NationStates Jolt Archive

Or so says, that most reliable of available sources, Cuban el Presidente Fidel Castro.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070912/pl_afp/usattacks6yearscubacastropolitics_070912045253

The Article itself: http://www.periodico26.cu/english/features/fidel-empire091207.htm

Now, of course, I find this entire proposition ludicrous, and there is a substantial body of evidence to back my position up. I am forced to wonder, though, what sources exactly does he refer to? Furthermore, knowing the credibility of the "truth" movement, one might also be forced to wonder about what sort of system of judgment Mr. Castro is utilizing. One might even feel justified in questioning his judgment and rationality.


Here are some highly credible sources regarding the events of September Eleventh, 2001.

Official and long:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Easy read:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Lot's of sources, as well as condensed data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Why they persist: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html

Videos (rather time consuming):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

Commentary from a douchebag:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Cheerio!

If El Presidente says so, who are we to doubt him?

Can you imagine how hard it would be to manage a cover-up like that? Nixon couldn't even keep Watergate quiet.

Although the Clinton's did a pretty good job with the whole Vince Foster thing.

Honestly the government would fuck up a two car funeral precession, there's no way they could plan something like 9/11.

Honestly the government would fuck up a two car funeral precession, there's no way they could plan something like 9/11.
"They're too incompetent" doesn't wash with conspiracy theorists: "That's all part of the deception tactics".

9/11 was a ploy to distract the public from Bush's reptillian ancestors plan to destabilize Earth's orbit with their core-crystal. Clever buggers!

"They're too incompetent" doesn't wash with conspiracy theorists: "That's all part of the deception tactics".

Paris Hilton actually scored 2200 on her SAT's before she went to MIT and got her degree in quantum mechanics.

Paris Hilton actually scored 2200 on her SAT's before she went to MIT and got her degree in quantum mechanics.

That completely clears up this whole energy crisis!

That completely clears up this whole energy crisis!

That was her plan.

9/11 was a ploy to distract the public from Bush's reptillian ancestors plan to destabilize Earth's orbit with their core-crystal. Clever buggers!

pfft...amateur....It was CRAB PEOPLE YOU FOOL!!!

pfft...amateur....It was CRAB PEOPLE YOU FOOL!!!

Crab people! Crab people! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_races_in_South_Park)

As a side note, if your interested in more on this topic, Wolf Blitzer will be discussing this letter with the president of the Cuban National Assembly during this hour of broadcasting on CNN at the top of the hour. Interestingly, his responses towards Wolf's objections are shockingly similar to certain posters on this forum.

That was her plan.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1761/nonsenseum2.jpg

Crab people! Crab people! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_races_in_South_Park)

As a side note, if your interested in more on this topic, Wolf Blitzer will be discussing this letter with the president of the Cuban National Assembly during this hour of broadcasting on CNN at the top of the hour. Interestingly, his responses towards Wolf's objections are shockingly similar to certain posters on this forum.follow up: Wolf Blitzer just announced -at CNN- the discussion and.. Wolf also mentioned a report about Ahmedjihad saying "the Holocaust never happened"


CNN = fair and balanced

CNN = fair and balanced

Yes, indeed. Why should we have any other news source?

follow up: Wolf Blitzer just announced -at CNN- the discussion and.. Wolf also mentioned a report about Ahmedjihad saying "the Holocaust never happened"


CNN = fair and balanced

Actually, the report is about a popular television show in Iran which deals with the holocaust. As far as the "holocaust never happened" statement, Ahmedinejad has a particular history of association with denial groups, one really cannot blame him for that statement.

And, yes, CNN is decidedly the best of the 24 hour news sources.

Although the Clinton's did a pretty good job with the whole Vince Foster thing.

You are a sick, depraved, exploitaitonal man. Despicable. How fucking low can you get? Vince Foster commited suicide.

one really cannot blame (Wolf Blitzer) for that statement. I just did. I just soiled his credibility.
.

And, yes, CNN is decidedly the best of the 24 hour news sources. ever heard of:
BBCnews? CBCnews? France24? Canal24? RDI? 24Horas? GloboNews? CTVnews?

CNN and FOX do have a nice looking giftwraping.. but the Content is kinda hollow and biased. (more biased than the others)

Although the Clinton's did a pretty good job with the whole Vince Foster thing.

Who? Or what? I guess they did, I have no idea who Vince Foster is.

Who? Or what? I guess they did, I have no idea who Vince Foster is.

Vince Foster was a White House Lawyer who commited suicide in 1993. Certain groups on the Right wing Fringe maintain that the Clinton's had him killed, and framed the evidence. Freepers generally have very little connection with reality, and they have been happy to exploit their moral and rational deficiency by making up stupide Foster conspiracy theories.

Fidel seems to have blown his rocker on this one. :eek:

On the other hand, he has a point when he says this:
Castro said that Cuba offered to donate blood after the tragedy, and that Cuban security services had earlier warned US officials of planned strikes, including information on a planned attempt on then-president Ronald Reagan's life.

In turn, the US government has developed hundreds of plots to kill him, Castro said in the article.

Fidel seems to have blown his rocker on this one. :eek:

On the other hand, he has a point when he says this:

Actually, I think he's gotten alot more amusing.

Fidel seems to have blown his rocker on this one. :eek:

On the other hand, he has a point when he says this:

Yes, Fidel does have a point. He warned us in the 1980's that we might be attacked and, wallah! In 2001 we were. Boy do we have egg on our faces.

At least he didn't claim JEWS DID WTC...

9/11 was a ploy to distract the public from Bush's reptillian ancestors plan to destabilize Earth's orbit with their core-crystal. Clever buggers!

*gets reference*

Ah, those were the days.

*gets reference*

Ah, those were the days.

FINNALY.
Man, I was starting to think I was the only one who remembered ol' Red. I miss him and his many incarnations.

I just did. I just soiled his credibility.
.

ever heard of:
BBCnews? CBCnews? France24? Canal24? RDI? 24Horas? GloboNews? CTVnews?

CNN and FOX do have a nice looking giftwraping.. but the Content is kinda hollow and biased. (more biased than the others)

I had assumed that he meant of the US 24-hour channels. As far as international ones, it is a race between BBC World and CNN International.

FINNALY.
Man, I was starting to think I was the only one who remembered ol' Red. I miss him and his many incarnations.

He came back for a while about a year ago. He lasted about a week and a half before the mods got to him.

You really never know what you have until it's gone. I miss him too. :(

He came back for a while about a year ago. He lasted about a week and a half before the mods got to him.

You really never know what you have until it's gone. I miss him too. :(

Yup. UB just isnt the same. Certainly not as lovable.

Yup. UB just isnt the same. Certainly not as lovable.
We should keep this all cryptic like to confuse the n00bs.
Neither is AP. I mean, they're kind of similar, but TRA/Skap was just the Original. Perhaps since the mods gave Beeker another try, they might give TRA another shot?

I had assumed that he meant of the US 24-hour channels. As far as international ones, it is a race between BBC World and CNN International.

France24 is pretty good, if you happen to speak Frog.

We should keep this all cryptic like to confuse the n00bs.
Neither is AP. I mean, they're kind of similar, but TRA/Skap was just the Original. Perhaps since the mods gave Beeker another try, they might give TRA another shot?

Think he'd come back? Even if he did, his crazy conspiracy theories might not seem the same.
Maybe its best that he lives forever in our minds ;)

ever heard of:
BBCnews?
BBCnews does have a nice looking giftwrap but the content is kinda hollow and biased. (more biased than the others)

Think he'd come back? Even if he did, his crazy conspiracy theories might not seem the same.
Maybe its best that he lives forever in our minds ;)

NYET, COMRADE!

TRA would be the best thing to happen to this forum since 2 servers ago.

Wait isn't Castro dead?

Vince Foster was a White House Lawyer who commited suicide in 1993. Certain groups on the Right wing Fringe maintain that the Clinton's had him killed, and framed the evidence. Freepers generally have very little connection with reality, and they have been happy to exploit their moral and rational deficiency by making up stupide Foster conspiracy theories.

I am not right wing or on the fringe of anything except maybe posting on NSG. I do not think anyone can make a 100% claim of fact about Vince Foster's death either way. As far as what I remember of the time it happened it sure did look like a murder made to look like a suicide. If it was a murder I can't say either way if the Clinton's had a hand in it. If it was a true suicide then the timing was perfect to make it look like a murder plot made into a suicide. There were many, many people at the time that thought there was more to the story then what was being told to them.

Actually, the report is about a popular television show in Iran which deals with the holocaust. As far as the "holocaust never happened" statement, Ahmedinejad has a particular history of association with denial groups, one really cannot blame him for that statement.

And, yes, CNN is decidedly the best of the 24 hour news sources.

Agreed, EXCEPT when it comes to business. Fox may be biased crap, but their Saturday morning business block is pretty good.

I just did. I just soiled his credibility.
.

ever heard of:
BBCnews? CBCnews? France24? Canal24? RDI? 24Horas? GloboNews? CTVnews?

CNN and FOX do have a nice looking giftwraping.. but the Content is kinda hollow and biased. (more biased than the others)

Could you stick to one name? Makes it so much easier to avoid your drivel.

Could you stick to one name? I will, if you remind me to visit my nationstate in 27 days ;) .. and every 30 days after that. :p
.
Makes it so much easier to avoid your drivel.there is other ways, like NOT reading my posts.
Then again other people have tried that.. and failed. ;)

Hey OD, do you remember TRA/Skap?

Is this a trap question? :p

:eek:

I just did. I just soiled his credibility.
.

ever heard of:
BBCnews? CBCnews? France24? Canal24? RDI? 24Horas? GloboNews? CTVnews?

CNN and FOX do have a nice looking giftwraping.. but the Content is kinda hollow and biased. (more biased than the others)

CNN is leagues better than Fox, much as MSNBC is. At the same time, while certain editorial shows are notoriously lacking (Lou "OMG MEXICANS" Dobbs), they tend to have fine coverage. And at the same time, they broadcast CNN International which is indeed on par with, or better than BBC, which is the best of the sources you listed.

And, furthermore, I provided links to sources that have nothing to do with CNN. I merely mentioned Wolf Blitzer as a side note.

I provided a link to your favorite News source, Yahoo, as well as a direct citation to the article itself, which, I might add, is very poorly sourced. In fact, it's an amateurish hack job, poorly argued, filled with irrelevant babble and at times quite random.

Hey OD, do you remember TRA/Skap?

yeah, I remember.. he was a lot of fun.
Good with popcorn. :D

We should keep this all cryptic like to confuse the n00bs.
Neither is AP. I mean, they're kind of similar, but TRA/Skap was just the Original. Perhaps since the mods gave Beeker another try, they might give TRA another shot?you got my vote.

which, I might add, is very poorly sourced. In fact, it's an amateurish hack job, poorly argued, filled with irrelevant babble and at times quite random.

Are you talking about the article or ##Oceandrive? I started reading that and had to read it again to make sure who you were speaking about.:p

Are you talking about the article or ##Oceandrive? I started reading that and had to read it again to make sure who you were speaking about.:p

Fidel, in this case.

I provided a link to your favorite News source, Yahoo...thanks.. I appreciate.

I was attacking Wolf Blitzer on-air biased statement. I was -in no way- targeting you.

everything you said is still standing. (so far I have nothing against it)

thanks.. I appreciate.

I was attacking Wolf Blitzer on-air biased statement. I was -in no way- targeting you.

everything you said is still standing. (so far I have nothing against it)

As far as your charges against Mr. Blitzer, though, that his credibility is brought into question through his statements about the President of Iran's attitudes towards the truthfulness of the mainstream account of the holocaust, I would argue that your statements are rather baseless. There is substantial evidence supporting the charges of Mr. Ahmadinejad's tendencies to deny the holocuast. In fact, the matter is fairly well documented.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4529198.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800995.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Iran_and_President_Ahmadinejad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust

As these sources would show, he has ample evidence for expressing the position that he did.

(so far I have nothing against it)and when I did say "so far" I did mean it.

Now we are over the Edge. (post # 46)

As far as your charges against Mr. Blitzer, though, that his credibility is brought into question through his statements..Blitzer live statement on live National TV?

He clearly attributed to Ahmedinejad the "holocaust never happened" statement.. and if Blitzer can lie like that on National television.. then they have a problem at CNN.. then we have a problem on TV news reporting..

As far as the "holocaust never happened" statement, Ahmedinejad has a particular history of association with....I dont care if Ahmedinejad is associated with extraterrestrial Gay aliens.. Did Ahmedinejad say "the holocaust never happened"?

Did he say that? YES or NO.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this reminds me about the US media leading US to believe Ahmedinejad said "I will wipe out Israel of the map"

:rolleyes:

Blitzer live statement on live National TV?

He clearly attributed to Ahmedinejad the "holocaust never happened" statement.. and if Blitzer can lie like that on National television.. then they have a problem at CNN.. then we have a problem on TV news reporting..
Which, fortunately, we don't.

I dont care if Ahmedinejad is associated with extraterrestrial Gay aliens.. Did Ahmedinejad say "the holocaust never happened"?

Did he say that? YES or NO.

Yes.

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves..." -President Ahmadinejad.

It's not punchy or trenchant if there's nothing to it.

Blitzer live statement on live National TV?

He clearly attributed to Ahmedinejad the "holocaust never happened" statement.. and if Blitzer can lie like that on National television.. then they have a problem at CNN.. then we have a problem on TV news reporting..

I dont care if Ahmedinejad is associated with extraterrestrial Gay aliens.. Did Ahmedinejad say "the holocaust never happened"?

Did he say that? YES or NO.

He suggested it was a myth.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6612892
http://www.meforum.org/article/1704

then we have a problem on TV news reporting..Which, fortunately, we don't.I wish we didn't.

Did Ahmedinejad say "the holocaust never happened"?Yes.hmmm

I guess you really Trust CNN when they "report" about Iran.

time for me to read you links. and post mine.
give me 2 minutes

He suggested it was a myth.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6612892
http://www.meforum.org/article/1704

Except I provided you with a quote that had nothing to do with those two instances. This quote with which I have provided you, and which you have totally ignored it.

Here it is one more time, and test out your reading comprehension.

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves..." -President Ahmadinejad.

If that's not "the holocaust didn't happen", then I don't know what is.

I wish we didn't.

"Boo-hoo! The news isn't presented as I want it to be!"

In other words...

hmmm

I guess you really Trust CNN when they "report" about Iran.

time for me to read you links. and post mine.
give me 2 minutes

Chiefly because they're reporting on the matter of Iran is, and has been accurate.

Now, you're spouting a whole lot of bullshit tonight, and I'm really having a tough time justifying to myself why I'm going to bash my head against the wall on this matter, so I'm going to go do something productive, and I might respond later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Iran_and_President_Ahmadinejad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust
here read these two, they are more to the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Holocaust_denial_and_accusations_of_antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Holocaust_denial_and_demands_to_relocate_Israel

and this one:
http://www.search.com/reference/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Iran-Israel_relation

In December 2005 ...

at one point referring to the Holocaust as a "myth"...

He said that although he does not know whether or not nor to what extent the Holocaust occurred, if it had in fact occurred, European countries should make amends to the Jewish people...

Except I provided you with a quote that had nothing to do with those two instances. This quote with which I have provided you, and which you have totally ignored it.

Here it is one more time, and test out your reading comprehension.

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves..." -President Ahmadinejad.

If that's not "the holocaust didn't happen", then I don't know what is.

Ahh I am not OD2/3....

You are a sick, depraved, exploitaitonal man. Despicable. How fucking low can you get? Vince Foster commited suicide.

Dude, their neocons, they will stop at nothing to 'expose' the evil and decadent 'liberals' in our midst.

I am not right wing or on the fringe of anything except maybe posting on NSG. I do not think anyone can make a 100% claim of fact about Vince Foster's death either way. As far as what I remember of the time it happened it sure did look like a murder made to look like a suicide. If it was a murder I can't say either way if the Clinton's had a hand in it. If it was a true suicide then the timing was perfect to make it look like a murder plot made into a suicide. There were many, many people at the time that thought there was more to the story then what was being told to them.

INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Was Whitewater true?

BROCK : No! I mean, there was no criminal wrongdoing in Whitewater. Absolutely not. It was a land deal that the Clintons lost money on. It was a complete inversion of what happened.

INTERVIEWER : Was Vince Foster killed?

BROCK : No. He killed himself.

INTERVIEWER : Did the Clintons smuggle drugs?

BROCK : Absolutely not.

INTERVIEWER : Did those promoting these stories know that this was not true, that none of these stories were true?

BROCK : They did not care.

INTERVIEWER : Why not?

BROCK : Because they were having a devastating effect. So why stop? It was terrorism. Political terrorism.

INTERVIEWER : But you were one of the agents.

BROCK : Absolutely. Absolutely..

Or so says, that most reliable of available sources, Cuban el Presidente Fidel Castro.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070912/pl_afp/usattacks6yearscubacastropolitics_070912045253

The Article itself: http://www.periodico26.cu/english/features/fidel-empire091207.htm

Now, of course, I find this entire proposition ludicrous, and there is a substantial body of evidence to back my position up. I am forced to wonder, though, what sources exactly does he refer to? Furthermore, knowing the credibility of the "truth" movement, one might also be forced to wonder about what sort of system of judgment Mr. Castro is utilizing. One might even feel justified in questioning his judgment and rationality.


Here are some highly credible sources regarding the events of September Eleventh, 2001.

Official and long:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Easy read:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Lot's of sources, as well as condensed data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Why they persist: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html

Videos (rather time consuming):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

Commentary from a douchebag:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Cheerio!

From beyond the grave in hell where he belongs, Fidel is dead it is all a farce, a sham, and if he really is alive he is very ill, and if he really is alive and its a farce, a sham that he is very sick that is very sick as well.

Alot of people including Americans wish to believe and would love it to be true that the US government perpetraded the attack on the Pentagon, and that President Bush perpetraded Sept 11.

"They're too incompetent" doesn't wash with conspiracy theorists: "That's all part of the deception tactics".

Or ... the fact that every single public spectacle of behaviour on the administrations' part has made them out to be "incompetent" bungling morons who couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel. Never a better cover.
Looks like the "deception tactics" deserve a little more credit, eh? :p

Alot of people including Americans wish to believe and would love it to be true that the US government perpetraded the attack on the Pentagon, and that President Bush perpetraded Sept 11.
And so does the president of Cuba, apperently.

Oh come on people, have you seen that Pentagon video, those Muslims would have had to be dwarfs to fit inside a missile.

Or so says, that most reliable of available sources, Cuban el Presidente Fidel Castro.
...


Many people in the world believe that there was some sort of government-originating conspiracy to allow Bin Laden's fellows to perpetrate the attacks of 9/11/01.

Regardless of the truth of such allegations, there are some blatant errors (let's hope that they were involuntary errors) of the US government in the whole pre- and post-attack behaviour. These errors make such allegations at the very least understandable, if not justified.

Long-term errors:
Funding, during the '80s and the '90s, islamic fundamentalists and militias, and Middle-Eastern dictators like Saddam, to counter the Soviet Union, Iran and to destabilise the Balkans, while forgetting or deeming a lesser evil the risk of a fundamentalist uprising against ALL the western system.

Immediate pre-attack errors:
Total disregard of many intelligence reports, both from US agencies and from foreign agencies, of the imminence of airplane hijiacking and attacks on the WTC.

Post-attack errors:
Blaiming it on Iraq at first - while many sources pointed out that it was a team of (mostly) Saudis, led by Osama Bin Laden.
Allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the US before even asking them a couple of questions.
Restricting US civil rights and freedoms while claiming to be fighting to preserve them, and also allowing torture and arbitrary detention of POWs against the international conventions signed by the US.
Occupying Taliban-led Afghanistan while doing nothing against the pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf - it is and was widely known that Musharraf has never done anything to stop the Talibans, whose madrassas are mostly in Pakistan and whose ethnicity is almost entirely Pashtun.
Attacking Iraq on the false claims of Al-Qaida ties with Saddam (he was a sick bastard, but never a fundamentalist) and on the false WMD claims.
Going, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, more for oil-seizure than for nation-rebuilding and democracy-supporting (check what corporation Mr.Karzai used to work for, or the level of afghani opium production, or the projected pipelines through Afghanistan to see what I mean).

To sum it up, the disastrous behaviour of the Bush cabinet, plus the previous errors of the US administrations (Carter, Reagan, Bush sr, Clinton included), have given a lot of sound arguments to anti-american feelings and propaganda. Is it a wonder that Fidel tries to exploit that?

"Chi è causa del suo mal, pianga se stesso" (let him blame himself, he who caused his own suffering)

here read these two, they are more to the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Holocaust_denial_and_accusations_of_antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Holocaust_denial_and_demands_to_relocate_Israel

and this one:
http://www.search.com/reference/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Iran-Israel_relation

Let's take a quick lesson in reading comprehension and rhetoric, if you're so truly insistent on arguing a falsehood.

In the December 14, 2005 Ahmadinejad stated two major things, both of which are designed to de-legitimize the state of Israel:

"If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision"

This statement is designed around the purpose of de-legitimizing the state of Israel, as to its location. To make this argument, and at the same time not reaffirm the holocaust, he must make the holocaust a hypothetical. This would seem to support your point, if you were to disregard the other part of his speech.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophet"

Hence, "The holocaust is a myth". This is not a hypothetical, this is not a call to debate, this is a conclusion. I don't see how you can read anything else into it.

Many people in the world believe that there was some sort of government-originating conspiracy to allow Bin Laden's fellows to perpetrate the attacks of 9/11/01.

Then many people are total morons, and really need slapped.

Regardless of the truth of such allegations, there are some blatant errors (let's hope that they were involuntary errors) of the US government in the whole pre- and post-attack behaviour. These errors make such allegations at the very least understandable, if not justified.



If anything, these sorts of screwups merely give evidence towards the incompetence and failures of the US government. If they can screw up these things so massively, they how can we seriously expect them to pull of something so massive as the September Eleventh attacks, and keep them secret.

Oh come on people, have you seen that Pentagon video, those Muslims would have had to be dwarfs to fit inside a missile.

Tell me, does this look like a plane, or a missile.

Way, way better than even money that this is a plane.

I
CNN and FOX do have a nice looking giftwraping.. but the Content is kinda hollow and biased. (more biased than the others)

Fox perhaps but CNN is a far different station. On a side note: You defend the Iranian government? boy you really know how to pick em'. I guess anyone against the U.S. must be a great country.

Or so says, that most reliable of available sources, Cuban el Presidente Fidel Castro.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070912/pl_afp/usattacks6yearscubacastropolitics_070912045253

The Article itself: http://www.periodico26.cu/english/features/fidel-empire091207.htm

Now, of course, I find this entire proposition ludicrous, and there is a substantial body of evidence to back my position up. I am forced to wonder, though, what sources exactly does he refer to? Furthermore, knowing the credibility of the "truth" movement, one might also be forced to wonder about what sort of system of judgment Mr. Castro is utilizing. One might even feel justified in questioning his judgment and rationality.


Here are some highly credible sources regarding the events of September Eleventh, 2001.

Official and long:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Easy read:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Lot's of sources, as well as condensed data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Why they persist: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html

Videos (rather time consuming):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

Commentary from a douchebag:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Cheerio!

If your basing your claims off those of that bullshit movie loose change, I have something for you: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Immediate pre-attack errors:
Total disregard of many intelligence reports, both from US agencies and from foreign agencies, of the imminence of airplane hijiacking and attacks on the WTC.


We found about the attack but had no idea of knowing where it was going to take place. But not heightining security was a massive flaw, that I'll agree with you on.

Fox perhaps but CNN is a far different station. On a side note: You defend the Iranian government? boy you really know how to pick em'. I guess anyone against the U.S. must be a great country.
I think you misunderstand, I doubt you'd actually find anyone on NSG you actually wholeheartedly supports Iran, they are a reactionary gang of conservative theocrats and morality police. The difference is, we opposed US imperialism, which means we defend the right of sovereignty and independence from foreign hegemony - even if it means defending states we don't much like.

If your basing your claims off those of that bullshit movie loose change, I have something for you: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Don't worry, I agree with you. I'm calling bullshit on Castro's statement.

I think you misunderstand, I doubt you'd actually find anyone on NSG you actually wholeheartedly supports Iran, they are a reactionary gang of conservative theocrats and morality police. The difference is, we opposed US imperialism, which means we defend the right of sovereignty and independence from foreign hegemony - even if it means defending states we don't much like.

Except the US is not going to do anything to Iran in the short or medium term...

Paris Hilton actually scored 2200 on her SAT's before she went to MIT and got her degree in quantum mechanics.

No, no she didn't. The highest degree she got was a GED because she dropped out of high school.

I guess anyone against the U.S. must be a great country.-US- are a great Country.
.
On a side note: You defend the Iranian government? boy you really know how to pick em'.are you really a n00b? I overestimated you, I though you were some puppet ;)
.
Fox perhaps but CNN is a far different station. Yes FOX is more biased but..

(When they talk about Iran) From the distance is harder to see the coverage differences.. From the other side of the pond they don't look all that much different.. When they talk about Iran, they are quite similar.

Except the US is not going to do anything to Iran in the short or medium term...
Well that's debatable, but violence is only the truncheon under the coat for US hegemony, it only comes out when absolutely necessary. The hegemony is mostly economic, very subtle.

Actually, I think he's gotten alot more amusing.

Well you start to get a little kookie in your old age I guess.

Then many people are total morons, and really need slapped.

Yes. Many people are morons, including those who believe whatever Mr.Bush says, after the many, many proofs of his and his fellows' total disregard for truth and the intelligence of the public.

If anything, these sorts of screwups merely give evidence towards the incompetence and failures of the US government. If they can screw up these things so massively, they how can we seriously expect them to pull of something so massive as the September Eleventh attacks, and keep them secret.

As a matter of fact, by the sheer number of arguments strenghtening the consipracy theories (videos, reports, inquiries etc), I'd say that, if there actually has been a government conspiracy to project the attacks or to allow the attacks to be perpetrated, they didn't make quite a good job in hiding that, don't you think so? ;)

Well that's debatable, but violence is only the truncheon under the coat for US hegemony, it only comes out when absolutely necessary. The hegemony is mostly economic, very subtle.

To a certain extent yes. I don't think a war against Iran will come about considering that most of the american people are quite sick of our current one.

Yes. Many people are morons, including those who believe whatever Mr.Bush says, after the many, many proofs of his and his fellows' total disregard for truth and the intelligence of the public.



As a matter of fact, by the sheer number of arguments strenghtening the consipracy theories (videos, reports, inquiries etc), I'd say that, if there actually has been a government conspiracy to project the attacks or to allow the attacks to be perpetrated, they didn't make quite a good job in hiding that, don't you think so? ;)

Did you at all read the link I posted? Jesus fucking christ its like when they said FDR caused the attack on Pearl Harbor.

-US- are a great Country.
Is, "are" is an improper pluralization.


(When they talk about Iran) From the distance is harder to see the coverage differences.. From the other side of the pond they don't look all that much different.. When they talk about Iran, they are quite similar.

Not entirely, given that there is substantial criticism of Iran from CNN, there is no amount of support for war against Iran. Fox, on the other hand, brings out the "war wagon" whenever Iran is brought up. Complete with Shepherd Smith in mankini, wearing red, white and blue peacock plumes, dancing flamboyantly.

It's really creepy.

Did you at all read the link I posted? Jesus fucking christ its like when they said FDR caused the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The woo woos are all like that. And are dangerous because of their own stupidity.

Yes. Many people are morons, including those who believe whatever Mr.Bush says, after the many, many proofs of his and his fellows' total disregard for truth and the intelligence of the public.

Except you don't have to be a mindless moron who endlessly trusts Mr. Bush on the matter of September 11 conspiracy theories, you just need to have a grain of common sense.



As a matter of fact, by the sheer number of arguments strenghtening the consipracy theories (videos, reports, inquiries etc), I'd say that, if there actually has been a government conspiracy to project the attacks or to allow the attacks to be perpetrated, they didn't make quite a good job in hiding that, don't you think so? ;)

Not particularly, the thing is the theories don't have any actual evidence on the matter, merely conjecture and misreading of reality. For this viewpoint to work, they would have to have actual evidence.

In fact, this is merely the common occurrence of the social-psychological phenomenon known as a conspiracy theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory). It would happen regardless of the evidence presented, as it's almost a religious movement.

We found about the attack but had no idea of knowing where it was going to take place. But not heightining security was a massive flaw, that I'll agree with you on.

We? Are you in the CIA, or in the NSA? :eek:

Actually, some reports - I'm too lazy to go searching the whole thing again - indicated the WTC. Remember, the WTC had already been targeted by islamic terrorists iirc in 1993 (bomb in the underground parking). Of course, the use of hijacked planes as suicide crafts was a total novelty.

In the December 14, 2005 Ahmadinejad stated two major things, both of which are designed to de-legitimize the state of Israel:

"If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision"

This statement is designed around the purpose of de-legitimizing the state of Israel, as to its location. To make this argument, and at the same time not reaffirm the holocaust, he must make the holocaust a hypothetical. This would seem to support your point, if you were to disregard the other part of his speech.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophet"so far.. I have Proved to you he is on the record as saying on the same conversation.

"maybe the Holocaust happened, I dont know",
"but, I dont know to what extent the Holocaust happened, if it happened"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13048276&postcount=56

and.. so far all you have is:

"Ahmadinejad suggested the... "
"Ahmadinejad's attitudes towards..."
"Ahmadinejad's tendencies..."
"Ahmedinejad has a particular history of association with... "

But are still failing to prove he ever said: "the holocaust never happened".. while I have clearly proven he is officially on the record as saying "I dont know"

so far.. I have Proved to you he is on the record as saying on the same conversation.

"maybe the Holocaust happened, I dont know",
"but, I dont know to what extent the Holocaust happened, if it happened"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13048276&postcount=56

and.. so far all you have is:

"Ahmadinejad suggested the... "
"Ahmadinejad's attitudes towards..."
"Ahmadinejad's tendencies..."
"Ahmedinejad has a particular history of association with... "

But are still failing to prove he ever said: "the holocaust never happened".. while I have clearly proven he is officially on the record as saying "I dont know"

Well according to you circumstantial evidence is enuf to support anything, even wacked out conspiracy theories.

Is, "are" is an improper pluralization.I use -US- as "we".

##: "US = we"

we the People..
we the People of the United States..
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.. once upon a time..

In fact, this is merely the common occurrence of the social-psychological phenomenon known as a conspiracy theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory). It would happen regardless of the evidence presented, as it's almost a religious movement.

Or maybe just a symptom of the distrust that the public has for governmental claims.
There is a deep fracture between the establishment and the large public, and things haven't got any better since the birth of infotainment. Can we trust our politicians? Ask this to the average westerner and at least 50% will answer "hell no", I fear.

I have to agree with Ocean, throwing into doubt the credibility of the holocaust wasn't what Ahmadinejad was doing, his point was more than 'if it did happen, it's irrelevant - the Palestinians etc should have to pay for it so many years on'. So if it sounded as if he suggested that the evidence for holocaust lacked, it wasn't out of an attempt to actually say it didn't happen (which is impossible), but more to point out the holocaust's irrelevance, but how the Zionists still use it as a rationale.

so far.. I have Proved to you he is on the record as saying on the same conversation.

"maybe the Holocaust happened, I dont know",
"but, I dont know to what extent the Holocaust happened, if it happened"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13048276&postcount=56

and.. so far all you have is:

"Ahmadinejad suggested the... "
"Ahmadinejad's attitudes towards..."
"Ahmadinejad's tendencies..."
"Ahmedinejad has a particular history of association with... "

But are still failing to prove he ever said: "the holocaust never happened".. while I have clearly proven he is officially on the record as saying "I dont know"

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves..."

That certainly doesn't sound like "I don't know". In fact, this sounds an awful lot like "I know the truth!".

We? Are you in the CIA, or in the NSA? :eek:

Actually, some reports - I'm too lazy to go searching the whole thing again - indicated the WTC. Remember, the WTC had already been targeted by islamic terrorists iirc in 1993 (bomb in the underground parking). Of course, the use of hijacked planes as suicide crafts was a total novelty.

Actually I am just part of the unnamed government organization that doesn't exist.
The 1993 bombings were what like 8 years ago? The government had no way of knowing whether or not it was going to take place there again, and they had no idea it would be taking the form of an airplane hijacking.

Well according to you circumstantial evidence is enuf to support anything, even wacked out conspiracy theories.you can support whatever the hell you want.. your freedom of speech is not at risk.

You can say CDs are indestructible if you want.. you can say VHS is better than Beta if you want.. if you want, You can say -Oh my god- Ahmedjihad is going to wipe out Israel ..do NOT expect me to agree.

But when the CNN anchor says that.. You can bet -your ass- I am going to say something about it.

Or maybe just a symptom of the distrust that the public has for governmental claims.
There is a deep fracture between the establishment and the large public, and things haven't got any better since the birth of infotainment. Can we trust our politicians? Ask this to the average westerner and at least 50% will answer "hell no", I fear.

It also has to do with the fact that many people just don't want to face the fact that someone has this much animosity towards us.
Good quote on the subject:
There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. 'We tend to associate major events — a President or princess dying — with major causes,' says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. 'If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us.' In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting."[246]

I have to agree with Ocean, throwing into doubt the credibility of the holocaust wasn't what Ahmadinejad was doing, his point was more than 'if it did happen, it's irrelevant - the Palestinians etc should have to pay for it so many years on'. So if it sounded as if he suggested that the evidence for holocaust lacked, it wasn't out of an attempt to actually say it didn't happen (which is impossible), but more to point out the holocaust's irrelevance, but how the Zionists still use it as a rationale.

I have to disagree, to a part. Ahmadinejad, by making some deliberately ambiguous statements about the nazi holocaust, tried to exploit the not-so-small vein of anti-israelism present in many part of the world.

I used anti-israelism instead of anti-semitism for two reasons: 1.the Palestinians and the Arabs are Semitic peoples, too. 2.Not every person who condemns the policies of the Israelian State is an anti-semite.

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves..."

That certainly doesn't sound like "I don't know". In fact, this sounds an awful lot like "I know the truth!".
Dude, that's true, Israel does have this funny national myth about the holocaust, I mean every time a Palestinian blows up a bus it's 'they were cramed into it like Jews in the gas chamber' or when Iran wants nuclear energy it's 'a flying concentration going to get Tel Aviv'. Everything has to play into this nationalistic view of history as the 'Chosen Land' surrounded by the vile enemies, Israeli education for the most part sidelines the Palestinians and says that that before the Jews came Galilee was barren like a desert and then it bloomed.

In fact it's higher than a legend, it's a national obsessive myth akin to those propagated by the Nazi's about 'Germany's destiny'.

But when the CNN anchor says that.. You can bet -your ass- I am going to say something about it.


And when a president of a country like Iran says something like that, you can bet your ass that I will say something.

I have to disagree, to a part. Ahmadinejad, by making some deliberately ambiguous statements about the nazi holocaust, tried to exploit the not-so-small vein of anti-israelism present in many part of the world.
Or maybe it's a combination differing translations, plus sensationalist media hype blowing things totally out of proportion. I mean if the guy wants to be not so straight-to-the-point bombastic then that's his prerogative, Persians after all are one of the most intellectual cultures in the world.

I used anti-israelism instead of anti-semitism for two reasons: 1.the Palestinians and the Arabs are Semitic peoples, too. 2.Not every person who condemns the policies of the Israelian State is an anti-semite.
Tell IDF.

Actually I am just part of the unnamed government organization that doesn't exist.
:eek::eek::eek:
The 1993 bombings were what like 8 years ago? The government had no way of knowing whether or not it was going to take place there again, and they had no idea it would be taking the form of an airplane hijacking.
Meh.

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves..."

That certainly doesn't sound like "I don't know". In fact, this sounds an awful lot like "I know the truth!".

"Ahmadinejad suggested the... "
"Ahmadinejad's attitudes towards..."
"Ahmadinejad's tendencies..."
"Ahmedinejad has a particular history of association with... "

And now let me add

"sounds like.."

Ahmedinejad is on the record as saying "I dont know"
My point is still standing as you have yet to produce any credible source quoting him as saying "It did not happen".. Of course CNN has said that, but they are not a credible source as far as Iran is concerned. ;)

Dude, that's true, Israel does have this funny national myth about the holocaust, I mean every time a Palestinian blows up a bus it's 'they were cramed into it like Jews in the gas chamber' or when Iran wants nuclear energy it's 'a flying concentration going to get Tel Aviv'. Everything has to play into this nationalistic view of history as the 'Chosen Land' surrounded by the vile enemies, Israeli education for the most part sidelines the Palestinians and says that that before the Jews came Galilee was barren like a desert and then it bloomed.


And no other country, say like Iran has done this? I thought for a second they didn't chant death to Israel and death to america 5 times a day.

"Ahmadinejad suggested the... "
"Ahmadinejad's attitudes towards..."
"Ahmadinejad's tendencies..."
"Ahmedinejad has a particular history of association with... "

And now let me add

"sounds like.."

Ahmedinejad is on the record as saying "I dont know"
My point is still standing as you have yet to produce any credible source quoting him as saying "It did not happen".. Of course CNN has said that, but they are not a credible source as far as Iran is concerned. ;)

Are you just asking for a source? cause if so you might as well be direct about it. It doesn't matter if he went on record as saying I don't know, he is also on the record as saying it was a myth.

"Of course CNN has said that, but they are not a credible source as far as Iran is concerned. ;)

Here we go again. If he pulls up any other sources your just going to claim their biased americans who have an agenda to pull. Its the same bullshit you tried to pull in the Cuban/Venuezalan threads.

Or maybe it's a combination differing translations, plus sensationalist media hype blowing things totally out of proportion. I mean if the guy wants to be not so straight-to-the-point bombastic then that's his prerogative, Persians after all are one of the most intellectual cultures in the world.



Not since the Islamic revolution have they been.

You know, saying 'they do it too' is not a legitimate way to deflect criticism. Also I would like you to source this, because from what i have read Iran is very intellectual and politically active (one of the most so in the world), and they have a great tradition of objective education.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!:D:D Good joke. Alright heres your source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2152314,00.html
And heres a youtube video of the chant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4

And no other country, say like Iran has done this? I thought for a second they didn't chant death to Israel and death to america 5 times a day.

You know, saying 'they do it too' is not a legitimate way to deflect criticism. Also I would like you to source this, because from what i have read Iran is very intellectual and politically active (one of the most so in the world), and they have a great tradition of objective education.

Not since the Islamic revolution have they been.

You can say Islamic Revolution all you want, but that generation is not the current generation, Iran has a massive majority of youth, and although silly Islamic laws exist etc to restrict things, Iranians are remarkably opinionated and education very importantly (families going sometimes into big debt to finance it), and books are one of the biggest sellers. They are hardly Islamic drones.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!:D:D Good joke. Alright heres your source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2152314,00.html
And heres a youtube video of the chant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4
Again, just remnants of the Revolution. Iranians are moving on from that.

And when a president of a country like Iran says something like that, you can bet your ass that I will say something.like when he said: "I will wipe Israel off the map".. right? ;)
.
Yeah I just watched that video and the president claims to have cured aids.
...



rite.

Again, just remnants of the Revolution. Iranians are moving on from that.

Did you watch the video? Why is that practice still around? Why is internet access limited to that degree? Why are women publicly stoned for not wearing a Burka?

Are you just asking for a source? You have posted your links: 2 by wikipedia, BBC and a third source i cant remember...

But all your 4 links never quote him as saying "It did not happen".. as a matter of fact I posted a sourced Wikipedia Quote where he is clearly saying "I dont know"

My statement is still standing.

Did you watch the video? Why is that practice still around? Why is internet access limited to that degree? Why are women publicly stoned for not wearing a Burka?
You tool, they do not have to wear the burka, just the headscarf. The overwhelming response is that Iran is resisting and moving on from Shia Islamism. As for the anti-Americanism, it's hardly even a state-enforced thing anymore, people just hate America full stop, it's the same in Latin America, plus you aren't going to make them get over the fact that the US sat back and supported Saddam while he gassed Iranians by the tens of thousands.

Again, just remnants of the Revolution. Iranians are moving on from that.

Lol Really?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2EisVqKZ4&mode=related&search=
For the record I don't think it should be called muslim, it should be just fundamentalist.

Here we go again. If he pulls up any other sources your just going to claim their biased americans who have an agenda to pull. I am on the record as stating "Wolf Blitzer is biased -about Iran-". (generally speaking FOX and CNN)

I am also on the record as stating "Lou Dobbs is biased -about mexicans-".

I 100% stand by my statements.

You tool, they do not have to wear the burka, just the headscarf. The overwhelming response is that Iran is resisting and moving on from Shia Islamism. As for the anti-Americanism, it's hardly even a state-enforced thing anymore, .

No need for state enforcement, a little bit of state enforced propaganda.

I am on the record as stating "Wolf Blitzer is biased -about Iran-". (generally speaking FOX and CNN)

I am also on the record as stating "Lou Dobbs is biased -about mexicans-".

I 100% stand by my statements.

You were also on the record as saying that U.S. media outlets were biased against Venuezala as well as Cuba.

You tool, they do not have to wear the burka, just the headscarf.
Thanks for that unprovoked attack, I may be slightly ignorant on the subject of Islamic Religion but that is no reason for that.

You were also on the record as saying that U.S. media outlets were biased against Venuezala as well as Cuba.FOX/CNN/AP biased about Chavez, Castro, Morales, Ahmedjihad..
yes, I am on the record.

What? ...are you going to say they are NOT biased?

FOX/CNN/AP biased about Chavez, Castro, Morales, Ahmedjihad..

yes, I am on the record.

No, No, you said all of them.

No, No, you said all of them.I am usually very careful to use the "FOX/CNN/AP" tag.

or... the "BIG" "Corporate" tags.

FOX/CNN/AP biased about Chavez, Castro, Morales, Ahmedjihad..
yes, I am on the record.

What? ...are you going to say they are NOT biased?
That any american media outlets are biased on the subject? No, no they are not.

I am usually very careful to use the "FOX/CNN/AP" tag.

or... the "BIG" "Corporate" tags.
Well in this case you didn't use either, I'll found the quote.

That any american media outlets are biased on the subject?"any american outlets" is not the term ## would use.

because.. that would include the campus -8 pages- newspaper.. your uncle webLOG.. and what not.

Well in this case you didn't use either, I'll found the quote.You "found" the guilty quote. :)

I been told -sometime ago- I was personally responsible for 5% of Jolt's research engines overload :D

You "found" the guilty quote. :)

I been told -sometime ago- I was personally responsible for 5% of Jolt's research engines overload :D

the quote was from Kilobugya, not you. Sorry but you did seem to make an inference that anyone who was from the U.S. had a biased opinion on the subject.

You can say Islamic Revolution all you want, but that generation is not the current generation, Iran has a massive majority of youth, and although silly Islamic laws exist etc to restrict things, Iranians are remarkably opinionated and education very importantly (families going sometimes into big debt to finance it), and books are one of the biggest sellers. They are hardly Islamic drones.

Well heres some more anti-semitic clips for you to stare at, straight out of IRanian tv:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/893.htm
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/897.htm
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/894.htm
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/896.htm

You can say Islamic Revolution all you want, but that generation is not the current generation, Iran has a massive majority of youth, and although silly Islamic laws exist etc to restrict things, Iranians are remarkably opinionated and education very importantly (families going sometimes into big debt to finance it), and books are one of the biggest sellers. They are hardly Islamic drones.

Which has a lot to do with why engaging in hostilities with Iran would be a god-awful idea, and I think nearly everyone, even the Bush administration, realizes that. Doing so would merely polarize the people against reform, and we've no interest in that occurring.

Hoy se cumplen seis largos años de aquel doloroso episodio. En la actualidad se conoce que hubo desinformación deliberada. No recuerdo haber oído hablar ese día de que en los sótanos de esas torres, en cuyos pisos superiores radicaban bancos de multinacionales junto a otras oficinas, había depositadas alrededor de 200 toneladas de barras de oro. La orden era disparar a muerte contra todo el que intentara penetrar hasta el oro. Los cálculos sobre estructuras de acero, impactos de avión, cajas negras encontradas y lo que estas revelaban, no se ajustan a los criterios de matemáticos, sismólogos, especialistas en información y especialistas en demolición, etcétera, etcétera. Lo más dramático es la afirmación de que posiblemente nunca se conozca lo que verdaderamente ocurrió. Consta sin embargo que varias personas que viajaban de New Jersey a San Francisco, conversaron con familiares cuando ya la nave aérea estaba bajo el control de individuos ajenos a su tripulación normal.

Analizando el impacto de aviones similares al proyectado contra las torres, caídos por accidente en ciudades densamente pobladas, se concluye que ningún avión se estrelló sobre el Pentágono y que sólo un proyectil pudo generar el orificio geométricamente redondo que en dicha instalación creara el supuesto avión. Tampoco aparece pasajero alguno que allí pereciera. Nadie en el mundo tenía dudas sobre las noticias recibidas de un ataque al edificio del Pentágono. Fuimos engañados al igual que los habitantes del resto del planeta.

That painful incident occurred six years ago today. Today, we know that the public was deliberately misinformed. I don't recall any talk, that day, of the fact that, in the basements of those towers, whose higher floors housed the banks of multinational corporations and other offices, lay nearly 200 tons in gold bars. An order to shoot to death anyone who attempted to get to the gold had been issued. The calculations with respect to the steel structures, plane impacts, the black boxes recovered and what they revealed do not coincide with the opinions of mathematicians, seismologists, information, demolition experts and others. What is most shocking is the claim that we may never know what actually happened. It is known, however, that a number of people en route to San Francisco from New Jersey, had conversations with their relatives when the air vessels were already under the control of individuals who were not members of the crew.

An analysis of the impact of planes similar to those against the towers, following accidental plane crashes in densely-populated cities, concludes that no plane crashed against the Pentagon and that only a projectile could have created the geometrically round hole that the alleged plane created. No passenger that perished there has turned up, either. No one in the world questioned the news about the attack on the Pentagon building. We were deceived, as were the rest of the planet's inhabitants.

Upon reading Castro's words in both languages, I think he is more likely expressing a lot of doubt as to the official story, rather than trying to promulgate an alternate theory. My impression is that he believes that we were not given the whole story, and that while we may never know what happened, it may be more likely that a missile attacked the Pentagon.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but I could see how someone could rationally arrive at such a conclusion.

I have no comment at all on how Iran and its government are portrayed on US media.

the quote was from Kilobugya, not you. Sorry No problemo.
.
but you did seem to make an inference that anyone who was from the U.S. had a biased opinion.Its difficult for anyone at NSG to say that all of US are bound by US Gov Propaganda...

If they ever do say that.. just post my logo... "##".
and It should end that debate in your favor.

But.. they can say most of US are blinded by Propaganda.. they would have a point.

It also has to do with the fact that many people just don't want to face the fact that someone has this much animosity towards us.
Again... will you state WHAT or WHO this "us", "we" refers to? Or is it a plurale majestatis? :confused:


Good quote on the subject:
There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. ...
the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting."[246]

You know, this explanation seems quite lacking to me.
I, for example, feel more endangered by knowing that there's a government (or more), or an organisation (or more) around who might choose to kill me for their own covert power-games, than by knowing, as I fully know and accept, that casuality rules.
Also, there is also an historical explanation for conspiracy theories being so popular: governments use lies as a standard means of communication. The Tonchino "incident" (US gov lie), "counter-revolutionary insurgency" in Czechslovakia (Soviet gov lie), the Bologna massacre being a commie attack (Italian gov lie), non-support of Saddam through the '80s (US, European and Soviet gov lies), the non-existance of the Holocaust (Iranian gov lie) etc etc...

Again... will you state WHAT or WHO this "us", "we" refers to? Or is it a plurale majestatis? :confused:me thinks he is using the word "us" the same way I use the word -US- as in "we the peps of United States".

its straight from my book.. its an ODisme. ;)
my fault.

he talks quite often with me.. so it would be just natural to pick some posting habits from each other.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but I could see how someone could rationally arrive at such a conclusion.



Except there is such a massive preponderance of evidence in favor of one case, and a near total lack of it on another side that of I don't see how a rational individual could come to that conclusions. I mean, in a way it's like creationism for the radical left.

Iranians are remarkably opinionated and education very importantly (families going sometimes into big debt to finance it), and books are one of the biggest sellers.

I'd really like to see a source on this one, cause all though I've heard how Iranian pop culture is popping up I haven't heard any of these things.

Wasn't it Cuba who the US wanted to invade by launching an attack ON THE US and pretending Cuba did it?

Except there is such a massive preponderance of evidence in favor of one case, and a near total lack of it on another side that of I don't see how a rational individual could come to that conclusions. I mean, in a way it's like creationism for the radical left.

Interpretation of data is a subjective exercise. For example, someone may read a very long paper by the leader of a nation and ignore most of it to concentrate on the two paragraphs they feel are most important. Or they may interpret those words to mean something that the author may not have believed.

In my honest opinion about the attacks on September 11th, 2001, I would have to say that we don't really know what happened that day. We probably will never know. I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories, but I don't buy the official version either.

I don't buy the official version for one reason: If the US government and the people who run it could profit out of manipulating the information about 9/11, they would. And when you think of all those juicy defense budgets handed out for Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't see how they could not have profitted.

Do I personally think a missile hit the Pentagon? I don't know. Probably not. But I do believe that the info we now have does not add up. When Le Monde set out to debunk Thierry Meyssan's claims about the missile attack on the Pentagon, they had this to say:

He also asks why the facade of the Pentagon did not immediately collapse from the shock of the impact, and questions the fate of the plane's passengers. "What became of the passengers of American Airlines flight 77? Are they dead?"

Both Libération and Le Monde set out to disprove his theory, tracking down photographs that do show debris, and speaking to victims' relatives.

But Le Monde admitted that the information made public by Washington did not entirely add up. "There is no official account of the crash. The lack of information is feeding the rumour," it complained.

Interpretation of data is a subjective exercise. For example, someone may read a very long paper by the leader of a nation and ignore most of it to concentrate on the two paragraphs they feel are most important. Or they may interpret those words to mean something that the author may not have believed.

In my honest opinion about the attacks on September 11th, 2001, I would have to say that we don't really know what happened that day. We probably will never know. I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories, but I don't buy the official version either.

I don't buy the official version for one reason: If the US government and the people who run it could profit out of manipulating the information about 9/11, they would. And when you think of all those juicy defense budgets handed out for Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't see how they could not have profitted.

Do I personally think a missile hit the Pentagon? I don't know. Probably not. But I do believe that the info we now have does not add up. When Le Monde set out to debunk Thierry Meyssan's claims about the missile attack on the Pentagon, they had this to say:

Question, did you happen to read this link?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Interpretation of data is a subjective exercise. For example, someone may read a very long paper by the leader of a nation and ignore most of it to concentrate on the two paragraphs they feel are most important. Or they may interpret those words to mean something that the author may not have believed.

Some interpretations of data, though, are absolutely ludicrous. So, while it is fairly simple to claim that Ahmadinejad has said that the holocaust did not happen, based off of very clear cut lines from a speech, that's a simple matter, because the evidence is obvious.

To claim, though, that the United States government is at least somewhat culpable for the September Eleventh attacks is absolutely absurd. To prove one way or the other would require a massive amount of evidence, and over the past six years an extremely dominant preponderance of evidence supports the mainstream conceptualization of the September Eleventh attacks.

Furthermore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I cannot prove a negative, especially if you don't provide me with something to disprove.

In my honest opinion about the attacks on September 11th, 2001, I would have to say that we don't really know what happened that day. We probably will never know. I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories, but I don't buy the official version either.

Why not? There is mountains of available evidence provided from multiple third-party sources, ranging from the thorough and exhaustive report by the Commission, to work down by independent researchers who are actually operating within their fields of expertise.

I don't buy the official version for one reason: If the US government and the people who run it could profit out of manipulating the information about 9/11, they would. And when you think of all those juicy defense budgets handed out for Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't see how they could not have profitted.

That proves absolutely nothing, though. Merely that certain interests were astute (and, I dare say, callous) enough to be able to maneuver themselves to benefit from the American reaction to the attacks. Not that they encouraged the attack to happen.

For example, the firms that produce security screening equipment have experienced a boon as a result of the attacks, as have civilian firearms manufacturers, breathing apparatus manufacturers and small time private security firms. Do you seriously think that these sorts of folks had anything to do with the attacks being carried out?

Do I personally think a missile hit the Pentagon? I don't know. Probably not. But I do believe that the info we now have does not add up. When Le Monde set out to debunk Thierry Meyssan's claims about the missile attack on the Pentagon, they had this to say:

We could discuss Flight 77, if you would like to.

Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#_note-18)
Video acquired by Judicial Watch of Flight 77's impact. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213)
The Popular Mechanics segment on the Pentagon Attacks and Flight 77 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6#bigplane)
A discussion of the videos of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. (http://www.debunk911myths.org/?cat=28)
The Commission's report, complete with an obscene quantity of evidence. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm)


And it goes on and on. If you are unwilling to accept the mountains of evidence that have been compiled to support the official position, then you are not rational. You are not holding a rational standard of evidence. If anything, to do so is far more like creationists and ID'ers.

Or so says, that most reliable of available sources, Cuban el Presidente Fidel Castro.

And we all know that Castro tells the truth :rolleyes:

We should keep this all cryptic like to confuse the n00bs.
Neither is AP. I mean, they're kind of similar, but TRA/Skap was just the Original. Perhaps since the mods gave Beeker another try, they might give TRA another shot?

Hopefully. I miss him as well.

And we all know that Castro tells the truth :rolleyes:

And the US government does?

And the US government does?

Does any politician tell the truth?

Some interpretations of data, though, are absolutely ludicrous. So, while it is fairly simple to claim that Ahmadinejad has said that the holocaust did not happen, based off of very clear cut lines from a speech, that's a simple matter, because the evidence is obvious.

To claim, though, that the United States government is at least somewhat culpable for the September Eleventh attacks is absolutely absurd. To prove one way or the other would require a massive amount of evidence, and over the past six years an extremely dominant preponderance of evidence supports the mainstream conceptualization of the September Eleventh attacks.

Furthermore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I cannot prove a negative, especially if you don't provide me with something to disprove.



Why not? There is mountains of available evidence provided from multiple third-party sources, ranging from the thorough and exhaustive report by the Commission, to work down by independent researchers who are actually operating within their fields of expertise.



That proves absolutely nothing, though. Merely that certain interests were astute (and, I dare say, callous) enough to be able to maneuver themselves to benefit from the American reaction to the attacks. Not that they encouraged the attack to happen.

For example, the firms that produce security screening equipment have experienced a boon as a result of the attacks, as have civilian firearms manufacturers, breathing apparatus manufacturers and small time private security firms. Do you seriously think that these sorts of folks had anything to do with the attacks being carried out?



We could discuss Flight 77, if you would like to.

Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#_note-18)
Video acquired by Judicial Watch of Flight 77's impact. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213)
The Popular Mechanics segment on the Pentagon Attacks and Flight 77 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6#bigplane)
A discussion of the videos of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. (http://www.debunk911myths.org/?cat=28)
The Commission's report, complete with an obscene quantity of evidence. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm)


And it goes on and on. If you are unwilling to accept the mountains of evidence that have been compiled to support the official position, then you are not rational. You are not holding a rational standard of evidence. If anything, to do so is far more like creationists and ID'ers.

Ludicrous is a subjective opinion.If you find it absurd that the US government and the people who run it would kill innocent people for a buck, or let it happen, then you are being naive. To me, the idea that the US government, or certain parties within the US government, sat on information that would have prevented 9/11 is not at all ludicrous or extraordinary. How much has been spent on the Iraq war? Where did that money go?

I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon, but you know what? I don't think it really matters if a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon. Because the people who profited from the attack would have profited regardless. It was probably easier to just let Al-Qaeda do it than to do it themselves.

And it would be a lot easier to hide, too. If you planned it properly, all you would have to do is intercept the information. It wouldn't require a lot of people. Just a few key positions in the CIA, all answerable to someone with contacts to the defense industry.

I think Castro is wrong about the missile. I think he is right that we don't know everything.

This is definitive proof that Castro is dying. He's definitely lost his marbles more than ever people. Well at least we know that Cuba isn't blocked from YouTube and wacky fools on it.

I have only one opinion on the subject: anyone who blames an American conspiracy for the 9/11 attacks is crediting the current administration with a whole lot more savvy and competence than they've shown in any other event of the past seven years.

Question, did you happen to read this link?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Question, did you happen to read my post?

I have only one opinion on the subject: anyone who blames an American conspiracy for the 9/11 attacks is crediting the current administration with a whole lot more savvy and competence than they've shown in any other event of the past seven years.

Actually it would be crediting them with the most savvy endeavor of any US president or administraiton. EVER! I mean that's a LOT of people to make stay quiet and look how they couldn't even keep wiring tapping quiet...

Does any politician tell the truth?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5065265647522198162&q=Jim+McGreevey&total=31&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

There's my pitch, so do you think he made it up?

Actually it would be crediting them with the most savvy endeavor of any US president or administraiton. EVER! I mean that's a LOT of people to make stay quiet and look how they couldn't even keep wiring tapping quiet...

My history teacher was telling me (well, "us", in a non-inclusive sense) how the US invaded Iraq for the future potential political power of the oil… that's a lot more plausible, but if you ask me, they didn't even do that. They just botched pretty well everthing. Completely screwed up.
…
And got re-elected!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5065265647522198162&q=Jim+McGreevey&total=31&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

There's my pitch, so do you think he made it up?

I think anyone who says that that US Government perpetrated 9/11 needs his head examined.

Ludicrous is a subjective opinion.If you find it absurd that the US government and the people who run it would kill innocent people for a buck, or let it happen, then you are being naive. To me, the idea that the US government, or certain parties within the US government, sat on information that would have prevented 9/11 is not at all ludicrous or extraordinary. How much has been spent on the Iraq war? Where did that money go?

Once again, that does not require conspiracy theories to see that people profited from the September Eleventh attacks.

I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon, but you know what? I don't think it really matters if a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon. Because the people who profited from the attack would have profited regardless. It was probably easier to just let Al-Qaeda do it than to do it themselves.

And what about the potential for chaos in AQ carrying out its plans? There was absolutely no guarantee that the event would even occur. Perhaps airport screeners could have wound up being more competent than they actually were, and intercepted the hijackers before they boarded the planes.

Perhaps the passengers could have revolted and successfully gained control of the plane, or perhaps the pilots had the knives from their in-flight meals and started jabbing the hijackers, inspiring the passengers to fight back. I would hardly be willing to say that

And it would be a lot easier to hide, too. If you planned it properly, all you would have to do is intercept the information. It wouldn't require a lot of people. Just a few key positions in the CIA, all answerable to someone with contacts to the defense industry.

First off, this is an irrational and paranoid position. If there were even a sliver of evidence that this were the case, you'd be on better ground, but it seems that you've merely cooked this one up inside your own head.

Secondly, as a student of intelligence theory and intelligence history, there is absolutely no doubt that you radically overrate the capabilities of the CIA, or any other intelligence agency. You also overrate the ability of individuals to keep secrets. The CIA isn't some group of creepy, shadowy stereotypical evil villains, all cooking up plots to take over the world. They're, by and large, academics. Oftentimes the agency is described as a "University without students.," for Christsakes.

Once again, we have to take chaos into consideration. What happens if there's poor operational security, if someone leaks, if something random and bizarre happens? What happens if the cover gets blown? Or someone finds out something accidentally. The potential pitfalls are limitless.

Finally, and more than that, the CIA has had notoriously poor human intelligence sources within Al Qaeda itself. Prior to the September 11 attacks, there was not a single reliable source within the organization. You do realize that HUMINT and OSINT the CIA’s primary means of collection, right? Without any readily available information from either of those sources, there is no way that they could have known anything.

I think Castro is wrong about the missile. I think he is right that we don't know everything.

And I think you have an unreasonable expectation for evidence, are totally paranoid, and are entirely irrational on this matter. A point the vast majority of anyone with a brain would easily come to.

No rational person could come to any conclusion that the US government had anything to do with the attacks, save for their sheer incompetence.

And I dare say, you need to get a good visit with Occam's Razor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor) Quite simply, even your most simple theory is so phenomenally complex, that it can't stand up under its own weight.

Ludicrous is a subjective opinion.If you find it absurd that the US government and the people who run it would kill innocent people for a buck, or let it happen, then you are being naive. To me, the idea that the US government, or certain parties within the US government, sat on information that would have prevented 9/11 is not at all ludicrous or extraordinary. How much has been spent on the Iraq war? Where did that money go?

I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon, but you know what? I don't think it really matters if a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon. Because the people who profited from the attack would have profited regardless. It was probably easier to just let Al-Qaeda do it than to do it themselves.

And it would be a lot easier to hide, too. If you planned it properly, all you would have to do is intercept the information. It wouldn't require a lot of people. Just a few key positions in the CIA, all answerable to someone with contacts to the defense industry.

I think Castro is wrong about the missile. I think he is right that we don't know everything.

Well, I agree with you to a point here. I personally think that the government had all the information it needed to prevent the attack, but never connected the dots. I just can't see anyone purposefully sitting on the information and letting it all happen. From what I know, it was more a factor of overwork, lack of resources, and rivalries between offices/departments than anything else...

Now, the info about Iraq, I'm not nearly as trusting when it comes to who-knew-what-and-when...

Once again, that does not require conspiracy theories to see that people profited from the September Eleventh attacks.

You are correct. But you can also see that a rational person could entertain the idea that a small group of people in key positions could have allowed it to happen. Both the official story and my theory agree with the data.

And what about the potential for chaos in AQ carrying out its plans? There was absolutely no guarantee that the event would even occur. Perhaps airport screeners could have wound up being more competent than they actually were, and intercepted the hijackers before they boarded the planes.

Perhaps the passengers could have revolted and successfully gained control of the plane, or perhaps the pilots had the knives from their in-flight meals and started jabbing the hijackers, inspiring the passengers to fight back. I would hardly be willing to say that

Well, that's one of the reasons my theory is better than the large conspiracy theories. If someone stops the attack, then everyone gets pats on the back. If they don't, the people who allowed it to happen just have to make up a plausible story as to why the information was overlooked. This is assuming that there is proof that such information even existed before the attacks.

First off, this is an irrational and paranoid position. If there were even a sliver of evidence that this were the case, you'd be on better ground, but it seems that you've merely cooked this one up inside your own head.

What is so irrational and paranoid about it? There is nothing irrational about assuming that people with the capability of maximising their profits would do so. In this case, it is due to the loss of innocent life, but that hasn't stopped some of the people who run the US government before. History is full of examples of factions within the US government doing such things. If there was even a sliver of evidence that this were the case, it would be hushed up.

Secondly, as a student of intelligence theory and intelligence history, there is absolutely no doubt that you radically overrate the capabilities of the CIA, or any other intelligence agency. You also overrate the ability of individuals to keep secrets. Once again, we have to take chaos into consideration. What happens if there's poor operational security, if someone leaks, if something random and bizarre happens? What happens if the cover gets blown?

How many people do you think you need? Do you think everyone in the CIA knows what everyone else is doing, or do you think information is compartamentalised? How easy do you think it would be for an intelligence operative to hide intelligence in an environment that is secretive in nature and with access to the best espionage tools and training available? I am not assuming all of the CIA was in on it. They don't need to be.

And I think you have an unreasonable expectation for evidence, are totally paranoid, and are entirely irrational on this matter. A point the vast majority of anyone with a brain would easily come to.

Sure. Whatever. That's your opinion.

No rational person could come to any conclusion that the US government had anything to do with the attacks, save for their sheer incompetence.

And I dare say, you need to get a good visit with Occam's Razor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor) Quite simply, even your most simple theory is so phenomenally complex, that it can't stand up under its own weight.

1. I do not believe that the US government is a hive mind. I believe that different factions exist within it. One of these factions may have been responsible.

2. All that they were responsible for is looking the other way at an opportune moment.

3. Please explain how my theory falls apart under its own complexity.

4. Occam's Razor is great for talking over beers or sitting in a philosophy class, but the real world does not always operate according to Occam's Razor. Check any newspaper for examples.

You are correct. But you can also see that a rational person could entertain the idea that a small group of people in key positions could have allowed it to happen. Both the official story and my theory agree with the data.

Rationality implies the existence of evidence, of which there is none to support your theory.



Well, that's one of the reasons my theory is better than the large conspiracy theories. If someone stops the attack, then everyone gets pats on the back. If they don't, the people who allowed it to happen just have to make up a plausible story as to why the information was overlooked. This is assuming that there is proof that such information even existed before the attacks.

While true, you're merely comparing elephant shit to horse shit. "See, the horse shit is smaller, so it's better!"



What is so irrational and paranoid about it? There is nothing irrational about assuming that people with the capability of maximising their profits would do so. In this case, it is due to the loss of innocent life, but that hasn't stopped some of the people who run the US government before. History is full of examples of factions within the US government doing such things. If there was even a sliver of evidence that this were the case, it would be hushed up.

You don't have a single, lousy scrap of actual evidence. If it's so solid, then go get some, prove your claim. As it stands, you've been able to show to me that you have combined a lack of knowledge about the Intelligence Community, with some innuendo to create this theory. If it's true, then there's going to be proof, somewhere, somehow. Show me the proof. If you have none, then you are being irrational. You have no evidence.



How many people do you think you need? Do you think everyone in the CIA knows what everyone else is doing, or do you think information is compartamentalised? How easy do you think it would be for an intelligence operative to hide intelligence in an environment that is secretive in nature and with access to the best espionage tools and training available? I am not assuming all of the CIA was in on it. They don't need to be.

A lot of people, a very large number would be required to "keep it secret." You would have to have the entire Counterterrorism staff, their administrators and their operational oversight guys in on it. You would need to have a large portion of internal Counterintelligence, as well as a large portion of FBI. You would have to include budget oversight folks, internal and external. I mean, there's a lot of people who would have to be involved to keep it secret. This ain't simple shit man.

Not only that, but you'd have to have some sort of dark cabal of Military-Industrial-Complex folks, and lord knows how many of them would be involved.

You would have to keep your source quiet, and keep him from going to the media with what he knows about the planned attack.


Sure. Whatever. That's your opinion.

Frankly, that's a load of hooey. It's more than merely my opinion, it's sensible and informed position. Sometimes we can throw off uncertainty, because fact is so strong.



1. I do not believe that the US government is a hive mind. I believe that different factions exist within it. One of these factions may have been responsible.

And another faction might have been able to successfully ferret it out.

2. All that they were responsible for is looking the other way at an opportune moment.

Riddle me this: Did your little cabal decide to hush up the event before evidence of the attack was known by conspirators, or after. When did it originate? Was it specifically for permitting September 11, 2001, or was it a generalized plan to allow the next big attack to happen.

Either way, it's phenomenally difficult.

1. Specific plan: The USIC would learn about the impending September 11, 2001 attacks, someone, somewhere informs the someone, somewhere within the MIC of the matter before agency administrators on the appropriate chain of command. This shadowy cabal meets, and decides to do everything within its power to guarantee that these attacks will happen. Over the next x amount of time, they successfully cover up the fact that they know something, and they're not sharing it. They cover up their contacts with the MIC individuals from internal CI, and the FBI. They hide the information from their coworkers, their superiors and the media.

Questions:

a.) How do they keep in contact.
b.) Who is the contact point between the USIC and the MIC?
c.) How is this contact point established?
d.) How do they divert CI and FBI?
e.) How do they silence their sources?
f.) How do they divert the attention of their superiors?
g.) How do they maintain operational security, what do they do if someone were to "flip"? What if someone suddenly suffers a personal moral crisis and takes the case to the media, or the CI, or whomever?
h.) What benefit do the USIC people derive from allowing this to happen? Their banking accounts are monitored by CI and FBI regularly, to guarantee that they aren't accepting payments from outside sources. How do the USIC people benefit from this arrangement?

2. General Scenario: Rogue elements from the USIC and MIC come together at some point in the past, and come to the conclusion that they need to cooperate so as to permit a massive terrorist attack to occur. It is discovered that an attack is in the planning stages, and assets within the USIC sit on it, silencing their sources and all of that.

Exact same questions:

a.) How do they keep in contact.
b.) Who is the contact point between the USIC and the MIC?
c.) How is this contact point established?
d.) How do they divert CI and FBI?
e.) How do they silence their sources?
f.) How do they divert the attention of their superiors?
g.) How do they maintain operational security, what do they do if someone were to "flip"? What if someone suddenly suffers a personal moral crisis and takes the case to the media, or the CI, or whomever?
h.) What benefit do the USIC people derive from allowing this to happen? Their banking accounts are monitored by CI and FBI regularly, to guarantee that they aren't accepting payments from outside sources. How do the USIC people benefit from this arrangement?


3. Please explain how my theory falls apart under its own complexity.


To begin with, you pose a fairly broad hypothesis that there's a dark cabal within the USIC that has come into close contact with the MIC, and as a result of this contact they have decided to hush up some the knowledge of unknown upcoming potential terrorist attack. Big, hefty claim. Unfortunately you provide absolutely no evidence to undergird your claims. Furthermore, you provide no specifics on how the mechanisms of such an entity would operate. Basically, your claim so far is that it "just does".

I smell a collapse.



4. Occam's Razor is great for talking over beers or sitting in a philosophy class, but the real world does not always operate according to Occam's Razor. Check any newspaper for examples.

The simplest explanation is almost always the right one. Complexity breaks down, collapses under its own monumental weight. If it's so easy for you to dismiss such a developed and powerful theory out of hand, then you clearly are not on solid ground.

Rationality implies the existence of evidence, of which there is none to support your theory.

I think you're confusing rationalism with empiricism. Rationalism does not require evidence. Merely logic. Maybe you're confusing it with empiricism.

rationalism

• noun the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

empiricism
/empirrisiz’m/

• noun Philosophy the theory that all knowledge is derived from experience and observation.

While true, you're merely comparing elephant shit to horse shit. "See, the horse shit is smaller, so it's better!"

No, I am pointing out a qualitative difference. Not a quantitative one.

You don't have a single, lousy scrap of actual evidence. If it's so solid, then go get some, prove your claim. As it stands, you've been able to show to me that you have combined a lack of knowledge about the Intelligence Community, with some innuendo to create this theory. If it's true, then there's going to be proof, somewhere, somehow. Show me the proof. If you have none, then you are being irrational. You have no evidence.

What sort of evidence would there be? Since it is a small group of people within the intelligence community, there would be some indication of the information being gathered, but also some indicationthat it wasn't followed up. There may also be some indication that the White House has not been completely transparent about it all.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/intelligence.hearings/

Nothing found is a "smoking gun," Graham said. "But collectively I think there was enough there that we should have done a better job of seeing what was coming and hopefully, with luck, stopping it."

Graham told CNN "It wouldn't have taken a lot of luck. It would have taken someone who could have asked and gotten answers to the right follow-up questions and then put it together."

The report, which looked at more than a dozen federal intelligence agencies, suggests the United States had more information that might have helped to prevent the terror attacks than the government has previously said.

To paraphrase Graham, it wouldn't have taken a lot of luck. It would have taken someone who could have decided not to ask or get the answers to the right follow-up questions and then put it together.

So, we have indications that the information was gathered, and we have indications that it wasn't followed up properly. And look, an indication that the US government is not being entirely transparent:

The report says the director of central intelligence has refused to declassify two pieces of information: precisely what the White House knew and information about a key al Qaeda operative involved in the attacks.

Guess I'm not completely without evidence.

A lot of people, a very large number would be required to "keep it secret." You would have to have the entire Counterterrorism staff, their administrators and their operational oversight guys in on it. You would need to have a large portion of internal Counterintelligence, as well as a large portion of FBI. You would have to include budget oversight folks, internal and external. I mean, there's a lot of people who would have to be involved to keep it secret. This ain't simple shit man.

Why would a lot of people be required to keep it secret? You seem to think that people in the intelligence community freely share top secret information with each other in a spirit of brotherly oversight. Is the entire Counterterrorism staff kept aware of all the findings of all the operatives? Of course not, as that would be a security risk. And since the FBI does not act as an oversight to the CIA, there is no reason for any FBI agent to be involved. Budget oversight commitees also are not privy to all the information all the time. If you think that it would take a lot of people, you can start putting together something to support that claim, or at least show the logic behind this belief of yours.

Not only that, but you'd have to have some sort of dark cabal of Military-Industrial-Complex folks, and lord knows how many of them would be involved.

No, you wouldn't. You would just two or three industrial leaders chatting about it over golf.

You would have to keep your source quiet, and keep him from going to the media with what he knows about the planned attack.

And it's so hard to get intelligence operatives to keep their mouths shut.

Look, I'll be honest with you, I really did pull this out of my head in the last little bit. But my theory seems no more irrational than the official story.


Frankly, that's a load of hooey. It's more than merely my opinion, it's sensible and informed position. Sometimes we can throw off uncertainty, because fact is so strong.

I was discussing your opinion of me here. You know, when you said you think I have an unreasonable expectation for evidence, am totally paranoid, and am entirely irrational on this matter.

And another faction might have been able to successfully ferret it out.

Riddle me this: Did your little cabal decide to hush up the event before evidence of the attack was known by conspirators, or after. When did it originate? Was it specifically for permitting September 11, 2001, or was it a generalized plan to allow the next big attack to happen.
...el snippo...
a.) How do they keep in contact.
b.) Who is the contact point between the USIC and the MIC?
c.) How is this contact point established?
d.) How do they divert CI and FBI?
e.) How do they silence their sources?
f.) How do they divert the attention of their superiors?
g.) How do they maintain operational security, what do they do if someone were to "flip"? What if someone suddenly suffers a personal moral crisis and takes the case to the media, or the CI, or whomever?
h.) What benefit do the USIC people derive from allowing this to happen? Their banking accounts are monitored by CI and FBI regularly, to guarantee that they aren't accepting payments from outside sources. How do the USIC people benefit from this arrangement?

I'm leaning towards scenario two.

I'm assuming that most of the logistics can follow the same procedures they already use as intelligence operatives. They don't have to divert the other intelligence gathering organisations or their superiors, all they have to do is look the other way in such a manner that they can plausibly deny that they knowingly did so. All they have to do is claim incompetence and no one's the wiser, or can prove that it wasn't incompetence.

I am sure that most intelligence operatives do not suffer moral crises. They don't hire Sunday school teachers. All they have to do is find the more obedient and greedy ones.

To begin with, you pose a fairly broad hypothesis that there's a dark cabal within the USIC that has come into close contact with the MIC, and as a result of this contact they have decided to hush up some the knowledge of unknown upcoming potential terrorist attack. Big, hefty claim. Unfortunately you provide absolutely no evidence to undergird your claims. Furthermore, you provide no specifics on how the mechanisms of such an entity would operate. Basically, your claim so far is that it "just does".

I smell a collapse.

That is a summary of my claim. It does not show it to be so complex that it collapses under its own weight.

The simplest explanation is almost always the right one. Complexity breaks down, collapses under its own monumental weight. If it's so easy for you to dismiss such a developed and powerful theory out of hand, then you clearly are not on solid ground.

Occam's Razor is not a theory. From your link:

Occam's razor is not a theory in the classic sense of being a model that explains physical observations, relying on induction; rather, it is a heuristic maxim for choosing among such theories and underlies induction. Justifying such a guideline against some hypothetical alternative thus fails on account of invoking circular logic.

I am not saying that Occam's Razor is not a useful tool in deciding the validity of competing scientific theories, but the simplicity of a theory does not make it more likely to be true. It simply makes it more manageable.

GoG, you provide nothing more than continued innuendo, misconstrued information, cherry picking and a total lack of information on how, exactly the intelligence community works.

In the CNN article you cite (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/intelligence.hearings/), for example, you cite Graham on one single quote, and then in your "paraphrasing" (your statement actually wasn't a paraphrase, as a paraphrase does not add to the quote, it merely shortens and simplifies) of his quote you add something that was not there in the first place.

Furthermore, Graham comes to the conclusion that the failure on the part of the intelligence community was not one of malignant intention, but one of borne out of cultural attitudes, such as a tendency towards groupthink, lack of critical thinking and various other elements.

You exhibit a woeful ignorance about how the USIC functions, how intelligence gathering and analysis functions, and what sort of staff fills what sort of rolls within the USIC. I would advise that you refer to these two fine primers on intelligence, Lowenthal's (http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Secrets-Mark-M-Lowenthal/dp/1933116021/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-7130462-7314866?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189797460&sr=8-1) and Shulsky and Schmitt's (http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Warfare-Understanding-World-Intelligence/dp/1574883453/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-7130462-7314866?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189797460&sr=8-2).

GoG, you provide nothing more than continued innuendo, misconstrued information, cherry picking and a total lack of information on how, exactly the intelligence community works.

In the CNN article you cite (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/intelligence.hearings/), for example, you cite Graham on one single quote, and then in your "paraphrasing" (your statement actually wasn't a paraphrase, as a paraphrase does not add to the quote, it merely shortens and simplifies) of his quote you add something that was not there in the first place.

Furthermore, Graham comes to the conclusion that the failure on the part of the intelligence community was not one of malignant intention, but one of borne out of cultural attitudes, such as a tendency towards groupthink, lack of critical thinking and various other elements.

You exhibit a woeful ignorance about how the USIC functions, how intelligence gathering and analysis functions, and what sort of staff fills what sort of rolls within the USIC. I would advise that you refer to these two fine primers on intelligence, Lowenthal's (http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Secrets-Mark-M-Lowenthal/dp/1933116021/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-7130462-7314866?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189797460&sr=8-1) and Shulsky and Schmitt's (http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Warfare-Understanding-World-Intelligence/dp/1574883453/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-7130462-7314866?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189797460&sr=8-2).

I'm not trying to get you to believe my theory. You can if you want to, but that's not my point. My point was that there can be a rational basis for not accepting the official story. The scenario I proposed is as logical as the official story, without getting into the more complex mechanics of just how my mythical cabal would go about it. Rather than continue to argue the validity of my quickly thrown together theory, I will concede defeat.

I realise now that most of my research into US espionage has focused on the US causing shit like this, and my knowledge of counterterrorism is somehwat more sketchy. I still believe that my scenario is plausible, based simply on the idea that the US intelligence community has shown itself to be more than capable of aiding terrorist attacks on other countries. It is not a stretch to assume that a faction within the USIC could do the same to the USA. It has been a pleasure arguing with you.

I'm not trying to get you to believe my theory. You can if you want to, but that's not my point. My point was that there can be a rational basis for not accepting the official story. The scenario I proposed is as logical as the official story, without getting into the more complex mechanics of just how my mythical cabal would go about it. Rather than continue to argue the validity of my quickly thrown together theory, I will concede defeat.

I realise now that most of my research into US espionage has focused on the US causing shit like this, and my knowledge of counterterrorism is somehwat more sketchy. I still believe that my scenario is plausible, based simply on the idea that the US intelligence community has shown itself to be more than capable of aiding terrorist attacks on other countries. It is not a stretch to assume that a faction within the USIC could do the same to the USA. It has been a pleasure arguing with you.

Well then, you have no evidence and just like making up scenarios for things. It was PLAUSIBLE that Hitler wouldn't conqueor most of europe. It was PLAUSIBLE that World War I wouldn't happen. But, as we know from history, both of those things have occured.

Question, did you happen to read my post?

Yes I did but i was only wondering if you took my link into perspective.

scams any government would screw itself over if it meant it could make a dollar for themselves