I don't think Bush blew up the buildings by any means, but I still don't exactly understand why World Trade Center 7 collapsed when it was not hit by a plane.
There are never satisfactory answers to events like these and people will always cling to alternative versions of the truth. Problem increases with an administration that does so much to prevent ANY truth from being revealed. It just fuels the growth of conspiracy theorists like kudzu.
Why is that cool? Maher is an establishment figure and an elitist, recuperating rebellion in a commodified format. How come he gets to mediate things and call people, "wackos" that go off message? Don't we have a democracy? Doesn't matter if what they are saying is wrongheaded or not - they have a right.
For him to say that people are the mere "audience" and that they should sit there passively, shut up like consumers at a spectacle is authoritarian and exposes liberals as the left wing of capitalism. This video proves that Maher is an egomaniac with a Napolean complex. I only wish one of the audience members had the audacity and monetary means to knock him out live on air. THAT would have been amusing.
Not to mention - people should study state craft and parapolitics for awhile to see that false flag operations are the norm for nation states throughout the history of capitalism. Why is it so inconceivable that something might have been a miss on the day of 9/11? My goodness - even celebrated journalists such as ROBERT FISK have slowly come out and said that there are too many unanswered questions to believe the 911 commission reports findings. Even high ranking members from the commission itself admit to its vague generalities! And why wasn't there an independent investigation?
I always ask myself - Qui bono - who benefits most from these attacks? And it appears that capitalists thrive off disasters to push their anti-human agenda. Read NAOMI KLEIN's SHOCK DOCTRINE -she doesn't go as far as I am here about connecting the dots - but almost...
Yes, the problem lately is that many who have the balls to question are right winger types (Patriot idiots, Paleo Conservatives) with inane NEW WORLD conspiracy theories. But, atleast they have the gall to question - unlike most liberals and pure Democrat party wonks who believe in the innate goodness of the state and their useless candidates like Hillary and Barrack (a fart in a suit).
As if 50 years of dragging the workers movements down the path of state socialism and choking the emancipation of people from ending wage slavery - wasn't a symbol of the depravity of this belief system!
I believe that you get rid of the state as a social relation - then, you ultimately destroy capitalism.
History is my witness. You cannot reform the state. The state/capitalim and religion are inextricably linked. I'll say this for the final time, as I've been spewing my sperm into the air for years. The US, Russia, China, Cuba, etc are different types of state capitalist regimes with different programs under implementation. You cannot not have a "free market" without the state mediating it. Free Market Libertarians don't know what the heck they are talking about when they ask for the eradication of government for "liberty" - because you would then have world over run by anarcho-capitalists (''robber barons) who would amass armies to enslave us all while using the government to justify its "business projects".
The phenomenon of the "liberal movement" or social democracy was to offset the uneven power balance between the working classes and the elite (composed of Monarchs, Mercantilists, theorcrats, now corporate moguls, etc) - which by the way in last 27 years (especially in the US) has proven to have taken the cowardly road towards selling its soul to unabashed corporate power. Its too late, Dems are soiled with the shit of Mephistopheles. If people really want to stop things (global warming, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, capitalist exploitation), they need to do it themselves - unite in affinity groups, autonomous gatherings without leaders, constantly develop theory behind unified, mass action throughout the world - to stop and rethink life strategies that are destroying our planet. Because you can't do this in a world of competing nation states.
I think it bothers and embarrases libs that right wing wingnuts might have beaten them to the punch on something as urgent as where we are now in this mileau.
Nobody wants to say this for fear of some imaginary treason - but it is the only way.
Power is usually illegitimate. It is the cornerstone of our constitution to push this in extreme directions however possible.
Things are bad - because we allow it to be this way, pure and simple. The greatest enemy to politics as usual is a vociferous, knowledgable and ever questioning population of people with divergent independent belief systems but a unified goal for the evolution of humanity and its long term survival.
Don't completely discredit these "theories" because they are always subject to being corrected. What I enjoy is that people are questioning. Too bad, most libs enjoy wiping the ass of the state.
I don't know how a live television show would work if all audience members were allowed, even encouraged, to stand up and shout whatever they're thinking in the middle of what's going on on-stage. I think impromptu blurting is rude, especially in this case when the subject being discussed on-stage had nothing at all to do with the so-called 9/11 conspiracy.
Cane - your missing my point brutha! Personally, I think people should break out of the spectator/spectacle relationship that they have been corraled into for so long by the media and arts establishment.
Film must grow out of narrative/text one day if it wants to truly be a revolutionary instrument for change. People must get involved in life - and not be passive consumers of it.
Most of the time - celebrities want a LIVE audience in order to reinforce their propaganda, right? Whether right or left. With applause and laughs at all the right moments? Willing automotons.
What about when the celebrity says something obtuse, racist ,ridiculous? Should there be silence, heckling, walk outs? I think people should have the right to heckle celebrities like MAHIR as they do Rumsfeld any time, any place - and to even pie them!
And why not? Because the corporation is selling a product - in this case Bill Maher and the background audience (all mediated and predetermined robots of knee jerk approval) will bolster the pundits case to the masses - enunciating his clever, thought out pitch - for who? Himself.
Furthermore, since this is on private property of CBS or HBO or whomever - someone is supposed to follow the "rules" or be escorted from the premises. Where is the free speech in that? Did people pay to be there? Are they invited guests? If that is the case, then I find the subversion more alluring. Moreover, the airwaves are OWNED by the public - not CBS, ABC, ect..They purchase time from the gov't - who gives it to them for close to nothing. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES.
On many of these "shows" there is no cross analysis, no vigourous intelligent debate (why this is INFOTAINMENT of course) like John Stewart, masquerading as real news or insightful intellectual perspective. And don't tell me you can see this on Charlie Rose....If anything - the problem is that our market based system has atomized and separated people into nice little consumer blocks (liberal, conservative, soccer moms, African-American, Mexican America, Gay and Lesbian, etc)....There is no unifying entity where anyone from the grass roots can express their thoughts and feelings in solidarity. And don't say cable access or Youtube (could be a nice start) as seriously competing at this point. Distribution is and always will be the key.
Why should these types of important discussions be left for the self-appointed specialized few. They don't speak for me - nor do my "selected representatives."
Isn't it more interesting when subversion takes over? It shows that democracy is still working. That people are no longer BORED - they want unpredictability, they are no longer pliable instruments of capital - forcing them to police themselves with notions of appearing RUDE, ect...Let's get the cop out of our heads!
I hope everyone wakes up one day - and blasts the corporate control machine wide open. Think I am crazy? Did you know the FCC is about to allow more media consolidation? Did you know Net Neutrality may not hold? There is a cottage industry of books out there if anyone cares to read them.
