home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Earwicker on Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:08 pm

warmowski wrote:The 9/11 MIHOP and LIHOP people seem to never notice the extreme, gigantic risk and expense necessary for their claims to be true, as compared to the tiny risk and expense of every single real instance of false-flag employed in furtherance of US foreign policy.


I'm not sure why you're adding LIHOP in there. I don't see any great risk or expense there (beyond the destruction itself, the extent of which may have been an unknown).

warmowski wrote:It was done to put the country into a war, that was the payoff?


Two wars. So far. Plus numerous other goodies for the M I C.

warmowski wrote:To obtain approval from a population who can't even find Iraq on a map in the first place, and don't care if we go there or not? It makes no sense to me. The risk/reward ratio just isn't there.


I think your population and mine did care that we went there and even more would have without a 9/11. This just boils down to the plausibility factor again. For me the LIHOP suggestion is more than plausible. There's some evidence that suggests it and it's easily deniable so the rewards far outweigh the risk.
I guess I best go find me a gun and a museum.
krakabash wrote: we really should look at all the sides of the issue because the Zionist evil is a menace to mankind and peace on earth.
User avatar
Earwicker
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:36 am
Location: House, Newcastle, Great Britain

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby warmowski on Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:18 pm

I find LIHOP less implausible than MIHOP, but still untenable. The risk is way, way out of whack to the puny payoff. Of all the things that a "cabal" could do to spark a war, a war that already had shooting (Iraq/no-fly), that the recently elected president already had effective UN greenlight to start, or that the previous president had already begun in Afghanistan via Tomahawk, "they" choose instead to unprecedentedly roll the dice on a far-flung cell of nearly two dozen jihadis, knowing full well that it could 1) kill tens of thousands domestically 2) be discovered over the long time the cell was in the country 3) go south at any one of dozens of points. And "they" take on all these variables, strech out this supremeley speculative project for what purpose again? Not to start these already-started wars, but to escalate them?

Makes no sense to me. At all. "They" didn't get anything that "they" couldn't have gotten much cheaper and surer by simply lying about some foreign, unassailable encounter as with every other false-flag attack in history.


Earwicker wrote:I think your population and mine did care that we went there and even more would have without a 9/11.


I agree with the latter half of that statement, but not with any notion that a majority of US voters had much opinion about Iraq other than "we won that one, didn't we?"

Earwicker wrote:This just boils down to the plausibility factor again. For me the LIHOP suggestion is more than plausible. There's some evidence that suggests it and it's easily deniable so the rewards far outweigh the risk.
I guess I best go find me a gun and a museum.


Im not tarring you with that brush. I don't begrudge you any estimation of what happened, because I've noticed you don't make shit up or tart up evidence. It's the people who do that I find similar to racists.

-r
User avatar
warmowski
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2962
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Colonel Panic on Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:37 pm

I agree that the LIHOP scenario is certainly less ridiculous than MIHOP, but any plausible LIHOP theory would still have to account for a lot of people in high positions within the CIA and FBI -- people whose job is to identify threats and protect the American public -- deliberately shirking their duties according to instructions from an unidentified and ill-defined cabal. Who would have given the order to ignore an obvious, deadly threat? Do we just assume that a character like the X-Files "Smoking Man" sauntered into George Tenet's office, blew smoke in his face and dictated orders to be obeyed without question?

We're talking about the FBI and the CIA here. Both these agencies are populated with highly patriotic men and women who possess an extremely strong sense of duty. If there really was a secret plot to have these agencies stand down in the face of a clear and present threat and allow thousands of Americans to die in an attack on US soil, wouldn't you expect somebody to step forward and report this treason?

If you look at it critically, Occam's Razor pretty well shreds the LIHOP theory. Lack of readiness can be sufficiently explained by basic incompetence, poorly-prioritized resources, and the well-known atmosphere of contention between the FBI (cops) and the CIA (spies). The assumption of an overarching conspiracy on the American side to allow the 9/11 attacks is not economical from a theoretical standpoint, and there's no clear evidence to support it either.
All that glitters is not aluminum.
User avatar
Colonel Panic
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 17039
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:12 am
Location: The Internet

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Rick Reuben on Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:51 pm

Gramsci wrote:Guys, all you really need to know

Image
Last edited by Rick Reuben on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Rick Reuben
 

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Rick Reuben on Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:52 pm

Colonel Panic wrote:We're talking about the CIA here, populated with men and women who possess an extremely strong sense of duty to the Wall Street overlords who created the CIA to bribe, slander, spy on, assassinate, drug, torture, and frame up anyone backing dissent internally and overseas.

FYP

China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil, 1961-64:
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Indonesia, 1965:
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.

East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

Nicaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Grenada, 1979-84:
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."

Libya, 1981-89:
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Panama, 1989:
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"
George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

Iraq, 1990s:
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

Afghanistan, 1979-92:
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

Haiti, 1987-94:
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.
Rick Reuben
 

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Rick Reuben on Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:13 pm

Colonel Panic wrote:We're talking about the FBI and the CIA here. Both these agencies are populated with highly patriotic men and women who possess an extremely strong sense of duty. If there really was a secret plot to have these agencies stand down in the face of a clear and present threat and allow thousands of Americans to die in an attack on US soil, wouldn't you expect somebody to step forward and report this treason?

Colonel Panic, Agent Of German COINTELPRO, 1933 wrote:We're talking about the German domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence agencies here. Both these agencies are populated with highly patriotic men and women who possess an extremely strong sense of duty. None of these agents would stand aside and allow huge numbers of German citizens to be herded into camps and executed.

Colonel Panic, Agent Of German COINTELPRO, later in 1933 and then for the next 12 years, wrote:The Reichstag fire was totally the work of a lone communist.

Colonel Panic, Agent Of German COINTELPRO, 1939 wrote:No one's being rounded up. The highly patriotic men and women of the SS and Gestapo would not stand for this tyranny against German citizens.

Colonel Panic, Agent Of German COINTELPRO, 1942 wrote:I can't find the Jews, but that doesn't mean anything happened to them.

Colonel Panic, Agent Of German COINTELPRO, 1943 wrote:I can't find the Jews, but that doesn't mean anything happened to them.

Colonel Panic, Agent Of German COINTELPRO, 1944 wrote:I can't find the Jews, but that doesn't mean anything happened to them.

Colonel Panic, Agent Of German COINTELPRO, 1945 wrote:I can't find the Jews, but that doesn't mean anything happened to them.

Colonel Panic of Germany, surrendering to Allied forces, later in 1945 wrote:I fought to expose the Reichstag cover-up and defended the Jews from the Nazis. Take me to America! I have training in propaganda.


8.
Rick Reuben
 

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Gramsci on Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:08 pm

I don't even need to open those three to know that cut-and-paste is the new, "actually knowing stuff".
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.
User avatar
Gramsci
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10435
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:43 am
Location: The People's Republic

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Rick Reuben on Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:09 pm

Gramsci wrote:Guys, all you really need to know

Image
Last edited by Rick Reuben on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rick Reuben
 

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby JC23by5 on Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:08 pm

Rick Reuben wrote: Beyond all the obvious motives for the inside job, 9/11 was tantalizing for the elites because it is a phenomenal tool of blackmail. The longer the cover-up is continued, the less chance that anyone honest left inside the FBI or CIA or military can credibly come forward with the truth, because after an eight year cover up, everyone looks dirty. The US government and its law enforcement agancies can be blackmailed far and wide, internally and externally, for its failure to carry out a real investigation. Through cover-ups, the cabal forces potentially legitimate governments into lives of crime. The cover up is the corrupting mechanism that ensures obedience.

Great point Rick. The entire post was top-notch but for the sake of brevity I only quoted this one paragraph. It made me think of Nixon and Clinton and how the cover ups got them into deeper shit than the actual crimes...well in Clinton's case there was no real crime in my opinion, but regardless. I know this isn't the best analogy but it suggests what the potential reaction of the American people would be if the "truth" came out after all these years. Anyhow, I think you're spot on about the 8 years of cover-up being enough to keep mouths shut...if someone was going to spill the beans they would have done it by now.
Rick Reuben wrote:You must choose your words carefully. That's what I always say.
User avatar
JC23by5
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: West Virginia

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Antero on Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:00 pm

So what you're saying is that the absence of a leak/confession/whistleblower is evidence of a cover-up and a conspiracy.

You know, you should really get some of this new tiger repellant.
Is you crazy baby, I gots to grind
Antero
World's Greatest Lover
World's Greatest Lover
 
Posts: 11190
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 8:54 am
Location: Hustle City, CA

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby nihil on Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:28 pm

Rick Reuben wrote:A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum


FYP
User avatar
nihil
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby JC23by5 on Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:33 pm

Antero wrote:So what you're saying is that the absence of a leak/confession/whistleblower is evidence of a cover-up and a conspiracy.

No...if you're referring to my post that is...what I'm saying is that the longer a cover up continues the less likely it is that there will be any whistleblowers.
Rick Reuben wrote:You must choose your words carefully. That's what I always say.
User avatar
JC23by5
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: West Virginia

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby eva03 on Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:41 pm

Rick Reuben wrote:Image
Photos of what real gravity-propelled building collapses look like. They topple out, away from their axis, into the path of least resistance. They don't fall *straight down*, into the path of most resistance, at free fall speed. What kind of crackhead would think such nonsense, or agree with it?


1. None of those buildings were anywhere near the size of the twin towers.
2. None of those buildings have 747 sized holes in them.
Not saying you're wrong but it seems like you're comparing apples and oranges
Rimbaud III wrote:
I won't lie to you, I don't want to be invisible so that I can expose the illuminati, I just want to see Natalie Portman DJing at her downstairs disco.
User avatar
eva03
roman
roman
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:17 pm
Location: Oakland

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby JC23by5 on Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:53 pm

eva03 wrote:
Rick Reuben wrote:Image
Photos of what real gravity-propelled building collapses look like. They topple out, away from their axis, into the path of least resistance. They don't fall *straight down*, into the path of most resistance, at free fall speed. What kind of crackhead would think such nonsense, or agree with it?


1. None of those buildings were anywhere near the size of the twin towers.
2. None of those buildings have 747 sized holes in them.
Not saying you're wrong but it seems like you're comparing apples and oranges

Not directed at me but I feel like pointing out that...yeah those pics are apples and oranges as far the size of the buildings go. The point is how the buildings came down. The towers would probably have fallen given enough time. However they fell rather quickly and uniformly.
Rick Reuben wrote:You must choose your words carefully. That's what I always say.
User avatar
JC23by5
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: West Virginia

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby japmn on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:07 am

All of those building also look to have taken damage at the foundation as opposed to higher up and by flaming aircraft. Are they all earthquake buildings? What caused them to collapse? I'm not saying the WTC wasn't demolished but those pictures don't really prove your point at all. Open them up in MS Paint and paste a 747 blasting through them and you may have something. Something titalizing.

I said "titalizing"
User avatar
japmn
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7894
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Poutland

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Rick Reuben on Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:35 am

Gramsci wrote:Guys, all you really need to know

Image
Last edited by Rick Reuben on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rick Reuben
 

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Adam I on Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:30 am

Rick Reuben wrote:Conservation of momentum rules out the possibility of ten floors drilling their way to the ground straight through the bottom ninety floors, with only gravity pushing the cap.


I don't follow.

Once the top part is moving, as it hits each floor (with enough momentum to break the floor), the new floor adds it's own mass to the falling body of stuff.

There aren't ten floors 'drilling down' surely? There are 10, then 11, then 12 etc. Each floor adding to the impact on the next floor.

Since the falling stuff only needs to break one floor at a time, by the time you've got 15 or whatever floors falling as a single unit, the next floor isn't going to make much of a dent in the speed of descent.

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I'm pretty sure that's right, no?
Sure as Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus above the Serengeti.
User avatar
Adam I
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: Lincoln, UK.

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby johnnyshape on Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:56 am

Re 'controlled demolition'.

A few years ago, they demolished by implosion a 1960s concrete residential block over the road from my house when I lived in Finsbury Park. It was fifteen storeys if I remember correctly.
From an empty shell building, it took a small crew of guys two weeks to prep the building for implosion. They had a couple of large vans, made a racket drilling holes, and the control cables shortly before zero hour looked like five or six 24tr multicores lashed together snaking out of the building.

So, based on that observation, I don't understand how two 110 floor buildings and/or WTC7 could have been covertly prepared for 'perfect' demolition without anybody noticing. Presumably if all these steel columns needed snapping, a demolition crew would need direct access to them. How could someone do that silently, without dozens of employees hearing and noticing? This crew would need to get around the entire site completely unfettered, presumably for months. Nobody in the building management, maintenance people, cleaners etc. would have noticed? Tons of material going in. Plus, who would you get to do that? Who would have the experience to do such a thing, perfectly, first time?

I am actually prepared to have my mind changed on this.
rchapman75 wrote: If the PRF ran NASA, we'd have colonies on the moons of Jupiter and be mining asteroids for aluminum.
User avatar
johnnyshape
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4979
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 7:47 am
Location: London

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby FuzzBob on Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:37 am

Adam I wrote:
Rick Reuben wrote:Conservation of momentum rules out the possibility of ten floors drilling their way to the ground straight through the bottom ninety floors, with only gravity pushing the cap.


I don't follow.

Once the top part is moving, as it hits each floor (with enough momentum to break the floor), the new floor adds it's own mass to the falling body of stuff.

There aren't ten floors 'drilling down' surely? There are 10, then 11, then 12 etc. Each floor adding to the impact on the next floor.

Since the falling stuff only needs to break one floor at a time, by the time you've got 15 or whatever floors falling as a single unit, the next floor isn't going to make much of a dent in the speed of descent.

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I'm pretty sure that's right, no?


I think Rickroll was questioning how such a tall building could fall vertically despite the terminal velocity of the plane.

Thing is, the planes' terminal velocity was moot by the point the buildings collapsed, since the buildings absorbed the force of impact as designed. The true culprit was heat. The towers were designed to use asbestos as fireproofing, but since asbestos was banned in the middle of construction, a lesser heat-refractory material had to be substituted on short notice.

So, at the point of impact, the columns failed because they were softened by heat, not because of brute force like in building demolition. Steel, being the good conductor of heat that it is, spread the heat consistently throughout the point of impact via conduction, hence the consistent failure at all columns.
User avatar
FuzzBob
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: Slintville

Re: The Truth about 911 "truthers"

Postby Rick Reuben on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:06 pm

Gramsci wrote:Guys, all you really need to know

Image
Last edited by Rick Reuben on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Reuben
 

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests