's own end. That is a conspiracy of sorts, of which thousands are engaged, yet it is not considered so and oddly I have found numerous times when talking to people who have never encountered class analysis, when I tell them how capitalism uses it and wars are related to it, it has been said to me that is just a conspiracy theory that I am spouting and the challenge is put to me that no-one accepts that (or so they think) and do I really believe that those in power are plotting like that. I must say that I have been struck by the parallels.

Yet what we have here with 9/11 is an event, that was used for going to war, regardless of how we all here interpret the unfolding of how the event occured. The same might be true of Kennedy's assassination, in that his successor increased the war effort in Vietnam. The same is true about there was fore-knowledge of the Peal Harbour attack and that the oil blockade of Japan that preceeded it in the months before was inevitably going to lead to just such an attack. The justification here for allowing it to go through was that it would create the singular event to shift public opinion in the US from staying out of the war to going into it.

So why do these get rejected out of hand as politically unlikely, but yet class analysis is accepted?

The argument is also made that for say the 9/11 conspiracy, that thousands would have to be sworn to secrecy. Why 1000s? The best kind of operations often only have one or two moles in key positions that through a relatively small movement can change the course of events.

From Northern Ireland, we know that the British had a number of high level agents in the IRA. They also had 1000s of soldiers. Did all the soldiers and RUC police officers know about these people? No. Did the many 100s of members of the IRA know. Probably not. What the British were doing is that they were aware of (bombing & shooting) operations and allowed them to carry through, but in some of the situations, they had their people probably sabotage the guns or bombs or in other cases the SAS were in waiting. Why then would it be impossible to not do something similar with the 19 arabs, where one of 2 key individuals are helping with the logicistics and making sure certain checks are not made. The same as we know in the North that in the case of Loyalist terrorists attacks, often there would be a call from HQ to say withdraw police forces from a given area. That is one of the things many Catholics always comment on how the streets emptied of police and soldiers shortly before a Loyalist attack / shooting.

It is unlikely that all of MI5 were aware of who and what was going on in Northern Ireland in terms of agents, because there are many sections and divisions in such an organisation. The same would be true of any other intelligence agency. The entire camp does not have to be involved and does not have to know about anyones else operation outside of their own groups. In fact one of the things that has come out of the North, is that RUC, Special Branch, MI5, FrU and other Army agencies were each running their own agents often with little knowlwdge of each other. Are we to suppose it is different elsewhere.

Another point to consider in relation to manipulation of the 9/11 arab hijackers who alledgelly plotted from Afghaninstan. We all know the CIA ran the proxy war there in conjunction with Pakistan intelligence agency to fund, train and basically run the pre-runners of Al Qaeda in the 10 year long war against the Russians. Are we to suppose that when that war was over they just pulled out everyone, including all their contacts and agents. It doesn't make sense to do that and it would be an idotic thing to do. Yet we are supposed to belive that and the entire CIA, NSA and trillions of dollars worth of spying infrastructure detected nothing. This does not make logical sense. And logical sense is probably the key test we should use for any theory test.

Chekov makes the valid hypothetical point that for 9/11 it would involve many people effectively plotting to kill their own kind rather than the 'enemy' with the very reasonable assumption they would be reluctant to go along with it. But this important argument is working under the assumption that whatever mechanism of a plan he has in mind, involves a lot of people. I don't see why it has to, and therefore it's not a case of defeating that point, but side stepping it.

Overall though what I see in the arguments here is opposite extremes. It appears but I stand corrected that those rejecting conspiracy on 9/11 of any sort seem compelled to go to the other extreme and fully accept the official story. Perhaps it is out of fear to be seen to be tarnished with anything remotely resembling the stereotype of conspiracy theorists. Thats certainly the impression I get.

by R. Isible Fri May 11, 2007 03:06

So why do these get rejected out of hand as politically unlikely, but yet class analysis is accepted?

They're not "rejected out of hand". If you look at the detailed critiques of the shite spouted by 9-11 people you'll see that a good deal of effort has been made to explain why they're probably wrong. As for the difference between the theories of class-struggle and 9-11-jew-freemasons it's all in the quality of the evidence. You can go out and examine the class-struggle right now and draw your own direct set of data. 9-11 happened once and is not repeatable so the data is poor. A lack of data leads to the possibility of just about any sort of model fitting the available data points ... fine as long as you realise that the probability of the model is so low as to be useless.

If there's any conspiracy in 9-11 I'd say it's that the gubmint is happy to have a set of people "in opposition" who are obviously out to lunch and they can smear all opposition to them as "conspiracy weirdoes" ... pretty much in the way you described.

by paul o toole Fri May 11, 2007 08:30

So where is the anti-semitism????
thats what the thread is about. You are all avoiding the real accusation. Ill tell you no where

by Aidan O'Brien - Aidan O'Brien Fri May 11, 2007 09:09

Paul he's suggesting that the "media jews" had prior knowledge of 9/11. If you cannot see that as anti semitism, I suggest you and sugar titties Gibson, stop drinking the tequila.

by AWI'er Fri May 11, 2007 09:25

Folks, I think the real conspiracy (which nobody seems to have spotted) is the deliberate fostering of a bunch of head-wrecking conspiracy theories around 9/11 in order to confuse and discredit the anti-war movement. It serves a dual function: 1) it causes anti-war activists to take their eye off the ball and chase their own tail; 2) it associates the anti-war movement with whackballs and mad conspiracies and, hence, makes it easier for the pro-war lobby to discredit those opposing the Bush war machine.

I think the 9/11 Turth Movement is a CIA front.

by Conspiracy buff Fri May 11, 2007 09:27

"While I'm waiting for the answer to that one, may I ask on what evidence do you convict Oswald for the JFK shooting?
I mean, Kennedy's head was clearly shot at least once from the front. The Zapruder film is not hard to find. Tell me how Oswald did it from behind."

Oswald fired three shots.
One shot missed the car, probably after striking a tree branch, and struck a kerb on Dealey Plaza wounding James Tague on the cheek as he stood near the triple underpass watching the motorcade.
At frame 223 the second shot hit from above behind and to the left in the back of the base of Kennedy's neck above the line of the shoulder blades to the right of the spine and exited the base of his throat nicking the knot of his tie.
Governor Connally who was seated in the jump seat which was approximately three inches lower than the backseat and six inches inboard was turned to the right with his right hand clutching his stetson across his lap. The bullet exiting Kennedy hit Connally in the back just below his right armpit, exited his chest below the right nipple, passed through his right wrist and lodged in the flesh of his left thigh.
It is clearly evident if you examine frames 222,223,224,225 of the Zapruder frame that both men react to being hit at the same time and that the right lapel of Connally's jacket flips up suggesting the exiting of the bullet from his chest.

Kennedy had his hands to this throat and was sagging forward and to the left with his chin on his chest when he was hit in the back of the head at frame 313. A close examination shows that his head is pushed forward by the bullet impact while the front top right side of his head explodes outward. The following frames show Kennedy's head recoiling backward and to the left in the opposite direction to the jet of ejected tissue combined with a neuromuscular spasm.

Autopsy photos show the gaping head exit wound was in the top right of the skull and that there was a small entrance wound in the back of the head. X-rays also show this.

Other photos show the wound of entrance in the back of Kennedy's neck and that the exit wound in the front of the throat was at a lower angle which corresponds with the angle of the sixth floor window at the time and in the position Kennedy had been on Elm street.
The same is true of Connally's wounds.
A bullet travelling in a straight line could have produced all seven wounds.

Photos taken from the sixth floor corner window of the Book Depository clearly demonstrate the Oswald had a clear line of sight on the limosine once it passed beyond the branches of the trees in front of the building.

