9/11 Cult Watch

[8bitagent]

Let me put it this way: "19 Arab Radicals in Caves" do NOT possess the ability to carry out the attack [even the official story] without significant foreign intelligence aid.

Call that racist, I call it reality.

The same idiots that say "you 9/11 conspiracy mongers are racist in saying Muslims aren't capable of pulling off 9/11"

I say "well isnt it more RACIST that you support RACIST wars of corporate hegemony, like Afghanistan and Iraq; wars that have killed countless innocent Arabs and Middle Easterners?"

Sad how many "liberals" and even some truthers support the destruction of Afghanistan by the US government.

I also add to all that al Qaeda has NEVER masterminded and came up with the idea for the bulk of the majority of spectacular attacks theyre blamed for. They may be the gun, but not the brains.

Look at what happens when "al Qaeda" tries to pull off an authentic terror attack, its so embarassing bad and non lethal that it's just plain laughable.

How come people don't ask WHO is behind Islamic terorrism

OF COURSE 9/11 and 7/7 were setups...

but SO was WTC 1993, OKC 1995, USS Cole, Khobar, 1998 African Embassy, 3/11, 10/22/2002, and on and on and on

[8bitagent]

anti-war peace and justice types,

Really? Seems to me from reading internet posts that there are a large percentage of people who claim that it 'woke them up' and who previously, (or even still in non-9/11-related issues) had very mainstream and conservative views.

Well a very large portion of 9/11 Truth is of the "paleo con", right leaning patriot types. It's funny as the left thinks truthers like myself are right wingers, and right wingers think truthers are all liberals.

I don't like all the anti Mexican, "gays are bad", "global warming is a hoax", "Ron Paul can save us!" spiels of the right side of the "conspiracy" movement...
just like I dont like the leftgatekeeping narrow mindedness(as I see it) of many on the left.

Let me put it this way: "19 Arab Radicals in Caves" do NOT possess the ability to carry out the attack [even the official story] without significant foreign intelligence aid.

Call that racist, I call it reality.

"Arab radicals in caves" = no google hits. "Arabs in caves" over 5,000. Scoffing at the caricature of Arab troglodytes, yes, that is racist.

You know these guys weren't living in caves. They were cultured and Westernized. Connected. Going there is dangerous to the covert players. Saying they were "Arabs in caves" divorces them from the operational structure, and saves the operation.

They were all young college dudes from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, etc.

The "Arabs in caves" would be the ninja karate guys on monkey bars and doing martial arts in those rediculous "al qaeda" propaganda videos.

What I try to get across to people is:

1. al Qaeda is just a puppet of the NWO, as is Osama bin Laden
2. They allegedly claim to hate the West, House of Saud and corporations yet in reality do their bidding
3. It's doubtful, if Osama is alive, that he or a Muslim writes his material
4. NO Arab/Muslim/Middleasterner came up with the idea of flying planes into buildings or blowing up the WTC. This is a lie that's been floated since the mid 1990's from the John O'neil/Richard Clarke/Schuer crowd

The "hijackers" and ALL the "Islamic" components of 9/11 were DEEP involved at one level or another within deep politics.

I realize my views might be a bit fringe even within the truth movement,
but I find it prudent to look at ALL mainstream and well verified facts and let the chips fall where they may. Thats why I dont subscribe to the "US done it", "Israel done it", "Afghanistan done it", "Saudi Arabia or Pakistan done it", etc line of thinking

And this America as Master Race/Chosen Few mentality is extremely common.

Indeed. This is why so many people on both 'sides' think 9/11 was terribly important.

Except the left in America and Gnome Chumpsky. Thats why a lot of them say that both 9/11 truthers and right winger Bush supporters are obsessed with 9/11. They dont *get* it.

that is probably true. but most of the people I see at the war rallies don't look like they're young enough hippies to be attending their first. the "truth" movement is very much a part of that, although not in an "organized" sense.

Yeah, more like a turning up and annoying all the real anti-war protestors sense.

I can't consider someone truly anti war unless they at least somewhat question 9/11 and are against the Afghanistan invasion.

Merely being against the Iraq invasion? Thats just mainstream tomfoolery

[8bitagent]

I tend to see the entire semantics area of this as a gigantic, well-designed trap to divert attention. That there are REAL elements of ACTUAL racism involved in SOME places, is most certainly true, but I'd expect it to be very rare in the mainstream CT crowd, mainly because exposure of high-level control mechanisms often convinces people that racism is part of their strategy and not a pathway to truth.

Also, the word "radical" on my part was just my misquoting. I think term 'radical' is also misleading. I was a kid in the eighties and nineties, the ninja turtles are also "radical".

When I use the word "arab" I'll try to be careful not to hurt anyone's feelings. I tend to use it as a term to indicate the "official" account's goal of radicalizing/demonizing [polarizing opinions] about Aram Muslims in general. If this is misunderstood, I apologize for not being more clear.

As far as google goes, Jeff, if Hugh is right [and he probably is about Googlebot hi-jacking, as it seems obvious enough to actually do] about your search engine, it probably gave you what it wanted to give you, not what actually represents even mainstream internet opinion. Just something to keep in mind, eh?

9/11 was fucking brilliant.

It was designed to INSTANTLY make anyone who questions 9/11=
an anti semetic/racist/crazy fool

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories, surround the events of 9/11...malicious lies" said Bush to the UN in November 2001.

Days after 9/11 the PTB were spreading the "Jews did it" meme like wildfire

NWO stooge actor Osama bin Goldstein and ISI Hamud Gul were busy promoting the "al Qaeda is innocent, Jews did 9/11" meme as well.
Osama will say ANYTHING his handlers tell him too, hence his recent "Chomsky is God, Global Warming is a threat" speeches

I dont know ONE "conspiracy theorist"(para political researcher/deep politic activist) who has any racism at all, youre right on the money there

I hate the anti Mexicans, and the "Jew this, Jew that" idiots in the truth movement. I hate the actions of Israel, but I dont dare trojan horse that into a "Zionists run the world, neocons are crypto Jew" stuff and youre right, most CT'ers dont

The WHOLE POINT of "conspiracy theorists" is to EXPOSE the racist
Nazi like mentality of the powers that be. From the real origins of crack cocaine, AIDS and stuff like Tuskegee, eugenics, etc to the "war on terror". Most conspiracy theories are about EXPOSING racism.
Racism IS a tool of the NWO to conquer and divide, AS IS homophobia and gay bashing.

I use the word "Islamic Terrorism", because that's a term everyone knows. "Brainwashed jihadists doing the Hegelian dialectic bidding of transnational interests through proxy Muslim state governments" is too
complex for people.

Islamic terrorism IS NWO, it IS the PTB. US Army, al Qaeda=two tentacles of the elite.

But I dont get upset when people say "as if some Arabs in a cave could pull off 9/11"...because I feel the alternative, is to somehow except that bombing innocents is ok

Think about how many people accept the US murdering thousands of Afghani innocents because of 9/11, and you can see where the real racism lies

I also have no fear calling out the evil of Sharia law, and the oppression going on in some Islamic countries.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed 'The War on Freedom:How & Why America was Attacked 11/9/01' Tree of Life Joshua Tree California (2002) ISBN 0-930852-40-0: an important early work, placing 9/11 properly within the context of US foreign policy. While drawing negative inferences about the lack of an adequate US military response before/on 9/11, a world away from loony-tune rubbish about pods/holograms etc.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed 'Subverting 'Terrorism'--Muslim Problem or Covert Operations Nightmare? Institute For Policy Development & Research Working Paper London (2006): carefully argued and meticulously referenced attempt to locate Al Qaeda as a Saudi/US construct. Doesn't quite prove his case about Al Qaeda representing a global 'strategy of tension', but worthy of detailed study

Abdel Bari Atwan 'The Secret History of Al-Qaida' Saqi Books London (2006) ISBN 0-86356-760-6: while weak on the subterranean links between Al-Qaeda and the CIA etc, captures well enough the reality and self-image of the network

