Sorry, my school has a fetish for blocking web sites And this one is barred. Is it just an attention seeking politician, or something more sinister

XAOS

he's in a position to know alright....

[/sarcasm]

there half truths in there. its not all bull#, but the russians have a tendancy for outright silliness in thier news reporting

I for one do not believe any of the crap that has been reported on the fall of the twin towers in new york. Everything that happened was explained too fast and furious- leading to a quick condemnation of a "Phantom Menace".

We are lead to believe that a group of people pulled this off after very little training, mostly in small turbo-prop aircraft?? Come on....

Amongst the reports - how quickly they found a vehicle used by the hijackers, kitted out with a copy of the Koran.. The passport of a hijacker found in the rubble of towers.. The construction of the towers and the 'demolition' style collapse... where are the bodies from the plane that hit the great god Pentagon.. why has there been no funerals... the hasty removal of the rubble from new york etc.. need I go on??

The whole thing is full of holes. More holes than a warehouse of swiss cheese.

I personally believe that this attack was fully orchestrated with the consent and full knowledge of the people behind Dubya and the financial institutions (banking inc).

It's kinda funy how the media has been getting on Saudi Arabia for not not listening to their warnings. But then again we didn't listen to our own intellegence before 9/11

This is pretty intresting that Bush would lie like this.

8:46 AM: Bush later states, "I was sitting outside the classroom and I saw an airplane hit the tower. The TV was on.” [CNN, 12/4/01] “When we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building.” [White House, 1/5/02] [There was no live coverage of the first crash on TV.]

he's just an embecile.... He was simply confused as to the footage he was seeing. I'm all for bashing Bush, but I still don't think we were behind 911. The goal of embarking on a war on terror, could have been better accomplished by other means (instead of crippling the airline industry, a backbone of our economy).

I'd agree with Gazrok on this. There may well have been incompetence on the part of the security services, and there may well have been orders from Bush to leave off the Bin Ladens (further investigation may have uncovered the plot), but I see no reason for the US government to carry out the attack themselves.

Covering up incompetence doesn't imply covering up complicity.

this without any loss of life, and still had us rallying to attack whatever boogeyman they came up with.

Many 911 conspiracists ask how?

Here's just a couple...

1. Blow up the Statue of Liberty
2. Blow up part/all of Mount Rushmore

Either one of these would have generated the same effect (sweeping patriotism, intense anger, etc.) and would have had the added benefit of not crippling the economy (unlike the use of airliners). That's why I just don't subscribe to us being behind 911. It could have been done better, cheaper, and easier, and without hurting their own pocketbooks.

Well, Gazrok, it was a gamble. No, blowing up Mount Rushmore wouldnt have had the same effect. The desired effect was to do something so horrid it would be scorched in the nations mind forever. Thus, a massive loss of life (since when has the US gov shirked from killing or maiming its own people?) plus a massive huge, bloody, horrifying display of pure destruction would dig deeper than wasting a few landmarks. No, the horrifying nature and gore of 9/11 certainly isnt hurting the power that be. They dont care one bit. It didnt hurt them, only made them more popular.

Yes, 9/11 has the stink of govornment involvement all over. Of course, the Russians spin on it is a little silly. As was the French claim that no planes were used, just missiles.

This IS Zhirinovsky we're talking about. The same guy who insisted that if he became Russian president his soldiers would be washing their socks in the Red Sea by Christmas. The same guy who has a habit of physically attacking people if he doesn't like their approach. The same guy who turns up on TV talk shows, drunk and abusive.

This guy is the Russian version of the KKK. A complete butt-tard. He doesn't represent the average Russian's political view and never will.
Why the media gives this worm the airtime I'll never know. Maybe it's to reassure people like me that even the Russians are aware that they need Jerry Springer type psuedo-politicians, like Zhirinovsky, to keep the public's interest in their country's future.

"This guy is the Russian version of the KKK. A complete butt-tard. He doesn't represent the average Russian's political view and never will. "

Regardless, that doesn't mean his statements are necessarily false. I think that it is important to consider all options. He's not the only person who has publically stated this possibility.

