-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
911 Pentagon Video Released
- Thread starter kilo39
- Start date
Xarog
As for why the democrats aren't asking difficult questions, who knows? It's possible they simply bought the official line of events as most have. The WTC attacks was a terribly emotional event for most Americans (and people have milked that for all its worth, it seems) - I still wonder exactly how critically the majority views the events. The democrats might also consider the results of the WTC attacks - i.e. the fact that the USA seemingly has a carte blanche license with regard to it's behaviour overseas, as a good thing which would mean that they wouldn't want to upset the status-quo.
I post a few articles for your perusal - questions are asked, were asked. We should remember its now almost 5 years. The world has changed - and we're a universe away from where we were pre 9/11. Personally I was raised a sceptic - a lifetime of reading between the lines - because the lines were constrained by the law. Banned. Held without trial. 14th floor fell out the window. And we're moving back to that world - in this country for all the wrong reasons.
23 July 2003
White House Officials Discuss Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq
Deputy National Security Adviser takes responsibility for questionable intelligence
Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley accepted blame for allowing questionable intelligence concerning Iraqi attempts to procure uranium to appear in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address, despite memoranda he received from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warning against using that intelligence.
Hadley held a July 22 press briefing in Washington with White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett to discuss President Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein's regime made efforts to obtain uranium from Africa.
----
25 July 2003
Senators Spar Over Joint Committee's September 11 Report
Classified section says foreign officials aided terrorists, says Graham
The report makes it clear we should have known that potential terrorists were living among us. Indeed, two of the terrorist-turned-hijackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego, CA, for 6 months or more in the year 2001. A resourceful FBI agent in Phoenix wanted to follow up on suspicions about foreign-born students who were honing their skills at American flight schools. Officials at FBI central headquarters shut him down.
-
The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled ``Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters.'' That section of the report contained 27 pages between pages 396 through 422. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured. This is the equivalent of ripping out a chapter in the middle of a history book before giving it to your child or grandchild and then telling her ``good luck on the test.''
-
The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed ``information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States.''
------
[Congressional Record: June 27, 2005 (House)]
[Page H5243-H5250]
But I learned something new, Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks
and months. I have talked to some of the military *intelligence* officers
who produced this document, who worked on this effort. And I found
something out very startling, Mr. Speaker. Not only did our military
identify the Mohammed Atta cell; our military made a recommendation in
September of 2000 to bring the FBI in to take out that cell, the cell
of Mohammed Atta. So now, Mr. Speaker, for the first time I can tell
our colleagues that one of our agencies not only identified the New
York cell of Mohammed Atta and two of the terrorists, but actually made
a recommendation to bring the FBI in to take out that cell. And they
made that recommendation because Madeleine Albright had declared that
al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization, and the military
units involved here felt they had jurisdiction to go to the FBI.
Why, then, did they not proceed?
----------
Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2003
White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation
"While I don't want to believe such a basic lack of cooperation was intentional, it nonetheless creates the appearance of bureaucratic stonewalling," said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, at a commission hearing in May. "Excessive administration secrecy on issues related to the Sept. 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public's confidence in government," added Mr. McCain, a main sponsor of the bill that created the commission.
---------------------------
What do they say on the x files - the truth is out there? Above docs pretty old but germane - do your own search! As ignacio says - can get hung up - the world turns.
I don't know where you guys spend your time (on the web) - perhaps its a generation thing - (less concerned with personal liberty - the day to day.)
For an alternate look at reality - (of interest to south africans - you are warned - explicit content!)
3 February 2005
"Some People Push Back"
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
So what did this generation distrust and fear? The answer may be:
Nothing, until September 11. They grew up in peace and prosperity.
September 11 shattered it. How could they view it as anything but
profoundly transformative? How could they not be tempted to use the law
to protect themselves, and their country, by any means necessary? Their
experience testified to the damage terrorists can do to America - but
not to the damage America, and its Presidents, can do to people in and
outside our country.
It is too soon to know whether the events of September 11 will have the
power deeply and broadly to shape the next generation's view of the law.
But as the torture memo incident brought starkly home, there is a new
world view in the making.
---------------------
And all wrapped up in:
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:06:36 +0200 (SAST)
From: apb
To: [email protected]
Subject: Proposed wiretap laws in South Africa
The South African Law Commission (a body that makes suggestions to
the central goverment about changes in legislation) has released
a discussion paper on interception and monitoring of electronic
communications.
-------------
I'm happy to leave this thread here - its hard work - and vast - and breeds a certain obsession - perhaps ignacio is right - the official line is best - the rest just leads to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Always brings Breyten Breytenbach to mind - for every government there is an equal and opposite counter-government. Except now - we're in a whole new world. I got to be outer here - it was fun (in the end) - and educational!!
As for why the democrats aren't asking difficult questions, who knows? It's possible they simply bought the official line of events as most have. The WTC attacks was a terribly emotional event for most Americans (and people have milked that for all its worth, it seems) - I still wonder exactly how critically the majority views the events. The democrats might also consider the results of the WTC attacks - i.e. the fact that the USA seemingly has a carte blanche license with regard to it's behaviour overseas, as a good thing which would mean that they wouldn't want to upset the status-quo.
I post a few articles for your perusal - questions are asked, were asked. We should remember its now almost 5 years. The world has changed - and we're a universe away from where we were pre 9/11. Personally I was raised a sceptic - a lifetime of reading between the lines - because the lines were constrained by the law. Banned. Held without trial. 14th floor fell out the window. And we're moving back to that world - in this country for all the wrong reasons.
23 July 2003
White House Officials Discuss Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq
Deputy National Security Adviser takes responsibility for questionable intelligence
Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley accepted blame for allowing questionable intelligence concerning Iraqi attempts to procure uranium to appear in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address, despite memoranda he received from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warning against using that intelligence.
Hadley held a July 22 press briefing in Washington with White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett to discuss President Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein's regime made efforts to obtain uranium from Africa.
----
25 July 2003
Senators Spar Over Joint Committee's September 11 Report
Classified section says foreign officials aided terrorists, says Graham
The report makes it clear we should have known that potential terrorists were living among us. Indeed, two of the terrorist-turned-hijackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego, CA, for 6 months or more in the year 2001. A resourceful FBI agent in Phoenix wanted to follow up on suspicions about foreign-born students who were honing their skills at American flight schools. Officials at FBI central headquarters shut him down.
-
The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled ``Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters.'' That section of the report contained 27 pages between pages 396 through 422. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured. This is the equivalent of ripping out a chapter in the middle of a history book before giving it to your child or grandchild and then telling her ``good luck on the test.''
-
The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed ``information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States.''
------
[Congressional Record: June 27, 2005 (House)]
[Page H5243-H5250]
But I learned something new, Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks
and months. I have talked to some of the military *intelligence* officers
who produced this document, who worked on this effort. And I found
something out very startling, Mr. Speaker. Not only did our military
identify the Mohammed Atta cell; our military made a recommendation in
September of 2000 to bring the FBI in to take out that cell, the cell
of Mohammed Atta. So now, Mr. Speaker, for the first time I can tell
our colleagues that one of our agencies not only identified the New
York cell of Mohammed Atta and two of the terrorists, but actually made
a recommendation to bring the FBI in to take out that cell. And they
made that recommendation because Madeleine Albright had declared that
al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization, and the military
units involved here felt they had jurisdiction to go to the FBI.
Why, then, did they not proceed?
----------
Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2003
White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation
"While I don't want to believe such a basic lack of cooperation was intentional, it nonetheless creates the appearance of bureaucratic stonewalling," said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, at a commission hearing in May. "Excessive administration secrecy on issues related to the Sept. 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public's confidence in government," added Mr. McCain, a main sponsor of the bill that created the commission.
---------------------------
What do they say on the x files - the truth is out there? Above docs pretty old but germane - do your own search! As ignacio says - can get hung up - the world turns.
I don't know where you guys spend your time (on the web) - perhaps its a generation thing - (less concerned with personal liberty - the day to day.)
For an alternate look at reality - (of interest to south africans - you are warned - explicit content!)
3 February 2005
"Some People Push Back"
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
So what did this generation distrust and fear? The answer may be:
Nothing, until September 11. They grew up in peace and prosperity.
September 11 shattered it. How could they view it as anything but
profoundly transformative? How could they not be tempted to use the law
to protect themselves, and their country, by any means necessary? Their
experience testified to the damage terrorists can do to America - but
not to the damage America, and its Presidents, can do to people in and
outside our country.
It is too soon to know whether the events of September 11 will have the
power deeply and broadly to shape the next generation's view of the law.
But as the torture memo incident brought starkly home, there is a new
world view in the making.
---------------------
And all wrapped up in:
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:06:36 +0200 (SAST)
From: apb
To: [email protected]
Subject: Proposed wiretap laws in South Africa
The South African Law Commission (a body that makes suggestions to
the central goverment about changes in legislation) has released
a discussion paper on interception and monitoring of electronic
communications.
-------------
I'm happy to leave this thread here - its hard work - and vast - and breeds a certain obsession - perhaps ignacio is right - the official line is best - the rest just leads to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Always brings Breyten Breytenbach to mind - for every government there is an equal and opposite counter-government. Except now - we're in a whole new world. I got to be outer here - it was fun (in the end) - and educational!!
Last edited:
Everyone needs a hobby - and this stuff is yours. But you are right, it is vast and time consuming... even in my small foray into attempting to debunk you guys, it sucked up a lot of time, and in the end I had to wonder was it worth it... i.e. surely my time is better spent fighting for/over SA issues or stuff that relates in a more direct way to my life. I think you find it worth it, so you really should keep going...kilo39 said:I'm happy to leave this thread here - its hard work - and vast - and breeds a certain obsession - perhaps ignacio is right - the official line is best - the rest just leads to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Always brings Breyten Breytenbach to mind - for every government there is an equal and opposite counter-government. Except now - we're in a whole new world. I got to be outer here - it was fun (in the end) - and educational!!
My work be suffering. As said - my meanderings - my interests. Interesting world we live in - as always.
/edit/and wish we could do something - wish we weren't ignored. New legislation. Telkoms obstinacy. I truly despair.
/edit/and wish we could do something - wish we weren't ignored. New legislation. Telkoms obstinacy. I truly despair.
Last edited:
What is interesting - and something we have in common, I suspect, is that we are thoroughly convinced that we are disabusing the other side of their wrong minded notions, of misinformation.... heh... it is like we are truth-seekers, but our truths are polar opposite.kilo39 said:
I jumped from this thread to attack racist misinformation/thought in another - but I am sure they likewise thought that I was entirely misinformed and was totally "kooky".
An interesting world indeed.
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
And that is not even the start of it. They where dragged by their heels and feet. They were kicking and screaming and then finally after years they release the MOST dodgy video they could find. Does that sum it up nicely for you?halicon said:
You are quite right there. Anything fake would be exposed as fake. It's very hard to produce good fake photos. Things just look too perfect. And then there is the actual fire or explosion. The particle physics involved is impossible to replicate convinsingly. The fire scenes in CG films are usually done with real fire which is then modelled into the scene. They would have been exposed as fake within days if not hours. You also only produce fakes if you want to cover something up.Xarog said:
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
Nicely stated. Everyone from the official reports made things up and introduced a lot of hypotheticals. Then when that is pointed out people (respectable scientists included) get labeled "kooks". If we go by that same logic we should label the official investigators "kooks" as well. But we don't do that because it doesn't achieve us anything. At the end of the day we would still be at the same place which is where this thread was for a long time. They are all simply doing what scientists do. They come up with hypothetical answer which should be tested. No one deserves the term "kook". If they didn't do what they do we would still be living in the dark ages today with candles made not out of wax but out of fat. It's the governments who deserve the criticism for releasing reports with no answers and not bothering to get to the truth. I hope everyone understands this logic now, peanut gallery included.kilo39 said:
ignacio
What is interesting - and something we have in common, I suspect, is that we are thoroughly convinced that we are disabusing the other side of their wrong minded notions, of misinformation.... heh... it is like we are truth-seekers, but our truths are polar opposite.
Mmmm. Do I think your notions are wrong sided? Suppose, otherwise we wouldn't be having the argument. Do I believe in a conspiracy? I have no implicit belief. I dread to think it was a conspiracy. But - have to say - I'm more on the side of conspiracy than not. It's not a nice story. And - in our last week or so of posting - I've come across stuff I would rather not see: bits of meat lying on the streets of manhattan - war wounded.
