Loose Change

[Polaris]

Sigh, you just have to keep correcting them till they get it right.
The Reichstag fire was set by a nutty Dutch communist named Martinus van der Lubbe, according to the best available evidence. There is no evidence of involvement by the Nazis, merely convenient innuendo. The Nazis did make full use of the event to eliminate the communist and socialist parties. (Kershaw, who outranks Keegan for me, Hitler: Hubris 1889-1936, p 456-459).

Bah, details, details. You can forgive me for not giving the Nazis the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, geggy's analogy was poor - Hitler didn't use the Reichstag as an excuse to go to war. And none of this proves that Bush was behing 9/11 anyway.

 

[milesalpha]

Wow, just when you thought the CT couldn't get any more bizarre, along comes this thread.

Hmm I read through this guy's stuff and he will send it to anyone. For some bizarre reason he includes the provincial reform party, which, in its illustrious history, has never held a single seat in the legislature. I expect he'll get around to all of us eventually. I do wonder what Hawks Cafe is, I picture a little dump of a coffee shop in Vancouver.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yes, there are several examples where similar tragedies were allowed to occur in wartime, to avoid revealing intelligence-gathering methods. I can't think of others offhand, but the book "The Code Breakers" lists 'em.

I saw on a documentary that Churchill (while head of the British Navy) allowed the Lusitania to be sunk so that the US would be dragged into WWI. Any truth to this?

 

[Darat]

I saw on a documentary that Churchill (while head of the British Navy) allowed the Lusitania to be sunk so that the US would be dragged into WWI. Any truth to this?

Perhaps not the most neutral of sources but I generally refer to the following site as a first stop in checking out a "Churchill did/said..." allegation: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=49

 

[Gravy]

I saw on a documentary that Churchill (while head of the British Navy) allowed the Lusitania to be sunk so that the US would be dragged into WWI. Any truth to this?

I'm not sure what that would entail. I've never read that he gave information to the Germans about its schedule or route, and while the sinking enraged Americans, it was nearly two years before the U.S. actively joined the fight.

 

[Polaris]

I saw on a documentary that Churchill (while head of the British Navy) allowed the Lusitania to be sunk so that the US would be dragged into WWI. Any truth to this?

Zero.

It didn't work anyway. The Lusitania was sunk in 1915. Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on a peace platform: "He kept us out of war!"

Besides, how would Churchill know about a specific enemy U-boot targetting a specific ship? How would he know where both would cross paths? In other words, how could Churchill be in any position to "allow" the German navy to do anything? Unless the HMS Lusitania was in a convoy, its risk travelling alone was just as great as any other ship.

Yes, the British wanted the US to enter the war on their side. They had a successful propaganda campaign demonizing the Hun (remember the crucified Canadian? And the rape of Poor Little Belgium?). The Lusitania get brought out at a cause for the US involvement in WW1 all the time - and it's understandable. The US did get involved, at least partly, because of Ludendorf's decree of unrestricted submarine warfare, which targetted all non-Alliance shipping (including neutral, including American). The other part was the Zimmerman Telegram, promising Mexico the return of its former territory in the US if it opened up a new front against America, should the US enter the war against Germany. The telegram was leaked via British intelligence, btw.

So submarines sinking ships did lead to America getting involved - it just had nothing to do with the Lusitania.

 

[geggy]

Bah, details, details. You can forgive me for not giving the Nazis the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, geggy's analogy was poor - Hitler didn't use the Reichstag as an excuse to go to war. And none of this proves that Bush was behing 9/11 anyway.

I said that the reichstag fire, in which the communists were first blamed as the culprit, gave hitler the throne while sept 11 gave bush the 90 percent approval rating and the justification to do whatever he wants just as using it as an invocation for the reason of stripping civil liberties, illegal spying activities, torture, invading middle east to meet with their agenda, etc all of which hitler has also done. If you think about it, they both benefitted immensely from these acts of terrorism. The question here is did bush admin make it happen because as histroy shows, they knew it would solidify their power?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...The question here is did bush admin make it happen because as histroy shows, they knew it would solidify their power?

