9/11 - The Perfect Set-Up

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by Herman

Give me a story about 9/11, involving the government setting it up that doesn't have holes in it. And make that from a credible news source, please. Please tell me that you AT LEAST accept the fact that it was the airplanes that struck the WTC, and not a missile or something. I'm challenging you. Find me a story without any holes in it.

Go read 'Cross ing the Rubicon'

If you still think the US had no part in 9/11 then there is nothing that will convince you apart from a live confession by Dick Cheney on TV (which if you read Crossing the Rubicon you will understand will NEVER HAPPEN).

So there, i FOUND you a story. Now it's up to you but be warned, it's 696 pages and has around 50 pages of sources, scanned documents and footnotes.

Try again. Books are people's opinions. There's books that say it Bin Laden. What makes your book better?

Oh, so you've already read it have you??

You asked for something that referenced press reports and politicians rather than formed opinion, that's what that book is. It's written by a former LAPD narcotics investigator who has established and presented the 9/11 story and more information which puts 9/11 into perspective by using evidence that would hold up in court, no blurry photos, no video stills, no references to 9/11 websites - just pure fact that can not be dismissed.

"Crossing the Rubicon is unique not only for its case-breaking examination of 9/11, but for the breadth and depth of its world picture - an interdisciplinary analysis of petroleum, geopolitics, narco-traffic, intelligence and militarism - without which 9/11 cannot be understood."

Go read it instead of ASSUMING what it says because your opinion is already cemented into the ground and your not denying ingnorance, your embracing it.

Some people just can't be helped i guess, even when they ask for help.

Herman, read this thread. Actually read it, and if that doesn't raise some questions for you then I rest my case.

Originally posted by twitchy
Herman, read this thread. Actually read it, and if that doesn't raise some questions for you then I rest my case.

Your link isn't working...

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Oh, so you've already read it have you??

You asked for something that referenced press reports and politicians rather than formed opinion, that's what that book is. It's written by a former LAPD narcotics investigator who has established and presented the 9/11 story and more information which puts 9/11 into perspective by using evidence that would hold up in court, no blurry photos, no video stills, no references to 9/11 websites - just pure fact that can not be dismissed.

"Crossing the Rubicon is unique not only for its case-breaking examination of 9/11, but for the breadth and depth of its world picture - an interdisciplinary analysis of petroleum, geopolitics, narco-traffic, intelligence and militarism - without which 9/11 cannot be understood."

Go read it instead of ASSUMING what it says because your opinion is already cemented into the ground and your not denying ingnorance, your embracing it.

Some people just can't be helped i guess, even when they ask for help.

I'm pretty sure I asked for a news source. Do you have one? Or are you going to try to get me to buy a book, because you can't find a credible source?

I can find plenty of sources where Bin laden admitted he was behind those attacks. I'm courteous, so I'm not going to reference you to Amazon.com, and ask you to buy the 9/11 commission report or anything like that.

Here's one

news.telegraph.co.uk...;$sessionid$DSPJJLQAACOGRQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/1 1/11/ixhome.html

www.foxnews.com...

I could go on if I wanted to. Instead of wasting your time looking for obscure inconsistencies that you only see because of your own ignorance, read up on a little history, and the links and evidence that we used to find out it was Bin Laden, as well as him actually admitting to the attacks... Why do you ignore this?

uh no, this guy said he did it...



And the link I posted above works fine for me.

Yeah, Bin Laden only claimed responsibility in the dubious videos, which contained many errors, from the faces that don't match to Osama writing with his right hand when he's supposed to be left-handed.

But even if you try to defend those videos, remember this: Bin Laden claimed his innocence before those videos came out, when he did an interview with major Pakistani press that was released on Sept. 28, 2001. In it, he said that he didn't know who was behind the collapses, but that he believed it was likely either Israel or a faction within the US government. He further went on to denounce the killing of women and children, which is prohibited in the Quran, etc. Stuff you won't hear on CNN or Fox.

