911 Truth Movement

[tigertim]

1) That's absurd. How is precedent in planning evidence against it possibly reoccuring?

2) 50 years later. How was this proposed operation even remotely "p!ssant"?

3) Northwoods involved faking attacks. 9/11 potentially only involved aiding a discovered plot to succeed. 9/11 need not have been an overly complex procedure. Far less so at least than faking a hijacking or bombing using US personnel.

How does 911 not have to be an overly complex procedure? With so many theories being bandied about the amount of people "in the know" would number 100s if not 1000s.

There's no disputing Northwoods and its abhorrent suggestion but it and 911 have no connection (let alone proof) other than the implied.

 

[tigersnake]

Agree on JFK. Also agree on the gaping maw of the chasm of difference between Northwoods and 911. The first assumption that I don't think holds any water seems to me to be that there is some kind of amorphous time-invariant general "thing" that is the Joint Chiefs, that allows us to equate the independent thoughts and motivations of two groups of vastly different people. Without this I can't see how anyone can draw a line between the two? Are there any current members of the Joint Chiefs that were also members when "Northwoods" was proposed?

Very good point. I reckon the book detailing the political machinations leading to the northwoods conspiracy proposal would make for very interesting reading, if it exists.

 

[Rosy]

If you're steppng over people amongst smoke soot and ruin and told not to look down, I really don't think it's a huge assumption to think those people are either dead or badly injured do you?

Assumptions aren't facts. You can put any slant on things you want to with assumptions. There's a bit of that going on here. Jennings had the opportunity to clarify there were dead bodies when he did the interview about pulling his content from Loose Change. He in no way indicated there were but it's still convenient for people to assume what he meant.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Assumptions aren't facts. You can put any slant on things you want to with assumptions. There's a bit of that going on here. Jennings had the opportunity to clarify there were dead bodies when he did the interview about pulling his content from Loose Change. He in no way indicated there were but it's still convenient for people to assume what he meant.

I might have failed to keep up with this bit of the conversation Rosy, perhaps you can help? What is the significance of the bodies in terms of whether the building was a set-up or fell through natural processes?

 

[Rosy]

I might have failed to keep up with this bit of the conversation Rosy, perhaps you can help? What is the significance of the bodies in terms of whether the building was a set-up or fell through natural processes?

Wouldn't have a clue. The relevance for me is that people use them as a means of supporting conspiracy theories. For example it was claimed there were no deaths in the building but some are trying to paint a picture, with no evidence whatsoever, that there obviously were.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Wouldn't have a clue. The relevance for me is that people use them as a means of supporting conspiracy theories. For example it was claimed there were no deaths in the building but some are trying to paint a picture, with no evidence whatsoever, that there obviously were.

Like much of the reasoning I find this one hard to figure. What was the benefit of demolishing WTC 7? If it was all part of the same plot, why try to kill as many as possible with the planes and WTC 1 & 2 and then evacuate WTC 7? Why rig it to blow at all? It would look pretty suss if neither tower did any damage and then WTC 7 fell perfectly 7 hours later? Why not rig it to blow haphazardly rather than like a perfect demolition?

These are really rhetorical questions Rosy, I don't expect you to have the answers. It just seems so far-fetched to me, and I still can't figure out why Jennings's recollections are taken to have so much meaning. I can't imagine how I would react in that situation but surely we can make a few assumptions from at least one of his statements, the one where he didn't know whether he was standing on the floor below or hanging from the one above. That suggests to me he was in a very stressful and chaotic situation and state of mind doesn't it? Which is to be expected I would have thought. So while his recollection may be useful, mightn't it also contain a lot of contradictions based just on adrenalin and heightened fear, survival, animal instincts?

 

[Disco08]

Assumptions aren't facts. You can put any slant on things you want to with assumptions. There's a bit of that going on here. Jennings had the opportunity to clarify there were dead bodies when he did the interview about pulling his content from Loose Change. He in no way indicated there were but it's still convenient for people to assume what he meant.

I didn't say assumptions are facts.

This is flogging a dead horse. Either way it's a moot point.

How does 911 not have to be an overly complex procedure? With so many theories being bandied about the amount of people "in the know" would number 100s if not 1000s.

There's no disputing Northwoods and its abhorrent suggestion but it and 911 have no connection (let alone proof) other than the implied.

I'm only suggesting a precedent as a counter to the "too big a conspiracy" argument.

The 9/11 plot, at its simplest, needn't involve more people that those that were aware of the Northwoods plan. All the power is there to aid the attacks through to success. They didn't need to supply roleplayers as Northwoods obviously would have. Just because there are a lot of theories doesn't mean they all need to be included in every proposed conspiracy theory.

Even if he did step over dead bodies, what is the significance of this? Moreover, what is the significance of suppossed explosions heard hours prior to the building falling?

AFAICT demolition exploisions are timed to all go off within seconds of each other... then the building falls. That's kinda the point of them.

I don't know the point of them. Does that mean I (and everyone else) should ignore them?

I don't know the significance of the dead bodies either. I'm not sure I ever mentioned them untl Jenning's retraction was painted as proof of the dishonest nature of all conspiracy theorists.

Very good point. I reckon the book detailing the political machinations leading to the northwoods conspiracy proposal would make for very interesting reading, if it exists.

No one's using Northwoods to prove anything further than the possibility. This is only to counter the assertion that the conspiracy is too complex and/or the thought of US officials plotting to kill their own citizens too far fetched.

1) if you can't see the logic, I can't make you. I can see yours.
2)Compared to 9/11 the proposal was p!ssant. I'll argue that all day long. Again, the Pres of the US couldn't even conspire with a few right-hand men to do a burg.
3) See the previous 50 pages.

Again, I challenge anyone who believes in a 9/11 conspiracy to read 'All the President's Men'. Amazing insight into the inner workings of the Nixon Presidency, and by extension US power, how conspiracies can emerge and evolve, almost by themselves, how even a small apparently simple and small conspiracy was quickly found out due to the inevitable loose lips, jealousies and egos. This is a very important, not to mention gripping, book to place this debate in its wider context. But, too much like hard work maybe, you can google sh!t after all.

1) Fair enough. I'm trying to see it FWIW.

2) Have you read the full extent of the proposals?

3) Again, just because there are a lot of theories does not mean all conspiracies need to be complex.

I've seen the film. Is the book that much more educational?

 

[tigertim]

"I am constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 911 when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies for war and mass fraud"

Says wiki leaks founder Julian Assange. Now I know he,s not the arbitrator of all truth and uncovering conspiracies but you'd think if there was some proof of a conspiracy he'd be on it.

Of course because he doesn't support "truthers" the "truthers" have claimed he's benn nobbled by the CIA. :

 

[Rosy]

I didn't say assumptions are facts.

This is flogging a dead horse. Either way it's a moot point.

Yep the facts comment in regard to assumptions was my response to the question you asked me.

There's a lot of dead horse flogging on here imo. Same could probably be said about a lot of the claims used to support conspiracy theories.

 

[Disco08]

Yeah, I agree with that in quite a few instances.

Do you think there's any merit in the 9/11 truth movement?

 

[Disco08]

"I am constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 911 when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies for war and mass fraud"

Says wiki leaks founder Julian Assange. Now I know he,s not the arbitrator of all truth and uncovering conspiracies but you'd think if there was some proof of a conspiracy he'd be on it.

Of course because he doesn't support "truthers" the "truthers" have claimed he's benn nobbled by the CIA. :

Here's an interesting related article from Pakistan.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=64803

How much info relating to 9/11 has wikileaks released (anyone)?

 

[Rosy]

Yeah, I agree with that in quite a few instances.

Do you think there's any merit in the 9/11 truth movement?

I don't know much about them to be honest. I've more been responding to comments on this thread. If what I've seen and read about Loose Change, and the conspiracy support on this thread, typifies them I doubt I'd see a lot of merit. Not really qualified to judge though.

 

[Disco08]

If you're interested then ae911truth.org, st911.org, firefightersfor911truth.org and pilotsfor911truth.org are good places to start.

 

[tigertim]

Here's an interesting related article from Pakistan.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=64803

How much info relating to 9/11 has wikileaks released (anyone)?

500,000 electronic transactions in the 24 hr period of September 11.

 

[Rosy]

Thanks for that. I probably won't bother though, other than a quick squiz to see if they are balanced discussions. For every claim there there seems to be a counter claim from other groups. Too many conspiracys and misinterpretations around for me. I have no real concerns. I believe the incidents were acts of terrorism. I don't for one second believe the USA Govt masterminded the attacks and sacrificed so many innocent citizens. I suspect there were some cover-ups and we haven't heard the full story. I don't think that's the kind of info, considering the sensitive nature, that any enquiry will ever uncover. I don't really think it should. Not one post on this thread has done anything to convince me otherwise, in fact probably more the opposite.

 

[Willo]

Here's an interesting related article from Pakistan.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=64803

How much info relating to 9/11 has wikileaks released (anyone)?

So another conspiracy is that the US government was in possession of knowledge of vast mineral resources in Afghanstan and they didn't want China to get their mitts on them, so 9/11 was their excuse to invade and topple the Taliban and get OBL. hmmm

 

[Disco08]

Thanks for that. I probably won't bother though, other than a quick squiz to see if they are balanced discussions. For every claim there there seems to be a counter claim from other groups. Too many conspiracys and misinterpretations around for me. I have no real concerns. I believe the incidents were acts of terrorism. I don't for one second believe the USA Govt masterminded the attacks and sacrificed so many innocent citizens. I suspect there were some cover-ups and we haven't heard the full story. I don't think that's the kind of info, considering the sensitive nature, that any enquiry will ever uncover. I don't really think it should. Not one post on this thread has done anything to convince me otherwise, in fact probably more the opposite.

Fair enough. I'm amazed that some of the facts I've posted could have that effect on you, but there you go.

At least you admit to not caring about getting a balanced viewpoint to form your opinion. Good on you for that.

 

[Disco08]

So another conspiracy is that the US government was in possession of knowledge of vast mineral resources in Afghanstan and they didn't want China to get their mitts on them, so 9/11 was their excuse to invade and topple the Taliban and get OBL. hmmm

$1 trillion worth of deposits is quite significant. I didn't read the links to all the uncovered documents but it's an interesting angle I'd never come accross. Good on wikileaks for digging it up.

 

[Willo]

Well I must say that some of points raised have been thought provoking and made me do some research on some of it.
While there have been some good arguments put forward, I still think it was a terrorist attack.
There may have been some cover-ups, more due to the state of readiness to deal with such a horrific event and the ineptness before and after such an event, imo. But as I said, thought provoking.

$1 trillion worth of deposits is quite significant. I didn't read the links to all the uncovered documents but it's an interesting angle I'd never come accross. Good on wikileaks for digging it up.

I wonder how much the war (or both wars) have cost to date in lives lost and financially. Big cost, not much return. Not sure whether $1 trillion is so relevant or was it to stop the Chinese "industrial expansion"
I found this estimate of the Cost

Maybe it's more strategic than financial gain.

 

[Disco08]

Yeah, who knows mate? Certainly could also be the US wouldn't have been too happy to have Afghanistan as the new Saudi Arabia.

Here's a good article including compelling evidence that the US deliberately invented events and suppressed evidence regarding the supposed attack on US warships by North Vietnamese torpedo boats - otherwise known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964). The US, under Lyndon Johnson, used this as a platform to invade Vietnam, an action which eventually cost millions of innocent people their lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics/02tonkin.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&