9/11 "WHO" from Who, How and Why's?

[Stryder]

Some will find the Who, How and Why very simple to explain. others won't particular care, they just deal with an event that happened that was completely out of their control.

As you might of noticed another 9/11 is a super thread, it might seem a dumping ground in reality it's something to pull on since a lot of links to things already exist there. I suggest we over a course have THREE new threads, the WHO, the HOW and the WHY to 9/11. This of course is the WHO thread.

We'll start with the WHO. WHO was responsible?, WHO were the hijackers?, WHO hired them if they were hired?, WHO trained them if they were trained?. Once we've picked apart the WHO's, we can start on the HOW. (Obviously there might be other WHO's to add, so if you think of any feel free to mention them)

[Stryder]

Only 1 thread!

Patience, no point jumping the gun. This thread is the first of a trilogy. The plan is to get posters to concentrate on each one, one at a time. This is so it can be looked at and debated correctly rather than just resulting in a complete mucking fuddle.

[draqon]

who: CIA

[Stryder]

who: CIA
And the evidence for this Draq?

[draqon]

And the evidence for this Draq?

evidence? :bugeye: how could 2 planes as big as Boeing 737 be hijacked and diverted from their routes without anyone watching over the situation and controlling it? Moreover the 2 planes were used to train the terrorists in USA territory, and yet oncemore the CIA did not see it at all...and hmmm...I wonder what section of Pentagon's CIA was actually destroyed, no :rolleyes: obviously not the one which had to do with the operation of 911...def. not...

Coincidences happen, but not in a row...

[draqon]

the evidence Stryder was in Pentagon and with the 3rd plane neatly crashing into the section of Pentagon were the files were kept, the evidence is evaporated.

[MacGyver1968]

Easy...Some Islamic terrorists who found a chink in our armor and exploited it.

Ok...thread done! lol j\k. :)

[MacGyver1968]

evidence? :bugeye: how could 2 planes as big as Boeing 737 be hijacked and diverted from their routes without anyone watching over the situation and controlling it? Moreover the 2 planes were used to train the terrorists in USA territory, and yet oncemore the CIA did not see it at all...and hmmm...I wonder what section of Pentagon's CIA was actually destroyed, no :rolleyes: obviously not the one which had to do with the operation of 911...def. not...

Coincidences happen, but not in a row...

First off..they were 757s and 767s...and their size would have little to do with their ability to be hijacked or not.

[Stryder]

First off..they were 757s and 767s...and their size would have little to do with their ability to be hijacked or not.

Secondly prior hijackings usually involved in aircraft reaching a destination and demands being made for release of the hostages (Usually political prisoners being freed). At least that's what we use to get during the late 1980's and early 1990's. Obviously this didn't usually occur over US soil but places like Pakistan (Karachi).

[ScyentsIzLief]

On a serious note:

I think the most profound question one has to ask in regards to the 9/11 attacks is:

Who benefits? I think this question alone should help any people understand why the Government would do what it did.

Armaments Industry
There is nothing better for the arms industry than a war. Billions and billions of dollars worth of missiles and bombs have been used and have to be replaced. And president Bush is asking for - and receiving - additional "defense" funds.

George W. Bush
He is the man to spend those billions of dollars and give them to his friends and business partners who in turn support his political career - not least with money.

Oil Industry
Again a business field where president Bush is involved - the pipeline through Afghanistan can be built now, and the USA have their hands on the oil-wells of Iraq.

US Government
The terrorist attacks gave the US government the excuse to further pursue it's goal of "a new world order" - NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM in latin. (also read: "world domination", or "global hegemony") by means of war.

The Patriot Act
now allows to spy on every citizen, may it be his phone lines, or his online activities, by simply telling a judge the wiretapping may lead to to information relevant to criminal investigation.

It also allows sampling of DNA of any person convicted of "any crime of violence."

And it allows "arrest on suspicion" - without a warrant, without "probable cause" - in secret, without notifying anybody, without the right to see a lawyer.

The unknown Insider Traders
The persons or organizations who knew about 9/11 and made huge profits on the stock exchange in the days before - and who are still not identified. Why?

Insurance Beneficiaries
On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous to the World Trade Center demolitions, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium (Larry Silverstein, Westfield America Inc and Lloyd Goldman) led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex.

A new insurance policy - including terrorism for the first time - was issued for $3.6 billion.

Larry Silverstein even tried to claim $7.2 billion from the insurance because "The two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes"

Barry Ostrager, a lawyer for Swiss Reinsurance Co., the trade center's lead insurer, agreed with the Travelers attorney that the destruction of the trade center towers was a single event. He called causation of the towers' collapse "a factually complex issue."

The WTC was not only a big money-loser, it was also built using asbestos for fire-protection (!) which was banned in the mid-1980's because it's causing cancer. Removal of the asbestos would have cost a fortune. More in the WTC video here.

More information about the dangers of asbestos:
For information about Mesothelioma refer to the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center or the
Mesothelioma Cancer Center - Committed to providing the latest, up-to-date information to our visitors in hopes of creating awareness about the dangers of asbestos.

