The 9/11 Propaganda Archive

You know what I have an idea. Mods should delete this thread because you don't agree with it !

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

If you're referring to the exaggerations and excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq I can certainly agree with you there, but that's outside the scope of your "9/11 propaganda" assertion- that was over the WMD he was supposed to have had.

You know better than that. Bush tried to link Iraq to aL Qaida, and don't you remember the Anthrax story? Iraq invasion had a lot to do with 9/11.

And haven't you just demonstrated there the stupidity of thinking 9/11 was intended to provide a cause to invade Iraq. Yes, there were pathetic attempts to link Iraq with 9/11 but it didn't convince anyone.

So we have the absurd situation where the admin is supposed to have executed an incredibly complex plan with such skill that most people don't give suggestions of an "inside job" the time of day. But when it came to setting up the patsies it all went pear-shaped. Not a single Iraqi involved nor any Iraqi links.

You seriously saying that it didn't convince anyone? What planet were you on when this was going down?

Without 9/11 they would have a lot more trouble to convince people that if we don't invade Iraq we all going to die.

Nonsense, the Iraq invasion had to wait until 2003 and it was then based on failure to adhere to UN resolutions and alleged WMD production. Nothing to do with 9/11.

If 9/11 was an inside job why were there no links to Iraq ? How about a couple of Iraqi hi-jackers ? Why not ?

Originally posted by maxella1
Okay DoodolDave. Did Bush use 9/11 as one of the reasons to invade Iraq?

Nope. He made mention of member of Al Qaida being in Iraq (which isn't saying much, since technically there were members of Al Qaida everywhere in the mideast) but the Iraq resolution as passed by congress made no mention of Iraq being responsible for the 9/11 attack. It was over WMD, the violations of the 1991 cease fire, the brutality of his regime against his own people (I.E. using nerve gas against the Kurds), and a whole shopping lists of other reasons:

Wikipedia article on the Iraq Resolution

Stop changing the subject already- you said this was to discuss "9/11 propaganda" so go aheed and discuss 9/11 propaganda already.

Originally posted by maxella1
You know what I have an idea. Mods should delete this thread because you don't agree with it !

Well, you should at least ask the mods to change the name of this thread, since it clearly say "The 9/11 Propaganda Archive" and as far as I can tell, the 9/11 propaganda archive doesn't make mention about the war in Iraq one way or the other.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

If you're referring to the exaggerations and excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq I can certainly agree with you there, but that's outside the scope of your "9/11 propaganda" assertion- that was over the WMD he was supposed to have had.

You know better than that. Bush tried to link Iraq to aL Qaida, and don't you remember the Anthrax story? Iraq invasion had a lot to do with 9/11.

And haven't you just demonstrated there the stupidity of thinking 9/11 was intended to provide a cause to invade Iraq. Yes, there were pathetic attempts to link Iraq with 9/11 but it didn't convince anyone.

So we have the absurd situation where the admin is supposed to have executed an incredibly complex plan with such skill that most people don't give suggestions of an "inside job" the time of day. But when it came to setting up the patsies it all went pear-shaped. Not a single Iraqi involved nor any Iraqi links.

You seriously saying that it didn't convince anyone? What planet were you on when this was going down?

Without 9/11 they would have a lot more trouble to convince people that if we don't invade Iraq we all going to die.

Nonsense, the Iraq invasion had to wait until 2003 and it was then based on failure to adhere to UN resolutions and alleged WMD production. Nothing to do with 9/11.

If 9/11 was an inside job why were there no links to Iraq ? How about a couple of Iraqi hi-jackers ? Why not ?

Oh boy,

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
Okay DoodolDave. Did Bush use 9/11 as one of the reasons to invade Iraq?

Nope. He made mention of member of Al Qaida being in Iraq (which isn't saying much, since technically there were members of Al Qaida everywhere in the mideast) but the Iraq resolution as passed by congress made no mention of Iraq being responsible for the 9/11 attack. It was over WMD, the violations of the 1991 cease fire, the brutality of his regime against his own people (I.E. using nerve gas against the Kurds), and a whole shopping lists of other reasons:

Wikipedia article on the Iraq Resolution

Stop changing the subject already- you said this was to discuss "9/11 propaganda" so go aheed and discuss 9/11 propaganda already.

Bush persists with notion of 9/11-Iraq link

Despite the dearth of evidence of a solid link since the war, the picture of the relationship remains muddy in the US. Mr Cheney, in particular, has refused to retract his war claims and has continued to hint at hidden connections between Saddam and Bin Laden. Robin Hayes, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, appeared on television yesterday claiming to have seen secret evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks which he could not share. Such cryptic claims were widely rejected as groundless yesterday, but Mr Bush's more subtle rendering of the alleged Iraq-Bin Laden axis will serve to blur the hard lines between fact and propaganda.

9/11 Propaganda used to invade Iraq.

Propaganda exists almost anywhere there is media and politics that becomes fused but the link that the OP has provided is not evidence that there is any conspiracy behind 9/11 pointing to the shadowing hand of the government pulling the puppet strings on the 9/11 hijackers.

