 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Real Truther wrote: | | Quote: | | Not that accusations of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigotry would really make much sense either; it would be like saying that any and all criticism of Israel is anti-Jewish. |
Actually Diane, it's different. People have legitimate reasons to criticize Israel. people do not have legitimate reasons to suspect Arab Muslims of participating in 9/11.
I would use the example of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If, without REAL evidence, I claim that in fact the Protocols are genuine and that the burden of proof is on those who say that the Jews of the world are NOT part of a big Jewish conspiracy, that would betray an anti-Jewish bias.
Similarly, people who, without any REAL evidence accept the OCT account of muslim arab hijackers betray an anti-arab muslim bias, whether it is their intent or not. |
There are some big differences here.
First, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion involves, as you say, a vast conspiracy of all or at least most of all the Jews of the world. On the other hand, the 9/11 OCT involves a conspiracy of just 19 young men plus a few other people. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by the very nature of its assertions, would, if true, reflect badly on all or most Jews, whereas the 9/11 OCT does not logically reflect badly on on Arabs in general or Muslims in general. It has indeed been used to trigger a worldwide reign of terror against Muslims, but that has not been a rational response.
Second, suicide bombers do exist in the Middle East. Do you deny the existence of any suicide bombers at all? If suicide bombers do exist, then it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that the CIA (or whoever) could have recruited some young men to act as patsies. Furthermore, doing the latter would have been logistically a lot simpler than fake passengers (with real relatives) and/or fake phone calls from real passengers. (Yes there's precedent for the idea of fake passengers in Operation Northwoods, but Operation Northwoods was never actually carried out, possibly, I suspect, because it would have been too Rube Goldberg-esque.) So I see no good logical reason to dismiss, out of hand, the hypothesis that genuine would-be terrorists were used as patsies.
However, if you feel that, by entertaining such a hypothesis, we are in effect endorsing anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigotry, then it is reasonable for you to call on us to do something to counteract (not just disclaim) anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigotry.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Keenan
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Location: N. California
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:58 am Post subject: Re: RT |
|
|
| johndoraemi wrote: |
| Quote: | "Actually Diane, it's different. People have legitimate reasons to criticize Israel. people do not have legitimate reasons to suspect Arab Muslims of participating in 9/11."
|
Then what were they doing here?
In flight schools?
|
John, why is it that you pretend to be impervious to understanding the concept (and very long history of use) of grooming patsies? Have you ever read about the whole JFK thing and how Lee Harvey Oswald was groomed for many years by the CIA and FBI, including sending him to the Soviet Union, buying his expensive airline ticket, having him renounce his American citizenship, having him allegedly give secrets about the U2 spyplane to the Soviets, then bringing him back to the US (and never charging him with violating State Secrets)?
John, I could recommend that you go back and do your homework, research the history of "false flag" operations and the ways in which corrupt and evil governments and other groups go about framing their enemies for things they didn't to, but devoloping highly sophisticated ways to make it look like they did, but somehow I don't think it would make a difference. You have already decided that you intend to stubbornly refuse to ever understand these concepts (or, more likely I think, PRETEND to). I think we might be dealing with a psychological issue here. Perhaps your psychiatrist could be of help, but at this point I don't know of anything else that could help you.
| johndoraemi wrote: |
You "know" it all RT, and Keenan apparently. You know it all.
Can't prove it. But you "know" it.
|
I hate to break it to you, John, but believe me, RT and I are not the only ones who consider people lilke you either inentionally ignorant, or a blatent pretender for claiming to not understand the evidence of a controlled demolition after being in the movement for several years and seeing all the evidence. Go ahead. Do a poll of 9/11 truthers on the issue. You know that 9 out of 10 would probably laugh in your face. You know it. Just admit it John.
Fact is, John, that you are now on record claiming that the OCT of fires causing the collapses of the WTC should be accepted and that those who believe in the controlled demolition explanation are people who engage in "highly speculative theories and are not credible".
Those are your words, John, and you can't take them back. You now have to live with it. Please don't cry when you realize that nobody (except a very small number of people in a couple of blogging forums who apparently are afflicted with similar, ahem, issues as you) will be able to take you seriously ever again.
