911 revisited

wrightao · 31-08-2009 01:09PM

Carra23 wrote: »

I think its funny that people still doubt 9/11 was an inside job. I was 17 when it happened and the very 1st thought that crossed my mind when I heard was ' theres something fishy going on here ' and the reason I thought that was because I didn't think it was possible to attack a country in this manner who spends billions maybe even trillions of dollars annually on defense . I thought maybe you could get away with one plane but not 5 in one day at different locations. Planes have set flight paths and if they deviate they are asked 3 times by radio to get back on course and if they ignore these requests fighter jets are scrambled. Why did this not happen and isnt it funny how the Americans went to Iraq shortly after this event and are still bloody there 8 years later ! they claimed to go after Saddam , how long has he been dead ? The American are the biggest terrorists in the world people need to wake up

I dont know where to start with this line of reasoning. Speaking Truth to Power Carra! How Brave. Quick question: If the US could conceive the 9/11 Plot and the twin towers, how is it they couldnt plant all the WMD's they wanted in Iraq. 9/11 Truthers sicken me to be honest. Its a slight to all those who perished on that day.

Penn · 31-08-2009 02:06PM

wrightao wrote: »

I dont know where to start with this line of reasoning. Speaking Truth to Power Carra! How Brave. Quick question: If the US could conceive the 9/11 Plot and the twin towers, how is it they couldnt plant all the WMD's they wanted in Iraq. 9/11 Truthers sicken me to be honest. Its a slight to all those who perished on that day.

There is nothing wrong with wanting answers to something which some perceive to be a mystery. And you cannot compare the 9/11 attacks with the search for WMDs in Iraq, because quite simply, one happened in the US, one happened in Iraq. The US goverment would be more likely to be able to stage something in their own country where they have a lot more control.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy, or at least not one to the extent that some believe, but I agree that some 9/11 truthers take it too far. I hate hearing about truth protests at the site on anniversaries of 9/11. A place where so many would go to remember their loved ones in peace, to pay their respects to those who died. I think Truthers should respect that and leave it for that day. The government wouldn't care what day they do it on. The people who lost loved ones would.

wrightao · 31-08-2009 02:43PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with wanting answers to something which some perceive to be a mystery. And you cannot compare the 9/11 attacks with the search for WMDs in Iraq, because quite simply, one happened in the US, one happened in Iraq. The US goverment would be more likely to be able to stage something in their own country where they have a lot more control.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy, or at least not one to the extent that some believe, but I agree that some 9/11 truthers take it too far. I hate hearing about truth protests at the site on anniversaries of 9/11. A place where so many would go to remember their loved ones in peace, to pay their respects to those who died. I think Truthers should respect that and leave it for that day. The government wouldn't care what day they do it on. The people who lost loved ones would.

There is no false equivalence between the 9/11 events and the search for WMD in Iraq. The fact is the US was in control three weeks after entering Iraq and could have (and would have if posters like Carra were sane) "found" large caches of WMD. The whole thing though that gets me about the 911 Truthers is they invariably follow their lunacy with such comments as "the US is the worls biggest terrorist". These Noam Choskeyite/Naoimi Klein/Michael Moore type bromides illustrate the opinions of these truthers perfectly. They are not concerned about the truth, looking for answers etc. They are solely interested in slandering the US, the previous administration and what I find disgusting is that they denigrate the thousands of lives lost on that day. Furthermore, by their insinuations and tactics they absolve the real perpetrators of their guilt. Rosie O'Donnell is a truther. Says it all really.

meglome · 31-08-2009 02:43PM

squod wrote: »

There's no evidence the FBI came to any conclusions, other than confidential ones.
A previous poster said these guys had failed their lie detector tests,
I dunno. I started on about an article or two I once read.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2003/nov/09/the-real-911-cover-up/?q=september%2011%20mossad

So far I'm told the Isreali dudes were 'just dicks' and that there is certainty
in the opposing arguments.

Unless they know more than everyone else does, there can't be certainty.

I'm still waiting to be convinced of the other sides argument. Which I can be.

You know I'm giving up on this rubbish. The articles you yourself are linking to do not show they had foreknowledge. You have decided this, in your own head. You have decided the FBI must be hiding something, even though there's no evidence of this. The lack of sense here is hurting my brain. I'm not trying to prove anything to you, just trying to understand how you're so sure that they had foreknowledge when the articles don't say it. What we know as a fact is they were arrested on the day for acting 'suspiciously', they had overstayed holiday visas, they were filming after the first tower was hit, they were held for two months, questioned extensively and sent home without charge. All of which is evidence that they overstayed holiday visas and were deported.

So today I'm king of the world, it must be true as I've decided it is, without any evidence.

31-08-2009 02:53PM

squod wrote: »

There's no evidence the FBI came to any conclusions, other than confidential ones.
A previous poster said these guys had failed their lie detector tests,
I dunno. I started on about an article or two I once read. is certainty
in the opposing arguments.

From that very article you linked, just over half way down:

He added that "the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs", but the men were released because they "did not know anything about 9/11".

This is probably the fourth time I've pointed out this same sentence.

bonkey · 31-08-2009 03:19PM

Lets assume for a second that these guys were somehow Israeli intelligence.
Lets assume that someone knew these attacks would happen, and directed these guys to be prepared to film it.

These assumptions do not, incidentally, do not require that the official findings are in any way inaccurate, or that the US had advance warning.

Perhaps Mossad have infiltrated Al Qaeda extensively enough (or have other intelligence-gathering mechanisms so good) that they knew exactly what was happening, and when it was happening. Perhaps they were good enough to orchestrate and plan the whole thing. Perhaps the US agencies (and thus the US government) were in on it too, perhaps not. Lets not worry about those details just yet.

So, Mossad - generally reckoned to be one of the best at what it does - has either managed a masterpiece of planning, a masterpiece of infiltration, or a masterpiece of intelligence gathering.

What then?

Apparently, we're being asked to consider the suggestion that sends what can only be described as a group of clowns to "document" the event...a group of clowns so inept that they behave in a manner so outrageous that its being talked about 8 years later.

In other words, we're being asked to believe that an organisation so skilled that it can either gather intelligence on this event or plan it itself is too inept to be able to then gather evidence of the event unfolding without resorting to farce.

Ask yourself one question...

If the official findings had come out and said that these clowns were some sort of secret intelligence-gathering group...would you have believed it, or would you have complained that it was so comically inept that it was yet another example of how farcical the official findings were.

It seems to me that the only thing that this idea has going for it is that it was not endorsed by the FBI or some other such authority.

squod · 31-08-2009 03:33PM

[quote=bonkey;61879550
we're being asked to believe that an organisation so skilled that it can gather intelligence on this event
[/quote]

I've edited your response, but yes, that's about the essence of the articles published at the time.

meglome · 31-08-2009 03:35PM

squod wrote: »

I've edited your response, but yes, that's about the essence of the articles published at the time.

Huh? Was that a reply or just a general statement? You haven't addressed the point he was making but then again you don't ever seem to do that.

squod · 31-08-2009 03:45PM

King Mob wrote: »

This is probably the fourth time I've pointed out this same sentence.

You could probably stuff out many more time and I'd be still as unconvinced.
You could be correct as I've said.

Remember you're the one coming out with statements like these.

"There is no such classified information as all."

It's no wonder I'm not convinced!

bonkey · 31-08-2009 03:46PM

squod wrote: »

I've edited your response, but yes, that's about the essence of the articles published at the time.

You've edited it to remove out the other half of what we're being asked to believe:

1) Skilled enough to ionfiltrate whoever orchestrated the event, and gather intelligence.

2) Not skilled enough to capture footage of said event without people acting like clowns, drawing attention to themselves.

We're being asked to believe both....which is where the problem lies.

wrightao · 31-08-2009 03:52PM

meglome wrote: »

Huh? Was that a reply or just a general statement? You haven't addressed the point he was making but then again you don't ever seem to do that.

Just replying in general to these threads. Isnt there a word for blaming the Israelis (i.e The Joooos) for everything that goes wrong and 9/11 in particular. Does anyone remember the disgusting tale circulated after 9/11 that Israelis and Jews that worked in the WTC were told not to turn up on 9/11 to the WTC? I think its called.....mmm...oh yes, A Blood Libel. Its a stunning development when upon the falling down of the WTC the Muslim street in Palestine jumps up and down chanting hyterically, when the Muslin Street in Jordan, Syria does likewise and Egyptian newspapers circulate a banner headline reading "Victory". But somehow, the JOOOOs are behind 9/11. This is what it is, simple anti-semitism. Unchanged. The facts remain thus: a number of religious fanatics got lucky, very lucky. And if you dont think they are capable of much, its reverse discrimination. They have proved time and time again how troublesome they can be and despite their assertions to the contrary, people are not taking them seriously and instead blame the JOOOOS.

meglome · 31-08-2009 03:53PM

squod wrote: »

You could probably stuff out many more time and I'd be still as unconvinced.
You could be correct as I've said.

Remember your the one coming out with statements like these.

"There is no such classified information as all."

It's no wonder I'm not convinced!

Can I ask you a question. Do you know the different between the stuff you imagine or you choose to believe and things you can back with evidence? I.e opinion vs fact.

squod · 31-08-2009 03:55PM

bonkey wrote: »

You've edited it to remove out the other half of what we're being asked to believe:

1) Skilled enough to ionfiltrate whoever orchestrated the event, and gather intelligence.

2) Not skilled enough to capture footage of said event without people acting like clowns, drawing attention to themselves.

We're being asked to believe both....which is where the problem lies.

I get your first point (skilled enough), but whether they were a bunch of clowns I dunno.
Artilce said at least two of them worked for Mossad.

meglome · 31-08-2009 03:56PM

wrightao wrote: »

Just replying in general to these threads. Isnt there a word for blaming the Israelis (i.e The Joooos) for everything that goes wrong and 9/11 in particular. Does anyone remember the disgusting tale circulated after 9/11 that Israelis and Jews that worked in the WTC were told not to turn up on 9/11 to the WTC? I think its called.....mmm...oh yes, A Blood Libel. Its a stunning development when upon the falling down of the WTC the Muslim street in Palestine jumps up and down chanting hyterically, when the Muslin Street in Jordan, Syria does likewise and Egyptian newspapers circulate a banner headline reading "Victory". But somehow, the JOOOOs are behind 9/11. This is what it is, simple anti-semitism. Unchanged. The facts remain thus: a number of religious fanatics got lucky, very lucky. And if you dont think they are capable of much, its reverse discrimination. They have proved time and time again how troublesome they can be and despite their assertions to the contrary, people are not taking them seriously and instead blame the JOOOOS.

If it wasn't bad enough that most of the 'truth' movement wouldn't know truth is they fell over it, there is also a lot of anti-Semitism. Nothing to do about it except expose it for what it is as often as you can.

squod · 31-08-2009 03:57PM

meglome wrote: »

Can I ask you a question. Do you know the different between the stuff you imagine or you choose to believe and things you can back with evidence? I.e opinion vs fact.

D'you?

"There is no such classified information as all."

31-08-2009 04:00PM

squod wrote: »

I get your first point (skilled enough), but whether they were a bunch of clowns I dunno.
Artilce said at least two of them worked for Mossad.

And the article also said

He added that "the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs", but the men were released because they "did not know anything about 9/11".

Seems you're being very selective.

squod wrote: »

D'you?
"There is no such classified information as all."

Are you going to share any evidence that this classified information exists?
Or how it shows these guys had foreknowledge?

meglome · 31-08-2009 04:00PM

squod wrote: »

I get your first point (skilled enough), but whether they were a bunch of clowns I dunno.
Artilce said at least two of them worked for Mossad.

I believe the article said one of them worked for Mossad in some capacity in another country. He might have been delivering the mail for all we know.

I still don't think you addressed the point.

squod · 31-08-2009 04:03PM

meglome wrote: »

He might have been delivering the mail for all we know.

Mailman cum furniture remover cum moviemaker etc...

Busy fugger huh.

meglome · 31-08-2009 04:09PM

squod wrote: »

D'you?

"There is no such classified information as all."

I do indeed.

So what you're saying is in your opinion stuff has been classified and we don't have access to it. Stuff that we have no way to know even exists in the first place.

squod · 31-08-2009 04:26PM

Look, I've said this already. My opinion can be changed.

Maybe if someone turns up and says 'here looks at this, heres an article proving these Isreali dudes were just a couple of dicks an' a fuggin mail man.'

Maybe then we'd have a debate on our hands.
At the minute I'm not convinced. That is all.

meglome · 31-08-2009 04:56PM

squod wrote: »

Look, I've said this already. My opinion can be changed.