OP yes some in the media are definitely guilty of hyping up the terrorist threat, they do so manly through ideology, political allegiances and to get some readers. However at the same time they often play down the threat or dumb down the news so that the lay man can make sense of it.

This is not evidence of any grand conspiracy.

To look at your link however, it’s a blog site that seems to be posting about a group calling themselves neuro linguistic programing (NLP), that made me laugh because I know what NLP actually is, it’s a form psychotherapy and a communication method. It has very little to do with terrorism and 9/11 although some who don’t understand the art of NLP will try to say that the government propaganda machine are using NLP however that is just to demonstrate you don’t understand the what NLP is because it doesn’t work like that. The use of the name NLP makes me think they dude who build this blog chose it because it sounded intelligent when really with him making no other reference to NLP it’s just stupid, nothing mysterious about the name NLP, no its just silly.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Propaganda exists almost anywhere there is media and politics that becomes fused but the link that the OP has provided is not evidence that there is any conspiracy behind 9/11 pointing to the shadowing hand of the government pulling the puppet strings on the 9/11 hijackers.

OP yes some in the media are definitely guilty of hyping up the terrorist threat, they do so manly through ideology, political allegiances and to get some readers. However at the same time they often play down the threat or dumb down the news so that the lay man can make sense of it.

This is not evidence of any grand conspiracy.

To look at your link however, it’s a blog site that seems to be posting about a group calling themselves neuro linguistic programing (NLP), that made me laugh because I know what NLP actually is, it’s a form psychotherapy and a communication method. It has very little to do with terrorism and 9/11 although some who don’t understand the art of NLP will try to say that the government propaganda machine are using NLP however that is just to demonstrate you don’t understand the what NLP is because it doesn’t work like that. The use of the name NLP makes me think they dude who build this blog chose it because it sounded intelligent when really with him making no other reference to NLP it’s just stupid, nothing mysterious about the name NLP, no its just silly.

Again you come with your debunking nonsense.. Can any of you people take your debunking hat off for minute and reply without your ridicule of conspiracy theorists?

This group is putting out print media which was sold after 9/11, and most of it was used as prapaganda for what the government wanted to do in response to 9/11. Simple, No evidence of anything except propaganda.

Originally posted by maxella1
9/11 Propaganda used to invade Iraq.

That's not propaganda about 9/11. That's propaganda against Iraq. I'm not denying a lot of bad information was being circulated about Iraq (especially the nonexistant WMD) but it isn't relevent to the 9/11 attack itself, which I need to remind you is the subject of the 9/11 propaganda archive you're referencing.

Besides, the "propaganda used to invade Iraq" you're referring to wasn't even that far off the mark. Didn't they arrest one of the terrorists involved in the Achille Lauro hijacking in Iraq?

reply to post by maxella1


It’s not a debunking hat, it’s just a brain.

I know quite a bit about terrorism both pre and post 9/11, I am able to judge how much is propaganda and how much is a actual threat. In my view the threat remains very real, terrorists struck America on 9/11 and have tried to do so since 9/11. They have gotten very close a few times and if you look at the fort hood shooting they have even succeeded. I personally think it is not a case of if but when another terrorist attack takes place on US soil that will kill in the region of hundreds if not more.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
9/11 Propaganda used to invade Iraq.

That's not propaganda about 9/11. That's propaganda against Iraq. I'm not denying a lot of bad information was being circulated about Iraq (especially the nonexistant WMD) but it isn't relevent to the 9/11 attack itself, which I need to remind you is the subject of the 9/11 propaganda archive you're referencing.

Besides, the "propaganda used to invade Iraq" you're referring to wasn't even that far off the mark. Didn't they arrest one of the terrorists involved in the Achille Lauro hijacking in Iraq?

The attack on 9/11 is directly used as propaganda. It's relevant !

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but the Bush Administration were saying that if we don't invade Iraq bin Laden is going to kill all of us. Like 9/11 only with WMD's

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
9/11 Propaganda used to invade Iraq.

That's not propaganda about 9/11. That's propaganda against Iraq. I'm not denying a lot of bad information was being circulated about Iraq (especially the nonexistant WMD) but it isn't relevent to the 9/11 attack itself, which I need to remind you is the subject of the 9/11 propaganda archive you're referencing.

Besides, the "propaganda used to invade Iraq" you're referring to wasn't even that far off the mark. Didn't they arrest one of the terrorists involved in the Achille Lauro hijacking in Iraq?

The attack on 9/11 is directly used as propaganda. It's relevant !

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but the Bush Administration were saying that if we don't invade Iraq bin Laden is going to kill all of us. Like 9/11 only with WMD's

Yeah, so the perps could disguise destruction of the WTC buildings, fake a crash site at Shanksville and at the Pentagon. Fake radar tracks, phone calls, wreckage, body parts, flight data recorders, air traffic control tapes etc but couldn't actually get a handle on linking Iraq to any of it. Are you serious ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
9/11 Propaganda used to invade Iraq.

That's not propaganda about 9/11. That's propaganda against Iraq. I'm not denying a lot of bad information was being circulated about Iraq (especially the nonexistant WMD) but it isn't relevent to the 9/11 attack itself, which I need to remind you is the subject of the 9/11 propaganda archive you're referencing.

