9/11 Redux - Page 5 - Ajarn Forum

esoteric1 · 8th March 2008, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by robitusson

I know which part of this quote I would highlight

I know which part you mean.

Actually I agree with that, and I now think the "crazed" ones were thrown out there intentionally to muddy the waters...so to speak.

I hear ya on wiki too robi....I was just being lazy. (edit: and under the influence of Mr. J. Daniels

)

I found this:

Quote:

But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies
in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs:
where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon?
Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed
in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over
miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field?
Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David
Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster –
which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that
kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel
beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to
be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed
in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called
World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) –
which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11
September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft
had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology
was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three
buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American
professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in
the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the
terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could
be "fraudulent or deceptive".

Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports
of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers –
which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss.
Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found
in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that
was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab
suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still
are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial
intelligence error.

But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta,
the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic"
advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA –
mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned
his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely
to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say
the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it.
But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the
text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.

Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers.
Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the
full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole
lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to
disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's
happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire
now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us.

It would stop people kicking over chairs.

from: Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11 - Robert Fisk, News - Independent.co.uk

Boonmee · 8th March 2008, 18:56

V. interesting. Thanks for that, eso.

esoteric1 · 8th March 2008, 19:03

^you're welcome. Interesting that it was from August 2007 and didn't get more play, eh?

first I'd heard of it too, and some would say I'm obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy.

-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

You mean like the B52 that supposedly smacked into the side of the empire state building, in "Loose Change"?

I think I expressed my reservations with Loose Change in that other 9/11 thread.

------------

I mentioned before that the destruction of the WTC might have been advantageous for certain interests and I found this:

Quote:

But in exposing this evidence, the 9/11 Truth effort is also shedding light on a significant story-within-the-story: that the World Trade Center (WTC) was obsolete and asbestos-laced, and that its destruction on 9/11 may, for certain interests in the U.S., have been both desirable and profitable--independent of any interest in war.

(Heresy, you say? Please read on.)

Quote:

The WTC's original owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had been concerned about asbestos-abatement issues for many years prior to 9/11.

According to Karl Schwarz [6] and other writers, the Port Authority in 1991 filed suit in U.S. District Court against insurers in the hope of recovering funds to help pay for needed asbestos-abatement work at the WTC and one of the region's airports. In the suit, "Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.," the Port Authority sought between 500 million and 1 billion dollars from the insurers.

Note that this suit was filed TWO YEARS BEFORE the first so-called "terrorist attack" on the WTC; the truck-bomb explosion in the Center's underground parking garage in 1993.

Schwarz reports that the U.S. District Court judge ruled against the Port Authority as of May 14, 2001.

Less than three months later, the Port Authority transferred ownership of the WTC buildings to private investors.

On 9/11: Was the Asbestos-Laced World Trade Center "Disposable"? - Looking Glass News

robitusson · 9th March 2008, 06:05

Good middle path view from Fisk. Asking the relevant and legitimate questions without pouncing on the conclusion that the government was behind it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric1

like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East.

This quote is particularly scary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric1

"we're an empire now – we create our own reality".

Boonmee · 9th March 2008, 06:18

^ But it is, of course, due to the very fact that these questions remain unanswered, which leads people to think that the US government may have been behind it.

I agree: a chilling quote.

esoteric1 · 9th March 2008, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by robitusson

Asking the relevant and legitimate questions without pouncing on the conclusion that the government was behind it.

I just wonder why he didn't ask them sooner?

Matthew · 9th March 2008, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by robitusson

The Official Explanation as opposed to the Conspiracy Theory? Where do those of us who don't see it that way fit in? Any room for more than 2 mutually dependent possibilities, one of which exists solely to refute the other?
-----
Maybe they knew who was responsible? There was plenty of prior intellignece an attack was imminent it seems. Not a very dramatic explanation I know. It may not be enough to sate the appetite of some for a less mundane explanation which would better match the magnitude of the event.

Unfortunately terrorism is a very normal everyday occurence. Countries which have experienced it for years know this and don't tend to seek fantastic reasons why people are killed in cowardly and senseless ways.

Great post.

esoteric1 · 9th March 2008, 22:38

The Power of Nightmares Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave - by Adam Curtis

Part 3 of a BBC documentary

Matthew · 9th March 2008, 23:04

Very interesting video, thanks Eso man!

Boonmee · 9th March 2008, 23:17

^^ This was shown in UK a few years ago; an absolutely excellent series, I thought - although I thought it was Channel 4, rather than BBC...? Maybe I'm wrong.

Sorry - OBVIOUSLY I was wrong

The programme's gist tallies with a theory in critical security studies which is based around the premise of the protection racket; the state effectively runs as a protection racket, telling people that if the don't do this or that, (and give up certain rights, for example), then they will be putting themselves at risk. Thus, the state gains power (in its role as "protector"), and the people (as "the protected") give up power.

As a US Navy Seal once put it, "Freedom: a feeling the protected will never know"

Larkinny · 11th March 2008, 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric1

the "crazed" ones were thrown out there intentionally to muddy the waters...so to speak.

Yeah, it's called "poisoning the well" -- faulty (or simply crazy) conspiracy theories are disseminated to make those who contradict mainstream propaganda look silly.

keeshou · 11th March 2008, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Yeah, it's called "poisoning the well" -- faulty (or simply crazy) conspiracy theories are disseminated to make those who contradict mainstream propaganda look silly.

You mean like 9/11 Mysteries"?

Loxley · 11th March 2008, 13:17

Sorry to ask a dumb question but are there any posters on here who still believe that 9/11 was the work of terrorists and that the US Government was not complicit?

Boonmee · 11th March 2008, 16:41

I do believe that it was the work of terrorists, but I think the US government was complicit in not trying to prevent what happened. The issues Fisk raises are very concerning ( I know eso's raised them before!) but that doesn't necessarily mean that the US government was behind the act.

Having seen how the Northwoods plan never even got off the ground, I cannot see how anyone in government could have agreed to kill almost 3 000 innocent - mostly American civilians, on US territory.

What I think is scary is that, rather than Bush being damned for his negligence which enabled 9/11 to occur, he became a national hero. How did that happen?!

zazel · 16th March 2008, 05:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boonmee

anyone in government could have agreed to kill almost 3 000 innocent - mostly American civilians

This figure is often bandied about, but I wonder if there has been any accounting for the number of innocent computers and microprocessors died on that day. Different commentators have estimated anywhere between 10,000 and 100,000. And you never hear anything about this aspect of the crime.