Loose Change

[Alek]

Good morning Alek.
Please allow me to quote myself from a previous post that you seemed to have missed.

It does apear that you have a problem with the "Big Bad Government" and that seems to be driving your thoughts here. Of course I could be wrong but you seem to be very selective about what you accept as evidence.

JPK

Good morning.

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere. The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.

Pre 9/11, Americans were polarized on civil liberties issues. The fear and hysteria subsequent to 9/11 changed all that with the passage of the Patriot Act, and now the Real ID act. Then began the consolidation of a number of US government agencies into a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

You're probably at least mostly aware of what happend in Afghanistan and what is going on in Iraq.

The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my vanity.

 

[delphi_ote]

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere.

Names?

The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.

Proof?

The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my sanity.

You had a typo there.

 

[kookbreaker]

<insubstantial drivel deleted>

You're obviously retarded, and virtually unable to comprehend english.

This from the guy who whines that we should be nicer to him.

Let me see if I can make it as unambiguous as possible so that even the likes of you can understand:

1) She posted her analysis using a psudonym from a private account, with no reference to her credentials, origin, or background. In english, this means she didn't use her position or authority.

2) The Scholars for 9/11 Truth linked her website to their page, presumably after her approval.

And that website happily points out that the article is written by "Judy Woods", PHD. Hence, her position as a professor is being used to support the arguement. She also was part of the press release

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060301/bs_prweb/prweb352979_1

Sounds a bit like she tried to have it both ways. Anonymous, with authority derived from her position at the University.

3) As soon as I pasted the 9/11 Truth link, delphi_ote obtained her identity through cross reference and began personally attacking her.

Wait a second. It was you who pointed out her identity in post #104! By the time you brought it up several messages had been passed regarding the ineptness of that website's physics. You are telling lies and trying to make Delphi look like a stalker.

4) Taking issue with her article, and instead of countering or debunking her article in a public forum, he instead sent a private email to university authorities trying to get her in trouble.

WRONG! Delphi already had nailed the physics in that article is being poor (as had others).

As for the the wrongness of what she is doing, read what Delphi actually wrote instead of going off on a tantrum:

[QUOTE = Delphi_ote]
Many of the claims on this website are patently false, particularly some of the elementary physics presented. Dr. Wood seems reluctant to publish her name and profession directly on the website, but openly uses them to promote the website (as you can see clearly in this press release from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/200603.../prweb352979_1 and on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website.)

It seems unethical that she would use her PhD and Professor of Mechanical Engineering status to promote her writings, but not open said writings to proper peer review by hiding her name entirely on the actual documents. It also seems dishonest that she would claim to be a full professor when she is currently an assistant professor.
[/QUOTE]

There are problems here. Big problems. You may understand them, but they are problems.

5) We have freedom of speech in this country, which means that people have the right to express their belief, no matter how controversial or wrong.

I'll explain it again: In the USA we have the right not to be jailed for free speech. The means that you will not go to jail for giving an opinion. That does not mean you can inflate your credentials or use your employer's cerdentials to promote personal agendas if the employer does not approve. Oh, you certainly can do it, but there will be consequences from your employer if they do not appreciate what they you are saying.

Again, you do not understand what "free speech" means. It is not freedom from consequences, especially when lies are being told.

Irrelevant, ridiculous analogy.

Nope. It is very apt. In fact, one might argue that what she has done is worse.

The Stasi flourished because of a network of snitches and spies who formed a human surveillance grid. delphi_ote's behavior is typical of the slime in question. The fact that you think she may lose her job, and the fact that you think she should lose her job is more evidence of your apparent retardation, and abject ignorance as to what this country is all about. You're no better than the sniveling coward who wrote the letter.

You are basicly saying that no one should be reporting misconduct, and if they do, they are the equivelant of secret police? Wonderful attitude you've got there. Were you a schoolyard bully as a kid?