Besides, the "propaganda used to invade Iraq" you're referring to wasn't even that far off the mark. Didn't they arrest one of the terrorists involved in the Achille Lauro hijacking in Iraq?

The attack on 9/11 is directly used as propaganda. It's relevant !

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but the Bush Administration were saying that if we don't invade Iraq bin Laden is going to kill all of us. Like 9/11 only with WMD's

Yeah, so the perps could disguise destruction of the WTC buildings, fake a crash site at Shanksville and at the Pentagon. Fake radar tracks, phone calls, wreckage, body parts, flight data recorders, air traffic control tapes etc but couldn't actually get a handle on linking Iraq to any of it. Are you serious ?

Well, Did you not know that even though they couldn't link Iraq to 9/11, but tried very hard we went to war anyway?

As for the other things you think ALL truthers believe in ( not true by the way), there are a lot of indications that Bush Administration knew about the planned attack in the US, but nobody was held accountable for their "screw ups".

I'd say they were successful in both examples.

reply to post by maxella1


I'm just...

God, if you actually think that the clip you posted is evidence of centralised control of the media then you are beyond help.

I'll just ask one question to explore the mountainous regions of stupid that make up such an assertion. Do you think that Conan O'Brien is part of the media?

Originally posted by maxella1


Well, Did you not know that even though they couldn't link Iraq to 9/11, but tried very hard we went to war anyway?

As for the other things you think ALL truthers believe in ( not true by the way), there are a lot of indications that Bush Administration knew about the planned attack in the US, but nobody was held accountable for their "screw ups".

I'd say they were successful in both examples.

His point is that they were successful in covering up the missile, the demos, the shoot down, but apparently couldn't even plant a few WMDs.

Most people would find this logically inconsistent.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1

 

I'm just...

God, if you actually think that the clip you posted is evidence of centralised control of the media then you are beyond help.

I'll just ask one question to explore the mountainous regions of stupid that make up such an assertion. Do you think that Conan O'Brien is part of the media?

If you didn't understand what I was trying to show you by posting that video, then you are beyond help.. Lol

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


Well, Did you not know that even though they couldn't link Iraq to 9/11, but tried very hard we went to war anyway?

As for the other things you think ALL truthers believe in ( not true by the way), there are a lot of indications that Bush Administration knew about the planned attack in the US, but nobody was held accountable for their "screw ups".

I'd say they were successful in both examples.

His point is that they were successful in covering up the missile, the demos, the shoot down, but apparently couldn't even plant a few WMDs.

Most people would find this logically inconsistent.

edit on 30-5-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)

Again you and your made up assumption. I never said that they were covering up those things you are imagining.

They failed in their duty to defend American people and American cities and instead of being held accountable some of them got promotions, and NONE of they got ion trouble. That's a successful coverup. But you already knew what I was talking about didn't you? Just can't debate without all of your l sleazy little lies.

Originally posted by maxella1


If you didn't understand what I was trying to show you by posting that video, then you are beyond help.. Lol

If you weren't trying to show me that the media is centrally controlled then why were you responding to my point? And why did you say that "The media is not centrally controlled at all. lol" in a clearly sarcastic manner?

Face it, you were introducing the most pathetic evidence to try to prove that there is some sort of guiding hand influencing the media. That you are now embarrassed about the quality of that evidence speaks volumes.

Originally posted by maxella1


Again you and your made up assumption. I never said that they were covering up those things you are imagining.

They failed in their duty to defend American people and American cities and instead of being held accountable some of them got promotions, and NONE of they got ion trouble. That's a successful coverup. But you already knew what I was talking about didn't you? Just can't debate without all of your l sleazy little lies.

I was assuming that you still thought 9/11 was an inside job based on your previous posts and 'evidence' like the stuff I mentioned above. If you don't now think that then it's probably best to let us know. We can't read your mind.

Originally posted by maxella1

The attack on 9/11 is directly used as propaganda. It's relevant !

According to the 9/11 propaganda archive YOU posted, you're wrong. It deals with the overinflated fears of al Qaida terrorism, and there's a photo of some little girl in a gas mask right on the front page. If you're claiming she was wearing it out of fears of what Saddam Hussein might do rather than what al Qaida might do, you would be lying.

Please stop stalling and answer the question already.

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but the Bush Administration were saying that if we don't invade Iraq bin Laden is going to kill all of us. Like 9/11 only with WMD's

I really don't know what magical combinations of words I need to use to get you to wake up, so I'll try this one more time- THAT IS ENTIRELY ANTI-IRAQ propaganda. The topic of this thread is 9/11 PROPAGANDA, as in propaganda relevent to what happened on 9/11, as in concerning events that occurred anytime between 12:00am to 11:59pm on the date of September 11, 2001. As in what would be included in the 9/11 archive that YOU referenced. This is YOUR thread and I'm asking you questions about YOUR thread.

If you didn't want to talk about 9/11 propaganda then why did you create a thread about 9/11 propaganda instead of Iraq propaganda?