Did you know that you and I and everyone on this list are to blame for the genocide of over a million people in Iraq? All to bolster US power? You think now is the time to play niceties with a blowhard like Mahr just because he strokes the ego of libs for this moment? Do you think now is the time to sit back and vote for Hillary in hope that she will correct Bush's moronic decisions? It takes more - it takes all of our involvement.
Personally, I don't have time to slip into a comfort zone (since I have kids) I am more freaked then ever about where we are headed (not as a country) but as a world. I don't need celebrities to tell me that.
I don't know how a live television show would work if all audience members were allowed, even encouraged, to stand up and shout whatever they're thinking in the middle of what's going on on-stage.
"LIVE SHOWS ARE LIKE HITLER'S TRIUMPH OF THE WILL."
I think impromptu blurting is rude, especially in this case when the subject being discussed on-stage had nothing at all to do with the so-called 9/11 conspiracy
"I'M HUMAN - NOBODY MEDIATES ME." PEOPLE ARE QUIET BECAUSE THEY RESPECT SOMEONE AND VALUE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY - OBVIOUSLY THESE PROTESTERS DID NOT - AND FELT COMPELLED TO USE THE SHOW AS A PLATFORM FOR THEIR ARGUMENT OR ISSUE. AND WHY NOT? THAT IS FREE SPEECH DUDE. DETOURNMENT IS EVERYTHING AND MAKES LIFE FUN. JUST LIKE WHEN CODE PINK SHOWS UP AT THE CAPITAL AND HECKLES SENATORS AND STATESMEN.
Another thing - I want to tell everyone that I am not judging you for your beliefs as I know everyong means well. You are all my allies in this - I get a little hardcore with a few things.
I just feel at this time - that we are all we have. Our theory, our actions. I just don't think out institutions can bring us the change that we are looking for - and I grew upset by Mahr's actions because he on one hand takes advantage of free speech by lambasting Bush and co - but then is a fascist to others. This upset me.
I saw this the other day online and was fortunate enough to catch the live airring. Here's the thing. When you come out and just say, "George Bush masterminded 911," then it just sounds crazy. There are a lot of interesting questions being raised about 911, such as WTC7's collapse, theory of thermate, United 93's crash site, and of course the convenient lack of evidence for the Pentagon crash.
The problem with these questions is that people, by and large, immediately seek a result from the questioning of evidence, instead of viewing them individually in and of themselves. In other words, for someone to say "Hey, there's something fishy behind that crash site for United 93," and the immediate response to be, "What do you think happened, then? You think Bush crashed those planes into the trade center buildings, crazy peron?" is just wrong. If that was an acceptable response, then we'd never have gotten a shred of scientific evidence admitted into any journals, because the second someone in our world's history said, "Isn't it funny how the sun moves almost as a curve across the domed sky," then it would be acceptable for someone to come back with, "What? You think the earth isn't flat, heretic?" Instead of immediately moving toward a steadfast opinion based on a need for a result, such as finger pointing at Bush's Administration, you must admit the individual evidence surrounding these "conspiracies" is worth investigating to prove or disprove doubt. If science beckons to question, who are we to ignore?
I see a lot of the questions being asked right now to hold a great deal of warranted credibility. I also see an outlet for whackos to use this to further fuel their insanity. When conspiracy theorist try to convince me 911 was controlled by Masons or planned by the Jews or that the birds fluttering about the WTC buildings were remote controlled government planes, I have to roll my eyes. But, when they say the physical properties of the debris seen falling from towers 1 & 2 look a lot like thermate (a substance used for demolition), and samples taken from ground zero prove to have identical chemical makeup found in thermate, well... I have to listen. And so should we all, if to prove or disprove doubt.
Oh, and for the record, I'm for Maher's production kicking out anyone who disturbs the show. This isn't about freedom of speech, because although those people in the audience have the right to speak their mind, the show's producers have the right to have them removed from the room for doing so. Freedom isn't a one way street.
By the way, my freedom of speech comment was not directed at Papasnooze, because I'm all for freedom of speech. I believe there are no words (no matter how hateful or wonderful) that should be censored... ever. The point I was making was specific to this incident which took place on private property. The Bill Maher show is NOT a public pulpit for free speech.
So, I agree with you, Papaduece. I do believe people are asleep. I don't, however, agree with this craig moorhead fella. What does he mean 'still believe'? Isn't this "911 theory" thing kind of a recent phenomenon? Aside from the tinfoil hat wearing weirdos that appeared days after 911 pointing fingers at the CIA without a shred of evidence, I think the recent reveals of evidence have been only happening within the past year or two, no? Maybe three?
And, this is not the dumbest theory since Intelligent Design. Come on. ID has no scientific basis. That, and it's a single theory about an intelligent creator, as opposed to the "911 conspiracies" which are individual theories surrounding a larger individual occurance.
First of all - I didn't say these conspiracies were "dumber than" ID. I said they were the "dumbest SINCE" ID. There's a difference.
Second - I agree with your take on the Bill Maher show. It's his show. Why do people go on his show to gripe about WTC 7? How will this help them prove their conspiracy?
Third - What bothers me the most is that I can't find anything anywhere that suggests WHY someone would blow up that building; what there is to gain from doing such a thing. Just that it's a possibility. Are people trying to prove it was blown up because that would better bolster the idea that towers 1 and 2 were blown up? Heath, Papa, or anybody - tell me in one sentence why I should care - in 2007 - specifically how the WTC came down.
Keep in mind that I already believe Bush, Cheney, etc. are criminals and murderers and that they have murderered scores of people in the name of oil. What exactly will be gained from me believing they had anything to do with WTC?
Craig - the idea is that this disaster was engineered to allow the US to spread their hegemony over the world and to consolidate corporate power in the world by pushing austerity programs that the general public and world at large is vociferously against. Without a disaster like this, many of the undemocratic legislation like THE PATRIOT ACT, MILITARY AUTHORIZATION BILL as well as FOREIGN MILITARY IMPERIALISTIC adventures would never be allowed to happen. This was used as a pretext to push an overwhelmingly unpopular agenda - and right when the Seattle Riots and G8 protests in Genoa and the corporate scandals under BUSH were starting to radicalize typical Americans.
The timing of the event - was too fortuitos to be taken as merely coincidental. The blatant disregard for justice and truth to instead push an agressive agenda of domination to forestall the declining rate of profit and US global dominance is apparent.
Sorry for this not being one line - but there is no simple answer - but a complexity of reasons.
Read NAOMI KLEIN's new book- THE SHOCK DOCTRINE. It doesn't believe in conspiracies - but it will give you the general makeup of historical capitalism (and its policies at play). Without disasters - none of this would have been approved. NONE.
So - 9/11 was the pretext the neo-cons needed to push forward an agenda that would consolidate US power over the entire globe - uncontested and unrivaled. Read, PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY - http://www.newamericancentury.org/. 9/11 gave the US a chance to eschew their much foe, the UN for any world approval for their actions - and allowed them to push a policy of pre-emptive war purely for "Defensive measures".
Really this is to reshape the Middle East so that the US can benefit from the energy reserves and to have access to markets in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (where before they had been controlled and dominated by the USSR and CHINA.
Right now - a new COLD WAR is about to start between Russia and the US - due to the fact that our gov't is brazenly supporting regimes and revolutions on Russia's doorstep in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, ect - to make them more US investor friendly. Putin is pissed and because Russia has their own sources of energy - they are showing more and more that they do not need nor care to deal with US issues.
China and Russia are now allies - militarily and economically and will soon eclipse the US as a power player on the world scene. the EU (outside of UK) is slowly pushing its own independent agenda as is South America (moving left with Chavez and other left wing gov'ts) that are now moving away from US influence. The world is escaping from the US - and the area that our corporate power resides to continue its run is the Middle East - set up for us by the British after WW2 as a source of energy.
We need this region, to put bases there to ultimately have a prescence to influence the nations in the Central Asian, South Balkans and Eastern European Areas.
Without the expansion of our growth and hegemony (through bases and consulates) we will not continue to make money through contracting out infrastructure and arms sales (in which we lead the world).
So - when a public becomes too democratic, aware of things - they fight for issues and rights contrary to the very nature of a state and capitalist aims. Something must happen within the system that will allow more room for the state to manuever for power.
Terrorism is a creation of the state amd the state has a monopoly on violence...Max Weber.
I can't agree with you, Papa. I don't think our government needed this to happen at all to "accomplish" what they have in the last 8 years. But supposing they did:
Why wasn't George Bush prepared for it? Was the plan all along to make him look like he had no idea how to react? And why did Osama Bin Laden claim responsibility? Is he in on it? Or was that just a stroke of luck for the US? That's kind of a coincidence. And why would the government choose the World Trade Center? Why not a military installation, which would be more reminiscent of Pearl Harbor? I mean, drumming up memories of World War II would be WAY better than asking the nation to feel bad for a bunch of rich New Yorkers. And since when do the Republicans want to kill rich people!?
Also - why bother flying two jets into the World Trade Center? Why not blow the towers up with the bombs you're already going to plant anyway and say that the bombs were planted by terrorists? And why, if you're controlling who is doing the flying of the jets, why not load 'em up with IRAQI terrorists, instead of making it hard on yourself later trying to prove a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
On the Pentagon - why change the plan from a plane to a cruise missile for just one of these attacks? And to say it was a plane instead of a cruise missile, and to have a fake manifesto for a fake plane that had real people on it? Where are those people? Were they killed the night before?
And why crash a plane in the middle of nowhere? What point did that drive home? Was it just so they would have more elements to the conspiracy to cover up? So that more people would be involved that they would have to keep quiet?
I think these conspiracies serve this administration and they are so full of holes as to render them totally dumb.
I apologize for taking what you said out of context, Craigers. Though looking at your comment there at the top of this page, you did write "the dumbest theory outside of itelligent design," which, to me, implies more the idea of "dumber than" than it does "dumbest SINCE", but dead horse and all...
Though, to your point about giving you a sentence summation of these conspiracies and why you should care in 2007, well, I'm not sure I can boil it down into a nice, neat sound byte for you, Craigers, so I'll leave the pithy comments to Papadeas. There are only suspicions at this point as to why some "group" would blow up the buildings. But, like I said, that's not the way I feel we should be taking this discussion, because you're asking for a result again, when you should be asking about investigating individual evidence. Once the individual evidence is evaluated, then we can prove or disprove theories based on fact instead of wildly speculating in the interest of a quick finality. I leave that sort of thing to the fear mongering news channels.
I do find it troublesome to think others would share in your apathy. It's one thing to nail these guys in our current Administration for illegally instigating a war abroad, but if there's any truth in them being responsible for killing three thousand domestic, then we'd have a larger problem on our hands. I'm NOT saying they did (I'm not saying they didn't), I'm just saying IF they did, then I don't think the rest of the nation could, would or should share in your apathy. Why care in 2007 if our leaders were behind 911? You have to ask me for that answer?
Still, I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. I'd prefer to stay focused on individual evidence. Baby steps. Eventually, either the theories will be disproved or proved, and we can finally close the book on this.
I can't agree with you, Papa. I don't think our government needed this to happen at all to "accomplish" what they have in the last 8 years. But supposing they did:
NOT SAYING THAT THIS GOVERNMENT IN OFFICE IS BEHIND IT - WE HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT. IT COULD HAVE CONCIEVABLY BEEN A ROUGE ELEMENT WITHIN ONE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS' - CIA, MOSSAD, A EUROPEAN COUNTRIES INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS OR EVEN PURELY MAINIACAL TRUE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, MEDIATED BY AN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY FROM A MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY (SAUDI ARABIA, EGYPT, PAKISTAN'S ISI). DON'T FORGET THAT THE TALIBAN WERE CREATED BY ISI AND INDIRECTLY BY THE CIA. DON'T FORGET THAT ISLAMISM WAS BRED BY THE BRITISH M6 AND THEN USED BY THE US IN AFGHANISTAN AND LATER IN KOSOVO BY CLINTON! DON'T FORGET THAT A FEW OF THE BOMBERS OF THE MADRID TRAIN A FEW YEARS BACK WERE A FEW INFORMANTS FOR THE SPANISH INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. IT WAS ON THE BBC! THE REALITY OF OUR WORLD TAKES PLACE IN AN EXTRAJUDICIAL WORLD OF INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND SPYCRAFT - SO MUCH OF IT WE WILL NEVER KNOW. HOW ABOUT THE RECENT POISINING OF LITCHVENCHECO (SP?) THE RUSSIAN SPY (FORMER KGB) AND ENEMY OF PUTIN WHO WAS MURDERED BY AN UNKNOWN GROUP OF PEOPLE (WHERE THEY TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOV'T?
I AM MERELY BASING MY OPINION ON HISTORY, THE NATURE OF NATION STATES AND PARAPOLITICS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNISM OF CAPITALIST GOVERNMENTS WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE TYPES OF TRAGEDIES THROUGHOUT TIME TO PUSH THEIR UNPOPULAR AGENDAS(DON'T FORGET THAT HITLER CONSOLIDATED POWER AFTER THE REICHSTAG FIRE WHICH WAS STARTED BY THE NAZIS AND BLAMED ON A COMMUNIST) - THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.
Why wasn't George Bush prepared for it? Was the plan all along to make him look like he had no idea how to react? And why did Osama Bin Laden claim responsibility?
MANY THINK THAT OSAMA COULD BE A PATSY OR EVEN DECEASED. ISN'T IT CONCEIVABLE THAT FOR PSYCHOPS REASONS IT WOULD BE BENEFICAL TO RATCHET UP THE FEAR - TO CONCOCT A VIDEOTAPE TO PUSH A MOMENTARY AGENDA. EVEN OLBERMAN HAD A SHOW RECENTLY ABOUT HOW THE BUSH ADMIN WAS PUSHING FAKE TERROR ALARMS ONTO THE PUBLIC.
Is he in on it? Or was that just a stroke of luck for the US? That's kind of a coincidence. And why would the government choose the World Trade Center?
WORLD TRADE CENTER IS THE PINNACLE AND CENTER OF AMERICAN POWER. FINANCE CAPITAL MAN IS EVERYTHING.
Why not a military installation, which would be more reminiscent of Pearl Harbor?
TERRORISM IS THE CREATION OF THE STATE. THE STATE IS ALWAYS DEFINED BY ITS ENEMIES. THIS BOTHERED ME TO - IN THAT A TRUE ENEMY WOULD POISON THE WATER SUPPLY AND/OR ATTACK US MILITARILY. DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE ANTHRAX SCARE THEY ARE ATTRIBUTING IT TO FAR RIGHT GROUPS IN THE US - WHO HAVE A HISTORY OF BEING MEDIATED AND CONTROLLED BY ASSETS WITHIN THE FBI.
SO, AN ATTACK ON THE DOMESTIC POPULATION SMELLS OF A CLASSIC FALSE FLAG ATTACK - YOU DON'T DO THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE A GREATER GOAL - TO LEAD PEOPLE INTO MAKING A DECISION. IN THIS CASE TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS FOR SECURITY. THINK ABOUT THE BOLOGNA BOMBING OF 1980 IN ITALY. BLAMED ON THE RED BRIGADES AND FORCED PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR A RIGHT WING CANDIDATE. IN THE 90'S IT WAS REVEALED TO BE A FAR RIGHT MONARCHIST NE0-FACIST GROUP CALLED P2 (PART OF OPERATION GLADIO) THAT WAS ACTUALLY BEHIND THE ATTACK ON THE INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR FEAR THAT COMMIES WOULD TAKE OVER ITALIAN GOV'T). THIS IS TRUE STUFF. GLADIO GROUPS WERE SITUATED IN EVERY COUNTRY IN EUROPE. THESE PEOPLE WERE ALSO BEHIND THE COUP IN GREECE, ETC... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
I mean, drumming up memories of World War II would be WAY better than asking the nation to feel bad for a bunch of rich New Yorkers. And since when do the Republicans want to kill rich people!?
IT GOES BEYOND THAT - ITS ABOUT THE FUTURE SURVIVAL OF THE USA AND OUR SYSTEM.
Also - why bother flying two jets into the World Trade Center? Why not blow the towers up with the bombs you're already going to plant anyway and say that the bombs were planted by terrorists? And why, if you're controlling who is doing the flying of the jets, why not load 'em up with IRAQI terrorists, instead of making it hard on yourself later trying to prove a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
AL QAEDA DOES NOT EXIST - THEY ARE AN UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION OF VARIOUS AUTONOMOUS ISLAMIC TERRORIST CELLS. THIS IS A BOGEYMAN CREATED CONVENIENTLY BY THE BUSH ADMIN. OSAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT THE RINGLEADER OF THIS KKK OF ISLAM. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY LEGITMACY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD.
OUR ADMINISTRATION (INCLUDING CLINTON AND BUSH I) HAD THEIR EYES ON IRAQ FOR ITS STRATEGIC GIFTS WAY BEFORE THE ACT OF 9/11. 9/11 GAVE THEM AN EXCUSE TO GO IN THERE.
On the Pentagon - why change the plan from a plane to a cruise missile for just one of these attacks? And to say it was a plane instead of a cruise missile, and to have a fake manifesto for a fake plane that had real people on it? Where are those people? Were they killed the night before?
And why crash a plane in the middle of nowhere? What point did that drive home? Was it just so they would have more elements to the conspiracy to cover up? So that more people would be involved that they would have to keep quiet?
I think these conspiracies serve this administration and they are so full of holes as to render them totally dumb.
I AGREE....CAN'T IT ALSO BE CONCEIVABLE THAT THERE ARE MANY GROUPS (FBI AND STATE DEPT) TYPES THAT ARE INFILTRATING THESE MOMENTS AND SUBVERTING THEM INTO THESE RIDICULOUS PERSPECTIVES?
WE MUST KNOW HISTORY, UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF THE GAME - THINGS BECOME CLEARER ONCE THIS OCCURS.
I SAY NOW IS THE TIME FOR A REAL INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF 9/11 AND ALL INVOLVED.
BTW: not all socialists, anarchists and leftists believe in the potential for a conspiracy for 9/11. Many think it is a waste of energy and that most of it should be put towards building a workers movement. So, I am part of a sectarian minority that believes otherwise. I am open to it.
Papa and Heath - I think these theories are a distraction. It's not about apathy, Heath. It's about not barking up the wrong tree. I mean, what's it gonna mean if they prove tomorrow that Bush was behind it - I'm gonna hate him more? Thanks for all that legwork gents. Oh shit! Our planet just fucking melted. Ya know? It's a waste of energy, is what I'm saying. And maybe I'm mainly saying that because I don't believe there's any merit to the theories. And also because Bush has lied and gotten away with everything else AND because proof that he did it would still only be believed by half of the population.
Really, what's the ideal outcome of the investigation?
Let's keep commenting until we break Crane's blog.
Well you probably are right Craig. There is apathy. I don't want people to loathe Bush anymore. He is only a small part of the problem.
Our world class system creates crime, violence, terrorism - ect, ect.. Isn't it human if you have an imagination to want something to change?
Maybe exposing this ultimate indiscretion might awaken the people to institute real change. "MIGHT" is the word. Would there be outrage? Would this foster revolution? Maybe not. ut it is worth a try (it is one of multiple things that people do to foster the advancement of the human race).
Craigers, I hope you never end up in a trial before a jury and the jury is too busy fighting global warming to care about your case. Because, you know, they'd only energy for one thing at a time. I can't imagine the world would have any energy left after fighting global warming to so much as walk, let alone defend your right to a trial. Just saying... :)
22 comments:
How do people still believe this? It is probably the dumbest theory outside of intelligent design.
I don't think Bush blew up the buildings by any means, but I still don't exactly understand why World Trade Center 7 collapsed when it was not hit by a plane.