Those are your words and you can't take them back.
You heard it here first, folks! John supports the OCT theory of the collapses as a viable expanation, while criticizing those who put forward the controlled demolition theory! Yes indeedy, folks, these are the amazing words of one John Doraemi, really and truly! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: Re: RT |
|
|
| Keenan wrote: | | johndoraemi wrote: |
| Quote: | "Actually Diane, it's different. People have legitimate reasons to criticize Israel. people do not have legitimate reasons to suspect Arab Muslims of participating in 9/11."
|
Then what were they doing here?
In flight schools?
|
John, why is it that you pretend to be impervious to understanding the concept (and very long history of use) of grooming patsies? |
I thought we were arguing over whether Arab Muslims were involved even as patsies. If you accept the possibility that they may have been involved as patsies, then what are we arguing about?
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
To quote my most recent addition to my paper:
| Quote: | The frequently inaccurate and misleading LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy is the embodiment of the debasement of language; a subversive attack against subtlety, critical thought, and reason. These terms effectively think our thoughts for us: “LIHOP is bad! MIHOP is good!” They are framed as if they were opposites while inaccurately concealing their precise meaning from us. More accurately, these terms are different shades of the same thing—not opposites. When these terms are inappropriately employed in misleading contexts and false paradigms they function as disinformation and misinformation—possibly as a deliberate part of the 9/11 cover-up.
As an example of evidence dismissed as "LIHOP", the article entitled ‘The LIHOP/MIHOP Distraction Continued’, by writer ‘Angie’ implies that we should dismiss the testimony of Sibel Edmonds because she is “limited hangout” or “LIHOP”:[35]
“[I’m] still wondering, who is still Lihop nowadays? [Taking] a look at 911truth.org, a site which places a premium on mainstream political correctness… is STILL LIHOP (including their mission statement)… From 911truth.org’s ‘breaking news and ongoing stories of special import’ link is Sibel Edmonds’ May 14th article. And to the right of that, a ton of Sibel links… [she] is not even LIHOP for 9/11, guys. Her hints consist of pointing fingers at unnamed corrupt gov't officials… REINFORCES the official story.”[36]
On the other hand, Webster Tarpley’s book includes a section on Sibel Edmonds as part of the “MIHOP” thesis—completely contradicting the “LIHOP” point of view as put forward by ‘Angie’ and others:
“Sibel Edmonds… worked as a translator for the FBI’s Washington field office… Edmonds’ letter provides another rare glimpse at how moles operate inside intelligence agencies to sabotage law enforcement and make sure that patsies are not rounded up or effective warnings given until it is too late… Edmonds also revealed a specific pre-9/11 warning on patsy activities which was simply ignored by the FBI, and then ignored again by the 9/11 commission… Edmonds goes on to mock the clichés about connecting the dots and sharing intelligence which are the stock in trade of the controlled corporate media. She points out that the Phoenix memo, the Minneapolis alarms, and the Sarshar material all converged in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington DC. The FBI had all that it needed to know that a large operation was afoot, which it could have disrupted by rolling up parts of the patsy network. But the FBI did nothing, and the 9/11 commission dropped the ball here as well.”[37]
Whereas Sibel Edmonds is dismissed as “LIHOP” by the writer ‘Angie’ and other 9/11 activists, Webster Tarpley embraces her as part of his “rogue network MIHOP” thesis. For these and many other reasons, not only are the LIHOP and MIHOP terms inaccurate, equivalent, and interchangeable while discussing many of the same types of evidence, they can be effectively used as misinformation and disinformation to falsely distort, devalue, and illegitimately discredit incriminating evidence, legitimate research, and valid areas of inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. |
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keenan
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Location: N. California
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: Re: RT |
|
|
| Diane wrote: |
I thought we were arguing over whether Arab Muslims were involved even as patsies. If you accept the possibility that they may have been involved as patsies, then what are we arguing about? |
The main argument is over whether or not there were any Arab Muslims involved in the 9/11 attacks, i.e., as hijackers. There is zero evidence that there were, but there is lots of stuff that points to the standard false flag ops "grooming of patsies" activities that are designed to make it LOOK like a certain target group carried out an attack which was actually carried out by the group(s) orchestrating the false flag op. In the JFK case, there is ZERO evidence that Oswald even fired a single shot, but all the grooming of Oswald before hand and planting of evidence was designed to make it LOOK like Oswald did it. So, the fact that someone was a patsy does not at all mean that they had any guilt in the crime they are being framed for. What John apparently doesn't understand is the ways in which patsies are groomed to make them appear as something they are not, or to have planned on carrying out something that they didn't. He claims to just take everything at face value regarding the alleged hijackers' activities and paper trails and that the false flag operators somehow couldn't possibly set things up ahead of time to provide false impressions.
Evidence of Arab Muslims being brought into the US through visa express programs set up for a limited time for use in a very special project in Saudi Arabia and given exemptions by superiors who were Bush Admin appointees that violated standard proceedures over the objections of local embassy staff who even pointed out that "they pose a terrorist threat", and then put in flight schools that were recently taken over by CIA, while behaving in ways (going to strip clubs, doing cocaine, etc.) that precludes the possibility that they could be "devout muslim suicide bombers", is not evidence that they were actually terrorists or were involved in any way in the attacks on 9/11. If there were any evidence that they were in the right airports and boarded the planes, I'm sure we would have seen it by now. There is no shortage of security cameras in airports, as everybody knows. But until I see evidence, just like is traditional in any criminal justice system in which people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, there is no reason for me to assume they were guilty rather than being simply set up as patsies who would be blamed after the operation was carried out by the orchestrators of the false flag op, which is they way things have been done historically.
It's important to be clear about the distinction between the term patsy and "being involved in a crime". They are not at all synonamous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoraemi
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:31 am Post subject: and on and on |
|
|
In addition to being a real asshole, Keenan, you up and create false quotes from me:
"highly speculative theories and are not credible".
If you are familiar with the standard practices here in the English language, you're supposed to quote the words verbatim when you put quotes around them and attribute them to someone else.
It's pretty obvious that you like to twist the meaning in order to demonize your opponent, and that what I have essentially argued is that YOU AND RT CANNOT PROVE YOUR BROAD SWEEPING CLAIMS. YET YOU BOTH CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT YOU HAVE.
In the absence of such proof, your inescapable conclusions are not in fact the only conclusiions that can be drawn. Your assumptions are not necessarily true.
Thus, you are not confined to "the truth" which was supposed to be the point of this "Truth Movement." (I guess I missed a meeting along the way.)
In fact you dogmatize your claims so that anyone who does not accept that you have proven your ideas becomes -- of course -- some sort of undercover agent or worse.
RT has shown this ideological obsession in his comments about Sibel Edmonds. You have shown similar ideological rigidity in your attacks on me.
I find you both irrational.
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A
Prosecution Trial Exhibits
Yes there is evidence.
You say they didn't hijack the planes.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
The fact that you lash out in such an infantile and despicable manner weighs upon your own credibilty.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tarpley cites this news article in his book, First Edition, page 97:
| Quote: | | P2OG AS OFFICIAL AGENTS PROVOCATEURS Newspaper readers may have not believed their eyes when they read the following story: WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2002 (UPI) -- The United States should create an elite group of counter-terror operatives to make the war on terrorism pre-emptive and proactive, duping al Qaida into undertaking operations it is not prepared for and thereby exposing its personnel, a Pentagon report advocating more than $7 billion in new spending will recommend. The counter-terror operations group alone would require 100 people and at least $100 million a year. Rather than simply trying to find and foil terrorists' plans -- the approach that characterizes the current strategy -- the "Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group" -- known as P2OG -- would devise ways to stimulate terrorists into responding or moving operations, possibly by stealing their money or tricking them with fake communications, according to the report. The group would be comprised of specialists in information operations, psychological operations, computer network attack, covert activities, signal intelligence, human intelligence, special operations forces and deception operations. The Defense Department already maintains a secretive counter-terror operations group known as Delta Force that is called in when a crisis happens; P2OG would focus its efforts on preventing those crises from even occurring in the first place. |
| Webster Tarpley wrote: | | The starting point for this operation appears to be Rumsfeld, who said in May 2002: "Prevention and preemption are ... the only defense against terrorism. Our task is to find and destroy the enemy before they strike us." This is plainly a proposal for the creation of de facto terror cells under the authority of the Pentagon. If the goal is to provoke terror, there is nothing to prevent P2OG from infiltrating agents into existing terror groups, or creating its own terror groups, with the mission of causing those groups to engage in specific terrorist attacks. There is no form of supervision or oversight which could ever guarantee that abuses of this type would not take place; they would be inherent in the design of the project itself. Indeed, just the fact that the project outline exists strongly suggests that P2OG also exists, and has presumably been at work. |
In other words, Tarpley makes the argument that the patsies are not merely patsies... they are patsies controlled and owned by the Pentagon. The fact that they trained on US military bases only reinforces this idea.
