PDA

View Full Version : Reinvestigating 9/11



lanugo
07-09-2011, 11:59 PM
With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 coming up, it is important to resist the attempts of the corporate media to perpetuate and consolidate the official version of the events - which, if you look at it carefully, turns out to be the greatest conspiracy theory of all - and to remain mindful of the many inconsistencies and implausibilities therein that have been uncovered by scrupulous and scientifically-minded researchers.

Some of the facts pointing to the falsehood of the official narrative include:


Insider trading (http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-198-further-down-the-911-money-trail/) on the stock market in the weeks before 9/11 involving the massive purchase of so called "put options" - i.e. bets - on the soon-to-be occurring price losses of precisely the airlines whose planes were hi-jacked as well as companies with major branches in the WTC. Stock market experts are on record saying that this couldn't possibly have been coincidence. Rather, there must have been foreknowledge of what was to happen in the inner circles of the financial world.
9/11 commission members publicly speaking out about considering to press "obstruction of justice" charges against NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) for withholding information on the exact reasons of the non-appearance of interception jets after contact was lost with the hi-jacked planes (the interception of airliners is a pretty regular occurrence, happening up to 150 times annually, but not on 9/11)
The Pentagon, situated in the centre of the most sensitive airspace in the world that has major anti-aircraft defence capabilities, being successfully targeted in a jetliner kamikaze manoeuvre of the most difficult kind by a pilot who, his former instructor says, couldn't even navigate a small propeller plane.
Physical evidence showing hat WTC7 (which was not even mentioned the 9/11 commission report) collapsed at free-fall speed, implying that there was no material resistance below the falling floors. This can only be achieved by controlled demolition.
A professor of nano-chemistry at the University of Copenhagen discovering residue of military-grade explosive in the debris of the WTC.
etc. pp.

If these points have made you think, this piece (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26174) should be a good primer for further research.

Everyone else dismissing these facts as "conspiracy theory" - do you really know for certain what the truth is or do you simply believe what you're told?

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

craner
08-09-2011, 07:53 AM
Just to be clear, then, could you give a narrative of how this plot you envisage was formed, developed and enacted? Who these traders worked for, and why? Who was actually convinced to go into WTC7 and rig it with explosives on behalf of the conspirators? What exactly was driven into the Pentagon and what all that AA debris strewn around the site was? Who convinced all of these witnesses to lie, and to what end? And how this enormous US paramilitary conspiracy was kept secret for so long?

computer_rock
08-09-2011, 08:19 AM
everything in this post has been debunked.

hucks
08-09-2011, 08:43 AM
everything in this post has been debunked.

There were stories at the time that Al Qaeda had made loads of money shorting parts of the market, such as Ianugo mentions above. Were they also debunked?

Edit: this (http://conspiracies&highlight=Charlie+brooker) was a good thread. Also the last sighting of Noel Limits, iircc

craner
08-09-2011, 09:37 AM
But he didn't say al-Qaeda, he said "inner circles of the financial world" -- and I was just wondering who they could possibly be. Did they work for Lehman Brothers? Did they also try to engineer a so-called "Global Financial Meltdown" to cover their tracks?

hucks
08-09-2011, 09:39 AM
But he didn't say al-Qaeda, he said "inner circles of the financial world" -- and I was just wondering who they could possibly be. Did they work for Lehman Brothers? Did they also try to engineer a so-called "Global Financial Meltdown" to cover their tracks?

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean that. I was just curious. Also it's a possible explanation for his first point.

baboon2004
08-09-2011, 10:19 AM
Regardless of the truth of any of the evidence put forward (which seesm to be typical conspiracy theory stuff), what I don't get is what the unthinkable part of such a conspiracy would be. Governments on a daily basis show little to no concern for whether their subjects live or die - the health system in America is obv the prime example here.

Obviously such a conspiracy would be massively audacious practically, as the people who died would presumably have recourse to the law in a way that poor people don't (plus the Pentagon attack woudl be slightly odd), but morally I think it would be pretty much consistent with a lot of extant policies. The idea that a government has any proper, enforceable duty of care to its citizens is against all evidence.

So killing a few people to start a war seems totally plausible and non-problematic - it's just the people that they did kill would seem to be an absurd way of going about it.

craner
08-09-2011, 11:06 AM
So killing a few people to start a war seems totally plausible and non-problematic

No it doesn't, certainly not in this case -- engaging large numbers of civilian and military personnel in a covert plot to murder non-combatant civilians working for eminent multi-national banks and corporations as well as the central node of the state military apparatus, and doing so by destroying four large passenger jets full of people with mobile phones and wide-ranging public connections and reputations is self-evidantly insane, and has absolutely no correlation to a lack of public health care provision. And the plot was obviously designed to kill thousands of people, not a few. This is before you even consider the fact that on September 10th, 2001 the US administration had no plans to start a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone any plots to provide a pretext -- and that really is a fact.

lanugo
08-09-2011, 11:23 AM
Just to be clear, then, could you give a narrative of how this plot you envisage was formed, developed and enacted? Who these traders worked for, and why? Who was actually convinced to go into WTC7 and rig it with explosives on behalf of the conspirators? What exactly was driven into the Pentagon and what all that AA debris strewn around the site was? Who convinced all of these witnesses to lie, and to what end? And how this enormous US paramilitary conspiracy was kept secret for so long?

My guess is that it was pulled off by a P2-style consortium of intelligence forces, military hardliners, neocon hawks and private industry interests (arms, finance), for the sole purpose of garnering the support in the general public for perpetual war in muslim countries. In one of their policy papers the aptly named neocon think tank "Project for the New American Century" (members include Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) even makes reference to a "new Pearl Harbor (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/Research/images/Capture_02122005_082929.BMP)" type event that would be needed to facilitate the process of political transformation sought by that group.

How would such an operation be financed? Maybe the 2,3 trillion $ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo) missing from the Pentagon budget, as was announced by Donald Rumsfeld on 10th September 2001, could have something to do with it? Until today, this money remains unaccounted for.

Regarding the precise nature of the Pentagon hit, I never said that it wasn't an AA airplane that crashed into it. I merely questioned the capability of an amateur pilot to fly unnoticed into the most sensitive zone of the Washington DC airspace and have the approach angle and everything right to steer it into the rather flat structure that is the Pentagon. When pressed, I'd say that it was a remote-controlled jet.

Who the henchmen were that rigged the WTC7 I cannot tell you. But if you find people who torture and kill in the name of democracy surely some should be willing to blow up a building? As to the "witnesses" and their commitment to lie - wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to everyone in the know as accomplices. And every criminal mind knows that the most enduring vow of silence comes from complicity.


everything in this post has been debunked.

This statement is simply incorrect. Quite to the contrary, The government-backed NIST's (National Institute of Standards and Technology) account of the WTC7's collapse was debunked by a highschool physics teacher (!) who demonstrated, using a sophisticated computer model, that the building did go down at free-fall speed. If you have evidence disproving this, please point me towards it.

Likewise, the insider trading issue hasn't been debunked, either. If anything, it has been obfuscated by the SEC by actually destroying investigation records pertaining to pre 9/11 short selling (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/06/sec-government-destroyed-documents.html). Again, I kindly ask you to direct me to a source which "debunks" this point.


So killing a few people to start a war seems totally plausible and non-problematic - it's just the people that they did kill would seem to be an absurd way of going about it.

An absurd way of going about it? An ingenious way: the horror of the images is never-ceasing.


engaging large numbers of civilian and military personnel in a covert plot to murder non-combatant civilians working for eminent multi-national banks and corporations as well as the central node of the state military apparatus, and doing so by destroying four large passenger jets full of people with mobile phones and wide-ranging public connections and reputations is self-evidantly insane

Well, the US government already toyed with the idea a couple of decades ago:

Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

craner
08-09-2011, 11:37 AM
The PNAC was not an executive force. It amounted to a statement and a website. You're getting lost in think tank land and chasing shadows there. Same with the Northwoods thing, a proposal by secret service agents and backed by a Joint Chief (notably in the rabid post-Cold War staff) is a very different thing from actual covert action or policy, like the Iranian coup or Bay of Pigs.

You'll notice Northwoods never happened. It's very similar to a plot proposed during the 2004 Ukraine election by a few hardliners in the Kuchma regime, who wanted to set off some bombs on the streets of Kiev to fabrictae a State of Emergency, and so steal a non-election. The reason it didn't happen was because the SBU and the Russian fixers involved, guys who'd tried to kill the oppiosition leader don't forget, balked at such an extreme, sick and insane idea. You could say the Bologna bombing is a precedent, but that was a genuine neo-fascist plot; nor did it have the logistical scale of 9/11.

How would it be possible in a town like Washington, policy wonk think tank land that bred the PNAC, to keep such an enormous secret, involving so many accomplices?

What was their motivation, these hundreds of accomplices?

baboon2004
08-09-2011, 04:29 PM
No it doesn't, certainly not in this case -- engaging large numbers of civilian and military personnel in a covert plot to murder non-combatant civilians working for eminent multi-national banks and corporations as well as the central node of the state military apparatus, and doing so by destroying four large passenger jets full of people with mobile phones and wide-ranging public connections and reputations is self-evidantly insane, and has absolutely no correlation to a lack of public health care provision. And the plot was obviously designed to kill thousands of people, not a few. This is before you even consider the fact that on September 10th, 2001 the US administration had no plans to start a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone any plots to provide a pretext -- and that really is a fact.

But I'm in agreement with what you're saying - that had 9/11 been a 'conspiracy', the way of going about it/risk factor was clincially insane. My point was rather that 'democratic' governments care not a jot more for their subjects' well-being than 'regime' governments, and logically, why would they? Only difference is that regimes can act with greater impunity. 9/11 was obv not a conspiracy, cos no-one could be quite that bad at planning, but could it get away with it easily, of course the US state would have had no objection to mass murder, its own citizens or not. It's hardly an entity guided by any moral compass whatsoever. The idea (not one you were supporting, but in reference to general opinion) that the US state is any different in principle from, say, the Libyan state under Gaddafi, is baffling. It just has more powerful subjects/citizens. But still manages to have 3 per cent of its adult population in the correctional justice system, all the same.

There's not a correlation to public health care as such: I was just making the point that economic violence is as bad as physical, hand-on-gun violence. Which obv we're seeing in the UK right now - the Tories have blood on their hands, however they choose to make people's lives unbearable.

As to war in Afghanistan and Iraq - I think politics is largely governed more by broad ideological opportunism than specific 'plans'. True it might be that there were no blueprints to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but as an imperialist power with a vast military capacity, the US would ideologically not be averse to taking whatever opportunity came along, particularly wrt such strategically and economically valuable countries.


Edit: I think the 'conspiracy' quesiton is a bit of a red herring, anyway. The US government has acted over decades in such a way in its foreign policy as to make it unthinkable that it did not give serious credence to the possibility of an attack such as 9/11. It was a matter of when rather than if counterhegemonic forces of whatever kind would strike back on US soil - unless they really believed the 'end of history' line, and I can't believe anyone in policy would be quite that stupid.

Evil through not giving a shit about human life is far more common than evil involving nefarious, '24' style planning to end human life.

craner
08-09-2011, 08:38 PM
Fair enough, sorry.

craner
08-09-2011, 09:14 PM
Until today, this money remains unaccounted for.


I have to say, I'd never heard of this before, and the Youtube link hardly clarifies matters, and I have no idea, either, if it is an accurate figure based on documents and paperwork, or some typical, contextual Rumsfeldian hyperbole. One thing I do know about Rumsfeld on September 10th, when he made the speech in that video, is that he was involved in a bitter and protracted struggle with the Pentagon bureaucracy; they were desperately trying to maintain their enormous and wasteful budgets, and he was vigorously trying to slash them. This dynamic was part of the unfolding military catastrophes that overtook Iraq and then Afghanistan; basically, in those theaters, he lost his light-footprint argument. He was buried by the Surge as much as Jim Baker. But if it is true, and $3.2 trillion was "lost" or wasted at the Pentagon (over what period of time?) -- then how, exactly, was it spent on the 9/11 plot? Where are the money trails? Who was paid what and through which channels? Did it go on massive wages for all these hundreds of accomplices working for the P2-style Consortium?


When pressed, I'd say that it was a remote-controlled jet.

I don't think you're serious about this stuff, to be honest. You really believe in it, do you? You're not convincing enough. Padraig was better at this sort of thing.

Sectionfive
08-09-2011, 10:04 PM
Regardless of the event.

The climate of fear has been milked to maxim effect. It's still working out quite well for a lot of interests.

lanugo
09-09-2011, 12:30 AM
I don't think you're serious about this stuff, to be honest. You really believe in it, do you? You're not convincing enough.

Say, they used a refurbished passenger aircraft equipped with transplanted remote control technology from high-end drone systems.

Is this idea so much more outlandish than the official narrative where, unnoticed by the most powerful intelligence services in the world, a gang of Arab students cooks up the greatest terrorist attack in history, actually manages to get through all the security checks without any hassle, then, using nothing but box cutters, succesfully hi-jacks four airliners that are subsequently manoeuvred through a totally unprotected national airspace, and eventually crashed into America's most iconic edifices, including the one building that is probably the most closely-guarded structure on the planet?

Oh, and while training for this stunt our crew of grimly determined Islamist terrorists is reportedly (http://www.amazon.de/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-Up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1315522025&sr=8-2) having a good time in Florida going to strip bars and doing coke.

Quite a story, isn't it?


This is before you even consider the fact that on September 10th, 2001 the US administration had no plans to start a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone any plots to provide a pretext -- and that really is a fact.

Is it? Four-star general Wesley Clark relates in this speech that as early as 1991 the US administration was planning on attacking precisely these countries as well as Libya (!), Syria, Jemen and Somalia:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8&feature=player_detailpage


And now I'd like to pose a question to you, craner: If the events arrived out of the blue for the US authorities, on what basis were they able to announce, just hours after the attacks had taken place, that they had been conducted by "Al-qaida" and masterminded by Bin Laden? How did they know this? Did they have intelligence proving this connection and, if so, shouldn't that very intelligence have led to the prevention of the attacks in the first place?

craner
09-09-2011, 07:44 AM
Well, yes and yes. As soon as the CIA looked at the passenger lists of the hijacked jet planes, case officers recognized names. They knew about some of these guys, had been monitoring them; the revelation of this largely wrecked the reputation of the CIA in the States. They also got intelligence from the Saudis and Germans pretty quickly. George Tenet then overcompensated for their total failure to protect US interests by exaggerating Iraqi WMD evidence to suit Bush Administrations war plans. And so on.

If it was a plan, it was a fucking stupid plan. Why invade Afghanistan? What good was that?

Why didn't they plan to implicate Hezbollah, already infamous for attacking American interests outside of the Middle East and organizationally stronger and larger in 2001? Then they could've invaded the Bekaa valley to destroy them, toppled Assad and occupied Syria thereby taking control of Lebanon, propping up a puppet Christian/Druze coalition with Ariel Sharon and the IDF. On the border of Iraq they could have supplied Kurds and Shi'ites with arms to slowly subvert the Ba'athists and prepared themselves for an attack on Iran to wipe out the traces of Hezbollah and neutralize the Iranian WMD programme, which they would have by then collected evidence on. And all this would've started with the backing and support of the UN and NATO, in all probability.

That would've been a plan worth destroying the World Trade Center, Pentagon and White House for.

slowtrain
09-09-2011, 07:54 AM
Useless post, but just thought I'd like to say I'm enjoying this thread.

I am doing a paper on conspiracy theories at the moment and this is all very interesting.

Slothrop
09-09-2011, 09:23 AM
Why didn't they plan to implicate Hezbollah, already infamous for attacking American interests outside of the Middle East and organizationally stronger and larger in 2001? Then they could've invaded the Bekaa valley to destroy them, toppled Assad and occupied Syria thereby taking control of Lebanon, propping up a puppet Christian/Druze coalition with Ariel Sharon and the IDF. On the border of Iraq they could have supplied Kurds and Shi'ites with arms to slowly subvert the Ba'athists and prepared themselves for an attack on Iran to wipe out the traces of Hezbollah and neutralize the Iranian WMD programme, which they would have by then collected evidence on. And all this would've started with the backing and support of the UN and NATO, in all probability.

You should go on some sort of Neocon Dragons' Den with that.

craner
09-09-2011, 11:04 AM
Is this idea so much more outlandish than the official narrative where, unnoticed by the most powerful intelligence services in the world, a gang of Arab students cooks up the greatest terrorist attack in history, actually manages to get through all the security checks without any hassle, then, using nothing but box cutters, succesfully hi-jacks four airliners that are subsequently manoeuvred through a totally unprotected national airspace, and eventually crashed into America's most iconic edifices, including the one building that is probably the most closely-guarded structure on the planet?

The thing is, that isn't very outlandish at all; "a gang of Arab students" makes them sound like a bunch of Four Lions-like buffoons, when at least one of them seems to have been of superior competence and commitment, and was superbly well-connected to the al-Qaeda hiearchy. But also, the small, mundane, cellular nature and details of the plot would increase its chances of success, I would suggest; as well as its time-scale and large, almost unlimited funds from bin Laden cash.

Internal flight security in the States was notoriously lax; air traffic control monitors awash with hundreds of dots and paths, a green soup on the morning of 9/11; USAF fighter jets anything but primed or prepared to immediately enage full passenger jets on early morning flights. You say that the Pentagon is the most closely-guarded structure on the planet (and who knows if that is strictly true) but there certainly was not 24hr airborne fighter patrols around the perimeter or unsheathed missiles waiting to knock out incoming Boeings in 2001, nor is there now. There's not much anybody can do about an enormous unheralded jet flying at any building, I would wager; even a missile would need to be aimed, or a heat-seeking one somewhere close by, waiting; regardless of the levels of permission needed to destroy civilian planes, an unprecedented request painfully allowed by Cheney.

These assumptions are like the myth of CIA omniscience, but when it's not subcontracting work to P2-style Consortiums, the CIA is just a corporation staffed by professionals who seek and sell raw intelligence right or wrong.

American airspace was largely unprotected; even if it had been, it would still be a push to prepare F-16s to immediately eliminate hijacked airliners full of civilians flying into buildings.

baboon2004
09-09-2011, 12:21 PM
You should go on some sort of Neocon Dragons' Den with that.

Great idea for a show :D

baboon2004
09-09-2011, 12:24 PM
Why didn't they plan to implicate Hezbollah, already infamous for attacking American interests outside of the Middle East and organizationally stronger and larger in 2001? Then they could've invaded the Bekaa valley to destroy them, toppled Assad and occupied Syria thereby taking control of Lebanon, propping up a puppet Christian/Druze coalition with Ariel Sharon and the IDF. On the border of Iraq they could have supplied Kurds and Shi'ites with arms to slowly subvert the Ba'athists and prepared themselves for an attack on Iran to wipe out the traces of Hezbollah and neutralize the Iranian WMD programme, which they would have by then collected evidence on. And all this would've started with the backing and support of the UN and NATO, in all probability.

That would've been a plan worth destroying the World Trade Center, Pentagon and White House for.

Maybe they left the USB with the blueprint in a coffee shop.

Mr. Tea
09-09-2011, 12:36 PM
The biggest hole in any variety of Bush-done-it 9/11 conspiracy theory, I think, is this: if it was some manner of 'inside job' then who and what was Osama bin Laden? Was he an American stooge all along, and if so how is that squared with his involvement in terrorist attacks against targets in Africa in '90s? Was he instructed and paid to commit those too (while Cinton was in power) just to add credibility to his supposed culpability for the big one a few years later? And if that were the case, why did the CIA, Pentagon or whoever was running show allow almost ten years to pass, by which time Bush was no longer in power, to announce that bin Laden had been 'killed'?

Because if he wasn't behind the attacks but also wasn't working for the US government, why should he take 'credit' for these atrocities? Imagine what would have happened if he'd gone on TV and said to the American people "Nothing to do with me, pal - ask the CIA about that one".

And as Craner points out, it's fallacious to ascribe omniscience or omnipotence to America's intelligence agencies and military hierarchy. I remember shortly after 9/11 a very damning report came out, highlighting in particular the fact that communications between the CIA and FBI, the two pillars of the American intelligence service, were so poor as to be virtually nonexistent. In that kind of culture of apathetic overconfidence I don't think it's so implausible that a "bunch of Arab students" could pull off a pretty spectacular stunt if they were sufficiently organised and determined.

lanugo
09-09-2011, 12:37 PM
Well, yes and yes. As soon as the CIA looked at the passenger lists of the hijacked jet planes, case officers recognized names. They knew about some of these guys, had been monitoring them; the revelation of this largely wrecked the reputation of the CIA in the States. They also got intelligence from the Saudis and Germans pretty quickly. George Tenet then overcompensated for their total failure to protect US interests by exaggerating Iraqi WMD evidence to suit Bush Administrations war plans. And so on.

Fine, so case officers recognised some of the names on the passenger lists - - "Ah, yeah, I know him, that's the guy with al-Qaida connections who's been taking flight lessons in Florida for the last couple of months - who'd've guessed..." - - but where exactly comes the Afghanistan connection into play? Most of the hi-jackers were Saudis and, as far as I know, none of them were trained in Afghanistan but in Pakistan.

In the run-up to the Afghanistan war the Taliban even offered the US authorities that if there was any evidence of al-Qaida presence in their country they would eliminate those dependances themselves. Of course, the US government refused and rather started an invasion. If I understand aright, up to the present day not a single al-Qaida fighter or base has been discovered on Afghan soil.

And was the evil turbaned terror overlord really ever hiding in those Tora Bora caves? There are reports that in summer 2001 he was treated in a, I believe, Islamabad hospital for kidney problems and met up with the local CIA liaison. Surely, it shouldn't have been difficult to trace him from there? Or why didn't the CIA work some of their interrogation magic on the bin Laden family members instead of breaking the nation-wide grounding order imposed after 9/11 to fly them out of the US?



Why didn't they plan to implicate Hezbollah, already infamous for attacking American interests outside of the Middle East and organizationally stronger and larger in 2001? Then they could've invaded the Bekaa valley to destroy them, toppled Assad and occupied Syria thereby taking control of Lebanon, propping up a puppet Christian/Druze coalition with Ariel Sharon and the IDF. On the border of Iraq they could have supplied Kurds and Shi'ites with arms to slowly subvert the Ba'athists and prepared themselves for an attack on Iran to wipe out the traces of Hezbollah and neutralize the Iranian WMD programme, which they would have by then collected evidence on. And all this would've started with the backing and support of the UN and NATO, in all probability.

I'm fairly unimpressed with this little geostrategic fantasy. While overrating Hezbollah's pertinence to the larger Middle East/Central Asia situation you seem to grossly underestimate Iraq's and Iran's military capabilities. Irrespective of the level of US support, a fomented insurgence on the border of Iraq would have been crushed by the Ba'athists. Furthermore, an attack - do you mean full-out war? - on Iran, by far the strongest military power in the region, presupposes a strong foothold in the contiguous countries for logistical and strategic reasons. With the US erecting a militarised embassy building in Baghdad that's so large it's visible from space and numerous military bases being set up in Afghanistan a quick glance on the map should tell you that what we're witnessing a classic case of encirclement.


These assumptions are like the myth of CIA omniscience, but when it's not subcontracting work to P2-style Consortiums, the CIA is just a corporation staffed by professionals who seek and sell raw intelligence right or wrong.

Not omniscient, but far more powerful than they want you to know. You are accusing me of belittling the hi-jackers' sophistication when you are constantly playing down the capability of the most richly-resourced, technologically advanced intelligence service(s) in the world yourself.

e/y
09-09-2011, 01:10 PM
Reagan National Airport is about 2.5-3 miles away from the Pentagon. when I flew into DC in 2000, we flew over downtown DC prior to landing. also, unless I imagined them, when I worked in DC you could still see planes flying to and from the airport over Crystal City, VA (also not far from the Pentagon, iirc) and near Georgetown - this is post 9/11. to describe the airspace around the Pentagon as a strict no fly zone is incorrect.

crackerjack
09-09-2011, 04:55 PM
9/11 commission members publicly speaking out about considering to press "obstruction of justice" charges against NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) for withholding information on the exact reasons of the non-appearance of interception jets after contact was lost with the hi-jacked planes (the interception of airliners is a pretty regular occurrence, happening up to 150 times annually, but not on 9/11)
etc. pp.[/LIST]

That's not what it says here:



It's worth lingering over Griffin's response to illustrate a typical reaction among conspiracy theorists to refutation. One of the bedrocks of the conspiracy theory is that U.S. military planes should have been easily able to intercept any of the four hijacked airplanes on 9/11 to prevent the attack. The Popular Mechanics article notes that only one NORAD interception of a civilian airplane over North America had occurred in the decade before 9/11, of golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, and that it took one hour and 19 minutes to intercept before it ultimately crashed. Based on initial reports that misread the official crash report, conspiracists had previously cited the Stewart case as evidence that it normally only took NORAD 19 minutes to intercept civilian aircraft.


Anyway, that's just one small point. There are others: if you've got the time, I recommend this.
http://www.slate.com/id/2302831/

craner
09-09-2011, 06:27 PM
Fine, so case officers recognised some of the names on the passenger lists - - "Ah, yeah, I know him, that's the guy with al-Qaida connections who's been taking flight lessons in Florida for the last couple of months - who'd've guessed..." - - but where exactly comes the Afghanistan connection into play? Most of the hi-jackers were Saudis and, as far as I know, none of them were trained in Afghanistan but in Pakistan.

In the run-up to the Afghanistan war the Taliban even offered the US authorities that if there was any evidence of al-Qaida presence in their country they would eliminate those dependances themselves. Of course, the US government refused and rather started an invasion. If I understand aright, up to the present day not a single al-Qaida fighter or base has been discovered on Afghan soil.

And was the evil turbaned terror overlord really ever hiding in those Tora Bora caves? There are reports that in summer 2001 he was treated in a, I believe, Islamabad hospital for kidney problems and met up with the local CIA liaison. Surely, it shouldn't have been difficult to trace him from there?


So, to sum up, al-Qaeda never were in Afghanistan, at all, but in Pakistan -- in Pakistan, and in cahoots with CIA handlers. There's quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, but I'm intrigued to read the evidence behind your theory. Could you post it, please?


Or why didn't the CIA work some of their interrogation magic on the bin Laden family members instead of breaking the nation-wide grounding order imposed after 9/11 to fly them out of the US?

Possibly because these family members have nothing to do with bin Laden of al-Qaeda -- unlike some members of the al-Saud clan, I must add.


With the US erecting a militarised embassy building in Baghdad that's so large it's visible from space and numerous military bases being set up in Afghanistan a quick glance on the map should tell you that what we're witnessing a classic case of encirclement.

It doesn't seem to be working out very well, though, does it. I mean, on a cost-benefit analysis, including the destruction of the WTC, how pleased would you say the P2-style Consortium are with the result of all of this effort? Maybe they should have stuck to their 1991 plans to invade Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia instead.

It's hilarious, of course, that you have taken my little geopolitical fantasy so seriously; why are you conspiracy theorists always tone-deaf, I wonder?


Not omniscient, but far more powerful than they want you to know. You are accusing me of belittling the hi-jackers' sophistication when you are constantly playing down the capability of the most richly-resourced, technologically advanced intelligence service(s) in the world yourself.

Well, maybe I do play down their reach and capability, but not without good reason. Even the best field agents and officers cannot avoid creating chaos and catastrophe; just ask Bob Baer. Having said that, I generally and genuinely do believe that CIA agents are extraordinary people.

lanugo
09-09-2011, 07:42 PM
So, to sum up, al-Qaeda never were in Afghanistan, at all, but in Pakistan -- in Pakistan, and in cahoots with CIA handlers. There's quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, but I'm intrigued to read the evidence behind your theory. Could you post it, please?

Sure, off the top of my head I can provide two sources:

There's Noam Chomsky (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/149520.html) on Press TV making a point about the illegality of the Afghanistan war and the lack of evidence regarding a substantial Taliban/al-Qaeda connection:




"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."

The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.

And then there's the very informative piece "Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19891)" by David Ray Griffin which goes into the Bush administration's refusal to provide evidence of the responsibility of Osama bin Laden for 9/11:


Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, CNN reported:

“The Taliban . . . refus[ed] to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week's attacks on the United States. . . . The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan . . . said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an ‘insult to Islam.’"

CNN also made clear that the Taliban’s demand for proof was not made without reason, saying:

“Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks.”

Bush, however, “said the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion.”11

With this refusal to provide any evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility, the Bush administration made it impossible for the Taliban to turn him over. As Afghan experts quoted by the Washington Post pointed out, the Taliban, in order to turn over a fellow Muslim to an “infidel” Western nation, needed a “face-saving formula.” Milton Bearden, who had been the CIA station chief in Afghanistan in the 1980s, put it this way: While the United States was demanding, “Give up bin Laden,” the Taliban were saying, “Do something to help us give him up.”12 But the Bush administration refused.

After the bombing began in October, moreover, the Taliban tried again, offering to turn bin Laden over to a third country if the United States would stop the bombing and provide evidence of his guilt. But Bush replied: "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty." An article in London’s Guardian, which reported this development, was entitled: “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over.”13 So it was the Bush administration, not the Taliban, that was responsible for the fact that bin Laden was not turned over.

In August of 2009, President Obama, who had criticized the US invasion of Iraq as a war of choice, said of the US involvement in Afghanistan: “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.”14 But the evidence shows, as we have seen, that it, like the one in Iraq, is a war of choice."

It also mentions that - contrary to what you have been claiming in this thread - war preparations for an invasion in Afghanistan had begun 2 months prior to 9/11:


This conclusion is reinforced by reports indicating that the United States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months before the 9/11 attacks. At least part of the background to this decision was the United States’ long-time support for UNOCAL’s proposed pipeline, which would transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan and Pakistan.15 This project had been stymied through the 1990s because of the civil war that had been going on in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

In the mid-1990s, the US government had supported the Taliban with the hope that its military strength would enable it to unify the country and provide a stable government, which could protect the pipeline. By the late 1990s, however, the Clinton administration had given up on the Taliban.16

When the Bush administration came to power, it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. During a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush administration insisted that the Taliban must create a government of “national unity” by sharing power with factions friendly to the United States. The US representatives reportedly said: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”17

After the Taliban refused this offer, US officials told a former Pakistani foreign secretary that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”18 And, indeed, given the fact that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred when they did, the US military was able to mobilize to begin its attack on Afghanistan by October 7.

It appears, therefore, that the United States invaded Afghanistan for reasons far different from the official rationale, according to which we were there to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.


In Libya, al-Qaeda is still the CIA's weapon of choice. They've made al-Qaeda asset Abdulhakim al-Hasidi the de facto military commander of Tripoli and the rebel forces are pretty much run by the LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group), a group that merged with al-Qaeda in 2007. More info on Land Destroyer (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/west-point-terror-center-confirms-al.html) (the best geopolitical blog around these days).

craner
09-09-2011, 08:21 PM
Could you do a little bit better than Noam Chomsky on Press TV and Another 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist, please? I think, you know, you might have to, to get out of here alive.


It also mentions that - contrary to what you have been claiming in this thread - war preparations for an invasion in Afghanistan had begun 2 months prior to 9/11:

All of this is complete rubbish; dragging the UNECOL pipeline into it is laughable, for one thing. What, they would go to all of this trouble for one pipeline? There are pipelines being dug all over Central Asia, the Caucasus, etc. -- there would be a more subtle method of gaining influence here, surely. Like, I don't know, trying Tbilisi, Kiev, Tashkent, Moscow? A bit of diplomacy, electoral engineering, backroom business, black market transactions?

Have you read -- and this is just one suggestion I could make among many, many others, but I am keeping it simple for you -- Ahmed Rashid? Clinton certainly attempted to coddle the Taliban, rather gruesomely, on behalf of UNECOL and the Argentinian and Saudi companies involved, but that lasted about as long as it took al-Qaeda to bomb Nairobi and Clinton to bomb back some al-Qaeda tents in Afghanistan. This is around the time, by the way, that Mullah Omar was boasting to anybody who was listening -- that is, anyone who was paying attention -- about giving bin Laden sanctuary.

The Bush Administration was not focused on Afghanistan at all, and this is because they were obsessed with Russia, North Korea, China, and building themselves a new arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons (Rumsfeld, as well as trying to restructure the American military, was also preoccupied with redefining what exactly constituted a 'nuclear weapon', as such). Terrorists and Muslims were pretty low-down on their list of priorities -- although, of course, this was obviously an administration wide subterfuge, with everybody playing their allotted part so perfectly.

The Pentagon did not have plans to invade Afghanistan that they could take off the shelf -- the plan they came up with was a combination of Rumsfeld's military philosophy and pure contingency. The contingency being that they didn't have time to organize a large scale military campaign or amass the personnel without severely postponing an assault. So they decided to utilize the Northern Alliance, shower them with money, cover them from the air, and mentor them with CIA and Special Forces support -- which suited Rumsfeld who wanted a light war on the cheap, which is what he got.

craner
09-09-2011, 08:53 PM
To recap, for my benefit as much as anybody else:

A large P2-style Consortium of intelligence forces, military hardliners, neocon hawks and private industry interests nominally called The Project for the New American Century, an organization so secret they posted a manifesto on a website, hired hundreds of accomplices -- including airport personnel, air traffic controllers, military pilots, soldiers, security guards, firemen, paid "witnesses" and fake terrorists -- to participate in a plot to:

- fly two full passenger jets into WTC 1 and 2, destroying them
- trigger a controlled demolition in WT7, destroying it
- direct a full passenger jet equipped with advanced drone technology into one side of the Pentagon
- fly a full passenger jet into the ground outside Pennsylvania (or did they?)

The purpose being to provide a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the aim of finally gaining control of the trans-Afghan pipeline and erecting numerous military bases, including a militarized embassy in Iraq, thereby encircling Iran.

Cover for this operation was provided by a media/intelligence hoax called al-Qaeda, with the help of a CIA agent called Osama bin Laden, who was based in Pakistan. Various fighters labelled or linked to an organisation now called al-Qaeda continue to be used in CIA/P2-style operations in Libya.

Have I missed anything out?

lanugo
09-09-2011, 09:00 PM
Quite frankly, I'm not in position to judge whether or not there were or are viable and pragmatic geo-politico-economic alternatives to the UNECOL (sic!) pipeline. I must say, that how you describe the Afghanistan war coming into being as ahaphazard undertaking determined by military doctrine aspects and time pressure sounds really convincing. However, the words of a former Pakistani foreign secretary who said that he knew two months in advance of US plans to invade Afghanistan remains a substantial argument against the scenario you envisaged (there also reports by Marines who had been informed as early as June 2001 that there would be a major mobilisation).

Also, your statement that "the Bush Administration was not focused on Afghanistan at all, and this is because they were obsessed with Russia, North Korea, China" makes you sound a little oblivious to the fundamental interconnectedness of geopolitical matters - how can the US be obsessed with Russia and China and not be interested in Afghanistan? Soft underbelly, Heartland, World-Island and all that.

I see that you edited away your request for more info on Al-Qaeda involvement in Libya. I'll direct you to this superb post (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/war-on-terror-is-fraud.html) on LD, anyway. Please read it, I'd really like to know what you have to say about his take on the ongoing CIA liaison with Al-Qaeda. It's too well documented to be all made up. Here's a teaser:



In Libya, Qaddafi has fought for nearly three decades to crush the extremist militants of Libya's eastern region, centered on the cities of Darnah and the current epicenter of the NATO-backed rebellion, Benghazi. This eastern region is considered, according to West Point's CTC report, as one of the highest concentrations of terrorists in the world. It is also a region the CIA and MI6 have helped fund, arm, and train over the same 30 years.

At one point, Qaddafi had almost entirely extinguished the movement, in particular LIFG, most of whose leadership fled, and ironically sought refuge in London, Langley, and Washington. Qaddafi would attempt to re-approach the West by abandoning his WMD programs and inviting Western intelligence agencies in to help counter the remnants of LIFG and other regional terror organizations. The CIA and MI6 instead, rearmed, reorganized, and redirected these terrorist organizations back at the Qaddafi regime culminating in the February 17, 2011 "Day of Rage" and the subsequent NATO intervention. Indeed, the US, UK, France, Qatar, and other NATO member states are overtly deposing Qaddafi in favor for a regime made up of hardcore terrorists.

Mr. Tea
09-09-2011, 09:30 PM
fake terrorists

This is the bit that really interests me. How much do you have to pay someone, do you suppose, to allow themselves to be falsely accused of a crime for which they will be tried, convicted and very probably executed? Why has it not occurred to any of the alleged 9/11 attackers, as they sit in jail waiting for their death sentences to be announced, to say "Fuck this for a game of terrorists, I'm going spill the beans"? Unless the CIA has arranged for $72m to be waiting for each of them when they get to heaven...

lanugo
09-09-2011, 09:37 PM
Your synopsis gets it about right except for two points: Firstly, I never equated the rogue consortium with the PNAC - although Rumsfeld and Cheney are likely to be members of the former as well - and, secondly, I didn't mean to suggest that each and every one of the last decade's geopolitical events is the direct outcome of a strategic master plan - however, it is my persuasion that the main parameters for a major future pan-eurasian US engagement have been purposefully set on 9/11.

Incidentally, in a nice instance of synchronicity I just came across a report (http://www.corbettreport.com/pentagon-frets-over-wasted-billions-ignores-missing-trillions/) indicating that with your insinuation about the absurdity of PNAC complicity and the use of drone technology you might have undeliberately hit the mark:



An investigative committee released a report this week estimating that the US Government has lost as much as $60 billion to waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade.

The report is the work of the Wartime Contracting Commission, established by Congress in 2008 to investigate funds and contracts in support of US military operation. Rather than advocating a reduction in a ballooning military budget that has nearly doubled since the false flag terrorist incident of 9/11, however, the report makes the case that budget cuts to the Department of Defense will actually increase the wastage and instead argues that massive increases in spending need to be maintained.

Touted as a team of “independent investigators,” the report is being hailed as a serious attempt to get a handle on the budget of the government agency most notorious for waste, fraud and corruption.

What is not being noted is that the commission includes such members as Dov Zakheim, the comptroller of the Pentagon under the first George W. Bush administration when a DOD Inspector General report established that the Pentagon was unable to account for over 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions.

Zakheim was a member of the neocon Project for a New American Century and a signatory to their 2000 document, Rebuiding America’s Defenses, which called for a “new Pearl Harbor” to justify a transformation of the US military.

Prior to taking over the Pentagon’s finances, Zakheim was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor which specialized in advanced technologies, including systems for remotely controlling aircraft.

lanugo
09-09-2011, 09:48 PM
This is the bit that really interests me. How much do you have to pay someone, do you suppose, to allow themselves to be falsely accused of a crime for which they will be tried, convicted and very probably executed? Why has it not occurred to any of the alleged 9/11 attackers, as they sit in jail waiting for their death penalties to be announced, to say "Fuck this for a game of terrorists, I'm going spill the beans"? Unless the CIA has arranged for $72m to be waiting for each of them when they get to heaven...

I suppose that when you're sitting in some black prison in an unknown location somewhere on the globe waiting for your next round of water-boarding you won't be able to knock on the door of your cell and shout: "Warden, get me a NYT reporter, I'm going public with this bullshit!"

craner
09-09-2011, 10:08 PM
the words of a former Pakistani foreign secretary who said that he knew two months in advance of US plans to invade Afghanistan remains a substantial argument against the scenario you envisaged (there also reports by Marines who had been informed as early as June 2001 that there would be a major mobilisation).

Which foreign secretary? What did he say? What marines? What reports? This is all new to me.


how can the US be obsessed with Russia and China and not be interested in Afghanistan?

Because their main focus of interest was the IBM treaty and spy planes, not a Central Asian gas pipeline. (Maybe "obsessed" was too strong a word, here.)

craner
09-09-2011, 10:14 PM
I'm also a bit confused, now, about whether Cheney or Rumsfeld are part of the P2-style Consortium or not. If they're not, then how does the whole thing work? It wouldn't be possible to launch two wars behind their backs, surely? Or would it?

baboon2004
09-09-2011, 10:58 PM
This is the bit that really interests me. How much do you have to pay someone, do you suppose, to allow themselves to be falsely accused of a crime for which they will be tried, convicted and very probably executed? Why has it not occurred to any of the alleged 9/11 attackers, as they sit in jail waiting for their death penalties to be announced, to say "Fuck this for a game of terrorists, I'm going spill the beans"? Unless the CIA has arranged for $72m to be waiting for each of them when they get to heaven...

because they have a sexual fetish for being waterboarded.

also, what if the conspiracy is itself a conspiracy, designed to deflect conspiracy theorists from the real truth?

basically, world politics is far too governed by happenstance and plain and simple fuck-up (read about the Cuban Missile Crisis for a start, and for that matter the CIA's plots to kill Castro) for any huge masterplan to go off without a hitch.

baboon2004
09-09-2011, 11:23 PM
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/cia-coup-college.html

lanugo
09-09-2011, 11:40 PM
Which foreign secretary? What did he say? What marines? What reports? This is all new to me.

A quick search turned up this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm) from 18 September, 2001:


A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Regarding Rumsfeld and Cheney:



I'm also a bit confused, now, about whether Cheney or Rumsfeld are part of the P2-style Consortium or not. If they're not, then how does the whole thing work? It wouldn't be possible to launch two wars behind their backs, surely? Or would it?


Firstly, I never equated the rogue consortium with the PNAC - although Rumsfeld and Cheney are likely to be members of the former as well -

The consortium and PNAC are not the same thing. It is, however, very likely that two of the most prominent members of the PNAC, Rumsfeld and Cheney, are also members of the consortium.


http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/cia-coup-college.html

Could you elaborate, please?

Mr. Tea
09-09-2011, 11:42 PM
I suppose that when you're sitting in some black prison in an unknown location somewhere on the globe waiting for your next round of water-boarding you won't be able to knock on the door of your cell and shout: "Warden, get me a NYT reporter, I'm going public with this bullshit!"

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was put on trial in 2008 in front of a good crowd of journalists. If he'd wanted to tell the world about his monumental setting-up, he had his chance. Instead he said he recognised no law but shari'a and welcomed his impending martyrdom. He must be the most pro-American fanatic in the world to keep playing his part this well despite knowing that he's almost certainly going to get executed for his troubles.

baboon2004
09-09-2011, 11:53 PM
Could you elaborate, please?

This guy wants there to be conspiracy at every turn. He probably thinks the CIA backed Northern Soul.

Any decent points he may have are lost because he then makes conspiratorial links where there are none. Real life and real poltiics are incredibly complex and frequently unclear, and this kind of writing neglects that for easy conspiracy. It's adolescent, good vs evil.

Mr. Tea
09-09-2011, 11:53 PM
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/cia-coup-college.html

Yeah, because no-one's ever used the fist as a symbol of resistance before...

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/51/5106/XVGEG00Z/posters/rage-against-the-machine-fist.jpg

(Edit: sorry, obvs that was your point - just thought it needed spelling out for lanugo)

baboon2004
09-09-2011, 11:59 PM
that's a good spot actually - where does the logo originally come from?

ah ok this might be useful http://www.docspopuli.org/articles/Fist.html

craner
10-09-2011, 12:02 AM
Niaz Naik,

Ok, so this guy reckons he was in a meeting with senior US officials who told him they were about to launch a war in Afghanistan to take control of a yet-to-be-built pipeline, in a campaign launched from Tajikistan and involving Uzbek and Russian troops. And why, exactly, should we believe this one uncorroborated source against the reams of counter-evidence and endless other accounts? And how come the Tajik and Uzbek and Russian parts didn't happen? Plans tweaked? It seems remarkable that only one Pakistani diplomat would've heard about it, especially if the Americans were going around showing off their plans.

Who killed Ahmed Massoud? Why? Do you think he even existed? Or was he a Cold War hoax recycled for the event?

What about these marines?


The consortium and PNAC are not the same thing. It is, however, very likely that two of the most prominent members of the PNAC, Rumsfeld and Cheney, are also members of the consortium.

So, what is the relationship between the Consortium and the PNAC? Or do they just overlap, coincide? Why is it very likely that Rumsfeld and Cheney are part of the Consortium?

baboon2004
10-09-2011, 12:07 AM
i think the reason this stuff annoys me so much is because it allows the left to be painted broadly as complete wackos, with very little grasp on reality.

obviously there are a lot of questions to be asked about the ways in which neo-imperialism works (that being, largely, the continued extraction of resource value from the developing world, proletarianisation of much of its population etc), and crazy conspiracy theories only make those questions harder to pose realistically.

brilliant book by Carolyn Nordstrom I can recommend btw, called Shadow Economies, which fits that niche exactly.

craner
10-09-2011, 09:59 AM
Nevertheless, the example and assistance of Otpor, Kmara, Pora et al, on some sections of the Arab revolts and especially on the Greens in Iran should be a source of pride, not suspicion. It is also untrue that the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the Carnegie Foundation, the National Democratic Institute and other NGOs "buy" elections and groom CIA recruits; this is the kind if gross propaganda the Kremlin and their favored demagogues in the East and Central Asia have to peddle, as they are directly threatened by the formation and funding of open elections and a democratic opposition in their countries and in their back yards.

This is why they also hate international election monitors, like the European Network of Election Monitoring, and set up their own fake election monitoring organizations, whose task is to counter and discredit the observations of independent monitors.

They are also happy to spend money on their candidates, from Yanukovych to Lukashenko to Aliyev and so on, while heavily criticizing and distorting money paid to develop electoral and democratic institutions, and funds for parties and individuals attempting to oppose entrenched, authoritarian incumbents; without these funds, and without donations from expats and exiles, opposition candidates and activists would have no money to run campaigns even if they were allowed to (look at the state of the opposition in Uzbekistan and Belarus, for example).

To criticize that, is to allow the demagogues and dictators like Karimov and Lukashenko to continue to operate with impunity and in perpetuity; to let them crush internal opposition and control elections without challenge or repercussion.

baboon2004
10-09-2011, 11:27 AM
The sad thing of course is that, as in Libya (wrt the anti-sub Saharan African racism there), democratic revolts are not to be confused with leftist/humanist revolts. Makes one pretty pessimistic on the state of the human race, but then having lived in the UK over the past year, that damage is already done.

craner
10-09-2011, 11:42 AM
Why, where were you living before?


democratic revolts are not to be confused with leftist/humanist revolts.

I don't understand what you mean here, or whether it is a point, analysis or objection. Only a leftist revolt against authoritarianism or dictatorship can be legitimate? Only leftist revolts are "humanist"?

craner
10-09-2011, 11:47 AM
Or are you insinuating far right infiltration? Because this tends to be anti-democratic, whether masquerading as populism or not.

craner
10-09-2011, 11:50 AM
Or are you just saying that society is full of bad people, whatever the hell is happening? That is probably true enough.

Mr. Tea
10-09-2011, 12:17 PM
I think the idea is that just because a revolt is "popular" and directed against an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'right-on' in the sense of being pro-labour, secular, anti-racist and so on. Just look at Iran since '79, right?

What do you make of the reports about black mercenaries employed by Gaddafi, btw? Clearly, even if it is true, it doesn't excuse the random persecution and killing of unfortunate blacks, most of whom are probably just poor migrant workers. And one thing I can't get my head around is that Gaddafi is often portrayed in rebel cartoons and graffiti as a Jew - what the hell's that about? Just standard Arab/Muslim antisemitism, or is there some back story to this?

baboon2004
10-09-2011, 12:50 PM
Why, where were you living before?

I don't understand what you mean here, or whether it is a point, analysis or objection. Only a leftist revolt against authoritarianism or dictatorship can be legitimate? Only leftist revolts are "humanist"?

Oh, still in London, just that this last eyar has been a crash course in what thatcherism was actually like (i was too yougn to properly remember). nasty.

Well, just that the revolutionaries in this case seem to be fascists too - they may set up some kind of 'democracy' (and parliamentary democracy without any kind of recourse to mid-term referendums on matters of interest to all - it's democracy in name only, as is being shown in the UK right now, obvs), but so what? Doesn't make them ideologically much better than Gaddafi. Time and time again ,historically, the West has lauded such revolutions and they've turned out to be just as fascist in a short time themselves as what they've replaced. Revolution needs to be ideological beyond vague 'democracy' slogans, in order not to devolve into awfulness - I think history bears that out reasonably well.

Also, the Western enthusiasm for Libya is of course not really to do with democracy (ludicrous to assume so), but other matters of political realism. I dont' claim to know the exact situation, but of course oil and the African migrant question are high up on this list. Inexperienced politicians are more malleable than Gaddafi, perhaps? Dunno.

baboon2004
10-09-2011, 12:55 PM
I think the idea is that just because a revolt is "popular" and directed against an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'right-on' in the sense of being socialistic, secular, anti-racist and so on. Just look at Iran since '79, right?

What do you make of the reports about black mercenaries employed by Gaddafi, btw? Clearly, even if it is true, it doesn't excuse the random persecution and killing of unfortunate blacks, most of whom are probably just poor migrant workers. And one thing I can't get my head around is that Gaddafi is often portrayed in rebel cartoons and graffiti as a Jew - what the hell's that about? Just standard Arab/Muslim antisemitism, or is there some back story to this?

totally. The idea that overthrowing a dictator will automatically lead to something better - why would it, without a (forward-thinking) ideological dimension to the revolution? But everyone knows that - making an obvious point, but still one that the mainstream media never bothers to address, probably because ideological revoluiton = Russia 1917 or Cuba 19??.

Well, as you say, the rebels clearly don't care whether the people they are persecuting WERE mercenaries. And well, Gaddafi was just exploiting those massive racial tensions in Africa to shore up his own regime - doesn't make the 'mercenaries' into bad people, just vicitms of poverty in the most part, i'd expect.

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/02/you-wont-believe-this-gadhafis-mother.html - dunno, just googled this randomly. obv the story is he's half-jewish, as to whether it's true....well, doesnt' really matter!

baboon2004
10-09-2011, 12:58 PM
Or are you insinuating far right infiltration? Because this tends to be anti-democratic, whether masquerading as populism or not.

this is the problem i have with the whole conspiracy theory thing as above. there doesn't NEED to be CIA or far right or whatever infiltration - most people are adept at being immoral cunts (especially where there is the lure of power/fame/riches) without this extra help!

craner
10-09-2011, 04:49 PM
Well, we may all have crossed wires here -- I know nothing about the Libyan National Transitional Council, or the people acting under its name, or what is even happening in Libya; I've felt like a passive well-wisher during the whole campaign. It was certainly correct to save Bhengazi, but from there it has looked like chaos heading quickly towards civil war. It is also, in terms of real, raw, strategic politics, certainly realpolitik, an expensive sideshow; the real story is going on in Syria, and Iran.

But in these cases, I was really talking about democratic revolution -- that is, of the intentionally non-violent type practised, developed and exported by the three post-Soviet waves of revolt. Some have succeeded, some have not, some have been violent, some have prevented violence. They have had an influence on some factions of the Arab Spring, and certainly on the younger Green activists in Iran. This is not disputed -- it is material for conspiracy theories, notably for far-Left Milosevic fans, but it is not disputed.

But keep in mind that the Otpor/Pora element is only ever one part of a broader coalition, or upsurge, that makes change possible; usually the humorous, theatrical, radical, young and energetic part. The outcome of these democtratic revolts has not been perfect in any case, not in Czechoslovakia, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Romania, or anywhere. But all these countries come from low points, making change possible and usually urgent in the first place. The situation is so dire that liberals, libertarians, nationalists, conservatives and socialists unify against state-authoritarian regimes awash with the money from stolen state revenues, oligarchic gangsterism, and Russian largesse. This is generally regarded as civil society verses dictatorships, though there are specifics and differences in each case, of course.

I have never found it a necessarily complicated choice, or a difficult thing to understand, even once you do get to the complexities; often the more complex the society the greater chance of success, in fact. Libya looks so daunting and chaotic because it is such a vacuum, there was a black hole beneath Gaddafi's state crust. That also happened to Iraq in the 1990s without anybody really understanding that society had been hollowed out from the middle; it was a shock for many policymakers to discover in 2003 that the entire middle class had left the country, been butchered or debauched.

I don't know where I'm going with this now. I'm going to stop before I reach 1000 words and bore you all shitless.

Mr. Tea
11-09-2011, 09:39 PM
also, what if the conspiracy is itself a conspiracy, designed to deflect conspiracy theorists from the real truth?


i think the reason this stuff annoys me so much is because it allows the left to be painted broadly as complete wackos, with very little grasp on reality.

The same idea occurred to me some time ago, namely that maybe the real conspiracy is that all the more fringe conspiracy theories - alien abduction, the faked moon landing, Queen E-lizard-breath II, Rice Krispies laced with mind-control drugs etc. ad nauseam - have actually been originated by the CIA to distract people from all the terrible things that they and their colleagues in other countries really are doing, and which aren't exactly secret but just aren't known to most people. The fact that the general public on the whole has no idea of the frankly chilling implications of the Digital Economy Act and the shadowy circumstances under which it was drafted and passed, for example, while millions of people seriously think the moon landings were faked in a studio, is extremely worrying.

slowtrain
12-09-2011, 12:53 AM
The same idea occurred to me some time ago, namely that maybe the real conspiracy is that all the more fringe conspiracy theories - alien abduction, the faked moon landing, Queen E-lizard-breath II, Rice Krispies laced with mind-control drugs etc. ad nauseam - have actually been originated by the CIA to distract people from all the terrible things that they and their colleagues in other countries really are doing, and which aren't exactly secret but just aren't known to most people. The fact that the general public on the whole has no idea of the frankly chilling implications of the Digital Economy Act and the shadowy circumstances under which it was drafted and passed, for example, while millions of people serious think the moon landings were faked in a studio, is extremely worrying.

Well, its generally accepted that the CIA encouraged the cattle mutilation / UFO sightings during the cold war so that when people saw weird shit in the sky they could go: 'don't worry about that nutter, he thinks he saw aliens' when really he saw new experimental aircraft.

Not sure exactly how much of a role governments play in this (as opposed to (i suppose its still conspiratorial) the personal politics of people in media) but people definitely do get distracted / misled about important legislation and the like all the time.

(Tony Blair's infamous "oh thats just a conspiracy" being a prime example)

baboon2004
12-09-2011, 10:43 AM
But keep in mind that the Otpor/Pora element is only ever one part of a broader coalition, or upsurge, that makes change possible; usually the humorous, theatrical, radical, young and energetic part. The outcome of these democtratic revolts has not been perfect in any case, not in Czechoslovakia, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Romania, or anywhere. But all these countries come from low points, making change possible and usually urgent in the first place. The situation is so dire that liberals, libertarians, nationalists, conservatives and socialists unify against state-authoritarian regimes awash with the money from stolen state revenues, oligarchic gangsterism, and Russian largesse. This is generally regarded as civil society verses dictatorships, though there are specifics and differences in each case, of course.


But does this necessarily lead to a better society - in some of these countries (dont' know enough to say lots) those who are now considered authoritarian were at the inception of their rule considered liberators themselves, or at least much more liberal than they have become.

I guess a stronger civil society may initially prevent the new rulers becoming illiberal too quickly (as you say, this is problematic in Libya), but eventually won't they just destroy/emasculate civil society, precisely because it forces them to share power to a greater extent?

baboon2004
12-09-2011, 10:47 AM
The same idea occurred to me some time ago, namely that maybe the real conspiracy is that all the more fringe conspiracy theories - alien abduction, the faked moon landing, Queen E-lizard-breath II, Rice Krispies laced with mind-control drugs etc. ad nauseam - have actually been originated by the CIA to distract people from all the terrible things that they and their colleagues in other countries really are doing, and which aren't exactly secret but just aren't known to most people. The fact that the general public on the whole has no idea of the frankly chilling implications of the Digital Economy Act and the shadowy circumstances under which it was drafted and passed, for example, while millions of people serious think the moon landings were faked in a studio, is extremely worrying.

yeah absolutely, I was only being semi-facetious, as there is some truth in this. It happens in a more mundane way in the relentless sanctimony regarding MPs' pay, when this to me was a total non-issue, and symptomatic of a parliamentary/representative democracy gone wrong (ie regular people have no choice/power in decision making whatsoever except every four years between two parties), which is the main problem but isn't sensationalist enough.

Edit: Rice Krispies are laced with mind control drugs, though.

Mr. Tea
12-09-2011, 01:30 PM
Rice Krispies are bad enough, it's Sugar Puffs that are the real whack shit though. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!


Well, its generally accepted that the CIA encouraged the cattle mutilation / UFO sightings during the cold war so that when people saw weird shit in the sky they could go: 'don't worry about that nutter, he thinks he saw aliens' when really he saw new experimental aircraft.


I saw a doc about the mutilations that overlaid a map of where they happen (various hotspots in the rural Midwest, basically) on a map of above-ground nuclear test sites used in the early Cold War. And what do you know, the mutilations were all downwind of the test sites...the conclusion draws itself, really. But yeah, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if speculation about 'aliens' had been encouraged in order to discredit anyone who was seriously interested in investigating the phenomenon.

baboon2004
15-09-2011, 12:22 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-open-investigation-on-strikers-911-conspiracy-tweet-2354748.html

slowtrain
15-09-2011, 12:52 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-open-investigation-on-strikers-911-conspiracy-tweet-2354748.html

Oh those illuminati!

Mr. Tea
15-09-2011, 12:52 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-open-investigation-on-strikers-911-conspiracy-tweet-2354748.html

How is that even potentially a disciplinary offence? Have they had a complaint from Illuminati community leaders?

lanugo
15-09-2011, 07:41 PM
The wealth of links to substantial articles I provided and an engaging and matter-of-factly debate that unfolded with craner notwithstanding, this thread has now officially descended into an amateur theatre stage where self-indulgent losers are allowed to make their infantile and worn-out jokes in front of an awed audience of imbeciles. Da Vinci's remark comes to mind: "What is humanity but fillers of a cloaca."

Anway, the gravity of the subject matter commands to counter the tide of non-sense unleashed by Mr.Tea and Co. After all, there was some acceptable coverage by the corporate media during last weekend's commemorative simulacra.

Here's Truth going mainstream in a Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/sep/12/9-11-symposium-charlie-skelton) by Charlie Skelton who attended a critical 9/11 conference in NY:


History, documentation, facts. A respect for life, and a respect for truth. This is what I heard, over and over again, at this remarkable conference. Wayne Madsen – a former naval officer and NSA operative – spoke of the atmosphere of "hype and fear" that still grips America, 10 years after 9/11. A fear that's pumped into us, relentlessly, through our flatscreen HD Orwellian "telescreens".


I found myself blinking back tears for the second time when McGovern read out a poem – in his polished CIA Russian – about a mother mourning the loss of her child. This thread of grieving ran throughout the conference. Wayne Madsen grieved for the loss of "shoeleather journalism", McGovern mourned the death of the fourth estate, while Tarpley spoke of the hollow memorial at Ground Zero – the two "abysses": the reflecting pools, or "voids", as they're often called. He sees these memorials as an appropriately empty vision of "nothingness. Nihil. No ideals, nothing." A nothingness at the heart of America. "But we have to do something."

We have to do something. Even if that something is simply to Google 'Cass Sunstein' and start from there. Begin your own cognitive infiltration. Google 'Vigilant Guardian' or 'Able Danger'. Crosscheck 'Abdel Hakim Belhadj' and 'Al-Qaida'. Begin digging. Begin thinking. And stop believing.

Furthermore, the ever informative alternative media keeps bringing to the surface nugget after nugget of unwelcome information, for example this 2004 article by the Washington Post titled "FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6632-2004May6)":


Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

And here's a link to indepedent journalist James Corbett's podcast episode "35 Reasons to Question 9/11 (http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-199-35-reasons-to-question-911/)" that is such a towering achievement in well-documented investigation that every person with intellectual integrity simply can't dismiss it as 'conspiracy theory'.

crackerjack
15-09-2011, 09:05 PM
God, that Guardian piece is pish. The same old pleas to faith ("begin thinking, stop believing") masquerading as 'critical thinking'.

Odd how troofers always bring up Reichstag too, since the official story – that it was the work of one lone communist – is probably true. Not as clear-cut as 9/11 mind.

baboon2004
15-09-2011, 11:47 PM
this thread has now officially descended into an amateur theatre stage where self-indulgent losers are allowed to make their infantile and worn-out jokes in front of an awed audience of imbeciles. Da Vinci's remark comes to mind: "What is humanity but fillers of a cloaca."


have you ever considered directing your energies towards something less solipsistic than your own wish for all the world to be a conspiracy theory? There doesn't seem anything more self-indulgent than that. or go and talk about this somewhere where people will uncritically agree with what you say and give you the validation you so sorely require.

slowtrain
16-09-2011, 04:49 AM
I will put in my two cents here (in a foreign currency no doubt, kroner or something that is basically worthless, two francs maybe):

Anyway, there is a really good article by the philosopher Neil Levy.

In it, he argues that we, the stupid uneducated public, when looking to assess which of the two stories we should believe in, should look to the one that is put forward by the 'properly constituted epistemic authorities' - i.e, by the experts. The story that is put forward by the Universities, the scholars, researchers, media (sometimes), etc.

The reasoning behind this is that it is irrational to rely on these mechanisms for our knowledge of so much things (and we do 'know' things through these mechanisms - I mean I know that a car engine works and I trust that I will - but I have no idea how it or why it works - that knowledge is stored in other institutions) but then to turn around and deny them.

For instance, do I believe a youtube video or a blog post about the structural integrity of the WTC, or do I believe the research carried out by Purdue University?

It's not about saying which story is true (OK - I know thats what this thread about, but I will leave to that people are aware of the actual details) but about which story one is warranted in believing.

Anyway, thats not strictly relevant, just my two scents. (Hopefully they smell OK)

Mr. Tea
16-09-2011, 01:27 PM
I will put in my two cents here (in a foreign currency no doubt, kroner or something that is basically worthless, two francs maybe)...


The thing is, classic conspiracy theorists work on exactly the opposite basis: the more official and professional a source of evidence seems to be (e.g. a report by a panel of experts at a reputable university, as you mention), the less it should be trusted, since the higher up you go in the social/political/academic hierarchy, the closer you get to the shadowy They who control everything, so the more likely that information is to be compromised, incomplete or totally falsified.

By extension, the less official and professional the source, the more trustworthy the information - hence the reliance on home-made videos uploaded to Youtube, badly laid-out websites full of unformatted text and animated .gifs, etc.; in pre-web days I guess it would have been home-printed pamphlets and street demagogues with megaphones and hand-drawn placards. This relates to a phenomenon I've seen called the Galileo Effect, although I'd noticed it long before I'd heard that name for it: namely, the line of reasoning that goes "Galileo was persecuted by the ignorant masses for his theories, yet they turned out to be true: I'm 'persecuted' [called a crank] by the ignorant masses, therefore - like Galileo - my theories will eventually be recognised as true (and even if they aren't, they're still true)."

crackerjack
16-09-2011, 01:39 PM
This relates to a phenomenon I've seen called the Galileo Effect, although I'd noticed it long before I'd heard that name for it: namely, the line of reasoning that goes "Galileo was persecuted by the ignorant masses for his theories, yet they turned out to be true: I'm 'persecuted' [called a crank] by the ignorant masses, therefore - like Galileo - my theories will eventually be recognised as true (and even if they aren't, they're still true)."

Ar recently peddled by climate denier Chris Perry.

Mr. Tea
16-09-2011, 03:14 PM
Ar recently peddled by climate denier Chris Perry.

Exactly, he's the guy who explicitly invoked Galileo but it's a gambit that cranks and mountebanks have used since forever. "They called me crazy, just like they called Einstein crazy..."

Of course it works especially well in the context of an American conservative banging on about the alleged "liberal" bias of mainstream American media. Man, that Fox News network kills me with its relentless pro-gay, anti-Jesus, tree-hugging pinko agenda!

outraygeous
16-09-2011, 04:35 PM
I used to believe in challenging things but then I realised, what's the point?

Mr. Tea
16-09-2011, 07:01 PM
I used to believe in challenging things but then I realised, what's the point?

There is none, if lanugo and his ilk are to be believed, since They are all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.

slowtrain
17-09-2011, 12:47 AM
The thing is, classic conspiracy theorists work on exactly the opposite basis: the more official and professional a source of evidence seems to be (e.g. a report by a panel of experts at a reputable university, as you mention), the less it should be trusted, since the higher up you go in the social/political/academic hierarchy, the closer you get to the shadowy They who control everything, so the more likely that information is to be compromised, incomplete or totally falsified.

By extension, the less official and professional the source, the more trustworthy the information - hence the reliance on home-made videos uploaded to Youtube, badly laid-out websites full of unformatted text and animated .gifs, etc.; in pre-web days I guess it would have been home-printed pamphlets and street demagogues with megaphones and hand-drawn placards. This relates to a phenomenon I've seen called the Galileo Effect, although I'd noticed it long before I'd heard that name for it: namely, the line of reasoning that goes "Galileo was persecuted by the ignorant masses for his theories, yet they turned out to be true: I'm 'persecuted' [called a crank] by the ignorant masses, therefore - like Galileo - my theories will eventually be recognised as true (and even if they aren't, they're still true)."

Yeah, conspiracy theories are probably the only thing in the world where evidence against them is actually evidence for them.

That said, (I wouldn't consider myself a conspiracy theorist though) but I would not be very likely to trust official government lines on things, but I would trust universities.

slowtrain
17-09-2011, 12:49 AM
So basically I'm saying what I am sure everyone here already knows - that that form of reasoning is totally bunk and inconsistent.

(Because evidence that goes against the C.T. will be manipulated by 'They', but if someone equally high up produces some evidence for the C.T., it will be of course true and lauded.)

Mr. Tea
17-09-2011, 03:12 AM
Nail on head. Conspiracy theories tend overwhelmingly to be unfalsifiable because any objection can be met with a rejoinder of "That's what They want you to think", and any inconsistency can be 'explained' by extending the conspiracy to the next layer up in the global control scheme. For example, perhaps the most obvious response to claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked is the fact that Soviet scientists admitted that they'd tracked an object leaving the earth, travelling to the moon and then coming back to earth - surely the Soviet government, of all interested parties, would have loved to expose a 'faked' American moon landing? Whereas Brezhnev actually sent a congratulatory telegram to the Whitehouse, acknowleding the success of NASA's Apollo 11 mission.

Now I read somewhere that the 'official' conspiracy-theory explanation for this is that the Soviet government was bought off with shipments of grain. This is the same Soviet government which, just a few decades previously, had deliberately engineered a famine in which up to eight million of its own citizens died. Pathetic.

pattycakes
17-09-2011, 09:42 PM
i think it's worth pointing out though, that it also works the other way 'round. i.e. anything sounding slightly out of the basic reality 'they' feed the public through the mainstream news immediately gets called a conspiracy theory. which obviously is correct, it is a theory, but the stigma attached to that term is imo unjust. just because most conspiracy theories have more in common with what happens in fiction than what we're shown on the news doesn't mean we should instantly disregard them. there are plenty of extremely fucked up, elaborate plots and schemes carried out by governments all the time that have been proved and occasionally admitted to that fall into this category.

it surprises me how many apparently intelligent and well read people instantly reject anything resembling a conspiracy theory. for some reason they don't seem to be able/willing to open their minds enough to even entertain the ideas. maybe i'm mistaken but it seems like there's this instant reaction to anything out of the rationally explainable where it has to be mocked and taken down as quickly as possible with little desire to even discuss it. knowing what we do know, as in the devious kinds of things our governments get up to, (e.g. selling weapons to the very countries we end up fighting/funding rebel forces to violently topple governments who's politics we don't agree with) is it really not even worth going over these ideas?

i fell like lanugo has put across some points in this thread that are worth discussing. but most people are content with casting them off or mocking it and moving on. a small few have pointed to counter arguments, but still don't really seem keen on delving into it. i get that it's tiresome to many, and also amusing to wind up the theorists. but i'd really like to know why most people are reluctant to even get into it? it feels like it's the easy way out to put an 'irrational' type tag on these ideas and then move on.

i really wonder whether i'm missing the point here. but i'm a layman when it comes to politics, so forgive me if i'm being naive. obviously there are other places to discuss this, but i dunno, this forum seems pretty broad in it's topics. why not this one?

slowtrain
18-09-2011, 01:55 AM
i think it's worth pointing out though, that it also works the other way 'round. i.e. anything sounding slightly out of the basic reality 'they' feed the public through the mainstream news immediately gets called a conspiracy theory. which obviously is correct, it is a theory, but the stigma attached to that term is imo unjust. just because most conspiracy theories have more in common with what happens in fiction than what we're shown on the news doesn't mean we should instantly disregard them. there are plenty of extremely fucked up, elaborate plots and schemes carried out by governments all the time that have been proved and occasionally admitted to that fall into this category.

it surprises me how many apparently intelligent and well read people instantly reject anything resembling a conspiracy theory. for some reason they don't seem to be able/willing to open their minds enough to even entertain the ideas. maybe i'm mistaken but it seems like there's this instant reaction to anything out of the rationally explainable where it has to be mocked and taken down as quickly as possible with little desire to even discuss it. knowing what we do know, as in the devious kinds of things our governments get up to, (e.g. selling weapons to the very countries we end up fighting/funding rebel forces to violently topple governments who's politics we don't agree with) is it really not even worth going over these ideas?

i fell like lanugo has put across some points in this thread that are worth discussing. but most people are content with casting them off or mocking it and moving on. a small few have pointed to counter arguments, but still don't really seem keen on delving into it. i get that it's tiresome to many, and also amusing to wind up the theorists. but i'd really like to know why most people are reluctant to even get into it? it feels like it's the easy way out to put an 'irrational' type tag on these ideas and then move on.

i really wonder whether i'm missing the point here. but i'm a layman when it comes to politics, so forgive me if i'm being naive. obviously there are other places to discuss this, but i dunno, this forum seems pretty broad in it's topics. why not this one?

I completely agree with this post.

I don't think that any (well, for the most part) theory can be ruled out completely a priori. The method I outlined is sort of a 'meta-evaluation' of conspiracy theories, but in no way do I think that it should replace actually looking at the real evidence and questioning the various stories.

Basically, all that I think you should be entitled to say when using that method is 'I will believe the official story until proven otherwise' - NOT 'The conspiracy theory is false and untrue'.

And of course saying that you will believe the official story until proven otherwise doesn't mean you should sit back and just forget about it, accept in unquestionably, it just means that that is the one you are warranted in believing.

I think its good to be generally sceptical of most things though.

crackerjack
18-09-2011, 10:16 AM
i fell like lanugo has put across some points in this thread that are worth discussing. but most people are content with casting them off or mocking it and moving on. a small few have pointed to counter arguments, but still don't really seem keen on delving into it. i get that it's tiresome to many, and also amusing to wind up the theorists. but i'd really like to know why most people are reluctant to even get into it? it feels like it's the easy way out to put an 'irrational' type tag on these ideas and then move on.

i really wonder whether i'm missing the point here. but i'm a layman when it comes to politics, so forgive me if i'm being naive. obviously there are other places to discuss this, but i dunno, this forum seems pretty broad in it's topics. why not this one?

Because I don't accept that these are good points. For the most part the tactic consists of highlighting possible anomalies in the official story and then concluding the whole thing must be one big lie. It's one thing being open to conspiracies – this one, for instance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings#Ryazan_incident) – quite another indulging cranks and bullshitters.

zhao
18-09-2011, 01:31 PM
nice one patty cakes. yes an important thing to remember is the history of the US and other governments carrying out shit like this, many times successful and, the ones we know about, only exposed much later.

pattycakes
18-09-2011, 02:14 PM
check out this little piece of not-oft spoken about history (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/01/yemen_the_return_of_old_ghosts.html)

crackerjack
18-09-2011, 02:25 PM
check out this little piece of not-oft spoken about history (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/01/yemen_the_return_of_old_ghosts.html)

Thing is, this seems pretty uncontroversial to me - the Aden war mightn't be top of the history syllabus but the idea that it (and Suez and Iran '54) is a secret that no one ever talks about is just plain wrong (as its appearance in the centre of a BBC documentary indicates). It's also a long, long way from false-flag operations killing thousands of your own citizens.

zhao
19-09-2011, 12:37 AM
killing thousands of your own citizens.

this alone is IMHO no object to the powerful elite who call the shots in america. i am perfectly certain that they don't give a damn at all about the poor, and not much at all for the middle class either. i'm not saying they did this, but i am saying that it is not unimaginable that they would.

Mr. Tea
19-09-2011, 01:00 AM
i am perfectly certain that they don't give a damn at all about the poor, and not much at all for the middle class either.

A fair point, but how many of the 9/11 victims were "poor"? I should imagine many of them were pretty rich - perhaps members of the very same "powerful elite who call the shots"...

slowtrain
19-09-2011, 07:48 AM
Only marginally related, but when i saw this I just couldn't resist:

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/5228/screencapture1d.png

baboon2004
19-09-2011, 08:59 AM
this alone is IMHO no object to the powerful elite who call the shots in america. i am perfectly certain that they don't give a damn at all about the poor, and not much at all for the middle class either. i'm not saying they did this, but i am saying that it is not unimaginable that they would.

I totally agree with this - as said earlier, the reason the conspiracy theories fail is that it would just be an absurd exercise to carry out such a massive attack, and impossible to cover up (unlike say, the assassination of one man). Anyone who's studied politics at all knows that its history is governed by massive fuck ups - the idea that you could have a conspiracy theory involving 100s and keep them all quiet, is a 1 000 000 - 1 shot at coming off.

But no, I don't think certain elements within the US government give much of a shit about citizens' lives in the abstract. Same for the UK government, or, well, most governments.

crackerjack
19-09-2011, 10:17 AM
But no, I don't think certain elements within the US government give much of a shit about citizens' lives in the abstract. Same for the UK government, or, well, most governments.

No, probably not. But it's fair to assume that some of the hundreds (thousands?) of people Lanugo would like to charge with planning and executing this operation would give something of a shit. And given the background of the people killed that day, I'd guess they'd care a lot more about WTC than Buttfuck, Idaho.

pattycakes
19-09-2011, 11:22 AM
Thing is, this seems pretty uncontroversial to me - the Aden war mightn't be top of the history syllabus but the idea that it (and Suez and Iran '54) is a secret that no one ever talks about is just plain wrong (as its appearance in the centre of a BBC documentary indicates). It's also a long, long way from false-flag operations killing thousands of your own citizens.

i never said it was a secret, just not often mentioned. it may be a bbc thing, but the fact that it's adam curtis kind of shines a different light on it than if it were someone else, no?

you don't think this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/page/0,,2095831,00.html) is controversial?

or this:
To fight the war in secret the British government also allowed the creation of a private mercenary force. Out of it would come today's privatized military industry that fights wars for dictators throughout Africa and is deeply involved in fighting against the insurgency in Iraq. ?

and basically, because we fucked it up and made things worse there, you could argue that the Yemen war led indirectly to 9/11.


The Islamism that we face today rose up in the 1970s precisely as a reaction to those corrupt regimes and their western backers. It too is an anti-colonial project that is very similar to Nasser's vision of a united Arab world free of western influence - but with religion bolted on. And now, to fight it, we are preparing to send arms and "intelligence advisers" to help prop up a corrupt regime in Yemen.

obviously the Yemen and current Iraq wars aren't particularly comparable. but the politics surrounding them are.

mark curtis wrote a book called 'unpeople' which covered a bit about it:


In ‘Unpeople’ Curtis notes that Yemen and the other case studies he examined in declassified government files illustrate the three basic principles that guide British foreign policy.

The first is the systematic deception of the public by British ministers, which is ‘deeply embedded in British policy-making.’ (Curtis, ‘Unpeople’, p. 3). Blair’s lies about Iraq fit comfortably as part of this trend.

The second principle is that policy-makers are typically open and frank about their real goals in secret documents. The glaring gap between state realpolitik and government claims of benevolence is rooted in a fundamental contempt for the general population. As Curtis says:

‘The foreign-policy decision-making system is so secretive, elitist and unaccountable that policy-makers know they can get away with almost anything, and they will deploy whatever arguments are needed to do this.’ (Ibid., p .3)

The third basic principle is that humanitarian concerns do not feature in the rationale for foreign policy. Curtis observes bluntly:

‘In the thousands of government files I have looked through for this and other books, I have barely seen any reference to human rights at all. Where such concerns are evoked, they are only for public-relations purposes.’ (Ibid., p .3)


if you haven't already and feel like finding out more about this stuff, it's well worth watching the 1st part of 'the mayfair set' by adam curtis

IdleRich
19-09-2011, 11:56 AM
Don't know whether this belongs here but it sort of seems relevant.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-insurer-sues-saudi-arabia-for-funding-911-attacks-2356857.html

Be interesting to see what falls out of that - if anything.

Mr. Tea
19-09-2011, 12:24 PM
Only marginally related, but when i saw this I just couldn't resist:

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/5228/screencapture1d.png

Is it compensation for what "They" did to her face?

grizzleb
19-09-2011, 05:04 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/guatemala-experiments

The guardian at the conspiracy nonsense again... What is the simplest story, that the many people it would take to organise such an operation were quiet for years about this, or that people were simply having too much unprotected sex? It's completely ridiculous that the state would be callous with human life, and also that such a crime could be carried out without it being exposed.

crackerjack
19-09-2011, 10:19 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/guatemala-experiments

The guardian at the conspiracy nonsense again... What is the simplest story, that the many people it would take to organise such an operation were quiet for years about this, or that people were simply having too much unprotected sex? It's completely ridiculous that the state would be callous with human life, and also that such a crime could be carried out without it being exposed.

Well thanks for demonstrating that conspiracies do occur. That comes as a great surprise to those of us who've been banging on about the Met cover-up of the NoW hacking for over two years.



you don't think this is controversial?


I think we might be at cross purposes here. I meant it was an uncontroversial opinion, not that it it was cool for it to have happened.

Anyway, I think we're heading up something of a blind alley. My point, and the reason why I disagree that Lanugo has raised some good points, is that there's a world of difference between the kind of evidence-based constructions that A Curtis makes and the 9/11 theories, which mostly comprise highlighting alleged disparities in the official story, ignoring the debunking of these disparities, and then leaping to the wild conclusions they wanted to find from the outset.

More importantly, this kind of reflex conspiracism has long since crossed the line from healthy scepticism to a kind of pathology. I've seen it (as I'm sure most of us have) in friends who "just know" that the royals killed Diana or MI5 killed David Kelly.

And, as mentioned upthread, it comes at a cost, encouraging apathy and (a particular problem since many CTs now find their home on the left) making dissenters look a bit mad.

Mr. Tea
19-09-2011, 11:42 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/guatemala-experiments

The guardian at the conspiracy nonsense again... What is the simplest story, that the many people it would take to organise such an operation were quiet for years about this, or that people were simply having too much unprotected sex? It's completely ridiculous that the state would be callous with human life, and also that such a crime could be carried out without it being exposed.

The Guatemala STD experiments are so fictitious that the US government has apologised for them... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39456324/ns/health-sexual_health/t/us-apologizes-guatemala-std-experiments/)

It's totally believable that Western governments would do this sort of thing. What about the nuclear tests that exposed many thousands of people - American servicemen and Polynesian islanders alike - to dangerous and in some cases fatal doses of radiation? We did the same of course, as did the French. And what about that village in France in the 1950s that had an inexplicable madness epidemic, that turned out to be due to the CIA spiking the bread supply with LSD? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html)

My main objections to the 9/11 'inside job' theory are that many of the attacks' victims were surely members of the very same elite that supposedly orchestrated the attacks, and the sheer unlikeliness of such a huge operation being kept under wraps for (at least) 10 years. Why hasn't a single anonymous 9/11 whistleblower contacted Wikileaks? It's never been easier for someone to publicise secret documents.

grizzleb
20-09-2011, 02:05 AM
To be honest, I'm just being facetious. Not really a serious post.

Mr. Tea
20-09-2011, 02:09 AM
To be honest, I'm just being facetious. Not really a serious post.

In case you hadn't noticed, me laddo, this is a serious subject.


http://www.texasdude.com/9-11-01/trade%20center%20eagel.jpg

NEVAR FORGET

Mr. Tea
29-09-2011, 11:30 PM
"Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories

Terrorist organisation's magazine reportedly says it is 'ridiculous' for Iran's president to blame the attacks on the US government"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy?newsfeed=true)

AQ has a magazine?

slowtrain
30-09-2011, 02:33 AM
"Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories

Terrorist organisation's magazine reportedly says it is 'ridiculous' for Iran's president to blame the attacks on the US government"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy?newsfeed=true)

AQ has a magazine?

Haha, I thought the magazine bit was funny too.

I'm very interested to see what the 'troofers' make of this.

EDIT: Although, al-qaida 'magazine' seems pretty ripe for 'it's us govt and its fake!!!'

Now if they had said, illegally tripe-encrypted bestiality porn tracked from a website on the deep web accessible only to people who are willing to meet at a secret location to get the url and then to hack into a remote server to download the file had been found that said this same message....

Or maybe not. I don't really know how they could do it. Smoke signals from a cave in the mountains?

Do the hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorists even believe al-qaida exists?

Mr. Tea
30-09-2011, 03:53 PM
Really hardcore conspiracy theorists think AQ, along with everything else in the world, is just a giant computer simulation to prevent us from realising that we're enslaved by evil robots...

I love that their magazine is called Inspire - sounds like it should be some bullshitty trade magazine from the Institute of Chartered Managers or somesuch.

Leo
30-09-2011, 04:36 PM
"AQ has a magazine?

...and they now have an opening for a new editor:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/american-who-waged-media-jihad-is-said-to-be-killed-in-awlaki-strike/?hp

Mr. Tea
30-09-2011, 04:55 PM
I bet their agony column is a right laugh. "Dear Abdullah, can you help me? Things just aren't working out between me and my second-favourite wife..."

PeteUM
30-09-2011, 08:08 PM
I'm prepared to believe any batshit theory up to a point but I reckon if the truthers are barking up the wrong tree it's partly, ironically, due to a paradoxical faith in the system in that they simply can't accept the fallability the of powers that be. I.e. how could a modest number of Arab dudes wreak such real/symbolic havoc? I'm interested in what leads people to place trust in/ascribe omnipotence to/cede agency to power/hierarchies and my bullshit pseudo psychoanalytic model needs some Big Dad figure, whether good or bad, to act as guarantor for the general, uh... ontology. In reality though, perhaps, reality is actually a bit more flimsy.