There are never satisfactory answers to events like these and people will always cling to alternative versions of the truth. Problem increases with an administration that does so much to prevent ANY truth from being revealed. It just fuels the growth of conspiracy theorists like kudzu.
Why is that cool? Maher is an establishment figure and an elitist, recuperating rebellion in a commodified format. How come he gets to mediate things and call people, "wackos" that go off message? Don't we have a democracy? Doesn't matter if what they are saying is wrongheaded or not - they have a right.
For him to say that people are the mere "audience" and that they should sit there passively, shut up like consumers at a spectacle is authoritarian and exposes liberals as the left wing of capitalism. This video proves that Maher is an egomaniac with a Napolean complex. I only wish one of the audience members had the audacity and monetary means to knock him out live on air. THAT would have been amusing.
Not to mention - people should study state craft and parapolitics for awhile to see that false flag operations are the norm for nation states throughout the history of capitalism. Why is it so inconceivable that something might have been a miss on the day of 9/11? My goodness - even celebrated journalists such as ROBERT FISK have slowly come out and said that there are too many unanswered questions to believe the 911 commission reports findings. Even high ranking members from the commission itself admit to its vague generalities! And why wasn't there an independent investigation?
I always ask myself - Qui bono - who benefits most from these attacks? And it appears that capitalists thrive off disasters to push their anti-human agenda. Read NAOMI KLEIN's SHOCK DOCTRINE -she doesn't go as far as I am here about connecting the dots - but almost...
Yes, the problem lately is that many who have the balls to question are right winger types (Patriot idiots, Paleo Conservatives) with inane NEW WORLD conspiracy theories. But, atleast they have the gall to question - unlike most liberals and pure Democrat party wonks who believe in the innate goodness of the state and their useless candidates like Hillary and Barrack (a fart in a suit).
As if 50 years of dragging the workers movements down the path of state socialism and choking the emancipation of people from ending wage slavery - wasn't a symbol of the depravity of this belief system!
I believe that you get rid of the state as a social relation - then, you ultimately destroy capitalism.
History is my witness. You cannot reform the state. The state/capitalim and religion are inextricably linked. I'll say this for the final time, as I've been spewing my sperm into the air for years. The US, Russia, China, Cuba, etc are different types of state capitalist regimes with different programs under implementation. You cannot not have a "free market" without the state mediating it. Free Market Libertarians don't know what the heck they are talking about when they ask for the eradication of government for "liberty" - because you would then have world over run by anarcho-capitalists (''robber barons) who would amass armies to enslave us all while using the government to justify its "business projects".
The phenomenon of the "liberal movement" or social democracy was to offset the uneven power balance between the working classes and the elite (composed of Monarchs, Mercantilists, theorcrats, now corporate moguls, etc) - which by the way in last 27 years (especially in the US) has proven to have taken the cowardly road towards selling its soul to unabashed corporate power. Its too late, Dems are soiled with the shit of Mephistopheles. If people really want to stop things (global warming, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, capitalist exploitation), they need to do it themselves - unite in affinity groups, autonomous gatherings without leaders, constantly develop theory behind unified, mass action throughout the world - to stop and rethink life strategies that are destroying our planet. Because you can't do this in a world of competing nation states.
I think it bothers and embarrases libs that right wing wingnuts might have beaten them to the punch on something as urgent as where we are now in this mileau.
Nobody wants to say this for fear of some imaginary treason - but it is the only way.
Power is usually illegitimate. It is the cornerstone of our constitution to push this in extreme directions however possible.
Things are bad - because we allow it to be this way, pure and simple. The greatest enemy to politics as usual is a vociferous, knowledgable and ever questioning population of people with divergent independent belief systems but a unified goal for the evolution of humanity and its long term survival.
Don't completely discredit these "theories" because they are always subject to being corrected. What I enjoy is that people are questioning. Too bad, most libs enjoy wiping the ass of the state.
- Papa
I don't know how a live television show would work if all audience members were allowed, even encouraged, to stand up and shout whatever they're thinking in the middle of what's going on on-stage. I think impromptu blurting is rude, especially in this case when the subject being discussed on-stage had nothing at all to do with the so-called 9/11 conspiracy.
Cane - your missing my point brutha! Personally, I think people should break out of the spectator/spectacle relationship that they have been corraled into for so long by the media and arts establishment.
Film must grow out of narrative/text one day if it wants to truly be a revolutionary instrument for change. People must get involved in life - and not be passive consumers of it.
Most of the time - celebrities want a LIVE audience in order to reinforce their propaganda, right? Whether right or left. With applause and laughs at all the right moments? Willing automotons.
What about when the celebrity says something obtuse, racist ,ridiculous? Should there be silence, heckling, walk outs? I think people should have the right to heckle celebrities like MAHIR as they do Rumsfeld any time, any place - and to even pie them!
And why not? Because the corporation is selling a product - in this case Bill Maher and the background audience (all mediated and predetermined robots of knee jerk approval) will bolster the pundits case to the masses - enunciating his clever, thought out pitch - for who? Himself.
Furthermore, since this is on private property of CBS or HBO or whomever - someone is supposed to follow the "rules" or be escorted from the premises. Where is the free speech in that? Did people pay to be there? Are they invited guests? If that is the case, then I find the subversion more alluring. Moreover, the airwaves are OWNED by the public - not CBS, ABC, ect..They purchase time from the gov't - who gives it to them for close to nothing. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES.
On many of these "shows" there is no cross analysis, no vigourous intelligent debate (why this is INFOTAINMENT of course) like John Stewart, masquerading as real news or insightful intellectual perspective. And don't tell me you can see this on Charlie Rose....If anything - the problem is that our market based system has atomized and separated people into nice little consumer blocks (liberal, conservative, soccer moms, African-American, Mexican America, Gay and Lesbian, etc)....There is no unifying entity where anyone from the grass roots can express their thoughts and feelings in solidarity. And don't say cable access or Youtube (could be a nice start) as seriously competing at this point. Distribution is and always will be the key.
Why should these types of important discussions be left for the self-appointed specialized few. They don't speak for me - nor do my "selected representatives."
Isn't it more interesting when subversion takes over? It shows that democracy is still working. That people are no longer BORED - they want unpredictability, they are no longer pliable instruments of capital - forcing them to police themselves with notions of appearing RUDE, ect...Let's get the cop out of our heads!
I hope everyone wakes up one day - and blasts the corporate control machine wide open. Think I am crazy? Did you know the FCC is about to allow more media consolidation? Did you know Net Neutrality may not hold? There is a cottage industry of books out there if anyone cares to read them.
Did you know that you and I and everyone on this list are to blame for the genocide of over a million people in Iraq? All to bolster US power? You think now is the time to play niceties with a blowhard like Mahr just because he strokes the ego of libs for this moment? Do you think now is the time to sit back and vote for Hillary in hope that she will correct Bush's moronic decisions? It takes more - it takes all of our involvement.
Personally, I don't have time to slip into a comfort zone (since I have kids) I am more freaked then ever about where we are headed (not as a country) but as a world. I don't need celebrities to tell me that.
- PAPA
I don't know how a live television show would work if all audience members were allowed, even encouraged, to stand up and shout whatever they're thinking in the middle of what's going on on-stage.
"LIVE SHOWS ARE LIKE HITLER'S TRIUMPH OF THE WILL."
I think impromptu blurting is rude, especially in this case when the subject being discussed on-stage had nothing at all to do with the so-called 9/11 conspiracy
"I'M HUMAN - NOBODY MEDIATES ME." PEOPLE ARE QUIET BECAUSE THEY RESPECT SOMEONE AND VALUE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY - OBVIOUSLY THESE PROTESTERS DID NOT - AND FELT COMPELLED TO USE THE SHOW AS A PLATFORM FOR THEIR ARGUMENT OR ISSUE. AND WHY NOT? THAT IS FREE SPEECH DUDE. DETOURNMENT IS EVERYTHING AND MAKES LIFE FUN. JUST LIKE WHEN CODE PINK SHOWS UP AT THE CAPITAL AND HECKLES SENATORS AND STATESMEN.
- PAPA
Another thing - I want to tell everyone that I am not judging you for your beliefs as I know everyong means well. You are all my allies in this - I get a little hardcore with a few things.
I just feel at this time - that we are all we have. Our theory, our actions. I just don't think out institutions can bring us the change that we are looking for - and I grew upset by Mahr's actions because he on one hand takes advantage of free speech by lambasting Bush and co - but then is a fascist to others. This upset me.
- PAPA
I saw this the other day online and was fortunate enough to catch the live airring. Here's the thing. When you come out and just say, "George Bush masterminded 911," then it just sounds crazy. There are a lot of interesting questions being raised about 911, such as WTC7's collapse, theory of thermate, United 93's crash site, and of course the convenient lack of evidence for the Pentagon crash.
The problem with these questions is that people, by and large, immediately seek a result from the questioning of evidence, instead of viewing them individually in and of themselves. In other words, for someone to say "Hey, there's something fishy behind that crash site for United 93," and the immediate response to be, "What do you think happened, then? You think Bush crashed those planes into the trade center buildings, crazy peron?" is just wrong. If that was an acceptable response, then we'd never have gotten a shred of scientific evidence admitted into any journals, because the second someone in our world's history said, "Isn't it funny how the sun moves almost as a curve across the domed sky," then it would be acceptable for someone to come back with, "What? You think the earth isn't flat, heretic?" Instead of immediately moving toward a steadfast opinion based on a need for a result, such as finger pointing at Bush's Administration, you must admit the individual evidence surrounding these "conspiracies" is worth investigating to prove or disprove doubt. If science beckons to question, who are we to ignore?
I see a lot of the questions being asked right now to hold a great deal of warranted credibility. I also see an outlet for whackos to use this to further fuel their insanity. When conspiracy theorist try to convince me 911 was controlled by Masons or planned by the Jews or that the birds fluttering about the WTC buildings were remote controlled government planes, I have to roll my eyes. But, when they say the physical properties of the debris seen falling from towers 1 & 2 look a lot like thermate (a substance used for demolition), and samples taken from ground zero prove to have identical chemical makeup found in thermate, well... I have to listen. And so should we all, if to prove or disprove doubt.
Oh, and for the record, I'm for Maher's production kicking out anyone who disturbs the show. This isn't about freedom of speech, because although those people in the audience have the right to speak their mind, the show's producers have the right to have them removed from the room for doing so. Freedom isn't a one way street.
Amen, Heath. I still hate it when I agree with you.
Glad you're on reason's side, Gretchen. ;)
By the way, my freedom of speech comment was not directed at Papasnooze, because I'm all for freedom of speech. I believe there are no words (no matter how hateful or wonderful) that should be censored... ever. The point I was making was specific to this incident which took place on private property. The Bill Maher show is NOT a public pulpit for free speech.
So, I agree with you, Papaduece. I do believe people are asleep. I don't, however, agree with this craig moorhead fella. What does he mean 'still believe'? Isn't this "911 theory" thing kind of a recent phenomenon? Aside from the tinfoil hat wearing weirdos that appeared days after 911 pointing fingers at the CIA without a shred of evidence, I think the recent reveals of evidence have been only happening within the past year or two, no? Maybe three?
And, this is not the dumbest theory since Intelligent Design. Come on. ID has no scientific basis. That, and it's a single theory about an intelligent creator, as opposed to the "911 conspiracies" which are individual theories surrounding a larger individual occurance.
First of all - I didn't say these conspiracies were "dumber than" ID. I said they were the "dumbest SINCE" ID. There's a difference.
Second - I agree with your take on the Bill Maher show. It's his show. Why do people go on his show to gripe about WTC 7? How will this help them prove their conspiracy?
Third - What bothers me the most is that I can't find anything anywhere that suggests WHY someone would blow up that building; what there is to gain from doing such a thing. Just that it's a possibility. Are people trying to prove it was blown up because that would better bolster the idea that towers 1 and 2 were blown up? Heath, Papa, or anybody - tell me in one sentence why I should care - in 2007 - specifically how the WTC came down.
Keep in mind that I already believe Bush, Cheney, etc. are criminals and murderers and that they have murderered scores of people in the name of oil. What exactly will be gained from me believing they had anything to do with WTC?
Craig - the idea is that this disaster was engineered to allow the US to spread their hegemony over the world and to consolidate corporate power in the world by pushing austerity programs that the general public and world at large is vociferously against. Without a disaster like this, many of the undemocratic legislation like THE PATRIOT ACT, MILITARY AUTHORIZATION BILL as well as FOREIGN MILITARY IMPERIALISTIC adventures would never be allowed to happen. This was used as a pretext to push an overwhelmingly unpopular agenda - and right when the Seattle Riots and G8 protests in Genoa and the corporate scandals under BUSH were starting to radicalize typical Americans.
The timing of the event - was too fortuitos to be taken as merely coincidental. The blatant disregard for justice and truth to instead push an agressive agenda of domination to forestall the declining rate of profit and US global dominance is apparent.
Sorry for this not being one line - but there is no simple answer - but a complexity of reasons.
Read NAOMI KLEIN's new book- THE SHOCK DOCTRINE. It doesn't believe in conspiracies - but it will give you the general makeup of historical capitalism (and its policies at play). Without disasters - none of this would have been approved. NONE.
- PAPA
So - 9/11 was the pretext the neo-cons needed to push forward an agenda that would consolidate US power over the entire globe - uncontested and unrivaled. Read, PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY - http://www.newamericancentury.org/.
9/11 gave the US a chance to eschew their much foe, the UN for any world approval for their actions - and allowed them to push a policy of pre-emptive war purely for "Defensive measures".
Really this is to reshape the Middle East so that the US can benefit from the energy reserves and to have access to markets in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (where before they had been controlled and dominated by the USSR and CHINA.
Right now - a new COLD WAR is about to start between Russia and the US - due to the fact that our gov't is brazenly supporting regimes and revolutions on Russia's doorstep in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, ect - to make them more US investor friendly. Putin is pissed and because Russia has their own sources of energy - they are showing more and more that they do not need nor care to deal with US issues.
China and Russia are now allies - militarily and economically and will soon eclipse the US as a power player on the world scene. the EU (outside of UK) is slowly pushing its own independent agenda as is South America (moving left with Chavez and other left wing gov'ts) that are now moving away from US influence. The world is escaping from the US - and the area that our corporate power resides to continue its run is the Middle East - set up for us by the British after WW2 as a source of energy.
We need this region, to put bases there to ultimately have a prescence to influence the nations in the Central Asian, South Balkans and Eastern European Areas.
Without the expansion of our growth and hegemony (through bases and consulates) we will not continue to make money through contracting out infrastructure and arms sales (in which we lead the world).
So - when a public becomes too democratic, aware of things - they fight for issues and rights contrary to the very nature of a state and capitalist aims. Something must happen within the system that will allow more room for the state to manuever for power.
Terrorism is a creation of the state amd the state has a monopoly on violence...Max Weber.
- PAPA
The US on the other hand
- PAPA
I can't agree with you, Papa. I don't think our government needed this to happen at all to "accomplish" what they have in the last 8 years. But supposing they did:
Why wasn't George Bush prepared for it? Was the plan all along to make him look like he had no idea how to react? And why did Osama Bin Laden claim responsibility? Is he in on it? Or was that just a stroke of luck for the US? That's kind of a coincidence. And why would the government choose the World Trade Center? Why not a military installation, which would be more reminiscent of Pearl Harbor? I mean, drumming up memories of World War II would be WAY better than asking the nation to feel bad for a bunch of rich New Yorkers. And since when do the Republicans want to kill rich people!?
Also - why bother flying two jets into the World Trade Center? Why not blow the towers up with the bombs you're already going to plant anyway and say that the bombs were planted by terrorists? And why, if you're controlling who is doing the flying of the jets, why not load 'em up with IRAQI terrorists, instead of making it hard on yourself later trying to prove a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
On the Pentagon - why change the plan from a plane to a cruise missile for just one of these attacks? And to say it was a plane instead of a cruise missile, and to have a fake manifesto for a fake plane that had real people on it? Where are those people? Were they killed the night before?
And why crash a plane in the middle of nowhere? What point did that drive home? Was it just so they would have more elements to the conspiracy to cover up? So that more people would be involved that they would have to keep quiet?
I think these conspiracies serve this administration and they are so full of holes as to render them totally dumb.
I apologize for taking what you said out of context, Craigers. Though looking at your comment there at the top of this page, you did write "the dumbest theory outside of itelligent design," which, to me, implies more the idea of "dumber than" than it does "dumbest SINCE", but dead horse and all...
Though, to your point about giving you a sentence summation of these conspiracies and why you should care in 2007, well, I'm not sure I can boil it down into a nice, neat sound byte for you, Craigers, so I'll leave the pithy comments to Papadeas. There are only suspicions at this point as to why some "group" would blow up the buildings. But, like I said, that's not the way I feel we should be taking this discussion, because you're asking for a result again, when you should be asking about investigating individual evidence. Once the individual evidence is evaluated, then we can prove or disprove theories based on fact instead of wildly speculating in the interest of a quick finality. I leave that sort of thing to the fear mongering news channels.
I do find it troublesome to think others would share in your apathy. It's one thing to nail these guys in our current Administration for illegally instigating a war abroad, but if there's any truth in them being responsible for killing three thousand domestic, then we'd have a larger problem on our hands. I'm NOT saying they did (I'm not saying they didn't), I'm just saying IF they did, then I don't think the rest of the nation could, would or should share in your apathy. Why care in 2007 if our leaders were behind 911? You have to ask me for that answer?
Still, I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. I'd prefer to stay focused on individual evidence. Baby steps. Eventually, either the theories will be disproved or proved, and we can finally close the book on this.
Hi Craig - my responses are in BOLD caps.
I can't agree with you, Papa. I don't think our government needed this to happen at all to "accomplish" what they have in the last 8 years. But supposing they did:
NOT SAYING THAT THIS GOVERNMENT IN OFFICE IS BEHIND IT - WE HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT. IT COULD HAVE CONCIEVABLY BEEN A ROUGE ELEMENT WITHIN ONE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS' - CIA, MOSSAD, A EUROPEAN COUNTRIES INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS OR EVEN PURELY MAINIACAL TRUE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, MEDIATED BY AN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY FROM A MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY (SAUDI ARABIA, EGYPT, PAKISTAN'S ISI). DON'T FORGET THAT THE TALIBAN WERE CREATED BY ISI AND INDIRECTLY BY THE CIA. DON'T FORGET THAT ISLAMISM WAS BRED BY THE BRITISH M6 AND THEN USED BY THE US IN AFGHANISTAN AND LATER IN KOSOVO BY CLINTON! DON'T FORGET THAT A FEW OF THE BOMBERS OF THE MADRID TRAIN A FEW YEARS BACK WERE A FEW INFORMANTS FOR THE SPANISH INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. IT WAS ON THE BBC! THE REALITY OF OUR WORLD TAKES PLACE IN AN EXTRAJUDICIAL WORLD OF INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND SPYCRAFT - SO MUCH OF IT WE WILL NEVER KNOW. HOW ABOUT THE RECENT POISINING OF LITCHVENCHECO (SP?) THE RUSSIAN SPY (FORMER KGB) AND ENEMY OF PUTIN WHO WAS MURDERED BY AN UNKNOWN GROUP OF PEOPLE (WHERE THEY TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOV'T?
I AM MERELY BASING MY OPINION ON HISTORY, THE NATURE OF NATION STATES AND PARAPOLITICS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNISM OF CAPITALIST GOVERNMENTS WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE TYPES OF TRAGEDIES THROUGHOUT TIME TO PUSH THEIR UNPOPULAR AGENDAS(DON'T FORGET THAT HITLER CONSOLIDATED POWER AFTER THE REICHSTAG FIRE WHICH WAS STARTED BY THE NAZIS AND BLAMED ON A COMMUNIST) - THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.
Why wasn't George Bush prepared for it? Was the plan all along to make him look like he had no idea how to react? And why did Osama Bin Laden claim responsibility?
MANY THINK THAT OSAMA COULD BE A PATSY OR EVEN DECEASED. ISN'T IT CONCEIVABLE THAT FOR PSYCHOPS REASONS IT WOULD BE BENEFICAL TO RATCHET UP THE FEAR - TO CONCOCT A VIDEOTAPE TO PUSH A MOMENTARY AGENDA. EVEN OLBERMAN HAD A SHOW RECENTLY ABOUT HOW THE BUSH ADMIN WAS PUSHING FAKE TERROR ALARMS ONTO THE PUBLIC.
Is he in on it? Or was that just a stroke of luck for the US? That's kind of a coincidence. And why would the government choose the World Trade Center?
WORLD TRADE CENTER IS THE PINNACLE AND CENTER OF AMERICAN POWER. FINANCE CAPITAL MAN IS EVERYTHING.
Why not a military installation, which would be more reminiscent of Pearl Harbor?
TERRORISM IS THE CREATION OF THE STATE. THE STATE IS ALWAYS DEFINED BY ITS ENEMIES. THIS BOTHERED ME TO - IN THAT A TRUE ENEMY WOULD POISON THE WATER SUPPLY AND/OR ATTACK US MILITARILY. DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE ANTHRAX SCARE THEY ARE ATTRIBUTING IT TO FAR RIGHT GROUPS IN THE US - WHO HAVE A HISTORY OF BEING MEDIATED AND CONTROLLED BY ASSETS WITHIN THE FBI.
SO, AN ATTACK ON THE DOMESTIC POPULATION SMELLS OF A CLASSIC FALSE FLAG ATTACK - YOU DON'T DO THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE A GREATER GOAL - TO LEAD PEOPLE INTO MAKING A DECISION. IN THIS CASE TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHTS FOR SECURITY. THINK ABOUT THE BOLOGNA BOMBING OF 1980 IN ITALY. BLAMED ON THE RED BRIGADES AND FORCED PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR A RIGHT WING CANDIDATE. IN THE 90'S IT WAS REVEALED TO BE A FAR RIGHT MONARCHIST NE0-FACIST GROUP CALLED P2 (PART OF OPERATION GLADIO) THAT WAS ACTUALLY BEHIND THE ATTACK ON THE INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR FEAR THAT COMMIES WOULD TAKE OVER ITALIAN GOV'T). THIS IS TRUE STUFF. GLADIO GROUPS WERE SITUATED IN EVERY COUNTRY IN EUROPE. THESE PEOPLE WERE ALSO BEHIND THE COUP IN GREECE, ETC...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
I mean, drumming up memories of World War II would be WAY better than asking the nation to feel bad for a bunch of rich New Yorkers. And since when do the Republicans want to kill rich people!?
IT GOES BEYOND THAT - ITS ABOUT THE FUTURE SURVIVAL OF THE USA AND OUR SYSTEM.
Also - why bother flying two jets into the World Trade Center? Why not blow the towers up with the bombs you're already going to plant anyway and say that the bombs were planted by terrorists? And why, if you're controlling who is doing the flying of the jets, why not load 'em up with IRAQI terrorists, instead of making it hard on yourself later trying to prove a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
AL QAEDA DOES NOT EXIST - THEY ARE AN UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION OF VARIOUS AUTONOMOUS ISLAMIC TERRORIST CELLS. THIS IS A BOGEYMAN CREATED CONVENIENTLY BY THE BUSH ADMIN. OSAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT THE RINGLEADER OF THIS KKK OF ISLAM. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY LEGITMACY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD.
WATCH - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_power_of_nightmares
OUR ADMINISTRATION (INCLUDING CLINTON AND BUSH I) HAD THEIR EYES ON IRAQ FOR ITS STRATEGIC GIFTS WAY BEFORE THE ACT OF 9/11. 9/11 GAVE THEM AN EXCUSE TO GO IN THERE.
On the Pentagon - why change the plan from a plane to a cruise missile for just one of these attacks? And to say it was a plane instead of a cruise missile, and to have a fake manifesto for a fake plane that had real people on it? Where are those people? Were they killed the night before?
And why crash a plane in the middle of nowhere? What point did that drive home? Was it just so they would have more elements to the conspiracy to cover up? So that more people would be involved that they would have to keep quiet?
I think these conspiracies serve this administration and they are so full of holes as to render them totally dumb.
I AGREE....CAN'T IT ALSO BE CONCEIVABLE THAT THERE ARE MANY GROUPS (FBI AND STATE DEPT) TYPES THAT ARE INFILTRATING THESE MOMENTS AND SUBVERTING THEM INTO THESE RIDICULOUS PERSPECTIVES?
WE MUST KNOW HISTORY, UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF THE GAME - THINGS BECOME CLEARER ONCE THIS OCCURS.
I SAY NOW IS THE TIME FOR A REAL INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF 9/11 AND ALL INVOLVED.
- PAPA
BTW: not all socialists, anarchists and leftists believe in the potential for a conspiracy for 9/11. Many think it is a waste of energy and that most of it should be put towards building a workers movement. So, I am part of a sectarian minority that believes otherwise. I am open to it.
- PAPA
http://infowars.net/articles/october2007/231007Beck_attack.htm
Check this out!
Papa and Heath - I think these theories are a distraction. It's not about apathy, Heath. It's about not barking up the wrong tree. I mean, what's it gonna mean if they prove tomorrow that Bush was behind it - I'm gonna hate him more? Thanks for all that legwork gents. Oh shit! Our planet just fucking melted. Ya know? It's a waste of energy, is what I'm saying. And maybe I'm mainly saying that because I don't believe there's any merit to the theories. And also because Bush has lied and gotten away with everything else AND because proof that he did it would still only be believed by half of the population.
Really, what's the ideal outcome of the investigation?
Let's keep commenting until we break Crane's blog.
Well you probably are right Craig. There is apathy. I don't want people to loathe Bush anymore. He is only a small part of the problem.
Our world class system creates crime, violence, terrorism - ect, ect.. Isn't it human if you have an imagination to want something to change?
Maybe exposing this ultimate indiscretion might awaken the people to institute real change. "MIGHT" is the word. Would there be outrage? Would this foster revolution? Maybe not. ut it is worth a try (it is one of multiple things that people do to foster the advancement of the human race).
- PAPA
Craigers, I hope you never end up in a trial before a jury and the jury is too busy fighting global warming to care about your case. Because, you know, they'd only energy for one thing at a time. I can't imagine the world would have any energy left after fighting global warming to so much as walk, let alone defend your right to a trial. Just saying... :)
Post a Comment