9/11 - what happened?
- Thread starter Cloggy
- Start date
Have any of your heard of Aaron Russo?
America: Freedom to Fascism
We need to watch what our government is trying to do. Do not sit back and think that everything is OK. Read, get informed and get involved.
America: Freedom to Fascism
We need to watch what our government is trying to do. Do not sit back and think that everything is OK. Read, get informed and get involved.
Cloggy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 4,703
- Reaction score
- 0
I tried, but the interest here is minimal... (denyal)
A film to start with might be 911 Mysteries.... (1-1/2 hrs)
The one you cited might be too much the first time....
BUt it is a great film!
R
rockdrummer
Guest
Denial would be refusal to admit to facts. All I see is a lot of conjecture and speculation. My word of the day to you is paranioa.
To the folks that live outside the United States I say, look in your own backyard and tell me what you see. Perhaps your efforts will be better served if you focus on the corruption and deceptions and hidden agendas of your own governments. Sure, the US and it's government are not perfect, but I challange anyone to show me which country and which government is.
The USA is one of the greatest countries in the world and has been a great champion for human rights around the world. Freedom is a very powerful thing that (despite the wolf cryers) is not going anywhere. It's also why this is one of the most diverse countries in the world. People gravitate to freedom and once they have a taste of it, there is no turning back.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
There is none. Countries and governments are comprised of people, and people are imperfect. Some are better than others, and some are worse than others; but there is none perfect.
R
rockdrummer
Guest
reba said:
Thank you for re-enforcing my point reba. zxvasdf, it's not perfection that I seek. I am merely trying to make a point. Your comment, while sounding profound lacks depth and doesn't resemble reality. It sounds like something one would find in a fortune cookie.
R
rockdrummer
Guest
JohnK... you are right. I don't believe anybody is sitting on their hands. I honestly believe there is a silent majority that would not remain silent if we felt that our freedom is being infringed upon.
R
rockdrummer
Guest
oh man... I just had to come back to this thread after I watched an episode of South Park last night. The premise was that all of the 9/11 conspiracy sites were actually set up by the US government to give people the impression that they had enough control to pull something like 9/11 off. That is an interesting angle. The conspiracy is a conspiracy. Food for thought eh?? Personally, I stll believe (as was concluded in the episiode) that 9/11 was pulled of by some pissed off muslums. Not the US government...
Cloggy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 4,703
- Reaction score
- 0
Many of those 19 "pissed off muslums" are still alive even though the official version of the governement is that they died in the atttack...
What shook me was that the goverment is holding on to theories that are impossible, for example with relation to the collapse of 3 WTC buildings, or easy to proof but no proof is provided, like a video-footage of a plane hitting the pentagon.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Maybe you can let the Jihadists in on that "secret". Apparently they haven't gotten the word. They still revere and celebrate "The Magnificent 19" martyrs who died for their cause.
WorldNetDaily: Group celebrates 'Magnificent 19' hijackers
"Attiya Allah repeatedly refers to his own tears, an apparent expression of regret for having not followed the hijackers to 'martyrdom'”.
WE CONGRATULATE THE WHOLE MUSLIM NATION ON THE V ANNIVERSARY OF THE MARTYRDOM OF HER GREATEST SONS! - Global War
"Planning for Sept. 11 did not take place behind computer monitors or radar screens, nor inside military command and control centers, but was surrounded with divine protection in an atmosphere brimming with brotherliness ... and love for sacrificing life," an unidentified narrator said.
The video released Sunday, stamped with the emblem of As-Sahab, al-Qaida's media branch, was titled "Knowledge is For Acting Upon" and subtitled "The Manhattan Raid."
...It included the last testament of two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Wail al-Shehri and Hamza al-Ghamdi, and showed bin Laden strolling in the camp, greeting followers.
"Among the devout group which responded to the order of Allah and order of his messenger were the heroes of Sept. 11, who wrote with the ink of their blood the greatest pages of modern history," the narrator said, referring to the hijackers who flew planes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
Al-Shehri and al-Ghamdi were each shown speaking to the camera, their image superimposed over background pictures of the crumbling World Trade Center towers and the burning Pentagon, as well as a model of a passenger jet....
Global War
19 US PORKERS KILLED IN IRAQ: HONORING THE MAGNIFICENT 19!
"A bullet in the head of Uncle Sam for every 9/11 Martyr: "Iraqi Mujahiden fighters carried out a complex attack on a US column on the al-Jarayishi Road north of ar-Ramadi, about 110km west of Baghdad, killing at least 10 US troops and wounding seven more of them."
