The best 9-11 theory ever...

[Pirate Pete]

Ill just add this bit on Operation Northwoods i wrote up earlier and write the rest of my post tomorrow or later.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis high ranking US government officials needed a reason for US intervention into Cuba to remove the Soviet Missiles that were stationed there and to remove the pro Communist leader Fidel Castro. The ideas they came up with for gaining support from the public for US intervention were compiled into a report known as 'Operation Northwoods'. The document was released to the public in 1997 and i think i still have a copy of the PDF on my hard drive for anyone that wants it. The Bay of Pigs massacre was the remnants and what resulted from this think tank.

From Wikipedia:

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.

The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a collection of draft memoranda (PDF) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The document was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes.

The previously secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997 by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board [1], a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination. [2] [3] A total of about 1500 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.

"Appendix to Enclosure A" and "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" of the Northwoods document were first published online by the National Security Archive on November 6, 1998 in a joint venture with CNN as part of CNN's 1998 Cold War television documentary series[4]—specifically, as a documentation supplement to "Episode 10: Cuba," which aired on November 29, 1998. [5] "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" is the section of the document which contains the proposals to stage terrorist attacks.

Clearly you can understand that, although the operation was cancelled by Kennedy, the US administration is absolutely prepared to inflict murder and deception on its citizens in order to perform controversial moves that would otherwise not be supported by the public (also with AJAX).

[Knoxville]

Now I've made my point, and quite frankly I can't be bothered to fully read and reply to one of your posts. But on the subject of Hitlers rise to power.......

Now lets look at Hitler in 1933 storming to dictatorial power after the Reichstag burned down.

Quote:
The Nazi party did not hold a majority in the Reichstag so Hitler found it hard to pass laws as they had to be ratified by a majority. Hitler solved this problem by burning the Reichstag down. On 27 February 1933 The Reichstag was burnt down. Hitler blamed the event on the Communists by planting a Communist, Marianus van der Lubbe, in the Reichstag with matches and fire lighters in his pockets.

The Law for the Protection of the People and the State was a law that banned Communist and Socialist parties from taking part in elections. Hitler was able to pass this law through Hindenburg, using van der Lubbe as an excuse.

Until you've gone back and fully studied Hitlers rise to power I'd stop using that example as a basis for any intelligent argument.

In March 1933, elections were held and of course Hitler won a majority.

On 21 March 1933 the Reichstag was reopened in the Kroll Opera House. This allowed Hitler to pass an enabling law so he could govern the country on his own, with out the Reichstag's consent. This was only suppose to last four years. A two third was needed so Hitler arrested 81 communists and made deals with other parties. In the end the only party that opposed the motion was the social democrats.

First of all, do not say that the proof of this Reichstag false flag operation is not conclusive because it is so conclusive that there was even a question about it in my GCSE History paper when I took my GCSEs. You can see clearly that Hitler has used the problem that he has presented the Reichstag assembly, and more importantly the German people with to pass through laws (such as the enabling act, throwing away the Reichstag assembly) which they would otherwise have not allowed because it means the destruction of their freedom and the conversion of Germany from (in the 20s) the second most developed country in the world after the United States into a Fascist Police State. Totally destroying their freedoms and putting them on the war path into destruction.

First off while it is widely accepted that hitler was involved in the burning of the reichstag there is no conclusive proof beyond hearsay and the sketchy nature of the cover story. You miss huge chunks of History when you explain this purely to serve your own argument.

The reichstag WAS burnt down. A "communist" WAS blamed. You however fail to make any mentions of his rise to power, the S.A and countless other historical events that led to the events of WWII. Comparing Bush's behaviour over 9/11 and Hitlers burning of the reichstag is nothing but popular culture using sensationalism and history to attack the president, and while Bush is imo a bad leader, he's no Hitler. Hitler was far more intelligent for a start.

[Pirate Pete]

Well you missed my point entirely there and frankly i feel i have missed your 'point' as well, you didnt really back anything up now did you?