Who doesn't benefit?

Saddam Hussein
He's dead

Osama Lin Laden
He's in constant fear of being caught. He is always on the run.

The American People
Loss of liberties, among many other things

The Constitution
It has been defied many times before anyways.

These are simple facts that tell the whole story. If people didn't let their religious dogma, or dated value system get in the way of getting to the truth, the world would be different than it is today. It would be much better.

Going to watch a 90 minute video.

Peace.

[scott3x]

Well, this is one way of doing things. I think the who is the hardest to answer. I think the how is the easiest and what we have predominently focused on until now. The other thing is that though I believe that the same people at the top were responsible for all the events, in terms of the grunts, that's different. My primary focus has been on the WTC towers, so I'll mainly post what I have for them in regards to the 'who', with one exception (security of a certain airport):

"More evidence of Pre-9/11 Inside Trading: Follow the Money? God forbid"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8046

"SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11 SECURITY"
http://www.guvwurld.org/cgi-bin/live.cgi?d=%2F9-11%2FAmerican%20Reporter%20-%20Marvin%20Bush%209-11%20Role%20-%201-20-03.txt

"Secrecy Surrounds 9/11 Investigation"
http://www.utne.com/2003-02-01/Secrecy-Surrounds-911-Investigation.aspx

"The FBI bombed the WTC in 93, why not 2001?"
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/57995/1/

[Read-Only]

Once again, a well-intentioned thread that might have proven interesting is turned into nothing but another garbage heap by nuts, fruitcakes and other {bleep!}!:rolleyes:

[Stryder]

Once again, a well-intentioned thread that might have proven interesting is turned into nothing but another garbage heap by nuts, fruitcakes and other {bleep!}!:rolleyes:

I'm sure it can be resurrected. Any thoughts on the WHO's?, Read-Only.

Admittedly most of those inputs suggested are "potential" WHY's, WHO's are basically identify those responsible that have direct collation with the attack. The WHY's in honesty are a moot point considering what we hear as a WHY isn't necessarily the real reason.

[Read-Only]

I'm sure it can be resurrected. Any thoughts on the WHO's?, Read-Only.

Admittedly most of those inputs suggested are "potential" WHY's, WHO's are basically identify those responsible that have direct collation with the attack. The WHY's in honesty are a moot point considering what we hear as a WHY isn't necessarily the real reason.

Fair enough - and here's hoping.

OK, I'll state who I believe the WHO were, based on evidence, but it certainly will not please any of the nut-jobs out there who find it much more exciting to believe lies and other fabrications...

The WHO were a group of Middle Eastern men that had been brainwashed by extremist clerics into thinking they should perform a "great and holy mission."

And the evidence (money trail) serves to prove that's exactly who they were. In many cases, credit cards were used that left a glowing path directly back to extremist Islamic sources.

And of the ones who trained as pilots, at least one is remembered by his flight instructor as an individual who showed no interest in learing how to take off or land - simply in how to control a plane while in flight.

So that's who I believe the WHO were. Not only me but thousands and thousands of other people who think in reasonable terms rather than believing in some kind of sinister, idiotic government plot nonsense.

[EndLightEnd]

WHO stands to benefit?

Frankly I think our good ole USA just needed a good reason to stay at War. GW's dad had war, Ill be damned if the son doesnt have one too! And looking back in history all we see is war.

I would not put it past this administration who has also been accused of war crimes to stage something like this (which is very reminiscent of Pearl Harbor). I say that because before Pearl Harbor, America's citizens did not want to go to war, afterwards they did. Sometimes you need an unbelievable event to get the entire nation behind something they would not normally agree with.

[John99]

WHO stands to benefit?

Frankly I think our good ole USA just needed a good reason to stay at War. GW's dad had war, Ill be damned if the son doesnt have one too! And looking back in history all we see is war.

I would not put it past this administration who has also been accused of war crimes to stage something like this (which is very reminiscent of Pearl Harbor). I say that because before Pearl Harbor, America's citizens did not want to go to war, afterwards they did. Sometimes you need an unbelievable event to get the entire nation behind something they would not normally agree with.

That is how you investigate crimes? By who stands to benefit?

Frankly I think our good ole USA (has benefited)

Are you insane?

[fedr808]

WHO stands to benefit?

Frankly I think our good ole USA just needed a good reason to stay at War. GW's dad had war, Ill be damned if the son doesnt have one too! And looking back in history all we see is war.

I would not put it past this administration who has also been accused of war crimes to stage something like this (which is very reminiscent of Pearl Harbor). I say that because before Pearl Harbor, America's citizens did not want to go to war, afterwards they did. Sometimes you need an unbelievable event to get the entire nation behind something they would not normally agree with.

Don't even try to accuse pearl harbor of being a conspiracy otherwise you are a lowlife piece of scum, many good men died in pearl harbor. And there was no chance of detecting it.

And you guys wanna know what, all of you "US being a war nation" criticizers answer this question. Every historic UN peace keeping force has been 90-100% US soldiers. Everyone says "okay lets go fight in this god forsaken place come on lets all pitch in" than everyone cowers away saying stupid excuses and the US is the one left shoveling the UN crap. Korea was supposed to be an international peace keeping force, 90% American soldiers.

So you know why America is always the one going to war? Because no one else in the UN has guts enough to do so.

Which brings up the question did some UN countries cause this conspiracy to persuade the US to go to war with Iraq because they were too cowardly to do it?

It is always Americans dying for the UN causes, the only time otherwise is when it's just handing out bread or other things.
Heck the US even stationed a naval carrier battlegroup outside Indonesia after the tsunami to provide helicopter help and airlifting supplies.

So people stop criticising the US because the world specifically the western democracies owe the US a lot of money, credit, and blood.

[scott3x]

Don't even try to accuse pearl harbor of being a conspiracy otherwise you are a lowlife piece of scum, many good men died in pearl harbor. And there was no chance of detecting it.

Just because one believes that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked doesn't make one a 'lowlife piece of scum', your beliefs notwithstanding.

There is much evidence the Roosevelt did indeed know it. Here are some links on the subject:
"Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies"
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

"THE PEARL HARBOR DECEPTION"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

"PEARL HARBOR ATTACK: THE GREAT DECEPTION"
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/PEARL.html

[fedr808]

Just because one believes that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked doesn't make one a 'lowlife piece of scum', your beliefs notwithstanding.

There is much evidence the Roosevelt did indeed know it. Here are some links on the subject:
"Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies"
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

"THE PEARL HARBOR DECEPTION"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

"PEARL HARBOR ATTACK: THE GREAT DECEPTION"
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/PEARL.html

Omfg i am about to have so much fun, i did something you didn't think i would i actualy read them not only that but looked up the cited authors and man o man.

The first one is convicted of brutally assaulting his sister stabbing her several times, had a psychotic problem, and has always been bitter against the us government and justice system. He can hardly be described as sane

The second one was information that came from mere high school students, man who are you guys gonna trust some 15 year old punks looking for a laugh? or 40 year old war history experts, and people who were actually there. Scotch you fell into their prank, they owned you good.

The last author thinks that there was a conspiracy by George Washington, George Bush, Roosavelt, Jessie Jackson. And the author thinks that this conspiracy is to take over the world and create a new world order. The author also is racist against the freemasons which these above people were members of. Thinking that they own the economy and the government. And this wackjob thinks that the USA owns the world.

So who are you guys going to trust? Wackjobs? 15 year old punks? KILLERS?

[MacGyver1968]

I like believing wackjob 15 year old punk killers....they know the most about history. :)

Moral of fed's post: Verify your sources.

[John99]

Dont click on random links from Scott. Go on lockdown.

[scott3x]

Omfg i am about to have so much fun, i did something you didn't think i would i actualy read them not only that but looked up the cited authors and man o man.

The first one is convicted of brutally assaulting his sister stabbing her several times, had a psychotic problem, and has always been bitter against the us government and justice system. He can hardly be described as sane

The second one was information that came from mere high school students, man who are you guys gonna trust some 15 year old punks looking for a laugh? or 40 year old war history experts, and people who were actually there. Scotch you fell into their prank, they owned you good.

The last author thinks that there was a conspiracy by George Washington, George Bush, Roosavelt, Jessie Jackson. And the author thinks that this conspiracy is to take over the world and create a new world order. The author also is racist against the freemasons which these above people were members of. Thinking that they own the economy and the government. And this wackjob thinks that the USA owns the world.

So who are you guys going to trust? Wackjobs? 15 year old punks? KILLERS?

So perhaps I was a bit hasty in selecting links ;-). I fully admit I only glanced over the material and I certainly didn't do the investigation you seem to have done. Anyway, I still believe that Roosevelt knew, I just don't really want to be bothered to find some good links that prove it right now. I'd rather focus on 9/11, since that is an issue that still has quite visible effects up until today (Afghanistan, Iraq).

[fedr808]

So perhaps I was a bit hasty in selecting links ;-). I fully admit I only glanced over the material and I certainly didn't do the investigation you seem to have done. Anyway, I still believe that Roosevelt knew, I just don't really want to be bothered to find some good links that prove it right now. I'd rather focus on 9/11, since that is an issue that still has quite visible effects up until today (Afghanistan, Iraq).

No i feel we have to debunk the pearl harbor once and for all or history will repeat itself.

first off the was no ship detection radar of any sort of range so the US could not have possibly detected the japanese fleet. Also the purple code was broken shortly before midway not a second before. That is a huge arguement and is false that the US government knew it before hand.

Also the US pacific fleet is not the Wtc, the wtc as huge a tragedy as it was did not have any physical implications, the us military was not hindered, the ecnomy did not crash, etc.

The pearl harbor attack destroyed all but two american naval capital ships which were the enterprise (the most decorated American ship in naval history and one of the most decorated if not the most in the world), and some other carrier, possibly the hornet.

[GeoffP]

Who stood to benefit? Allah, naturally. The hijackers were islamist fanatics who judged that if they crashed airplanes into the Towers, the Towers would collapse and there would be massive economic fallout, damaging a powerful nation that they saw as being damaging to their religion.

These things have occurred.

Mystery solved.

Geoff

[scott3x]

Omfg i am about to have so much fun, i did something you didn't think i would i actualy read them not only that but looked up the cited authors and man o man.

The first one is convicted of brutally assaulting his sister stabbing her several times, had a psychotic problem, and has always been bitter against the us government and justice system. He can hardly be described as sane

How do you even know who the author is? And even if he is the person you claim him to be, that doesn't mean that his claims are false.


The second one was information that came from mere high school students, man who are you guys gonna trust some 15 year old punks looking for a laugh? or 40 year old war history experts, and people who were actually there. Scotch you fell into their prank, they owned you good.

How do you know they are high school students? And even if they are, it doesn't mean that their information is false.


The last author thinks that there was a conspiracy by George Washington, George Bush, Roosavelt, Jessie Jackson. And the author thinks that this conspiracy is to take over the world and create a new world order. The author also is racist against the freemasons which these above people were members of.

Freemasons are not a race, they're an organization. You might want to read "Rule by Secrecy", by Jim Marrs.


Thinking that they own the economy and the government. And this wackjob thinks that the USA owns the world.

I don't know of all his claims, but there are some truly powerful figures in the US and elsewhere who are frequently part of certain secretive orders. George Bush Sr. was part of one, for starters.

[fedr808]

How do you even know who the author is? And even if he is the person you claim him to be, that doesn't mean that his claims are false.




How do you know they are high school students? And even if they are, it doesn't mean that their information is false.




Freemasons are not a race, they're an organization. You might want to read "Rule by Secrecy", by Jim Marrs.




I don't know of all his claims, but there are some truly powerful figures in the US and elsewhere who are frequently part of certain secretive orders. George Bush Sr. was part of one, for starters.


The first one i figured out because he advertised his book, i looked up the author, there was info on the trial he was in and what he had done, namely assaulting his sister.

The second one had a hyperlink to a source website, which was a high school website with some student's papers etc. on it.


And quite frankly to argue your point you will need someone more competant, than killers, or high schoolers. Atleast find some real historians.

Racist was the closest thing that described this wackjob, i guess i could've used prejudiced, but still freemasons are not whom he claims to be.

and also all of you pearl harbor conspiracists argue that the US detected the Japanese fleet, but HOW?

[scott3x]

and also all of you pearl harbor conspiracists argue that the US detected the Japanese fleet, but HOW?

You're not joking are you? You may have found out something about the posters of the links I mentioned, but it seems clear that you didn't actually read much of what they said. For the first link, you may want to check out the 'warnings' section. Here's the link again:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

[EndLightEnd]

Its called Problem-Reaction-Solution.

All quoted material is directly from http://www.indexoftheweb.com/911Why.htm and of course the unquoted text is me as well as anything in the quotes. Emphasis has been placed with italics and such to stress important points.


The Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm (The Hegelian Dialectic)
1) The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others
2) The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights
3) The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis


The Patriot was reported to be in a shelf for years should a situation like this arise.


Historical Evidence of Problem Reaction Solution

Nero Burnt Rome, Blamed It on the Christians and Then Savagely Butchered Them.

Nero Claudius Caesar (37-68 CE) - University of Texas History - In 64 C.E., a fire swept through Rome, burning for a week and destroying a large portion of the city... According to some sources, when he found that he did not have enough land to build his palace, he set fire to the city a second time. It is at this point that he is said to have "played his fiddle [lyre] while Rome burned." To avert suspicion, he blamed the fires on the Christians and proceeded to kill them in horrendous ways.

Nero persecutes Christians in Rome - Rutgers University History - Neither human effort nor princely largesse nor divine appeasement was able to dispel the scandal that the fire (which burned much of Rome in 64 CE) was believed to have been commanded (by the emperor Nero). So, to do away with the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits those who were commonly called "Christians," who were hated because of their absurdities. And he inflicted them with the most extraordinary punishments


The USS Maine Sank in Havana Harbor Launching the US into the Spanish American War

Sinking of the USS Maine Resulting in the Spanish American War - US Navy Official Website - The Spanish-American War (21 April to 13 August 1898) was a turning point in the history of the United States, signaling the country's emergence as a world power. The blowing up of the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor on the evening of 15 February was a critical event on the road to that war... The U.S. Navy Department immediately formed a board of inquiry to determine the reason for Maine's destruction... When the Navy's verdict was announced, the American public reacted with predictable outrage...

The destruction of Maine did not cause the U.S. to declare war on Spain, but it served as a catalyst, accelerating the approach to a diplomatic impasse. In addition, the sinking and deaths of U.S. sailors rallied American opinion more strongly behind armed intervention...

Technical experts at the time of both investigations disagreed with the findings, believing that spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker adjacent to the reserve six-inch magazine was the most likely cause of the explosion on board the ship. In 1976, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover published his book, "How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed". The admiral became interested in the disaster and wondered if the application of modern scientific knowledge could determine the cause. He called on two experts on explosions and their effects on ship hulls. Using documentation gathered from the two official inquiries, as well as information on the construction and ammunition of Maine, the experts concluded that the damage caused to the ship was inconsistent with the external explosion of a mine. The most likely cause, they speculated, was spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker next to the magazine. [not an enemy attack, which is important later]

...On April 25, 1898 the United States declared war on Spain following the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. As a result Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire -- Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine islands, Guam, and other islands.

Events moved swiftly after the explosion aboard the U.S.S. Maine on February 15. On March 9, Congress passed a law allocating fifty million dollars to build up military strength. On March 28, the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry finds that a mine blew up the Maine. [which directly conflicts with the findings by a seperate team at a later date found above in the text] On April 21 President McKinley orders a blockade of Cuba and four days later the U.S. declares war.



In 1962, the government wanted to change public opinion to create a pretext for war with Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff created a plan that they named the "[I]Northwoods Document", to commit a series of terrorist acts against America and blame it on the Cuban government. One of the scenarios included blowing up a civilian airplane.

U.S. terror plan called Cuba invasion pretext - The Baltimore Sun - U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book about the National Security Agency.

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba - ABCNEWS.com - In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

The Actual Northwoods documents

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962 - George Washington University - National Security Archive - This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods



Bombing of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
There are innumerable theories about the Oklahoma City Bombing and I do not want to engage in theories. If anyone believes that the Oklahoma City bombing was NOT a government job, I challenge you to watch a downloadable video 911: The Road to Tyranny. This movie, amongst many other things, shows numerous news clips from major media of bombs being removed from the Murrah Federal building after the bombing.



Stock Market Crash of 1929 - The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Evidence shows that it manipulated the market resulting in the greatest transfer of wealth to the 'Rich" in the history of the world.
[5% of population owns 95% of wealth largely because of this]

Our Educational System - 60% of inner-city 4th graders can't read. Did they forget how to teach reading?

Future Examples of Problem Reaction Solution

FBI Suicide-Homicide Bombers in U.S. 'Inevitable' [employing fear tactics] - NewsMax.com - The FBI is warning that suicide-homicide bombers like the ones in the Middle East are "inevitable" in the United States.
"I think we will see that in the future, I think it's inevitable," FBI Director Robert Mueller said Monday during a speech to the National Association of District Attorneys meeting in Alexandria, Va.
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Sunday called on U.S. citizens to be on the alert after an FBI warning that terrorists might rent apartments in high-rise apartment buildings and plant explosives in the apartments to destroy the buildings.
Solution - Unreasonable Search and Seizure - 4th Amendment Rights will be suspended

Small Pox Outbreak - The "Model State Emergency Healthcare Act" is being passed in many states. This allows the Governor of each state to declare Martial Law giving unprecedented authority such as forced vaccinations. Click here (http://www.indexoftheweb.com/911/msehpa.pdf) for a copy of The Model State Emergency Healthcare Act in PDF Format.


And heres something that is being predicted, because the internet also has its own Patriot Act analog. As soon as the internet is compromised in a national security matter, there are plans already laid out to radically change the way the internet works.

Stanford Professor Says Internet Patriot Act In Works (http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/08/06/the-internet-patriot-act/)
http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/details/2207/Stanford%20Professor%20Says%20Internet%20Patriot%2 0Act%20In%20Works/

Now these are all examples of a time old solution for ALL governments; create a problem, provoke an emotional reaction so people willingly give up their rights, offer a solution benefiting specific parties.

In the case for Pearl Harbor you can see this equation match up perfectly. Before Pearl Harbor America did not want anything to do with WWII, despite our presidents best efforts using propaganda to get US citizens behind him he couldnt convince the population our country should get involved in a war that did not concern us. And then somehow a huge fleet sailed all the way from Asia undetected and launched a surprise attack despite our superior radar technology. So how does a president motivate a nation for a single cause? With a traumatic and emotional event that leaves everyone DEMANDING action be taken. And so after Pearl Harbor our president got his original wish to go to war at the expense of thousands of lives. But as any military man will openly tell you there are always acceptable losses, and we did win the war.

This process also provides a lawful way to systematically destroy democracy and assume more power over time. Some things in the Patriot Act are downright unconstitutional taking away privacy rights to extents unknown, and they already have a similar measure already planned for the internet, which really is the last vestige of truly free unedited speech.

[EndLightEnd]

So there you have it.

[scott3x]

So there you have it.

Nicely done :-)

[EndLightEnd]

God man, I guess people really just DONT want to know the truth. Here is a tactic, tried and true for centuries called problem-reaction-solution which has been used by governments around the world including ours, sometimes for honorable reasons but most the times not so much.
The thing is though once you are aware of this process you start seeing it everywhere. It is just a part of the fear campaign continually launched through mainstream media. The staple of the Bush administration is the fear tactics theyve used. Weve seen Bush lie time and time again about WMDs to spark fear so we can go to war for secret reasons (sure as hell wasnt for WMDs).

[scott3x]

God man, I guess people really just DONT want to know the truth. Here is a tactic, tried and true for centuries called problem-reaction-solution which has been used by governments around the world including ours, sometimes for honorable reasons but most the times not so much.
The thing is though once you are aware of this process you start seeing it everywhere. It is just a part of the fear campaign continually launched through mainstream media. The staple of the Bush administration is the fear tactics theyve used. Weve seen Bush lie time and time again about WMDs to spark fear so we can go to war for secret reasons (sure as hell wasnt for WMDs).

I hear you.

[Headspin]

Originally Posted by GeoffP
But even the Saudis acknowledge that that information was crap.
Which Saudis in particular? And can I have your source?
hey scott - did you ever get a response to this?

because i think his source was an uncorroborated saudi prince, hardly a convincing argument, especially since Richard Perle at the time was giving lectures in Washington promoting the idea of invading Saudi Arabia to replace the current Saudi regime.

I think there were 3 london based arab papers that interviewed the FBI named hijackers (whose pictures appeared on CNN).

But as I said before, this distracts from the fact that the FBI changed its list of hijackers a few days after 911, before even the newspapers had reported further problems with the hijackers (being alive).

Here is another problem - if the arab hijackers used fake IDs, why did the arab hijackers choose IDs of pilots?

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Originally Posted by GeoffP
But even the Saudis acknowledge that that information was crap.

Which Saudis in particular? And can I have your source?

hey scott - did you ever get a response to this?

Nope :shrug:


because i think his source was an uncorroborated saudi prince, hardly a convincing argument, especially since Richard Perle at the time was giving lectures in Washington promoting the idea of invading Saudi Arabia to replace the current Saudi regime.

Wow...

I think there were 3 london based arab papers that interviewed the FBI named hijackers (whose pictures appeared on CNN).

Ok.

But as I said before, this distracts from the fact that the FBI changed its list of hijackers a few days after 911, before even the newspapers had reported further problems with the hijackers (being alive).


What I'd -really- like to know is, where do they even come up with these lists? Also, were there no security cameras so that we could all take a look at who supposedly got on that plane?

Here is another problem - if the arab hijackers used fake IDs, why did the arab hijackers choose IDs of pilots?

An excellent question :-)

[fedr808]

Sorry ive been gone for a while peeps:p But scott answer this question, how did the US decode a Japanese transmission if the cypher was actually solved around 1-2 years later? Did someone have a time machine or something?

[Headspin]

fedr808 - don't derail this thread, open another one.

What I'd -really- like to know is, where do they even come up with these lists?The FBI said the list came from the passenger manifests taken from the airlines. they claimed to have the lists early in the morning before even flight 93 went down I think, so when they changed the list later, one would have expected the original names (which they claimed they got wrong) to have been on the victims lists - they were not on the victim list!
You want some speculation - they got the list from database holding info on foreigners flight trainging, they chose arab names that were due to leave the US just before 911 and added a few more that were patsies working for the cia, read "welcome to terrorland" and its obvious that Atta was dealing drugs operating out of a clandestine cia flight school.

Also, were there no security cameras so that we could all take a look at who supposedly got on that plane?There is video from dulles, flight 77, but examine it closely and there are many problems with it, for instance, the camera viewpoint moves half way through. All the cctv cameras I know operate from fixed positions (do not confuse with rotating, i am talking a different position as if it is being hand-held by a person who later moves).

[fedr808]

The problem is that the black boxes could never be recovered and to my knowledge would never work. they are meant to withstadn minor to medium plane crashes, mainly emergancy landing, but not colliding with a building at 500-600mph. they would be obliterated, and plus there is so much wreckadge that it would be extremely hard to find them

[BlueMoose]

NWO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIEm8WM3r9E&NR=1

[scott3x]

NWO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIEm8WM3r9E&NR=1

I liked a fair amount of it (all 3 parts), although not some of the bible stuff. Honestly, I've been liking the music of some of the alternate story -and- the official story vids recently. I like that about music; it touches something that goes beyond all of these words which sometimes tire me...

[GeoffP]

hey scott - did you ever get a response to this?

because i think his source was an uncorroborated saudi prince, hardly a convincing argument, especially since Richard Perle at the time was giving lectures in Washington promoting the idea of invading Saudi Arabia to replace the current Saudi regime.

So then you should be able to produce a strident king or even-better-prince that disagrees with this statement. Surely no Wahhabi would stand to have his nation dragged through the sand this way?

I think there were 3 london based arab papers that interviewed the FBI named hijackers (whose pictures appeared on CNN).

So the FBI was wrong the first time...which means there was a controlled demolition? Absurd. Only in the court of the willfully foolish is this considered evidence of anything.

But as I said before, this distracts from the fact that the FBI changed its list of hijackers a few days after 911, before even the newspapers had reported further problems with the hijackers (being alive).

