threadworm
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,096
They are mostly just annoyed that Jews are still around despite the best efforts of people who also didn't like them.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)
- Thread starter dannyb
- Start date
They are mostly just annoyed that Jews are still around despite the best efforts of people who also didn't like them.
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
No it isn't the wrong thread. The thread is called "On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)" and my comment was about that very same video: "The video, "On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)", is crystal clear. ..."
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
I wasn't a rant. It was a fact based comment where I cited Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission Exec. Dir.
And who are you to say that "the motive for 911 isn't an issue in debunking Truthers.?!
As for your attack on Pearl Harbor example, I would find it very odd if someone started to complain about discussion of Japan's motive for the attack when the discussion is about Pearl Harbor and trying to get accurate information nailed down. I would wonder why someone would go to such lengths to try to avoid discussing the motive for the attack. If conspiracists were arguing that Japan wasn't even behind the attack (which I haven't seen it get as crazy as that but with 9/11 it gets as crazy as denying who the attackers were) then I think it would make perfect sense to say, no it wasn't the US who did the attack, it was Japan, and here's what their motive was. Why in the world would you insist that would be wrong?
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
Well, I am very clearly not a truther and I didn't get anything wrong. You should rethink your assumptions.
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
No, you are wrong. And what exactly do you think you are "rejecting"? You are rejecting the testimony of Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission Exec. Dir. ? Is that what you are rejecting? Because that is who I am citing. And it is vulgar to ignorantly throw around false accusations against people. Why don't you do some research instead of accusing people of having "a bad case of the ass with the Jews." You think a nation should be automatically immune from criticism if a particular ethnicity or religion runs it? You think you can deflect all criticism of Israel by accusing people who cite facts as 'anti-Semitics?'
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
Perhaps if you would understand the video you would see it is a DEBUNKING video which is against "truther" BS. And if you take the time to look and see that you got that wrong, perhaps you could make the effort to see that you also got your assumption of "anti-Semitic" wrong as well.
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
It is a DEBUNKING video, not a "conspiracy-minded" video. Take a look, the people making the comments you are responding to have got it wrong. The video is called "On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)" Do you see? It is a debunking video. http://youtu.be/_7rj5UQvlWw
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
You should take another look at what you are commenting on, you have your basic facts wrong. On what basis did you make the assumption that I am "obsessed with Jews." Take the time to review the video and the comments an rethink what it is you are making this erroneous comments about.
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
You and Robrob have made an error. Reread the comments and watch the video again.
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
You should reread the comments and review the video, the people you are chiming in with are mistaken.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
The whole Jewish rant may have thrown some off. I thought another big motivator was our presence on sacred Saudi soil during the first gulf war?
What do we do about Israel? Just cut them off and join the other team to stop attacks?
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
"The whole Jewish rant?! What are you talking about? Who said "Jewish?" Could you tell me WHERE "Jewish" is even mentioned? Because it isn't in the video or the comment I posted. So why was that injected?
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
If you watched my videos and looked over the facts, you will see what the main motive was. Sure there were other motives dealing with other aspects of US foreign policy which were mentioned by other perpetrators but the main motive is the one repeatedly mentioned and that motive was repeatedly suppressed by US media. I have documented that suppression and that it probably had a role in giving birth to the "truther movement""
I recommend ready my post "The 9/11 misdirection away from "WHY" and to "HOW"
Truthers got the idea into their heads that fires can't cause steel structures to fail and collapse. So when they learned of WTC7, they doubled down and irrationally insisted that it too was targeted as part of a secret plan. As others have pointed out, it makes no sense to think of WTC7 as a target but understanding that involves understanding why the towers were made a target, The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks explained: "Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to "wake the American people up." Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wK72Snm6Y
I really thought this video in particular would have helped put an end to the BS about WTC7 because of all the firemen's predictions of its collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw
I really think that a way to get them to understand reality is to be honest about the full extent of how ugly the entire situation is. And to come to terms with the idea that the embrace of "9/11 truth" didn't happen in a vacuum. There was a ruthless and dominating agenda to suppress the main motive which I think played a role in the misdirection and obsession about "how" the attacks happened and and the preoccupation about buildings that were not important. Case in point is Dan Rather who both suppressed mention of the word "Israel" as he was reading from the Rueters newswire (see that link) that day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m25s AND he was oddly fascinated with the collapse of WTC7. I suspect that part of the guilt or uncomfortable position of being a person suppressing the motive led him to find other things that day to shift focus to. So the same man that wouldn't read the word "Israel" is the same guy truthers fall over themselves THANKING because he was so fascinated by WTC7's collapse AND Dan Rather is the first person to misidentify the start of the collapse of WTC7, he introduces the video clip then after the collapse has already started he says "NOW we go to video tape of of the collapse of this building" YET they were already were showing it and had shown the penthouse collapsing first. "Amazing, incredible, pick your word, for the 3rd time today …" Well, if he had spent the time talking about the MOTIVE for the event he was covering maybe he wouldn't have felt so self-conscious and felt he needed to be so amazed by the collapse of a building that just happened to be near the targeted towers.