19 US PORKERS KILLED IN IRAQ: HONORING THE MAGNIFICENT 19! - Global War
I could add more quotes and links but I'm feeling sick to stomach reading this garbage.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 323
I will never forget that day. The image of the smoke billowing from the Pentagon and the live video of the 2nd plane crashing into the WTC will be forever embedded in my mind. It felt unreal that day.
Cloggy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 4,703
- Reaction score
- 0
For many of us it's our personal "The day that Kennedy was killed"
But in order to make sense of it, and to honour the ones that were killed, we need to look at it rationally.
If at first we remove all the feelings and personal opinions, we might learn.
I was waken up by science, showing how the official story could not be true. And it amazes me still that some people will not look at that kind of evidence because of their feelings.
OUr feelings are programmed. It is based on the media. How I feel about North Korea is based on my sources of information, and mostly, that's TV.
Same with 911. My views were based on the media. Until I watched a video on the internet, that displayed science. showing how it could NOT have happened.
Again, before we accuse people based on our feelings, let's have a look at science.
But in order to make sense of it, and to honour the ones that were killed, we need to look at it rationally.
If at first we remove all the feelings and personal opinions, we might learn.
I was waken up by science, showing how the official story could not be true. And it amazes me still that some people will not look at that kind of evidence because of their feelings.
OUr feelings are programmed. It is based on the media. How I feel about North Korea is based on my sources of information, and mostly, that's TV.
Same with 911. My views were based on the media. Until I watched a video on the internet, that displayed science. showing how it could NOT have happened.
Again, before we accuse people based on our feelings, let's have a look at science.
Cloggy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 4,703
- Reaction score
- 0
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Found on 911Truth.org
Monday, January 10 2005
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
From the Resonant Resurrections Dept: This wise little version of "Cover-ups for Dummies" has been floating on the Net since the late '90s at least. Given the government/media handling of 9/11, the resulting wars, and recent electoral fraud it often seems our top officials must read it everyday. If we're to bring the truth alive in 2005, it may help to occasionally remind ourselves how the pros play the game. - Editor
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Found on 911Truth.org
Monday, January 10 2005
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
From the Resonant Resurrections Dept: This wise little version of "Cover-ups for Dummies" has been floating on the Net since the late '90s at least. Given the government/media handling of 9/11, the resulting wars, and recent electoral fraud it often seems our top officials must read it everyday. If we're to bring the truth alive in 2005, it may help to occasionally remind ourselves how the pros play the game. - Editor
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Cloggy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 4,703
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
I did. Those are Muslim sources that I used.
The Jihadists are convinced the 19 hijackers died while attacking the US.
Okay Cloggy, Let's think for one mintune here. Do you question what is happening between Israel and Palestine ?
Why does Israel need The Wall ?
It would be about the same as agruing that suicide bombers from Palestine did not enter Israel and went on a bombing rampange throughout Israel then turning around and saying that the Israeli government conspired to bomb its own citizens of Israel.
See how silly this connection is between the U.S.A. and the Al Qaeda and blaming Uncle Sam for flying those planes into the twin towers, the Pentagon and almost targeted the White House.
These terrorists did their dirty work and murdered innocent American citizens on 9/11/01 period.
Why does Israel need The Wall ?
It would be about the same as agruing that suicide bombers from Palestine did not enter Israel and went on a bombing rampange throughout Israel then turning around and saying that the Israeli government conspired to bomb its own citizens of Israel.
See how silly this connection is between the U.S.A. and the Al Qaeda and blaming Uncle Sam for flying those planes into the twin towers, the Pentagon and almost targeted the White House.
These terrorists did their dirty work and murdered innocent American citizens on 9/11/01 period.
Cloggy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 4,703
- Reaction score
- 0
And that is why you believe it??
Cloggy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 4,703
- Reaction score
- 0
Again, you're letting feelings prevent you from looking at facts.
The WTC's could not have fallen the way the government say's it did.
But you are letting yourself getting clouded by media-food.
Look at facts, then ask questions.
Have you seen a video showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon...
Why did WTC-7 collapse, when other high-rise closer to WTC 1 and WTC-2 remained standing..
BTW: Silverstein owned all the building that collapsed. Buildings that he did not own, did not collapse......
But then again. That's a fact. Not proof...