Im saying that its not impossible for this kind of thing to be taking place and i have provided many, many examples of it happening throughout history (for whatever reason) which you have not noted at all.

I am not trying to argue in that post. I am trying to explain what it is that the 'tin hat crowd' is really talking about as i feel there is alot of misunderstanding. People seem to think it is a paranoid fantasy but in fact it is well documented throughout history that this sort of thing is considered and carried out by governments all over the world.

Sorry if my explanation is hard to understand (perhaps it was due to my own mistake that you missed the point as i wasnt really making any...just proving that this sort of thing is happening). I just hope we can get away from the stupid arguements that i have often found people taking me into when i try and talk about this with people.

Perhaps someone could provide evidence in a similar style to mine that it WAS Osama Bin Laden and that there were 19 hijackers which took over the planes with box cutters - evidence which disproves any of the evidence i have supplied. At this point we can begin to have a real debate about the topic. Instead of people just nit picking at my posts and seemingly trying to bring my reputation and credibility down when i have clearly provided examples and evidence from the most trustworthy of sources. Note that i am not relying on a comedy one man army or two failed magicians taking the micky out of 'theorists' personalitys. I am attempting to get the bare bones of the arguement.

Let's see some evidence from wikipedia or other reliable sources to suggest it WAS who they said it was.

Please.

[MadduckUK]

Let's see some evidence from wikipedia or other reliable sources

hahaha, oh dear, you better be joking

[G4Z]

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html


Have a read tbh Pete.

[Rack]

The flaw I see in 'eliminating' this guy, is that his site - and sites like it - pose no real threat. There is no real evidence in it, it's easy to debunk, and it's stupid. Most of the argument is about a plane NOT crashing into the pentagon... why would you get real planes to crash into the towers, and then FAKE one crashing into the pentagon?

I just know, seeing how US governments and the CIA and FBI function historically, that it wouldn't surprise me if there were elements involved in the staging of it, but I seriously doubt they would really leave any evidence behind. They would make sure their asses were covered - ie by getting higher up people in an islamic group to organise it through exisiting contacts, and allowing it to happen easier, without getting directly involved. Both groups would get what they want - US government gets a frenzied population looking for security from above, Islamic Extremists kill lots of 'infidels'.

Bush started his presidency saying he would invade Iraq. The people behind him were looking for a reason to invade iraq from before election, and were surely involved in secret services before that. I just know it would have been real difficult if there wasn't already a build up of momentum. I'm sure there were lots of people waiting for promises of oil or contracts or whatever to be fulfilled. I guess what I find really disgusting is that the US economy is highly reliant on oil and weapons, and the government seems more than happy to keep both flowing at whatever cost to other countries. It really is a highly competitive nation.

I don't think any of the links here show any real evidence of anything other than that a lot of these 'consipracy' sites are crap, and lack any real insight or investigation. The people who are arguing against them however seem equally zealous in their mission to persecute these conspiracy nuts.

BTW PPete, the american polulation are not a great example of intelligent thinking or informed opinion. I just read a poll from a conservative paper in the US that 50% of people still think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction despite there never being any uncovered. It makes people feel warm and fuzzy at night to think their government saved them from the big bad dictator threatening from abroad.

[Pirate Pete]

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html


Have a read tbh Pete.

Are you kidding me G4Z? This was posted literally days ago. Is it just assumed that it is normal for either side of a debate to just ignore what each other have posted? That isnt what i would call a debate. Of course i had 'a read' of it. Ive read loads of other articles just like it and always found that they seem to attack the messenger more than actually attacking what the messenger is trying to say (this article is slightly different however). Now please read my lengthy post?

I am not debating Dylan Avery anymore - if you do not believe the stuff in loose change read some of the newspaper archives which he references in film. It is all documented. It should not just be up to Dylan to make a documentary like this so that people like you can pick tiny holes and insult his character. It should be up to you to do some personal research into the topic. Because if any shred of what he and many others is saying is the truth should it not demand your highest attention? I really dont think relying on someone else to argue for you or to inform you solely is a great way to go about things. I dont rely on the documentaries (as you can see from my post yesterday), i do my own research. Dylan Avery is not asking you to take what he is saying in Loose Change as gospel. He is asking you to do your own research into it before you dismiss it, just like he did.

What i am doing now is trying to clear up some of the misunderstanding that people are spewing about the 911 theory. This isnt about Loose Change for me (or the hundreds of other documentarys on the internet on the topic). This is about making people realise that this kind of thing is not only plausible but it is entirely possible for the US government to consider (see my post on Operation Northwoods and Operation Ajax and then look them up for yourself).

Bin Laden even said in 2001 that he had no involvement in it. As for the feds trying to cover the evidence up. They did a pretty good job of it, for example the illegal removal of the wreckage of the WTC (which should be classed as a crime scene) before any report on 911 was even out. Parts of it have ended up in China (i think, ill check this up).

[G4Z]

Pete,

While I agree with some of what you have said particularly about historical PRS and I do believe that the administration has taken full advantage in a similar manner. However as I see it there is no evidence to support the assertions made in LC and some of the videos like it. That site goes through the video point by point and absolutley destroys it imho.

When I first watched LC, I came away thinking, "wow that seems plausible" but when I gave it some more thought and read a few more views I came to understand that its very badly researched and far fetched. While it may be possible that on some level there is a govt conspiracy I really do not think that it is very obvious from the evidence available. If you look at the facts you simply have to come to the conclusion that :

1. A passenger plane hit the pentagon
2. both towers were struck and brought down by planes
3. WTC 7 was brought down from damage caused by falling debris.

Suggesting that somehow all of these events were staged is simply ludicrus given the evidence available.

Also Pete buddy, dont assume I didn't read what you posted, I did.

[Pirate Pete]

Pete,

While I agree with some of what you have said particularly about historical PRS and I do believe that the administration has taken full advantage in a similar manner. However as I see it there is no evidence to support the assertions made in LC and some of the videos like it. That site goes through the video point by point and absolutley destroys it imho.

When I first watched LC, I came away thinking, "wow that seems plausible" but when I gave it some more thought and read a few more views I came to understand that its very badly researched and far fetched. While it may be possible that on some level there is a govt conspiracy I really do not think that it is very obvious from the evidence available. If you look at the facts you simply have to come to the conclusion that :

1. A passenger plane hit the pentagon
2. both towers were struck and brought down by planes
3. WTC 7 was brought down from damage caused by falling debris.

Suggesting that somehow all of these events were staged is simply ludicrus given the evidence available.

Also Pete buddy, dont assume I didn't read what you posted, I did.

OK mate, i believe you did read my post i was just angry because i am the only one on this side of the arguement and no one seems to be reading what ive been saying - exceptionally frustrating. Sorry if i sounded accusative and offensive - i understand that you are taking this objectively and i thank you for that.

While i believe it hard to proove whether or not it was a passenger plane that hit the pentagon I do have evidence against the other 2 points you made.

I have come across a few key facts to support the idea that there were explosives in the buildings to help them come down.

First of all, the buildings were built (because of their size) to be able to withstand the strike and aftermath of an accidental hit by a plane:

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

Correct – the WTC Towers were designed to withstand forces caused by large commercial aircraft – we can agree on that.

According to media reports, the World Trade Center was designed to withstand an airplane crash. Why, then, did the two towers collapse?

The buildings indeed did withstand the airplane crashes. That is not a problem for skyscrapers, since the impact of an airplane is relatively small in comparison with strong wind loads. The situation becomes much more serious, however, when energy in the form of jet fuel is introduced into the building and released. Buildings cannot be made to resist that intensity of fire, heat, and burning. The World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crash, but rather as a result of the catastrophic effects of fire on this particular type of steel-tube construction, in which the outer walls carry the building loads while the core contains only service functions.

The expert here is saying that it was because of the fire and the heat that the towers came down. If this is the truth it would make them the first steel structures in human history to have been brought down by fire (assuming, like he says, that the initial plane crash did not add to the effect of the towers coming down....something i would have thought would have contributed). Also see HERE for another 'expert' talking about how the towers were designed to take the hit of a plane and its fuel.

You can look at examples of towers standing for at least 2 days even though they were burning throughout that time and still managed to stay standing. Such as THIS one in Madrid in 2005.

In that tower the firefighters could not put the fires out for 2 days due to the intense amounts of smoke filling the tower however it remained standing. This is unlike the WTC because fire fighters that survived that day say that they had put out the best part of the fires in the tower on the recordings that were released (i am ashamed to say i cant find links to these mp3s on the internet right now...but i will continue to look and update the post when i find them). The towers came down within hours of the fire breaking out even though firefighters claim they had put most of them out and the fire was contained to only one corner of each tower.

Also on the recordings and on interviews of the firemen after the attacks something comes out unilaterally from the fire fighters. They often say they heard explosions in the towers right before they came down. See THIS video download and THIS quicktime stream.

The first video shows the fire cheif reporting that there are devices planted in the building and that a secondary device may explode. Why would he be talking about this worry of something exploding if there was no detonations occuring in the towers to bring them down (of course, it is possible he is referring to the initial explosion from the plane...but why would he talk about it as a device and a secondary device?

The second video is a clip which has been played quite a lot. It shows a discussion with fire fighters at the end of the day about the manner in which the towers came down. It is possible that the 'popping out' they witnessed was the floors having a pancake effect on top of each other. If this was true however, why would they describe and imitate (with his hand) and explosion coming out of the limits of the building. The pancake effect would surely be contained within the structurally sound steel shell of the building?

Also see THIS transcript of an interview with a WTC worker mentioning:
'On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out.'

It is clear from these and other reports that there WERE other explosions in the buildings before they came down (whatever they may have been). This has never been properly investigated by the authorities.

Your claim that WTC7 was brought down by falling debris from the other towers can be easily debunked with THIS video of Larry Silverstein (the lease holder of the WTC complex).
He seems to think that, although the building was burning, he made the decisions to 'pull it'. 'Pull It' is a well known demolition term for bringing a building down safely with explosives. The VIDEO of the collapse of WTC7 backs up Silverstein's statement that they 'Pulled It' and that it was not debris which ultimately brought the tower down.

The point here is that once again this steel building was not brought down with fire. More importantly though, it is clear that there was advance knowledge or warning of the attacks literally weeks before the day. If you have ever watched a documentary on building demolition you would know it takes literally weeks of preparation to get a building ready to be 'pulled' in that safe, controlled free fall which we witnessed with WTC7. It can not be rigged in hours, that they had on the day - showing a severe descrepency in the official story if nothing else.

Silverstein's PR has later put out a statement that he meant 'Pull It' in that he wanted to pull the fire fighters out of the building and let the building burn on. Personally i think this is a ridiculous claim. It leads me to the obvious conclusion that the events of WTC7 if nothing else WERE staged or that there was prior knowledge

For more info about the prior knowledge idea look at the reports of senior corporation and government officials getting anonomous calls to not go into work on the day of 911.

I might come back and add some more to this post when i have found those mp3s (i dont think ill update my PRS one again however).

Pete

[G4Z]

While i believe it hard to proove whether or not it was a passenger plane that hit the pentagon I do have evidence against the other 2 points you made.

I have come across a few key facts to support the idea that there were explosives in the buildings to help them come down.