Maybe if someone turns up and says 'here looks at this, heres an article proving these Isreali dudes were just a couple of dicks an' a fuggin mail man.'

Maybe then we'd have a debate on our hands.
At the minute I'm not convinced. That is all.

But how can we possibly change your opinion. There is no evidence they did anything, only speculation. So you're choosing to believe they did something even though there is no evidence. The FBI let them go saying there was no evidence they had anything to do with 911, but you're choosing to believe the FBI are covering stuff up. It's like trying to prove to a religious person that God doesn't exist.

squod · 31-08-2009 05:07PM

meglome wrote: »

But how can we possibly change your opinion. There is no evidence they did anything, only speculation. So you're choosing to believe they did something even though there is no evidence. The FBI let them go saying there was no evidence they had anything to do with 911, but you're choosing to believe the FBI are covering stuff up. It's like trying to prove to a religious person that God doesn't exist.

''Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months.''

The crux of the argument is that these Isreali's dudes coulda' dunit and that's backed up by articles published many years ago.

Your saying they didn't do it and your using what? exactly to back this up.

Unless you know something I don't. I don't get your point and your not convincing me. It's that simple.

meglome · 31-08-2009 05:12PM

squod wrote: »

Unless you know something I don't. I don't get your point and your not convincing me. It's that simple.

One last try... the FBI let them go saying there was no evidence they had anything to do with 911. But you've decided the FBI is lying, it should be up to you to prove that, which you can't.

31-08-2009 05:14PM

squod wrote: »

The crux of the argument is that these Isreali's dudes coulda' dunit and that's backed up by articles published many years ago.

It's funny how everyone keeps reffering to that one article published two days after 9/11 as if the sooner the news comes out the more accurate it is.
By this logic Michael Jackson died of a simple heart attack and nothing else.

squod · 31-08-2009 05:27PM

meglome wrote: »

One last try... the FBI let them go saying there was no evidence they had anything to do with 911. But you've decided the FBI is lying, it should be up to you to prove that, which you can't.

''Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months.''

Who is mentioning the FBI, only you.

Only you, what is this. Why would you say that?

bonkey · 31-08-2009 09:16PM

squod wrote: »

I get your first point (skilled enough), but whether they were a bunch of clowns I dunno.
Artilce said at least two of them worked for Mossad.

You don't know if their behaviour was clownish?

Seriously...if this is the quality of Mossad agent you think is reasonable, how the **** did they manage to find out about the entire event in advance? Maybe they dressed someone up Ali G stylee, and went into the Afghan wastelands to interview some of the homeys?

I can accept that there was something off about these guys...but trying to suggest that they were on-the-job undercover operatives of what is perhaps the most accomplished secret service in the world is about on par with expecting the CIAs top operatives to be Dick Dasterdly and Muttley.

meglome · 31-08-2009 09:34PM

squod wrote: »

''Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months.''

Who is mentioning the FBI, only you.

Only you, what is this. Why would you say that?

You have posted more than once that the FBI let them go as there was no evidence. King Mob also quoted you on this. Do you even read what you post?

squod · 31-08-2009 10:12PM

What. QUOTE ME!

Tell you what, you should stick with your aliens, dicks and mailmen theory.
Or whatever other story you wanna make up for yourself.

squod · 31-08-2009 10:22PM

bonkey wrote: »

I can accept that there was something off about these guys...but trying to suggest that they were on-the-job undercover operatives of what is perhaps the most accomplished secret service in the world is about on par with expecting the CIAs top operatives to be Dick Dasterdly and Muttley.

So now were lookin' for dicks, mailmen, aliens and two cartoon characters.
They won't be hard to spot so huh?

I'm not asking you to believe anything, unlike some people. I got into this for a debate. So far I've not got one.

If anyone else wants to contribute please do. Or if the other two wanna tell me why they're certain, also, please be my guest.

Black Uhlan · 01-09-2009 01:08AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us...0men%20&st=cse

" the officials said the men had apparently

1. set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. "

[(B]Must have been moving them somewhere)

(After the camera was setup i.e. before an attack...)

2. "They photographed the attacks[/B] and"

3. were said to have congratulated each other afterward, officials said.

It is just 1 one account but nevertheless I hope this makes it clearer.

911 revisited

Comments