I heard there was another one where he admitted it .. haven't seen it yet though but if anyone has, please post it here.

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Herman
Fox news has a right-wing bias, correct? They want to make Bush look good. If they say something negative about Bush, and saying he orchestrated one of the biggest civilian attacks in our history being the mother of negative things, wouldn't you say it would have some truth to it?

Quick question: Would you only believe Hitler was bad if the SS told you so? I guess the Jews were biased then and can't be trusted. Damn those partisan Jews!

Sorry to pull the Nazi card, but it makes the point, I feel.

Well I know for sure that Hitler was bad. It goes way beyond bias...

Your missing his point completely, produced by your lack of reasoning.

Originally posted by motionknight

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Herman
Fox news has a right-wing bias, correct? They want to make Bush look good. If they say something negative about Bush, and saying he orchestrated one of the biggest civilian attacks in our history being the mother of negative things, wouldn't you say it would have some truth to it?

Quick question: Would you only believe Hitler was bad if the SS told you so? I guess the Jews were biased then and can't be trusted. Damn those partisan Jews!

Sorry to pull the Nazi card, but it makes the point, I feel.

Well I know for sure that Hitler was bad. It goes way beyond bias...

Your missing his point completely, produced by your lack of reasoning.

Ouch! A zinger! Why is it that when I throw a little bit of logic at you guys, I get attacked so viciously? He was trying to use an extreme example to relate to my situation. If I had absolutely no idea who hitler was, but knew that the SS was an organization that supported him, and that the jews hated him, then suddenly the SS turned against him, It would be further proof that Hitler was a bad man.

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by motionknight

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Herman
Fox news has a right-wing bias, correct? They want to make Bush look good. If they say something negative about Bush, and saying he orchestrated one of the biggest civilian attacks in our history being the mother of negative things, wouldn't you say it would have some truth to it?

Quick question: Would you only believe Hitler was bad if the SS told you so? I guess the Jews were biased then and can't be trusted. Damn those partisan Jews!

Sorry to pull the Nazi card, but it makes the point, I feel.

Well I know for sure that Hitler was bad. It goes way beyond bias...

Your missing his point completely, produced by your lack of reasoning.

Ouch! A zinger! Why is it that when I throw a little bit of logic at you guys, I get attacked so viciously? He was trying to use an extreme example to relate to my situation. If I had absolutely no idea who hitler was, but knew that the SS was an organization that supported him, and that the jews hated him, then suddenly the SS turned against him, It would be further proof that Hitler was a bad man.

You just dont get it, otherwise your response would have been very different.
Face it, you lack insight dude.

Originally posted by motionknight
You just dont get it, otherwise your response would have been very different.
Face it, you lack insight dude.

Alrighty. Debating strategy 101: If you can't think of a counter-point, just tell the opponent that they don't get it, they lack insight, or that they're not "enlightened".

I answered your silly question, and am currently awaiting a rebuttle.

Originally posted by Herman
snipped


Ouch! A zinger! Why is it that when I throw a little bit of logic at you guys, I get attacked so viciously? He was trying to use an extreme example to relate to my situation. If I had absolutely no idea who hitler was, but knew that the SS was an organization that supported him, and that the jews hated him, then suddenly the SS turned against him, It would be further proof that Hitler was a bad man.

let me interpret since he's not being as patient trying to translate what i believe he's trying to say.

in germany, the germans believed hitler was doing what was right and he went far lengths to maintain a positive tone from the public. there were many who opposed his plans but those numbers outweighed the 'patriots' for a better word who believed in his goals and his plans.

now with that being said, the american people for the most part, 'patriots', believe in what the president is saying and follow him and oppose any other motive that will portray him in a dim light. it's extremely hard to prove the governments agenda because they have a lean on almost everything. so if they are pushing an agenda, best believe the general public isn't in the 'know'. people who do questions the orders going down to them are quickly labeled as unpatriotic when one of the most patriotic things to do is keep the government in check during times when they can abuse their power.

hope this gives you a better perception to what our friend was trying to tell you.

A couple of pertinent quotes:

"Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall


"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears, upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop! And you've got indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
--- Mario Savio 1964

Originally posted by Conspicuouz

let me interpret since he's not being as patient trying to translate what i believe he's trying to say.

in germany, the germans believed hitler was doing what was right and he went far lengths to maintain a positive tone from the public. there were many who opposed his plans but those numbers outweighed the 'patriots' for a better word who believed in his goals and his plans.

now with that being said, the american people for the most part, 'patriots', believe in what the president is saying and follow him and oppose any other motive that will portray him in a dim light. it's extremely hard to prove the governments agenda because they have a lean on almost everything. so if they are pushing an agenda, best believe the general public isn't in the 'know'. people who do questions the orders going down to them are quickly labeled as unpatriotic when one of the most patriotic things to do is keep the government in check during times when they can abuse their power.

hope this gives you a better perception to what our friend was trying to tell you.

I understood what he was saying, and I believe I answered him accordingly. (Interspersed with some sarcasm, of course ).

WeComeInPeace,

I see your quotes. They're very nice...really. But just because some nazi leader says that, it doesn't mean it applies to every country. What if we really were being attacked?

If Bin laden stepped out and said "The people didn't believe me. They didn't believe me so I gave them internet access. After that, they trusted me." would you suddenly be weary of the internet, and take it as a brainwashing tool?

Originally posted by Herman

I'm pretty sure I asked for a news source. Do you have one? Or are you going to try to get me to buy a book, because you can't find a credible source?

haha, well of course any source i give you won't be 'credible' in your eyes but lets carry on anyway shall we...

I can find plenty of sources where Bin laden admitted he was behind those attacks. I'm courteous, so I'm not going to reference you to Amazon.com, and ask you to buy the 9/11 commission report or anything like that.

"plenty of sources" hey? OK, lets see them.
Thanks for being so courteous that you CAN'T direct me to any investigative journalism which would be found in a BOOK and i'm so sorry to hear you don't have libraries where your from to be able to go borrow a book about 9/11 research.

Here's one

news.telegraph.co.uk...;$sessionid$DSPJJLQAACOGRQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/1 1/11/ixhome.html

www.foxnews.com...

I could go on if I wanted to.

Well you should try because if you read your links, you'd realise they are 3 seperate links, your right there, BUT 2 reference the SAME source and are talking about the SAME story, therefor NOT making it "plenty of sources" but in fact 1 source that has been repeated on multiple mainstream press. The fox article is a different Bin Laden video, known as the 'election video'.

Link Number 1 - People's Daily (CHINA) - it's an article quoting the Telegraph which is your second link. This is NOT a source article, it contains the same text as the Telegraph article.

LINK Number 2 - Telegraph (UK) - Where did the Telegraph get this magical video from? What's their source exactly?:

"The footage, to which the Telegraph obtained access in the Middle East yesterday, was not made for public release via the al-Jazeera television network used by bin Laden for propaganda purposes in the past."

So it's a tape that's been 'obtained' yet it's never gone public and no further sources are given to it's athenticity.

Some interesting quotes:
"It is significant that throughout the video he uses the personal pronouns "I" and "we" to claim responsibility for the attacks. In the past, he has spoken of the attackers only in the third person.

Bin Laden has publicly issued four previous videos since September 11, always denying carrying out the atrocities."

Link Number 3 - Fox News (US) - 3 years later than your other video articles.
This article is actually quoting the 2004 election video, another video that magically appeared at Al-Jazeera and which was NEVER confirmed as being legit.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Instead of wasting your time looking for obscure inconsistencies that you only see because of your own ignorance, read up on a little history, and the links and evidence that we used to find out it was Bin Laden, as well as him actually admitting to the attacks... Why do you ignore this?

HAHAHA, this is the best line yet. Your telling me to stop being ignorant and to read up on history and links and evidence to 'find out it was Bin Laden', yet i'm the one who HAS gone out of his way to buy books FULL of evidence, i even provided you with a direct link and a blurb about those books.

You on the other hand have given 2 dud links and a fox link on two videos which have NEVER been confirmed as real (something that never happens, they are always 'believed' or 'awaiting athenticity').

So go read a REAL interview with Bin Laden that was BEFORE the dodgy un-authenticated videos were annonymously delivered to Al-Jazzera.

The Al-Qa'idah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks
An interview with Usama Bin Laden - Sept 28th 2001
web.archive.org...://www.khilafah.com/1421/category.php?DocumentID=2392&TagID=2

OR how about the BBC for a source?

Taleban defiant over Bin Laden
"The reclusive Taleban leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, said Mr Bin Laden could not have masterminded the attacks because he lacked the capacity do so. The Taleban says it will only consider extraditing Mr Bin Laden if the US provides "solid and convincing" evidence of his involvement in terrorism."
news.bbc.co.uk...

There's two sources which contain VALID quotes and are not un-authenticated sources.

If you've bothered to research Bin Laden, you'll notice that until his death in Nov 2001, he NEVER admitted to 9/11 in any AUTHENTICATED contact. He NEVER called for killing of innocent people but rather that attacks should focus on military targets only.

Now go do some research on that very tape your selling as PROOF:
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Here's a quote:
"Even hard line secular Pakistanis were unconvinced by the released bin Laden video tape. Iqbal Haider, a former senator from the party of ousted prime minister Benazir Bhutto, said he found it hard to believe that bin Laden would allow himself to be filmed confessing to the crime.
"It is hard to believe that a man who masterminds the September attacks with such secrecy and finesse could be that stupid and imprudent," he said. "I hate Osama and the Taliban because they inflicted incalculable damage on Muslims ... but it is hard to digest that he can be such a fool."

Now assuming you've read this far down, i'd like you to know the What Really Happened link contains many links to press reports which you hold so dear, so please, no excuses about that link.




[edit on 1-9-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Originally posted by Herman
WeComeInPeace,

I see your quotes. They're very nice...really. But just because some nazi leader says that, it doesn't mean it applies to every country.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not really interested in this thread, I just threw it in there as food for thought. A little extra spicing in the debate pot.

Originally posted by Herman
WeComeInPeace,

I see your quotes. They're very nice...really. But just because some nazi leader says that, it doesn't mean it applies to every country. What if we really were being attacked?

How much have you looked into this idea?

I don't just mean the 9/11 conspiracy, either. Take a look at politics today. Look at the media channels, and notice how they present information and consider what effect it would have on your average citizen (especially Fox - and consider what result this sort of "journalism" for the masses could have on our fragile political system). Take note of what they choose to focus on, and what they neglect to tell you much about on mainstream TV. Read books like 1984 and compare and contrast Orwell's anti-utopia with where our society is going. Compare and contrast our situation with 1930's Germany, even. Maybe even read some Noam Chomsky and make yourself acquainted with the incredible exploitations of propoganda and media and general corruption that we've seen in the past few decades here in the United States.

Now, for each of the above, feel free to look into either side of the issue, etc., but it really is a responsibility that falls upon us all to be open to these possibilities and protect ourselves, should they begin to set in. These sorts of problems have always plagued mankind. Just because you're actually alive to see it this time around doesn't make a damned bit of difference. Those that are in charge of the world today don't give rats' asses.

If our government, controlling the most powerful nation in the world, is #ing us over right now for its own sake, as has happened time and time again to people all throughout history (who I'm sure expected it just as much as you might right now), then it might be a good idea to realize it.