As Tarpley says:
| Quote: |
Al Qaeda and its best-known leader Bin Laden would not exist without the help of the United States, which created them for use against the USSR in Afghanistan, and which continues to support them until this day. At various times, the US Special Forces have been Bin Laden’s valets; the State Department has acted as his defense counsel and his travel bureau, and the CIA has furnished his public relations advisors and his preferred health plan; the British government has acted as his Human Resources department to recruit new personnel. |
More from Tarpley's "“rogue network MIHOP”" book:
| Quote: | | It is thus clear that the CIA was providing vital support services to Bin Laden long after he had allegedly turned into the world’s leading anti-American monster. The reality is that Bin Laden and al Qaeda have never stopped serving the CIA strategic agenda, whatever that happened to be. As Thierry Meyssan writes, “In reality, the CIA continued to have recourse to Osama Bin Laden’s services against Russian influence as it had done against the Soviets. You don’t change a winning team. The ‘Arab Legion’ of Al Qaeda was used, in 1999, to support the Kosovar rebels against the dictatorship in Belgrade. It was also operational in Chechenya, at least until November 2001, as was attested to by the New York Times. (Michael Wines, December 9, 2001) The alleged hostility of Bin Laden against the United States permitted Washington to deny responsibility for these dirty operations.” (Meyssan 2002 106-7) |
Ooops. I thought talking about the patsies was LIHOP!! What the hell is going on here [read my paper for the answer to that question]!!? MIHOP and LIHOP mean nothing AND everything and even BOTH all at the same time--depending on how you frame them.
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
Last edited by Arabesque on Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:56 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keenan
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Location: N. California
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: Re: and on and on |
|
|
| johndoraemi wrote: |
Thus, you are not confined to "the truth" which was supposed to be the point of this "Truth Movement." (I guess I missed a meeting along the way.)
|
Yea, John, this is supposed to be the "Truth Movement", not the "half truth movement" or the "coddle all those who can't break out of their denial (or pretend like they can't) movement". We're not here to humor any and all opinions when those opinions cross the line of the laws of physics, basic common sense, and honesty. I am not obliged to agree to some BS "unity" attempt when it involves discarding common sense (or honesty) around the well-proven and consensed upon controlled demolition of the WTC, which is also the STRONGEST LEG OF THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AND WAKES MORE PEOPLE UP THAN ANY OTHER ASPECT OF 9/11 TRUTH. It's not hard to ascertain the true agenda of those who would try to nock this leg out from under our truth movement and in the process vector all of our hard work and energy into a black hole. Paleese John, your agenda is showing. 
| johndoraemi wrote: |
I find you both irrational.
|
Let's see, someone who is attempting to argue that there is no proof of controlled demolition and that those who support CD are engaging in unproven and speculative theories wants to point the finger at someone else for being irrational?  Yea. That's a good one, John. You're a riot!
| johndoraemi wrote: | | The fact that you lash out in such an infantile and despicable manner weighs upon your own credibilty. |
Credibility? Now you want to talk about credibility? See the above comment. 'Nuf said.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keenan
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Location: N. California
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:08 am Post subject: Re: and on and on |
|
|
| johndoraemi wrote: | In addition to being a real asshole, Keenan, you up and create false quotes from me:
"highly speculative theories and are not credible".
If you are familiar with the standard practices here in the English language, you're supposed to quote the words verbatim when you put quotes around them and attribute them to someone else. |
Well, as far as the a-word, I could say the same about you. But regarding the quotes, sorry, it wasn't an exact quote but was, nevertheless, an accurate representation of your position. So, in the future, when I mention that John Doraemi argues that those who support the CD theory are engaging in highly speculative theories and are not credible, I will not put quotes around it. Happy?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoraemi
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:21 am Post subject: Not really "happy" |
|
|
Some around here consider you, Keenan, a provocateur.
I'm not actually one of them.
I just consider you a moron.
I think deep down you know what I'm saying, but you are too twisted up mentally to accept any disagreement on your interpretation of the facts. Others agree with you, so that bolsters your confidence, lets you escape from the need to examine your own beliefs and belief system.
And I wish you'd stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're not very good at it, and you come off very vindictive, petty and juvenile.
Controlled demolition in NY: Not proven. Possible, even likely perhaps (which means more than 50% probable in my view). Not a fact, not proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you're going to attack me for my honest opinions and continue to claim I have some "agenda", I really am going to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Hijackers: Already stated repeatedly -- not enough evidence to prove one way or the other. Any speculation based on inconclusive evidence is just that: inconclusive.
Pretending an unprovable claim is a fact and attacking anyone who disagrees is both irrational and delusional.
I'm not joining any 9/11 Irrationality and Delusion Movement.
If some of these words are too big, and you don't know what I'm talking about, please refer to dictionary.com.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
Last edited by johndoraemi on Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrisc
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1169
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: and on and on |
|
|
| Keenan wrote: | | Credibility? Now you want to talk about credibility? |
This is a good thread to talk about credibility on: Laura Knight Jadczyk's Cassiopaea Cult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nicholas
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 373
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JohnD,
In my view you're already dominating in a fight against opponents far below your weight class. I recommend you don't spit on them when they're down flat on the mat, don't call vulgar names, don't provoke or be provoked personally. It's not about some false sense of propriety - it's about not poisoning the atmosphere for everyone else who wants to be involved in a discourse that revolves exclusively around our differing takes on the logic and the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I sorta straddle the fence on this issue. I agree with Arabesque that the terms “LIHOP” and “MIHOP” don’t make much sense to begin with and should probably be abandoned. As far as I can see they achieved popular usage through the likes of Webster Tarpley and Nico Haupt, never a good sign. They were either designed as a divide and conquer mechanism or as a means of inflating Tarpley’s ego at the expense of Mike Ruppert.
Still, it annoys me to no end when people like Sander Hicks insist on referring to “the hijackers” – rather than alleged hijackers, for instance. Given the dearth of evidence supporting the notion that Atta and company were even on the planes, as well as the abundance of circumstantial evidence indicating that a frame up occurred, it seems not only irresponsible but dishonest to pretend as though the OFT is accurate on this score. Mueller himself stated that their identities were in doubt, which itself is an amazing admission and talking point, arguably better than all of the “foreknowledge” evidence combined.
It makes no sense to me why an alleged wire transfer is deemed by some to be more important than, say, Atta’s appearance on Jack Abramoff’s casino boat one week before 911, or his relationship with Wolfgang Bohringer, or his penchant for pork chops, lap dances and coke. And let’s be honest, the frame-up is an insult to our intelligence. Jerry Mazza wrote a good piece on the subject called “False Flagg” op called Rosetta Stone of 9/11. Here’s an excerpt:
| Quote: | You know. A false flag op is when a nation attacks itself but makes it appear that an enemy has committed the attack. This way it stirs its more or less peace-loving people into going to war with the demonized “enemy.” It’s false flag ops 1.1.
And Flagg is not a misspelling of flag but the name of a former FBI agent, Warren Flagg who (along with a former federal prosecutor) helped direct the New England investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Flagg was nice enough in a Newsday.com piece by Michael Dorman to mention that “one bag found in Boston contained far more than what the commission report cited, including the names of the hijackers, their assignments and their al-Qaida connections.” Gee, what luck!
How wonderfully thoughtful of the hijackers to leave what Flagg termed this “Rosetta stone” behind so everything could be figured out so quickly and with such ease. You have to admit that was white of those dusky Mid-Easterners. One of the pieces of luggage was said to include “Arab-language papers amounting to Atta’s last will and testament, along with instructions to the other hijackers to prepare themselves physically and spiritually for death.” Boy, this Atta guy thought of everything. But why go blabbing it all in two suitcases? He was supposed to be a terrorist not a PR man.
And if that weren’t enough, Mohamed Attta, purportedly the leader of the gang of 19, and who purportedly piloted Flight 11 into Tower 1, reminded the guys: “Check all of your items — your bag, your clothes, knives, your will, your Ids, your passport, your papers. . . . Make sure that nobody is following you.” Then, by another amazing coincidence, similar papers were found in the wreckage of another airliner.
In still another coincidence, slugabed Atta and co-conspirator Abuldaziz AlAlmorai checked out of room 232 of the Comfort Inn south of Portland at 5:33 a.m. on 9/11, driving their rented blue Nissan Altima to the airport, arriving in a lot at 6 a.m. with only a few minutes to catch a commuter flight to Boston’s Logan Airport. In fact, their last-minute check-in caused their two bags not to make that flight. What? Yes, start the day with a screw-up and it ends in disaster. Or did it, at least for them?
I mean, as they go off to catch their later American Airlines Flight 11, their bags (or should we call them Baggs to rhyme with Flaggs?) came late to Logan and, ëmirable dictu’ as Virgil would say, were discovered by the right security people. What’s more, Atta and Almari’s bags had all kinds of goodies in them: correspondence from the University Atta went to in Egypt, Almari’s international driver’s license and passport, a videocassette for a Boeing 757 flight simulator, a folding knife and pepper spray, extra heavy duty weapons they figured they didn’t need.
As agent Flagg would say, “It had all these Arab-language papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation.” His sidekick, a former federal prosecutor, who did not wish to be identified publicly (and who could blame him?), certainly supported Flagg’s account. Aren’t you wondering by now why these “turrists” would want to lug their plans, scams, IDs et al, in a couple of bags and dump them in a last minute check-in? Generally, a gate attendant will tell you if your baggage will make your flight or land on a later one. This means you’d be leaving all this heavy-duty info spinning in the wind.
I mean, did Dillinger leave his home address in a bank safe he busted into? Did Al Capone leave a box of chocolates with a card with his name on it at the “Valentine Day” massacre in Chicago? Did John Gotti leave a calling card on Paul Castellano’s bullet riddled body after the dapper don and buddy popped the Gambino crime family boss and chauffeur in front of Spark’s Steak House in Manhattan? C’mon, you’re pulling my leg.
I mean what kind of malefactors would be that stupid, unless they were setting up a false-flag op? Like, “see, everybody we’re the guys that did it, 9/11; we are Arabs, see the writing; hey, here’s a knife, some maps, a CD to fly a 757; hello, don’t look so hard. We give up, ha-ha, but we’ll be dead by the time you read this. And so will some 2,900 people. So you can blame The War on Terror on us as soon as possible, ASAP. Right. Here are the clues.” It’s like Catch Us If Can, the ultimate reality TV show. Oh god, why has thou forsaken us. Cause we’re so dumb. |
Of course, there were plenty of other clues as to the likelihood of a frame-up, including a certain phone call to the authories shortly after the attacks:
“The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here's the transcript from NBC News:
Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab. (
It doesn’t take Inspector Morse to deduce what was going on there. And that’s another thing: for all the obsession over “foreknowledge” by people often accused of being “LIHOPPers”, why is it that the single most damning piece of foreknowledge – three men filming the event and shouting in joy – is studiously ignored? (or at least downplayed in favor of other, significantly less incriminating signs of foreknowledge which seem to subtly reinforce the OFT)? I don’t think I need to answer that question. It starts with a Z and ends with an M.
The point is that there are legitimate beefs here by people who (in my experience) tend to throw around the term “LIHOP”. Doesn’t mean the term is accurate or that we should be pigeonholing people into these cute little categories, but there’s a reason for the dissenting opinions.
On the subject of controlled demolition, it has indeed been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If we’re looking for 100% certainty we’ll need to find another universe to inhabit. Them buildings were done blowed up. They are ground zero not only in terms of location but in terms of the starting off point for our investigation. Every other piece of alleged evidence needs to be examined in light of the explosives placed in the WTC buildings. You don’t begin an investigation by focusing on the weakest or most ambiguous piece of evidence. You start with the strongest (in this case the laws of physics) and go from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danse wrote: | | Still, it annoys me to no end when people like Sander Hicks insist on referring to “the hijackers” – rather than alleged hijackers, for instance. Given the dearth of evidence supporting the notion that Atta and company were even on the planes, as well as the abundance of circumstantial evidence indicating that a frame up occurred, it seems not only irresponsible but dishonest to pretend as though the OFT is accurate on this score. Mueller himself stated that their identities were in doubt, which itself is an amazing admission and talking point, arguably better than all of the “foreknowledge” evidence combined. |
You have a good point here that we should be referring to "the alleged hijackers" rather than "the hijackers," and that it's a good idea to encourage doubt of the OCT on that point.
But it's another matter to insist that the 9/11 Truth movement should have "zero tolerance" for people who haven't yet gotten around to questioning that particular part of the OCT.
I personally have not yet investigated this whole issue of the hijackers in detail. But my prima facie impression is that the use of live human hijackers (possibly not the exact same people who were posthumously accused of being the hijackers) would have been logistically a lot simpler than the alternatives, requiring either fake passengers or fake phone calls from real passengers.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diane wrote: | | Danse wrote: | | Still, it annoys me to no end when people like Sander Hicks insist on referring to “the hijackers” – rather than alleged hijackers, for instance. Given the dearth of evidence supporting the notion that Atta and company were even on the planes, as well as the abundance of circumstantial evidence indicating that a frame up occurred, it seems not only irresponsible but dishonest to pretend as though the OFT is accurate on this score. Mueller himself stated that their identities were in doubt, which itself is an amazing admission and talking point, arguably better than all of the “foreknowledge” evidence combined. |
You have a good point here that we should be referring to "the alleged hijackers" rather than "the hijackers," and that it's a good idea to encourage doubt of the OCT on that point.
But it's another matter to insist that the 9/11 Truth movement should have "zero tolerance" for people who haven't yet gotten around to questioning that particular part of the OCT.
I personally have not yet investigated this whole issue of the hijackers in detail. But my prima facie impression is that the use of live human hijackers (possibly not the exact same people who were posthumously accused of being the hijackers) would have been logistically a lot simpler than the alternatives, requiring either fake passengers or fake phone calls from real passengers. |
I agree and that's really part of the issue here. For some, they haven't researched the evidence as much as others. That should be intuitively understood. So for some, it's obvious that hijackers were not involved, and for those who believe the official story--they haven't got that far yet.
The terms are mostly used to frame the debate towards what people THINK rather than what happened. Now, opinions are only worth so much. If you are trying to force an opinion on someone, you will rarely be successful unless you back it up with an actual argument.
MIHOP and LIHOP avoid making an argument when they are undefined. Now, if you HAVE to define them for them to mean anything, why use them? Why not use accurate language instead? They are just assertions without support by definition.
If you are using them to make over-generalized and inaccurate characterizations of what happened based on opinion, that's fine if it's understood--but frequently it's not understood. But when opinions are attacked without attempts to make arguments about the facts, that's entirely different. What happened is different from what many think happened, and making a real debate with arguments--not assertions or misleading binary labels about what happened is actually useful and constructive. Reality is more complicated, so why not use accurate language?
| Jeff Wells wrote: | | “Binary thinking is a mind cancer that retards insight, and unfortunately flourishes in conspiracy culture. ‘The beginning of wisdom,’ said Terrence McKenna, ‘is our ability to accept an inherent messiness in our explanation of what's going on.’” |
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