Another misconception which has been widely acknowledged as an error on the part of the BBC and the Telegraph. This is 2008. Hello, Headspin.

Here is another problem - if the arab hijackers used fake IDs, why did the arab hijackers choose IDs of pilots?

Regrettably, this is all nonsense.

[MacGyver1968]

Who stood to benefit? Allah, naturally. The hijackers were islamist fanatics who judged that if they crashed airplanes into the Towers, the Towers would collapse and there would be massive economic fallout, damaging a powerful nation that they saw as being damaging to their religion.

These things have occurred.

Mystery solved.

Geoff

DING DING DING...we have a correct answer. Geoff you get your choice of a Sciforums official rubber chicken, or what's behind curtain #3. :)

[GeoffP]

Oooh oooh oooh I'll take the curtain! I already have a rubber chicken.

[MacGyver1968]

You win an all expenses paid trip to Somalia...and an "Allah Sucks" t-shirt to wear. :)

[Headspin]

“ Originally Posted by Headspin
i think his source was an uncorroborated saudi prince, hardly a convincing argument, especially since Richard Perle at the time was giving lectures in Washington promoting the idea of invading Saudi Arabia to replace the current Saudi regime. ”
So then you should be able to produce a strident king or even-better-prince that disagrees with this statement. Surely no Wahhabi would stand to have his nation dragged through the sand this way?
A prince, a king, it isn't about the level of authority of the person, LOL.
It is about whether the source is credible and whether it is corroborated. The saudi regime will do whatever they are told, just like they have been doing for decades. saudi arabia is a US vassal state.

“ I think there were 3 london based arab papers that interviewed the FBI named hijackers (whose pictures appeared on CNN). ”
So the FBI was wrong the first time
The FBI had the manifests very early on 911 !!
If the FBI was wrong then they picked the wrong names from the manifest, therefore those incorrect names should have been innocent victims and therefore amongst the victims! but they were not!
one of the named even died a year before.
do you not understand the significance of this information?

is it not more likely that the names were picked from a list of arabs who had trained at CIA flights schools, rather than from the manifests?

...which means there was a controlled demolition? Absurd.
You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what i am saying by using such an aburd leap of logic and overlaying it on what i have said.

Only in the court of the willfully foolish is this considered evidence of anything.there you go, create a ridculous strawman for what i was saying, then knock it down with ease. This only shows you have nothing to counter what i have told you. you are only fooling yourself.

“ But as I said before, this distracts from the fact that the FBI changed its list of hijackers a few days after 911, before even the newspapers had reported further problems with the hijackers (being alive). ”
Another misconception which has been widely acknowledged as an error on the part of the BBC and the Telegraph. This is 2008. Hello, Headspin.

this is nothing to do with the bbc or the telegraph "hijackers alive" story. do you even read what i write? all you do is robotically pick a response from a debunker website.

This is the fourth time !!

The FBI changed its list of hijackers a few days after 911, before the newspapers had reported further problems with the hijackers (being alive)

Furthermore, the distinctly seperate "hijackers alive" bbc story cannot be dismissed simply by saying "the report was an error". you need to explain WHY. It is simply insufficient in any reasoning process to state your position as "no it isn't", "that's an error", "nonsense" etc, without explaining WHY. This is the basis of any discussion!

“ Here is another problem - if the arab hijackers used fake IDs, why did the arab hijackers choose IDs of pilots? ”
Regrettably, this is all nonsense.
why don't you explain WHY it is all nonsense. simply saying "nonsense" only makes it go away in your mind.

[GeoffP]

A prince, a king, it isn't about the level of authority of the person, LOL.

It isn't about the level of authority of the person? Have you gone madder?

It is about whether the source is credible and whether it is corroborated. The saudi regime will do whatever they are told, just like they have been doing for decades. saudi arabia is a US vassal state.

Well, unfortunately, the US source was corroborated by a range of nations and media services. Thus, it is credible. Have a link to your claim?

Here endeth the lesson.

is it not more likely that the names were picked from a list of arabs who had trained at CIA flights schools, rather than from the manifests?

WHY is this more likely? :shrug:

You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what i am saying by using such an aburd leap of logic and overlaying it on what i have said.

Hardly. All the trooferisms from before have been illustrated to be crap. Why exactly would this be any different?

The FBI changed its list of hijackers a few days after 911, before the newspapers had reported further problems with the hijackers (being alive)

So provide a link to your nonsense.

Furthermore, the distinctly seperate "hijackers alive" bbc story cannot be dismissed simply by saying "the report was an error". you need to explain WHY. It is simply insufficient in any reasoning process to state your position as "no it isn't", "that's an error", "nonsense" etc, without explaining WHY. This is the basis of any discussion!

They had the same names as the hijackers, you fool. This is the WHY. And this is about the sixth time I've had to explain this to the al-Troofari on the site, who are not completely down with the "reading thing".

Enough nonsense.

[Headspin]

I have already given you a link to Jay Kolars chapter in Hidden history of 911.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/158322825X/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
if you minimise the search panel on the left, there is a button on the right where you can scroll through the pages.

"They had the same names as the hijackers"who also happened to be pilots?:eek:
The only thing that you have provided to support this is a link to a change in the bbc article saying "a man called walleed..". which is only evidence that the bbc caved in due to fbi pressure.
and you said "even the Saudis acknowledge that that information was crap", but you never gave a source and did not repond to scott saying "Which Saudis in particular? And can I have your source?"

"Well, unfortunately, the US source was corroborated by a range of nations and media services. Thus, it is credible" an alleged media report reporting what an FBI press conference says is not a source, let alone corroboration.

[scott3x]

I have already given you a link to Jay Kolars chapter in Hidden history of 911.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1583...pt#reader-link
if you minimise the search panel on the left, there is a button on the right where you can scroll through the pages.

Ok, but which page in particular?


"They had the same names as the hijackers"

who also happened to be pilots?
The only thing that you have provided to support this is a link to a change in the bbc article saying "a man called walleed..". which is only evidence that the bbc caved in due to fbi pressure.

Do you have evidence that the BBC caved in due to FBI pressure?


and you said "even the Saudis acknowledge that that information was crap", but you never gave a source and did not repond to scott saying "Which Saudis in particular? And can I have your source?"

:-)


Well, unfortunately, the US source was corroborated by a range of nations and media services. Thus, it is credible

An alleged media report reporting what an FBI press conference says is not a source, let alone corroboration.

It's a source (albeit surrounded in institutional anonymity), it could be argued that it's corroboration, but the source is suspect and thus the corroboration. But at this point, what I'd like is -names-, even if the names in question are from the FBI. This all reminds me of the U.S.'s "national security" evidence against suspected terrorists. You can't defend yourself against alleged evidence you can't see.

[GeoffP]

I have already given you a link to Jay Kolars chapter in Hidden history of 911.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/158322825X/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
if you minimise the search panel on the left, there is a button on the right where you can scroll through the pages.

I'll be happy to take a page reference, please. Thanks.

But: so you have one uncorroborated report of this? Nothing more?

who also happened to be pilots?

:confused: Yeees, some of them trained as such. And?

The only thing that you have provided to support this is a link to a change in the bbc article saying "a man called walleed..". which is only evidence that the bbc caved in due to fbi pressure.

That is nonsense. The BBC, Der Spiegel and the Telegraph all reported the same thing independently. Illustrate that they "caved".

[Headspin]

its the first paragraph of the first chapter by Jay kolar (page 3)
there is an update at the back of the book which rebuts speigal and telegraph (page 293).

[GeoffP]

I'm reviewing it now. These problems have already emerged in my initial scan:

Paragraph 1, pg 293: Total speculation. "A man called...." - what would this dolt expect the BBC to say?? What phrasing would be preferable?

Para 2, pg 294: Or the US incorrectly used the only pictures of the people they had names for. Not remotely suspicious.

Para 3, pg 294: "However, Saudi newspapers had already published the FBI photographs..." Which ones?

Para 5, pg 296: 40 different suspects were being considered by the FBI. It is hardly surprising that there was confusion.

Para 3, pg 299: So the FBI only got 17 of 19, assuming that the author's case is legitimate, which is dubious at best? And this means a conspiracy? Please.

Last para, pg 300 - First para, pg 301: Completely uncited. A totally unsubstantiated statement. The author then throws around terms like propagandist, blissfully ignorant of his own statements.

Absurd.

[scott3x]

I'm reviewing it now. These problems have already emerged in my initial scan:

Paragraph 1, pg 293: Total speculation. "A man called...." - what would this dolt expect the BBC to say?? What phrasing would be preferable?

Ah, Geoff, up to your base insults again I see :-p. How about the original wording? In honesty, I find the difference to be small although it's clearly meant to derail the argument that some of the so called hijackers are still alive and well.

I am most interested in knowing what evidence the author of "The Hidden History of 9-11 has concerning its claim that the BBC only made the change due to "highly unethical FBI pressure", but the author doesn't seem to make it clear what his source is, on that page anyway. Honestly, the whole issue of the 911 hijackers is a mystery to me. I went googling looking for information. Ironically enough, the most informative information concerning where the FBI got their information didn't even come from the FBI's web site. It came from a 911 conspiracy debunking site, 911myths.com. According to them, they got the information from the flight manifests, which can be seen here (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/No_hijackers_on_the_passenger_manifests).

You know, sometimes I have to admire those debunkers. They really do seem to put in a fair amount of effort and sometimes do a lot better job at portraying the official story then, well, the officials that originally made it. Take Ryan Mackey, who's willing to question even NIST's conclusions on the WTC collapses, so long as it still means it was an inside job. But in this particular case of 9/11 myths, they go one better. At the very bottom of the above referenced page, it mentions that David Ray Griffin has made some new arguments against the official story concerning the 9/11 hijackers. This is what it says:
Dr Griffin has recently introduced further arguments in an article titled "Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?"

Here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10142) is the article 911 myths is referring to.