FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Uncovered: The Rat's Nest of 9/11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
damocles
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:52 am    Post subject: Re: Truth before Popularity Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Quote:
Just look at this forum...it has 33 members, quite pathetic really but an accurate reflection of your current popularity


Nothing pathetic about the people who post here, and if you think this is
about popularity (?) -you're missing the point, big time.

If I was into popularity I wouldn't have outed the CIA Fakes.


but you didnt answer his question.
Back to top
damocles
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

furthermore you link to the sites you do despise.
i dont know what to think of you.
Back to top
Shaun
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:21 am    Post subject: huh? Reply with quote

Who's cares who is faking what!? The only thing that matters is clearly the US government created 911. No amount of spin will change the fact that the buildings were demo'd, planes were decoy... NEXT!!!
Back to top
Phil Howe



Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The point I make is very simple. Fintan hasn't simply written a list of people/groups/websites/activists which he believes are sub standard, flawed, or otherwise below par but in a grandiose sweep of illogicality(I may of made that word up) he has simply decided they are all part of an uber disinfo campaign by way of claiming them to be 'CIA fakes'. This is all very well but such fantastic claims require fantastic evidence because the sheer insensitivity of not being 100% sure of these claims, and offering the evidence to prove it, is beyond unacceptable and very disrespectful and ultimately very unhelpful for those already confused who to trust. The end result is that the only thing Fintan will achieve,should many people actually listen to him, is more distrust, less people taking the whole 911 conspiracies seriously, and showing the alternative media to be shabby, unprofessional, and untrustworthy. Now if ever there was a pattern of a paid disinfo agent it is this very behaviour and whilst I am willing to put Fintan's antics down to a personal error on his part I am forced to now view Fintan with a healthy dose of distrust. I should know because I had great respect for him up until then but my logical and reasonable mind cannot accept such faux news style, sensationalistic, unproven, and fantastic assertions at face value without at least the very basic hints of evidence to support said claims. My points are entirely reasonable. I want to see proof Bin laden had involvement in 911 and I want proof that the people on Fintans list are what he claims they are. In both cases there is no such evidence so like most people with an ounce or two of functioning brain matter I therefore conclude that a. Bin Laden was not the mastermind of 911 and likely had little to no involvement and b. Fintan is wrong and no longer to be trusted to offer credible information. It is not my duty to prove Fintan wrong but his duty to prove his claims right. At the very least, and to show his genuine care, he ought to of supplied his personal list of trusted 911 sources for the discernment of those who trust his advice. Never mind the fact that many on that list previously had front row seats on his site for advertisement or that he still links to many of them, this however does show a by-product of either. a. a lack of care and professionalism or b. another attempt to confuse people should Fintan be a paid Cointelpro agent.

Now if there is a logical flaw in my argument, or if I appear to be being unreasonable, then I welcome being told so but in truth I am only applying the same logical principles I applied to conclude 911 was a fraudulent western agenda as I am to Fintan's unfortunate hit pieces. It is because I respected Fintan and his work that I am so annoyed to see his standard's drop so dramatically and with such unfortunate consequences for all who care about the central issue in question.


Last edited by Phil Howe on Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

damocles wrote:
furthermore you link to the sites you do despise.
i dont know what to think of you.


Yeah, like my history professor said he was all like pacifist and shit, and then he makes us read stuff written by Hitler! HITLER!

I don't know what to think of him.


Quote:
Now if there is a logical flaw in my argument, or if I appear to be being unreasonable, then I welcome being told so


Dude, there's no argument in your logical flaws.

Listen, forget about Fintan. Take a look at his 'fantastic' list.
There's a lot to choose from there. Pick one. Any one. Yer fave.

We'll investigate it together. You and me. It'll be fun. Everybody can join in - we'll see where it goes.

Then we'll show that 'foony' Irishman!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Booger!
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:54 am    Post subject: CIA fakes? Reply with quote

Ive been looking at this stuff sunce late 2001 - I realized it because I read a lot and very quickly and came ocross official explanations which did not compute. Then I went looking for sites which document these things and I found them. And I do believe many of them to be fakes.

I have one problem. It concerns the DB Smith Hufschmid stuff. First - Their general premise as to who is responsible DOES indeed show up very prominently over and over again, no matter how you try to ignore it and follow other paths, even following the Fintan path.

The problem is that their spin on how to proceed seems to make sense. We DO know where to start and who to start with. We DO have people we can start holding responsible right now, and if the fact of the matter is that they all share a common unmentionable trait, then so be it - we must move forward regardless.

I mean .. holding the "G8" responsible... thats wonderful but how does one begin a campaighn to tar and feather and put on trial the G8 and run em out of town? You can't -
However - you can do that to individuals - such as the Silverstein guy who admnits on PBS that they put explosoives in building 7 and brought it down that day.

THAT is a good place to start - Here we have a real person, admitting demolition, a person whom ONLY his buildings come down in a nice neat fashion.

Close enough for rock&roll. And its much easier to wrap your arms around the legs of Larry Siverstein than the "G8".

Im not saying the G8 machine doesnt want all this one-world crap, but people make things happen for the G8 - not the G8 itself.

When it is all said and done, given that this site maintains that it is all the G8 NWO etc... Is the general and summarized plan of action according to this site as follows:???

"the G8 did it. we have no choice and no recourse but to document it and watch it happen. The G8 cannot be stopped"

Is this what I am supposed to get?
Is this the conclusion of efforts to figure it out?

Generally, it appears that it is, and that if I want something to do in the meantime, I can meditate on my relationship with the universe.
Back to top
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the Silverstein guy who admnits on PBS that they put explosoives in building 7 and brought it down that day.

THAT is a good place to start - Here we have a real person, admitting demolition, a person whom ONLY his buildings come down in a nice neat fashion.


Red herring. Sorry. Look at the footage again. He doesn't admit squat. His comments have been edited together as to appear highly suspicious. Deliberate ammo for the fakes to use - but it's unprosecutable, and too ambiguous to be useful.

So, I wouldn't start there, personally.

Quote:
I can meditate on my relationship with the universe.


I would start there, personally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Booger!
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:19 am    Post subject: Silverstein Reply with quote

Jerry - thanks.
OK - where can I see the footage unedited? If you do not know, then I ask where did you see the footage unedited. Convince me - because Im not stupid.

And even without the footage - skyscrapers which fall into themselves magically, and a third named building 7 which falls for no reason, in the same fashion?

Silverstein is still a very good place to start.

Sorry but my relationship with the universe is as my childrens father and the world they live in. I dont like being conned & enslaved, and I dislike it even more for them. My impetus is strongly tilted toward BS elimination and concrete steps based in the here and now.
Back to top
capt_w
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:41 pm    Post subject: how uncanny Reply with quote

Robert M. Bowman,
James H. Fetzer,
Wayne Madsen,
John McMurtry,
Morgan Reynolds,
Andreas von Buelow,

"joined with others in common cause"

who are the others...then
VIPs only ...stay behind the rope please
-----------------------------------------------------

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/1/emw339303.htm

Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

# # #


-----------------------------------------------------------
my thoughts
-----------------------------------------------------------
while it has to be remembered that the info on 911
contained is mostly
interesting/ thought provoking/worth considering

it's the way that these politically
motivated groups use it -
within the realm of left / right paradigm of fake US politics

so...are they setting the stage for the democrats to
win in 2008 - with many sighing in relief at the
very humiliating demise [photo ops/trials/impeachment]
of Bush/Cheney
only to see Hilary Clinton [or whoever]
further instigate a neoliberal [blair like] fascist state?

remember we in the UK saw the demise
of Thatcher/Major only to see that
smirking twat Blair step in
to the tune of
'things can only get better'
Back to top
Phil Howe



Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
damocles wrote:
furthermore you link to the sites you do despise.
i dont know what to think of you.


Yeah, like my history professor said he was all like pacifist and shit, and then he makes us read stuff written by Hitler! HITLER!

I don't know what to think of him.


Quote:
Now if there is a logical flaw in my argument, or if I appear to be being unreasonable, then I welcome being told so


Dude, there's no argument in your logical flaws.

Listen, forget about Fintan. Take a look at his 'fantastic' list.
There's a lot to choose from there. Pick one. Any one. Yer fave.

We'll investigate it together. You and me. It'll be fun. Everybody can join in - we'll see where it goes.

Then we'll show that 'foony' Irishman!



Actually Jerry with all due respect his comments have not been edited together and perhaps you ought to watch it again though I agree with you that the supposed 'confession' is as good as useless.

If you want to start somewhere you could start with the caretakers(of the WTC towers) and their testimonies, moving on to the opinion of professional pilots in regards to the flight of the planes and the sheer implausibility if not impossibility of many of the maneuvers carried out. Follow that with the impossibility of the airplane cellphone calls by way of proof, take 'Project Achilles' as but one example of this proof(for those who don't know simply google it). From their the avenues are plenty.