Are you willfully dense, or naturally so?

Questions are not evidence!

 

[Pardalis]

Parelsis...no I have not dismissed the CD theory. I will explain using pictures with graphics, possibly on mon.

So geggy, can you show me then how a controlled demolition is supposed to fake a collapse from the top? With some info from experts in controlled demolitions please.

And the coincidences I was speaking of applies to different situations leading up, during and the aftermath of sept 11. Like the coincidences in foreknowledge/security standdown, the coincidences of hijackers' whereabouts, the coincidences of the wtc collapsing, etc all mushed into one big huge "coincidences" or "conspiracy", whichever applies to you.

Have you read any of the links about coincidences I posted? Besides, you haven't answered my question. What constitutes a coincidence to you (in general), not what are the coincidences you think there were.

 

[Pardalis]

I said that the reichstag fire, in which the communists were first blamed as the culprit, gave hitler the throne while sept 11 gave bush the 90 percent approval rating and the justification to do whatever he wants just as using it as an invocation for the reason of stripping civil liberties, illegal spying activities, torture, invading middle east to meet with their agenda, etc all of which hitler has also done.

Hitler invaded the Middle East??? (just joking)

 

[Pardalis]

sept 11 gave bush the 90 percent approval rating

Now it's at 33%, so what's your point?

 

[Polaris]

I said that the reichstag fire, in which the communists were first blamed as the culprit, gave hitler the throne while sept 11 gave bush the 90 percent approval rating and the justification to do whatever he wants just as using it as an invocation for the reason of stripping civil liberties, illegal spying activities, torture, invading middle east to meet with their agenda, etc all of which hitler has also done. If you think about it, they both benefitted immensely from these acts of terrorism. The question here is did bush admin make it happen because as histroy shows, they knew it would solidify their power?

So which civil liberties do you no longer enjoy? And how does Bush's benefitting from 9/11 in any way prove that he caused it to happen? And who is "they" who have this agenda? Did Hitler also serve "their" agenda? And what exactly is "their 'agenda'"? To be eeeeeeeeeeeevil without any real motivation? To bring the fight to those poor, innocent Wahhabi terrorists? I confused. Btw, as was pointed out, Hitler didn't cause the Reichstag fire - just as Bush didn't cause 9/11. In either case, there's no evidence for complicity.

In 1998, my house was robbed and several guns were stolen. It turns out the thief had been a friend of mine who had developed a drug addiction. When the insurance cut me a check, I got more back than the guns were worth. I benefitted - by your logic, I set up that break-in to my own house so I could make a profit with the insurance money (the agent was also in on it). And since my friend later got shot by another friend he also robbed, he can't say otherwise. How convenient for me!!! Who benefits doesn't prove anything except that people usually make lemonade out of lemons.

 

[karim]

Quote of the day:

"I have those lingering moments when I started to doubt like what if I wrong, what if i'm absolutely wrong."
Dylan Avery

Link to video:

.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZjJQWNQZog&search=dylan%20avery
(add www)

peace

 

[Dave_46]

I'm going to throw this out there to be devil's advocate (my apologies if somoene else already mentioned this - I only got to the quoted post in my reading of the thread).

The Coventry bombing by the Luftwaffe was allowed to happen by Churchill and Bomber Command. It was allowed to happen because it was believed that opposing the raid would give away the existence of the broken Enigma encryption to the Nazis. So it's not unprecedented - however, circumstances were certainly much different.

From Most Secret War by Dr R V Jones, head of Scientific Intelligence Service in WW2.

Chapter 18 "Coventry"

"Together we [he and his colleague Charles Frank] braced ourselves for the following night, and for whatever "Moonlight Sonata" might mean. It happened to be one of those afternoons when the Enogma signals to the X=beam stations were not broken in time, and we were left guessing."

He goes on to say, drawing on a review in the Times Literary Supplement for 28 May 1976 by Sir David Hunt, at one time Churchil's secretary.
"Churchill that afternoon had set out from London for Ditchley Park (the house a few miles north of Oxford which he used as a retreat in place of Chequers on moonlit nights) when he opened his box containing the latest Enigma decodes. A heavy raid was foreshadowed, and Churchil at once turned the car back to London. To those of us who knew him this could mean only one thing: he thought the attack was to be on London and that his duty, in character with his lifelong inclination, was to be where the fight was hottest."

Sorry if this is a bit late.

Dave

Edited to correct spelllinge mistooks

 

[Gravy]

Quote of the day:
"I have those lingering moments when I started to doubt like what if I wrong, what if i'm absolutely wrong."
Dylan Avery

That would have been a good question to ask before he made his video.

 

[Polaris]

Quote of the day:

"I have those lingering moments when I started to doubt like what if I wrong, what if i'm absolutely wrong."
Dylan Avery

Link to video:

.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZjJQWNQZog&search=dylan%20avery
(add www)

peace

Yeah, imagine that Dylan - here's a mop to clean your piss from the graves of 3000 innocent people.

 

[Dragon]

From Most Secret War by Dr R V Jones, head of Scientific Intelligence Service in WW2.

Chapter 18 "Coventry"

"Together we [he and his colleague Charles Frank] braced ourselves for the following night, and for whatever "Moonlight Sonata" might mean. It happened to be one of those afternoons when the Enogma signals to the X=beam stations were not broken in time, and we were left guessing."

He goes on to say, drawing on a review in the Times Literary Supplement for 28 May 1976 by Sir David Hunt, at one time Churchil's secretary.
"Churchill that afternoon had set out from London for Ditchley Park (the house a few miles north of Oxford which he used as a retreat in place of Chequers on moonlit nights) when he opened his box containing the latest Enigma decodes. A heavy raid was foreshadowed, and Churchil at once turned the car back to London. To those of us who knew him this could mean only one thing: he thought the attack was to be on London and that his duty, in character with his lifelong inclination, was to be where the fight was hottest."

Sorry if this is a bit late.

Dave

Edited to correct spelllinge mistooks

You beat me to it, Dave, so not that late. Just to add that "Most Secret War" is a great read for anyone interested in WW2, the Enigma/Ultra story, how intelligence services really operate or science and scepticism in general (for instance, Jones not only describes how Occam's Razor can be a brilliant analytical tool but also how it can sometimes lead to the wrong answer).
I believe the book was published as "Wizard War" in the US.

 

[sophia8]

Hmm I read through this guy's stuff and he will send it to anyone. For some bizarre reason he includes the provincial reform party, which, in its illustrious history, has never held a single seat in the legislature. I expect he'll get around to all of us eventually. I do wonder what Hawks Cafe is, I picture a little dump of a coffee shop in Vancouver.

Nah. This is the place. The prices ound amazingly reasonable.

 

[steve s]

Wow, just when you thought the CT couldn't get any more bizarre, along comes this thread.

These guys are really starting to slip off the deep end. From that thread...

GECAS appears to have had a number of its Boeing 757 and 767s modified by Cascade to operate as 'Pulse Detonation Engines' ('PDE') where incendiary material was concealed inside the passenger cabins, for example behind cabin panels or inside passenger seats, so the planes could be detonated in sequence on impact (or discovery) and mutate into 'bunker-busting' cluster bombs.

So not only were the buildings packed with explosives, but the airplanes as well.

Steve S.

 

[Belz...]

It also sounds like what the Loose Change forum is doing when they ban any dissent and questions in pursuit of their 'opressive, free-speech crushing gub'mint'.

Yes. That's the saddest thing about it.

If this doesn't sound like a survivalist extremist, I don't know what will.

Incredible. They actually believe that any and all skeptics actually work for the government ? Wonder what they say about the posters who AREN'T from the US. Bunch of gits.

TheQuest is quite a piece of work. And he claims to be in his 50s, not his teens. Of all the exchanges I've seen on any forum, this one from LC is my favorite (in response to complaints about TheQuest banning me).

That was indeed masterful on Chipmunk's part.

Chipmunk Stew's reply was deleted from the thread.

Was it ? Talk about promoting free speech.