That "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" provides an interesting perspective of how long "the war" has been going on for. I do believe - that if nothing else - 9/11 provided a paradigm shift - though if you look at that document "electronic communications" - goes back to 98. Planning - debating the new world order. How can I say - I don't believe there is any "misinformation" - there is only information - and a persons interpretation of it. Today - the issue goes deeper than simple misinformation - directly into the province of propaganda - global news - "the weaponization of information" (don't you just love it!)
An interesting world indeed.
I feel this draw to be at the memorial 9/11 2006.
What is interesting - and something we have in common, I suspect, is that we are thoroughly convinced that we are disabusing the other side of their wrong minded notions, of misinformation.... heh... it is like we are truth-seekers, but our truths are polar opposite.
Mmmm. Do I think your notions are wrong sided? Suppose, otherwise we wouldn't be having the argument. Do I believe in a conspiracy? I have no implicit belief. I dread to think it was a conspiracy. But - have to say - I'm more on the side of conspiracy than not. It's not a nice story. And - in our last week or so of posting - I've come across stuff I would rather not see: bits of meat lying on the streets of manhattan - war wounded.
That "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" provides an interesting perspective of how long "the war" has been going on for. I do believe - that if nothing else - 9/11 provided a paradigm shift - though if you look at that document "electronic communications" - goes back to 98. Planning - debating the new world order. How can I say - I don't believe there is any "misinformation" - there is only information - and a persons interpretation of it. Today - the issue goes deeper than simple misinformation - directly into the province of propaganda - global news - "the weaponization of information" (don't you just love it!)
An interesting world indeed.
I feel this draw to be at the memorial 9/11 2006.
Agreed. What kinda world are we living in these days?! People getting robbed, killed and raped - babies even - and to top it all off, in an unimaginable assault to human dignity, people are even getting called "kooks" - in the year 2006, no less - this didn't happen 50, or 100 years ago... this is injustice is happening all over internet forums around the world TODAY. When will the insanity end? This is a sick and twisted culture. Why can't we just get along? I weep for humanity!Prometheus said:
Aah - Prometheus - thought you were ignoring me - had become a believer because of my liquefy hypothesis!!! See the "molten" metal dripping off the building - real video!!! (Now if I could just find that reference!?) Tut. If only it wasn't so serious. If only they knew who shot JFK!!? Sealed files (just thought I'd mention that!)
And yup ignacio - that kook label - must admit - pet hate (and so easily anointed.)
--
And yup ignacio - that kook label - must admit - pet hate (and so easily anointed.)
--
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
The thing is really that the attacks were a lot of rubbish. The plan was flawed. They took knifes (box-cutters) through x-ray checks. Not once but presumably 4 times. Security people watching the screens and when a knife goes through they don't even see it. Any one of them could have been caught but wasn't. Certified flight instructor stating that they were "completely incapable" of flying anything much less an airliner. They were counting on pure luck that the plane would be heading in the right direction. They would have been unable to turn it in the right direction. They wouldn't even know if it was heading in they right direction. Yet they manage to get it right not once but 3 times to take down three buildings with military precision and crash through 6 walls of the Pentagon which is reinforced against bomb attacks and possibly nuclear fallout using the strongest materials there is and was even upgraded just before the attacks. Makes me wonder if they didn't crash the fourth plane into the ground because they were such idiots.pupa said:
Now who is more correct here? The people thinking they had help or the people thinking they were the luckiest bastards in history?
Highflyer_GP
Honorary Master
Well I left the discussion after I realised that it was going to go round and round. People on both sides are going to stand their ground until proven otherwise, and at this point in time I think it's safe to assume that there's not enough conclusive evidence on either side to sway the opposition. So for what it was worth, it was indeed educational and also time consuming. Let's try and keep any personal attacks in this thread contained specifically to this thread and not let it make anyone lose sight of the cause of this forum.
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
Hey that's not fair... I answered it...icyrus said:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=543691&postcount=375
...but I'll try and answer it again.
Like I said before, confusion. The reports are garbage. Now where is the facts? Who has the answers? What do they tell the media? This is just not sensational enough. The media thrives on sensationalism. There is already a 911 truth movement. Nothing more can be done without more research based on facts and evidence and we know who controls that. Besides the agencies like FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, ATF, BoP and DEA - any which I missed?
- they don't work for Bush or any politician. NSA (National Security Agency) has a panel of people to decide what information is released to the public, generally nothing is released, they don't answer to they president and even he isn't privy to any information they have. What is the Democrats suppose to do? Even if it is a conspiracy they can't implicate the Republicans. Knowing Bush he would just point the finger back at them: "They know something so they were involved". They will only take this to the public if they are very desperate because if they lose it's game over for them. This simply isn't newsworthy enough yet.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Here's something that the official media did touch. Nothing came of it, though.
http://www.rense.com/general29/obls.htm (The article itself has direct links to other news services like the BBC.)
IMO, that's pretty conclusive evidence that at least ONE part of the US story is false.
http://www.rense.com/general29/obls.htm (The article itself has direct links to other news services like the BBC.)
IMO, that's pretty conclusive evidence that at least ONE part of the US story is false.
One of those little/big anomalies Xarog. I remember reading those stories when they were released:
Some links (haven't looked at them since I found them - but interesting - much interesting stuff out there!!)
Polygraph Exam Results
The discussions covered the possibility of aircraft being taken over by dissidents and used to attack important buildings in the United States of America.
4 November 2002
NSA director Hayden's testimony on NSA and 9/11
23.I went public with an aspect of this dilemma in an interview with CBS News that aired on “60 Minutes II” in February 2001. David Martin was pressing me about our technological challenge and he was using al-Qa’ida and Usama bin Laden as his examples. I pointed out that al-Qa’ida did not need to develop a telecommunication system. All it had to do was harvest the products of a three trillion dollar a year telecommunications industry—an industry that had made communications signals varied, global, instantaneous, complex, and encrypted. During that interview, David asked me for an assessment, specifically about al-Qa’ida. I told him: “David, it's a dangerous world out there. I can't guarantee you—in fact, I would refuse to guarantee you—that even if we were at the top of our game, ill things won't happen to Americans. These are very dedicated, very dangerous adversaries. And we work very hard against them and they obviously work very hard to protect themselves against us.”
Some links (haven't looked at them since I found them - but interesting - much interesting stuff out there!!)
Polygraph Exam Results
The discussions covered the possibility of aircraft being taken over by dissidents and used to attack important buildings in the United States of America.
4 November 2002
NSA director Hayden's testimony on NSA and 9/11
23.I went public with an aspect of this dilemma in an interview with CBS News that aired on “60 Minutes II” in February 2001. David Martin was pressing me about our technological challenge and he was using al-Qa’ida and Usama bin Laden as his examples. I pointed out that al-Qa’ida did not need to develop a telecommunication system. All it had to do was harvest the products of a three trillion dollar a year telecommunications industry—an industry that had made communications signals varied, global, instantaneous, complex, and encrypted. During that interview, David asked me for an assessment, specifically about al-Qa’ida. I told him: “David, it's a dangerous world out there. I can't guarantee you—in fact, I would refuse to guarantee you—that even if we were at the top of our game, ill things won't happen to Americans. These are very dedicated, very dangerous adversaries. And we work very hard against them and they obviously work very hard to protect themselves against us.”
Last edited:
Stumbled on and watched 911 Loose Change 2nd Edition: presents a summary of the conspiracists case - presents all the "facts" and unanswered questions - definitely worth a watch for skeptics and a good summary for conspiracists.
In slo-mo - watch the bombs go off!!?
In slo-mo - watch the bombs go off!!?
Highflyer_GP
Honorary Master
389MB Download, should be done in a couple of hours
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
No, just took a sabbatical from the thread. Was getting to me a bit. Even resorted to the same name calling that I hated for which I am sorry. Discovered some things lately which all fit neatly together, things that would make your hair stand on end. No, not about 9/11, but about some other stuff. Anyways, enough ramblings from me. It's just ironic that we all wasted so much time in this thread when there are far more sinister things out there. Probably the last post from me in this thread. For what it's worth don't just take anyones truth, get out there (or from within here) and research it yourself.kilo39 said: