Excellent new 9/11 video

"what about the 6th page of this Newsweek article?"

Click to expand...

OK read it, what about it?

There are some compelling arguments here but alot of it seems to be presented in the wrong light. Many of these explanations seem a bit far fetched too. Its a good watch though as it does lead me to believe that alot of the information we've been given has in fact been falsified. There are too many inconsistencies for us not to begin asking questions.

I firmly believe those questions will lead nowhere. Look at the Reichstag fire - The same motives and consequences, the same conspiracy theories... were the Nazis behind it? Nearly 70 years later, we still dont know for sure, and, in a similar way, without a smoking gun or incontrovertible evidence, minor revelations, or repetitive 'Why didnt they do this' type questions about 911 will not cause the American empire to crumble beneath Bush's feet...

The conspiracy mindest is a black hole of supposition and suspicion... venture there at your peril!

I don't deny that there are inconsistencies in the offical story, but why set these within a greater story that's so far-fetched and unsubstantiated? By itself, a question like "Why is there no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon?" is eminently reasonable, and deserves an answer. Thing is, an argument is only as strong as its weakest links, and there's a lot of very weak links in Loose Change.

I think the problem is that while everybody will concede that the official story has some holes in it they aren't willing to discuss any other possibilities or theories out of fear perpetuated by the media and government in order to keep society relatively peaceful and under control.

While videos like Loose Change are good in that they raise the subject in a different light, its lack of an even handed argument doesn't really help its cause and more likely makes it worse. For a non-mainstream video though it is well made but suffers a little from its makers over-enthusiasm.

The confusion and denial that a lot of people are suffering from over events such as 9/11 or 7/7 create further unnessecary situations as a result. I suggest we will probably not know in our lifetimes what the complete truth is - maybe never - but helping people to understand why they might be confused is worthwhile.

lesgeorges said:

I don't deny that there are inconsistencies in the offical story, but why set these within a greater story that's so far-fetched and unsubstantiated? By itself, a question like "Why is there no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon?" is eminently reasonable, and deserves an answer. Thing is, an argument is only as strong as its weakest links, and there's a lot of very weak links in Loose Change.

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree.

droid said:

without a smoking gun or incontrovertible evidence, minor revelations, or repetitive 'Why didnt they do this' type questions about 911 will not cause the American empire to crumble beneath Bush's feet...

Click to expand...

When did I suggest that? You're interjecting your own aassumptions into this discussion. If such information was to come to light all party members would be held accountable, stripped of their duties, and punished. Just as we held Nixon accountable.(of course the severity of his punishment might be in dispute) The "American Empire" certainly wouldn't crumble. We don't exactly grant Bush the title of Caeser you know.

*On an off note, I'm checkin out your blog. Some good stuff on here.

Keith P:

If such information was to come to light all party members would be held accountable, stripped of their duties, and punished. Just as we held Nixon accountable.(of course the severity of his punishment might be in dispute) The "American Empire" certainly wouldn't crumble. We don't exactly grant Bush the title of Caeser you know.

Click to expand...

You certainly admire your confidence in "the power of information" and the incorrigibility of party-political Dimocracy. Legitimate scepticism about the Official 9/11 story is grounded in numerous historical precedents, from Pearl Harbour to this, Operation Northwoods:

The contemplation of terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The previously classified "Operation Northwoods" document reveals that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but were given approval signatures by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan included several options, including killing Cuban defectors or U.S. soldiers, sinking ships, and staging simulations of planes being shot down. All this was done to blame on Castro as a pretext for launching a war against Cuba. Operation Northwoods

Keith P said:

You're interjecting your own aassumptions into this discussion. If such information was to come to light all party members would be held accountable, stripped of their duties, and punished. Just as we held Nixon accountable.(of course the severity of his punishment might be in dispute) The "American Empire" certainly wouldn't crumble. We don't exactly grant Bush the title of Caeser you know.

Click to expand...

Youre right - I was speaking generally, as Ive had a lot of frustrating conversations with 911 obsessives - I wasnt saying that something wouldnt be done, Im saying that because of its very nature, conspiracy theorising is unlikely to yield the results that would lead something to be done - it would have to come from a very high level leak to a major media outlet.. fuzzy photos of 'bumps' on the side of crashing jumbos aint gonna do it....

*On an off note, I'm checkin out your blog. Some good stuff on here.

Click to expand...

Sound!

Farfetched - WHat about the basis for the Iraq/Iran wars

IdleRich said:

Let me get straight what they're saying - four planes were replaced by "drones" or missiles and the passengers who must all have been in on it were disappeared. Fake but completely convincing phone calls were made from the planes to the passengers' relatives using voice simulation technology. The missiles were then flown in to the twin towers which were exploded by detonators placed there several days before hand while the passengers started new lives somewhere that they wouldn't awkwardly turn up (like the moon). This was all organised by a group of men who are barely capable of hunting birds with a rifle without fucking it up much to everyone's amusement.
There may be a few questions about some of the events, their exact sequence and what have you but that sounds a little far-fetched to me.

Click to expand...

Not as far-fetched as 'bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq' ........ or Vietnam, or Nicuragua, or Chile, or Indonesia or Iran (which is next on the hit list, by the way!) ... the list is seemingly endless.

Or attacking Hiroshima, and Nagasaki which were, get this, 'miltary targets', even though a few days before the US commader-in-chief had said they would never use such weapons on Civilians in Urban Areas ...........

For a very good historical analysis of WHY the Iraq War is happening try this : http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1389 - The terror the US Adminsitration and their Oil Company and Banking cronies is trying to avoid is their terror of the US dollar losing it's value.

corneilius said:

Not as far-fetched as 'bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq' ........ or Vietnam, or Nicuragua, or Chile, or Indonesia or Iran (which is next on the hit list, by the way!) ... the list is seemingly endless.

Or attacking Hiroshima, and Nagasaki which were, get this, 'miltary targets', even though a few days before the US commader-in-chief had said they would never use such weapons on Civilians in Urban Areas ...........

For a very good historical analysis of WHY the Iraq War is happening try this : http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1389 - The terror the US Adminsitration and their Oil Company and Banking cronies is trying to avoid is their terror of the US dollar losing it's value.

Click to expand...

Actually, they are much more far fetched, as all the examples you cited took place with the full knowledge of thousands of people, were accepted US policy at the time, involved millions of US troops, and vitally, were all attacks on foreign nations.

Of course its obvious that the American military government would be tactically capable of the acts described in the video, but it would take years of planning, involve hundreds of people, would represent an unacceptable political risk to the perpetrators, and would be almost completely impossible to keep secret.

You really think the goons responsible for the Iraq debacle could manage such intricate and complex planning? More to the point, do you really think it could have remained secret for so long considering just how many people a scheme like this would have involved?

droid said:

You really think the goons responsible for the Iraq debacle could manage such intricate and complex planning? More to the point, do you really think it could have remained secret for so long considering just how many people a scheme like this would have involved?

Click to expand...

Alternatively:

The Bush Gang: "A veritable juggernaut of competence."

By the estimable Jack Riddler: "The awesome competence of the Bush regime" (a post buried in a DU forum):

[via Qlipoth]


Those who call the Bush mob "incompetent" make a fatal error. On some unconscious level, they seem to think that these criminals somehow share any of the goals of decent human beings, and have therefore "failed" to produce good results. But that, of course is the idea that motivates the Bush crime family: to produce evil results that happen to enrich their own class.

The situation in Iraq for example is not the result of "incompetence." It is all according to plan, which was to destroy that nation.

Over and over we see the awesome competence of the Bush regime in accomplishing their radical plans - at every stage very much thanks to the enablers who run the Democratic Party, and who have smoothed the way for the Bush mob in each of their following accomplishments:

*Stealing Election 2000.
*Trillion dollar giveaway to the rich, intentionally plunging the country into deficit.
*9/11. Exactly as desired.
*Stealing a sum specified as "2.3 trillion dollars" from Pentagon assets.
*Repealing the Bill of Rights in the USA PATRIOT Act.
*Getting dozens of other countries to pass their own PATRIOT acts.
*Invading Afghanistan. Exactly as planned, years in advance.
*Funnelling trillions more legally into the Pentagon.
*Establishing a Homeland Gestapo.
*Instituting Rule by Fear, color-coded no less.
*Railroading the idiot Congress into approving the war in Iraq.
*Accepting the assassination of Wellstone by whatever lower-level operative delivered it.
*Stealing Election 2002.
*Establishing "Total Information Awareness" and getting away with it, even after departure of Poindexter.
*Invading Iraq. Killing untold thousands.
*Getting the Iraqis into a civil war, with the intent of making sure that country never recovers.
*Covering up 9/11.
*Using 9/11 as an election device and excuse for everything.
*Stealing Election 2004.
*Using Katrina as the opportunity to empty out New Orleans and test out long-standing "civil disturbance" doctrines.
*Pushing through two right-wing Supreme Court appointments without a filibuster.
*Rewiring Americans overnight to believe Iran is now the enemy.

Wow! What a list! A veritable juggernaut of competence.

The Bush mob (almost) always get what they want, and the Democratic "leadership" (almost) always helps them when it counts. Yes, they had to take a loss on the first attempt to steal the entire Social Security fund, but there are many opportunities yet to come.

Yes, it's all at a time of awesome crisis to US-based capitalism, so much of it looks jerry-rigged but so what? It's not like the Bush mob invented the crisis of capitalism. So far, they're getting away with a particular plan to thrive in that crisis, by plundering everything, whether nailed down or not.

Competent at what they do, which is what they've always done: pillage and plunder.

And those who call them "incompetent" sadly serve to excuse and enable their crimes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we could conclude that what is disturbing is not whether the neo-cons are goons or idiots, competents or incompetents: what's disturbing is that they are criminals, pathological paranoids.

how do you add the clapping hands thing to a post?

How do you explain the disaster in Iraq then? Worst mistake in US foreign policy since Vietnam - except much, much worse - to the point of possibly derailing over 50 years of mid-east policy, and completely screwing up Americas geopolitical position in the world...

If you think the current situation in Iraq was a desired outcome, then youve lost it!

confucius said:

how do you add the clapping hands thing to a post?

Click to expand...

Upload the gif to your site and then link to it!

droid said:

How do you explain the disaster in Iraq then? Worst mistake in US foreign policy since Vietnam - except much, much worse - to the point of possibly derailing over 50 years of mid-east policy, and completely screwing up Americas geopolitical position in the world...

If you think the current situation in Iraq was a desired outcome, then youve lost it!

Click to expand...

Well yes, it is a disaster, getting even more dangerous by the hour, but not for the neo-cons - "only" for the rest of the world.

As for Vietnam - even Chomsky argues convincingly that the US achieved its strategic goals there - to completely destroy the country, so enfeebling the subsequent Communist takeover, pretty much what happened, Gary Glittery antics aside.

Here's Robert Fisk's - distressing - latest analysis about what's happening in Iraq:

Somebody is trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq.

Yes, disaster. And Planned.

the argument that its a 'desired outcome' holds that vietnam was a victory for a certain set of people because it crippled the ability of an independent communist country with resources and potential to be successful. vietnam is fucked up and poor cos it got naplamed and rome plowed, but this is percieved as the failure of the victorious commie government and domino-communism in SE asia stops there.

the vietnam war also undoubtedly made alot of buisness people very rich.

the downsides are that a lot of americans got killed and some politicians had to admit they were wrong. up to the withdrawl the war had lasted years and years funneling huge amounts of money to the military industries at 'no cost' to the elite.

tax in the US doesnt get spent on improving life for the ordinary people, it goes towards subsidising lockhead and boeing which in turn is money to the rich. so ordinary people are paying in tax and in thier lives (theyre the ones getting killed) and the administration gets to fund the rich and fuck up the chances for any independent state to exist on its own terms.
north korea is cool, theres no need to fuck with them, theyre doing it to themselves. no-ones going to see NK as a viable alternative to the US style


uhmm thats just the argument, expressed in my blathered way, for why vietnam was a victory from some point of view (and you can apply it mostly to iraq/iran... iran more as the alternative model to US dominance in the middle-east, iraq for 'free' profit). not for america as a whole but for some element in america. it doesnt even need to be a conspiracy, these people can think theyre justified by the same half baked platitudes they shower the newsmen with, but they are still benefiting at 'our' expense.

its argued in "manufacturing consent" - noam chomsky and some other dude.
which is good lefty pr0n.

Who gives a fuck?

HMGovt said:

No way did it happen they way they tell it. We all knew that, of course, but the evidence presented here is most compelling.

Click to expand...

Obviously, capitalism/imperialism are capable of killing a couple of thousand people to promote their interests ('capable' in both the sense of having the requisite lack of morality and having the technical means). What no-one's yet explained to me is why anyone should be interested in proving that they actually did do that on one particular day in 2001, particularly when the 'proof' on offer is a bad parody of empiricism, a mishmash of supposed inconsistencies and appeals to common sense presented with a smug grin as if they actually demonstrated anything.

So, what's supposed to be the political value in demonstrating one way or the other that Bush (or whoever) was responsible for 9/11? It just seems like a massive distraction to me, as if the problem were exceptional events like 9/11 rather than everyday starvation, exploitation and warmongering. I think there are two optimistic fantasies bound up with 9/11 conspiracy theorising. One is the populist fantasy that, if "the people" would just hear the truth, they would spontaneously rise up and do something about it. The other fantasy is that the ruling class need to pull off risky adventures like 9/11 in order to maintain their power. Regrettably, I don't think capitalism is that weak right now.

well put. if I had that clapping hands GIF handy I'd use it again here.

h-crimm said:

the argument that its a 'desired outcome' holds that vietnam was a victory for a certain set of people because it crippled the ability of an independent communist country with resources and potential to be successful. vietnam is fucked up and poor cos it got naplamed and rome plowed, but this is percieved as the failure of the victorious commie government and domino-communism in SE asia stops there.

the vietnam war also undoubtedly made alot of buisness people very rich.

the downsides are that a lot of americans got killed and some politicians had to admit they were wrong. up to the withdrawl the war had lasted years and years funneling huge amounts of money to the military industries at 'no cost' to the elite.

Click to expand...

Its true that the US obtained all their minimum objectives in Vietnam, and in that sense it was a victory. It was a defeat in the sense that radical public opinion effectively curtailed the US military in the biggest popular protests since the 20's, and a regionally dominant and resource rich Vietnam was lost to the West - at least until the end of sanctions in the 90s... by American standards - that is a defeat.

So, what's supposed to be the political value in demonstrating one way or the other that Bush (or whoever) was responsible for 9/11? It just seems like a massive distraction to me, as if the problem were exceptional events like 9/11 rather than everyday starvation, exploitation and warmongering. I think there are two optimistic fantasies bound up with 9/11 conspiracy theorising. One is the populist fantasy that, if "the people" would just hear the truth, they would spontaneously rise up and do something about it. The other fantasy is that the ruling class need to pull off risky adventures like 9/11 in order to maintain their power. Regrettably, I don't think capitalism is that weak right now.

Click to expand...

Very well put. And one for Confucius:

Padraig said:

Here's Robert Fisk's - distressing - latest analysis about what's happening in Iraq:

Somebody is trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq.

Yes, disaster. And Planned.

Click to expand...

If the US is trying to forment civil war in Iraq, it would be in order to justify continuing occupation, and suspension of any sembalance of democratic process. Given the history of Guerilla warfare in the Mid-east, this approach is almost suicidally reckless, and smacks of desperation - not sublimey evil planning.

Heres one for those who think 911 is a neo-con-spiracy Does Bin Laden exist? Is he an actor? Cos according to him, Mohammed Atta flew one of the planes that hit New York - not some autopilot or NSA agent...