The rifle Oswald used (he bought it by mail order under the name A. Hidell) was a bolt action rifle that could be cycled in 2.3 secs (between each shot the bolt handle is raised, drawn back opening the breech, ejecting a spent case and drawing a fresh bullet from the clip into the breech, driven forward ramming the round into the chamber and turned down closing the breech).

When Oswald opened fire he would have already had a round in the chamber.

first shot+2.3 sec, second shot +2.3 sec, third shot = 4.6 secs.

The Warren Commission determined that the three shots could have been fired between 5.6 secs minimum or more than 8 secs maximum.

Oswald was also seen in the window firing the shots by several witnesses who indentified him at a line up after his arrest.
His finger prints were on the gun, the bullet cases and on the boxes he had used to build his sniper nest.

by paul o toole Fri May 11, 2007 10:06

Aidan. The article completely debunks itself anyway. Either way, if Stak wants to put articles written by someone else on his site so be it.- I wouldent hold him responsible for the belief of another. Our politicians are putting stuff written by others (their friends in the media)about them on their propaganda mailings, surely this is a far more relevant issue to tackle.
When you look at sanctions the world (US) bank imposes on the the third world to sustain its impoverishment, the US federal reserve doing the same to US citisens, 174 US military invasions of other countries in just over 200 years, 50% of all tax collected going to the military, Viet-Nam, Korea, every country in South and Central America invaded, IRan contra 'affair', Iraq twice+12 yrs sanctions, all carried out by the 'US Defense Forces'. Now look at the bay of pigs, bay of Tonkin, pearl harbour, opperation Norfolk, war on terror,.... All fabricated acts of aggression to start war, it cannot be hard to at least concider that the WTC collapse was an inside job without even looking at the facts on the ground. I'll leave it there. ....There were two other 9/11's through history which changed nothing, Chille and Dundalk. Why then did 2001 change everything.? It diddnt, we were told it did, and so it did, for those who trust the establishment . Good to see you at least use your name Aidan. Thx p

by conspiracy buff Fri May 11, 2007 10:25

How could the 9/11 attacks have been an inside job?

The passengers on United Flight 93 and the other three planes telephoned their relatives that a groups of Middle Eastern men armed with knives had taken over the planes.

Are you suggesting that the passengers of the planes were also part of the plot?

Your talking out of your ass.

by Aidan Fri May 11, 2007 10:44

So you are saying its okay to spread anti semitic nonsense provided you're just repeating what someone else original said?

by William Wall Fri May 11, 2007 11:58

Conspiracy theories actually have a very long history. Conspiracy theory drove repression during the age of the Roman Empire, for example. More recently the Protocol of The Elders of Zion was a carefully manufactured and widely believed conspiracy theory. In many ways the 'Holywood Jews' Theory is a direct descendant of the Protocol. the idea is that Jews are 'extremely intelligent', or 'cunning' (prominent jewish philosphers, writers, musicians etc are cited as proof) and that 'they all stick together' and that they are advancing the cause of... of, well, not-us-ness. Of course they want to take over the world.
The Blood Libel (that Jews kill children and eat them at Passover) is another famous anti-Jewish conspiracy, but it had its origins in Roman beliefs about human sacrifice in Christian practice. Nevertheless, it still resurfaces from time to time.
All of this only serves to bring the honourable tradition of scepticism into direpute. It is perfectly reasonable to be sceptical of what governments tell us. There is sound historical justification for believing that governments lie and act as agents provocateurs within their own states, and commit atrocities on their own people and their neighbours, and act against the wishes of the people and even against their own best interests. We should never underestimate (a) the duplicity of governments, and (b) the stupidity of governments.
I, for one, am willing to consider the possibility that there is more to the Twin Towers attacks than meets the eye. There are many aspects to it that I find scarcely credible - the lack of interceptions, no helicopters to lift survivors, the pentagon attack, the 'rebellion' on the last plane... etc But then, I tell myself, most of it is probably plain old inefficiency and stupidity, after all, look what happened to New Orleans. But to suggest it's a Jewish conspiracy is laughable. Or at least, it would be laughable but for the damage that this kind of shitty racism does.
Fair dues to Aidan for drawing Morgan Stack to our attention.

by Deirdre Clancy - AWI (personal capacity) Fri May 11, 2007 12:06

I just can't see how any sane reading some of the more wacky postings on this thread would ever want to get involved in the anti-war movement. I believe Chekov has pretty much debunked the technical side of the theories, and fair play to him for going to the trouble (God, that must have been a head wreck). But it's such a distraction that people have to put their energies into this shite in the first place. Things are corrupt enough already with regards to US foreign policy. Do we really need a conspiracy theory to convince ourselves that the Bush admin. is full of nutcases? And for those who can't see Stack's anti-semitism...wow, just wow.

So ya, I'm sure the CIA would be having a really good laugh at something like this.

by William Wall Fri May 11, 2007 12:10

By the way, all this crap about who shot Kennedy is just part of the Imperial navel-gazing.

by paul o toole Fri May 11, 2007 13:01

Im not saying it was an inside job, but i wont rule it out. i am saying there are greater questions to answer than wether or not Stack is, what Aidan is saying he is... an anti-semite. Where does it say anywhere that he expresses anti-semetic views??...Does it matter Does anyone on this thread know what a semite is???. Seems to me that no one does.
Wouldent surprise me if most of the trollers here are cia, distorting rationality for rediculous accusations of racism for something stak diddnt even write'. Even if he is an anti-semite in the absence of evidence, where does free speech stand??
If I said the brits conspired against Ireland and were responsible for the conflict in Ireland am I racist against brits?
The greater issue is.. why did the world change after 1/99?. What was the result? and was it planned or just what the neo-cons were looking for as a pretext to start a pre-arranged war against a country which was blown back to the stone age in 1991,starved for a decade, dis-armed...twice, and then attacked by the two greatest military powers in the plannet ?
.Another issue is where will it stop?? Truth is, they needed a 'pearl harbour' event. They even said it. They got it. And this country rolled over like a puppy to help with the genocide.
The problem is if you allow a line to be drawn through history on 1/99 you are accepting their thesis for the change. And, yes, I can hear them laugh at us squabbling over non issues........as usual...g,nite

by William Wall Fri May 11, 2007 13:20

So, Aunty PC, we are all 'anti-something.' And you are anti people who worry about racism. 'It's part of life so get on with it'. Do I assume that you're philosophical about anything that's 'part of life'? Disease, murder, undrinkable drinking water, famine, etnic cleansing... They're all part of life and those who experience them should just get on with it. This is brilliant thinking. Very deep. I think there's a name for it, but it escapes me at the moment.

by Aidan Fri May 11, 2007 13:36

The scattergun attempt of a defence of stack is rather pathetic. Implying that everyone is indeed biased or racist is juvenile and projecting your own bias. Suggesting that there is nothing racist in claiming that there is a cabal of Jewish people working together in the media to control what the media is a definition of racism, and if you cannot see that I must wonder what you do find racist. The paranoia about people posting here "being CIA" exposes your lack of rationality and williness to see the NWO boogie man behind every door. It is not concievable to you that real geniune people could be offended by Stack's racism, and these conspiracy theorists co-opting real serious issues, and diluting the effective message of the anti war movement, with your purile nonsense.

by paul o toole Fri May 11, 2007 14:31

again where does he show he is anti-semetic...show us...stop making accusations without backing it up simple...is'nt it??

by Aidan Fri May 11, 2007 14:51

Do you think that suggesting that a conspiracy of "Media Jews" were involved in 911 isn't antisemitism? Thereby suggests these "hollywood jews" are complicit in mass murder isn't racism?

by paul o toole Fri May 11, 2007 15:23

No ,I dont Aidan, sorry. Mabey you could help me see. Again, explain the word semite or anti semetic as you understand it.
Then explain if you will what is the racist element in using the words 'media' and 'jew' together.
Then connect this to stak directly

Firstly,I know what a semite is and it is impossible to be racist to a semite,
Secondly, the words 'Media Jew' is probably insulting at best, but only to an extremely sensitive Jew, and there are plenty, (or is that a racist comment also in your opinion).. If you can form an opinion that this is racist i'd like to know how.-really
Thirdly, where does stak come into any of this.....besides.....theres a hell of a lot more going on in this subbordinated state warranting attention than this detail about a posting you saw on some site,thx.

by Aidan Fri May 11, 2007 15:40

Paul if you cannot grasp that Stack is suggesting that Jews conspired about 911 and were in some way involved in the execution of the events of that day, it's not my fault that you cannot comphrend basic english. If you don't see someone progating reguritated Protocals of the Elders of Zion esque nonsense as racism, it's not my problem. Stack read this article and thought it worthy of wider publication and put it on his site, which means he must agree with it's conclusions. Which makes him a racist, and you an apologist for a racist. A racist standing for the Dail, and that is why I feel this article is relevent to the people of this site, and the country in general.

Feel free to try to shove in the last word defending this contemptable racist, I'm confident that the users of site see through your feeble attempts to try and dismiss these facts and your pathetic attempt to defend this excuse of a man.

by AWI'er Fri May 11, 2007 16:16

Sometimes, people point out that 'anti-semitism' means you must be against all semites. This is a red herring. The term 'anti-semitism' has been used to describe anti-Jewish racism for a long time now and that's the way it has evolved in the English language. Most people accept this definition, and those who don't are generally refusing to do so in order make some rhetorical point. Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary as this will back up the above.

Secondly, with regard to the idea that there's nothing offensive about the term 'media Jews', you're stripping the phrase of its context in order to achieve that conclusion. Stack is propagating nothing more or less than an old-fashioned Jewish-cabale-attempt-to-run-the-world type conspiracy theory, dressed up in new clothes. It's wearying to have to see this type of stuff excused by Indymedia contributors time and again - in Europe, of all places, where we ought to know better and have learned from our sordid past.

No amount of playing with semantics will help us get away from the fact that Stack is a racist. Racists generally love conspiracy theories, and will use them to try to excuse their racism (rather than vice versa).

by paul o toole Fri May 11, 2007 16:37

Anyone can have(shove) the last word Aidan, no point suggesting to me that I can have it., but thanks
You say 'Stack is suggesting', then say...Stack read it. I am still failing to grasp your logic about racism. Even if he posted it on his site.
I woulden't defend racism in any form whatsoever, and frankly it is a bit of an insult to me to suggest that i am or that i am an apologist for one. I have lost people i've concidered to be lifelong friends because of my aggressive opposition to their racism-lots of them.
Now you are saying that he is a racist because he is 'suggesting that Jews conspired about 9/11'. Obviously someone did, and if he thinks jews did it for whatever reason is he not entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, and, he's not alone. Every one knows someone did it, is it racist to suggest that it was done by Saudi's or Afghani's as Bush has affirmed. No. Every night on the news youll hear about a white male, or a black youth blaa blaa-is this not similar?
I most surely can grasp, though you suggest otherwise, that the article you read on Stacks website IS suggesting that Jews conspired about 9/11. What if it is true-
It is a big leap to accuse a person of being a racist for posting someone elses opinion on their site, suggesting that a certain group were responsible for 9/11,when some group were responsible. Because this third party thinks it was the work of Jews dosent confirm racism at all. Kevin Myers in some opinion is a racist, but we cant hold the Times or the Sindo responsible.
My kid is 5. I asked him to tell me the differences between him and his best pal. He/they came up with 9 differences. To me, the colour of his skin would have been the obvious difference-neither mentioned this. I have an acute awareness about racism, thats why I've even bothered following this thread. One kid is black one is white, have a guess which colour mi kid is? regards. paul

by redjade Fri May 11, 2007 16:39

Yeah, the term Media Jews is the tell-tale sign of an anti-semite.

On a related note, google has an interesting explanation of why anti-semitic websites appear on their first page of results when you search the word Jew into that search engine...

If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith.
[....]
Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than the single word "Jew."

more at
http://www.google.com/explanation.html


If Stack wrote 'Jewish people in the Media' and rhetoric like that, this would be less of a debate. But the last thing I want to be doing, however, is teaching anti-semites better rhetorical skills!

http://www.google.com/search?q=jew

by R. Isible Fri May 11, 2007 18:16

The same distinction was realised popularly at least as far back as the 60's: One of the Beyond the Fringe skits features Jonathan Miller pretentiously and anxiously exclaiming that he wasn't "a Jew, just Jewish."

Good on Aidan for spotting this and alerting the rest of us to it. I wouldn't ordinarily have been bothered even thinking about Stack as I'd earlier dismissed him as a harmless, but irrational chappy. Anti-semitism is a whole other kettle of fish though.

by Chekov Fri May 11, 2007 19:00

Class analysis is fundamentally different from a conspiracy theory because it does not require the conscious coordination of the participants. It's a systemic analysis which only assumes that people will tend to act in their own economic interests - something that's not exactly controversial - and that there are two major sub-categories of economic interests, those of capitalists and those of the rest of us, which is slightly more controversial, but is borne out by lots of evidence (for a pure evidence based approach, check out TheEconophysics of Wealth Distributions).

Also, you claim that it would be possible for the 911 attacks to have been a conspiracy involving a small number of people - please back that up. For all sorts of reasons, I think that's just not at all possible, not even close. If you can construct a plausible scenario, then it's worth taking seriously, if not, then it's just an assertion. The simple fact is that there are no alternative theories that are even remotely as plausible as the official theory. Once again, it is completely worthless to pick holes in a theory if you don't have a better one.

by paul o toole Sat May 12, 2007 00:09

If you need to accuse someone of being racist, by all means you should do so if the facts are there, and it should be encouraged-but only with evidence.
This thread sounds more like a McDoughall witchunt attacking those on the margins with their beliefs.
You have already removed his right to face his accusors on this site if a previous posting is to be believed. Now if McDoughalls new law applied here (our very own patriot act, signed by macaleese yesterday) he would be relieved of his right not to incriminate himself, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty -gone. Lucky for some,Indymedid dont have any durastiction over guilt or innocence, crime and punishment, only the publishing of certain views-or not. People were hung or drowned not so long ago for thinking that the world was round.

by Urban Mover Sun May 13, 2007 15:11

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the attacks:

"It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.

According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:

"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

Why did he feel that Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD?

Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives.

The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released.

Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?

by knockadooma Sun May 13, 2007 17:05

The american neocons were the greatest cheerleaders for war in Iraq and the movement is noted for its suport of Israel. American websites such as Counterpunch.com and Antiwar.com have raised legitimate questions about Mossad activities prior to 9/11. these websites are not run by Nazis.

by Query Sun May 13, 2007 18:09

Can you provide credible sources for these quotes? URLs to the news stories? Images of the newspaper pages? Video sequences of such momentous importance?

by Paul O'Donnell Sun May 13, 2007 18:20

I wouldn't lose any sleep about it. The odds are stacked up against him anyway.

by knockadooma Sun May 13, 2007 20:42

An investigation into Mossad activities prior to 9/11 was published in Counterpunch.org.(see www.counterpunch.org/ketcham 03072007.html). Counterpunch is a leftwing website. Questioning the official explanation for 9/11 does not make one an antisemite. The Iraq invasion would have been politically impossible had 9/11 not happened.

by Morgan Stack - Scholars. Fri May 25, 2007 01:28

Aidan,

That email I put on my site was the 256th one to that date over two years.

And this ‘Jew bashing’ charge is the best you can do in your efforts to slur me?

I would say that you’re just not trying hard enough, but in fairness you REALLY are trying.

I suppose the reality is that you just didn’t have much to work with in the first instance.

Best wishes with the "slur Morgan with any conceivable thing we can think of" campaign in the future.

Best,
Morgan.

by Aidan Sat May 26, 2007 02:42

No the jew bashing isn't the easiest or the most idiotic claim you've put on your site (the whole battle of the boyne a weird lost ark eygptian nonsense, and your purile claim that the south park 911 conspiracy piss take episode was actually pro conspiracy episode are even more delusional.)

Stack, a few months ago you were outraged about (accurate) accusations that Webster Tarpley was an antisemite, yet a few weeks ago, you republished an article, ranting about "Hollywood Jews" and "media jews" being involved in the 911 conspiracy theory. So perhaps you'd like to elaborate on this further, as it appears to be blatant hyprocracy to anyone with a grasp of the english language. So please answer that charge, do you believe a conspiracy of Jewish people where involved in 911, yes or no? And If no why did you agree to such language on your site? Answer those questions and we can move on from there.

If you don't feel like talking here, You can chat to me here.,

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

or

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

here.

I will discuss any aspect of 911 conspiracy theories with you. I've made this offer to you in private e-mail before. And do so now again, in public, this is not bb, and should be treated so. Or do you want to run away. I can approach you on any aspect of 911. I just found the delicious hyporacy in your racism too much to ignore.

Which are you Morgan a cowardly racist or "scholar"...

PS bravo 116 votes out of 256 emails, and 380 euros. Slow hand clap. Well done.....

So the challenge is there Stack.

by Vertigo Sun May 27, 2007 04:31

There's a lot of insults flying around here, but why do you people always come to the defence of Israel? 9/11 may not have been Israel's doing, but as long as everyone's skeptical about the "official" story, everyone is entitled to put forward their theories, no matter how distasteful they may or may not be.

Smearing and labelling stack because of your "fear of the Jews" mentality is ridiculous because it blinds you to the possibility that Israel may have had a direct/indirect role in 9/11 - the same Israel which is, undeniably, an illegal and racist state built upon notions of Jewish racial and religious superiority (isn't this something which you people claim to oppose?).

There is a difference between regular Jews and Zionist Jews, with the latter using their clout within U.S./international political, media and financial circles to justify the actions of the apartheid state of Israel. This is not conjecture nor "racist nonsense", it is simply fact, and a brief investigation of positions and money trails will open your eyes to this.

Anyone who suggests Stack is a racist is deliberately blurring the issue in defence of Israel and that, IMHO, is unacceptable. It's how Zionist fifth columnists operate in the United States: to turn a debate about Zionism into a debate about anti-semitism.

Which is itself a very racist term: note that Arabs too are Semites.

Racists.

by Aidan Sun May 27, 2007 11:47

"but why do you people always come to the defence of Israel?"

Vertigo has the word "Israel" escaped anyone's lips on this this article. Stack didn't talk about Israel he talked about "The Jews" as a seperate race.

I'm no fan of Israel, and do not support the occupation, and many Israeli, and people of Jewish decent also feel the same.

Lets not confuse people opposed to religious fundamentalism like rabid Zionists, with plain old racists like Stack.

Simple question Vertigo, do you believe, like Stack, that a cabal of "hollywood Jews" had foreknowledge of 911?

by Vertigo Sun May 27, 2007 14:40

I'd imagine Stack is just floating theories. There you go calling him a racist again, which you have absolutely no right to do.

Zionism has a presence in Hollywood, and by default a lot of them (most of the in fact, although some of them are "Christians") are Jews.

When Israel and its followers continue to define themselves and justify what they do by the "superiority" of their race, why is Morgan Stack attacked for pointing this out?

While most Jewish people don't take part in Zionist nonsense, there is a large minority of Jews who seek power and influence in politics, the media, academia and finance and to further the interests of the racist and illegal state of Israel. They are Jews, after all, so what's wrong with pointing this out? If anything, Jews should be saved from these bastards, so attempts here to create some idea that Morgan Stack is about to re-open Auschwitz are contemptible.

People here are all too willing to indulge in insulting Catholics, and talk about vast Vatican conspiracies against the working class, so it seems sort of rich for you to criticise what Stack is saying.

by Vertigo Sun May 27, 2007 14:57

"Lets not confuse people opposed to religious fundamentalism like rabid Zionists, with plain old racists like Stack."

You're misunderstanding Zionism completely; most people supporting and running Zionism are not even religious, never mind fundamentalist. People like Ariel Sharon, Avigdor Lieberman and Nathan Sharanksy are Jewish racial supremacists, which means not only do they hate Arabs and Palestinians, but they also hate people like you and me.

Which means that they do not care how many of US are embarrassed, maimed or killed, as long it benefits the state of Israel. It IS true that Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11. It IS true that the Israeli lobby has permeated the Western press, governments and financial circles for their own benefit, creating the "anti-semitism" furore as their safety valve. It IS true that on a daily basis, they intensify their cruel genocide against the Palestinian people, not to mention against the people of Lebanon; they are now threatening it against Iran. They have been proven in the past, i.e. the USS Liberty, that they are willing to engage in false-flag terrorism to further their goals.

So what would stop Israel from murdering 3,000 people in Manhattan on 9/11, by demolishing what is essentially their own property (Zionist Larry Silverman being the proprietor)?

I quote Zionist military historian Martin van Creveld: "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under." (The Observer Guardian, The War Game, a controversial view of the current crisis in the Middle East, 21 September 2003.)

by Sean Sun May 27, 2007 15:08

... but it's hardly surprising to see a man who writes for Village Magazine defending the integrity of the U.S. military-industrial complex. Perhaps Chekov knows something that we don't - that the U.S. government and it's Middle Eastern ally actually puts the lives of American citizens ahead of power and profit. Aren't they great?

Give me a break. Do you seriously believe that a Bushista/Israeli conspiracy to pull of 9/11 would need the foreknowledge of "tens of thousands of people"? That would suggest that every bit of dirty work the CIA or Mossad does is known by the same number of people.

by Shawn the sheep Sun May 27, 2007 15:49

Give us a break, Sean. You've posted three comments on three threads in the last wee while, ranting about immigration, saying the Jews were responsible for 9/11, and attacking republicans who aren't of the same inclination as Gerry McGeogh. Do you really expect people not to notice the fact that you are plainly a fascist, promoting a racist, far-right agenda? Maybe you should try to be a little more subtle before you clog up Indymedia with your tripe.

by Aidan Sun May 27, 2007 16:46

Before I tackle your absurdist fantasy about Larry Silverstein demolishing his own building, how about you show some evidence that he is a Zionist?

by Chekov Sun May 27, 2007 17:41

- "Hi General, a CIA / Zionist/whatever plot is planning to fly a large jet into your headquarters and kill a bunch of your officer corps, including several of your drinking buddies. Please don't investigate it too thoroughly and stick to the official theory that we provide."

- "Right, okay then"

by Sean Sun May 27, 2007 18:01

1. Gerry who? What immigration post?

2. Please try and come up with a less simplistic explanation, Chekov?

by Chekov Sun May 27, 2007 18:39

Sean, it's not an explanation, simply pointing out an obvious problem with any of the theories which revolve around small groups of insider conspirators carrying out the 9-11 attacks. I can't provide anything more detailed because you, or any of the other conspiranoids on this thread, haven't actually put forward a specific case. If you want to put forward a specific theory about how a particular small group of insider conspirators could have planned and carried out the 9-11 attacks, then I'll go to the trouble of rebutting it, until you do I can't do any more than general purpose mockery of the obvious flaws in your line of arguing.

by PaddyK Sun May 27, 2007 20:44

Chekov,

If this was a Star Trek convention and we were talking about who assassinated the Clingon emperor, then you could play your little Cluedo Elimination game. But it isn’t.
The official explanation given for 9/11 was primarily aired in order to create a scenario in which Afghanistan could be invaded for the purpose of opening pipeline routes and attacking Iraq for the seizure of it's resources.
The reasoning behind attacking Afghanistan was puerile - Let's get Osama for his part in the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, as though he is some evil puppet master who is pulling the strings of deadly Islamic commandos around the world. What a load of Convoluted Bogey man nonsense. Then lets attack Saddam, because he is an ally of that same Bogeyman and he has a death ray that can destroy the Human race in 45mins. Lies, Bollox and propaganda.
Who is the one with the stupid theories? These are the sham excuses that led to two destroyed countries and hundreds of thousand of deaths and raging civil wars and massive increases in militantism worldwide.
The film "Loose change” does not have to propose theories as to who did do it and why in order to satisfy you or another Star Trek Fan. It merely has to cast reasonable doubt over the official explanations which led to the mayhem and death that we see today. The movie certainly does that. The Americans and more so the Afghans and Iraqis who died on the basis of what is surely a highly dubious theory proposed and acted upon by known shysters and liars that inhabit the top echelons of big business and government circles in America, deserve a proper exposition of the facts that surround these terrible events. They deserve a proper investigation into the official explanations given, into the motive for the lies and obvious cover-ups that facilitated the Mass killings in Afghanistan and Iraq and the trial of those exposed to be involved in thwarting the truth for their nefarious purposes.

You Chekov, are the one who should be obliged to prove why the world should accept the immunity from investigation and prosecution of known liars , traitors and killers. You are the one supporting whacked out theories on the basis of flimsy and unsubstantiated claims.

by Aidan Mon May 28, 2007 00:35

PaddyK do you understand the concept of "burden of proof". Simply put you make the accusation the onus is on you to support the claim, with evidence you present. As per usual when I speak to a conspiracy theorist I weep, at their understanding of scientific testing principles, and the concept of accusations.

PaddyK I can only say, I hope that you are never involved with our legal system in as a member of jury. Your grasp of critical thinking logical thought procesing or indeed your tenious grasp of rational thought is plain to see.

Thousands of scientists contributed to the NIST report into the building collapse of WTC 1&2. The same scientists are discussing WTC 7. Their results are being examined by structural enigneers and architects. The NIST report has been named by several architectural journals as infulencing the thinking of high rise architects everywhere. If the NIST report is a tissue of lies, why are architects responding to it.

In fact if you look at it, this has been the most widelys discussed building collapse in the history of humanity, are you saying all these fire safety engineers, civil enigneers and architects are in on this?

by PaddyK Mon May 28, 2007 09:57

Burden of Proof is on those who wish to pass sentence against person/s who are innocent until proven guilty. Friends and relations of the hundreds of thousands killed to date are entitled to access to the proof that is being used to legitimise the punishment that is being meted out to them in their countries and against their families and being sanctified in the easily manipulated minds of people like you.
Osama - Saddam Links, Uranium Patticakes, 45 minute WMD death Rays, all proven lies and manipulations of scarce facts which are being supported by fascisto mini retards with idle drivel about scientists and architects and airplane parts. The burden of proof is not on those who suggest that there is more to the story than the official line, such as the makers of the film "Loose Change", the burden is on those who have already carried out the death sentence and upon sanctimonious mini-sleuths who deride the memory of the dead. This is not a game or an episode of Star trek, capiche ? Real people are already dead. If you want to protect the cronies and henchmen in the White House and their spies and agents then do so in your own shameful ignorance and naivete. You are the one supporting the outrageous conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory that continues to this day and manifests itself in a new plan to bring further civil war and mayhem to Iran.
There is no proof that the American War Machine can bring about a remedy to the 9/11 by its current actions and all available proof indicates that the real reasons for these attacks have nothing to do with remedying 9/11. The official line is that these military actions will remedy international terror attacks. But the available evidence indicates that these military actions are the root source of terrorism and militiantism in the victim societies.
You are completely lost in a fairy story because you have no control over your imagination, no ability to apportion the burden of proof to the correct parties . You have swallowed a large imaginary pill that is soothing you whilst other people pay the price for your idelogical complacency.

by Seán Ryan Mon May 28, 2007 15:40

I don't really want to take part in this. It seems to be about slagging off the folks offering their views rather than the views themselves being examined. This is happening on both sides of the debate.

The NIST report is quite flawed. Cherrypicking it hardly debunks conspiracies. To be truthful I really don't care how it all happened, I'm more into what resulted from it and indeed in the loss of life that resulted.

To suggest that 911 wasn't an incident that perfectly facilitated the global 'war on terror' would be akin to being a holocaust denier. It seems to me that the 'incident' itself is very like the incident that preceded the Big Bang. It's quite important, but it's quite impossible to define without at least some speculation. Again this covers both sides of the debates.

In truth I don't know what happened on 911. I follow neither the 'conspiracists' nor the official 'truth tellers.'

If I were to be waterboarded or coerced in some other acceptable fashion, I'd lay down my hat slightly over the line that divides the parties that argue this topic, on the side of the conspiracists. There's lots of reasons to why I see it this way. First and foremost (and I suppose this might label me as a wingnut) is that I do not trust authority, even when they produce seemingly decent evidence. In this case however, I think a lot of the official version of the evidence is a lot less than decent.

I don't like the pancake theory. Note the use of the word 'theory.'

I don't like the jet fuel scenario whereby the jet fuel is said to have weakened the steel supports. Eventhough jet fuel can indeed weaken steel and weaken it enough to cause the collapse of the 911 buildings. The NIST report on this matter is deeply wanton and in my opinion suspicious in this regard. I'll examine this a bit more in a bit.

I find it deeply suspicious that the Bush dynasty have been in bed with the Bin Laden family for decades and that this fact never impacts the official story in a negative fashion.

My expertise extends to electrical engineering, not structural - however - it seems to me that the jet fuel would have been burnt within seconds of impact (in both buildings). The official story does not explain the timing issue - why the buildings didn't collapse within minutes of the impact, afterall the steel would have begun to cool after impact and have begun to reclaim some of (not all) its initial strength. I have not seen (and I'm open to correction here) any data that seeks to explain the lag between impact and collapse.

With regard to the NIST report and the fuel scenario that I've pointed to already, why is it that the report claims to have examined over 170 areas of the twin towers by examining steel recovered and it states that only three areas show evidence that the steel reached temperatures of over 250°C and it says that these areas seem to have reached these temperatures of above 250°C in the debris pile after the collapse. None of the steel tested seems to have been exposed to temperatures of above 600°C. The NIST however often informs its readers that the tests were only conducted on less than 1% of the steel and thus do not represent the general conditions, especially at the cores of the buildings.

It is this claim of around 170 pieces of steel that alarms me most and not because of the normal question to do with why the debris was so rapidly and irrecovably disposed of either. What alarms me is the fact that in December of 2003 the NIST stated that it had in its possession 236 pieces of WTC steel. At this time the NIST said that it had enough steel to adequately investigate the WTC collapses and that its collection of steel was representative too of the core columns. This should have lead to an examination and subsequent publication of temperature tests on the steel that back up the official theory rather than refute it. The question I ask is why did the NIST lie in its very first publication or why is the vitally important and obvious data missing?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/PublicUpdateFinal.pdf

As for coming up with a scenario or theory as to why this discrepancy exists. That'd lead to me making a conspiracy theory of my own, either to allow for the discrepancy as the NIST report does or to fall in with those described as the wingnuts. I don't know the reason why the discrepancy exists. I just know that I don't like that it does exist. What is really disturbing about all of this is not the conspiracy angle that can be explored, what's really disturbing is that this NIST report can and is being used to change how we design and build.

by We the People Mon May 28, 2007 20:26

This thread is active all right. With all the debate gong on , may I suggest 'both sides' cast their eyes upon the site below , as it is packed with info.on this vast topic that is effecting all our lives around the globe.

by Phil - SMERSCH Mon May 28, 2007 21:50

Prof Steven Jones (http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php) Beware: PDF 2.3 Mb has released a paper discussing some interesting findings from analysis of dust found in an Apartment near the WTC. Specifically he found the dust contained high amounts of Aluminium and Iron as well as other elements such as Sulphur and Barium.

Aluminium and Iron are the main ingredients in Thermite.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite)

Thermite experiments form TV show Brianiac
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-72318434934887...69585

Combine Thermite with Sulphur and Barium and you get Thermate
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate)

by Phil - SMERSCH Mon May 28, 2007 21:52

Prof Steven Jones (http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php) has released a paper discussing some interesting findings from analysis of dust found in an Apartment near the WTC (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC91...d.pdf) Beware: PDF 2.3 Mb . Specifically he found the dust contained high amounts of Aluminium and Iron as well as other elements such as Sulphur and Barium.

Aluminium and Iron are the main ingredients in Thermite.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite)

Thermite experiments form TV show Brianiac
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-72318434934887...69585

Combine Thermite with Sulphur and Barium and you get Thermate
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate)

by Anon Mon May 28, 2007 22:32

Seven Insurance Companies Pay Silverstein Properties $2 billion As Settlement For 9/11 Insurance Claims

Silverstein Properties, Inc. leased the World Trade Center from the Port Authority in July 2001. Because insurance policies for the property had not been finalized when they were destroyed lawsuits were filed to resolve disagreement over how much the insurance companies should pay.

by Aidan Tue May 29, 2007 00:49

My expertise extends to electrical engineering, not structural - however - it seems to me that the jet fuel would have been burnt within seconds of impact (in both buildings). The official story does not explain the timing issue - why the buildings didn't collapse within minutes of the impact, afterall the steel would have begun to cool after impact and have begun to reclaim some of (not all) its initial strength. I have not seen (and I'm open to correction here) any data that seeks to explain the lag between impact and collapse.
------

You offer no evidence to support your assertion that the fuel would burn off.

-----
As for coming up with a scenario or theory as to why this discrepancy exists. That'd lead to me making a conspiracy theory of my own, either to allow for the discrepancy as the NIST report does or to fall in with those described as the wingnuts. I don't know the reason why the discrepancy exists. I just know that I don't like that it does exist. What is really disturbing about all of this is not the conspiracy angle that can be explored, what's really disturbing is that this NIST report can and is being used to change how we design and build.
-----

So if I have this clear, you assume that the thousands scientists and engineers who contributed to the the NIST are wrong, and the tens of thousands of engineers who are using the NIST to develop new building designs are wrong.

There are several other reports by universities in Leeds, Sheffield and China, all of whom support the NIST.

by Aidan Tue May 29, 2007 00:56

A) I'm not reading the rantings of confirmed right wing, delusional asshole Alex Jones and his insane lunacy.

B) Silverstein rent on the WTC site has run to 258 million a year since the attack, he's spent a fortune, just an renting a hole in the ground. To suggest 911 was done for a (bizarre but when you consider the sums of money spent by world government) paltry amount of money.

C) Steven Jones' dust sample comes from the loft of a confirmed truther Janet Mc Kinely, who has appeared beside Jones at truther conferences. So theres a bias and an appalling lack of scientific methodology in Jones' "research". Finally Jones doesn't consider alternative plausible theories for the presence. Two easy examples, From steel cut using angle grinders, during the rescue, or salvage operation, and the fact that Janet admits her loftmate was a scupltor.

D- for the three of you.

by Seán Ryan Tue May 29, 2007 01:27

"You offer no evidence to support your assertion that the fuel would burn off."

Are you suggesting that the fuel did not burn off?

"So if I have this clear, you assume that the thousands scientists and engineers who contributed to the the NIST are wrong, and the tens of thousands of engineers who are using the NIST to develop new building designs are wrong."

I would have thought it patently obvious from what I've said, that I wasn't making any assumptions. The discrepancy I've pointed out exists. Let's not talk of assumptions. I've said nothing whatsoever about engineers and what they believe. I've pointed out that the NIST report does not prove that the collapse was caused by jet fuel. The only data they publish shows that the samples of steel that they have, probably did not reach temperatures above 600°C. I'm basically calling their work sloppy, I'm not saying their conclusions are wrong, I don't know whether they are or not, I know they're sloppy. Why did they not collect adequate samples? Why did they not collect samples that showed obvious signs of structural failure, like twisting, stretching, etc.? Particularly so when they were already examining the theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel.

I think any engineer who reckons the NIST report to be conclusive is not a very good engineer, I'm not suggesting that these engineers are wrong with regard to examining the science behind the NIST report. Please remember that there are millions of engineers who've never seen the NIST report. Your claim of thousands hanging to its every word and act sounds more like desperation than a refutation of what I've said. The Physics in the NIST report is well worked out (even if their models of floor sagging for example are ten times what has been observed, etc.), but the evidence that the NIST gathered, hardly supports these findings. Most investigative methodologies end with the evidence promoting a theory or a solution. This particular investigation started with a solution that neither gathered the evidence nor focussed on the evidence that they did gather in a way that leads to their solution. As I've said, the science might be good, but the methodology sucks and in this case the methodology was a waste of resources (if the evidence is to be ignored, why gather it?). Engineers might support the science, but they should not support the methodology. I'm wondering why you've skipped what I've actually said and skipped to commenting instead on your assumed conclusions of what I've said.

Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say and I won't be drawn into some circular debate whereby I have to repeat myself over and over and attempt to dampen all and sundry assumptions made about what I think.

by Aidan Tue May 29, 2007 01:57

Are you suggesting that the fuel did not burn off?

You're suggesting it did not, the onus is on you to support the assertion. Photos and evidence of other plane crashes, for example, the concorde crash in Paris a number of years ago, where the building is on flame for hours afterwards.

So put your money where you mouth is, explain why you think the jet fuel would just burn up.

"So if I have this clear, you assume that the thousands scientists and engineers who contributed to the the NIST are wrong, and the tens of thousands of engineers who are using the NIST to develop new building designs are wrong."


I think any engineer who reckons the NIST report to be conclusive is not a very good engineer,
I'm not suggesting that these engineers are wrong with regard to examining the science behind the NIST report. Please remember that there are millions of engineers who've never seen the NIST report. Your claim of thousands hanging to its every word and act sounds more like desperation than a refutation of what I've said.


Thousands of enigneers did contribute to the NIST report. It's the single most examined building collapse in the world. Please offer imperical evidence that millions of engineers haven't read it.


The Physics in the NIST report is well worked out (even if their models of floor sagging for example are ten times what has been observed, etc.), but the evidence that the NIST gathered, hardly supports these findings. Most investigative methodologies end with the evidence promoting a theory or a solution. This particular investigation started with a solution that neither gathered the evidence nor focussed on the evidence that they did gather in a way that leads to their solution. As I've said, the science might be good, but the methodology sucks and in this case the methodology was a waste of resources (if the evidence is to be ignored, why gather it?). Engineers might support the science, but they should not support the methodology. I'm wondering why you've skipped what I've actually said and skipped to commenting instead on your assumed conclusions of what I've said.


Strawman, you've offered no evidence that the NIST evidence or modelling is flawed. It's a 10,000 page report. The number of experts in the field of structural engineering, building design, and civil engineering who have come forward to dispute the NIST report, is virtually nil. As an engineer you should be worried that no one has published a critique of the NIST report in a respected engineering or scientific journal.


Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say and I won't be drawn into some circular debate whereby I have to repeat myself over and over and attempt to dampen all and sundry assumptions made about what I think.

Uh huh.

by Seán Ryan Tue May 29, 2007 03:41

What is it I've said that you've refuted?

I did not claim that the fuel did not burn off as you first claim. Then you say that I think it would burn off and you ask me to say why I think this. Duh. Cause it's fuel. Maybe you are on about the time it took for the fuel to burn (I really don't want to make assumptions here), but your need to appear to be smart combined with your need to be insulting seems to have short-circuited your cerebral cortex. Either way, fuel is liquid and it runs and is prone to the effects of gravity. The NIST report does not indicate that the steel was damaged by heat at lower levels, which is where most of the fuel would have ended up if it were not burnt rapidly. As for soaked objects burning longer and causing the lag I spoke of earlier - I dunno - that's why I initially raised the point in the first place. You've hardly answered this point, despite the glib attitude.

You want me to offer empirical evidence that millions of engineers have not read the NIST report. Well that's a bit thick, but I'll indulge you. I'll use your own diatribe to prove it. Unless you are very wrong, you suggest that tens of thousands of engineers are using the NIST report and that thousands contributed to it. You say the number of engineers who dispute the NIST report is virtually nil. So, if there are millions of engineers and you subtract your tens of thousands of engineers who use the NIST report (it should be okay to presume that they've read it) and you subtract the thousands you say contributed (who've probably read it too), you are left with those who either disagree or those who haven't read it. Since you suggest that nobody disagrees with it, we are left with those who didn't read it. How's that for empirical proof - very accurate too unless you are full of shit.

You say I'm building a strawman when I say the NIST report is flawed. However, in order to refute my point you again say that no expert has come forward to dispute the NIST report. As well as being utterly a load of shite, this answer refutes nothing that I've said whatsoever and shows that you only possess the skill to parrot what you've heard others say, and that your critical reasoning ability would more correctly be labelled a 'disability.'

When I said I didn't want to have to repeat myself, it was not an admission, that I was in fear of your reasoning or skills in debate. It was a nice way of telling you that I don't want to waste my time debating semantics with an airhead.

by Aidan Tue May 29, 2007 15:07

But saying nothing at all.

You haven't shown an evidence the fuel should run off. You haven't shown your math about the collapse mechanism. And you haven't shown any experts in any relevant fields that dispute the NIST.

by Phil - Smersch Tue May 29, 2007 22:57

C) Steven Jones' dust sample comes from the loft of a confirmed truther Janet Mc Kinely, who has appeared beside Jones at truther conferences. So theres a bias and an appalling lack of scientific methodology in Jones' "research". Finally Jones doesn't consider alternative plausible theories for the presence. Two easy examples, From steel cut using angle grinders, during the rescue, or salvage operation, and the fact that Janet admits her loftmate was a scupltor

Adien why are you lying? - did you even read the PDF? You claim Jones doesn't consider alternatives yet in the PDF he clearly does, so once again why are you lying?

Please explain how dust from an angle grinder would be likely to contain Aluminium and Barium and Sulphur? oh wait, maybe the sculptor was cutting blocks of those well known sculpting materials Barium and Sulphur, yeah that's the most likely and safely 'scientific' explaination ;-)

it appears your own mental methodology is quite suspect and you appear to have quite a large bias yourself

B) Silverstein rent on the WTC site has run to 258 million a year since the attack, he's spent a fortune, just an renting a hole in the ground. To suggest 911 was done for a (bizarre but when you consider the sums of money spent by world government) paltry amount of money.

I didn't hear anyone but yourself mention that Silverstein 'caused' 9-11

by Aidan Wed May 30, 2007 11:03

Firstly two other posters have implied or suggested Silverstein was involved in 911, one, suggested insurance fraud, the other because he was a "Zionist" (yet offered no evidence Silverstein is a Zionist).

Aluminum, well the building was clad in Aluminum, so theres a perfectly rational explanation for that, and a major component of dry wall is Sulphur. Sulphur isn't a byproduct of a thermite reaction, by the way, because the sulphur will be boiled off into sulphur dixoide. As to the Barium, once again Jones is cherry picking data

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?...icp=1&.intl=us

See section 2.3.5:
In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and [strong]barium[/strong] particles were produced by [strong]the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.[/strong]

Jones is a fraud, his only previously published paper was a paper on proof Jesus visited the Mayans. He worked in the quack science of the lunatic fringe of the 21st centuries Alchemy, that is cold fusion. He has never published a single article on 911 in a reputable peer reviewed, scientific journal.

by Phil Thu May 31, 2007 22:53

on this page and the only person that said Larry Silverstein knocked down his own building for Insurance purposes was YOU

and you still didn't answer the Q :You claim Jones doesn't consider alternatives yet in the PDF he clearly does, so once again why are you lying?

by Aidan Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:50

Biggest Insurance Payout EVER!
author by Anonpublication date Mon May 28, 2007 22:32Report this post to the editors

Seven Insurance Companies Pay Silverstein Properties $2 billion As Settlement For 9/11 Insurance Claims



So what would stop Israel from murdering 3,000 people in Manhattan on 9/11, by demolishing what is essentially their own property (Zionist Larry Silverman being the proprietor)?

Both quotes from this thread, if you cannot see them as insinuations that Silverstein was involved in the above comments, I suggest you get your eyes checked or a CAT scan of the language center of your brain, because something is clearly defective.

As to Jones. Jones failure to include control samples, his failure to actually consider alternative reasons for the presence of these elements. Combined with the suspicious and dubious manner in which the samples were gathered. Jones' had a predeterminded explaination for the presence of the spherules, and crunched the data to fit his explanation.

He's a liar and fraud.

by Morgan Stack - Scholars for 9/11 Truth Mon Jul 02, 2007 00:02

I think everybody interested in this thread should read this:

-----

From: "Aidan O'Brien" aidanob@gmail.com
Sat, 26 May 2007 00:59:55
To: info@911truth.ie

SUBJECT: Its not how you win or lose its how you play the game

You are a liar and a fraud, and the people of cork saw through you, Now go. Find a sewer, crawl down it and disappear you vile fantastist, you loathsome racist, you spreader of delusional hateful lies. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being, and I will challenge you every time you come forward with another piece of your demented purile nonsense.

In a country where a lying decietful cheat like Adhern can be elected Taoiseach, you should learn a lesson as to what a lightwhite pointless amateur you are. Go home, leave your fantastist truth at home.

Oh, and Morgan heres were we've been laughing at you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75189

He heh.

-----

He he indeed.

Nice person this guy.

by Inside job Mon Jul 02, 2007 00:41

Well done Morgan, keep up the good work!

Unfortunately some people are so brainwashed by the media they just can't accept the truth when it's staring them in the face. They would much prefer to stay in their safe little world were the media always tells the truth.

The evidence is mounting up daily about 911 from very credible sources yet anyone who challenges the official story is a conspiracy nut.

Meanwhile they have no problem believing that 19 terrorists with box-cutters managed to hijack 4 planes and expertly fly 3 of them into buildings, with maneuvers highly experienced pilots could barely do. All planned and executed from caves in Afghanistan.

They've no problem with the fact that 2 of them disappeared into holes, that NORAD was asleep at the wheel for an hour and a half, that building 7 just collapsed for no reason, that DNA/passports at the WTC was used to identify the terrorists, that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed etc etc etc

by MC Wed Jul 25, 2007 13:02

"
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.
"

by Chris Fri Aug 31, 2007 22:55

Different Indymedia sites have different views on 9/11, for example see the Sheffield Indymedia feature article from 2006:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/0....html

Or the Portland IMC 9/11 topic:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/topic/911investigation/

In the UK the site that the Notes from the Borderland people have produced is often cited by those defending the official story, 9/11 Cult Watch:

http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/

A couple of the authors they suggest for further reading are Peter Dale Scott and Nafeez Ahmed:

http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/911cult_009.htm

There is some interesting material from them on the UK IMC site:

Creating Terror
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/376665.html

“JFK, 9/11 and War”
Dr. Peter Dale Scott
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/379256.html

Regarding the matter of construction professionals and 9/11 the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth site can be found here:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

by William West - http://9-11.meetup.com/86/?gj=sj2 Sat Sep 01, 2007 21:04 wowest at socal dot rr dot com

I visited that website, but only for a moment. I'm an American, and I have to live in a country which is going through this debate. Right now, about 60% of us still believe the official story about what happened on 9/11, but 40% do not, and that is with no support from major corporate media. If the German people had had an internet in 1939, Hitler probably would still have rolled in to Poland, but someone might have caught on that Operation Himmler was not Poland attacking Germany, but Germany attacking itself and blaming Poland. As it turned out, we didn't learn about this until the war crimes trials after the war.

Actually, the "moles" inside the U.S. Government have been very good at keeping secrets. It has taken years for information about the JFK assassination to come out. We have a recent book: "Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K." by Barr McClellan, "Noted L.B.J. Authority and Personal Attorney." McClellan, LBJ's attorney for years, states that LBJ ordered the murder of JFK. LBJ's former mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown has come out with the same accusation and also accuses LBJ of ordering the murders of other people. In his taped, deathbed confession, Watergate criminal and CIA operative, E. Howard Hunt, implicated LBJ, CIA operative Cord Meyer and others as the leaders of LBJ's coup d'etat. Cord Meyer had a special motive, since his former wife, Mary Pinchot, was reportedly JFK's favorite mistress. Pinchot was murdered about a year after JFK, and on his deathbed, Cord Meyer said that Mary was murdered by the same people who killed President Kennedy.

Dozens of other people died under mysterious circumstances after the JFK assassination, including most famously David Ferrie and Dorothy Kilgallen. If you want to keep someone quiet, you can either kill them or threaten to kill their loved ones. In the U.S. government, they can take away your pension if you do something while still employed that the President's people don't like. Consequently, we see a LOT of retired military personnel coming out against our government over 9/11, but almost nobody on active duty. This isn't all just a bunch of crazy racists. Look at all of these people:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

by Neil Wed Oct 27, 2010 00:07

Not everyone who has questions about 911 blames it all on a Jewish Conspiracy. 911 was not a Jewish, Muslim or Zionist Crime. There were many Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddists and Athiests who all lost their lives on 911. There is evidence that multiple intelligence agencies knew of an approaching attack and that they warned the American intelligence agencies. Individuals within the US Intelligence network tried to do their jobs ie Lt Colonel Anthony Shaffer and FBI John O'Neill but they were prevented from doing so for what reason we still don't know, but it appears to be more than just people being complacent.

The 911 Commission was formed to investigate the attacks as a direct result of the pressure from the 911 families who thought for justice, accountability and answers. The White house didn't want an investigation but was eventually forced.

Please, take the time to learn some real issues about 911

911 Press for Truth

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397956877941413...6481#

Everybody's got to learn sometime

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=900707975435571...1945#

Core of Corruption in the Shadows

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9uB64ghcq8

Fabled Enemies

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-21449331908752...9407#

Watch those four films, if they dont open your eyes to something being very wrong with 911 I dont know what will...

by The Conspiraloon™ Alliance Wed Oct 27, 2010 17:22

Thanks to the spectre of cognitive infiltration the Conspiraloon™ Alliance has few in the way of heroes it can place faith in in these difficult times. Michael Parenti is, however, one of the handful of serious academics such as Peter Dale Scott, Michael Hudson and Jesse 'The Body' Ventura that the Alliance currently looks upon favourably. That is until if and when they are exposed as being the COINTELPRO scum that they possibly are

As Michael P. himself said recently

'Democracy isn't about trust ...trust is something you should reserve for close friends and loved ones ...and even then you should check them out once in a while'

Here is an mp3 of a speech Parenti made earlier this year at the Understanding Deep Politics conference
Michael Parenti: Deep Ideology and Conspiracy - http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2010/09/45....html

Parenti's getting on a bit and he does lose his way momentarily a couple of times in his presentation. But this is Parenti we're talking about and even a Parenti who pauses occasionally to think to himself about what's for dinner tonight and if he should put on a cardigan or not is still a class act

Highlights of the talk include...

* A listing of the intellectual alternatives to what is now termed 'Conspiracy Theory. Alternatives such as "Innocence theory", "Somnabulist theory", "coincidence theory", "stupidity theory", "incompetence theory" and the trusty old loon favourite "stochastic theory" (shit happens)

* A discussion of how the Few have managed to narrow the range of permitted public political discourse down to a point where any suggestion that the establishment is run by people of deliberate bad faith is designated as being in the same category as Elvis sightings

* Identification of what should be a blindingly obvious point that, for some logically inconsistent reason, it's OK to believe that Labour organises to pursue its own self-interest in the best way that it can but to believe that oligrach's do the same is popularly dismissed as insanity. A notion enthusiastically promoted by media owned and controlled by those self-same oligarchs

Parenti also ponders upon the fact that those who consider themselves to be of the Liberal Left have been suckered into being some of the most vigorous supporters of this kind of elite-serving bullshit thinking.

It's Parenti. It's Good Stuff

The most ridiculous Liberal-Lefty response frequently seen in those unable to accept modern Geo-political and social reality, is the utterly illogical one espoused by some dude called Chekov (above):

"It would require tens of thousands of people to be complicit in mass murder of their own citizens, with perfect secrecy. That's impossible"

It may be 'improbable' (or it may not) - but it is certainly not 'impossible' - and anyone claiming that it is 'impossible' is merely demonstrating the narrow confines of their own intellect.

This rejection, based on nonsense 'logic', somehow takes for granted the notion that our leaders (both Military & Political) are NOT completely psychopathic, which given the welter of available evidence to the contrary, is an utterly ridiculous supposition.

For more on the subject of the very obvious Psychopathology of Military & Political leaders in the West (and elsewhere) please vist the website Political Ponerology - : http://www.ponerology.com/

" With very few exceptions down the ages, discussions in moral philosophy - the study of right conduct - have failed to systematically investigate the origin, nature, and course of evil in a manner free from supernatural imaginings. Evil was often considered something to be endured rather than something that could be understood and eliminated by rational measures. And - as Lobaczewski demonstrates - the origin of evil actually lies outside the boundaries of the conventional worldview within which the earlier moral inquiries and literary explorations were conducted. Evil requires a truly modern and scientific approach to lay bare its secrets. This approach is called “ponerology”, the study of evil, from the Greek “poneros” = evil.

The original manuscript of this book went into the furnace minutes before a secret police raid in Communist Poland. The second copy, painfully reassembled by scientists working under impossible conditions of violence and repression, was sent via courier to the Vatican. Its receipt was never acknowledged - the manuscript and all valuable data lost. In 1984, the third and final copy was written from memory by the last survivor of the original researchers: Andrew Lobaczewski. Zbigniew Brzezinski blocked its publication.