Jean-Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie 'Forbidden Truth: US-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden' Thunders Mouth Press/Nation Books New York (2002) ISBN 1-56025-414-9: written by authors with extensive contacts in French intelligence, this fascinating book explores in substantiated detail the close relationship between the US government, spooks, the Taliban & Bin Laden. Along the way some key documents, including CIA/FBI & State Department files on Bin Laden are reproduced. As too the first ever arrest warrant on him (prompted by LIbya). Essential source. ***

Jason Burke 'Al Qaeda: the true story of Radical Islam' Penguin London (2004) ISBN 0-141-01912-3: a mixed bag. On the one hand, very weak on original links between Al Qaeda & the CIA, for example. On the other, good in explaining how Al Qaeda is now a franchise, or idea, as much as solid network. In that sense, the banner can be (is) taken up by many with no formal connection to Bin Laden/his lieutenants.

Steve Coll 'Ghost Wars--the Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan & Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10 2001' Penguin London (2004) ISBN 0-141-02080-6: all the complex detail missing from Burke (for example) on this topic. Particularly good on the complex politics of Pakistan & Afghanistan, rightly placing the latter country at the forefront of understanding Al Qaeda

John K Cooley 'Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America & International Terrorism' Pluto London (1999) ISBN 0-7453-1328-0: another essential source, all the more so in that Cooley outlines the woeful consequences of US covert foreign policy, in alliance with the Saudis, before 9/11 itself. Hence, he cannot be accused of merely being wise after the event.

Peter Dale Scott '9/11 in Historical Perspective: Flawed Assumptions': Briefing for US Congressional Staff (2005): concise (perhaps overly so) attempt to remind decision-makers of US role in Al Qaeda creation




Robert Dreyfuss 'Devils Game: How the US Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam' Metropolitan Books New York (2005) ISBN 0-8050-7652-2: absolutely essential background text, showing with chapter and verse how for many years the US helped prop up/sponsor 'Islamic Militancy'. This is important not just to confound simplistic jihadist propaganda (of Bin Laden's sort) but also to explain the historical context within which 'blowback' (a la 9/11) becomes perfectly comprehensible. A book to make everybody uncomfortable!

Rachel Ehrenfeld 'Funding Evil:How Terrorism is Financed--and How to Stop it' Bonus Books Chicago (2005) ISBN 1-56625-231-8: aspects of this book are almost cartoonish in their politically illiterate stereotyping. However...it struck a raw nerve with the Saudis for disclosing 'intelligence insider' material (foreword by R James Woolsey ex-CIA Director after all). Some grains of wheat among the chaff. ***

Yosri Fouda & Nick Fielding 'Masterminds of Terror' Mainstream Edinburgh (2003) ISBN 1-84018-724-7
some fascinating background material on the Al Qaeda operatives Ramzi Binalshibh and Khaild Shaikh Mohammed involved in planning 9/11 & creating the broader network.

Bruce Lawrence (ed) 'Messages to the World: the Statements of Osama Bin Laden' Verso London (2005) ISBN 1-84467-045-7: another essential text, explaining Bin Laden's world view from his own mouth, and along the way ('Towers of Lebanon' 29/10/04) claiming Al Qaeda responsibility for 9/11.

John Miller & Michael Stone 'The Cell--Inside the 9/11 Plot & why the FBI & CIA Failed to Stop It' Hyperion New York (2003) ISBN 0-7868-8782-6: a standard, but nonetheless informative, inside track account of the obstacles placed in the way of those investigating Al Qaeda activities in the US.

Michael Moore 'The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader' Penguin London (2004) ISBN 0-141-02138-1: the book of the film that catalysed interest in 9/11 for many. Despite its populist style, makes some useful points about the Saudi: Bush connection--presumably why the fruitloops now view Moore himself with suspicion

'Rebuilding Americas Defenses' Project For a New American Century Washington DC (2000): as important for what it doesn't say as it does. Imperialist strategy--certainly, and brutal in places. But a text advocating a 'New Pearl Harbour', as Griffin et al. claim? Not at all (see p.51)

Mohamed Sifaoui 'Inside Al Qaeda' Granta London (2003) ISBN 1-86207-682-0: an interesting first person account from an Algerian journalist who infiltrated Al Qaeda's European network. An important corrective to fantasists deluded enough to believe such didn't/doesn't exist.

Craig Unger 'House of Bush: House of Saud' Gibson Square London (2005) ISBN 1903933625: superb and vital text on the murky relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Saudis--and how this facilitated the construction of Al Qaeda. Far too empirical for conspiracy theorists ***

Lawrence Wright 'The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda's Road to 9/11' Penguin London (2006) ISBN 0-713-99973-X: fascinating detail on many of the key players both from Al Qaeda and their antagonists, such as the tragic John O'Neill of the FBI. Some useful theorising on inter-agency rivalry too.

TO BE CONTINUED (VERY SOON) WITH REFERENCE TO THE EVENTS OF 9/11: WATCH THIS SPACE[/color]

Actually, some of those are pretty damn good books, even some of the mainstream ones.

You have to know what to look for even in the official story "blowback" type of books. You'd be amazed Hugh, if you were into al Qaeda research, the shocking nuggets that come out of those books that point RIGHT at the PTB

[orz]

Merely being against the Iraq invasion? Thats just mainstream tomfoolery

Well yes.

[8bitagent]

If physical proof is not worth anything what is?

In a courtroom, circumstantial evidence can be just as powerful as physical evidence, sometimes more powerful, and sometimes less. But the circumstantial evidence is never as sexy. It's "sexy" to speculate about controlled demolition. It's not nearly as sexy to follow the money trail. In the case of 9/11, I think what's left of the evidence leaves us with powerful circumstantial evidence, which can lead to actual names of actual perps. Even if it is conclusively proven that the WTC was brought down with the help of explosives, such proof would still leave us without names, and it would leave the door open for the perps to ironically pin CD on terrorists. "What was Rocky Hammad doing the weekend before 9/11, instead of fixing sprinklers?" is a question I have longed to know for years, but if worse comes to worse (for the perps) it could be answered with "he was secretly a member of Al Qaeda". As with JFK, you can conclusively prove that JFK was hit by a bullet from the grassy knoll...but if worse came to worse, the perps could have probably pulled an "accomplice of Oswald" out of their ass and placed him behind the fence. Meanwhile, there is circumstantial evidence dealing with who-knew-whom and who-paid-whom and who-worked-for-whom that more directly implicates the real perps.

Aw, Rocky Hammad; now THATS a can of worms

What about how Melvin Lattimore was used by the powers that be to help carry out WTC 1993, Oklahoma City and 9/11?
Or Ptech? Or Ali Mohamed?

In a court of Law I'd show how at EVERY NEXUS POINT in 9/11, elements of global intelligence networks and corporations were intertwined.

The freaking "muscle hijacker trainers" either didnt exist or were MI6 and CIA assets.

British MI6/MI5 with German BND and CIA is so deep inside al Qaeda recruiting mosques, Im surprised noone mentions that

And the Balkans conflict. Noone seems to talk about how much of a backbone that was to 9/11

If people did their homework on what Ive uncovered, the "boring stuff" is WAY more 'sexy' and frightening than the Loose Change bullshit

It often seems to come down to this: But it's too hard! Far easier to "wake up the sheeple" with a simple video. Some truth movement.

As I keep telling REAL truthers:

google "Ali Mohamed", "Melvin Lattimore", "Ptech", "Abdusattar Sheikh",
"Omar al-Boyoumi", "Omar Saeed", etc

the official story starts to fall apart real quick.

I understand that the Mark Lombardi temporal mind mapping complexities of the arteries of 9/11 is a bit too complex for people...

I've studied 9/11 back to the MAK groups in Afghanistan, al-Kifah, and all the interconnecting charities, dummy fronts, financial aspects, etc...

I arrive at a "NWO done it" conclusion rather than a "Cheney did it" conclusion

Of course, to those that say "the devil" did 9/11, I wont give much argument

If I read him correctly however, he not so concerned with the events of the day, but rather with the events that led up to the day. I couldn't agree more.

As is my forte, what *lead* to 9/11...tho I DO find many things that transpired the *day of*...quite, "interesting"...

from Atta's "lost luggage" to NORAD phantom blips to the annihilation of the three high rises...much to give pause to that day

But the real nugget of truth is what lead up to it.