It's very easy to dismiss the idea of a Nero- or Nazi-repeat out of hand, and for good reason; how great our nation is, and how honorable and infallible our mighty democracy is has been engrained upon us all for years. But it's this that has allowed these sorts of events to take place all throughout history unchecked by the great majority of people, or at least unchecked until it's way too late. The Germans were proud, and they supported their troops, too. Most of them didn't look into it beyond face value.

So I'm not even going to say history is about to repeat itself. I'm just saying please take it into consideration, because it's why people record history. Maybe you'll look into it and reach a different conclusion. Who knows. But at least you'll have really looked.

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by motionknight

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Herman
Fox news has a right-wing bias, correct? They want to make Bush look good. If they say something negative about Bush, and saying he orchestrated one of the biggest civilian attacks in our history being the mother of negative things, wouldn't you say it would have some truth to it?

Quick question: Would you only believe Hitler was bad if the SS told you so? I guess the Jews were biased then and can't be trusted. Damn those partisan Jews!

Sorry to pull the Nazi card, but it makes the point, I feel.

Well I know for sure that Hitler was bad. It goes way beyond bias...

Your missing his point completely, produced by your lack of reasoning.

h

Ouch! A zinger! Why is it that when I throw a little bit of logic at you guys, I get attacked so viciously? He was trying to use an extreme example to relate to my situation. If I had absolutely no idea who hitler was, but knew that the SS was an organization that supported him, and that the jews hated him, then suddenly the SS turned against him, It would be further proof that Hitler was a bad man.

Why would it be proof that hitler was in fact bad man if the SS turned on him??this escapes me completely??
Could mean a coup by a more extreme and evil character, like Himmler who wanted the power that Hitler had, which in such cases often seems to happen because those people at the top with a lot of power are ruthless.

Your argument that something bad can be revealed/proven by something other just as bad or even worse, makes no sense imho, cause in many/most cases the opposite occurs. Hitler was in fact a real bad ass and ruthless and no one of the nazi party even dared to think about overthrowing Hitler.
And those who Hitler suspected in the beginning, he eliminated, like Ernst Rohm of the SA.
Stauffenbergs coup isnt relevant here, because that came at the end of the war when germany was 100% lost en Hitler was dellusional and thought he could still win.

Also look into Stalins history, same kind of story, the man was really feared and therefore no one challenged him, and the ones who he suspected, would be, based on his paranoia, eliminated or sent to workcamps in Siberia.

In your example of the media against Bush, it could mean that the media, controlled by the shadow government(which is the case imho) is ordered to discredit Bush because he might not follow up orders to the wishes of the that shadow government/ NWO (or whatever you want to call it) because even Bush may find them too extreme.

Im not saying this is the case but it could be if he had the hart and the guts for it.

Take note of what they choose to focus on, and what they neglect to tell you much about on mainstream TV.

Actually, most mainstream channels only focus on the bad. Whether it's liberal bias, or just plain drawing viewers in with drama, they like to focus on the bad. On the same day a women's center is opened, 5 marines get killed. Which story makes it on the news? 5 marines getting killed. Fox, I feel, is pretty good at presenting the good things, although I do admit they have a right-wing bias.

As for the rest of your post. I'm open to new things, but so far the mainstream story of 9/11 seems to be the most logical and factual version.

Why would it be proof that hitler was in fact bad man if the SS turned on him??this escapes me completely??
Could mean a coup by a more extreme and evil character, like Himmler who wanted the power that Hitler had, which in such cases often seems to happen because those people at the top with a lot of power are ruthless.

Ok, I'll try to run over my train of logic again. First off, I'm not saying that if it was ONLY fox who was saying this, I'd believe them 100%. I'm saying Fox could sway me more easily than the other news outlets. Seeing as how people like Hannity and Rush have always defended Bush very strongly, and felt very sure of their position, if they were to be presented with enough evidence to sway them to the other side, it would make me think that maybe I was wrong after all.

-I'll try to get to the other points later. Be patient, it's like 6 on 1 here.