First of all, the buildings were built (because of their size) to be able to withstand the strike and aftermath of an accidental hit by a plane[/snip]
Pete

Ok I get where you are going with this, please see this link (From a very reputable site I may add.) : http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=4&c=y

The madrid fire and any other building fire in history were unlike WTC for one very big reason. All of those other fires were in skyscrapers constructed in grids, the WTC was the worlds first tubular structure, it had an inner core and an outer wall that supported the buildings. This had several advantages such as more office space and more flexible use of available space. It was designed to withstand a jet crashing into it and distribute the weight yes but it was designed for a 707 fully loaded with fuel not a 757. You also look over the fact that these buildings did survive the impact as they were intended too. It was down to the structural damage and half strength steel (due to heat) being acted on by thousands of tonnes of skyscraper above that caused it to fall.

WTC7 was far more badly damaged than it shows in LC, I have seen pictures of the damage that was caused when the second tower collapsed and I can well belive that building fell on its own. Oh and I should say that "pull it" in fire fighter circles means leave the thing to burn. The guy clarified in an interview later that he was taliking about the fire crews and as there were lots of fire crews about that day but no reported demolition teams I would have to say I belive him.


re : WTC7 : http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

And just because i thought you might find these pics interesting :

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue01...gart_intro.htm

[Bazzlad]

Bin Laden even said in 2001 that he had no involvement in it.

He obviously changed his mind.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Text_o...aden_videotape

[chuckskull]

And just because i thought you might find these pics interesting :

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue01...gart_intro.htm

Thank you for that link, some very powerful photographs, and taken by a man who gave his life to capture the event.

Back on topic. I tend to go with occums razor on conspiracy theories. I'm quite happy to believe, that a huge airplane travelling at 500mph and the resulting fire is enough to destroy a rather old skyscraper.

[Pirate Pete]

First of all sorry for my late reply, i forgot about the thread as i dont really look at hexus much anymore.

Whilst i have to admit that the evidence you have given about the physics of the whole thing is very compelling G4Z I also have to admit that i have been foolish in not studying the physics of the day in extreme depth.

The reason i never really looked deep into the physics was because on the first video about this i watched it talked about the melting points of steel and how the steel in the building could not possibly have melted because the burning temperature of kerosine does not match up. I have since then rather had the view that alot of the physics in the theories for and against is alot of junk physics, it just seems to me that there would be so many other factors contributing to the collapses that it would be very hard to come to an accurate conclusion through physics.
Therefore i have preferred to look at political evidence rather than physics. The links you gave have given a good starting point for me to look alot deeper into the physics and hopefully decide conclusively for myself against the idea that it was a false flag operation (because believe me i do not like having the suspicion).

However, the physics still do not explain the fire fighter and work men's statements about bombs going off in the towers prior to the collapse of the towers and wtc7. They do not also explain the countless other anomalies from the day.

I think we can at least agree that something very fishy was going on on that day and the weeks leading up to it (the stock market for instance) even if it wasnt what the theorists say it was.

Oh and Bazzlad take a look at THIS page and THIS page. THIS one also and THIS one.

Then look at THIS and THIS or even THIS and THIS. There are hundreds of other stories covering it but i really cant be arsed to do to the work you should be doing.

I personally think he will have denied it for one of three possible reasons.

1. He truely did not have any involvement whatsoever. He is being used as a scape-goat monster for the West to target in the pursuit of hidden agendas (perhaps oil and drugs). He feels he must get the truth out as a matter of global safety and faith, even though getting the truth out will by no means protect him. He has the might of the US and UK armed forces crushing down on him and not taking no for an answer. He still states the truth for the benifit of the world and not himself.

2. With his families ties to the Bush administration and the involvement with the CIA he is an asset. In this case he has been told to deny the attacks and to let on that he believes the same ideas as many of the 'conspiracy theorists' do. This will not only discredit the theorists (the enemy believes what they believe, therefore they ARE the enemy) but it will also make the West's public view him like a lyer and a coward. This will ultimately help in propaganda terms.

3. He is just a plain straight up coward. He denies the attacks in a last ditch attempt to save himself from being blown to pieces after he commited the most heinous of acts. This scenario just does not seem right. We have been told that Bin Laden is a true hero among his followers who will take all his most expensive possessions into a battle with him and is ready to accept death. We are told he is a killer and a man who is prepared to commit acts and fight anything that comes at him in response. This does not fit with his description.

[Bazzlad]

The links saying that Bin Ladens Tapes are false are not conclusive, also, how many "public speakers" did Saddam Hussain use? Does it mean the words aren't is? Do they not sound like they were written by the highly educated Bin Laden? I think so.

Maybe he's dead. When's the last time anyone saw him/heard from him?

I reckon he may have been killed in Afghanistan. The US wouldn't have delcared it, as it may start martyrdom and Al Quida wouldn't declare it either. Hence, perhaps, the fake tapes.

Either way, if you think 9-11 was set up, or we didn't walk on the moon, and believe the sites made by people with a LITTLE knowledge and not enough - the Steel burning is a perfect example - as is the "shadows are wrong on the moon" which was defuncted by top scientists, I worry for you. Governments do keep secrets and work on behalf of the people without their permission. Why? Because most people are thick, or do not have an understanding of the reaction a decision can make. Still. Saying that GWB had a great plan to fly a plane into the WTC just so he could start a war in Iraq is ridiculous. We had no WTC and no Terror attacks, and we still went to war. A bit of "suspect" intelligence is enough for that, the massacre of their own country folk is just a tad OTT.

[Pirate Pete]

The links saying that Bin Ladens Tapes are false are not conclusive, also, how many "public speakers" did Saddam Hussain use? Does it mean the words aren't is? Do they not sound like they were written by the highly educated Bin Laden? I think so.

Maybe he's dead. When's the last time anyone saw him/heard from him?

I reckon he may have been killed in Afghanistan. The US wouldn't have delcared it, as it may start martyrdom and Al Quida wouldn't declare it either. Hence, perhaps, the fake tapes.

Well, i would say that Swiss and Swedish scientists working as two seperate groups coming to the conclusion that the tapes are fake are as conclusive if not more conclusive than these 'top scientists' you talk of who defuncted the moon landing theories. Would you care to provide names or even articles about these scientists?

The point is that someone is lying to the west about the person the US and UK militarys are killing and chasing all over the middle east for. So what if the words on the tape sound like they have come from a highly educated person. How can you possibly use that as proof that the tapes are from Bin Ladens mouth (if you are admitting they are fakes and it isnt him in the tapes) without implying the whole of west are extremely undereducated people? Just because he says a few 'Jihads' here and there you absolutely cannot say that is proof it is from him. To say that would just be downright silly.

I REALLY do think the US would have declared it if they had killed him, or had proof that he had been killed. What about the declaration of Uday and Qusay, Zarqawi or Saddam Hussein? What you are saying just does not fit with their past record of announcing the capture or killing of the leaders they say want to kill us.

Lets not forget that we have interviews from at least two seperate middle east news groups quoting Bin Laden saying he had nothing to do with the attacks and that he feels it was someone who had a more personal agenda who was responsible. Then we have a series of tapes which are suspiciously 'left behind' by Al Qaida in villages and houses across the middle east for the coalition to just stumble across blindly. These tapes lets not forget also, have been prooved at least twice by seperate organisations (the CIA being the only group who prooved them not forgerys that i have found so far) to be a forgery. Bin Laden not appearing on them - a replica appearing.

Either way, if you think 9-11 was set up, or we didn't walk on the moon, and believe the sites made by people with a LITTLE knowledge and not enough - the Steel burning is a perfect example - as is the "shadows are wrong on the moon" which was defuncted by top scientists, I worry for you. Governments do keep secrets and work on behalf of the people without their permission. Why? Because most people are thick, or do not have an understanding of the reaction a decision can make. Still. Saying that GWB had a great plan to fly a plane into the WTC just so he could start a war in Iraq is ridiculous. We had no WTC and no Terror attacks, and we still went to war. A bit of "suspect" intelligence is enough for that, the massacre of their own country folk is just a tad OTT.

No i tend not to believe 'sites' made by people with little or no knowledge. I tend to piece together my own timeline and analysis from multiple sources as things happen. Unfortunately it sounds as though you just watch a BBC news report or read an article in The Sun and make up your mind from that.
I also listen to people who definitely do have knowledge of these things such as David Shayler, Micheal Meacher, Craig Murray and many many others who are often ex-CIA or MI5 or have held high ranking positions in the government and are likely to have a clear view of these things. Obviously i do not take what anyone says as gospel without further evidence to back their claims up but i certainly do not believe sites made by people who clearly have paranoid fantasys or little knowledge.

Governments do have to keep some secrets yes. But it is simply not good enough for them to be hiding secrets when it involves the killing and maiming of their own citizens followed by the butchering of thousands of people in other peaceful countries for oil, drugs, land, power whatever it is they want.

As for your statement about GWB having a plan to fly a plane into the WTC just so he could start a war being ridiculous...

I feel very insulted by this statement. You clearly have not read the examples i have given in previous posts of PRS scenarios. PLEASE go back and read the one on 'Operation Northwoods' if you do nothing else in this thread. You must understand that the American Government has considered the exact scenario of crashing planes and causing terror to start a war in the past and will obviously still take it as an option in the most extreme cases to push through their agenda. Please do not get tied up in the idea that people are saying it was George Bush who made this plan up. He is only a puppet. You only have to look behind the scenes a little bit to see Carl Rove and realise there are hundreds on top of Bush who are the ones for the most part pulling the strings.

Even if this agenda is ultimately for the protection of the countries people i am not going to stand for it. I am going to continue keeping my mind open and ultimately free so that i can research further and make clearer reasoned decisions about what i want to represent in my countries actions. What we are talking about here is mass murder to start even more mass murder - hardly moral now is it? Even if there is the slightest chance it holds ground it needs your upmost and undivided attention all the time.

A few months from now, many have been saying, there will likely be a new terrorist attack. This might be a dirty bomb under the Seers tower, a nuke in Hawaii even the destruction of tower bridge and the release of a small pox virus. It could be anything. We can see this coming from the prevention of supposed terror attacks waiting to happen. We can see that someone somewhere is planning an attack. Its only a matter of time until they are telling us 'well, we caught alot of them, but a few slipped through the net and killed thousands of our people. We need more of your rights to stop this happening again and we need to invade the country responsible'.

All i ask is that before you submit to your kings and queens into becoming yet more cannon fodder in Iran, Syria, North Korea wherever it is they take us next, you take a serious and open minded look into the pretext that set it off. Religious extremists do exist and there is a chance that it will be their doing. But remember the examples i have provided of state sponsored terrorism and think before we go head first into a third world war on a pack of lies.

If you still wont look into it for yourself and will continue to follow exactly what the mass media tells you is correct then i have to worry for YOU. You truely will have lost your human ability to undertake peception and reason at that point. It will be a sad day in the human species.

[Bazzlad]

Well, i would say that Swiss and Swedish scientists working as two seperate groups coming to the conclusion that the tapes are fake are as conclusive if not more conclusive than these 'top scientists' you talk of who defuncted the moon landing theories. Would you care to provide names or even articles about these scientists?

Yes, the university of Arizonas Jim Scotti for a start. I would spend time looking for the NASA scientist article, but to quote you:
"There are hundreds of other stories covering it but i really cant be arsed to do to the work you should be doing."

So. Go ahead. Research.

The point is that someone is lying to the west about the person the US and UK militarys are killing and chasing all over the middle east for. So what if the words on the tape sound like they have come from a highly educated person. How can you possibly use that as proof that the tapes are from Bin Ladens mouth (if you are admitting they are fakes and it isnt him in the tapes) without implying the whole of west are extremely undereducated people? Just because he says a few 'Jihads' here and there you absolutely cannot say that is proof it is from him. To say that would just be downright silly.

And yet I didn't. My personal belief that he's dead, and has been found and whoever found him hasn't declared it. Say he got bombed and killed, would Al Quida admit it? Hell no. It would damage their cause immensley. And it would explain the "fake" recordings, and the distinct lack of any new updates from him. With all that's going on, where is old big mouth lately? Exactly.

No i tend not to believe 'sites' made by people with little or no knowledge. I tend to piece together my own timeline and analysis from multiple sources as things happen. Unfortunately it sounds as though you just watch a BBC news report or read an article in The Sun and make up your mind from that.

Oh sorry Inspector Moorse. My mistake. I read articles written by intelligent people with thousands of pounds worth of sources and information and you obviously source your own, 100% pure, true, untainted by bias factual information to form your views. I image all the time you spend travelling to and from Afghanistan and the Whitehouse is tiring eh? My point is, you and your "multiple sources", "and own timeline" are still 100% fallible. And you've already proved your own anti-American bias, and I'm pretty sure you simply ignore all the proof to the contary. I mean a few posts ago you were telling me the heat that steel melts at, and, you were wrong.

Governments do have to keep some secrets yes. But it is simply not good enough for them to be hiding secrets when it involves the killing and maiming of their own citizens followed by the butchering of thousands of people in other peaceful countries for oil, drugs, land, power whatever it is they want.

Unfactual. Not backed up, sensationalist statement. Again showing your bias.

I feel very insulted by this statement. You clearly have not read the examples i have given in previous posts of PRS scenarios. PLEASE go back and read the one on 'Operation Northwoods' if you do nothing else in this thread. You must understand that the American Government has considered the exact scenario of crashing planes and causing terror to start a war in the past and will obviously still take it as an option in the most extreme cases to push through their agenda. Please do not get tied up in the idea that people are saying it was George Bush who made this plan up. He is only a puppet. You only have to look behind the scenes a little bit to see Carl Rove and realise there are hundreds on top of Bush who are the ones for the most part pulling the strings.

Bringing up the past, with past administrations is ridiculous.

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil.

Note three VERY important things.
1) 1962.
2) INCLUDING hijacked planes.
3) It didn't happen.

This is exactly why I hate conspiracy theorist. This document has no relevance to any argument. It's old as boat, it briefly mentions something which happened, the entire dicument was not about crashing planes into buildings and IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. IT WAS REJECTED EVEN in 1962, back then when Governments could get away with a lot more (due to smaller, controllable media). Absolutley ridiculous. You may as well state:
"We didn't land on the Moon cause the American Flag has ripples on it LOL."
It's equally as valid. 0%. Government shave a lot of plans like these, are own included. They don't get through. As proved by this.

The fact that you say this is proof because the government planned it is defuncted by me saying this is proof because the government rejected it. Stop seeing it one way.

Even if this agenda is ultimately for the protection of the countries people i am not going to stand for it. I am going to continue keeping my mind open and ultimately free so that i can research further and make clearer reasoned decisions about what i want to represent in my countries actions. What we are talking about here is mass murder to start even more mass murder - hardly moral now is it? Even if there is the slightest chance it holds ground it needs your upmost and undivided attention all the time.

Well you get your little picket of "enlightened people" and you fight the man. I won't waste my time because I realise, that like people who made the Fake Moon Landing theory, the people who go on about this are going to make a lot of money out of stupid people.

If you still wont look into it for yourself and will continue to follow exactly what the mass media tells you is correct then i have to worry for YOU. You truely will have lost your human ability to undertake peception and reason at that point. It will be a sad day in the human species.

Sorry my mistake. I'm stupid for following world news which has thousands of sources and leads, but put their own slight spin on it, compare to you - the enlightened one who can see things the rest of the world can't. I mean, Jeez. You the man. Keep on going Columbo you're just another "special" person in a world of sheep that follows the crowd. I mean. I believe everything I read. Except your posts.

PS:

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

Owned.