I agree that a lot of the people on Fintans silly little list are what I would politely call useful idiots of one type or another. Some of them are greedy, some of them are religious and therefore unsound of mind, some of them are lost in their ego's and some of them are doing their very best to do what they do as often as they can,i.e get people talking about 911. Some of them, quite possibility, are disinfo agents but proof is required before making these claims otherwise nothing goog will come of it at all.

Me personally, I am not here to make friends with anyone, stroke ego's or otherwise pretend that simply because we agree 911 was an illusion of sorts that we are therefore soulmates and sacred brethren, i'm an arsehole, your an arsehole, he's an arsehole. So fucking what? Who ever said that a person disbelieving the official version of 911 was therefore gonna share all your views? some of them think a one world government might not be a bad idea, maybe it wouldn't under the right circumstances, some of them think the motivation for all this is Oil, perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Some of them think God is up there and is now ever so angry and invoke his name as frequently as possible. Some of them have friends in high places, some of them have friends in low places, some of them have no friends and some of them have a lot. Some of them are willing to get very close to those we despise and play ball with them if they feel it might get them closer still, some of them wouldn't dream of doing this. Some of them have lisps, some of them have mustaches and are ex cops, some of them are white, some black, Some of them are more right than others and some of them are more wrong than others. But the fact remains that those 'them' are you and I and calling each other the worst possible name,hmmm, lets say CIA AGENTS of sorts, is a horrible thing to say to these people because i'll bet you all the Leprachauns in Ireland that such claims will be at least 90% wrong.


Last edited by Phil Howe on Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7592

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In passing, the list of "questions" posed by that group of "experts"
above... is pretty lame.
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/1/emw339303.htm


Also note that Jim Fetzer
who coordinated these experts, is referenced by David Ray Griffin:

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True by Dr. David Ray Griffin
January 29, 2006 911truth.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20060129&articleId=1846

"On the other hand, if explosives were used in the buildings, there would be a high probability that all 11 features would have occurred in all three buildings. For this argument, I am indebted to James Fetzer, who---through his essay "'Conspiracy Theories': The Case of 9/11"---inspired it, and to Paul Zarembka, who helped with the final formulation."

Now, that other guy mentioned by Griffin is Paul Zarembka:

Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Bio: Editor, Research in Political Economy, Elsevier Science, 1977-present, and Professor of Economics, State University of New York at Buffalo

He has a book coming out in early Spring 2006:

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm

It's a compendium of articles including one's by Griffin and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

But Part 4 of that book, promises to be an exciting read:

As Zarembka comments:

"The final chapter, while not explicit, offers a possible connection to the process of undermining pensions in the U.K."

PART IV. DRAWING A CONNECTION: UNDERMINING PENSIONS

The UK Pension System: The Betrayal by New Labour in its Neoliberal
Global Context by Jamie Morgan, Lancaster University, Lancaster


I can hardly wait.

Here's a sample of Jamie Morgan's previous work:

"As has often been argued, the timeless, ahistorical, institution-free
fundamentals of orthodox method cannot be easily reconciled to problems
of markets as rule systems. But what does it mean that trust and the
rules that constitute market systems are not a central problem for
orthodox economics?"
http://www.geocities.com/postneoliberal_review/Morgan1.htm


Riveting eh?

So 9/11 was all about undermining pensions in the U.K.

Whou'da thunk!?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Blue
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: Fintan's all right. Reply with quote

Skepticism is a good thing! So Fintan's skepticism takes extreme proportions, that is precisely why we need it. Phil Howe was vicious. Too black and white. Phil delivered the us vs. them tactic of which he was concurrently accusing Fintan. Fintan, I recognize you are about as paranoid as they come, but that is why I devour your site so! It makes me question, healthfully and helpfully, other news sources. I also listen to Rense, Jones, Goodman . . . perhaps ALL operatives . . . or perhaps Phil is right and you, Fintan, are the operative. But how would Phil and I ever know which was which in a game of he said, she said? I figure, the best we consumers of information can do is taste equally and generously. I even do WSJ, NYT, NPR and PBS! If we get some of everything, we can think for ourselves. Fintan, don't you want us to think for ourselves? Seems you do. I would never take your news at face value, but I'd never call you a quack and shut you off either. Break for News is a fine body of work and Fintan whether you are a good or a bad guy, you are one smart motherfucker and I respect you unconditionally.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
Page 3 of 42

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.