Everyone needs to remember that Bush does have a rather super experienced group of people behind him. If he wanted to start a war on terror I don't think those people would have missed out on the fact that this particular course of action would cause thousands of layoffs, the loss of billions, and god knows what other misery. People presiding over misery don't usually get re-elected. That should be proof enough that it wasn't some secret elaborate plan by Bush.

[Edited on 5-30-2003 by Djarums]

Originally posted by MKULTRA
"This guy is the Russian version of the KKK. A complete butt-tard. He doesn't represent the average Russian's political view and never will. "

Regardless, that doesn't mean his statements are necessarily false. I think that it is important to consider all options. He's not the only person who has publically stated this possibility.

I can agree with you to some extent that nothing should ever be discounted out of hand. But having learnt about this guy's political aims and his past track record, it logically follows for me that he isn't the most reliable of news sources.

He's cried "wolf" too many times in the past for me to be able to trust him now.

I can agree with you to some extent that nothing should ever be discounted out of hand. But having learnt about this guy's political aims and his past track record, it logically follows for me that he isn't the most reliable of news sources.

He's cried "wolf" too many times in the past for me to be able to trust him now.

You make a good point regarding this particular individual! I suppose that's the intention for putting him on the news in the first place. If people associate the concept with a crazed-looking madman, it takes away (in their minds) the validity of the theory. You have a good skeptical eye!

I've done a fair bit of research into this 9/11 issue. There are some questions that have vague or misleading answers. For example, the transponders in the planes were manually shut off, and they stayed shut off until the planes impacted into the towers... it was about 45 minutes of off-time, if my memory serves correctly. Where was NORAD in those 45 minutes? Isn't it their job to immediately launch a military escort as soon as a transponder is shut off? The theory says that the reason NORAD didn't respond, is because they were the ones controlling the planes, via remote-control.

Military remote control technology has been available for airplanes since approx. 1957. The only thing that cannot be done by remote is re-armament, supposedly.

I'll see if I can dig up a few websites if there is any interest. If not, no problem. Alot of lives were lost that day, and it is important to crosscheck the "party line". I do not wish for this to offend anyone's memory.

There is no wya in hell that the united states would be behind something like that. NO WAY. the russians are dummer than # when it comes to stuff like that. they just dont want to lose their oil. and hey if they want to strat something with us thats fine. we'll be in moscow with in 6 mounths

Originally posted by abstract_alao
This is pretty intresting that Bush would lie like this.

8:46 AM: Bush later states, "I was sitting outside the classroom and I saw an airplane hit the tower. The TV was on.� [CNN, 12/4/01] �When we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building.� [White House, 1/5/02] [There was no live coverage of the first crash on TV.]

abstract,
There is someing weird about this. I'm aware of another factor that needs to be considered. In F 9-11 w went into a trance right after he was told the second tower was hit. The video zoomed in on him and he stared straight forward with his eyes fixed. After about 10 seconds he started nodding his head lightly, slowly.

These are classic signs of a hypnotic trance state. During post hypnotic performance the subject returns to the original trance state. If he had post hypnotic conditional instructions that were triggered by the information of the second tower hit, he could have been running through an unconscious action list of what the puppet was to do next. All of what I've explained here enables secrecy.

Originally posted by Gazrok
he's just an embecile.... He was simply confused as to the footage he was seeing. I'm all for bashing Bush, but I still don't think we were behind 911. The goal of embarking on a war on terror, could have been better accomplished by other means (instead of crippling the airline industry, a backbone of our economy).

Gazrok,
Your perspective seems relevant if the above is true. The most common sense analysis would say they knew it was going to happen and had alternate cameras in place with a satellite feed to w's transportation and he watched it then forgot to NOT say he'd seen it. Or he didn't see it happen and confused later imagery with the class room period. Now, .... if he is a puppet, are we better off bashing the puppet or looking for strings, seeing in shadowy places and generally understanding puppetry?