The consequences in this case should have been a reasoned rebuttal in a public forum, not some vain attempt to tattle on the speaker. You're not bright enough to grok this.

No, you are not bright enough to grasp the consequences of ACADEMIC DISHONESTY. Get it through your head! She is not innocent in this matter! If she was, Delphi would have been told to flake off by the University. Instead, they seem to be taking this matter rather seriously.

 

[JPK]

Good afternoon Alek.

Good morning.

9/11 was a false flag psychological operation carried out by powerful elements inside the US government, and elsewhere. The objectives were twofold: To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda.

Pre 9/11, Americans were polarized on civil liberties issues. The fear and hysteria subsequent to 9/11 changed all that with the passage of the Patriot Act, and now the Real ID act. Then began the consolidation of a number of US government agencies into a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

You're probably at least mostly aware of what happend in Afghanistan and what is going on in Iraq.

The risk of me being considered paranoid isn't a risk to anything other than my vanity.

Thanks for the reply. I will not have time to respond until the tomorrow.
But perhaps you can state when you feel this plan was starting to take shape? When did they plant the bombs in the WTC? Were they there all along? What other buildings do you think are presently rigged to blow?
Is it safe to assume that you believe Bin Laden was working on this with these powerfull elements in the Government?

JPK

 

[delphi_ote]

You're obviously retarded, and virtually unable to comprehend english.

Hadn't noticed that the last time around. Are you being rude, or are you trying to be ban-martyred?

 

[WildCat]

I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies.

Your "evidence" was exposed as the BS it is. Let's review:

Let's review:
1. The WTC shouldn't have fallen, it was designed to withstand the impact of a airliner. This was shown to be a gross mischaracterization.

2. The WTC couldn't have fallen only due to the planes hitting it and subsequent fires. This was shown to be false, as every single structural engineering report agrees w/ the official reasons for collapse.

3. WTC 7 was hardly dameged, but fell anyway. Shown to be false, after which you changed your tune to:

4. WTC 7 had to be a controlled demolition due the fact no other steel building had collapsed due to fire. Shown to be false, as the steel portion of the Madrid tower did collapse. And the video shows what you think are "squibs" only appear after the building begins to collapse. In addition, firefighters near WTC 7 reported hearing the building beginning to collapse, and the videos and pictures show it is kinking and bending before it collapsed.

5. Seismic data shows tremors from the WTC before they collapsed. Shown to be false, using the very data you cited.

6. Shaky video that proves nothing.

In addition, you have not shown (or even offered a half-assed theory of) how the many tons of explosives necessary could have been installed and wired together w/o anyone noticing.

Just repeating that, since Alek seems to have missed it. Because, AFAIK, that was all of his evidence.

Alek, are you still there?

 

[Alek]

Good afternoon Alek.

Thanks for the reply. I will not have time to respond until the tomorrow.
But perhaps you can state when you feel this plan was starting to take shape? When did they plant the bombs in the WTC? Were they there all along? What other buildings do you think are presently rigged to blow?
Is it safe to assume that you believe Bin Laden was working on this with these powerfull elements in the Government?

JPK

I don't know when it started to take shape. I'm not an investigator in New York, but a mere citizen in San Diego. I'm less trying to theorize and more trying to illustrate the flaws in the official conspiracy theory involving 19 arab hijackers.

As for when they may have rigged the buildings, consider this from a man named Scott Forbes:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

Consider also that George W. Bush's younger brother Marvin was a director of Securecom, a firm which provided security not only to the WTC complex but also Dulles international airport, and United Airlines. This is documented in Loose Change.

As for the notion that bombs were there all along, I don't put any credence in that. A man named Peter Lance has suggested that the WTC 7 building might have been pre-wired with explosives at its construction. Lance, if I recall correctly, believes the official conspiracy theory is true, but that the government is covering up some of the details so as to absolve it of claims of negligence. He claims the nature of the tenants at the building is such that would suggest them having the ability to quickly destroy the building and its sensitive contents. The list of WTC 7 tenants included IRS, DOD, CIA, OEM, SEC, and Secret Service.

I believe Lance is trying to offer up a legitimate reason for what to many appears to be a controlled demolition of the WTC 7 building.

I have no reason to believe any other buildings are presently rigged to blow. If you want me to speculate on the next "terrorist" attack, I would guess that it will be biological in nature. A biological attack would enable the government to suspend or eliminate the US constitution (as fmr. US General Tommy Franks has suggested) virtually everywhere via large scale quarantine operations.

French intelligence reported that Bin Laden received medical treatment at a US hospital in Dubai, UAE a few months prior to 9/11, where he allegedly met with a CIA section chief.

I tend to think Osama Bin Laden is a CIA asset, much like Saddam Hussein. It's worth noting that the only evidence linking him to 9/11 is the confession tape, supposedly made from a cave in Afghanistan. Many have questioned the authenticity of this tape, and it contradicts an alleged statement made by Bin Laden denying culpability for 9/11. As I pointed out earlier, Buzzy Krongard, a former high-ranking CIA executive has admitted in a London Times article that he thinks we'd all be better off if Bin Laden remained free. Does this represent official CIA policy? I suppose a lot of Americans, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11 would like to know.

 

[WildCat]

I don't know when it started to take shape. I'm not an investigator in New York, but a mere citizen in San Diego. I'm less trying to theorize and more trying to illustrate the flaws in the official conspiracy theory involving 19 arab hijackers.

As for when they may have rigged the buildings, consider this from a man named Scott Forbes:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

Oh goody, the mysterious Scott Forbes again! Alek, is there any evidence at all this "Scott Forbes" guy actually exists/existed? Does it make sense that this is the only record of such a power-down, when tens of thousands of people worked in those buildings? Does it make sense that none of the many large banks and other financial institutions housed in the WTC buildings would tolerate a 36 hour power-down, where there would be no security? Why does no one else remember what would certainly have been a major event for the many companies working there?

I call BS on this power-down, until you have more evidence.

Consider also that George W. Bush's younger brother Marvin was a director of Securecom, a firm which provided security not only to the WTC complex but also Dulles international airport, and United Airlines. This is documented in Loose Change.

Ooooh, now that's what I call rock-solid evidence, pardon me while I laugh in your face.

As for the notion that bombs were there all along, I don't put any credence in that. A man named Peter Lance has suggested that the WTC 7 building might have been pre-wired with explosives at its construction. Lance, if I recall correctly, believes the official conspiracy theory is true, but that the government is covering up some of the details so as to absolve it of claims of negligence. He claims the nature of the tenants at the building is such that would suggest them having the ability to quickly destroy the building and its sensitive contents. The list of WTC 7 tenants included IRS, DOD, CIA, OEM, SEC, and Secret Service.

I believe Lance is trying to offer up a legitimate reason for what to many appears to be a controlled demolition of the WTC 7 building.

A rare moment of common sense kicking in, Alek?

I have no reason to believe any other buildings are presently rigged to blow.

Nor have you yet presented any evidence that the WTC was demolished by explosives either.

If you want me to speculate on the next "terrorist" attack, I would guess that it will be biological in nature. A biological attack would enable the government to suspend or eliminate the US constitution (as fmr. US General Tommy Franks has suggested) virtually everywhere via large scale quarantine operations.

And that, of course, is something every US politician mastubates to...

French intelligence reported that Bin Laden received medical treatment at a US hospital in Dubai, UAE a few months prior to 9/11, where he allegedly met with a CIA section chief.

I tend to think Osama Bin Laden is a CIA asset, much like Saddam Hussein. It's worth noting that the only evidence linking him to 9/11 is the confession tape, supposedly made from a cave in Afghanistan. Many have questioned the authenticity of this tape, and it contradicts an alleged statement made by Bin Laden denying culpability for 9/11. As I pointed out earlier, Buzzy Krongard, a former high-ranking CIA executive has admitted in a London Times article that he thinks we'd all be better off if Bin Laden remained free. Does this represent official CIA policy? I suppose a lot of Americans, especially those who lost loved ones on 9/11 would like to know.

Funny stuf there, Alek. funny stuff! But proof of nothing, of course.

 

[sesmo_k]

Hello Alek,

so by your rational, that the American Government intentionally allowed/set up the events of 9/11 to take place, would you also say that both the Spanish and British governments allowed/set up the atrocities that occurred on their soil? After all, the bombings in these countries were due to those countries involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you honestly think that so many people could be paid off to keep quiet?

Sarah

 

[Alek]

Hello Alek,

so by your rational, that the American Government intentionally allowed/set up the events of 9/11 to take place, would you also say that both the Spanish and British governments allowed/set up the atrocities that occurred on their soil? After all, the bombings in these countries were due to those countries involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you honestly think that so many people could be paid off to keep quiet?

Sarah

I have not researched the 3/11 nor the 7/7 bombings in Madrid and London, so I don't want to speculate on who was responsible or why.

For a number of reasons I think it is a gross oversimplification to suggest that the alleged suppression of the truth of these events is dependent on paying a lot of people off. If indeed these are false flag attacks carried out by intelligence agencies, then they are the work of highly sophisticated and resourceful individuals who would employ a minimum of assets in order to execute them.

Intelligence agencies use a number of tactics to preserve secrecy, including compartmentalization, threats, blackmail, and bribes. They also make use of human assets who are already sympathetic to the cause which is served by the operation, such that there is no conflict of interest in the minds of these people.

Perhaps the most important asset is the media, unwitting or not.

"We live in a world of communication, where perception is very often the reality. Those individuals that control the perceptions are the ones that control virtually everything."

If the media repeats the same lie over and over, for many people it creates the perception of truth. In this context, it is extremely difficult for whistleblowers or alternate accounts to come forward. When they do, their credibility is weighed, if only subconsciously, against the supreme credibility of the media and often disparaged.

I suspect this is the paramount reason for why people tend to believe big lies. It is less a function of keeping secrets from being revealed, and more a function of keeping revealed secrets from being believed.

“All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

 

[sesmo_k]

So is the reason you believe the "Big Lie" about 9/11 because you have heard it over and over again on internet conspiracy sites?

 

[delphi_ote]

If indeed these are false flag attacks carried out by intelligence agencies, then they are the work of highly sophisticated and resourceful individuals who would employ a minimum of assets in order to execute them.

You seem to be using Occam's Razor here. Maybe you should apply it to the rest of your argument.

 

[delphi_ote]

“All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Do you know anything about "The Big Lie?" You're using an evil man's paranoid anti-Semetic ravings about a Jewish conspiracy to keep the Germans down to back up your position about this U.S. government conspiracy theory. Your use of this quote is sympathetic to Hitler's position on the Jews.

Maybe you guys have more in common with the Holocaust Deniers than I thought.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Alek, forgive me if this sounds too personal, but I'm trying to understand your point of view.

You are confused as to what constitutes evidence because you are thinking with your heart. You are obviously a sensitive person, for you want what's best for your country, and above all, are against war. This guides almost all your decision-making, but it's getting you in a muddle. You seem to 'want to believe' the Loose Change-type stories, yet you say you would like to be convinced by the official version of events. May I suggest looking within, and trying to re-read the replies in this thread with an open heart, and let your head make up its own mind.

You will still be a good person if you come to the conclusion that the official investigation was not a cover-up, but don't take my word for it, re-read the thread. If you come across something that seems like a personal insult, it will mean nothing to you if you admit you have made an honest mistake in believing others like yourself who have let their opposition to war misguide their reasoning.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.


(I wanted to add that paragraph just after I'd posted, but couldn't connect to the forum so now I'm past the editing time limit.)

 

[Alek]

Alek, forgive me if this sounds too personal, but I'm trying to understand your point of view.

You are confused as to what constitutes evidence because you are thinking with your heart. You are obviously a sensitive person, for you want what's best for your country, and above all, are against war. This guides almost all your decision-making, but it's getting you in a muddle. You seem to 'want to believe' the Loose Change-type stories, yet you say you would like to be convinced by the official version of events. May I suggest looking within, and trying to re-read the replies in this thread with an open heart, and let your head make up its own mind.

Thanks for the compliments. I am one of the most rational and sane people I know, and my friends and family would vouch for that. I tend to think with my head as opposed to my heart. I do consider myself a patriot, and I am not simply anti-war. I'm pro-constitution, and pro-freedom. I am against unjust wars made on false pretenses. Unfortunately, I don't "want to believe" the government lied, I know it, both logically and intuitively. This country is in deep, deep trouble, and the only hope is that people first face the truth. There can be no solutions without facing up to the horrible truth. I want to believe I'm wrong, but I don't. With the exception of a few, no one here has displayed an open mind or an open heart. Your advice is just as good for them as it is for me.

You will still be a good person if you come to the conclusion that the official investigation was not a cover-up, but don't take my word for it, re-read the thread. If you come across something that seems like a personal insult, it will mean nothing to you if you admit you have made an honest mistake in believing others like yourself who have let their opposition to war misguide their reasoning.

I am and always have been a "good" person. Honestly, I don't think anyone here is able to convince me that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is anything other than a pack of lies. Re-reading the thread isn't going to change my mind. I've resolved to drop the insults, I'm simply going to ignore those who I deem not credible and not earnest. I'm willing to debate anyone here on these most important issues, because I certainly don't have a monopoly on the truth of what happend that day. But make no mistake about it; I am here to serve a warning.

 

[Alek]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.

The US government funded the Mujahedeen in the '80s as they repelled the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Elements of the Mujahedeen became the Taliban.

Saddam Hussein has been a CIA asset for some 40 years.

The globalists who control the US government have created these monsters, and have embroiled us into unjust wars on the basis of lies and deceit. I am not afraid of "terrorists" because I know who the real terrorists are. The same ones who are leaving our borders wide open, yet who force me to remove my shoes before I board an airplane. The same ones who have passed the Patriot act, and the Real ID act, and who have tried to pass legislation repealing the 22nd amendment. The same ones who run torture camps at Guantanemo bay and elsewhere, and who have authorized and apologized for torture at Abu Ghraib. The same ones who needed a new Pearl Harbor. I'm not grateful to these criminal scum, I'm outraged. I'm outraged by my ignorant countrymen who sell our freedoms down the river for the illusion of security. I am encouraged, however. People are waking up. Perhaps not on this forum, but they are waking up. There is hope yet.

 

[hurdygurdy]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.

Is there any evidence of any connection between Sadam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?

(edit to corret bad grammar)

 

[WildCat]

Thanks for the compliments. I am one of the most rational and sane people I know, and my friends and family would vouch for that.

Must be one hell of a group you run in.

BTW, the Hitler quote was most revealing. Are the Jews also behind 9/11? Were all the Jews mysteriously absent from work in the WTC that day?

Oh, and you still haven't replied to the fact that all of your paranoid manifesto of "evidence" has been shot full of holes.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Once you recognise the logic and facts provided here, you still won't condone the deaths of innocents, but might see the justification in fighting the horrendous evils of the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime with appropriate strength. You probably still won't be a neo-conservative, but you might be grateful for the actual precautions being taken to prevent another 9/11.

Is there any evidence of any connection between Sadam Hussein and Al-Qaeda?

No. And the question of whether or not the war in Iraq was justified (it clearly wasn't, based on the reasons given by the Bush administration before the invasion) is a completely separate issue from whether or not there was US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Let's not muddle the two.