I like Jeff's views on 9/11 greatly, he takes the more cooperative research approach

Yes, it's possible for wacked out Fortean believers like us to turn around and reject a lot of theories surrounding 9/11.

[.....They approvingly cite Peter Dale Scott and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, whose War on Freedom is called "an important early work, placing 9/11 properly within the context of US foreign policy."

Only to point at al-Queda. al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.
That's their entire 9/11 focus. al-Queda.

al Qaeda=PTB

Taking al Qaeda out of the 9/11 equation makes absolutely no sense

If you really think writers like Peter Scott or Nafeez think al Qaeda was behind 9/11 you really havent read their work

[isachar]

I know what it is, but orz is not a word so it makes no sense to make a pun out of it.

Winging it like FB, I see.

So, Jeff the coward fails to respond to or recognize that his faith/belief in the official fairy tale (e.g. the NIST report) is based on its application of a false methodology that is a priori evidence of scientific fraud or ineptitude.

Yet, he gratuitously attacks those who, in addition to other elements of the multiple crimes involved in the nexus of 911, insist on not letting the culprits get by with this phony study and its unsupported conclusions that fire initially caused by the impacts was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the WTC's

Yet much of the analysis done by those who have focused on the WTC element of the nexus of 911 crimes (though not exclusively so) is far more credible and scientifically based than the patently phony NIST report.

Now, Jeff and his amen chorus of Sir Isaac Nomobrains, FB and orzo are fully entitled to their opinion that the official fairy tale suffices for them. But this means they must explicitly endorse the NIST's methods which consist of "assume your own results."

The reason they don't care to explicitly endorse the Second Testament of the 911 official fairy tale is that all their nyah nyah nyah hysteria and oppobrium, name-calling, and popcorn throwing would then be directed towards themselves since their doctrinal belief rests entirely on the legitimacy of a scriptural document that is at a minimum indefensible, but more likely is a deliberate, patent hoax and fraud.

Yet they mercilessly add their voices to those who visciously attack those who point out the emperor has no clothes.

A large case of rubber gloves all around for the cowards.

[Jeff]

isachar, seriously, for fuck's sake:

I don't give a shit about NIST, because it's for collapse hobbyists. The crime is the attack and its cover-up, not the mechanics of how the buildings fell.

A slim chance for justice is found in pursuing the former. Decades of satisfying wanking in the latter.

[orz]

Now, Jeff and his amen chorus of Sir Isaac Nomobrains, FB and orzo are fully entitled to their opinion that the official fairy tale suffices for them.

But none of us have actually expressed that "opinion"?

Winging it like FB, I see.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Po ... oreru.html

[isachar]

Now, Jeff and his amen chorus of Sir Isaac Nomobrains, FB and orzo are fully entitled to their opinion that the official fairy tale suffices for them.

But none of us have actually expressed that "opinion"?

Winging it like FB, I see.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Po ... oreru.html

bwahahaha. spin it pasta man. spin it good.

[orz]

But none of us have actually expressed that "opinion"?


http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/07/all-about-orz.html


Better?

[AlanStrangis]

Just an observation... "following the money trail" is what put Ollie North et al in front of the cameras to testify back in the day, and helped expose BCCI and that's about the closest the average American got to seeing the inner workings of the system.

Even then, there was a lot of public focus on the (relative) hottness of Fawn Hall.

Maybe we should check if any of the suspected actors in 9/11 had any sexy secretaries who were doing their bidding.

[King_Mob]

isachar, seriously, for fuck's sake:

I don't give a shit about NIST, because it's for collapse hobbyists. The crime is the attack and its cover-up, not the mechanics of how the buildings fell.

A slim chance for justice is found in pursuing the former. Decades of satisfying wanking in the latter.

Wowee zowee, seems Isachar has found the right button. However Jeff, I'm afraid that your response is wholly unsatisfying, and continues to drive Isachar's point.

Why wouldn't you "give a shit" about a phony inquiry that serves to debunk the 9/11 "movement" that you have now become so eager to distance yourself from?

"The crime is the attack and it's cover-up, not the mechanics of how it came down." This is a glaring contradiction. Here is the conditional that you have seemingly misunderstood: If the "mechanics" of the crime indicate that the buildings were demolished, then that evidence is indicative of the official narrative being utterly false, which would thus necessitate a cover-up. There is plenty of such evidence, as Hugh has posted ad nauseum, as well as plenty of testimony from NYC first-responders that indicate this is the case.

Also Jeff, how can there be "justice" if there is no fact of the matter? Instead of labelling people "hobbyists", "cultists", and "dogmatists", shouldn't you be embracing all the possible evidence, in order to integrate the "movement" into something stronger and more cohesive? YOU are the one that is driving this wedge down the middle, by sidestepping arguments, and ignoring evidence and questions posted by members of your forum.

[isachar]

quote="Jeff"]isachar, seriously, for fuck's sake:

I don't give a shit about NIST, because it's for collapse hobbyists. The crime is the attack and its cover-up, not the mechanics of how the buildings fell.

A slim chance for justice is found in pursuing the former. Decades of satisfying wanking in the latter.[/quote]

Bullshit, Jeff. Any and all elements of the crime have the potential to expose the others.

The reason so much effort has been directed by NIST and others to coverup this element of the nexus of crimes known as 911, and by those working one way or another on behalf of the perps who viciously attack those who expose their transparent fraud is because it is one of the weakest parts of the coverup.

8bit's and others work (which bears much in common with my own investigations) in exposing the nexus of support and activity leading up the the actual event is just as critical. And, perhaps one of those threads may ultimately lead to the unravelling of the crime. But the NIST coverup also has this potential, and for you to take the position that those who make cogent, science based arguments toward exposing this part of the crime are subjects of derision is inexcusable.

You wish to pursue other elements of the crime. All power to you. Go forth and multiply and I will heartily support and join with you. But for you to heap scorn and abuse on those who in addition to pursuing those other elements also insist on pursuing this part of the crime is hypocritical if not dishonest.

But the official fairy tale consists of the Old (Whitewash Commission Report) and New Testaments (NIST report). Both must stand, or both must fall.

Sadly, I think we're in for a repeat of the jfk, rfk, mlk scenario where no aspect of the multiple crimes known as 911 are likely to be re-opened for a legitimate investigation and after a couple decades it will all become largely irrelevant.

[AlanStrangis]

Now, Jeff and his amen chorus of Sir Isaac Nomobrains, FB and orzo are fully entitled to their opinion that the official fairy tale suffices for them. But this means they must explicitly endorse the NIST's methods which consist of "assume your own results."

I think it's worth pointing out that just about everybody you put on your shitlist has said previously in this thread (or elsewhere) that they don't buy the official story, in regards to the NIST report.

Why do you insist on perpetuating this myth when it's easily disproven by their own words?

[isachar]

Now, Jeff and his amen chorus of Sir Isaac Nomobrains, FB and orzo are fully entitled to their opinion that the official fairy tale suffices for them. But this means they must explicitly endorse the NIST's methods which consist of "assume your own results."

I think it's worth pointing out that just about everybody you put on your shitlist has said previously in this thread (or elsewhere) that they don't buy the official story, in regards to the NIST report.

Why do you insist on perpetuating this myth when it's easily disproven by their own words?

Actually not. Jeff, in his most recent post says he doesn't care (see above).

Nevertheless, they heap derision and scorn on those who wish to expose the NIST report as the transparent hoax that it is.

Why does exposing the NIST report to be a transparent hoax warrant the vicious attacks by Jeff and others, while efforts to expose, say for example, the put options or war games or the hocus pocus lol qaeda does not.

One set of efforts are sanctioned and meet with the approval of Jeff and rest of the the keepers of the 911 holy grail. One does not. What bollox. Fuck 'em. Let all the crimes be exposed and let no one attack those who make diligent, cogent and science-based investigations be subjected to attacks by those who wish to establish an official dissenting orthodoxy that says investigating financial crimes, war games, cia involvement with hijackers, etc. is 'legitimate', while exposing other elements of the attack is not.

Fuck the orthodoxy as represented and sanctimoniously enforced by Jeff and the rest of his gatekeeper ilk.

Jeff = Amy Goodman with pants.

but still no cojones.