Andrea Mitchell of NBC is another person who both suppressed the main motive AND shifted the focus to "how" (away from "why") So we can see her report from that day where she too omits mention of Israel as she cites the same Rueters newswire AND even shows the news editor who is quoted in that newswire. Yes the very "Arab journalist with access to him" who is quoted in that newswire who says what bin Laden has said, "Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday." Michell reads for that newswire and even shows a video clip of that very same Arab journalist YET omits mention of Israel. She even plays a clip of him saying "I believe the only thing is to revise their policies, to look at what's happening, WHY for example the anti-American sentiment is very high in the Middle East and the Muslim world" BUT RIGHT AFTER that clip, she says "HOW could this happen"! So she suppressed mention of the main motive WHY (anger at US support of Israel) and the very next thing she asks is "HOW" (and not "WHY" which is exactly what the journalist had just said should be asked seconds before!)
I have watched hours of reporting from that day and days after and it is hard to even find a reporter utter the word "motive." Compare that to all these other events including recent high profile shootings even as recently as the Navy Yard shooting.
What I am saying is the abnormal fixation on HOW by many people must, to some degree, have been influenced by mass media pushing that while at the same time suppressing the more normal and relevant question of WHY.
Last edited:
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
Do you honestly think that the instant the second plane hit anyone with half an education and a basic understanding of world events, had any doubts as to who was behind the atrocities and why they were doing it? Of course not. Reporters were a little busy reporting on the insane carnage that was unfolding before them. Not to report on all the givens. You said he avoided it on purpose? I say he got distracted. They focused on 7 cause they knew it was gonna fall, not cause of guilt.
And yes, I understand you're not a truther but you seem extremely anti-Israeli. Even if we dropped support for Israel it wouldn't change a thing. They'd still want to kill us all because we're not like them and a thousand other reasons.
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
It might well be a prerequisite.
I don't know who posted it here at JREF because they deserve all the credit in the world, but a very sharp poster made the observation:
"Can it really be a conspiracy if the jews aren't behind it?"
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
If we accept the premise of causation you are asserting, then what?
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
I was going to ask if you watched the video where Dan is reading from that newswire but when I check it I noticed I had the link broken. I fixed it. Please watch as Dan starts to read this newswire:
Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack
(Reuters) Sep 11, 11:19 AM ET
Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m25s
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
Yeah, I found it through your other video. I have my opinion. Like Bstrong asked, then what?
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
I think the very first step is to report it and not suppress it or marginalize it or downplay it or deny it. I have watched this game played for decades. Over and over again the mass media has suppressed, marginalized, downplayed or lied about this motive.
You can see movies and reports about Robert Kennedy's assassination yet almost never hear the motive:
"Sirhan is an Arab Christian who was born in Jerusalem and who strongly opposed Israel. In 1989, he told David Frost, "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians." "
I remember the same games played after the 1993 attack on the WTC, almost no one wanted to report what the motive was even though it was made clear my Ramzi Yousef: "Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack on the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.""
"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273
And after the 9/11 attack, bin Laden once again made a statement to make the motive clear: "We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
Bin Laden had underestimated the power of special interests to deceive large numbers of the America public about why the US was being attacked. After the lies that Bush and others told about why America was being attacked, bin Laden once again made an attempt to make the motives clear by pointing out that Bush is hiding the truth: "... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
Same game of not reporting on the motive with regard to the underwear bomber:
“I had an agreement with at least one person to attack the United States in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants.
So the first step is to get the motive fair coverage:
Mark Schneider said that before he took up political activism on the Palestinians' behalf he wasn't sure the censorship or self-censorship over Israel existed. But Schneider now says, "I used to be skeptical about ... allegations of censorship and self-censorship in the American media, but now I've seen it first-hand." Schneider recounts how he witnessed the Rev. Bob Kinsey being asked by a reporter in the studio what the main reasons for troubles in the Middle East were. "Rev Kinsey spoke of the massive US military aid to Israel and the resulting instability it caused. The reporter's stunning reply: 'While I agree with you, if I say anything about US geopolitical interests with Israel, I might as well clean off my desk. ' Of course, the interview was never aired."- David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books; 2nd edition 2003 p57
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/01/hostility-and-cruelty-as-early-as-1891.html
Last edited:
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
I have more examples. I say what the next step should be in my previous comment: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9549558#post9549558
Note what the reporter says in the last paragraph: The reporter's stunning reply: 'While I agree with you, if I say anything about US geopolitical interests with Israel, I might as well clean off my desk. ' Of course, the interview was never aired."- David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books; 2nd edition 2003 p57 http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/01/hostility-and-cruelty-as-early-as-1891.html
Note this outrage: "Some commissioners wanted to cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel because this might imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support for Israeli actions."
" rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy."
Who told them their job was to worry if Americans would reassess the policy of supporting Israel?! These bastards decided their job was to protect the policy over giving a full accounting! http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/reviews-of-without-precedent-inside.html
Last edited: