PERB In Need of Banner

The Obama Deception: Alex Jones

wess

New member
Jan 5, 2009
614
2
0
Tsunami caused by Israel!!!!

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - The earthquake that caused tidal waves to slam into the coast of Southeast Asia, killing at least 145,000 people, could have been the result of joint American, Israeli and Indian underwater weapons testing, an Egyptian weekly and other Arab media charged.

The earthquake struck along a known fault line deep beneath the surface of the Indian Ocean on December 26, generating 30-foot swells of water that engulfed resort areas and entire villages along the coasts of Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and India.

But in the Middle East, where some prominent figures still accuse the Israeli secret service of perpetrating the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S., conspiracy theories about the tsunami disaster are taking root.

The Egyptian nationalist weekly Al-Usbu' accused the U.S., Israel and India of carrying out nuclear testing that may have cased the tsunami. Those nations were testing "how to liquidate humanity," the newspaper said.

"Was [the earthquake] caused by American, Israeli, and Indian nuclear testing on 'the day of horror?' Why did the 'Ring of Fire' explode?" Mahmoud Bakri asked in his "investigative" piece published in the weekly on January 1.

"According to researchers' estimates, there are two possible [explanations] for what happened. The first is a natural, divine move, because the region is in the 'Ring of Fire,' a region subject to this destructive type of earthquakes," Bakri wrote according to a translation of the article provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute on Friday.

"The second possibility is that it was some kind of human intervention that destabilized the tectonic plates, an intervention that is caused only in nuclear experiments and explosions," he said.

The India Daily voiced similar sentiments in its December 29 posting but blamed the earthquake on the testing of an eco-weapon by its own government.

Al-Jazeera.com reports that many point the "finger of blame," not at Mother nature, but at "government cover-ups, top secret military testing in the waters of the Indian Ocean and even aliens attempting to correct Earth's 'wobbly' rotation."

But the most popular theory, it says, is that the Indian and U.S. military are the "main cause of the disaster by testing eco-weapons, which use electromagnetic waves, thus triggering off earthquakes."

Dr. Harvey Blatt, a geologist and professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said such theories are "ridiculous."

"Anything that goes bad is blamed on the U.S. and Israel...Humans had nothing to do with this. All they can do is try to get out of the way," Blatt told CNSNews.com.

"Earthquakes happen all the time but they don't happen that often in the Indian Ocean," he said. The people were living in mud huts and there was no warning system and so they got swamped, he added.

No accolades for America

More than $4 billion in aid -- much of it from Western nations -- has been pledged for emergency assistance and to help rebuild the ravaged regions

The U.S. relief effort reportedly has been well received on the ground. But Arab media have not had much to say about the enormous sums of money the West has pledged to the region, which includes Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world.

The Arab media has largely ignored Western contributions, instead concentrating on their own relief efforts, said Yotam Seldner of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Oil-rich Saudi Arabia, which initially pledged just $10 million in disaster aid, tripled its pledge and then held a telethon on Thursday. Other local Arab television stations also launched fundraisers.

Other Gulf States have made sizeable contributions: the United Arab Emirates pledged $20 million, Kuwait $10 million and Qatar $25 million in aid.

In last Friday's sermon on Palestinian Authority television, Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris said that all those who died by drowning were martyrs. Nevertheless, he accused America and the Jews for bringing corruption to the area, which caused the judgment Allah to descend.

"The oppression and corruption caused by America and the Jews have increased," Mudeiris said, according to a translation provided by MEMRI.

"We...knew [Bangkok] as the center of corruption on the face of this earth. Over there, there are Zionist and American investments. Over there they bring Muslims and others to prostitution. Over there, there are beaches, which they dubbed 'tourists' paradise,' while only a few meters away, the locals live in hell on earth. They cannot make ends meet, while a few meters away there is a paradise, 'tourists' paradise,'" he charged.

"Whoever reads the Koran, given by the Maker of the World, can see how these nations were destroyed. There is one reason: they lied; they sinned; and [they] were infidels. Whoever studies the Koran can see this is the result," Ibrahim Al-Bashar, advisor to Saudi Arabia's Justice Minister argued on Saudi/UAE Al-Majd television.

"These great tragedies and collective punishments that are wiping out villages, towns, cities, and even entire countries, are Allah's punishments of the people of these countries, even if they are Muslims," said Saudi Professor Sheikh Fawzan Al-Fawzana on Al-Majd television.

He called it unfortunate that corrupt resorts exist in Islamic and other countries in South Asia.

"The fact that it happened at this particular time is a sign from Allah. It happened at Christmas, when fornicators and corrupt people from all over the world come to commit fornication and sexual perversion," he said, adding that all that is left is to ask for forgiveness.

But Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Majid said during the Saudi fundraiser that this was his country's opportunity to export Islam.

"Some elements hostile to our country try to portray it as a country that exports terrorism, bombings, accusations of heresy, and hatred of the 'other,'" Al-Majid said. "But, through this campaign...we are showing the whole world that our country exports global empathy, love, harmony, peace, and Islam."

According to the State Department, Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records in the region.
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Imagine being a whale or fish and your swiming around near the bottom of the ocean then all of a sudden KAAAAAAAABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
 

lionheart

New member
Mar 12, 2006
69
0
0
The conspiracy to fear is the one you can't see.

I love this stuff. Oliver Stone should make a movie about it. It could be better than his other work of conspiracy fiction, JFK.

Wake up people. Do a little research and you'll find that the Obama-Clinton meeting didn't stay secret for more than 24 hrs. The Bilderberg Group is no more secret than the Boy Scouts.

Like all conspiracy theory groups you take events out of context, create drama from mundane events, mis-interpret events and boost your egos by believing yoiu have secret information to root out the alleged villains.

Didn't Robert Ludlum use this idea as a plot device a million times? Maybe Dan Brown will pick it up when the public gets bored with his religious conspriacies.
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
I love this stuff. Oliver Stone should make a movie about it. It could be better than his other work of conspiracy fiction, JFK.

Wake up people. Do a little research and you'll find that the Obama-Clinton meeting didn't stay secret for more than 24 hrs. The Bilderberg Group is no more secret than the Boy Scouts.

Like all conspiracy theory groups you take events out of context, create drama from mundane events, mis-interpret events and boost your egos by believing yoiu have secret information to root out the alleged villains.

Didn't Robert Ludlum use this idea as a plot device a million times? Maybe Dan Brown will pick it up when the public gets bored with his religious conspriacies.
Bilderberg isnt secret anymore. It's in the mainstream media. Secrets don't stay secret forever. The Obama-Clinton meeting was away from cameras and the media, hence SECRET.
 

trackstar

Swollen Member
Jun 26, 2004
2,505
17
38
Bilderberg isnt secret anymore. It's in the mainstream media. Secrets don't stay secret forever. The Obama-Clinton meeting was away from cameras and the media, hence SECRET.
Secret, or just private? I'm not challenging you here, just asking...
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Secret, or just private? I'm not challenging you here, just asking...
More like exclusive. For policy makers and puppets only. If it was for our own good wouldn't we hear about this group of 150 very powerful people meeting once a year?
 

trackstar

Swollen Member
Jun 26, 2004
2,505
17
38
More like exclusive. For policy makers and puppets only. If it was for our own good wouldn't we hear about this group of 150 very powerful people meeting once a year?
We were talking about The Obama-Clinton meeting...
 

Shakerod

Active member
May 7, 2008
616
71
28
As the brilliant Fortunate One says, by using common sense, by reading a variety of sources (including the Onion, which is brilliant in its own way), and .... this is a big one .... by reading actual books. Read history. See how events happen in similar ways time and time again.

By thinking and by testing theories. By applying bullshit tests.

Does a simpler theory match the facts? Let's take just one...Fact: the CIA should have had ample warning that Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack. Why didn't they act to prevent it?

Conspiracy theory: The shadowy organization helped it along, or took control of it, or whatever. They used explosives to bring it down, they faked the plane attacks, whatever, it doesn't matter. They have an unending supply of fanatically loyal henchmen to carry out their evil plot, and never betray it. Find a bunch of bullshit opinions (an engineer to "prove" that the buildings couldn't have fallen in the way they did would be good), find some inconsistencies, ignore the vast majority of evidence, whatever, to "prove" your theory and how it matches your preconceived world view.

Real world: Intelligence agencies are incompetent, staffed by bureaucrats, subject to political interference. Just like any big office. They fucked up, and Bin Laden succeeded. A perfect opportunity for those in power at the time to use the incident to push their preconceived agendas, whereupon they too eventually fucked up.

Which makes the most sense, assuming you actually understand something about how people act in the real world?
Hank...let's put your theory to test.1)History has shown that Bin Laden worked with U.S. intelligence in previous assignments, so there is a pattern there. 2) Steel frame buildings have never in history collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or since 9/11. 3) You say," they fucked up and Bin Laden succeeded." How? Show me the evidence that he has gained anything from this? Then look at who benefits from bringing in the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and ripping apart the U.S. Constitution. Certainly not Bin Laden. 4) False Flag operations are a historical FACT that have been admitted to through declassified documents.
 
Last edited:

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Hank...let's put your theory to test.1)History has shown that Bin Laden worked with U.S. intelligence in previous assignments, so there is a pattern there. 2) Steel frame building have never in history collapsed due to fire pre-9/11, or since 9/11
Oh shit you realize he's just gonna rag on you now and try to defame your character. RUN!
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
Oh, Christ. Another one...

Hank...let's put your theory to test.1)History has shown that Bin Laden worked with U.S. intelligence in previous assignments, so there is a pattern there.
There certainly is a pattern here. The US has a history of funding anyone they think will help their goals at the time. They supported the 'freedom fighters' that they decided would help beat back the Russians from Afghanistan, including Bin Laden. They also funded others they turned against later (Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega) and many other tin-pot dictators throughout the world that they thought would help American interests in a variety of ways.

2) Steel frame buildings have never in history collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or since 9/11.
Google it yourself. There's a host of conspiracy-debunking sites with explanations that seem equally plausible for specific little points that are constantly harped about on the truther sites. I am not about to put in hours analyzing little bits of "evidence" when others have done it already.

3) You say, "they fucked up and Bin Laden succeeded." How? Show me the evidence that he has gained anything from this? Then look at who benefits from bringing in the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and ripping apart the U.S. Constitution. Certainly not Bin Laden.
Bin Laden succeeded in ways he could have only dreamed of. He wants to create a situation where the Islamic world rises up against the Western powers that support the dictators that prevent true Islamic culture, blah blah blah. By instigating war, and "proving" that the Americans are a brutal colonizing power, he has gained (and is gaining) far more converts to his side.

He invested a few thousand dollars in support and plane tickets and box cutters, thereby gaining exactly the kind of confrontation he hoped for, as well as huge symbolic victory -- film of the bastion of godless capitalism collapsing.

Not to mention contributing greatly to the economic collapse of the Great Satan.

He has won the "War on Terror." That's not a victory?

I am sure he couldn't care less about the US violating its own constitution in so many ways, but he may see it as a satisfactory side effect. It certainly showed the Bush administration to be hypocrites about human rights.

4) False Flag operations are a historical FACT that have been admitted to through declassified documents.
So? They did many stupid and horrendous things in pursuit of their objectives of the time, and I wouldn't have put it past the neo-cons to have thought of using something like that in pursuit of their goal of occupying Iraq. They were sure quick enough to capitalize on the event to twist it to their objectives.

The point is, there are so many huge gaps in logic in the whole plan that it couldn't possibly have made sense. Just for starters, pinning it on Iraq would have been a no brainer if you had the resources to fake the attacks. Hard to see how they could have overlooked that one.

Wouldn't have setting off a giant bomb somewhere signed "Ha Ha, Gotcha, love Saddam" been a lot simpler than a hugely complex plan co-ordinating four planes and tons of carefully planted explosives and hundreds of minions?

There is a mountain of evidence out there that makes far more sense, easily discovered. But if you are another one who only believes only one thing, it doesn't matter -- it is all lies and propaganda meant to keep the truth from you.

These conspiracy theories just don't pass any common-sense smell test, when there are so many real conspiracies out there. Never underestimate greed, lust for power, and stupidity as the great forces in human history.
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Oh, Christ. Another one...



There certainly is a pattern here. The US has a history of funding anyone they think will help their goals at the time. They supported the 'freedom fighters' that they decided would help beat back the Russians from Afghanistan, including Bin Laden. They also funded others they turned against later (Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega) and many other tin-pot dictators throughout the world that they thought would help American interests in a variety of ways.



Google it yourself. There's a host of conspiracy-debunking sites with explanations that seem equally plausible for specific little points that are constantly harped about on the truther sites. I am not about to put in hours analyzing little bits of "evidence" when others have done it already.



Bin Laden succeeded in ways he could have only dreamed of. He wants to create a situation where the Islamic world rises up against the Western powers that support the dictators that prevent true Islamic culture, blah blah blah. By instigating war, and "proving" that the Americans are a brutal colonizing power, he has gained (and is gaining) far more converts to his side.

He invested a few thousand dollars in support and plane tickets and box cutters, thereby gaining exactly the kind of confrontation he hoped for, as well as huge symbolic victory -- film of the bastion of godless capitalism collapsing.

Not to mention contributing greatly to the economic collapse of the Great Satan.

He has won the "War on Terror." That's not a victory?

I am sure he couldn't care less about the US violating its own constitution in so many ways, but he may see it as a satisfactory side effect. It certainly showed the Bush administration to be hypocrites about human rights.



So? They did many stupid and horrendous things in pursuit of their objectives of the time, and I wouldn't have put it past the neo-cons to have thought of using something like that in pursuit of their goal of occupying Iraq. They were sure quick enough to capitalize on the event to twist it to their objectives.

The point is, there are so many huge gaps in logic in the whole plan that it couldn't possibly have made sense. Just for starters, pinning it on Iraq would have been a no brainer if you had the resources to fake the attacks. Hard to see how they could have overlooked that one.

Wouldn't have setting off a giant bomb somewhere signed "Ha Ha, Gotcha, love Saddam" been a lot simpler than a hugely complex plan co-ordinating four planes and tons of carefully planted explosives and hundreds of minions?

There is a mountain of evidence out there that makes far more sense, easily discovered. But if you are another one who only believes only one thing, it doesn't matter -- it is all lies and propaganda meant to keep the truth from you.

These conspiracy theories just don't pass any common-sense smell test, when there are so many real conspiracies out there. Never underestimate greed, lust for power, and stupidity as the great forces in human history.
Thats the conspiracy theory. Boogeyman hiding in a cave is gonna get us.
So you cant even POST a link to ONE building that collapsed at FREE FALL speed. Maybe you should do some research before you post your non sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eME4k6v6pTo&feature=related

http://www.rense.com/general62/deun.htm
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Debunking The Debunkers
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief - c. 2005 Joel Skousen
Partial quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as World Affairs Brief
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com
2-14-5

In every major conspiracy to cover up government criminal activity, agents of change or naïve "experts" have been hired by the establishment media to debunk conspiracy theories and facts. Walter Cronkite was trotted out of retirement to host a PBS documentary debunking the conspiracy facts surrounding the assassination of JFK (which was hardly convincing). In like manner, other programs have been produced at great expense to discredit the charges of government cover-ups in the Vince Foster and Ron Brown murders, the downing of TWA 800 by a missile, and the OKC bombing of the Murrah building.

The professional debunkers use four primary tactics to accomplish their propaganda feats:

1) They refuse to mention, much less attempt to disprove, the most irrefutable and damaging evidence.

2) They take great delight in debunking only those conspiracy theories that are the weakest or that are planted by other government sympathizers to help discredit the more credible conspiracy facts. This is what is referred to as a "straw man" argument, where a weak or false argument is set up so that it can easily be knocked down.

3) They only select "experts" who agree with the official conclusion.

4) They snicker at or mock anyone who believes that government engages in criminal behavior or covers up crimes in collusion with judges, investigators, prosecutors, media heads, and hand-picked commissions. Worse, they label dissenters as unpatriotic or mentally imbalanced.

So it is with the latest government attempt to debunk the evidence of government collusion in the 9/11 attacks. For over a decade now, the PTB have used an odd vehicle to do their debunking on a variety of issues-Popular Mechanics Magazine (a Hearst publication). I suppose they are targeting the back-yard mechanic and auto-enthusiast crowd, who are often prone to accepting conspiracy facts and theories.

In the March 2005 issue, PM magazine singled out 16 issues or claims of the 9/11 skeptics that point to government collusion and systematically attempted to debunk each one. Of the 16, most missed the mark and almost half were straw men arguments-either ridiculous arguments that few conspiracists believed or restatements of the arguments that were highly distorted so as to make them look weaker than they really were. PM took a lot of pot shots at conspiracy buffs, saying that those "who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth - and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day."

That would be true only if there was no basis in fact for these controversies. I am one of those who claim there are factual arguments pointing to conspiracy, and that truth is not served by taking cheap shots at those who see gaping flaws in the government story-especially when you don't address the really tough questions in your rebuttal. Here is a quick run down of the claims (some lumped together) and why PM's debunking was superficial and distorted:

1) The bulging projection (pod) visible on the bottom of Flight 175 as it struck the south tower

If the bulge is real, critics claim it means the aircraft was modified for the attack, which could not have been done by hijackers. PM says the anomaly was simply the bulging faring under each wing root which hides the landing gear. This is a possibility since the bulge viewed on all pictures of Flight 175 is in the same location as the landing gear faring. However, the bulge is significantly bigger than the actual faring, and casts a shadow on the bottom of the aircraft. The real landing gear faring is flush with the bottom of the plane and could not cast a shadow on that area.

Besides, I talked to Boeing about the bulge and a woman spokesperson admitted that Boeing had studied the bulge and concluded, "It wasn't modified by Boeing." She didn't deny the bulge wasn't there, nor did she try to persuade me it was the landing gear faring. However, I don't have an answer for what the purpose of the modification might have been.

Later PM turns a related claim by a witness (that there were no windows on this aircraft) into a major issue to debunked. This was a straw man issue that was easily debunked with a photo of the plane's debris, with windows. This was never a credible issue with most conspiracy theorists.

2) The "stand down" order to stop intervention against the hijackers

PM cites the existence of a few scrambled jets as proof there was no "stand down" order given. This is a straw argument because key facts are omitted. There is other evidence to show that these fighters were called out purposely from bases too distant to make the intercepts-and never engaged afterburners for extra speed, indicating no sincere attempt to intercept. I received an email from one of the tower operators at McGuire AFB telling me he had received a call from the base commander ordering him to shut down military flight ops and not let fighter-interceptors take off. This was before the general shut down of the air traffic system by the FAA. This indicates that aircraft closer to the hijacked planes were told to stand down.

There are two witnesses (a general and a Congressman) who said VP Dick Cheney was operating under stand-down orders, except as pertaining to Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. PM tried to make the case that NORAD had never vigorously followed standing orders to intercept hijacked aircraft, and that their high definition radars were all pointed outside the US boundaries (like a doughnut). Neither is true. There were dozens of intercepts in the two years prior to 9/11 (PM said there was only one) and NORAD has complete radar coverage within the US.

PM also presented disinformation when it claimed that if an airliner turns off its transponder, the controller can no longer distinguish the aircraft from thousand of other smaller blips on his screen. Not so. First, there aren't thousands of unlabeled blips on the screen in any given sector, and second, the actual radar return is still on the screen at the same approximate position of the transponder data symbol, making it easier to acquire.

PM neglected to mention the more powerful evidences of cover-up and collusion here, including the FAA's destruction of the tape recording of air traffic controllers' description of the events, the FAA refusing to turn over tape recordings of the ATC controllers talking to the pilots when the hijackings were declared, and the discrepancies between the claims of when the FAA supposedly notified NORAD.

3) Explosives brought down the twin towers (puff of dust, etc.)

This is only a partial straw man argument. There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse, but PM only discussed the fire and explosive claims that were easily explained away. An early claim making the rounds was that the towers couldn't have collapsed since fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. PM correctly pointed out, as I have also in my briefs, that steel trusses supporting the floor system only need be heated to the point of sagging-not melting-in order to give way.

Early conspiracists claimed that the puffs of smoke coming out of the windows as each floor pancaked down on another were evidence of demolition charges. Once again, PM correctly pointed out that the crushing of sheet rock interiors can cause this. I was never convinced of controlled demolition myself, since it would have required months of prep work inside the building, unbeknownst to all the tenants.

But conspicuously absent from the PM arguments was the blockbuster evidence that the 42 main pillars in the central core of the building had been taken down by a combination of explosives and thermite charges-which can melt steel like butter. The head of the company removing the debris from the WTC said in an interview that there were large pools of hot molten steel in the lowest basement where the main support pillars had stood. No expert has claimed that either fuel or burning debris falling into an oxygen starved basement would have been capable of creating the huge quantity of concentrated heat needed to melt 42 huge pillars with two-foot-thick steel walls. Numerous witnesses and fire fighters heard large explosions in the lower section of the building just prior to the collapse. One video shot of the south WTC (whose central core was not even damaged by Flight 175) gives clear evidence of the central core being collapsed prior to the general collapse: the center mounted TV towers started descending downward well prior to the outer section of the building. PM was silent on these major anomalies, and so was the 9/11 Commission, which indicates they were avoiding the tough issues.

PM did attempt some sleight of hand, with some remarks by a paid "expert" trying to explain away the symmetrical and absolutely vertical collapse of WTC building #7 that was only slightly damaged on one side. A video of the collapse does show the telltale signs of explosive demolition on each floor-which would have been impossible if the building was heeling over toward the damaged side.

4) The Pentagon crash

PM discussed the common arguments against the official version: the penetration hole was too small; there was not enough debris outside; windows close to the impact were still intact. The window argument was a straw man with an easy explanation-they were reinforced security glass. The issues of the penetration hole and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives. Some witnesses saw a smaller aircraft, others saw the Boeing. One or two saw and heard a missile launch. Could all three have been present? I think so.
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
There are credible witnesses who saw many small pieces of aluminum scattered about, plus a few larger pieces. If the larger Boeing was blasted apart at impact with high explosives it would explain the shower of aluminum shards that littered the road. The Pentagon parking lot video tape (which strangely fails to show a large Boeing aircraft) does show a huge white explosion-the unique sign of high explosives. An aircraft laden only with fuel gives off the red and black signature only-nothing white or bright. If the Boeing was laced with explosives, it would also explain why the wings didn't totally penetrate the structure. I have checked the photographs of major engine and landing gear pieces among the wreckage and they do match the Boeing aircraft, so I do think a Boeing hit the Pentagon. But I am not buying PM's statement (given without any evidence or photos) that a landing gear was responsible for the 12-foot round hole that penetrated three rings of the Pentagon. The landing gear is a long, gangly affair, and it didn't even make it through the first ring, according to photos I have seen. Only a missile could have penetrated that far. Was a missile on the smaller jet seen by witnesses used to prep the hardened Pentagon façade?

PM's glib explanations did not do justice to the multiple possibilities. Besides, if the government version is true, why is the FBI refusing to turn over the two video surveillance tapes (one from a gas station and one from a hotel) that would show what really happened?

5) Flight 93 was shot down by an F-16

PM discussed all the key issues: a small white private jet that was shadowing the flight; engine parts apart from the main wreckage; debris two miles away in Indian Lake; and the purported identity of the F-16 pilot. But in each case, it falsified the evidence by quoting erroneous, distorted or planted theories by government experts.

For example, while it finally acknowledged the presence of a white unmarked jet, it claimed it was a private jet flying at 30,000 feet, asked to descend from high altitude and check out the crash. This was impossible as witnesses saw the plane before the crash. PM even claimed to have talked to the company (which conveniently didn't want to be named) that owned the jet. But this is at variance with prior admission by a leasing company that said the jet was theirs and was leased to the government (the CIA often uses white unmarked jets).

This story by PM was a total fabrication. I have listened to the private transcripts of the radio talk between Cleveland Center and all the other airliners controlled by ATC in that sector (including Flight 93). Even the 9/11 commission refused to address this private tape, which was recorded by one private jet that was in the area, and is still available on the internet. Nowhere in that transcript is any private aircraft asked by Cleveland Center to follow or descend with Flight 93. In fact, the one airliner that was closest to Flight 93 was asked by Cleveland Center to verify visually the condition of Flight 93 after the Center and all other aircraft on that frequency heard the pilot of the aircraft announce that "there was a bomb on board." The aircraft acknowledged seeing Flight 93 in the distance and then suddenly announced that he observed an explosion. This was while Flight 93 was at altitude, confirming reports from ATC controllers who had vectored an F-16 to Flight 93, and witnesses who saw the shoot down from the ground.

It also explains why one of the engines was found miles away. PM tried to divert its readers from the issue by telling about another part of the engine found about 300 meters from the crash site-which is explainable, if you don't address the issue of the other engine. Many witnesses saw streams of papers, luggage and even body parts falling some distance from the crash site. PM blamed this on an updraft-but luggage and body parts don't blow two miles away in a gentle breeze.

Lastly, the issue on the identity of the pilot of the F-16 (a Major Gibbons) is problematic. The source is a retired Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, who makes many claims about hobnobbing with big wigs in Washington that I find uncredible and suspicious. He claims he was at an awards ceremony in North Dakota when Major Gibbons was supposedly awarded a medal for shooting down Flight 93. I always found this a little fantastic. Why would the government give out a public award for something they were trying to keep secret? The government still doesn't admit to shooting down Flight 93, let alone disclose who did it. Of course, if they did allow a private awards ceremony, it would explain why they would have Major Gibbons deny it. While PM's debunking of the Gibbons story may be true (they claim he was using his F-16 to pick up a big-wig in Montana), their explanation was also a bit fantastic: people have to be trained in ejection seat procedures prior to flying in a high performance jet.
 

Shakerod

Active member
May 7, 2008
616
71
28
Oh, Christ. Another one...



There certainly is a pattern here. The US has a history of funding anyone they think will help their goals at the time. They supported the 'freedom fighters' that they decided would help beat back the Russians from Afghanistan, including Bin Laden. They also funded others they turned against later (Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega) and many other tin-pot dictators throughout the world that they thought would help American interests in a variety of ways.



Google it yourself. There's a host of conspiracy-debunking sites with explanations that seem equally plausible for specific little points that are constantly harped about on the truther sites. I am not about to put in hours analyzing little bits of "evidence" when others have done it already.



Bin Laden succeeded in ways he could have only dreamed of. He wants to create a situation where the Islamic world rises up against the Western powers that support the dictators that prevent true Islamic culture, blah blah blah. By instigating war, and "proving" that the Americans are a brutal colonizing power, he has gained (and is gaining) far more converts to his side.

He invested a few thousand dollars in support and plane tickets and box cutters, thereby gaining exactly the kind of confrontation he hoped for, as well as huge symbolic victory -- film of the bastion of godless capitalism collapsing.

Not to mention contributing greatly to the economic collapse of the Great Satan.

He has won the "War on Terror." That's not a victory?

I am sure he couldn't care less about the US violating its own constitution in so many ways, but he may see it as a satisfactory side effect. It certainly showed the Bush administration to be hypocrites about human rights.



So? They did many stupid and horrendous things in pursuit of their objectives of the time, and I wouldn't have put it past the neo-cons to have thought of using something like that in pursuit of their goal of occupying Iraq. They were sure quick enough to capitalize on the event to twist it to their objectives.

The point is, there are so many huge gaps in logic in the whole plan that it couldn't possibly have made sense. Just for starters, pinning it on Iraq would have been a no brainer if you had the resources to fake the attacks. Hard to see how they could have overlooked that one.

Wouldn't have setting off a giant bomb somewhere signed "Ha Ha, Gotcha, love Saddam" been a lot simpler than a hugely complex plan co-ordinating four planes and tons of carefully planted explosives and hundreds of minions?

There is a mountain of evidence out there that makes far more sense, easily discovered. But if you are another one who only believes only one thing, it doesn't matter -- it is all lies and propaganda meant to keep the truth from you.

These conspiracy theories just don't pass any common-sense smell test, when there are so many real conspiracies out there. Never underestimate greed, lust for power, and stupidity as the great forces in human history.
I have looked at it from both sides of the issue. If they treated this like the crime that it was and brought the perpetrators to trial, their case ( the U.S. government) would fall apart like a cheap suit.
 

wess

New member
Jan 5, 2009
614
2
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxYO21wE38


I think Jesse Ventura clears it up when he talks about the U.S.A lying or misholding the truth when the States have to go to war. It's fascinating Wess I would like you to listen to that's all. I respect your opinion on what you've said though, I would like you to hear this.
Ok I will ask you then. Does the US need to create fake enemies because they have no real enemies ?

If the US has a real enemy then who is it ?
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Ok I will ask you then. Does the US need to create fake enemies because they have no real enemies ?

If the US has a real enemy then who is it ?
You didnt even UNDERSTAND what I said. THEY NEEDED A REASON TO GO INTO IRAQ AND AFGHAN. WOULD THEY BE THERE WITHOUT A 9/11? THINK BEFOER YOU POST! Now hopefully you read those big letters.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts