One part of 9/11 you should NEVER forget.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

What these two BASTARDS said.

H-CAcdta_8I

Don't ever forget these two assholes said. These two creatures didn't even wait for the rubble to stop smoking before they unleashed their bullshit about the various minorities and progressive groups they specifically blamed for this instance of mass murder. The first corpses hadn't even been extracted yet before Heckyll and Jekyll here began blaming innocent men and women for this act of religious terror....even though these two fuckers virtually share the exact ideology (give or take a prophet and a name for God).

Remember these bastards and their movement for what they truly are: Tyrants, Oppressors, and the enemies of a free people. Humanity will never be truly free until the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their goons are no longer allowed to walk the earth unchallenged.

They are (in Falwell's case, were) Fascists. They should be treated as such.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So we should forget about the thousands of innocent civilian lives that were lost due to a false flag operation (horrifyingly) carried out by the very government that they trusted for nothing more than dividends and geopolitics?

[Skyhilist]

^False flag? Why would they frame Saudi Arabians for a false flag operation as a justification to invade Iraq?

That aside this is pretty fucked up.

Also lets not forget the hundreds of thousands the U.S. killed as an imperialist reaction to 9/11. Also the CIA coup on 9/11 in Chile 40 years ago that installed a right wing dictator and killed tons of people just for supporting Allende.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

^False flag? Why would they frame Saudi Arabians for a false flag operation as a justification to invade Iraq?

Allegedly it was only 15 of the 19 hijackers which were of Saudi origin; 2 Emirati, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese. According to the official NATO narrative, the hijackers were members of al-Qaeda, an autonomous, nation-less organization once backed by the CIA, now gone rogue, due to religious convictions, modern historical events throughout the 'Islamic world' and so on. I don't want to derail the thread but the thesis that 9/11 was a false flag operation is perfectly plausible.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

9/11 was horrible, but it was absolutely nothing to the frenzied invasion and slaughter it was used as justification for. An invasion the scapegoat mongering, generalisation and nationalist fear politics that these pigs shoveled out only defended.

I remember reading somewhere that a nationwide survey discovered that 60% of Americans still think that Saddam Hussein was responsible - directly responsible - for the 9/11 attacks. To get things into perspective, that's over 150 million people who believe an absolutely disproven lie. Now that's pretty fucking insane "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" indeed.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

9/11 was horrible, but it was absolutely nothing to the frenzied invasion and slaughter it was used as justification for. An invasion the scapegoat mongering, generalisation and nationalist fear politics that these pigs shoveled out only defended.


The fact that the campaign was called "shock and awe," does say a lot. It was also nothing compared to the genocide in Srebrenica where NATO, the UN and the entire world just sat there and fucking watched as Serb fascists massacred thousands of Bosniaks.

[Skyhilist]

Allegedly it was only 15 of the 19 hijackers which were of Saudi origin; 2 Emirati, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese. According to the official NATO narrative, the hijackers were members of al-Qaeda, an autonomous, nation-less organization once backed by the CIA, now gone rogue, due to religious convictions, modern historical events throughout the 'Islamic world' and so on. I don't want to derail the thread but the thesis that 9/11 was a false flag operation is perfectly plausible.

Still it wouldn't make sense to choose those people to frame as the jusification to invade Iraq. Basically: cpP7b2lUxVE

(If this gets too off topic, the threads can just be split, or something)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Still it wouldn't make sense to choose those people to frame as the jusification to invade Iraq.

It makes perfect sense. Employing such patsies makes perfect sense when you have a region that has untold riches aka natural resources for energy and so on which all (historically) share a cultural thread, Islam. Said region had also been historically hostile towards the West due to colonialism and imperialism and the negative aspects that were a byproduct of such two factors and a damn near a total monopoly (globally) on such resources which the West is addicted to. The hijackers were stripped of their national allegiances and were apart of a group which held allegiance not to a nation or a group of nations but merely a religious community, the ummah, or the international Muslim community. They made the hijackers into some ambiguous/anonymous, faceless, nation-less boogeyman shaking Qur'ans and RPGs. Hence all the terrible backlash against all things Islamic and Muslims themselves in the West following 9/11, 7/7, and other such "attacks." Now the West and NATO forces could have a perfectly "plausible," reason to invade any random state in the region because who knows? They could be harboring or aiding al-Qaeda hence Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Again, it does make sense.

[Skyhilist]

I understand why the US went into Iraq, that's not the issue.

What I mean is this: wouldn't it have provided a more compelling justification for war in they eyes of most in the American public if they had framed Iraqis specifically for 9/11 rather than a terrorist group that didn't have a large presence in Iraq? Sure 9/11 was a convenient excuse already for their imperialism. But couldn't they have won people over for attacking Iraq far easier if they specifically framed Iraqis? If so, why didn't they do this?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What I mean is this: wouldn't it have provided a more compelling justification for war in they eyes of most in the American public if they had framed Iraqis specifically for 9/11 rather than a terrorist group that didn't have a large presence in Iraq? Sure 9/11 was a convenient excuse already for their imperialism. But couldn't they have won people over for attacking Iraq far easier if they specifically framed Iraqis? If so, why didn't they do this?

I am going to include a link which goes into detail why Iraqis wouldn't be chosen, which I will credit you that, you're assertion above is reasonable however we have to look at the situation in cold, economic terms. The Saudis were (as you have admitted yourself) our (the US/West/NATO/BLAH) allies and thus would be considered valuable and our "assets," and thus untouchable directly. Iraqis however were not essential, valuable or an part of our assets within the region and thus expendable and what was beneficial is the disruption of Iran emerging with Shia controlled territories in Iraq (which were also economically valuable) into one super Shia state. The article however can do a better job explaining some of the logic behind this.

framing a war link (http://newsframes.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/iraq-war-framing/)

[Art Vandelay]

As a former 9-11 conspiracy theorist (when I was in my teens my dad, who is kinda a bit of a conspiracy theorist himself, showed me the various editions of the documentary 'loose change') all I'm going to say is this: we've seen time and time again that the U.S.A. doesn't need a valid reason for bombing or invading whoever the fuck they want. Whatever excuse they spew is gobbled up by the major players in the international community regardless. Now are there alot of unanswered questions as to the events that transpired leading up to those attacks, absolutely, but do I think the united states government directly organized an attack on their own soil? No. Clinton couldn't even hide getting a blow job in the oval office. I don't seriously think that an operation of that magnitude, requiring untold amount of people to keep their mouths shut, could have been pulled off without people finding out. On top of this, Bush and co. would of been completely aware that if they pulled this off and were unmasked as the perpetrators, they would have been hung. This ties back into my first point, cause why would they risk such consequences, when they simply could fabricate whatever excuse for invasion they wanted?

[RedCeltic]

I was posting on this board that night after the WTC attacks.
I admit I was pretty shook up that night being from New York
and having known people who were there and died and people
part of the rescue effort.

Wish I could find the thread that was posted on this board of the event.
Some dipshit was banned over it for laughing about it and saying the people
who died deserved it. All 3000 of them.

[Skyhilist]

From the article you posted:



The fourth listed (“Fairy Tale of the Just War”) is the metaphorical frame used to justify the war to the public.

So since that's what we were talking about (what would provide the most compelling justification for entering Iraq) that's the part that of the article that I read.

It mentioned how the main reasons for going into Iraq could be framed by the government conveniently as "self-defense" or "rescue". That seemed to mainly be the point. So given that, how do you conclude that they couldn't have framed it that way if they blamed Iraqis specifically for the 9/11 attacks? It makes sense why strategically they didn't attack Saudi Arabia, but what still isn't clear is why they would complicate things by implicating people mostly in Saudi Arabia with ties to a group that mostly wasn't in Iraq. They could've framed it as "this is self-defense, we're defending ourselves from what the Iraqis just did to us" or something like that had they blamed the Iraqis. People would likely be more on board with that in the public that attacking Iraq after throwing in a bunch of factors as justification that had nothing to do with Iraq. So it still leaves the question, why complicate things by framing Al Queda rather than Iraqis as justification to invade Iraq? The "Fairy Tale of War is Just" things that the article mentions could've still easily been used in that context.

[Decolonize The Left]

Whether or not 9/11 was an inside job is fairly irrelevant to the struggle against capitalism. It's also fairly irrelevant to the obvious imperialist policies of the US government. It's just (somewhat reasonable) skepticism which won't really bring us anywhere.

As to Robertson/Falwell, those guys are psychopaths. Nothing they say is surprising or astonishing anymore - they are caricatures of themselves at this point.

[bcbm]

god damn i hate conspiracy theorists. the us couldn't even coordinate its various intelligence agencies fifteen years ago and for fifty years it has been unable to kill a dictator it hates 90 miles from its shore and its simple lies like the gulf of tonkin get blown wide open but, yeah, they coordinated and organized a bunch of islamists into being patsies for them so they could go launch two spectacular failures of wars in afghanistan and iraq. and the only people able to figure it out are some assholes on the internet. apply some fucking occam's razor here.

[Art Vandelay]

Whether or not 9/11 was an inside job is fairly irrelevant to the struggle against capitalism. It's also fairly irrelevant to the obvious imperialist policies of the US government. It's just (somewhat reasonable) skepticism which won't really bring us anywhere.

As to Robertson/Falwell, those guys are psychopaths. Nothing they say is surprising or astonishing anymore - they are caricatures of themselves at this point.

The left can say what it wants about Hitchens, but the man couldn't of hit the nail anymore harder on the head when he said 'if you gave Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox.'

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Now are there alot of unanswered questions as to the events that transpired leading up to those attacks, absolutely, but do I think the united states government directly organized an attack on their own soil? No. Clinton couldn't even hide getting a blow job in the oval office. I don't seriously think that an operation of that magnitude, requiring untold amount of people to keep their mouths shut, could have been pulled off without people finding out. On top of this, Bush and co. would of been completely aware that if they pulled this off and were unmasked as the perpetrators, they would have been hung. This ties back into my first point, cause why would they risk such consequences, when they simply could fabricate whatever excuse for invasion they wanted?

But this is assuming that the trail would end at the presidency and would be to the ultimate benefit of only the American presidency and the political elite however it is my argument that the trail does not end there and goes much higher to the people whom really control America and most of the world and literally control over half of the world's collective wealth aka the American bourgeoisie and their international compatriots; you know, people like the J P Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and so on, for example. Let's not forget the Rothschilds are in control of the Fed, a private bank that centralizes all the finances of the US. They also own the UK through a Napoleonic war debt and control every single bank in the entire world accept for (currently) 3, Iran and North Korea being two of those three and most relevant to this discussion.

Those who control a nation's wealth don't give a flying fuck who makes it's laws or whatever puppet it may use as a mouth piece. Historically, the international ultra-bourgeoisie, these dynastic titans of industry have profited from every major war. Literally, nations have been pitted against each other like chess pieces.

You would also be amazed at what you can do in plain sight, most especially when you control the media, the facts presented in the media and so on. You also give the illusion that there is multiple sources of varying biases like Fox is conservative, MSNBC is liberal, etc. so they obviously would never follow the same exact, narrative, would they? False flag operations have been successfully carried out all throughout history, it doesn't make sense that now, they would suddenly stop. There really doesn't exist the "transparency," that we think exists.

Again, it makes sense on numerous levels from a strictly economic point of view. It's good geopolitics.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

god damn i hate conspiracy theorists.

:rolleyes:


the us couldn't even coordinate its various intelligence agencies fifteen years ago and for fifty years it has been unable to kill a dictator it hates 90 miles from its shore and its simple lies like the gulf of tonkin get blown wide open but, yeah, they coordinated and organized a bunch of islamists into being patsies for them so they could go launch two spectacular failures of wars in afghanistan and iraq.

Why is it that whenever an alternate narrative is introduced in terms of 9/11, all bandwagony "skeptics," point to the pre-packaged selective incompetence of the US government? Huh? Using anecdotes as some sort of "proof," by lampooning that X theory is silly and thus wrong? That's lame sauce sir.

Also, in regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan being failures, I would pose the question to you, failure for whom? Dick Cheney walked away 39 billion dollars, and he was small potatoes, do you really think either wars were failures in terms of gross profit to the people whom "really matter"? That it couldn't be a calculated financial endeavor? Really?


and the only people able to figure it out are some assholes on the internet. apply some fucking occam's razor here.

Meow, meow, meow.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Re: conspiracy theories: Would u.s. imperialism be "just" if 9/11 was not a false flag? No. It is totally irrelevant for our purposes. I think it's possible but highly implausible that any of these conspiracy theories are true in any way. They are distractions at best, reactionary and demobilizing at worst. Unless there's some real evidence, revolutionaries should be very very skeptical of them.

The ruling class generally tries to bend circumstances to their favor, not manipulate and fabricate from scratch. The u.s. might take advantage of situations, but they do not control them. If the us could orchestrate 9/11 type situations at will, then they would anytime they hit a bump in the road. oops, obama's caught spying? boom, there goes mt. rushmore!

Honestly is it that hard to believe that someone in the world would be mad at the u.s. and u.s. imperialism even if they had shitty views and methods?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Personally, I generally take the line that the U$ is responsible for 9/11 regardless because, well, where did Bin Laden's money and power come from? The specifics of American involvement seem pretty neither here nor there.

On a different note, the end of that video (from about 0:55) would make a terrific sample. I'm pretty sure I want to use it to kick off a demo tape.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Re: conspiracy theories: Would u.s. imperialism be "just" if 9/11 was not a false flag? No.

How is whether or not it was "just" or not relevant in terms of even the subject matter of that question alone? I think we both would agree that imperialism is never just, full stop, yes however that's not what's specifically being discussed here and is clearly a side topic.


It is totally irrelevant for our purposes.

Suggesting that the international ultra-bourgeoisie could have orchestrated a false flag operation that lead to increased profit by sacrificing the lives of numerous civilians and undoubtedly among them proletarians alike? No, they'd never do that would they? This has nothing to do with the international class struggle does it? I can see how you can make the argument that ultimately it's not the specifics of how it happened and may not necessarily be of over all import but if you're discussing the topic as a historical event, it kind of is.


I think it's possible but highly implausible that any of these conspiracy theories are true in any way.

Sure.


They are distractions at best, reactionary and demobilizing at worst.

In what capacity would it be any of the above? It's merely discussing the specifics of historical events that are apart of imperialism and the global class struggle, see above.


Unless there's some real evidence, revolutionaries should be very very skeptical of them.

Sure.


The ruling class generally tries to bend circumstances to their favor, not manipulate and fabricate from scratch.

Who said it was from scratch?


The u.s. might take advantage of situations, but they do not control them.

I'm not suggesting "they" do.


If the us could orchestrate 9/11 type situations at will, then they would anytime they hit a bump in the road. oops, obama's caught spying? boom, there goes mt. rushmore!


Again, not suggesting the American government does at root.


Honestly is it that hard to believe that someone in the world would be mad at the u.s. and u.s. imperialism even if they had shitty views and methods?

No, however it's also not hard to believe that the bourgeoisie aka the class enemy would act within there own interests, private interests, irrespective of accepted territories of national origin, either.

[Brutus]

^False flag? Why would they frame Saudi Arabians for a false flag operation as a justification to invade Iraq?

That aside this is pretty fucked up.

Also lets not forget the hundreds of thousands the U.S. killed as an imperialist reaction to 9/11. Also the CIA coup on 9/11 in Chile 40 years ago that installed a right wing dictator and killed tons of people just for supporting Allende.

Actually, they used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. They invaded Iraq on the premise of it having WMDs

[#FF0000]

It makes perfect sense.

Putting together a narrative that "makes sense" does not mean that it happened.

[TheEmancipator]

Vox Populi needs to lay off the strong sauce methinks? "International ultra-bourgeoisie?", suggesting that this event has something to do with international class struggle? This sounds more like Alex Jones's wild NWO conspiracies than anything resembling remotely sane analysis.

Can somebody please confirm this isn't the big standard leftist view on 9/11 in America and that most people don't believe the tripe about this event being a conspiracy theory.

[bcbm]

if a diabolica cabal of international corporate/finance overlords is pulling the strings of most world governments and can organize and pull off attacks of this level of sophistication, then there is really no point in even trying to resist because if you ever actually became a threat, you are toast.

thankfully, i am fairly convinced people are far, far too dumb for this sort of thing.

[Bostana]

I wouldn't say 9/11 was a false flag operation but it was definitely preventable. What the American public likes to forget is that the attacks on the World Trade Civilians was just some random act of terror, it was reaction to U.S. imperialism through out the Middle East. The 9/11 the Americans experienced is the 24/7 the Arabs experience at the hands of NATO terrorism. This doesn't justify killing innocent civilians, nothing does. Just as Al-Qaeda has no right to killed innocent civilians, the U.S. has no right to killed innocent civilians either.

On a side note, yesterday to commemorate 9/11 we read old news papers and watched a video etc. And my teacher said that the Palestinians celebrated 9/11. Well no fucking shit dumb ass. We support and fund the Israeli ethnic cleansing of them, it kinda makes fucking sense if you think about it.

[greenforest]

The fact that the campaign was called "shock and awe," does say a lot. It was also nothing compared to the genocide in Srebrenica where NATO, the UN and the entire world just sat there and fucking watched as Serb fascists massacred thousands of Bosniaks.

Can you provide a logical reason why NATO should have intervened when the scale of violence was less than the Syrian civil war?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm still convinced that the Larouche cult is behind the 911 truth stuff. The narrative and the rhetoric fits their own way too well.

Alter-9/11 truth

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm still convinced that the Larouche cult is behind the 911 truth stuff. The narrative and the rhetoric fits their own way too well.

Alter-9/11 truth

I first read that as saying LaRouche was behind 9/11. That would be a refreshing conspiracy theory to say the least.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well that makes sense too, known reptilian and international finance king Lyndon LaRoache would certainly stand to gain from increased instability in the middle east. Lets run with this

[Jimmie Higgins]

Suggesting that the international ultra-bourgeoisie could have orchestrated a false flag operation that lead to increased profit by sacrificing the lives of numerous civilians and undoubtedly among them proletarians alike? No, they'd never do that would they? This has nothing to do with the international class struggle does it? I can see how you can make the argument that ultimately it's not the specifics of how it happened and may not necessarily be of over all import but if you're discussing the topic as a historical event, it kind of is.
ok, but historically it makes more sense that it was a pretty brazen and spectacular act if terrorism, one that had been tried before, which the U.s. then used as a bullshit justification for a more aggressive uni-polar imperial agenda.

The conspiracy theories tend to be based on inconsistencies and odd details. Well, official inconsistencies would also easily be explained by the u.s. not really caring to investigate as much as "seize the opportunity" as condelezza rice had put it.


In what capacity would it be any of the above? It's merely discussing the specifics of historical events that are apart of imperialism and the global class struggle, see above. well they can be reactionary in a sense because it's a kind of American exceptionalism to think that the u.s. can be the world's biggest imperialist and not see the kind of terrorism that happened to the uk or Russia or many other places. It can be demobilizing because these theories tend to emphasize our powerlessness against shadowy forces and such.

[Questionable]

The US government couldn't keep NSA spying a secret but they could keep this a secret? I don't fucking believe it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Putting together a narrative that "makes sense" does not mean that it happened.

True but it does mean it's a plausible theory that could have and should be open for discussion.


Vox Populi needs to lay off the strong sauce methinks?

Sauce is for children and steaks, I do drugs; atleast come correct if you're going to try put my mental state into question.


"International ultra-bourgeoisie?", suggesting that this event has something to do with international class struggle?

I would mock you further but this is becoming boring. See below.


This sounds more like Alex Jones's wild NWO conspiracies than anything resembling remotely sane analysis.

This is a ridiculous notion, why would the bourgeoisie need a "New World Order," or "One World Government"? Exactly, not that I'm necessarily against it but they wouldn't, because that is exactly my point, these are private groups, following private interests, irrespective of possible national interests of their technical origin. What percentage of the American population actually controls the means of production and the state? Roughly 1% and we know that capital in terms of the control and accumulation thereof is always concentrated to a small percentage of individuals and that we are under capital and thus under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, globally. When Marx said working class of the world unite, wtf did you think he meant? The class struggle obviously goes beyond national borders and to suggest otherwise seems absolutely absurd given what we know of capitalism.


Can somebody please confirm this isn't the big standard leftist view on 9/11 in America and that most people don't believe the tripe about this event being a conspiracy theory.

Can someone please confirm this bullfuckery is a tired ass cop out. Ermergherd it's nert consperiercy, dert werd never herpern, ideriot. Is precisely what you sound like. I at least respect the people whom disagree with me on something understandable not this let's label an alternative theory a conspiracy and thus by virtue of it now being an alleged "conspiracy theory," it is therefore wrong. YAwn.

[helot]

Ockam's razor anyone? It's far more likely 9/11 occured because a bunch of reactionaries were pissed at US imperialism and wanted a bit of revenge.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The US government couldn't keep NSA spying a secret but they could keep this a secret? I don't fucking believe it.

Oh yeah, since we're obviously discussing it, it still remains a bloody secret. RELEASE TEH FILEZ! :rolleyes:


Ockam's razor anyone? It's far more likely 9/11 occured because a bunch of reactionaries were pissed at US imperialism and wanted a bit of revenge.

It doesn't violate Occam's razor, therefore why invoke it? Lame.

[Questionable]

Oh yeah, since we're obviously discussing it, it still remains a bloody secret. RELEASE TEH FILEZ! :rolleyes:

Considering that incidents such as the NSA spying program have been empirically verified and admitted by the US government to have existed, whereas 9/11 being an inside job amounts to a bunch of internet websites and documentaries saying that it was, I'd say this statement is a bit dishonest on your part

[helot]

It doesn't violate Occam's razor, therefore why invoke it? Lame.

Er yeah it does because it requires far more assumptions.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Can you provide a logical reason why NATO should have intervened when the scale of violence was less than the Syrian civil war?

Ethnic cleansing.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Considering that incidents such as the NSA spying program have been empirically verified and admitted by the US government to have existed, whereas 9/11 being an inside job amounts to a bunch of internet websites and documentaries saying that it was, I'd say this statement is a bit dishonest on your part

The weren't merely incidents, they were a series of policies that lead to the carrying out of said incidents. Passed usually when there was some distraction or something stupid going on in the media, and passed quiet as fuck. But way to try to misrepresent the so called 9/11 truth current and the bulk of objective data, official or otherwise which supports it.


Er yeah it does because it requires far more assumptions.

How?

[TheEmancipator]

Sauce is for children and steaks, I do drugs; atleast come correct if you're going to try put my mental state into question.

Strong sauce is alcohol. :confused:


This is a ridiculous notion, why would the bourgeoisie need a "New World Order," or "One World Government"? Exactly, not that I'm necessarily against it but they wouldn't, because that is exactly my point, these are private groups, following private interests, irrespective of possible national interests of their technical origin. What percentage of the American population actually controls the means of production and the state? Roughly 1% and we know that capital in terms of the control and accumulation thereof is always concentrated to a small percentage of individuals and that we are under capital and thus under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, globally. When Marx said working class of the world unite, wtf did you think he meant? The class struggle obviously goes beyond national borders and to suggest otherwise seems absolutely absurd given what we know of capitalism.

This all has strictly fuck all to do with proving 9/11 was a "plan of the international bourgeoisie", as if some old men in suits meet up every year and discuss how to kill innocent workers while savouring drinks made of crushed socialists.

You've changed the context and goalposts now because you know you've embarrassed yourself.


Can someone please confirm this bullfuckery is a tired ass cop out. Ermergherd it's nert consperiercy, dert werd never herpern, ideriot. Is precisely what you sound like. I at least respect the people whom disagree with me on something understandable not this let's label an alternative theory a conspiracy and thus by virtue of it now being an alleged "conspiracy theory," it is therefore wrong. YAwn.

Good to see you living up to your high standards too.

[Comrade Jacob]

Don't forget the other two 9/11's (as those dastardly Americans write it)
1. The Chilean Coup - 1973
2. The Birth of Assad - 1965

[Questionable]

The weren't merely incidents, they were a series of policies that lead to the carrying out of said incidents. Passed usually when there was some distraction or something stupid going on in the media, and passed quiet as fuck.Okay, what are you trying to prove with this?

My point was that the US government is incapable of hiding most of their greatest secrets, thus an operation requiring immense amounts of manpower such as this is unlikely to be kept under wraps. You were, I presume, suggesting that the very fact that we were talking about 9/11 being an inside job meant that it wasn't a secret any longer. I pointed out, accurately I think, that unconfirmed rumors and speculation are not on the same level as the US government themselves admitting that something happened, therefore it is reasonable for me to still be skeptical of your hypothesis based on my prior reasoning.


But way to try to misrepresent the so called 9/11 truth current and the bulk of objective data, official or otherwise which supports it.How was I misrepresenting anything?

[#FF0000]

True but it does mean it's a plausible theory that could have and should be open for discussion

well, naw, unless there's compelling evidence for it.

[helot]

How?

I'm going to assume the theory of a demolition as this is the most prominant one.

It'd require various government agents along with tons of demolition specialists, a whole host of heavy machinery and the gutting of the buildings' very structure prior to the event in order to guarantee its destruction. You can't just place a few bombs and be done with it it requires hundreds and hundreds of hours of preparation obviously ignoring making sure it's a safe demolition. The notion that all this could go unnoticed is incredibly far fetched.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Strong sauce is alcohol. :confused:

Obviously, and obviously it was a joke of a joke. ;)


This all has strictly fuck all to do with proving 9/11 was a "plan of the international bourgeoisie", as if some old men in suits meet up every year and discuss how to kill innocent workers while savouring drinks made of crushed socialists.


I would like to make it clear that it was never my initial intention to "prove," anything, I was merely stating my positions on the matter in relation to the OP and it not my intention now to "prove," that it happened either. I must ask the simple question, however of, how? You're also being a bit dramatic.


You've changed the context and goalposts now because you know you've embarrassed yourself.


One, it's stupid to think one could "embarass," oneself on an internet discussion forum, wow. Secondly I've literally changed nothing, huh?

Even if, I took the internets as seriously as you apparently do I fail to see how I've embarrassed myself. Oh, wow, a couple of people have lampooned my position, you're right, how will I sleep tonight? I think I need counseling.


Good to see you living up to your high standards too.

I try.


Okay, what are you trying to prove with this?

Huh? Can you not follow the conversation?


My point was that the US government is incapable of hiding most of their greatest secrets, thus an operation requiring immense amounts of manpower such as this is unlikely to be kept under wraps.

It hasn't been kept under wraps considering to a large degree the evidence presented to assert the alternative theory is the same evidence used by the likes of say, the 9/11 commission which is to say, official evidence, it's all right there. You're also assuming they would have to keep it "under wraps," (whatever that would really mean).


You were, I presume, suggesting that the very fact that we were talking about 9/11 being an inside job meant that it wasn't a secret any longer.

We are talking about en event which was done in plain sight. Not to mention given the fallout and the evidences which support the thesis, it's really not that much of a secret, nor was really a "secret" to begin with.


I pointed out, accurately I think, that unconfirmed rumors and speculation are not on the same level as the US government themselves admitting that something happened, therefore it is reasonable for me to still be skeptical of your hypothesis based on my prior reasoning.

The two are similar even if not the same. Even the 9/11 commissions co-chair Lee Hamilton admits that "we didn't get everything right," and suggested that the commission itself was set up to fail (for obvious reasons). Not mentioning CIA insiders, like 28-Year senior CIA official Bill Christison, whom was National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis until the near 1980's has state that 9/11 was probably an inside job. There has been numerous government officials and people formerly employed by the government which have come out to support the alternative theory. The American government obviously can't admit to carrying this out however there is a "reasonable doubt" that would suggest that it could very well have been an "inside job."


How was I misrepresenting anything?

By portraying the 9/11 truth current as being confined to the internet despite the fact there is objective to suggest the contrary to the conclusions reading by the 9/11 commissions report, the fact there has been numerous work printed about the subject, etc. my point being, it's not just some internet hoaxery like the flat earth theory or something. Which is what I assume you were poking at.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm going to assume the theory of a demolition as this is the most prominant one.

It'd require various government agents along with tons of demolition specialists, a whole host of heavy machinery and the gutting of the buildings' very structure prior to the event in order to guarantee its destruction. You can't just place a few bombs and be done with it it requires hundreds and hundreds of hours of preparation obviously ignoring making sure it's a safe demolition. The notion that all this could go unnoticed is incredibly far fetched.

The controlled demolition theory is only one theory that would explain how the attacks of 9/11 could have been an inside job. Regardless, I don't really think it would be that difficult if every cog in the machinery were just following orders. Again, it's amazing what you can do in plain sight. As another member pointed out, some people believe in that Saddam really had WMDs. Even if someone were to come out and say, "no, I was involved in X," (assuming they didn't give a flying fuck about any sort of pressures or intimidation) who would believe them? With the right spin, you can easily sweep that under the rug, like it was nothing, just like they do with virtually everything in the pre-packaged, mainstream media. Just to be clear though, this is all is operating under the assumption that it was a controlled demolition or could only be a controlled demolition.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

well, naw, unless there's compelling evidence for it.

There is.

[synthesis]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That's a basic rule of critical thinking.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That's a basic rule of critical thinking.

I'm maintaining that it's not extraordinary, it's pretty good business if you think about it and it's never been my intent to "prove," said theory within this thread.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fairly sure that if there was extraordinary evidence, it wouldn't be in the public domain. And, i'm even more sure, that if this extraordinary evidence both existed and was in the public domain, it wouldn't be the subject of debate where the majority of people don't pay that much serious attention to it, it would be un-deniable and cause some sort of revolution.

If the evidence was there re: 9/11 being an inside job - if real, irrefutable evidence was there - then we could talk, and we would be talking. But it's not, so we can't, and we won't. It's a real side-issue that distracts from the geo-political realities of US imperialism, of the Middle East situation and, dare I say it, from the tragic loss of life that resulted both on September 11th and indeed in the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that continue to be 9/11's legacy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It was a terrible, terrible day. My best friend lost his uncle that day, I saw how it affected him and his family. It was, on a human level, a tragedy. What is even more tragic is that arguably, 12 years on, its legacy is not American workers standing up and saying no to religious extremism and imperialism and war, but the American bourgeoisie causing the unnecessary deaths and immiseration of how many fucking millions of Iraqi and Afghan and Pakistani people?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Fairly sure that if there was extraordinary evidence, it wouldn't be in the public domain. And, i'm even more sure, that if this extraordinary evidence both existed and was in the public domain, it wouldn't be the subject of debate where the majority of people don't pay that much serious attention to it, it would be un-deniable and cause some sort of revolution.

There need not be extraordinary evidence as it's really not that extraordinary. The American government can be involved in things like destabilizing regions, democracies, political assassinations, MKULTRA, genocide, slavery, biological, atomic and chemical warfare but not a false flag operation? It seems like pretty standard statecraft. Though obviously, yes, a lot of crucial evidence would be classified however there is enough non-classified evidences and testimonies to again, suggest the contrary. Further, I don't think it would necessarily "cause a revolution," because that would fly in the face of Leftist theories galore but it certainly wouldn't help the case of the bourgeoisie. There also were discussions on the event in the "public domain" aka the 9/11 commission hearings. Oh, and also, the fact that we're discussing it now even if in the abstracts. What does all of this tell you?


If the evidence was there re: 9/11 being an inside job - if real, irrefutable evidence was there - then we could talk, and we would be talking. But it's not, so we can't, and we won't. It's a real side-issue that distracts from the geo-political realities of US imperialism, of the Middle East situation and, dare I say it, from the tragic loss of life that resulted both on September 11th and indeed in the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that continue to be 9/11's legacy.

Nyet, it does not distract from anything especially considering we're discussing the particulars of X historical event tied with imperialism. Ultimately, sure, it's a side issue in the grand scheme of things however this is irrelevant in terms of historical discussion and if true would do nothing other than potentially galvanizing the working class in general against the common enemy aka the bourgeoisie.

It also would not be an insult to the memories of those lost in the 9/11 attacks considering it would explain whom did this and why. No, less important than finding out the specifics of the holocaust committed by the Nazis or what really went down in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 90s. Searching for facts and "truth" in terms of historical events of this nature isn't "trivial," or demoralizing to the victims or their families considering all those involved would conceivably want would be an explanation, some "justice," closure, etc.

Not to mention it could potentially, again, assuming the alternate theory is true, shed new light on the present situations in the Middle East. I find all three charges to very unwarranted and unfounded.

[bcbm]

I at least respect the people whom disagree with me on something understandable not this let's label an alternative theory a conspiracy and thus by virtue of it now being an alleged "conspiracy theory," it is therefore wrong.

you've got it backwards. it is a 'conspiracy theory' because it is wrong, not the other way around. you seem to consistently believe that those who disagree with you haven't bothered to investigate the subject at all and are simply 'hopping on the bandwagon,' which is not the case.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah I think it's safe to say that most people under the age of 30 have at one time or another believed that 9/11 was an inside job, particularly if they lean towards the far left.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

you've got it backwards. it is a 'conspiracy theory' because it is wrong, not the other way around.

Debatable but meh, whatever.


you seem to consistently believe that those who disagree with you haven't bothered to investigate the subject at all and are simply 'hopping on the bandwagon,' which is not the case.

I may have implied this, perhaps, idk but that's not what I think, no.


Yeah I think it's safe to say that most people under the age of 30 have at one time or another believed that 9/11 was an inside job, particularly if they lean towards the far left.

Ageist crap.

[Questionable]

Huh? Can you not follow the conversation?

Your post had very little to do with a logical line of discussion, so yes, I was. Even in your new post you didn't really explain what you were saying previously in the post I quoted, I just reiterated my viewpoint and you addressed it properly this time instead of rambling.


It hasn't been kept under wraps considering to a large degree the evidence presented to assert the alternative theory is the same evidence used by the likes of say, the 9/11 commission which is to say, official evidence, it's all right there. You're also assuming they would have to keep it "under wraps," (whatever that would really mean).

I'm saying that, if the government were behind 9/11, the manpower required to undertake it would have been astounding, and consider the government's track record with whistleblowers and leakers, the information would have come out somehow.


By portraying the 9/11 truth current as being confined to the internet despite the fact there is objective to suggest the contrary to the conclusions reading by the 9/11 commissions report, the fact there has been numerous work printed about the subject, etc. my point being, it's not just some internet hoaxery like the flat earth theory or something. Which is what I assume you were poking at.

It's not as ludicrous as the Flat Earth Theory, which is more a prank rather than anything serious, but it has about as much credibility as any other conspiracy theory, which is low (Although I've always been a fan of the JFK theories personally).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There need not be extraordinary evidence as it's really not that extraordinary.

It's an extra-ordinary allegation, in that it is rather out of the ordinary to accuse a government of attacking its own people - nay, its own property! - as a smokescreen to cover its imperial efforts. Indeed, even us Socialists, suspicious of capitalist governments as we are, start from a materialist analysis of the system, not a belief (which is what your starting point seems to be) that the government is some sort of shady cabal capable of hushing up the un-hushable.


The American government can be involved in things like destabilizing regions, democracies, political assassinations, MKULTRA, genocide, slavery, biological, atomic and chemical warfare but not a false flag operation?

Nobody is saying it can't be involved, but saying it is a possibility doesn't mean it actually happened, if no irrevocable evidence is presented. In the case of destabilising regions in the cause of anti-communism, slavery, nuclear weapons etc., the evidence is plentiful and un-deniable. For 9/11, there is little clear evidence that it was an inside job.


Further, I don't think it would necessarily "cause a revolution," because that would fly in the face of Leftist theories

What? But most people don't know jack-shit, nor having any interest in knowing, about leftist theories. Political revolutions can be non-leftist, you know!


There also were discussions on the event in the "public domain" aka the 9/11 commission hearings. Oh, and also, the fact that we're discussing it now even if in the abstracts. What does all of this tell you?

That some people (for example, you) believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and some other people (for example, me) do not, or do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that it was. The fact we are having the conversation changes nothing, on that evidence part.

It is kind of like talking about the existence of ghosts. Having a conversation about ghosts does nothing to change, in any way, the likelihood of ghosts existing or not.


Nyet, it does not distract from anything especially considering we're discussing the particulars of X historical event tied with imperialism. Ultimately, sure, it's a side issue in the grand scheme of things however this is irrelevant in terms of historical discussion and if true would do nothing other than potentially galvanizing the working class in general against the common enemy aka the bourgeoisie.

If it were true. But there is no evidence, other than unclear and easily dis-provable circumstantial stuff, that it was an inside job. So we're really wasting time talking about it, so this is really quite pointless, i'm a worker and you're doing nothing to galvanise me, you're just irritating me.


It also would not be an insult to the memories of those lost in the 9/11 attacks considering it would explain whom did this and why.

We already have an explanation as to who did this and why, though. The fact that it's not an answer you accept is really YOUR problem, not my problem, or my friend's family's problem, or the victims' problem, or the problem of the American working class. YOU'RE the one with the agenda, because you very clearly WANT the 'inside job' hypothesis to be proved right, which is a very flawed way of conducting an investigation into the supposed facts.


No, less important than finding out the specifics of the holocaust committed by the Nazis or what really went down in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 90s.

In the case of the Nazis, for example, there was a very clear paper trail as to what happened. In the case of Rwanda, people knew exactly what was going on, but sat back and didn't intervene in the genocide. These two examples (I don't really know much about Srebrenica) are qualitatively different to 9/11, because it is quite clear what happened in both events, and was clear from the outset. As of yet, there is no clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Inconsistencies yes, but actual evidence supporting the inside job hypothesis, no. No paper trail, no deep throat, no mole, no computer records, nada.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It's an extra-ordinary allegation, in that it is rather out of the ordinary to accuse a government of attacking its own people - nay, its own property! - as a smokescreen to cover its imperial efforts.

So, the Silverstein group buying the WTC (6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks) for 3.9 billion, knowing full well it required 200 million in renovations considering it was a friggin health hazard and then profiting 4.6 billion after the fall of the WTC, was what? Why wouldn't the bourgeoisie liquidate certain assets in order to make a substantial profit? While the attacks do involve imperial motives of the both the American government and the international bourgeoisie, it's deeper than that. Again, from a strictly business point of view. The American governments role in the operation is superficial and just the tip of the iceberg and what is most publicized.

Alot of people profited from the attacks of 9/11, you know.

link (http://911review.com/motive/profits.html)

link (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html)


Indeed, even us Socialists, suspicious of capitalist governments as we are, start from a materialist analysis of the system, not a belief (which is what your starting point seems to be) that the government is some sort of shady cabal capable of hushing up the un-hushable.

This is operating from a "materialist analysis of the system," and is grounded in objective data and testimony. This is suggesting (with proof to substantiate such claims) that the international bourgeoisie with the American government being complicit in the operation, carried out this false flag operation (not the first in history, mind you) which profited greatly those of import ie the international bourgeoisie and to a degree those in the American government. I'm not suggesting the such entities are a shady cabal of evildoers like some Batman villain supergroup but more of calculated business person whom want to act within their own class interests and make more revenue; which is what capitalism is all about, accumulation.


Nobody is saying it can't be involved, but saying it is a possibility doesn't mean it actually happened, if no irrevocable evidence is presented. In the case of destabilising regions in the cause of anti-communism, slavery, nuclear weapons etc., the evidence is plentiful and un-deniable. For 9/11, there is little clear evidence that it was an inside job.

According to whom? Again, even those chair persons whom were heading the 9/11 commission said the entire thing was essentially a sham due to failure. The evidence being cited to support the theory is the exact same evidences used to substantiate the official narrative reached by the 9/11 kangaroo court.


What? But most people don't know jack-shit, nor having any interest in knowing, about leftist theories. Political revolutions can be non-leftist, you know!

Well aware of this however, I again don't think this one event would be the final nail in the coffin which would push people towards revolution and would over look other variables that could or would be involved.


That some people (for example, you) believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and some other people (for example, me) do not, or do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that it was. The fact we are having the conversation changes nothing, on that evidence part.

Of course not.


It is kind of like talking about the existence of ghosts. Having a conversation about ghosts does nothing to change, in any way, the likelihood of ghosts existing or not.

:rolleyes: Good God.


If it were true. But there is no evidence, other than unclear and easily dis-provable circumstantial stuff, that it was an inside job. So we're really wasting time talking about it, so this is really quite pointless, i'm a worker and you're doing nothing to galvanise me, you're just irritating me.

Says whom? You people keep saying this as if it's accepted fact when really, the jury is out. The evidence which would suggest that the alternate theory is true is also, not merely "circumstantial," either, it's using the exact same evidences presented by government officials and the 9/11 commissions. I'm also a worker and I'm trying to galvanize you, I'm just discussing a historical event on a internet forum. I was saying it had the potential too, within the context of a hypothetical situation that you brought up. Shit, lol.


We already have an explanation as to who did this and why, though. The fact that it's not an answer you accept is really YOUR problem, not my problem, or my friend's family's problem, or the victims' problem, or the problem of the American working class. YOU'RE the one with the agenda, because you very clearly WANT the 'inside job' hypothesis to be proved right, which is a very flawed way of conducting an investigation into the supposed facts.

I think the way these conversations are (seemingly inherently) framed are truly hilarious. Considering all the above is what? You're opinion about my opinions/assertions. They're at best assumptions based upon an official narrative (albeit flawed) that you accept and assert. I could very easily say the reverse is true. This conversation is getting pretty silly quick, i dunno.


In the case of the Nazis, for example, there was a very clear paper trail as to what happened. In the case of Rwanda, people knew exactly what was going on, but sat back and didn't intervene in the genocide. These two examples (I don't really know much about Srebrenica) are qualitatively different to 9/11, because it is quite clear what happened in both events, and was clear from the outset. As of yet, there is no clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Inconsistencies yes, but actual evidence supporting the inside job hypothesis, no. No paper trail, no deep throat, no mole, no computer records, nada.

No, it wasn't and there is a paper trail as maintained by those such as myself whom assert the alternate theory as to what happened on "that day." Similar but not the exactly the same, per se, sure. Again, for the final time, according to whom? There is clear evidences that are not merely inconsistencies or circumstantial evidences and so on. Denying everything claimed isn't really a honest way of debating this either. Not mentioning the fact that I've said numerous times I'm not trying to prove anything within this thread because this conversation alone is proving to be frustrating. :(

[Remus Bleys]

1. The Chilean Coup - 1973
Yes, this was a sad unfortunate event that I focused on yesterday.

2. The Birth of Assad - 1965:rolleyes::laugh::rolleyes::laugh:
Who cares?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Vox - contrary to what you may believe about me 'accepting and asserting an official narrative', I have actually taken the time to look at much of the evidence myself, and just don't see the great significance, or any sort of proof in it. I'm sorry, I just don't. I have no love for the American government, at all, so I have no reason to dismiss the evidence out of hand. I just don't think much of it is viable.

As for the Silverstein thing - are you telling me that the American government connived at the very highest echelons, to conclude probably the riskiest inside job ever concocted, in order to commit insurance fraud amounting to, what, a shade over half a billion dollars? That's essentially peanuts.

As for the profits from war, that says more about imperialism than anything. The oil companies benefit because America occupies a land plentiful in oil. That provides, at best, one out of many potential motives, by many groups, to attack America as was done on 9/11. It is so far from proof to be laughable. It's the sort of theory that would be totally, and rightly, inadmissible in any court of law, anywhere.

I just don't 'get' the whole inside job thing. I don't know many people who do. Given that the evidence is apparently staring us in the face, either we are all stupid and have been brainwashed by the New World Order, or the evidence isn't really there. I'm going to trust my instincts and go with the latter.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

By the same token that one ought to require extreme evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, one should require extreme evidence that it wasn't. However, whereas no extreme evidence really exists one way or the other, insisting that one has the Truth™ either way seems useless.
Someday, we will crack open all of the CIA files, and know "what really happened". As for now, I don't see what's to be gained from disputing it one way or the other, as either "America financed Bin Laden who hatched a plot to blow up the WTC" or "America financed and plotted with Bin Laden to blow up the WTC" seems a pretty irrelevant distinction.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Vox - contrary to what you may believe about me 'accepting and asserting an official narrative', I have actually taken the time to look at much of the evidence myself, and just don't see the great significance, or any sort of proof in it. I'm sorry, I just don't. I have no love for the American government, at all, so I have no reason to dismiss the evidence out of hand. I just don't think much of it is viable.

Ok, then we can atleast agree to disagree then.


As for the Silverstein thing - are you telling me that the American government connived at the very highest echelons, to conclude probably the riskiest inside job ever concocted, in order to commit insurance fraud amounting to, what, a shade over half a billion dollars? That's essentially peanuts.

No, of course not but I'm saying that there is substantial evidence suggesting that a great number of the international bourgeoisie profited from the event irrespective of the financial gains from the imperial aspects of the fallout. Which to me seems to be indicative that this was a calculated and strategic business venture involving different entities, both "foreign and domestic," as it were.


As for the profits from war, that says more about imperialism than anything.

It wasn't just the imperial aspects that were a result of the event and the fallout thereafter.


The oil companies benefit because America occupies a land plentiful in oil. That provides, at best, one out of many potential motives, by many groups, to attack America as was done on 9/11. It is so far from proof to be laughable. It's the sort of theory that would be totally, and rightly, inadmissible in any court of law, anywhere.

Good thing I'm not citing that as proof.


I just don't 'get' the whole inside job thing. I don't know many people who do. Given that the evidence is apparently staring us in the face, either we are all stupid and have been brainwashed by the New World Order, or the evidence isn't really there. I'm going to trust my instincts and go with the latter.

Again, agree to disagree, is where I'm at. I'm not saying anyone is stupid or brainwashed or what have you for disagreeing with me, just either a) they are misinformed and not open to the idea of an alternate theory, either in principle or just in this particular instance or b) like you, they have done their own research, considered the theory however disagree (which I completely respect). Both of which I would say, more or less, is true for this thread. I also basically agree with GDU, basically. I think.

[Vireya]

I was in 7th grade in 9/11. I remember my teacher went to the front of the class and got our attention, he cut on the TV and there we saw the burning towers on the news. At first I thought it was a movie or something, but then my teacher explained what had happened. I was filled with such anger that people could do such a horrible act.

[DasFapital]

I remember my mom telling me that from now on this day will be known as "Terrorist Tuesday"

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Vox Populi;2662937]
No, of course not but I'm saying that there is substantial evidence suggesting that a great number of the international bourgeoisie profited from the event irrespective of the financial gains from the imperial aspects of the fallout. Which to me seems to be indicative that this was a calculated and strategic business venture involving different entities, both "foreign and domestic," as it were.

Evidence that some people profited from the events of 9/11 =/= evidence that they orchestrated 9/11 in any way. That's just a logical fallacy.


Good thing I'm not citing that as proof.

But you did cite it as evidence, when I challenged you. The financial aspect was the only thing vaguely resembling evidence that you provided and, as we can both agree, it is no proof of anything.



Again, agree to disagree, is where I'm at. I'm not saying anyone is stupid or brainwashed or what have you for disagreeing with me, just either a) they are misinformed and not open to the idea of an alternate theory, either in principle or just in this particular instance or b) like you, they have done their own research, considered the theory however disagree (which I completely respect). Both of which I would say, more or less, is true for this thread. I also basically agree with GDU, basically. I think.

If the evidence was so conclusive then it surely wouldn't be the case that - liking to think i'm a fairly intellectually open and honest person, and a fairly intelligent person - having reviewed the evidence, I could possibly think that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. I just don't see how that's possible. Nobody disputes the US' role in the Bay of Pigs, or with the Iran Contras, or that they've used WMDs in various arenas of battle, because the evidence is real. The 'evidence' for 9/11 being an inside job is just not there.

[Tim Cornelis]

Around the age of 15, I think, I believed 9/11 to be an inside job. When further 'investigating' (google) I found that many of the premises whereupon the notion of a false flag operation was construed were demonstrably false. For instance, the supposed inability to call from planes as argued by '9/11 truthers' is false.

There is basic common sense we can apply to see that 9/11 being an inside job is irrational.
First, the sheer logistics of orchestrating such a massive operation would proportionately be massive. It would involve hundreds or more likely thousands of people and millions of dollars. Yet no insider has come forth. Maintaining silence would involve yet more people, and so forth. As others have pointed out, governments can hardly keep inane secrets or bigger secrets, yet somehow it could keep a secret of this magnitude is implausible. For instance, there is a video of a firefighter warning that WTC 7 is about to collapse, which would suggest that dozens of fire fighters were involved in the inside job.
Second, the risks of being exposed far outweigh the potential benefits. Especially given the immense magnitude of the operation and the thousands of people involved. And for what? Bush being allowed a second term without becoming personally enriched at all?

The whole premise of the 9/11 inside job narrative is implausible and irrational.

Then there are a lot of additional flawed premises. If you are going to launch a rocket claiming it is a plane, why not use a plane? If calling from the plane is impossible you would assume that the government would not fabricate phone calls from the plane, and so forth.

This YouTube channel refutes many of these implausible scenarios:

bMZ-nkYr46w

[Red Commissar]

I was 12 I think when it happened. Just started sixth grade, couldn't care less about politics. The teacher in my first class couldn't focus and said that there had been an "attack" on the WTC.

Being dumb as I was I thought it'd be funny to reference Red Alert 2 since that had a concept of pesky Russians invading the US, with New York City being one end. So I go "oh no Russia is invading". I still smh over that to this day.

For some reason my school had Sim City 2000 installed on the computers. If you guys have played that, one of the disasters in that game is a plane crash. In some modes of the game you can initiate disasters when ever you want to. The day before during free time some of my friends messed around to see what disasters would cause the most damage in a city. One of the templates in the game is NYC and since buildings were packed together so tightly, fires resulting from disasters would spread out of control if you intentionally blocked responders. Spamming plane crashes was a good way for this to occur.

Another smh, it also shouldn't come as a surprise that plane crash disaster never appeared in newer sim cities.

[Tim Cornelis]

By the way, the Objectivist-Randist cult leader Peikoff, whom despises emotivism and acclaims rationalism, argued that the US should nuke Iran for something Sunni muslims did. He made Bill O'Reilly look the sane one.

JoAWCwm-UXw

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Evidence that some people profited from the events of 9/11 =/= evidence that they orchestrated 9/11 in any way. That's just a logical fallacy.

Argument from logical fallacy, from ignorance (not my words), burden of proof, etc. It's not like your arguments haven't contained logical fallacies either, comrade. I did not once say it was "proof," I specifically said it was indicative of X. Of course my posts are going to appear half-assed here because I can't be fucked into giving enough of a fuck to want to prove a theory that from the onset, the majority here reject as stupidity and lunacy. What profit would I gain from that? How would that benefit me? How would that not waste my time?


But you did cite it as evidence, when I challenged you. The financial aspect was the only thing vaguely resembling evidence that you provided and, as we can both agree, it is no proof of anything.

No, I did no such thing, I am not trying to prove the alternative theory within this thread nor have I tried too. How clearer do I have to be about this? I am not getting into that debate here, the only reason why I've responded this much this which is pretty uncharacteristic of me at this point, (so, go you guys), was to defend the alternative theory, demonstrate it's plausible and perfectly reasonable to endorse and not just some loon theory that 3 year olds believe (I think I've summed up the critiques thus far pretty good here). That's it.

I used the adjective 'indicative' in my last post for a reason, I wasn't offering it as evidence (per se) that my theory is correct because of it.

It's ridiculous that this conversation keeps changing with you people. I say one thing then you move on to something else and claim I'm being irrelevant, you inject crap into the conversation, then criticize me again, like I'm pretty much done, it's stupid. I've tried super hard to be nice too.


If the evidence was so conclusive then it surely wouldn't be the case that - liking to think i'm a fairly intellectually open and honest person, and a fairly intelligent person - having reviewed the evidence, I could possibly think that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. I just don't see how that's possible. Nobody disputes the US' role in the Bay of Pigs, or with the Iran Contras, or that they've used WMDs in various arenas of battle, because the evidence is real. The 'evidence' for 9/11 being an inside job is just not there.

The argumentation presented here is puzzling considering I'm expected to provide "extraordinary," proof (which I don't want to do), and all of this crap, yet you and others are content in sitting back and offering me anecdotal evidences, incredibly simplistic arguments, tired cop outs and so on. The expectations for my argument are ridiculous, to be quite honest. Further, since you are keen to bring up logical fallacies the above is clearly appeal to the masses.

"Everyone can see the Americans government role in the Bay of Pigs or Iran Contras or what have you but 9/11, no, there's just 'no evidence' is there?"

Again, says whom, it's annoying that you and others keep saying there is no evidences to substantiate my claim when there is and I've pointed you all into the right directions where you could look in reference or discover for yourselves, whatever be the case. This seems to me, at the moment, to be about as productive as Sisyphus moving a rock. I tried to politely say, fine, you disagree with me and I disagree with you but no. Like wtf.


Around the age of 15, I think, I believed 9/11 to be an inside job. When further 'investigating' (google) I found that many of the premises whereupon the notion of a false flag operation was construed were demonstrably false. For instance, the supposed inability to call from planes as argued by '9/11 truthers' is false.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/files/original/barack.jpg

Let me clear, I am not a tween nor a teen or whatever and this vieled ageist crap is really annoying. Moving forward, when doing my own research on the topic I have and had arrived at different conclusions than you. Why this is so hard to grasp or fathom for the rest of you, is beyond me. Geesh.


There is basic common sense we can apply to see that 9/11 being an inside job is irrational.

:rolleyes: Oh shit, "common sense," I'm doomed.


First, the sheer logistics of orchestrating such a massive operation would proportionately be massive. It would involve hundreds or more likely thousands of people and millions of dollars. Yet no insider has come forth. Maintaining silence would involve yet more people, and so forth. As others have pointed out, governments can hardly keep inane secrets or bigger secrets, yet somehow it could keep a secret of this magnitude is implausible. For instance, there is a video of a firefighter warning that WTC 7 is about to collapse, which would suggest that dozens of fire fighters were involved in the inside job.

The argument that this couldn't have happened because it operated on a grander scale than you logistically can wrap your head around as Joe Shmoe, means, to put it charitably, diddly squat. The same sort of logic can be applied to can covert operation either America or any nation, has engaged in, ever. Do you realize the shit America has done that has been "real complex," or on a "grand scale"?


Second, the risks of being exposed far outweigh the potential benefits. Especially given the immense magnitude of the operation and the thousands of people involved. And for what? Bush being allowed a second term without becoming personally enriched at all?

Risks which were obviously averted in the fallout. You also assume, the buck stops at the presidency and the American government which I have maintained is merely the tip of the iceberg and facade. In any con, you need a fall guy if things were too, for whatever reason, go south, hence a face and a national government which it has been extensively documented profited from the event. The claim that it was all over oil and some arms is stupid and silly, yes, I agree, that's not what I'm claiming.


The whole premise of the 9/11 inside job narrative is implausible and irrational.

:rolleyes: Two paragraphs. and we're done, wow, alright, guess I need to reevaluate some things, lql.


Then there are a lot of additional flawed premises. If you are going to launch a rocket claiming it is a plane, why not use a plane?

Only one theory that explains the specifics of how 9/11 was a FF operation, not the only one, what's your point? Or are we just setting up things so we can conveniently knock them down here?


If calling from the plane is impossible you would assume that the government would not fabricate phone calls from the plane, and so forth.

See above.


bMZ-nkYr46w

I didn't watch the vid but I have seen numerous vids debunking the so-called 9/11 truth theory and have seen vids debunking the debunking the 9/11 truth claims, and so on. I've done my homework, please respect my position as I respect yours.

Here: read some things on here (http://www.ae911truth.org/).

[Tim Cornelis]

Let me clear, I am not a tween nor a teen or whatever and this vieled ageist crap is really annoying. Moving forward, when doing my own research on the topic I have and had arrived at different conclusions than you. Why this is so hard to grasp or fathom for the rest of you, is beyond me. Geesh.

I did not suggest any ageism anywhere, I merely stated I once believed in 9/11 truth movement for faulty reasons and happened to mention my age back then. Moreover, saying you "have a different conclusion" is irrelevant as that's exactly what we're challenging. It's reminiscent of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_entitled_to_my_opinion

But really where is this evidence? Silverstein cashing billions, which, as far as I know, is used to rebuild the world trade center, not for personal gains. (That'd be an especially unlikely scenario: the Bush administration killing 3,000 people without personal benefit so that Silverstein can spend billions of dollars and millions in rent just to REBUILD the WTC -- does that sound like an unlikely scenario, not according to you).



The argument that this couldn't have happened because it operated on a grander scale than you logistically can wrap your head around as Joe Shmoe, means, to put it charitably, diddly squat. The same sort of logic can be applied to can covert operation either America or any nation, has engaged in, ever. Do you realize the shit America has done that has been "real complex," or on a "grand scale"?

No it cannot because not every covert operation is so logistically improbable as the notion of 9/11 being an inside job. Supplying names to Indonesia in 1965 to kill communists is not logistically improbable, yet went exposed, the CIA aiding coups from Chile to Ghana is logistically simple by comparison, yet went exposed.
9/11 being an inside job would involve hundreds of first responders, thousands of investigators, government officials, and politicians, yet not a single one of them has come forth with it. Statistically speaking you would expect at least someone willing to risk his life to expose the truth. The only way to evade this is to argue that journalists and media outlets would refuse to expose it, increasing the conspiracy in scope to encompass hundreds of thousands of people, or by saying that all of these people would be silenced, meaning secret agencies would deploy hundreds of people to keep thousands of people from exposing the truth.
All this is one improbable premise stacked on another, raising the improbability exponentially to the level of near impossible and miraculously executed superplan.
I would say that it is you who cannot wrap your head around the logistics necessary for such an operation, and thus in your mind the plausibility of it is ascertained. If you'd simply apply reason you would figure that an operation of this magnitude would involve thousands of people and millions of dollars, yet the benefits of such an operation would be minuscule. No rational mind would engage in such an operation.


Risks which were obviously averted in the fallout. You also assume, the buck stops at the presidency and the American government which I have maintained is merely the tip of the iceberg and facade. In any con, you need a fall guy if things were too, for whatever reason, go south, hence a face and a national government which it has been extensively documented profited from the event. The claim that it was all over oil and some arms is stupid and silly, yes, I agree, that's not what I'm claiming.

So let's take the perspective of a George W. Bush. He is planning this massive operation potentially killing thousands of people, US citizens, from which he will benefit exactly by increasing the likelihood of being re-elected. He did not receive any personal benefit from 9/11 beyond that. So he risks his very life in through an operation with an incredible risk of being exposed for a bigger chance of being re-elected?

It's absurd, it's infantile logic, it's irrational.


:rolleyes: Two paragraphs. and we're done, wow, alright, guess I need to reevaluate some things, lql.

Two paragraphs to which you reply with unbelievably simple minded 'reasoning'.


I didn't watch the vid but I have seen numerous vids debunking the so-called 9/11 truth theory and have seen vids debunking the debunking the 9/11 truth claims, and so on. I've done my homework, please respect my position as I respect yours.

Just watch it. And I don't respect your opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_entitled_to_my_opinion).


Here: read some things on here (http://www.ae911truth.org/).

For every architect and engineer supporting the 9/11 false flag hypothesis there are at least a dozen who reject it. So why selectively follow 2,000 as opposed to the majority? I cannot speak from any scientific authority, and I doubt you can, but I can see that from the perspective of the Bush administration it would be illogic, irrational to undertake such an operation. One thing immediately noticable form these engineers and experts is that the premise based on which they claim 9/11 was an inside job, namely the speed with which the twin towers collapsed, would be physically impossible without explosives is false. I will look up a video showing this. EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K82wcKwxPZc

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

What sounds more likely, that a group of Islamic fundamentalists would be willing to kill themselves for their cause by flying planes into buildings, or...
...that the Bush administration orchestrated a super-massive masterplan where they fly rockets into buildings disguised as planes, hire voice actors to fake phone calls, hire actors to play their grieving families, hire investigators to cover tracks of any evidence that the government was behind it, bribe first responders to lie about the events, bribe and threaten hundreds of thousands of journalists, supply the BBC with information prior to the event so they can mistakenly report the WTC 7's collapse prior to it having taken place, bribe scientists to write a fake report on the collapse of WTC 7, bribe their peers to not expose these lies to those unskilled in physics, and hiring hundreds of special agents to spy on all thousands of these people involved, successfully preventing all these thousands of police, fire fighters, journalists, scientists, physicists, engineers, politicians, bureaucrats from coming forth with the truth. Yep, perfectly plausible.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

:lol:


I did not suggest any ageism anywhere, I merely stated I once believed in 9/11 truth movement for faulty reasons and happened to mention my age back then.

K, retracted thens.


Moreover, saying you "have a different conclusion" is irrelevant as that's exactly what we're challenging. It's reminiscent of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_entitled_to_my_opinion

Wtf does this have to do with any of my arguments? I'm not using it as an argument or in a manner presented in the wiki article but more as of an out because I'm bored and my attention span is waning, sorry, but true.


But really where is this evidence? Silverstein cashing billions, which, as far as I know, is used to rebuild the world trade center, not for personal gains.

Rebuilding the WTC? You mean like this?

http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2011/09/04/wtc-now.jpg

All talks of rebuilding the WTC anything greater than some monument is hilarious. Not gonna happen imho.


(That'd be an especially unlikely scenario: the Bush administration killing 3,000 people without personal benefit so that Silverstein can spend billions of dollars and millions in rent just to REBUILD the WTC -- does that sound like an unlikely scenario, not according to you).

OMFG, I posted an article which listed precisely numerous companies and entities which profited from the WTC play er...attacks other than just the one example I listed by name in my post to illustrate a point in response to a critique offered by another member. Why are you constraining your argument to one? You and others sure do love strawmen, you starting a farm? Growin some corn are we? All you guys are doing is centering your arguments around one thing I say, craft an entire fictional argument that I have not made around it, then knock it down; do you honestly not think I know what you guys are doing? I see what you did there, classic strawman bullshit.


9/11 being an inside job would involve hundreds of first responders, thousands of investigators, government officials, and politicians, yet not a single one of them has come forth with it.

How? Did it not ever occur to you that the hijackers could have been CIA operatives? Are you not aware that al-Qaeda is a myth and a clever invention created by the CIA? That this has been documented as well? Wow, all you have done is throw up commonly suggested theories as to the specifics of it being a FF operation and then offered some 'critique' of it when I have not once stated my theories on how such operation took place. Again strawmen. You're assuming by virtue of me endorsing the original premise (9/11 was a false flag operation) then I must obviously endorse all popular theories as to the specifics, which I don't.


Statistically speaking you would expect at least someone willing to risk his life to expose the truth. The only way to evade this is to argue that journalists and media outlets would refuse to expose it, increasing the conspiracy in scope to encompass hundreds of thousands of people, or by saying that all of these people would be silenced, meaning secret agencies would deploy hundreds of people to keep thousands of people from exposing the truth.

I'm not really going to touch the above except by saying groups such as the Rothschilds control over half the world's wealth, own virtually every single media outlet and control every single national bank in the world except for 3 which conveniently happen to be "the bad guys." Two of which are relevant to this conversation. No, you're right, there is no possible way the bourgeoisie could have manipulated the media in any fashion, to any degree, etc. you're right.


I would say that it is you who cannot wrap your head around the logistics necessary for such an operation, and thus in your mind the plausibility of it is ascertained. If you'd simply apply reason you would figure that an operation of this magnitude would involve thousands of people and millions of dollars, yet the benefits of such an operation would be minuscule. No rational mind would engage in such an operation.

For the last time, there is no grand master plan that only the Wizard of fucking Oz could have come up with. One, given the resources and training could have very easily completed the operation with no grand scheme shenanigans. Again, geesh.


So let's take the perspective of a George W. Bush. He is planning this massive operation potentially killing thousands of people, US citizens, from which he will benefit exactly by increasing the likelihood of being re-elected. He did not receive any personal benefit from 9/11 beyond that. So he risks his very life in through an operation with an incredible risk of being exposed for a bigger chance of being re-elected?

Who said that I said it was to the ultimate benefit of Bush? Did I not just say that while it may have benefited the presidency or the American government in the short term, that's not where the trail stops, that's not whom is ultimately controlling the shots, and so on? I've stated this numerous times now. Like, I'm trying to get you guys to see my frustration, I mean, God damnt.


It's absurd, it's infantile logic, it's irrational.


That does sum up this thread, not my arguments, yes.


Two paragraphs to which you reply with unbelievably simple minded 'reasoning'.

:rolleyes:


Just watch it. And I don't respect your opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_entitled_to_my_opinion).


:rolleyes: See above.


For every architect and engineer supporting the 9/11 false flag hypothesis there are at least a dozen who reject it. So why selectively follow 2,000 as opposed to the majority?

Who said the majority opposed it? Has there been some sort of poll (which would be hilariously absurd, btw)? Was there some sort of convention or something I'm not aware where all other architects and engineers came out to say 9/11 truth is bullshit? This is absurd, again, I see what you're doing, because this group supports 9/11 truth, they are wrong, despite all their expertise in a field we both know nothing about and are minority and thus because they all wear tinfoil hats to work that must obviously mean all other persons within their field must disagree with them and compose what we know of the homogeneous consensus? Where has this apparent homogeneous consensus been documented? Oh it hasn't? You mean this framing of this has been you're own invention? That's what I thought.

I've merely listed examples and resources which again cast reasonable doubt unto the official narrative which, within the context of historical investigation and accuracy, should be explored. By posting them, I am not necessarily giving my endorsement of the specifics that X may be endorsing. Don't just assume things.


I cannot speak from any scientific authority, and I doubt you can, but I can see that from the perspective of the Bush administration it would be illogic, irrational to undertake such an operation.

I'm sure if you create some grand fictional story which is absurd from the get go and then deconstruct (as evidence below ↓), I'm sure.


What sounds more likely, that a group of Islamic fundamentalists would be willing to kill themselves for their cause by flying planes into buildings, or...
...that the Bush administration orchestrated a super-massive masterplan where they fly rockets into buildings disguised as planes, hire voice actors to fake phone calls, hire actors to play their grieving families, hire investigators to cover tracks of any evidence that the government was behind it, bribe first responders to lie about the events, bribe and threaten hundreds of thousands of journalists, supply the BBC with information prior to the event so they can mistakenly report the WTC 7's collapse prior to it having taken place, bribe scientists to write a fake report on the collapse of WTC 7, bribe their peers to not expose these lies to those unskilled in physics, and hiring hundreds of special agents to spy on all thousands of these people involved, successfully preventing all these thousands of police, fire fighters, journalists, scientists, physicists, engineers, politicians, bureaucrats from coming forth with the truth. Yep, perfectly plausible.

http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/60/05/001038/strawman.jpg

[synthesis]

This is a ridiculous notion, why would the bourgeoisie need a "New World Order," or "One World Government"? Exactly, not that I'm necessarily against it but they wouldn't, because that is exactly my point, these are private groups, following private interests, irrespective of possible national interests of their technical origin.

Let's look at who exactly these "private interests" who ignore their "national interests" are:


...however it is my argument that the trail does not end there and goes much higher to the people whom really control America and most of the world and literally control over half of the world's collective wealth aka the American bourgeoisie and their international compatriots; you know, people like the J P Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and so on, for example. Let's not forget the Rothschilds are in control of the Fed, a private bank that centralizes all the finances of the US.


So, the Silverstein group buying the WTC (6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks) for 3.9 billion, knowing full well it required 200 million in renovations considering it was a friggin health hazard and then profiting 4.6 billion after the fall of the WTC, was what?

To be clear, I'm not accusing you of being an Alex Jones type - and of course Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan are not Jewish - just that in spending time in that milieu you have unwittingly picked up elements of that narrative.

[Tim Cornelis]

Rebuilding the WTC? You mean like this?

http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2011/09/04/wtc-now.jpg

All talks of rebuilding the WTC anything greater than some monument is hilarious. Not gonna happen imho.

How is this a refutation of what I wrote? Is saying you doubt it'll happen a refutation of the money spent? Of course not.


OMFG, I posted an article which listed precisely numerous companies and entities which profited from the WTC play er

I already addressed this. The Bush administration orchestrated a massive, yadayda, conspiracy without any personal benefit.


How? Did it not ever occur to you that the hijackers could have been CIA operatives?

Why would a CIA operative be willing to kill himself and kill potentially thousands of his own citizens? Get real.


Are you not aware that al-Qaeda is a myth and a clever invention created by the CIA? That this has been documented as well?

Do tell. I suppose when I provide evidence to the contrary you'll reply "oh well, I don't support the hypothesis that Al Qaida doesn't exist, I just think that -- given that it's so well documented -- is worth exploring."
Are your claims even falsifiable?


Wow, all you have done is throw up commonly suggested theories as to the specifics of it being a FF operation and then offered some 'critique' of it when I have not once stated my theories on how such operation took place.



Again strawmen. You're assuming by virtue of me endorsing the original premise (9/11 was a false flag operation) then I must obviously endorse all popular theories as to the specifics, which I don't.

How convenient, you refuse to say what you believe, all that is refuted "I don't believe!".


I'm not really going to touch the above except by saying groups such as the Rothschilds control over half the world's wealth, own virtually every single media outlet and control every single national bank in the world except for 3 which conveniently happen to be "the bad guys." Two of which are relevant to this conversation. No, you're right, there is no possible way the bourgeoisie could have manipulated the media in any fashion, to any degree, etc. you're right.

Media manipulation is one thing, willfully covering up the most sensationalist conspiracy of all times is another.

And half the word's wealth? Really, virtually every single media outlet, and every bank? Do you buy into any conspiracy narrative, no matter how anti-semitic, or are you going to provide sources this time?


For the last time, there is no grand master plan that only the Wizard of fucking Oz could have come up with. One, given the resources and training could have very easily completed the operation with no grand scheme shenanigans. Again, geesh.

It seems you're afraid to explain yourself fearing it'll be refuted. Stop being so vague and explain yourself. Saying "it could have been done easily" is not evidence.


Who said that I said it was to the ultimate benefit of Bush? Did I not just say that while it may have benefited the presidency or the American government in the short term, that's not where the trail stops, that's not whom is ultimately controlling the shots, and so on? I've stated this numerous times now. Like, I'm trying to get you guys to see my frustration, I mean, God damnt.

So why would Bush go along with something so incredibly risky without personal gain. Again, you're not saying anything.



Who said the majority opposed it? Has there been some sort of poll (which would be hilariously absurd, btw)? Was there some sort of convention or something I'm not aware where all other architects and engineers came out to say 9/11 truth is bullshit? This is absurd, again, I see what you're doing, because this group supports 9/11 truth, they are wrong, despite all their expertise in a field we both know nothing about and are minority and thus because they all wear tinfoil hats to work that must obviously mean all other persons within their field must disagree with them and compose what we know of the homogeneous consensus? Where has this apparent homogeneous consensus been documented? Oh it hasn't? You mean this framing of this has been you're own invention? That's what I thought.

2,000 Engineers and architects signed that they support 9/11 conspiracy theory, there are hundreds of thousands whom haven't signed it. Logically we would conclude that therefore the majority of them do not back this absurd theory, but then again your thinking is devoid of logic.


I've merely listed examples and resources which again cast reasonable doubt unto the official narrative which, within the context of historical investigation and accuracy, should be explored. By posting them, I am not necessarily giving my endorsement of the specifics that X may be endorsing. Don't just assume things.

In other words, "I will make one general absurd claim, scarcely provide sources or arguments, and then when you attempt to refute them I can say, 'well I don't support that specific part.'"



I'm sure if you create some grand fictional story which is absurd from the get go and then deconstruct (as evidence below ↓), I'm sure.

Yes and you're cherry picking. You know damn well that you could say "I don't believe they were rockets, but as for the involvement of engineers..." So stop cowering behind "strawman!" and start answering.

[synthesis]

Surely if the scientific evidence strongly indicated that 9/11 was a government plot, then there would at least be an identifiable and relatively complete consensus among the orthodoxy of scientists outside the American/Western sphere of power that this was the case? How come Truthers never try to demonstrate this?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

And half the word's wealth? Really, virtually every single media outlet, and every bank? Do you buy into any conspiracy narrative, no matter how anti-semitic, or are you going to provide sources this time?


Let's look at who exactly these "private interests" who ignore their "national interests" are:

To be clear, I'm not accusing you of being an Alex Jones type - and of course Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan are not Jewish - just that in spending time in that milieu you have unwittingly picked up elements of that narrative.

Woah, woah, woah, fucking woah, stop right there. I'm not responding to one more post until this is answered; are you both seriously stooping so low now that you're seriously going to indirectly accuse me of being anti-Semitic and "blaming the Jews"? Really? That's where were at? If so, just let me know because I will definitely say fuck this conversation because that is fucking more idiotic than I can properly convey given this medium. Fucking wow.

[Tim Cornelis]

Woah, woah, woah, fucking woah, stop right there. I'm not responding to one more post until this is answered; are you both seriously stooping so low now that you're seriously going to indirectly accuse me of being anti-Semitic and "blaming the Jews"? Really? That's where were at? If so, just let me know because I will definitely say fuck this conversation because that is fucking more idiotic than I can properly convey given this medium. Fucking wow.

Nice cherry picking. Frankly, you're an idiot for believing in the nonsense you do, and now you are being pressed to justify the nonsense you believe and now you have got your convenient excuse to ditch this 'discussion'.

For the record, I said you're buying into an anti-semitic narrative. The Rothschild family is the most wealthy and powerful family in the world, and to ever exist. But you linking them to 9/11 and claiming they own half the world's wealth is indeed buying into the narrative of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

Oh but wait, strawman! Strawman! You didn't say the Rothschild's had anything to do with 9/11, you said they control virtually all media. And you suggested that this Rotschild-controlled media purposefully hides the truth about 9/11 being a conspiracy theory, thus implicating them into 9/11. And yes, this is exactly the narrative anti-semites want to create: a bunch of Zionist and Jewish families orchestrating 9/11 to defend Zionist interests in the Middle East.

But of course you can't supply me with the sources to back up your claims so you coward away. The revolutionary left is better off without idiots like yourself.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Nice cherry picking. Frankly, you're an idiot for believing in the nonsense you do, and now you are being pressed to justify the nonsense you believe and now you have got your convenient excuse to ditch this 'discussion'.

No, I am fully willing to answer your point however if I am being called an anti-Semite and or if my arguments are being misconstrued as anti-Semitic or linked by proxy to anti-Semitic theories; then yes, I will stop responding because that is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest and quite frankly bullshit.


For the record, I said you're buying into an anti-semitic narrative. The Rothschild family is the most wealthy and powerful family in the world, and to ever exist. But you linking them to 9/11 and claiming they own half the world's wealth is indeed buying into the narrative of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

What difference does it make if they are Jewish or not? What the fuck does this have to do with anything? The CEOs of Lockheed Martin are not Jewish, neither are Boeing, Northrop Grummen, etc. or any of the other numerous entities which I have listed via my link and neither is the J P Morgans or the Rockefellers. Their ethnic identity is wholly irrelevant, which is why I'm like wtf. We sit here, day in and day out ranting about the bourgeoisie, and I soon as I start pointing out some names and faces, you guys say "hey wait, that one guy is a Jew, that's like totally almost anti-Semitic, stahp"? Really? Ok, I understand some in the 9/11 truth current may lay some absurd claims about Jews but me pointing to the Rothchilds has nothing to do with that. That's not my claims and you know it, and the reason why I'm irritated is because it seems like perhaps you two are trying to slowly slip in some guilt by association into this conversation; which again, if you persist and this is true, then yes, I'm done with this thread.


Oh but wait, strawman! Strawman! You didn't say the Rothschild's had anything to do with 9/11, you said they control virtually all media. And you suggested that this Rotschild-controlled media purposefully hides the truth about 9/11 being a conspiracy theory, thus implicating them into 9/11. And yes, this is exactly the narrative anti-semites want to create: a bunch of Zionist and Jewish families orchestrating 9/11 to defend Zionist interests in the Middle East.

But of course you can't supply me with the sources to back up your claims so you coward away. The revolutionary left is better off without idiots like yourself.

:rolleyes: I've been involved with the "revolutionary Left," in real life for more than a decade and you're telling me because I endorse the thesis that 9/11 was a false flag operation on an internet discussion forum and have been explicitly clear about my intentions in this thread, I'm some how a moron and the Left is "better off without me"? Lmfao, do you not read the shit you just typed? Are you serious? I am more than happy to respond in full to your shenanigans, I just wanted to clear something up before proceeding. Nice ad hominems btw.

Not once have I mentioned Zionism or Jews or any of this crap.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

My post about people under 30 was not an ageist jab, I'm under 30. I was illustrating how widespread the belief has been in response to the idea of people dismissing truthers because they haven't researched the subject for themselves.

[Tim Cornelis]

What difference does it make if they are Jewish or not? What the fuck does this have to do with anything? The CEOs of Lockheed Martin are not Jewish, neither are Boeing, Northrop Grummen, etc. or any of the other numerous entities which I have listed via my link and neither is the J P Morgans or the Rockefellers. Their ethnic identity is wholly irrelevant, which is why I'm like wtf. We sit here, day in and day out ranting about the bourgeoisie, and I soon as I start pointing out some names and faces, you guys say "hey wait, that one guy is a Jew, that's like totally almost anti-Semitic, stahp"? Really? Ok, I understand some in the 9/11 truth current may lay some absurd claims about Jews but me pointing to the Rothchilds has nothing to do with that. That's not my claims and you know it, and the reason why I'm irritated is because it seems like perhaps you two are trying to slowly slip in some guilt by association into this conversation; which again, if you persist and this is true, then yes, I'm done with this thread.

It matters because you're buying into a false narrative that is anti-semitic, that is, construed in such a manner as to show that Jews control finance, media, government, etc. The whole illuminati, new world order, and all that nonsense is a spawn of anti-semitism.

The Federal Reserve -
Zionist Jewish Private Bankers
From Anonymous
3-28-9
JEWS CONTROL THE MONEY IN AMERICA. Period. End of story.

Zionist Jews own and run the Federal Reserve Bank that the US government continually borrows from...and is in debt to.

Napoleon said: When a government is dependent for money upon the bankers, they and not the government leaders control the nation. This is because the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Financiers are without patriotism and without decency.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of 9 Zionist Jewish-owned & associated banks with the Rothschilds at the head:

$1. Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin.

$2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

$3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

$4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

$5. Lehman Brothers of NY.

$6. Kuhn, Loeb Bank of NY (Now Shearson American Express).

$7. Goldman, Sachs of NY.

$8. National Bank of Commerce NY/Morgan Guaranty Trust (J. P. Morgan Bank - Equitable Life - Levi P. Morton are principal shareholders).

$9. Hanover Trust of NY (William and David Rockefeller & Chase National Bank NY are principal shareholders).

TIME LINE OF THE JEW-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

1791-1811: Rothschilds' First Bank of the United States.

1816-1836: Rothschilds' Second Bank of the United States.

1837-1862: Free Banking Era - no formal Central Bank through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson.

1862-1913: System of National Banks through the efforts of President Andrew Jackson.

1913-Current: Federal Reserve Act effects a consortium of privately held Jewish & associated banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank are the Rothschilds of London holding 57% of the stock which is not available for public trading.

On May 23 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought impeachment charges against the members of the Federal Reserve Bank. A smear campaign against McFadden ensued and he was poisoned 3 years later.

ZIONIST JEWS RUN THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

Here are the Jews that control the government of America:

1) Ben Shalom Bernanke: Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2020.

2) Donald L. Kohn: Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2016.

3) Randall S. Kroszner: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve.

4) Frederic S. Mishkin: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2014.

5) Alan Greenspan: Advisor to Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Recent Chairman.

HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK WORKS

ZIONIST BANKERS PRINT MONEY at heavily-armed & guarded Federal Reserve Bank buildings throughout the US. Then these Jewish bankers of the Federal Reserve Bank *loan* the money to the US government at *interest.*

Since the Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (and all the others) is listed in Dun & Bradstreet. But according to Article I, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, only Congress has the right to issue money and regulate its value.

Thus it is *illegal* for private interests to issue US money. But because influential Jews like Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff bribed into enactment the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank were to be kept a secret. Only recently have the Jewish stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank come to light.

International cooperation with the Jew-owned Federal Reserve Bank has been intense to coordinate currency. In 1985, officials from the JP Morgan Bank of NY met with the Credit Lyonnais Bank of France. They established the European Currency Unit Banking Association (ECUBA) to get world cooperation for a unified currency.

In October 1987, the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe (AMUE), secretly met and recommended that the ECU (European Currency Unit) replace existing national currencies and that all European Central Banks be combined into one and issue the ECU as the official unified currency. This occurred in 1999 with the issuing of the Euro.

The plan of the international Jewish banking cabal is to have only 3 central banks in the world: The Federal Reserve Bank, the European Central Bank, and the Central Bank of Japan. All of these banks are headed by the Rothschilds.

And Next To Come Will Be The One World Government Run By Anti-Christian Jews.

Read the source article from Real Jew News with links here.
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=177


Related Articles

Pick-Pocketing the People: The ruling elite planned the global economic downturn. They timed the implementation and orchestration while controlling media coverage of it.
http://thomaspainereturns.blogspot.com/2009/03/pick-pocketing-people.html

The Takeover of America, Republic Becomes Oligarchy: America has become an oligarchy (a government ruled by a powerful few) versus a Republic (a government limited by law) as the banking and Wall Street Masters of the Universe continue their tyranny.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2009/03/23.html

P.S. Hey, we have to be slaves and not complain about it. Otherwise we'd be "anti-Semitic." It's "anti-Semitic" to notice what's happening and who's in charge, and it's "anti-Semitic" to complain about it. The FEMA camps will be full of "anti-Semites" otherwise known as "terrorists."

You may not yourself be anti-semitic, but you are their useful idiot.


:rolleyes: I've been involved with the "revolutionary Left," in real life for more than a decade and you're telling me because I endorse the thesis that 9/11 was a false flag operation on an internet discussion forum and have been explicitly clear about my intentions in this thread, I'm some how a moron and the Left is "better off without me"? Lmfao, do you not read the shit you just typed? Are you serious? I am more than happy to respond in full to your shenanigans, I just wanted to clear something up before proceeding. Nice ad hominems btw.

Those that put conspiracies at the centre of their paradigm, as you seem to do, and permeate false narratives through their environment that is fertile ground for reactionary ideas. Yes, we're better of without you.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm going to give this one more post, if after that the conversation has progressed in the direction that I can see it going, I will respond to your previous post, your last post and then stop responding in this thread all together. Again, you're essentially trying to pull this guilt by association bullshit.


It matters because you're buying into a false narrative that is anti-semitic,

What fucking false narrative that is anti-Semitic? All I have endorsed is the theory that 9/11 was a false flag operation, I believe I said the American presidency and government were involved but only the tip of the iceberg and that the bourgeoisie aka Halliburton, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Rockefellars, J P Morgan, and yes, the Rothchilds profited from the WTC plays which would seem indicative that it was a strategic and calculated business venture which should be explored further. Yes, I said the Rothchilds control every central bank aside from 3 countries in the world, why? Because they fucking do, in 2000 there was only seven countries whose central banks where not under the Rothchilds, those were Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. By 2003 it was down to five countries and those were Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Now, after 2011, the only 3 countries left are Cuba, North Korea and Iran. These are facts.

Hmm, what a coincidence don'tchu think? Again, it's not clever of you to try this guilt by association horseshit. You know very well I'm not being anti-Semitic nor does anything I have argued have any real relation to any anti-Semitic theories other than the names involved. Come the fuck on, you and I both know this is true. You're pissed because we were in a debate and I've been mocking your positions. How about you stop being an intellectually dishonest coward and actually debate me for real, for real, instead of now throwing up this ridiculous guilt by association ploy. You may be able to bullshit others here but it's pretty clear to me what you're trying to do here.


that is, construed in such a manner as to show that Jews control finance, media, government, etc. The whole illuminati, new world order, and all that nonsense is a spawn of anti-semitism.

This has nothing to do with any illuminati, NWO, OWG, or any such theories, at all end of story; this is clear by my post, not once have I typed anything which would suggest this at all and I've been explicitly clear about this.

The horseshit contained within you're spoiler only confirms what you're doing here.


You may not yourself be anti-semitic, but you are their useful idiot.

:rolleyes:


Those that put conspiracies at the centre of their paradigm, as you seem to do, and permeate false narratives through their environment that is fertile ground for reactionary ideas. Yes, we're better of without you.

"Conspiracy theories," are not at the "centre of my paradigm," and I've said, yet fucking again, that I am merely discussing the specifics of an event that is tied to both imperialism and the class struggle against the bourgeoisie. Nothing I have said has been reactionary in any way, shape or form despite your recent attempts at injecting this nonsense into the conversation. Also, you can save the "us vs you, we're better off without you," bullshit because I don't give two shits what someone on the internet says; furthermore, it makes you look like an outsider twit.

[synthesis]

You don't have to be anti-Semitic to be influenced by thinly veiled anti-Semitic narratives; for example, see the epidemic of Illuminati theories among rap fans that has exponentially increased in popularity recently. (I think it started with that "On to the Next One" video and grew from there. Also, Alex Jones likes to have rappers on his show to compensate for his racism.)

[Paul Pott]

What the truther theories ignore is that the WTC was important to the economy of Manhattan, which is the most important nerve center of global capitalism. Why would the US government attack that of all things, then blow up the Pentagon?

If they wanted a false flag attack as a pretext for war, something like the Boston bombing or smaller against a symbolic but economically/militarily unimportant target would have worked. Maybe even a foiled plot.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You don't have to be anti-Semitic to be influenced by thinly veiled anti-Semitic narratives; for example, see the epidemic of Illuminati theories among rap fans that has exponentially increased in popularity recently. (I think it started with that "On to the Next One" video and grew from there. Also, Alex Jones likes to have rappers on his show to compensate for his racism.)

What I've said and what I have been arguing is not in any way connected to any anti-Semitic theories, veiled or otherwise. The only connection that possibly exists is the characters involved however such connections could be made with any argument, any historical event and so on. Anti-Semites can link any event, with any person (Jewish or not) to anything which they allege is somehow connected to an overall world-wide Jewish conspiracy.

Suggesting that the bourgeoisie, aka the persons and entities whom I have listed either specifically by name or by proxy via web links that are not constrained to allegiances to the territories of their national origin and are acting within their own class interests, private interests under the capitalist system to increase their accumulation of capital through X acts or by the fallout of X acts has no connection whatsoever to a world-wide Jewish conspiracy or any theory connected thereto. Nothing I have said has any connection to any NWO, illuminati, OWG, etc. theories aside from them being "conspiracy theories," which from an intellectual level is both ridiculous and laughable.

It's nothing more than historical materialism applied to the 9/11 attacks. This to me has everything to do with the class struggle, as we have historically argued in the labor movement and nothing to do with NWO, Illuminati theories.

[synthesis]

The issue of anti-Semitism in the 9/11 conspiracies has nothing to do with you as a person; there is no need to get so defensive.

The simple fact of the matter is that the pool from which you draw your arguments is tainted with anti-Semitism and far-right conspiracism, whether you recognize those repulsive impurities or not. The idea that "multinational bankers" who just happen to have names like Silverstein and Rothschild organized 9/11 for their own personal benefit is a direct ancestor of the Dolchstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth) in post-WWI Germany. (It's almost funny how you don't see that the idea that the same people who supposedly orchestrated 9/11 also control the world's banks and media is not rooted in anti-Semitism.)

If you don't want to throw the baby out with that bathwater (I'm really running with this analogy now) then you have to recognize that it's a problem and apply some chlorine to your argumentation so as to nullify the shit that's polluting it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The issue of anti-Semitism in the 9/11 conspiracies has nothing to do with you as a person; there is no need to get so defensive.

I'm well aware of this, that's not why I'm being defensive. I'm being defensive because I don't want the legitimacy of my points being misconstrued with this guilt by association clap trap. While I understand your points, I respectfully disagree.


The simple fact of the matter is that the pool from which you draw your arguments is tainted with anti-Semitism and far-right conspiracism, whether you recognize those repulsive impurities or not. The idea that "multinational bankers" who just happen to have names like Silverstein and Rothschild organized 9/11 for their own personal benefit is a direct ancestor of the Dolchstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth) in post-WWI Germany. (It's almost funny how you don't see that the idea that the same people who supposedly orchestrated 9/11 also control the world's banks and media is not rooted in anti-Semitism.)

This is silly, what does my arguments have to do with this dolchstoßlegende? Also, are we to deny the fact the bourgeoisie operates in accordance to their own private interests and do not adhere to some idealistic notions of nationalism or the concern of there nation of origin? Of how capitalism presently functions? If they did, why would there be things like outsourcing? Why would any number of things occur? The market is global, that's how capitalism works, the bourgeoisie, as we all, live and thrive within this system; now why would I deny all of this simply because some asshole fascists think it's some world-wide Jewish conspiracy? Because so and so is a Jew or has a "Jewy" name? What about all the other individuals and entities listed whom were involved, whom did profit, and whom were not Jews? These arguments that because fascists hold their idiotic views that my points are somehow tied to that by association, simply doesn't make sense to me and there appears to be a disconnect here and the entire argument seems premised on a fallacy, namely guilt by association. The way I see you're sort of argumentation here is as follows.

Rothschilds are Jews. Anti-Semites theorize they are behind a global Jewish conspiracy. Therefore all theories involving the Rothschilds are anti-Semitic.

This to me is akin to say because Obama is black and fascists have theories about Obama being the anti-Christ, devil, Kenyan Muslim evildoer whom is going to plunge America into WWIII and or the apocalypse or whatever. Therefore all theories which are negative towards Obama, involve Obama or portray Obama in a negative light are therefore anti-black, racist, reactionary, etc. Even if veiled, it is all tainted by the same water, right?

See what I mean?

[synthesis]

The way I see you're sort of argumentation here is as follows.

Rothschilds are Jews. Anti-Semites theorize they are behind a global Jewish conspiracy. Therefore all theories involving the Rothschilds are anti-Semitic.

I would phrase it more like:

Rothschilds are Jews; anti-Semites theorize that they are behind a global Jewish conspiracy, and that a cabal of Jewish bankers control the media and the government, and also that Jews will stab their nation in the back to get what they want; therefore, we should be really, really wary and critical of conspiracy theories which claim that the Rothschilds and a cabal of other bankers or people with Jewish names are behind a global conspiracy, that they control the media and the government, and that they stabbed their nation in the back to get what they wanted.

The fact that you're completely bewildered as to why anyone would bring up anti-Semitism in this discussion is exactly why we need to have it. I mean, really, you don't see any link between "Jews did 9/11" and the Dolchstoßlegende? Before you say your catchphrase - "that's not my argument!" - you seriously need to stop drawing what is in this case a false distinction between "your arguments" and "everybody else's arguments," because your ideas don't just come from a vacuum; they originated in a certain milieu (the "truther community") that is extremely influenced by ideas that come from the anti-Semitic far right.

For like the fourth time, you don't have to be consciously anti-Semitic to buy into and promote a narrative that is influenced by antisemitism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

:rolleyes:


I would phrase it more like:

Rothschilds are Jews; anti-Semites theorize that they are behind a global Jewish conspiracy, and that a cabal of Jewish bankers control the media and the government, and also that Jews will stab their nation in the back to get what they want

So, you're begun to inject this 'dolchstoßlegende' concept into this conversation. Again, don't assume I don't see what you're doing.


therefore, we should be really, really wary and critical of conspiracy theories which claim that the Rothschilds and a cabal of other bankers or people with Jewish names are behind a global conspiracy, that they control the media and the government, and that they stabbed their nation in the back to get what they wanted.

I'm not saying they (the bourgeoisie) "stabbed the nation in the back," and that is ridiculous. The bourgeoisie operate irrespective of a given nation, it's irrelevant in terms of the global market and their own interests financially, duh, why are you trying to deny this?

There really seems to be no point in debating this subject any longer and to be honest, I'm nearly done. There is just no reasoning with you lot. Now, yes, I see your points intellectually speaking but again, they're ridiculous and silly.

Why the fuck am I to deny reality and how capitalism functions and operates globally because a few fucknuts have some insane theories about Jews? So, what was Occupy Wallstreet and the Occupy movement to you? Some Nuremberg rally that just swept the country and the world over? Did you think the Nazis have returned? I mean, after all, we mustn't be critical of any bankers, one could be a Jew or have a "Jewy" name or once talked to a Jew and asked him to borrow a pencil in the third grade, right? So it would therefore be tantamount to slapping a red swastika armband on and brownshirt right? I had no idea, thanks for helping me see the light. It all makes sense now, we can't criticize or point out the horrific things the bourgeoisie have done to the proletariat because then that would be anti-Semitic, clearly.


The fact that you're completely bewildered as to why anyone would bring up anti-Semitism in this discussion is exactly why we need to have it. I mean, really, you don't see any link between "Jews did 9/11" and the Dolchstoßlegende?

I do however I don't see any real or tangible link to what I have said or my original premise to "Jews did 9/11" or Dolchstoßlegende. Again...

http://global3.memecdn.com/i-see-what-you-did-there_o_520433.jpg


Before you say your catchphrase - "that's not my argument!" - you seriously need to stop drawing what is in this case a false distinction between "your arguments" and "everybody else's arguments," because your ideas don't just come from a vacuum

:rolleyes: I have stated that they are not my arguments because they are not and have no real tangible or logical connection to my own. You and others have injected the most insane and ridiculous horseshit into this conversation and have tried this guilt by association tactic and nearly every turn. All I said was 9/11 was an inside job, from there you and others have concluded, that I must believe rockets came out of planes or it was a controlled demolition or now (out of fucking no where) the Jews must behind it, all that has been introduced by you, Tim, The Boss and so on.

Not once did I bring up any of that horseshit, it was assumed by you lot because I support a "conspiracy theory," and must therefore by proxy, must support or be influenced or "come out of the mileu," (whatever the fuck that's really supposed to mean) of all conspiracy theories both related and otherwise. Even those born in Germany after WW1, both a country and time I wasn't born or reined in, that Hitler endorsed and propagated.

So here we are, ladies and gentleman. We went from 9/11 was a false flag operation to Hitler founded the 9/11 truth movement. I am, understanding this flow of shartining er...reasoning correctly right? Everything is completely tainted? Let's expand this, follow this rabbit hole and I will explain a bit further.

Europe has been historically anti-Semitic. This has permeated and plagued European culture and society all the way up until the end of the 20th century and undoubtedly still exists today. The Jews, due to Christian morality, were only permitted to have professions dealing with finance or law and so on due to concepts like the sin of usury and so on. Marx and Engels theorized it was the bourgeoisie whom were head of a class dictatorship whom controlled the media, the banks, commerce, the armies, the nations and operated internationally. Numerous thinkers of their day theorized this bourgeoisie were really just a cabal of Jews. Therefore Marx and Engels dressed up traditional medieval anti-Semitic in a pretty bow, bought into it and came out of that milieu. I mean, after all, ideas don't come out of a Kirby Sentria, do they? Of course not.

Fast forward...

I now see that Socialism and Nazism are the same thing, I mean, ideas don't come out of vacuum right? I mean, Socialists are all like teh bourgeoisie but we smart people obviously realize by this they mean Jews because Hitler danced around the word Socialist and workers movement, he just happened to think teh bourgeoisie were Jews. It all comes from the same milieu, ideas don't come out of a Dyson DC50, do they? Therefore Luxembourg, Lenin, Trotsky, and all others were clearly buying into a anti-Semitic theory and came out of the same milieu as Hitler, the Nazis, Mussolini and the black shirts. They're all the same. This explains the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Doctors Plot and Kristallnacht, everything. It's all the same. They all came out of the same milieu.

Therefore every single person on this forum is buying into and promoting an several centuries old anti-Semitic narrative. Every single one us. In fact, this entire forum is dedicated to it. We should just hang it up and shut it down.


; they originated in a certain milieu (the "truther community") that is extremely influenced by ideas that come from the anti-Semitic far right.

No, no it is not and I will take extreme objection to the 9/11 truth community being labeled far-right or anti-Semitic, you have pulled that right from your ass. There is no logic in this argument and increasingly, there seems to be no reasoning with you because seem 100% convinced of this nonsense.


For like the fourth time, you don't have to be consciously anti-Semitic to buy into and promote a narrative that is influenced by antisemitism.

What part of I fucking get that don't you understand? What part of I find your assertion to be absurd and ridiculous and am challenging it outright, piece by piece; do you not get that? All you have managed to do is reiterate the same point 4 times now without addressing anything that I've said. That's about it.

Before you reiterate yourself for a 5th time which I can tell using my telekinesis that would will be doing so, consider the following. Your argument presently contains the following issues: Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum), Ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), Association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy), etc. It just doesn't make sense.

In closing, it just does not make sense, why? Chewbacca.

xwdba9C2G14

It does not make sense.

[synthesis]

The fact that you actually claim at this point that "all I have said is that 9/11 is an inside job" is hilarious and very telling.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The fact that you actually claim at this point that "all I have said is that 9/11 is an inside job" is hilarious and very telling.

It's true, I said 9/11 was inside job, the international bourgeoisie and the American government were behind it, I mentioned some names and entities, offered a possibility of how it could be done without some "grand scheme involving thousands of people," and that's about it. It signifies nothing, answer my points.

[liberlict]

Sorry, I did forget. I don't think anybody listens to them anyway.

[synthesis]

It's true, I said 9/11 was inside job, the international bourgeoisie and the American government were behind it, I mentioned some names and entities, offered a possibility of how it could be done without some "grand scheme involving thousands of people," and that's about it. It signifies nothing, answer my points.

You're being very disingenuous about what you actually believe happened that Tuesday, or at least you refuse to admit that you actually believe all the shit you've said in this thread, but in any case I'll be happy to respond to your points if you can give me an intellectually honest answer to this question - that you tried to evade by feigning outrage about the issue of antisemitism in the conspiracy narratives.


Surely if the scientific evidence strongly indicated that 9/11 was a government plot, then there would at least be an identifiable and relatively complete consensus among the orthodoxy of scientists outside the American/Western sphere of power that this was the case? How come Truthers never try to demonstrate this?

Oh, and just answer me one more little question: What would it take for you to change your mind about 9/11 being an inside job? It would be very easy to change my mind about it being an attack by Islamic nationalists opposed to U.S. imperialism; one piece of incontrovertible evidence would do.

You're being dishonest if you don't admit that absolutely nothing will change your mind about this conspiracy theory; whether you recognize it or not you have taken it on faith rather than reason.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You're being very disingenuous about what you actually believe happened that Tuesday, or at least you refuse to admit that you actually believe all the shit you've said in this thread, but in any case I'll be happy to respond to your points if you can give me an intellectually honest answer to this question - that you tried to evade by feigning outrage about the issue of antisemitism in the conspiracy narratives.

I honestly don't see how I'm being the least bit disingenuous and will concede only that I have been purposefully ambiguous in regards to my own personal views on 9/11 and was defending 9/11 alternative theories in the abstract and refused explicitly to engage in anything else due to predicted boredom and desire to debate the issue, presently, yes.

I also did not feign any indigent outrage or whatever the fuck you're trying to implicitly accuse me of and was genuinely thought this hilarious passive aggressive argumentational cop out you and others were trying to pull to be intellectually dishonest and ridiculous. Congratulations, you created a dramatized and fictionalized bizarre side issue about 99.999999% about the abstract idea of 9/11 alternative theories and the 9/11 truth movement.


Surely if the scientific evidence strongly indicated that 9/11 was a government plot, then there would at least be an identifiable and relatively complete consensus among the orthodoxy of scientists outside the American/Western sphere of power that this was the case? How come Truthers never try to demonstrate this?

According to both Cuban and Venezuelan intelligence, they have concluded that 9/11 was indeed an inside job and that the American regime were "in on it."

Cuban, Venezuelan Intel Say 911 Was An Inside job (http://www.rense.com/general75/tnie.htm)

I also would like to point out that Cuba is also one of the three countries that I mentioned previously in this thread. Speaking of those three countries, here is what the Best Korea had to say about the 9/11 quote "Hollywood blockbuster."

Jgbh6V8Jvw4

If you really want to know my positions on 9/11 watch this video and I don't know about you but I am inclined to stand with Cuba and the DPRK over criminal imperialists and the bourgeoisie, how about yourself?


Oh, and just answer me one more little question: What would it take for you to change your mind about 9/11 being an inside job? It would be very easy to change my mind about it being an attack by Islamic nationalists opposed to U.S. imperialism; one piece of incontrovertible evidence would do.

A lot, it would definitely take a lot considering 9/11 is not an isolated incident and is one in a serious designed to traumatize the proletariat both in America and internationally while simultaneously trying to accomplish imperial and corporate objectives that span the course of decades and involving numerous players and variables. It's assuming first and foremost that al-Qaeda was not a creation of the CIA to combat Soviet liberation of various nations in a region which would be placing sensitive resources the international bourgeoisie couldn't exploit fully, like drunken cowboys, in peril. Bin laden himself had high security CIA training during the Soviet-Afghan war. The CIA and thus American government poured billions into this fictional group. Now presently, there is evidence that this "al-Qaeda," and it's ties to and involvement as the "rebels," in countries whom won't play ball like Libya and more presently, Syria. I agree with you things don't just appear out of thin air so in order for me to believe the official narrative would be dependent on numerous variables.


You're being dishonest if you don't admit that absolutely nothing will change your mind about this conspiracy theory; whether you recognize it or not you have taken it on faith rather than reason.

No, I have taken it upon reason because my reasoning is not based on misplaced emotions and or, dogmatic skepticism of perceived "conspiracy theories," operating on such a flawed premise that because 9/11 truth is branded as a conspiracy it is therefore by default wrong aka the true religion, lol, whether you recognize it or not. I've researched this just like you guys have and have come to my own conclusions on the subject, thank you. I am however not being close minded, I could and would admit I was wrong but you have to prove to me several things are true aka explain a lot of shit.

[synthesis]

I'm sorry, but this needs to be addressed; are you really trying to disprove the aspects of antisemitism intrinsic to these sorts of conspiracy theories by linking to and citing an article from rense.com as evidence for your argument? Do you even know what that site is?

Just for illustration, here are a few articles and links I found through nothing more than a cursory look at the front page of rense.com, which is a major hub for right-wing Internet conspiracies - Jeff Rense has a strong personal relationship with both David Duke and David Icke - as well as one of the birthplaces of the 9/11 Truth "movement":


Jewish Hijacking of American Exceptionalism (on "realjewnews.com")
Jews Push America Into WW3 (same)
Syria... Another War for the Jews (same)
A whole section dedicated to David Duke, including:
Jeff Rense & David Duke: Worldwide Zionist Stranglehold (YouTube)
Israeli Insults to Christianity
Was 9/11 An Inside Job, Or A MOSSAD Job?
Syria Chem Deal Is 'Great Defeat For Zionism'
Jeff Rense & Texe Marrs: Investigating the Jewish Bloodline (YT)
How Jews Run The Internet - eBay, Google, FB, Wiki, Yahoo, MySpace...
What the World Rejected - Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933- 1939
Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion Explained, Pt 1 (YT)
Al-Qaeda Created to Protect Israel
The Amazing History Of The 'Six Million' Myth
Jesus Was NOT A Jew
How Zionist Central Banks Rule The World
Zionist Anti-Christ Will Rule The NWO (YT)
Rothschild Zionism Exposed (by David Icke, lol)
Zionist War Mongering & More 'Holocaust' Programming

I originally had them linked, but why promote that garbage? Anyway, are you getting the picture yet? Maybe starting to understand the inextricable element of far-right conspiracism in the 9/11 Truth "scene"? I want to emphasize that you should be very wary of anyone who tells you that world events can be explained by a narrative revolving around "the Rothschilds" and "a cabal of international bankers."

Incidentally, the only other sources I can find for the material about Cuba and Venezuela all cite rense.com as their original source. Anyway, here's another article featured on the front page of rense.com; filter out the psychotic demon-babble and see if any of this rhetoric sounds familiar to you - italics are my emphases:


4. All wars are pre-arranged by this secret Ruling Cabal which is best defined as the circle of top world Banksters and industrialist run out of the City of London Financial District, a separate country like the Vatican with its own ambassadors and police. These folks claim to be personally anointed by Lucifer himself and some have claimed to have personal alien or demon guides that provide protection and counsel. Thus all wars are Bankster wars and appear to be demonically inspired. Some experts have discovered a strong association with secret esoteric “super-masonic” occult groups which are luciferian based and this Ruling Cabal. Others have discovered a long term association with these Ruling Cabal members and alien or ET entities, and believe these cabal members are actually infected with alien/ET demonic parasites who demand and promote mass death and destruction upon the Earth once they gain control over the Cabal member who has lost his soul or been “soul-snatched”. Some researchers have labeled this Ruling Cabal Babylonian Zionism, or the “Synagogue of satan” and claim that it’s wealth and power is based on the use of “Babylonian Money-Magick” which is the use of fiat money lent at pernicious usury in order to create massive debt slavery, massive asset stripping and provide complete but hidden control.

Go back and check all the sources that led you to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and ask yourself honestly if that person is just rephrasing some of this narrative, consciously or not. (Jeff Rense's Wikipedia page seems to have been whitewashed of all the anti-Semitic stuff, but if you look at the Talk page it's all there.)

Again, nobody is calling you anti-Semitic. But if you're going to accuse other people of being brainwashed, you should at least be able to demonstrate that you're capable of thinking critically about the material which has led you to the conclusion that everyone who doesn't agree with your narrative about the 9/11 attacks has just been co-opted by the "cabal of bankers and industrialists who control the media and world industry."

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Ok, I will concede that assuming what you're saying is true, rense probably wasn't the best source to cite and I certainly do have egg on my face, as it were, for posting it, as I honestly had no idea however this does not and should not negate anything that I have said prior to posting it nor negate the points I made in my last post. I also will admit that, sure, there is a lot of bizarre shit in the "conspiracy theory," community. But, you can cherry pick examples of bad apples in any group, really. There is also nothing wrong with David Icke (to my knowledge) other than his moonbattery.

I have never denied that such things do exist within 9/11 truth (which again, could be said of anything) but then again I have maintained (from the beginning) that you can not make the claim that the 9/11 truth movement, as a whole, based upon the original premise that 9/11 was an inside job or false flag operation or what have you is anti-Semitic or far-right, and that this is inherent and permeates the entire current. That simply is not true and that's what I've been arguing. Unfortunately however this blunder of mine with the source that was cited has been helpful in illustrating this fully however if you are genuinely trying to have a conversation about this I trust you can see, that was a mistake, I admit it and am striking it from my arguments for the time being.

Moving forward, I, for the very last time, understand that you are not calling me anti-Semitic, that's not what I've been saying nor have I implied this, at all. please stop saying this, it's tired now. What you are doing is making this bizarre leap of logic in stating that because there is an isolated and minuscule and irrelevant section of the 9/11 truth current that the entire movement therefore is tainted by this reactionary narrative and thus the original premise or hypothesis, however interrupted, should either be met with immediate and inherent suspicion, if not seen as outright lunacy and being "wrong."

This is what I've been objecting to. 99.99999% of the 9/11 truth current does not hold that 9/11 was apart of some global Jewish conspiracy. I do not believe this either, for the record. Nor do I believe that it was some homogeneous cabal of so called banksters and industrialists and so on. I do think it was the bourgeoisie and the American government complicit in it, yes, and that this was manifested by agents of the government and multinational corporations and entities, yes. I also don't hold this it was a bunch of monopoly man looking mafuckas in some smokey backdoor parlor plotting how to create a NWO, OWG and steal all the gold and sunshine like some fat dragon on Mt. Olympus, either. Neither does the majority of the 9/11 truth community.

Here is a video containing an excerpt from a CNN broadcast about PM Hugo Chavez stating that 9/11 was an inside job:

dnb9q-PWePM

Also, Castro has also stated that 9/11 was an inside job.

link here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/12/cuba.september11)

and here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/12/us-sept11-castro-idUSN1146186220070912)

And here is the speech he gave on the matter:


Fidel Castro on September 11

Havana, September 22, 2001

Fellow countrymen:

No one can deny that terrorism is today a dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon, which should be eradicated regardless of its deep origins, the economic and political factors that brought it to live and those responsible for it.

The unanimous irritation caused by the human and psychological damage brought on the American people by the unexpected and shocking death of thousands of innocent people whose images have shaken the world is perfectly understandable. But who have profited? The extreme right, the most backward and right-wing forces, those in favor of crushing the growing world rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still left on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice and a great crime whoever they are who organized or are responsible for such action.

However, the tragedy should not be used to recklessly start a war that could actually unleash an endless carnage of innocent people and all of this on behalf of justice and under the peculiar and bizarre name of Infinite Justice.

In the last few days we have seen the hasty establishment of the basis, the concept, the true purposes, the spirit and the conditions for such a war. No one would be able to affirm that it was not something thought out well in advance, something that was just waiting for its chance to materialize. Those who after the so-called end of the cold war continued a military build-up and the development of the most sophisticated means to kill and exterminate human beings were aware that the large military investments would give them the privilege to impose an absolute and complete dominance over the other peoples of the world. The ideologists of the imperialist system knew very well what they were doing and why they were doing it.

After the shock and sincere sorrow felt by every people on Earth for the atrocious and insane terrorist attack that targeted the American people, the most extremist ideologists and the most belligerent hawks, already set in privileged power positions, have taken command of the most powerful country in the world whose military and technological capabilities would seem infinite. Actually, its capacity to destroy and kill is enormous while its inclination towards equanimity, serenity, thoughtfulness and restrain is minimal.

The combination of elements --including complicity and the common enjoyment of privileges-- the prevailing opportunism, confusion and panic make it almost impossible to avoid a bloody and unpredictable outcome.

The first victims of whatever military actions are undertaken will be the billions of people living in the poor and underdeveloped world with their unbelievable economic and social problems, their unpayable debts and the ruinous prices of their basic commodities; their growing natural and ecological catastrophes, their hunger and misery, the massive undernourishment of their children, teenagers and adults; their terrible AIDS epidemic, their malaria, their tuberculosis and their infectious diseases that threaten whole nations with extermination.

The grave economic world crisis was already a real and irrefutable fact affecting absolutely every one of the big economic power centers. Such crisis will inevitably grow deeper under the new circumstances and when it becomes unbearable for the overwhelming majority of the peoples, it will bring chaos, rebellion and the impossibility to govern.

But the price will also be unpayable for the rich countries. For years to come it would be impossible to speak strong enough about the environment and the ecology, or about ideas and research done and tested, or about projects for the protection of Nature because that space and possibility would be taken by military actions, war and crimes as infinite as Infinite Justice, that is, the name given to the war operation to be unleashed.

Can there be any hope left after having listened, hardly 36 hours ago, to the speech made the President before the U.S. Congress?

I will avoid the use of adjectives, qualifiers or offensive words towards the author of that speech. They would be absolutely unnecessary and untimely when the tensions and seriousness of the moment advise thoughtfulness and equanimity. I will limit myself to underline some short phrases that say it all:

We will use every necessary weapon of war.

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.

Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

I’ve called the armed forces to alert and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act and you will make us proud.

This is the worlds fight, this is civilizations fight.

I ask for your patience [...] in what will be a long struggle.

The great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depend on us.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. [...] And we know that God is not neutral.

I ask our fellow countrymen to meditate deeply and calmly on the ideas contained in several of the above-mentioned phrases:

Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

No nation of the world has been left out of the dilemma, not even the big and powerful states; none has escaped the threat of war or attacks.

We will use any weapon.

No procedure has been excluded, regardless of its ethics, or any threat whatever fatal, either nuclear, chemical, biological or any other.

It will not be short combat but a lengthy war, lasting many years, unparalleled in history.

It is the worlds fight; it is civilization's fight.

The achievements of our times and the hope of every time, now depend on us.

Finally, an unheard of confession in a political speech on the eve of a war, and no less than in times of apocalyptic risks: The course of this conflict is not known; yet its outcome is certain. And we know that God is not neutral.

This is an amazing assertion. When I think about the real or imagined parties involved in that bizarre holy war that is about to begin, I find it difficult to make a distinction about where fanaticism is stronger.

On Thursday, before the United States Congress, the idea was designed of a world military dictatorship under the exclusive rule of force, irrespective of any international laws or institutions. The United Nations Organization, simply ignored in the present crisis, would fail to have any authority or prerogative whatsoever. There would be only one boss, only one judge, and only one law.

We have all been ordered to ally either with the United States government or with terrorism.

Cuba, the country that has suffered the most and the longest from terrorist actions, the one whose people are not afraid of anything because there is no threat or power in the world that can intimidate it, with a high morale Cuba claims that it is opposed to terrorism and opposed to war. Although the possibilities are now remote, Cuba reaffirms the need to avert a war of unpredictable consequences whose very authors have admitted not to have the least idea of how the events will unfold. Likewise, Cuba reiterates its willingness to cooperate with every country in the total eradication of terrorism.

An objective and calm friend should advise the United States government against throwing the young American soldiers into an uncertain war in remote, isolated and inaccessible places, like a fight against ghosts, not knowing where they are or even if they exist or not, or whether the people they kill are or not responsible for the death of their innocent fellow countrymen killed in the United States.

Cuba will never declare itself an enemy of the American people that is today subjected to an unprecedented campaign to sow hatred and a vengeful spirit, so much so that even the music that sings to peace has been banned. On the contrary, Cuba will make that music its own, and even our children will sing their songs to peace while the announced bloody war lasts.

Whatever happens, the territory of Cuba will never be used for terrorist actions against the American people and we will do everything within our reach to prevent such actions against that people. Today we are expressing our solidarity while urging to peace and calmness. One day they will admit we were right.

Our independence, our principles and our social achievements we will defend with honor to the last drop of blood, if we are attacked!

It will not be easy to fabricate pretexts to do it. They are already talking about a war using all the necessary weapons but it will be good recalling that not even that would be a new experience. Almost four decades ago, hundreds of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons were aimed at Cuba and nobody remembers anyone of our countrymen sleepless over that.

We are the same sons and daughters of that heroic people, with a patriotic and revolutionary conscience that is higher than ever. It is time for serenity and courage.

The world will grow aware of this and will raise its voice in the face of the terrible threatening drama that it is about to suffer.

As for Cubans, this is the right time to proclaim more proud and resolute than ever:

Socialism or death!
Homeland or death!
We will overcome!

link (http://www.spectacle.org/1201/castro.html)

Here is the full version of the North Korean film explaining 9/11 and propaganda, among other things:

LKnS-Adc_2E

Again, I do apologize about the dodgy source earlier. I think my points remain the same.

[DasFapital]

Jgbh6V8Jvw4

This supposed North Korean documentary was actually just an indie film project by some NewZealand directors.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This supposed North Korean documentary was actually just an indie film project by some NewZealand directors.

Damn. :lol: alright, the other stuff is totally true though.

[Remus Bleys]

This supposed North Korean documentary was actually just an indie film project by some NewZealand directors.
This is like the fifth fucking thing that was supposed to be an anti-US film by the DPRK that turned out to be a New Zealand indie spoof.

[Alan OldStudent]

Vox Populi needs to lay off the strong sauce methinks? "International ultra-bourgeoisie?", suggesting that this event has something to do with international class struggle? This sounds more like Alex Jones's wild NWO conspiracies than anything resembling remotely sane analysis.

Can somebody please confirm this isn't the big standard leftist view on 9/11 in America and that most people don't believe the tripe about this event being a conspiracy theory.

Personally, I think those conspiracy theories about 9/11 are a lot of hogwash.

Regards,
Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is like the fifth fucking thing that was supposed to be an anti-US film by the DPRK that turned out to be a New Zealand indie spoof.

k? Cool story bro.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Cuba and Chavez first would be pretty reasonable to suspect that the government that has tried to set up their governments, tried to overthrow their governments, and engages in dirty tricks and conspiracies in relation to their countries might do so in other cases too. But that doesn't mean they are correct about this, the fact of COINTEL pro doesn't mean that the moon landing was faked or that JFK was assassinated by LBJ or J Edgar either.

Second, and more cynically, the regimes of Cuba and Venusuela have a domestic interest in painting themselves as the main line of defense of their populations against the US and so any accusation that can be made will help bolster that.

Within the US, conspiracy demagauges also tradditionally use paranoia and play on fears of an all-powerful all-orchestrating power ("jewish conspiracy" "corporate dictatorship" "elite liberal media" "the UN" "Mexico and Canada" "The New World Order" "the Illuminati" etc) in exactly the same way the US government hypes up fears of Islamic-takeover conspiracies... it nullifies arguments and urges unthinking action or loyalty. Better listen to Glenn Beck because he knows all the secret shit. LaRouche needs to be supported because only he can protect us from the joint-conspiracy of the communists and the Queen of England!

For people sincerely against the war in Iraq, the conspiracy theories are maybe less reactionary in intent, but look at what they all claim to be the answer: tell more people about the conspiracy. This is a warped view of change and also is reflects a misunderstanding of the ACTUAL evil of the US state in favor of one that makes imperialism look like a secrect plot rather than a systemic consaquence of world capitalism. More importantly, it does not help mobilize people: it demoblilizes them because it makes the population seem passive in the fact of an all powerful government - sure we can protest the war, but when that protest doesn't do much, rather than conclude that we need to figure out how to wield our own power (in the streets in the workplaces, etc) to make demands, conspiracists typically conclude that failure is part of the conspiracy and those who do not recognize their conspiracy are "sheeple".

Personally, even if it came out that the attack was orchestrated or tacitly allowed to happen (like the US knew about it, but let it happen as appears to be the case with Perl Harbor), this would not be the biggest crime. I honestly don't see how speculation about this matters when there are many KNOWN and often OPEN conspiracies to invade and reorganize parts of the world for US interests. Look at the NSA shit, shocking revelations about the US government doesn't do shit in terms of creating an opposition or making people feel more powerful or more willing to fight.

So without pretty definate proof - it really isn't worth our political time. Hobby-time, maybe, but I think it's a distraction at best from the known and ongoing shit of US imperialism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Cuba and Chavez first would be pretty reasonable to suspect that the government that has tried to set up their governments, tried to overthrow their governments, and engages in dirty tricks and conspiracies in relation to their countries might do so in other cases too.

Exactly.


But that doesn't mean they are correct about this, the fact of COINTEL pro doesn't mean that the moon landing was faked or that JFK was assassinated by LBJ or J Edgar either.

No, it doesn't but to the same token it also doesn't mean it doesn't, intellectually. Further, if we're being intellectual honest and consistent, we can't lump all alternative theories of events involving NATO nations into one homogeneous group and an umbrella aka "conspiracism," and thus judge the merits of each assertion in a general way due to this relation and not case by case based upon logic and obtainable objective data.


Second, and more cynically, the regimes of Cuba and Venusuela have a domestic interest in painting themselves as the main line of defense of their populations against the US and so any accusation that can be made will help bolster that.

OK? Sure, why not but this doesn't, in theory, mean that it would negate the merits of any assertions made by either the nation officially, it's leader or de facto ideological leaders or Party officials.


Within the US, conspiracy demagauges also tradditionally use paranoia and play on fears of an all-powerful all-orchestrating power ("jewish conspiracy" "corporate dictatorship" "elite liberal media" "the UN" "Mexico and Canada" "The New World Order" "the Illuminati" etc) in exactly the same way the US government hypes up fears of Islamic-takeover conspiracies... it nullifies arguments and urges unthinking action or loyalty. Better listen to Glenn Beck because he knows all the secret shit. LaRouche needs to be supported because only he can protect us from the joint-conspiracy of the communists and the Queen of England!

It could be argued then that the official narrative is used as a pretext and justification for the rabid anti-Islamic, anti-Arab, and anti-immigrant backlash that we have observed both in the Americas and across Europe which hearkens back to Crusade era, reactionary hyperbole, racism, imperialism and as a byproduct genocide. Ask the EDL, Muslims are trying to take over the world, there's no stopping radical Islamic fascism and march against the freedom loving West and all their civil liberties. Even the British government and other Western governments are complicit and or bow down to this foreign invasion of barbarous immigrants. Go across the Atlantic, ask any Tea Party member, white nationalist, conservative, Libertarian, fascist, or any other syphilitic moral bottom feeder the Muslims/Arabs are on the rampage trying to steal the apple pies with baklavah aspirations and president Obama is the Kenyan head honcho leading the show and a manifestation of their worst fears. I mean with 9/11, 7/7, Boston bombings, Madrid, etc. it's clearly evident that some savages are trying to piss all over polite Western white culture. White people are pissed, what was Sweden? You see what I mean? If such argumentation is going to be used as presented in this thread with regard to alternative narratives then the same scrutiny should be placed in regards to the official narrative.


For people sincerely against the war in Iraq, the conspiracy theories are maybe less reactionary in intent, but look at what they all claim to be the answer: tell more people about the conspiracy.

Not not necessarily nor inherently. To flip this argument on it's head, what would the official narrative tell the people answer is? A shadowy, uncatchable, unstoppable enemy of barbarous and insane foreigners are running all about the globe killing non-believers and threatening freedom therefore the West must intervene and this is a holy war against two old time adversaries, a war of the worlds. It's really not any less of a conspiracy than the alleged conspiracy theories. Does this mean that inherently and necessarily the original premises' intent is this or that it is reactionary? No, but if we are going to use this sort of argumentation then each narrative should endure the same scrutiny.


This is a warped view of change and also is reflects a misunderstanding of the ACTUAL evil of the US state in favor of one that makes imperialism look like a secrect plot rather than a systemic consaquence of world capitalism.

Same could be said of the official narrative, see above.


More importantly, it does not help mobilize people: it demoblilizes them because it makes the population seem passive in the fact of an all powerful government - sure we can protest the war, but when that protest doesn't do much, rather than conclude that we need to figure out how to wield our own power (in the streets in the workplaces, etc) to make demands, conspiracists typically conclude that failure is part of the conspiracy and those who do not recognize their conspiracy are "sheeple".

See above.


Personally, even if it came out that the attack was orchestrated or tacitly allowed to happen (like the US knew about it, but let it happen as appears to be the case with Perl Harbor), this would not be the biggest crime.

Of course not but how is that relevant to whether or not the alternative is true or not?


I honestly don't see how speculation about this matters when there are many KNOWN and often OPEN conspiracies to invade and reorganize parts of the world for US interests.

This is a slippery slope of reasoning. It matters because it happens. Following this chain of logic you could argue that no event in history truly matters, really.


Look at the NSA shit, shocking revelations about the US government doesn't do shit in terms of creating an opposition or making people feel more powerful or more willing to fight.

No argument.


So without pretty definate proof - it really isn't worth our political time. Hobby-time, maybe, but I think it's a distraction at best from the known and ongoing shit of US imperialism.

I don't see how you could sweep an event which killed 3,000 American civilians for imperial and corporate gains, official narrative or otherwise, under the table and relegate it to "hobby time," but alright.

Also, Col. Gaddafi has also said America trained the hijackers:

Cbo5C_el5g0

^Hilarious and badass, btw, imo.

[synthesis]

Vox, you don't need to apologize for the source. I wasn't trying to make you look bad so as to negate your argument. Yet, the very fact that you didn't realize where you were getting your information from is probably the best evidence I could present for what I'm trying to get across here.

Like, you say that you don't believe that it was a "homogeneous cabal of bankers and industrialists," but if you go back and examine your posts in this thread with honest intentions, you will see that this isn't really the case. The whole "Rothschild/Rockefeller/international finance capital" thing - whatever you choose to call it, it's a form of the "Illuminati/Freemasonry" narrative, which is mostly just a repetition of the old "World Jewry" trope, except with additional mysticism and veiled terminology; these can be analyses that include class, but it is not class analysis.


What you are doing is making this bizarre leap of logic in stating that because there is an isolated and minuscule and irrelevant section of the 9/11 truth current that the entire movement therefore is tainted by this reactionary narrative and thus the original premise or hypothesis, however interrupted, should either be met with immediate and inherent suspicion, if not seen as outright lunacy and being "wrong."On the contrary, I would say that it is the Truthers who are often unable to separate the examination of the nature of the actual WTC attack itself from the narratives attached to it by these nutty crypto-rightist "conspiracy theorists." In some form or another, aspects of these narratives almost always filter into the worldviews of people who buy into the Truther stuff wholesale and uncritically. This is, again, a good illustration of what I'm trying to get across to you here.

It's not "tainting your argument by antisemitism," it's pointing out that this narrative you've picked up on is already tainted by antisemitism and that you - and, as you said, 99.99% of other Truthers - are blissfully ignorant of this pervasion.


There is also nothing wrong with David Icke (to my knowledge) other than his moonbattery.

If you go to the rense website and search for "Icke" on the front page, you will see that he is a proponent of the "Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy" theory; it just happens to be accompanied by shape-shifting reptilians from the Horsehead nebula.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Vox, you don't need to apologize for the source. I wasn't trying to make you look bad so as to negate your argument. Yet, the very fact that you didn't realize where you were getting your information from is probably the best evidence I could present for what I'm trying to get across here.

:confused:


Like, you say that you don't believe that it was a "homogeneous cabal of bankers and industrialists," but if you go back and examine your posts in this thread with honest intentions, you will see that this isn't really the case. The whole "Rothschild/Rockefeller/international finance capital" thing - whatever you choose to call it, it's a form of the "Illuminati/Freemasonry" narrative, which is mostly just a repetition of the old "World Jewry" trope, except with additional mysticism and veiled terminology; these can be analyses that include class, but it is not class analysis.

How? Anything aside from a Kerkegaardian leap of faith, how can you just go from a reasonable assertion grounded in material reality to some over dramatized codswallop and then some how wind your way straight to this medieval douchebaggery? There's really no logical connection between the three so, if you could explain their connection in a reasonable and coherent way, that would be great. Elaborate in detail how you got from A to C because I simply can not see it. Putting aside the alternative theories, even if you accept the official narrative, there is still proof that the American regime, bare minimum, had intelligence of an imminent attack and essentially did nothing. This is, by default, complicity in regards to the 9/11 incident. Bar minimum we know how big Rothschild, Rockefeller, the Wallstreet types and others are and what kind of power that would entail. This is not inherently suggesting they are necessarily a cabal of inhuman monsters but that isn't saying they are an innocent as a lamb, either. The exist, they are the class enemy and there is numerous evidences outside of this incident that would suggest they are crooks and represent private, corporate interests.

I also would direct you to consider the above, what I wrote in reponse to Jimmy and take those into consideration as far as this conversation is concerned as well. I mean, what really is a conspiracy here?


On the contrary, I would say that it is the Truthers who are often unable to separate the examination of the nature of the actual WTC attack itself from the narratives attached to it by these nutty crypto-rightist "conspiracy theorists." In some form or another, aspects of these narratives almost always filter into the worldviews of people who buy into the Truther stuff wholesale and uncritically. This is, again, a good illustration of what I'm trying to get across to you here.

How? How can you reasonably and honestly say this? How can you make such a blind, intellectually acrobatic, generalized analysis such as this? I could very easily switch out some words and pose the following to you for consideration:

"On the contrary, I would say that it is the Imperialist sympathizers who are often unable to separate the examination of the nature of the actual WTC attack itself from the narratives attached to it by these nutty crypto-rightist "conspiracy theorists." In some form or another, aspects of these narratives almost always filter into the worldviews of people who buy into the official report stuff wholesale and uncritically. This is, again, a good illustration of what I'm trying to get across to you here."

I could very easily take every charge you're making here and flip it on it's head and apply it to the official narrative supporters and the 'milieu' that it consists of, it's class character, and point out the fervent anti-immigrant, anti-Arab, anti-Islamic crap that American presidency spewed out and whipped the people into a medieval panic. I point out the reports of even Sikhs, a group of people whom were not even remotely related to the events of 9/11 being attacked during the post-9/11 years.


It's not "tainting your argument by antisemitism," it's pointing out that this narrative you've picked up on is already tainted by antisemitism and that you - and, as you said, 99.99% of other Truthers - are blissfully ignorant of this pervasion.


Again, I disagree with your assertion, I think your making intellectual leaps of faith here, I don't see how you're going from A to C and I can flip this charge on it's head and say, it's not "tainting your argument by anti-immigration, anti-Arab, anti-Islamic and racism," it's pointing out that this narrative that you've been fed by the American government is already tainted by this and that you and other official narrative conspiracy theorists, are blissfully ignorant of the pervasiveness of this.


If you go to the rense website and search for "Icke" on the front page, you will see that he is a proponent of the "Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy" theory; it just happens to be accompanied by shape-shifting reptilians from the Horsehead nebula.

I did a quick Google, turns out this could be true, so I'll leave it at that. He's irrelevant anyway as far this conversation is concerned.

[synthesis]

I understand now that this discussion can't progress until you realize why it's significant that you used rense.com as a source without even realizing it.

Here I will try to demonstrate to you the nature of the problem with the conspiracy theory narratives through this microcosm you have conveniently provided me. The points at the beginning should be pretty basic and agreeable; towards the end are the points that are really crucial to think about and engage with.



The only sources I could readily find that concur with that rense.com link you provided all cite rense.com as their original source.
So no matter where you found the evidence that Castro and Chavez think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, no matter where they got it from, at the beginning it started from a guy who reads rense.com.
Now go to rense.com and think about the kind of people who would read that site regularly.

It doesn't matter how much someone opposes the rense.com worldview if a large portion of the data that they have used to come to their conclusions - this is important: not just about 9/11, but the people behind it and the system in which it exists - originated at rense.com at some point.

How can you know which aspects of what you believe did or did not come from that website or others like it? Is that not a good reason to think critically about what you read in the "conspiracy theory community"? Why should that material be less subject to critical analysis (by you, specifically) than the so-called "official narrative"? And now we get to the difficult part: Does it not now seem significant to you that they decided very early on to single out guys named Silverstein and Rothschild as the masterminds behind the conspiracy?

[Nakidana]

Can somebody please confirm this isn't the big standard leftist view on 9/11 in America and that most people don't believe the tripe about this event being a conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately I've met quite a few people on the left who believe in these conspiracy theories. From Rothchild through Moon-landing-was-a-hoax all the way to 9/11 was an inside job(!).

And Vox Populi is actually quite right regarding regarding this not being a "teen" problem, some of these guys are academics and very knowledgeable within their fields. Yet if you bring up something related to 9/11, it suddenly all goes out the window and everything is about the WTC being rigged with explosives, planes being rockets and financial institutions having foreknowledge about the attack.

At first I just chuckled and tried to point out the flaws (no, the towers didn't fall at free fall speeds, yes the pilots did indeed have enough experience to pull off the feat etc etc) but now I'm just fed up. We have real fucking issues going on, real people being killed in drone attacks and real working class people being squeezed in the latest round of austerity measures.

I just don't have time for this BS anymore.

EDIT: For all of you guys who actually want to take the time to deal with the "truthers" (considering the amount of falsehoods the movement has spouted, they should be called "liars" tbh), this is a pretty good resource for information and debate: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

[Lowtech]

Unfortunately I've met quite a few people on the left who believe in these conspiracy theories. From Rothchild through Moon-landing-was-a-hoax all the way to 9/11 was an inside job(!).

And Vox Populi is actually quite right regarding regarding this not being a "teen" problem, some of these guys are academics and very knowledgeable within their fields. Yet if you bring up something related to 9/11, it suddenly all goes out the window and everything is about the WTC being rigged with explosives, planes being rockets and financial institutions having foreknowledge about the attack.

At first I just chuckled and tried to point out the flaws (no, the towers didn't fall at free fall speeds, yes the pilots did indeed have enough experience to pull off the feat etc etc) but now I'm just fed up. We have real fucking issues going on, real people being killed in drone attacks and real working class people being squeezed in the latest round of austerity measures.

I just don't have time for this BS anymore.

what you should have time for is actually researching 9/11. there are still to many unanswered questions. Bin laden is only linked to the events via a video where he takes credit. the popular mechanics article provides vaguely plausible scenarios that debunk nothing. planes that crash don't just vaporize without wreckage. how did passports of some of the alleged hijackers survive the crashes but not the black boxes? i'm sure you believe operation northwoods is conspiracy theory too?

believing that the government is fully truthful and can do no wrong is the real crackpot theory.

[Lowtech]

You and others have injected the most insane and ridiculous horseshit into this conversation and have tried this guilt by association tactic and nearly every turn. All I said was 9/11 was an inside job, from there you and others have concluded, that I must believe rockets came out of planes or it was a controlled demolition or now (out of fucking no where) the Jews must behind it, all that has been introduced by you, Tim, The Boss and so on.

I wonder if these anti-"truthers" question unilateral US military aggression and failed foreign policy? or instead, perhaps their logic is that the US government is infallible and so above reproach that there is no need to question why the government was compelled to go to war and to establish horrible things like the patriot act?

when you're dealing with an organization that by policy does not tell it's citizens why it does things, especially out of the need to hide criminality, you must theorize, as no sane person is just going to sit on their hands and assume the best until the government decides to own up to it's mistakes.