Atheistforums.com

The Lavon Affair (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair)

USS Liberty (//http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html)

Not to sound crudely anti-Semitic, but the Jews have been relying on the Western powers to suppress the Arab nations since Israel began to exist, and one of the means by which they induce the Western powers to help them has been through the use of false flag attacks, in which their assets attack Western targets but blame Arabs as the source. This kind of adds a lot of credibility to the "Jews did WTC" theory.

Just trying to get the word out.

(//http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/nope.gif)

The first link was to a Wikipedia article that talks about how Israel had agents bomb Egyptian, British, and American buildings and blame the attacks on the Muslim Brotherhood to create an atmosphere of violence that would convince Britain to keep its troops in Egypt a little longer. The second link shows information that points to a failed attempt to convince America to attack Egypt in 1967.

I understand that there is a reflexive fear in the US of criticizing Jewish people, but I think this can not be overlooked.

QuoteNot to sound crudely anti-Semitic, but the Jews...

QuoteThis kind of adds a lot of credibility to the "Jews did WTC" theory.

(//http://24.media.tumblr.com/a6a682898a4ac75c85f6b899b2f8187e/tumblr_ml5dy9skGy1snmpfxo1_500.gif)

All you can contribute to this thread are a bunch of image macros and status quo-protecting timidity. You are now on ignore.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"All you can contribute to this thread are a bunch of image macros and status quo-protecting timidity. You are now on ignore.

Israel =/= Jews.
Jews had nothing to do with WTC.
Saying Jews did 9/11 isn't "breaking the status quo", its being an idiot.

Happy.

Semantics. Semantics semantics semantics semantics semantics. More semantics.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Semantics. Semantics semantics semantics semantics semantics. More semantics.

United States = Christians.
Christians had everything to do with the siege of Troy.
Implying Christians seized Troy is breaking the status quo.

Disagree?

Semantics. Semantics semantics semantics semantics semantics. More semantics.

But to reiterate...

Well shit, I'm out of octopus "nope.gif"... just picture an octopus running around with the word nope right...about...


Here.

What? No, seriously. What?

Fine, okay, Israel's cowardly, deceitful government pulled off this bullshit. Can we agree on that?

First of all, Israeli government =/= the Jews. Shiranu said it, but it's worth repeating.

Second, the fact that the Israeli government has perpetrated false flag operations does not mean Jews did 9/11. The U.S. government has perpetrated false flag operations as well, and other breeds of truther have used this point to "lend credence" to the notion that the Bush administration was behind 9/11. Without any actual evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation at all, or that Israel had anything to do with it, the fact that such-and-such government was behind a false flag in the past is completely irrelevant.

Implying that 9/11 was anything other than some islamic fundamentalists who had been gradually radicalised through succcessive years/decades in various Arabic/ pan-Asian and European states reveals a gross ignorance to the contextual basis behind the 9/11 attacks the reality it implied/implies.

What's most damaging about this nonsense bollocks about people other than those have been proven to carry out the attacks is that it forces people to start dismissing those claims instead of getting to the heart of why the attacks occured and how to prevent them.

In short, it completely derails any attempt to figure out how to evolve beyond the attrocity that 9/11 certainly was and work to ensure that it doesn't happen again. When people start wilding accusing others with nothing more than a 'hunch', it fucks the entire world up a lot more than the 9/11 attacks ever could.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I understand that there is a reflexive fear in the US of criticizing Jewish people, but I think this can not be overlooked.

There should be a fear of accusing others based on prejudice against people and not evidence.

It'd be much easier for the US or Israel to pull this off than for Al Qaeda.

Also, here's a list of people involved with the WTC towers and buildings surrounding it (//http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=5367.0). Way, way, WAY too many coincidences.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Semantics. Semantics semantics semantics semantics semantics. More semantics.

Semitics semitics and more semitics.  :P

At any rate, this thread is a perfect example of what happens when one starts credulously accepting conspiracy theory hookem and unsubstantiated conjecture as a replacement for cold, hard fact.  A lesson the political forum has been in dire need of lately.

One of the reasons for the attack on the WTC was that it represented everything that the attackers hated. The perception has been for many years that Jews are behind Wall Street and everything economic in the US. 18% of the people killed were Jewish. That is a much higher percent than exist worldwide as a percent of population. So you are saying that Jews perpetrated an attack on Jews to start shit against Arab terrorists?

The attackers are known, their motives known, their origins known. To say this is a Jewish conspiracy is flying in the face of a large body of evidence.

The Lavon Affair has been documented and recorded in history, even the Israelis acknowledge it happened, even if they refer to it as the "unfortunate affair" or whatever.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"It'd be much easier for the US or Israel to pull this off than for Al Qaeda.

Also, here's a list of people involved with the WTC towers and buildings surrounding it (//http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=5367.0). Way, way, WAY too many coincidences.

Coincidences? Perhaps. Hard evidence? Not one iota.

People need to get over the myth that it was 'Al Qaeda' that perpatrated these attacks. I think the CIA and other intelligence forces found that it means 'base' and decided that everything stems from there.

al Qaeda hasn't been an international terrorist organisation capable of carrying out organised central attacks for decades. Arguably it never was. Mohammad Atta et al. recieved training and some further radicalisastion from some bases in Afghanistan, but that was about it. Very little of the attacks formative planning was known beyond the initial 'ok' at 'higher' levels in Al Qaeda's disorganised and fractured heirarchy.

But far from destroy the thesis that 12 or so guys could pull off an attack like this, it actually reinforces it. Their radicaliastion in places throughout the world (Atta was arguably radicalised as much in Germany as he was in Egypt) shows how deep routed their dislike of America and the 'West' was. Saying it was anything other than what it was completely dismisses the debate on why a seemingly normal, highly educated man went from sort of believer to hard radical. It's this debate we as a world need to have, not "but why did the building look like it was demolished" bollocks.

People wonder why these attacks occur? I point to 9/11 truthers and attribute as much blame to them as to the guys that carried out, because their sole MO is ensure these types of attacks occur again and again.

Conspiarcy theorists always ask questions without giving answers. It's always "But why building x fall like this, it must mean [insert nonsense]".

There's no substance to any of it. It's as thought just asking 'why' is all that's needed, and any further investigation is just dismissed when it doesn't give them the answer they want.

Every country is guilty of atrocious behavior for the wrong reasons. The CIA was involved in removing a peaceful, democratically elected Muslim government in 1953, simply because they wanted to nationalize their oil industry. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution that got us into Vietnam with a full military commitment was based on what many analysts consider to be either a false flag action or else turning an accidental attack into a much greater incident than it was.

You are singling out one country as a villain in a world full of villainy. Whatever your motives, it comes across as anti Jewish. But in any way even considering that Jews are responsible for 9/11 is ludicrous.

I'm singling out Israel because Israel is the only country known to have attacked a US Naval vessel after World War II. I'm singling out Israel because it has a history of trying to draw the US into its own wars.

I'm glad we can all agree that Al-Qaeda is probably a US/Israeli asset. "Al Qaeda" is a term for "Foreign toilet." The fact that they've chosen such a ridiculous name, plus the fact that it's a reference to a specifically FOREIGN toilet, helps to corroborate this belief.

QuoteI'm glad we can all agree that Al-Qaeda is probably a US/Israeli asset. "Al Qaeda" is a term for "Foreign toilet." The fact that they've chosen such a ridiculous name, plus the fact that it's a reference to a specifically FOREIGN toilet, helps to corroborate this belief.

(//http://img.pandawhale.com/43689-Christian-Bale-dafuq-wtf-gif-4Vsk.gif)

Al-Qaeda = "The base, foundation".

While there is a phrase in Arabic that says you are going to go to the Al-Qaeda (toilet), that is still not remotely "foreign" toilet and its simply an example of a word having multiple meanings. Al = The, Qaeda = Base... where exactly are you getting "specifically foreign"?

Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking mate?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I'm glad we can all agree that Al-Qaeda is probably a US/Israeli asset. "Al Qaeda" is a term for "Foreign toilet." The fact that they've chosen such a ridiculous name, plus the fact that it's a reference to a specifically FOREIGN toilet, helps to corroborate this belief.

Wut?

Have you done any research into the origins of al Qaeda/contemporary Islamism per se or are you just making stuff up?

Al-Qaeda is a word for Western-style toilet (//http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message498373/pg1).

I don't read or speak Arabic, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your description is an extreme warping of literal/intended meanings.

But even so, I don't get how it supports your notion that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Al-Qaeda is a word for Western-style toilet (//http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message498373/pg1).

From the guy who you are quoting...

QuoteWhat does the word "Al-Qaeda" mean ? In Arabic, "Al-Qaeda" has a different meanings, among them "Base", "Ground", "Norm", "Rule", "Fundament", "Grammar". The exact meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used. It depends on the word which follows "Al-Qaeda" in the sentence. "Qawa'ad Askaria" is an Army Base, "Qawa'ad Lugha" stands for Grammar Rules (the Bases of Grammar).

What if I told you words have more than one meaning?

(//http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/04/06/Style/Images/glennbeck_110406_2.jpg)

Glenn Beck approves of your points, but thinks you need to also say Hitler is Jewish, therefor aliens built the pyramid.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Al-Qaeda is a word for Western-style toilet (//http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message498373/pg1).

From the guy who you are quoting...

QuoteWhat does the word "Al-Qaeda" mean ? In Arabic, "Al-Qaeda" has a different meanings, among them "Base", "Ground", "Norm", "Rule", "Fundament", "Grammar". The exact meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used. It depends on the word which follows "Al-Qaeda" in the sentence. "Qawa'ad Askaria" is an Army Base, "Qawa'ad Lugha" stands for Grammar Rules (the Bases of Grammar).

What if I told you words have more than one meaning?

[ Image (//http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/04/06/Style/Images/glennbeck_110406_2.jpg) ]

Glenn Beck approves of your points, but thinks you need to also say Hitler is Jewish, therefor aliens built the pyramid.

I guess cherry picking is just the easier option.

My argument basically hinges on heuristics.

First, Al-Qaeda being slang for "the toilet," specifically a Western toilet, points to them being

1. Fake, since no serious militant organization would call themselves "The Toilet"

2. Of foreign/Western, not necessarily Israeli or American, origin

Second, Israel has been attacking the US using "Islamic Fundamentalism" as a proxy since its inception. In the Lavon Affair, they bombed US, British, and Egyptian buildings and tried to frame the Muslim Brotherhood for these actions to get the British to station troops in the Suez Canal area. This is not conjecture. This is a matter of historical record.

Third, pretty much all the people involved with running the WTC towers and privatizing assets that would have been useful in preventing the attacks were Israelis/Zionists. Plus, they managed to avoid getting killed in the buildings they worked in. The man who owned the buildings ate breakfast at the Windows on the World cafe every morning from when he bought the 99 year lease on the towers to when the attacks came, but mysteriously forgot to do this the morning of 9/11. Same with his family members, who also worked in the towers but "couldn't come in" on that exact day.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"My argument basically hinges on heuristics.

First, Al-Qaeda being slang for "the toilet," specifically a Western toilet, points to them being

1. Fake, since no serious militant organization would call themselves "The Toilet"

Evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming as to make your theory effectively worthless, bordering on the insane.

A good book I can't recommend enough is the following by Jason Burke:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-S ... 0141031360 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141031360)

It's a great read by a journalist who spent years alongside various 'extreme' organizations and individuals from Kurdish territories in Iraq to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

As has been pointed out, Al Qaeda meaning "the toilet" is but one analysis of the name, one skewed very much by a seeming bias you have towards one perspective on history/reality. I can't argue this point with you if you insist on just believing whatever fits in with your own perspective.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"2. Of foreign/Western, not necessarily Israeli or American, origin

An argument can be made for this in an indirect fashion, as one could postulate that AQ is reactive rather than proactive to perceived injustices, real or imaginary. But I suspect that this isn't what you mean.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Second, Israel has been attacking the US using "Islamic Fundamentalism" as a proxy since its inception. In the Lavon Affair, they bombed US, British, and Egyptian buildings and tried to frame the Muslim Brotherhood for these actions to get the British to station troops in the Suez Canal area. This is not conjecture. This is a matter of historical record.

Which, even if true (I'm not an expert on this), does thus equate to 9/11 being a false flag op. This sounds like you're grasping at straws in front of overwhelming evidence.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Third, pretty much all the people involved with running the WTC towers and privatizing assets that would have been useful in preventing the attacks were Israelis/Zionists. Plus, they managed to avoid getting killed in the buildings they worked in. The man who owned the buildings ate breakfast at the Windows on the World cafe every morning from when he bought the 99 year lease on the towers to when the attacks came, but mysteriously forgot to do this the morning of 9/11. Same with his family members, who also worked in the towers but "couldn't come in" on that exact day.

Conjecture, supposition.

No evidence, rather a lot of "but look, this happened SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN THIS!" Typical of most conspiracy theorists tactics, find (or imagine) patterns and then draw conclusions rather than consult the evidence.

Ignored.

QuoteWhich, even if true (I'm not an expert on this), does thus equate to 9/11 being a false flag op. This sounds like you're grasping at straws in front of overwhelming evidence.

Ummm the Lavon Affair was quoted in the first link I posted, which was a Wikipedia article posting information that is publicly known and acknowledged. All my information about the Lavon Affair is from that article.

The Information Underground link has reports of Israeli agents plotting to take down the Sears Tower. And a lot of other information that was posted there that I didn't repeat here.

Read the links. It's obvious that nobody clicked on them. It takes like 2 minutes to read them.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"

QuoteWhich, even if true (I'm not an expert on this), does thus equate to 9/11 being a false flag op. This sounds like you're grasping at straws in front of overwhelming evidence.

Ummm the Lavon Affair was quoted in the first link I posted, which was a Wikipedia article posting information that is publicly known and acknowledged. All my information about the Lavon Affair is from that article.

The Information Underground link has reports of Israeli agents plotting to take down the Sears Tower. And a lot of other information that was posted there that I didn't repeat here.

Read the links. It's obvious that nobody clicked on them. It takes like 2 minutes to read them.

I don't need to read about an event at Suez to see the fallacious reasoning that it thus then follows that 9/11 was a false flag. You could be 100% right about the Lavon affair. In fact, I'll take you prima facie and say you are right. So what?

Have you read the link to the Al Qaeda book that I posted? Or are you not going to be swayed by the overwhelming evidence that suggests AQ is not an invention of Israel?

Tell you what, I'll read every review of that book I can find, and you'll read this (//http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=5367.0).

QuoteI don't need to read

'cmon, you can't REALLY be this much of a prick.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Tell you what, I'll download and read that book, and you'll read this (//http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=5367.0).

So you get to read something informative researched by someone with actual intellectual integrity and I get to read something that will certainly diminish my braincells at a rate that would leave me dead in a few minutes?
How about providing source material and actual evidence instead of nutty conspiracy sites that everyone knows are frequented by nut bags whose opinions I couldn't care less about?

Since when did you get to have all the fun?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"'cmon, you can't REALLY be this much of a prick.

Oh, I can:

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I'm ... a ... "Foreign toilet."

Cherry picking people's quotes and ignoring the context are fun.

QuoteMy argument basically hinges on heuristics.

First, Al-Qaeda being slang for "the toilet," specifically a Western toilet, points to them being

1. Fake, since no serious militant organization would call themselves "The Toilet"

2. Of foreign/Western, not necessarily Israeli or American, origin

Can we give this guy an award for "dumbest argument of the week"?

I think he's got even our failed theist friends beat here.

Quote from: "Harbinger"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Tell you what, I'll download and read that book, and you'll read this (//http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=5367.0).

So you get to read something informative researched by someone with actual intellectual integrity and I get to read something that will certainly diminish my braincells at a rate that would leave me dead in a few minutes?

How about providing source material and actual evidence instead of nutty conspiracy sites that everyone knows are frequented by nut bags whose opinions I couldn't care less about?

Since when did you get to have all the fun?

That link I posted has links to non-nutty sites, at least 1-2 for each of their claims. Stop making excuses.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteMy argument basically hinges on heuristics.

First, Al-Qaeda being slang for "the toilet," specifically a Western toilet, points to them being

1. Fake, since no serious militant organization would call themselves "The Toilet"

2. Of foreign/Western, not necessarily Israeli or American, origin

Can we give this guy an award for "dumbest argument of the week"?

I think he's got even our failed theist friends beat here.

I've said it once, 9/11 truthers are nut jobs that do far more damage to society and the world than any terrorist attack ever could.

I can't find the book to download, so I'll try to read every review I can find.

In the meantime, here's a sample.

QuoteIsraeli instant messaging company, Odigo, admitted that two of its employees received instant messages (//http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744) warning of an impeding attack 2 hours prior to the first plane hitting.

This warning was not passed on to authorities, which could have saved thousands of lives.

Odigo has a feature on its service that allows the passing on of messages through a search feature based on nationality, such as Israeli. Knowing these two particular Israelis were forewarned, it is very likely they passed the message on to other Israelis considering that out of the 4000 Israelis believed to be in and around the WTC and the Pentagon only FIVE died. 5/4000 Israelis. Mathematically (if Israelis were not forewarned) about 10% (400/4000) would have died; even as low as 200-300/4000 would not really indicate foreknowledge. Yet only FIVE Israelis died and two of the five were actually aboard the supposedly hijacked flights; therefore only three Israelis died at the WTC on 9/11. An astonishing feat. We're talking about  'Israelis' here, not 'American Jews'. Many Jews died in the wtc on 9/11.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"That link I posted has links to non-nutty sites, at least 1-2 for each of their claims. Stop making excuses.

You're making all the excuses for me by posting nonsense. Really, it's not hard to dismiss unevidenced supposition masquerading as intellectual integrity.

I'll let you have the last word. Read that book, see what you think, and see if someone who has actually done real research can sway your wacky demented view.

But no doubt the appeal of believing that you've stumbled upon a big international conspiracy whilst the rest of us stumble around blind is far too appealing to you and, most importantly, your ego.

EDIT: If you can't find the book, buy or borrow it. If this subject is so important to you, then surely doing some real research should be extremely appealing.

That site links to Haaretz, to Wikipedia, to The Guardian, to all kinds of mainstream sources. Every one of its main points is backed up by links.

I'm not reading a single chapter or review until you read at least one of the headings, like the one I posted.

I don't know if the Israelis had anything to do with the 9/11 attack or not.  I do know there is good evidence that the FBI knew about the 1993 bombing ahead of time.  And let it happen.

I also know not all of the people on the 9/11 Commission Report agreed with it. //http://thinkprogress.org/media/2006/09/08/7354/911-commissioners-abc/

Like those on the commission, I don't think an adequate investigation of the incident took place.  Which is why we have the 9/11 truthers.  And there are things for which there are not adequate explanations.  You can declare all of us who don't trust the government nut jobs, but I think you should at least consider the evidence before labeling all of us.  We know for a fact the US government has lied to us before.  So, we are suspicious of them about this and just about everything else they tell us.  To me, it is being a good skeptic.  Yes, there are a bunch of fruitloop theories out there, but there are also some things which the government refuses to give answers about.  

Like how 7 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive.  Like how the BBC reported that Building 7 fell, while Building 7 was still standing in the background, during the report.  They never explained the molten metal still hot days after the buildings collapsed.  They just say eyewitnesses were just mistaken when they said they heard explosions just before the buildings fell.

I found a quote from Scott Huber, it reads, "I think there is one basic reason people choose to trust the government, especially the federal government: they no longer trust a sovereign God to look out for them."  This would explain why so many atheists are ardent supporters of government officials.  At least the Democrat part of it.  Being skeptical shouldn't stop at just the creationists' claims.  It needs to be applied to the government and the press as well.

Charles Fourier stated that one of the "useful" traits of children is the "progressive attraction of the weak towards the strong."

Quote from: "zarus tathra"My argument basically hinges on heuristics.
...
Third, pretty much all the people involved with running the WTC towers and privatizing assets that would have been useful in preventing the attacks were Israelis/Zionists. Plus, they managed to avoid getting killed in the buildings they worked in.

Then your argument fails on heuristics - since the majority tenant in the WTC was the Port of NY/NJ Authority.  Which, BTW, employed a lot of Jews - who died in the attack.  As did many other Jews working in other offices in the buildings.

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Like how 7 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive.

...And?

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Like how the BBC reported that Building 7 fell, while Building 7 was still standing in the background, during the report.

Miscommunications happen all the time, especially with breaking news in today's journalism environment, where news companies want big, enticing headlines and they want to be the first to break it. What exactly is the alternative to it being a mere mistake? That BBC was in on the whole plot too?

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"They never explained the molten metal still hot days after the buildings collapsed.

There is no documented evidence of this. As a poster on a forum for atheists, I assume you understand the dangers of relying on anecdotal evidence. Even if molten metal had been found, aluminum (which is what the planes were made out of) burns well under the temperature of jet fuel.

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"They just say eyewitnesses were just mistaken when they said they heard explosions just before the buildings fell.

There were definitely explosions as the towers fell, since the floors pancaking would have blasted air and debris out the windows. This does not suggest bombs were planted, or whatever else is being implied here.

It's good to be skeptical about things. But only if you're reasonably skeptical. You shouldn't respect creationism because it is "skeptical" of evolution, and you shouldn't respect global warming skeptics.

The reason truther claims fail is because they're all supposition, or just plain wrong. Like creationism, it's based on poking holes in the official story and then claiming that because so-and-so can't answer your questions, the official story must be false and whatever pet theory the truther has (Bush did it, Mossad did it, Lizard Men did it, etc.) must be true, ignoring the lack of evidence in support of these theories (and supposition about what Bush/Mossad/Lizard Men/etc. would have wanted or could have done is not evidence). There are many reasons to be skeptical of the government. And there are many things we don't know about 9/11. And we shouldn't stop asking (reasonable) questions about what really happened. But most of these truther talking points are bullshit. Just pure, stinking bullshit.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"My argument basically hinges on heuristics.
...
Third, pretty much all the people involved with running the WTC towers and privatizing assets that would have been useful in preventing the attacks were Israelis/Zionists. Plus, they managed to avoid getting killed in the buildings they worked in.

Then your argument fails on heuristics - since the majority tenant in the WTC was the Port of NY/NJ Authority.  Which, BTW, employed a lot of Jews - who died in the attack.  As did many other Jews working in other offices in the buildings.

Here's the quote that I posted literally on this page.

QuoteIsraeli instant messaging company, Odigo, admitted that two of its employees received instant messages warning of an impeding attack 2 hours prior to the first plane hitting.

This warning was not passed on to authorities, which could have saved thousands of lives.

Odigo has a feature on its service that allows the passing on of messages through a search feature based on nationality, such as Israeli. Knowing these two particular Israelis were forewarned, it is very likely they passed the message on to other Israelis considering that out of the 4000 Israelis believed to be in and around the WTC and the Pentagon only FIVE died. 5/4000 Israelis. Mathematically (if Israelis were not forewarned) about 10% (400/4000) would have died; even as low as 200-300/4000 would not really indicate foreknowledge. Yet only FIVE Israelis died and two of the five were actually aboard the supposedly hijacked flights; therefore only three Israelis died at the WTC on 9/11. An astonishing feat. We're talking about 'Israelis' here, not 'American Jews'. Many Jews died in the wtc on 9/11.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I'm out of octopus "nope.gif"

 :( But....but.... I love those.

drunkenshoe wrote in part:

QuoteThere are various sensible crazy scenarios about how US -like every other big players, it's just the biggest- has been using patsies, working with underground fractions, terrorist groups, all that Gladio business starting from (for some from Abraham Lincoln's death) generally from Nazis in WWII to Kennedy's death, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam...all that shabang and to 9/11 and everything in between but at least that madness have a certain one simple logic to it, be it is believable or not. And these theories do not have any 'propaganda' style to them about pointing out one specific nation or religion as evil doesn't matter how crazy they may sound. Just power, resources and economics. The usual evil.

So you would have us believe that the CIA doesn't exist?  That the American government didn't carry out genocide on the Native Americans? That the Bay of Pigs incident was all made up.  That Kennedy is still alive living in the Rivera.  That the Pentagon Papers were just a lie put out by the Democrats and Republicans to embarrass each other.  What other atrocity will you deny?

Here is a short list, of proven government atrocities at this site:
//http://everydaynormal.com/american-government-atrocities-easily-prove-happened/

You don't believe a few key people could conspire amongst themselves to enrich all of them, by carrying out criminal acts?  If so, you must believe there is not such thing as organized crime.  

People see so called conspiracy theorists like David Icke who blame alien lizard people for 9/11 and then lump all of us who don't believe the government story as nut jobs.  Then attack us for wanting to have answers.  It is the same as pointing at Carlton Gary (a black serial killer) and saying all blacks are serial killers.  Does that make sense.  

drunkenshoe wrote in part:

QuoteThat's the most common stupid thing that has been going around today. Thinking one party, nation or religion, one event is responsible from the current mess. I mean, how stupid you get.

After all of the lies which have been exposed which our government and our press have told us, people still have blind faith in both of them.  I mean, how stupid you get.

Do your own research.  Don't pay attention to the David Icke's and his ilk.  Look for source material.  Realize that not everything is a conspiracy, but there are some out there.  Then come back and debunk them.  But, no top secret eyes only, my cousin saw for himself debunking, just like you wouldn't accept it if we presented it, don't expect us to.

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"People see so called conspiracy theorists like David Icke who blame alien lizard people for 9/11 and then lump all of us who don't believe the government story as nut jobs.  Then attack us for wanting to have answers.

On the contrary, the oft-mocked nut jobs think they already have the answers.  And their answers are invariably whatever appeals to them (and their political beliefs) and strikes them as plausible, rather than what is actually supported by the facts on the ground.

The standard modus operandi is to point to known false flags and known secretive wrongdoing to float whatever conspiracy theory they wish to advance that day, hoping that public distrust alone will make it convincing.

David Icke is not a different breed, he just arrives at a disliked conclusion using the same broken methodology.

Hydra009 wrote in part:

QuoteThe standard modus operandi is to point to known false flags and known secretive wrongdoing to float whatever conspiracy theory they wish to advance that day, hoping that public distrust alone will be convincing.

That sounds about right.  There are plenty of conspiracy theorist who do the equivalent thing of quote mining.  But, many of us have seen the blatant lies, aka: false flags, and then wonder if the latest crisis is just another false flag.  Especially when elements of the government seem to make clearing out rubble more important then finding evidence of possible criminal conduct.  When most favored corporations get no-bid contracts and new federal agencies are formed and the government has severely limited independent investigations, we tend to think the fix is in.

Just to be clear, some of the members of the 9/11 Commission also have unanswered questions about their report.
//http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php
But, the American public is supposed to stand down, because it bothers some people's feelings.  :cry:

Well in defense, arabs have a history of invading countries too.
Hopefully peace will be restored in the future. But only if the development goes well within society :D

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I found a quote from Scott Huber, it reads, "I think there is one basic reason people choose to trust the government, especially the federal government: they no longer trust a sovereign God to look out for them."  This would explain why so many atheists are ardent supporters of government officials.  At least the Democrat part of it.  Being skeptical shouldn't stop at just the creationists' claims.  It needs to be applied to the government and the press as well.

Scott Huber has his head up his arse.

Have you ever met someone who trusts their Government? Or someone who thinks they are honest?

drunkenshoe, I'm afraid you lost me.  For instance your first question, "You know what is so simple about understanding if something is just a conspiracy theory or not?"  Then you reference a know conspiracy theorist, "Read from Chomsky."  

Try to look at it another way.  On 9/11, the government put forward a conspiracy theory about how 19 people conspired to make it happen.  Then the government covered its' ass and only recognized evidence which supported their theory, and discarded any evidence which didn't support their allegations.  While I realize that not every question can be answered, I do expect more than, "Our top secret pictures and other top secret information, completely prove our theory correct.  Further more, no one can be blamed for negligence because we didn't have the Patriot Act at the time."

I don't think the government used star wars technology to knock down the buildings.  I do question why the only documents which would show where the military spent trillions of dollars, just happened to be exactly where the Pentagon was hit and in WTC 7.  Does seem more likely that the terrorists just selected the right targets and hit them, or that the military just said the documents were there, to prevent embarrassment and possible prosecution?  

I think Chomsky and Nader come closer to the conspiracy that I believe in than Alex Jones.  But, if I bring up questions to "official" reports, I am immediately put in the same category as those who believe in lizard people from outer space.  So, what I see as reasonable questions don't have to be answered, because I am tin foil hat wearing, lizard people believing, nut case.  Makes it easy to discredit all of my questions that way.

drunkenshoe asked in part:

QuoteWho defined Chomsky is a known 'conspiracy theorist'? American politics and politicians?

Yep.  Pretty much.  During the Vietnam war Chomsky alleged things about it which the right wing labeled as "crazy."  Later the Pentagon Papers and enough returning vets collaborated much of what he had alleged.  Even today, his detractors paint him as a nut for saying the corporations have too much power over the media.  The same with Nader.  When he advocates government watch dog groups, he is just going too far.  The government doesn't need watch dog groups because they watch themselves.  Therefore Nader is just being a paranoid conspiracy theorist.  Who happens to be friends with Alex Jones, by the way.

drunkenshoe wrote in part:

QuoteTell me when you are close to the main gate. The current room you are in that 'we could track how 9/11 was planned and succeeded' is a great cloud sign to me that we are not in the same book, let alone similar pages.

I don't remember writing that and the search I did only came up with drunkenshoe's post.  Somebody else may have written it, I don't recall.

drunkenshoe wrote in part:

QuoteIf you are going to question something, I recommend to start with historical perspective. None of the events are cut from each other. Knowing this and seeing this are two different things. They do not need some forced logic to connect them either. A notion that starts with 'everything was fine till insert a president name or event' will not get you anywhere. It's a curriculum. Skip school one day.

When posting it is impossible to explain all of the history of one given topic.  It usually takes books to do that.  On a forum, we are pretty much stuck with "bumper sticker" political statements.  

History is full of proven and unproven conspiracy theories.  To us conspiracy theory nutcases, we don't understand why the government isn't questioned more on its' actions.  The press are supposed to be the fourth estate which keeps the government inline.  But, now that most of the press is controlled by the corporations, who control the government through lobbying, there is a lack of checks and balances in the American system.  And anybody who tries to fill in for the absent mainstream press is considered a nut case conspiracy theorist.  Yet, can you deny that corporations make up the largest parts of advertising dollars for the mainstream press?  Take a look at how many subsidiaries a major corporation owns.  Think of how if a newspaper pisses off say Phillip-Morris, how they will loose not only cigarette advertising, but Oscar-Meyer, Louis-Rich, Post, Maxwell House, etc.  They are not exceptional in this regard.  Most major corporations have diversified into other industries from what they are best known as.

Speaking of historical conspiracies, one of the best which most have not heard of, was the conspiracy to overthrow the government during the Franklin Roosevelt administration.  General Smedley Butler exposed it, but no one was prosecuted for it.  They wanted to set-up a fascist government with Butler leading it, but taking orders from some of the prominent businessmen of the day.  In other words from the owners of the biggest corporations at the time.  It is thought that FDR used the incident to solidify his own political standing by holding charges of treason over the heads of the conspirators.  The only proof of that, is that he was the first and only President to run for a third and fourth term.  

So, is it so far fetched to think the corporations have just found new ways of taking over power in the US?

Here's a question: how many of the doubters have actually READ any of my links in the OP? The one for the Lavon Affair isn't even a "conspiracy site." It's Wikipedia, and it's incredibly damning.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here's a question: how many of the doubters have actually READ any of my links in the OP? The one for the Lavon Affair isn't even a "conspiracy site." It's Wikipedia, and it's incredibly damning.

The same Wikipedia where anyone can log on and fabricate whatever they want?

Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here's a question: how many of the doubters have actually READ any of my links in the OP? The one for the Lavon Affair isn't even a "conspiracy site." It's Wikipedia, and it's incredibly damning.

The same Wikipedia where anyone can log on and fabricate whatever they want?

The same Wikipedia that is proven to be at least as accurate as an encyclopedia if you take more than 3 seconds to check it's edit history and sources.

"But anyone can edit" is the argument made by people who haven't the foggiest idea how wikipedia actually works.

Okay, so how about Israel's top newspaper (//http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mi-figures-out-what-went-wrong-in-lavon-affair-55-years-later-1.4385)?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Okay, so how about Israel's top newspaper (//http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mi-figures-out-what-went-wrong-in-lavon-affair-55-years-later-1.4385)?

Sounds like it was a first class operation:

QuoteHowever, the agents were caught. One committed suicide in prison, two were hanged and four got long prison terms.

Oh wait...  #-o

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here's a question: how many of the doubters have actually READ any of my links in the OP? The one for the Lavon Affair isn't even a "conspiracy site." It's Wikipedia, and it's incredibly damning.

I don't want to argue for or against Israel, but I think we can agree that the Israeli government isn't stupid.  I know about the Lavon Affair which was certainly nasty, but there is some logic to it.  The downside risk was limited because no Americans were killed.  Even when it was botched and revealed, it didn't destroy Israeli relations with America.  I haven't heard of the USS Liberty incident, but it simply sounds like an accident.  As for the WTC, the downside risk of being caught is so big that Israel would have had to be incredibly stupid to try it, and they aren't that stupid.  That is reason enough to eliminate this possibility.  In any case, the standard explanation that Al Queda did it makes sense and holds up to scrutiny.

That's some shitty logic, OP.  Think more and post less.

They were trying to bomb US owned properties. That would have resulted in US deaths. The only reason they came out of it alive is because they were too stupid to succeed.

And honestly, hitting one of our buildings is only maybe 2-3 times as bad as the USS liberty. If they could pull off the Liberty, why not the WTC?

Quote from: "zarus tathra"[...] why not the WTC?

Evidence please.

Look, having heard a million theories like this, I can only say one thing at this point: so what? If your crazy conspiracy is true, so goddam what?! 9/11 was a terrible event, yes, and it was a political catalyst, yes, but it happened 12 years ago now! Move on! There are far more important things to be doing than overanalyzing every little thing that happened that day! Damn! :evil:

Because it tells us who our worst enemies are. If it turns out that Israel did it, then we should no long support Israel.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Because it tells us who our worst enemies are. If it turns out that Israel did it, then we should no long support Israel.

We shouldn't support Israel because they abuse the Palestinians, not because some idiotic 9/11 truthers accuse them of being behind the attack. There are far too many pressing issues in the world at the moment to be obsessing about a 12 year old terrorist attack. At this point, I wouldn't even care if lizard men were proven to have orchestrated the attacks with holograms, we need to move on!

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Because it tells us who our worst enemies are. If it turns out that Israel did it, then we should no long support Israel.

We shouldn't support Israel because they abuse the Palestinians, not because some idiotic 9/11 truthers accuse them of being behind the attack. There are far too many pressing issues in the world at the moment to be obsessing about a 12 year old terrorist attack. At this point, I wouldn't even care if lizard men were proven to have orchestrated the attacks with holograms, we need to move on!

And the Palestinians put bombs on little children and send them into buses and hotels, and kill civilian Olympians in Germany...

I don't think we should support Israel anymore than I think we should support anywhere else, but it has nothing to do with them protecting themselves from the Palestinians.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Because it tells us who our worst enemies are. If it turns out that Israel did it, then we should no long support Israel.

We shouldn't support Israel because they abuse the Palestinians, not because some idiotic 9/11 truthers accuse them of being behind the attack. There are far too many pressing issues in the world at the moment to be obsessing about a 12 year old terrorist attack. At this point, I wouldn't even care if lizard men were proven to have orchestrated the attacks with holograms, we need to move on!

And the Palestinians put bombs on little children and send them into buses and hotels, and kill civilian Olympians in Germany...

I don't think we should support Israel anymore than I think we should support anywhere else, but it has nothing to do with them protecting themselves from the Palestinians.

Hold on. I wasn't saying the Palestinians were paragons of justice or anything, and not supporting Israel isn't the same as supporting the Palestinians, but they were forced off there homes and land because the U.N. felt that the Jews were entitled to it. The whole bloody conflict is stupid, and nobody has made any headway on making it less stupid for some time now.
The point is that there are far better reasons to distance our self from Israel than some stupid crackpot 9/11 "theory".

The majority of them were not forced off their land, for the most part the land was legally sold to Jewish immigrants. The Jews were mostly given desert and marsh that was hardly inhabited.

The majority of Palestinians come from Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, etc. that invaded Israel several times and lost land several times. They are not some helpless farmers that were kicked off their farms, they were Arabs "imported" to counter the Jewish influx back into the ME and told, "If you beat the Jews, you get to keep their lands!"

For the one's who were native, I feel bad for them and think they deserve their land. But they are in the minority. And there is ALOT of shit Israel gets wrong and needs to get together. But Palestine as a whole is a shithole that deserves to be pissed off at the Arab League for abandoning them after using them as a tool to kill Jews, not to be pissed off at Israel.

Quote from: "Shiranu"The majority of them were not forced off their land, for the most part the land was legally sold to Jewish immigrants. The Jews were mostly given desert and marsh that was hardly inhabited.

The majority of Palestinians come from Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, etc. that invaded Israel several times and lost land several times. They are not some helpless farmers that were kicked off their farms, they were Arabs "imported" to counter the Jewish influx back into the ME and told, "If you beat the Jews, you get to keep their lands!"

For the one's who were native, I feel bad for them and think they deserve their land. But they are in the minority. And there is ALOT of shit Israel gets wrong and needs to get together. But Palestine as a whole is a shithole that deserves to be pissed off at the Arab League for abandoning them after using them as a tool to kill Jews, not to be pissed off at Israel.

Again, not saying they're paragons or anything, and I'm no an expert on the origins of the conflict, just how it is now.
But yes, Israel has allot to answer for. Which is why we don't need to fabricate claims to attach them to crimes they didn't commit.

There's also the little fact that Israel has done basically nothing to help the US in any material way. We should only make allies with people who are of real use to us and make enemies of people who have done material harm to us. George Washington gave a speech when leaving the presidency to the effect that the US can not afford to have permanent "friend" and "foe" countries and had to choose its alliances based on their recent behavior and not on racial and nationalistic sympathies. I wholly agree.

Apart from the moral issues that come with supporting Israel, from a Realpolitik angle, it's pretty counterproductive, earning us unnecessary enemies ... and largely because religious conservatives here feel obliged to support "God's Chosen People".

We should leave well enough alone in the Middle East.  We get around 25% of our imports from the region (Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait, and Oman).  Most of their oil goes to China and Japan.  Let them secure their own oil supplies.

Not to mention that the price of oil would probably go down and production would probably go up if we stopped bombing them and propping up their welfare-happy regimes. Most Saudis don't even work because their government is so liberal with the bread and circuses. Venezuela, same idea, after a "generous" dictator got into power, the decades-long trend of increasing oil production suddenly and inexplicably reversed itself.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Not to mention that the price of oil would probably go down and production would probably go up if we stopped bombing them and propping up their welfare-happy regimes. Most Saudis don't even work because their government is so liberal with the bread and circuses. Venezuela, same idea, after a "generous" dictator got into power, the decades-long trend of increasing oil production suddenly and inexplicably reversed itself.

Okay, ignoring the rest of your meaningless rambling, what do bread and cicruses have to do with each other? I didn't know the Ringling Brothers had a middle east branch.

"Bread and circuses (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)" is a really common, even generic term for appeasing the masses with handouts without doing anything long-term to address grievances and ambitions.

I wouldn't say his point here is meaningless.

The reference to "bread and circuses" is from the following quote:

Quote from: "Juvenal""'It is scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.' Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things----Bread and Games!"

I have not read every post in this discussion, but have skimmed through to get the general drift.  There is something I want to say about the OP.

Without actually saying so in so many words, this is basically an accusation that "the israelis pulled off 9/11."  The overwhelming majority of those posting on this topic seem to think it could not be so.  But why?

Anyone who has done their homework would know of the Lavon Affair and would not even attempt to deny it.  That would only show ignorance and arrogance.  And if they have truly done their homework, they would also know about the USS Libery.  Whoever considers the latter to have been an accident or a case of mistaken identity is not being realistic.  It was a sunny day, perfect visibility, and the Liberty was clearly flying a very large American flag.  And if you do your research a little deeper, you will have to conclude that it was a deliberate attack on the US navy ship.  That is why it was covered up for 30 years.  If Americans knew that the israelis had murdered tens of their countrymen and injured many more, they would not stand for the support the US government has been providing all these years.

But that does not necessarily mean that the israelis did 9/11.  On the other hand, it does show that they are at least capable of doing it.  So *if* 9/11 was really a false flag op afterall, and I am not saying that it was, we could not rule out the possibility that at least a few israeli leaders could have been in on the conspiracy.

Just sayin'

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"I have not read every post in this discussion, but have skimmed through to get the general drift.  There is something I want to say about the OP.

Without actually saying so in so many words, this is basically an accusation that "the israelis pulled off 9/11."  The overwhelming majority of those posting on this topic seem to think it could not be so.  But why?

Anyone who has done their homework would know of the Lavon Affair and would not even attempt to deny it.  That would only show ignorance and arrogance.  And if they have truly done their homework, they would also know about the USS Libery.  Whoever considers the latter to have been an accident or a case of mistaken identity is not being realistic.  It was a sunny day, perfect visibility, and the Liberty was clearly flying a very large American flag.  And if you do your research a little deeper, you will have to conclude that it was a deliberate attack on the US navy ship.  That is why it was covered up for 30 years.  If Americans knew that the israelis had murdered tens of their countrymen and injured many more, they would not stand for the support the US government has been providing all these years.

But that does not necessarily mean that the israelis did 9/11.  On the other hand, it does show that they are at least capable of doing it.  So *if* 9/11 was really a false flag op afterall, and I am not saying that it was, we could not rule out the possibility that at least a few israeli leaders could have been in on the conspiracy.

Just sayin'

We only say this because there is absolutely no evidence saying they did do it. I'm not saying they couldn't. Hell, a bunch of drunk air force guys can fly a plane into a building. But we object because there is no evidence that they did, regardless of means or motive, and because paranoid conspiracies like this never get us anywhere.

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"... basically an accusation that "the israelis pulled off 9/11."  The overwhelming majority of those posting on this topic seem to think it could not be so.  But why?

We only say this because there is absolutely no evidence saying they did do it. I'm not saying they couldn't. Hell, a bunch of drunk air force guys can fly a plane into a building. But we object because there is no evidence that they did, regardless of means or motive, and because paranoid conspiracies like this never get us anywhere.

OK, I will not argue about that.  But there were a few posts (and I don't remember by whom) flat out denying any possibility of an israeli connection.  The fact is, we can not rule out that possibility.  And I see noting paranoid about the suggestion that at least a handful of israelis may have been involved.  What I mean is this.  As you yourself have stated, they had the motive and they had the means.  What is so paranoid about suggesting that where there is motive and there is means, we oughtta do a little digging before lettin them off the hook so easily.

QuoteOK, I will not argue about that.  But there were a few posts (and I don't remember by whom) flat out denying any possibility of an israeli connection.  The fact is, we can not rule out that possibility.  And I see noting paranoid about the suggestion that at least a handful of israelis may have been involved.  What I mean is this.  As you yourself have stated, they had the motive and they had the means.  What is so paranoid about suggesting that where there is motive and there is means, we oughtta do a little digging before lettin them off the hook so easily.

What you're saying makes sense, except that it has been over ten years now. 9/11 is probably one of the most overanalyzed historical events out there. If there were evidence that Mossad or anyone from Israel doing it, we would have found out by now.

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"What you're saying makes sense, except that it has been over ten years now. 9/11 is probably one of the most overanalyzed historical events out there. If there were evidence that Mossad or anyone from Israel doing it, we would have found out by now.

Found it by now?  Not necessarily.  Remember, it took 30 years for the truth to come out about the USS Liberty.  It was not a matter of "not finding" the evidence.  It was deliberately covered up.  And anyone with a drop of intelligence can figure out why.

Another comment I saw while perusing this topic but don't remember who wrote it, and not going back over all those posts to find out, somebody said "it was a long time ago.  Just forget it."  But if his/her relative had been killed or injured in that attack, I doubt he/she would have said that.  After all, they did not just "forget" about Osama bin Laden, did they.  There are no statutes of limitations on murder in the first degree.

QuoteFound it by now?  Not necessarily.  Remember, it took 30 years for the truth to come out about the USS Liberty.  It was not a matter of "not finding" the evidence.  It was deliberately covered up.  And anyone with a drop of intelligence can figure out why.

Another comment I saw while perusing this topic but don't remember who wrote it, and not going back over all those posts to find out, somebody said "it was a long time ago.  Just forget it."  But if his/her relative had been killed or injured in that attack, I doubt he/she would have said that.  After all, they did not just "forget" about Osama bin Laden, did they.  There are no statutes of limitations on murder in the first degree.

Assuming they "covered it up" is speculation. I can't dismiss the possibility, but I work with facts, not speculation.
As for the second part, I don't think I can advise anyone to forget about it, but I can advise people to move on. It has been over ten years now, and as a nation, we need to let it go. The world is far too hostile and chaotic of a place for an entire nation to mourn for ten years.

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Assuming they "covered it up" is speculation. I can't dismiss the possibility, but I work with facts, not speculation.

Covered up the USS Liberty attack?  or 9/11?

Maybe the media just had more important things to cover for 30 years.  Like speculation on who knocked up who in Hollywood.  Or the latest French fashions.

If you were referring to 9/11, and you work with the facts rather than speculation, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the facts first.

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"As for the second part, I don't think I can advise anyone to forget about it, but I can advise people to move on. It has been over ten years now, and as a nation, we need to let it go. The world is far too hostile and chaotic of a place for an entire nation to mourn for ten years.

Care to elaborate on how "moving on" differs from "forgetting about it"?

I don't personaly know anyone who has a relative murdered by the israelis in the USS Liberty attack, but I seriously doubt that they would want to "move on" and never hear of it again go.  And it is now nearly 50 years.  I could be wrong about that though.

Moving on means accepting that it happened, how it happened, and focusing on bigger and more important things. Forgetting about it means pretending it never happened. That's why I get angry when people bring up these theories. There is a time and place, and the world as of now is not the place to be wasting our efforts wondering "what if Mossad did it?" There is also a time and place for questioning your government. Do you have any reason to believe that Al-Qaeda did not perform the attacks? More importantly, do you have any evidence?
Please, regardless of whether or not you agree with me, let us stop this bickering.

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"We only say this because there is absolutely no evidence saying they did do it. I'm not saying they couldn't. Hell, a bunch of drunk air force guys can fly a plane into a building. But we object because there is no evidence that they did, regardless of means or motive, and because paranoid conspiracies like this never get us anywhere.

The "Info Underground" link talks about the owner, Larry Silverstein, eating breakfast at "Windows on the World" every day since buying the towers and then "deciding to go for a walk" on 9/11, along with his kids.

Then there's the fact that fewer than 10 Israelis out of thousands working in the Twin Towers died on 9/11, and that several Israeli users of an Israeli IM service that allows users to filter by nationality were given warnings hours before the planes arrived.

And so on and so forth. There's a lot of "circumstantial evidence" of foreknowledge.

(//http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Good+Luck+Larry_5a29d0_4094054.jpg)

A link about Odigo from Haaretz (//http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579).

...

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And so on and so forth. There's a lot of "circumstantial evidence" of foreknowledge.

Circumstantial evidence of foreknowledge?  What circumstantial evidence?  There is no circumstantial evidence.

If you are referring to put options on American Airlines and United Airlines, that was nothing more than coincidence.  Coincidence can hardly be called "circumstantial evidence."  Or if the circumstantial evidence you refer to has anything to do with judge Alvin Hellerstein's son, I can't see how that has any bearing on the situation.

Gulliani's statement that "...we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse" shortly before it did collapse is also frequently cited as evidence of foreknowledge because until September 11 (and since then as well), no high-rise had ever collapsed.  But duh, don't forget, two of the three high-rise buildings that collapsed that day were hit by airplanes.  That makes a big difference.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to predict the collpase.  Anyone with a brain could figure that out.  I was sitting there watching the twin towers burning on my TV and I said to myself, "those buildings are going to collapse."  And they bloody well did!

Did you read the photo I posted, or the link to Haaretz I put up?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"And so on and so forth. There's a lot of "circumstantial evidence" of foreknowledge.

Circumstantial evidence of foreknowledge?  What circumstantial evidence?  There is no circumstantial evidence.

If you are referring to put options on American Airlines and United Airlines, that was nothing more than coincidence.  Coincidence can hardly be called "circumstantial evidence."  Or if the circumstantial evidence you refer to has anything to do with judge Alvin Hellerstein's son, I can't see how that has any bearing on the situation.

Gulliani's statement that "...we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse" shortly before it did collapse is also frequently cited as evidence of foreknowledge because until September 11 (and since then as well), no high-rise had ever collapsed.  But duh, don't forget, two of the three high-rise buildings that collapsed that day were hit by airplanes.  That makes a big difference.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to predict the collpase.  Anyone with a brain could figure that out.  I was sitting there watching the twin towers burning on my TV and I said to myself, "those buildings are going to collapse."  And they bloody well did!

Never underestimate the effect of hundreds of thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel on the structural strength of steel.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Did you read the photo I posted, or the link to Haaretz I put up?

If you think that is evidence of Israel being the instigators... wow...

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Did you read the photo I posted, or the link to Haaretz I put up?

If you think that is evidence of Israel being the instigators... wow...

I suspect Zarus may have just been suggesting that there is some kind of israeli connection that has never been investigated.  But only Zarus knows what Zarus really meant.

Here is the article in question.  (emphasis mine)
[spoil:3nzvzq9j]Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.

As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application.

Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.[/spoil:3nzvzq9j]So if you are an Odigo user, and you get a message from someone you don't know saying that SeaBasket is going win in the third race, grab your coat and walet and head for the track!

QuoteI suspect Zarus may have just been suggesting that there is some kind of israeli connection that has never been investigated. But only Zarus knows what Zarus really meant.

That's what I assumed he meant, and if he thinks that is evidence of a connection... then again, wow.

Quote from: "Shiranu"That's what I assumed he meant, and if he thinks that is evidence of a connection... then again, wow.

If it could be confirmed the the two israelis did truly receive those text messages, it would be a strong indication of a connection.  But like the article says, it could have been someone just messin' around and by chance it turned out exactly as they predicted.  Hell of a long shot, but it could be.

On the other hand, if TWO israelis received that text message, how is anyone to know whether 10s or 100s or even 1000s of israelis received the message but never reported it?  There have been rumors about the relatively small numbers of israelis killed in the attack in proportion to the number of them working in the vicinity.  But I have never seen that the rumors were actually substantiated.

Anyway, worth looking into.  Especially when you consider the israel's history of pulling off false flag attacks.

False flag attacks have been around for as long as humans have made war on one another.  "All warfare is based on deception."  That quote is from 2500 years ago.  But in the sixty some years of its existence, israel has probably pulled off more false flag attacks than any other country.  They had motive, they had means, and they have a long history of deception including false flag attacks.

The risks to Israel's existence should their role become known would be far too extreme for them to make such an attack. They would lose between three and four billion dollars a year in American assistance, and more importantly, instantly become a pariah state.  Because of their geopolitical situation, becoming a pariah state would in all likelihood mean national extinction.  Even if that dire outcome didn't happen, the Arab states would reap such political fruits that Israel could never again credibly argue that it is the democratic sensible alternative in the Middle East.

No, the political calculus doesn't compute.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The risks to Israel's existence should their role become known would be far too extreme for them to make such an attack. They would lose between three and four billion dollars a year in American assistance, and more importantly, instantly become a pariah state.  Because of their geopolitical situation, becoming a pariah state would in all likelihood mean national extinction.  Even if that dire outcome didn't happen, the Arab states would reap such political fruits that Israel could never again credibly argue that it is the democratic sensible alternative in the Middle East.

No, the political calculus doesn't compute.

The OP mentions the Lavon Affair, code named Operation Susannah.  (Ring any bells?  Any resemblance to one of the most famous folk songs in American history?)  And this caper was pulled off in 1954, only six years after israel came into existence as a country.  They had the balls then, and have only gotten more bold and more brazen as the years go by.  The goal of O.Susannah was to undermine Western support for Egypt.  The targets of the attacks were American and British.

The israeli terrorists were caught in the act and israel instantly became a pariah state.

Oh, wait!  No, I don't believe they did after all!

After being caught red-handed and getting away scott free, they either abstained from covert terrorist operations against US and other Western nations for the next 13 years, or they exercised them with greater caution so as not to get caught again.

But in 1967, they DID get caught red-handed again.  This time, the plan was to sink the USS Liberty and murder any survivors (witnesses), and blame it on their Arab neighbors with whom they were at war.  They damn near succeded, too, but somehow the Liberty stayed afloat.

So what did Lyndon Johnson do?  "Bad, bad israel.  Hold out your hand now while I slap your wrist with a ruler.  But since you are such a nice little bunch of jews and you take your just punishment of being slapped on the wrist so graciously, I am not going to let the American people know what you did.  After all, you remember how the American people reacted when those nasty Japs attacked Pearl Harbor!  They made us declare war on Japan and nuke them Jap MoFos!  We don't want that happen to you jew friends now do we."

And for the next 30 years, no one other than the victims who were directly involved ever knew the truth about the day israel attacked a United States navy ship.

Fast forward a few short years to 2001...

Sorry, Thumpalumpacus, you need to recompute your political calculus.

Quote from: "WikiPedia""In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3,323,500 (US$22.3 million in 2014) as full payment to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the final U.S. bill of $17,132,709 for material damage to the Liberty herself plus 13 years' interest."

So they paid out a few million dollars for the wrongful murders and damages.  Compared with how many BILLION dollars the US taxpayers fork over to the jew motherfuckers every single year?  Gimme a fukin break.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The risks to Israel's existence should their role become known would be far too extreme for them to make such an attack. They would lose between three and four billion dollars a year in American assistance, and more importantly, instantly become a pariah state.  Because of their geopolitical situation, becoming a pariah state would in all likelihood mean national extinction.  Even if that dire outcome didn't happen, the Arab states would reap such political fruits that Israel could never again credibly argue that it is the democratic sensible alternative in the Middle East.

No, the political calculus doesn't compute.

The OP mentions the Lavon Affair, code named Operation Susannah.  (Ring any bells?  Any resemblance to one of the most famous folk songs in American history?)  And this caper was pulled off in 1954, only six years after israel came into existence as a country.  They had the balls then, and have only gotten more bold and more brazen as the years go by.  The goal of O.Susannah was to undermine Western support for Egypt.  The targets of the attacks were American and British.

The israeli terrorists were caught in the act and israel instantly became a pariah state.

Oh, wait!  No, I don't believe they did after all!

After being caught red-handed and getting away scott free, they either abstained from covert terrorist operations against US and other Western nations for the next 13 years, or they exercised them with greater caution so as not to get caught again.

But in 1967, they DID get caught red-handed again.  This time, the plan was to sink the USS Liberty and murder any survivors (witnesses), and blame it on their Arab neighbors with whom they were at war.  They damn near succeded, too, but somehow the Liberty stayed afloat.

So what did Lyndon Johnson do?  "Bad, bad israel.  Hold out your hand now while I slap your wrist with a ruler.  But since you are such a nice little bunch of jews and you take your just punishment of being slapped on the wrist so graciously, I am not going to let the American people know what you did.  After all, you remember how the American people reacted when those nasty Japs attacked Pearl Harbor!  They made us declare war on Japan and nuke them Jap MoFos!  We don't want that happen to you jew friends now do we."

And for the next 30 years, no one other than the victims who were directly involved ever knew the truth about the day israel attacked a United States navy ship.

Fast forward a few short years to 2001...

Sorry, Thumpalumpacus, you need to recompute your political calculus.

Of course I knew about the USS Liberty, but given the drastically different geopolitical circumstances, it doesn't strike me as terribly relevant.

I'm sure you've noticed that the political calculus has changed since the late 60s -- to wit, the demise of the USSR, the patron state of so many Arab despots in that era, is no more, and our foreign policy is no longer viewed through the prism of the Cold War, where Israel was viewed as an anti-USSR bulwark. Additionally, the splitting of the Arab bloc into treaty and non-treaty factions means that Israel's survival is much less at stake.  The only military power in the region that can reliably threaten Israel (that is, Egypt) has signed a peace treaty with Israel and in 2001 had enjoyed peaceful relations for decades. That means that the threat to Israel was much less existential, and that therefore drastic risks are even more in contrast to the standard methods of statecraft.

To sum up: with Russia no longer a threat, America would not tolerate such a deadly attack on it, even from a putative "ally".

And with the Arab bloc split, Israel would likely no longer feel the need to run such a dramatic risk.

Based on that, I stand by what I've written.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"So they paid out a few million dollars for the wrongful murders and damages.  Compared with how many BILLION dollars the US taxpayers fork over to the jew motherfuckers every single year?  Gimme a fukin break.

You obviously have a visceral emotional reaction coloring your views.

Jew motherfuckers? Uh oh.

 :popcorn:

Quote from: "stromboli"Jew motherfuckers? Uh oh.

 :popcorn:

I'm proud of myself, I didn't bite on that for once...

Quote from: "stromboli"Jew motherfuckers? Uh oh.

 :popcorn:

Yep, if two Jews leave a buiding, and later on that buildng is bombed, then not only the two Jews knew about the coming attack, but Israel must be the guilty party behind the bombing.

In this awful thread, two things were not given attention:

(1) At the outbreak of the war, Israel had warned the world that it would attack any unidentified ships near its shores.
(2) The US failed to notify Israel the location and mission the USS Liberty.

But who cares, Jews are bad, and they are trying to dominate the world.  :Hangman:

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Of course I knew about the USS Liberty, but given the drastically different geopolitical circumstances, it doesn't strike me as terribly relevant.

I'm sure you've noticed that the political calculus has changed since the late 60s ...
Based on that, I stand by what I've written.

You have a valid  point, but you are still missing a part of the picture.  The Liberty incident is very much relevant.  Johnson must have been very pissed off about the murder of 34 American personnel and serious wounding of 171 more.  But taking the geopolitical factors that you pointed out into condideration, he did what he saw as the best option from the overall viewpoint.  It must have been a bitter pill for him to swallow.  He chose to hide it from the people knowing that the people would not stand for this hostile act of the israelis biting the hand that feeds them.

As you pointed out, the geopolitical structure has changed.  But the israelis still have the US government by the balls, although in a much different way.  They can be as arrogant as they choose, so long as the Americn PEOPLE do not find out about it.  So hypothetically assuming they did have something to do with 9/11, as I and others allege, the US government would have to cooperate in covering it up.

Consider this.  In 1967, we did not have an Internet yet.  Coverups were relatively easy.  You just ring up some old college buddies on the editing staffs of major media outlets and pull in some favors.  Or, make threats if necessary.

In 2001, the Internet was just emerging.  After 9/11 happened, what happened?  For one thing, the biggest coverup world history has ever known.  Wouldn't the 2001 US govenment have been basically in the same boat as the Johnson administration, even though for different reasons?  Hence, the 9/11 Commission was intentionally set up to fail.  Hence, the obvious insider trading that took place before 9/11 was ignored.  Hence, all forensic evidence from the scene of the world's most heinous crime just disappears.  Hence, all 9/11 compensation lawsuits were assigned to one judge (a jew, by coincidence) whose son living in israel (by coincidence) was a lawyer representing the israeli companies who ran security operations at airports where the hijacked planes departed from.

The list of coincidences is monumental.  Coincidence is not necessarily conclusive proof.  But it should be sufficient to raise enough doubt to at least investigate.  A massive coverup took place.  If the israelis were not involved, who was?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If the israelis were not involved, who was?

So bin Laden did not train those terrorists, he lied to the world by admitting he was behind 9/11, he lied to save Israel's asses and perpetrated the greatest hoax just so that he could take credit for what happened. Ok, you had your day. Now go get a real life. (I'm trying very hard not to call you a fucking moron)... :twisted:

There are 6.8 million Jewish people in the United States. A similar number in Israel. Assuming all other countries, you are looking at maybe twenty million total, possibly less. That makes them about 1/400th of the worlds population. So 1/400th of the world's population is dominating our governments, secretly reshuffling political events worldwide in an Illuminati cabal, causing every bad thing like 9/11 or whatever. Sorry, but I'm just not quite convinced.

There are two things common to theists and CTers: they both have faith without evidence... oh wait, that makes only one thing in common... #-o

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"As you pointed out, the geopolitical structure has changed.  But the israelis still have the US government by the balls, although in a much different way.  They can be as arrogant as they choose, so long as the Americn PEOPLE do not find out about it.  So hypothetically assuming they did have something to do with 9/11, as I and others allege, the US government would have to cooperate in covering it up.

Consider this.  In 1967, we did not have an Internet yet.  Coverups were relatively easy.  You just ring up some old college buddies on the editing staffs of major media outlets and pull in some favors.  Or, make threats if necessary.

In 2001, the Internet was just emerging.  After 9/11 happened, what happened?  For one thing, the biggest coverup world history has ever known.  Wouldn't the 2001 US govenment have been basically in the same boat as the Johnson administration, even though for different reasons?  Hence, the 9/11 Commission was intentionally set up to fail.  Hence, the obvious insider trading that took place before 9/11 was ignored.  Hence, all forensic evidence from the scene of the world's most heinous crime just disappears.  Hence, all 9/11 compensation lawsuits were assigned to one judge (a jew, by coincidence) whose son living in israel (by coincidence) was a lawyer representing the israeli companies who ran security operations at airports where the hijacked planes departed from.

The list of coincidences is monumental.  Coincidence is not necessarily conclusive proof.  But it should be sufficient to raise enough doubt to at least investigate.  A massive coverup took place.  If the israelis were not involved, who was?

Again, this is perhaps the most investigated attack of the last hundred years.

Is it possible the Israelis were behind the attacks?  Certainly.  But so far as has been seen, there are no hard connections.  And as I pointed out earlier, the putative logic used to analyze the potential Israeli connection is deeply flawed.

Coincidences aren't evidence.  Show me the money.  Show me a Mossad or other Israeli government organ  being involved in it.  

Coincidences are not only not "conclusive" proof, they are no proof at all.  Arguing otherwise is falling afoul of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  Let's see laundry lists.  Let's see operative names, or faces, or bank account numbers.  

You're making an extraordinary claim; let's see extraordinary evidence.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"There are two things common to theists and CTers: they both have faith without evidence... oh wait, that makes only one thing in common... #-o

I'll admit, I think JFK  was the victim of a conspiracy.  I'm not automatically a refuter.  But I want better evidence than  a couple of guys leaving work early.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"There are two things common to theists and CTers: they both have faith without evidence... oh wait, that makes only one thing in common... #-o

I'll admit, I think JFK  was the victim of a conspiracy.  I'm not automatically a refuter.  But I want better evidence than  a couple of guys leaving work early.

To be fair, in that situation there is VERY good motivation for multiple parties to off him... parties that had no problem offing other high ranking people throughout the world...

Tbh, there is more reason to believe that Sam Giancana ordered the hit on JFK because he had a serious beef with Joe Kennedy Sr. Jack Ruby's part in it tends to point to him.

Quote from: "stromboli"Tbh, there is more reason to believe that Sam Giancana ordered the hit on JFK because he had a serious beef with Joe Kennedy Sr. Jack Ruby's part in it tends to point to him.

JFK definitely made a lot of enemies. I still think it was just a nutter,  but unlike this threads conspiracy I think there is some credibility to it having been a hit job. There were just too many people with reason to kill him to rule it our.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Again, this is perhaps the most investigated attack of the last hundred years.

Is it possible the Israelis were behind the attacks?  Certainly.  But so far as has been seen, there are no hard connections.  And as I pointed out earlier, the putative logic used to analyze the potential Israeli connection is deeply flawed.

Coincidences aren't evidence.  Show me the money.  Show me a Mossad or other Israeli government organ  being involved in it.  

Coincidences are not only not "conclusive" proof, they are no proof at all.  Arguing otherwise is falling afoul of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  Let's see laundry lists.  Let's see operative names, or faces, or bank account numbers.  

You're making an extraordinary claim; let's see extraordinary evidence.

Most investigated attack of the last hudred years?  Show us the evidence.  The ashes had not even cooled off yet when they began hauling away hundreds of thousands of tons of forensic evidence -- TO CHINA -- for recycling.

Bill Clinton's blowjob was more thoroughly investigated than 9/11.  And so was the space shuttle disaster ($14 million spent on investigating 9/11 as opposed to the $67 million devoted to investigating Clinton's blowjob or $30 million for the space shuttle disaster).  
//http://911review.com/coverup/commission.html

NIST claimed they found no evidence of controlled demolition.  Then someone thought to ask them if then looked.  The astonishing reply was that they did not!   :shock:   No wonder they found no evidence.  They didn't even bother to look!  What a surprise ( <-- sarcasm! )

Why do you insist on ME providing evidence for my claims (which I do), but you offer no evidence of your own?  I base my claim that the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail on the fact that BOTH co-chairmen SAID SO.  Google it.  "9/11 Commission set up to fail".
//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

If you have evidence that 9/11 was the most investigated attack of the last hundred years, show us the evidence.  Or retract your claim if you can not.

As far as your claim of no hard connections to israel, why do you rule out the israelis on the grounds of there are no hard connections, yet you insist it was Osama bin Laden even though the FBI (and CIA, and InterPol, et al) said they had no hard evidence against bin Laden?  If no hard evidence is proof of israel's innocence, why is it not also proof of bin Laden's innocence?  Who is being a hypocrite?

My claims are no more extrordinary than yours.  Show me YOUR extraordinary evidence that bin Laden did it.

C'mon, now.  I showed you mine.  Now show us yours!

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"There are two things common to theists and CTers: they both have faith without evidence... oh wait, that makes only one thing in common... #-o

I'll admit, I think JFK  was the victim of a conspiracy.  I'm not automatically a refuter.  But I want better evidence than  a couple of guys leaving work early.

To be fair, in that situation there is VERY good motivation for multiple parties to off him... parties that had no problem offing other high ranking people throughout the world...

No doubt that that gives food to conspiracy theorists.  

I was just trying to make the point that as a skeptic, I prefer to examine actual facts on the ground, and try to put them into context.  I don't think context supports an "Israelis did it" theory behind WTC.  That means that the "facts", such as they are, had ought to be goddamned well golden.  And they're not.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Most investigated attack of the last hudred years?  Show me the evidence.  The ashes had not even cooled off yet when they began hauling away hundreds of thousands of tons of forensic evidence -- TO CHINA -- for recycling.

Bill Clinton's blowjob was more thoroughly investigated than 9/11.  And so was the space shuttle disaster ($14 million spent on investigating 9/11 as opposed to the $67 million devoted to investigating Clinton's blowjob or $30 million for the space shuttle disaster).  
//http://911review.com/coverup/commission.html

If you accept dollar values as a determinant of investigative thoroughness, then sure, your point.  But the fact is that 9/11 skeptics have had over a decade in the Interwebz age to go over the evidence -- which is more profuse for it having happened in the information age -- and still can't come up with very much.

And I notice you haven't addressed my points about the political situation as it was in was in 2001.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"NIST claimed they found no evidence of controlled demolition.  Then someone thought to ask them if then looked.  The astonishing reply was that they did not!   :shock:   No wonder they found no evidence.  They didn't even bother to look!  What a surprise ( <-- sarcasm! )

Rhetorical point, sure.  But do you have evidence it was controlled? After all, it is you making the claim.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Why do you insist on ME providing evidence for my claims (which I do), but you offer no evidence of your own?  I base my claim that the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail on the fact that BOTH co-chairmen SAID SO.  Google it.  "9/11 Commission set up to fail".
//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

I base my claim that 9/11 was done by Arab terrorists on the fact that Arab terrorists were, you know, on the airplanes; we have recorded phone calls verifying that.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"As far as your claim of no hard connections to israel, why do you rule out the israelis on the grounds of there are no hard connections, yet you insist it was Osama bin Laden even though the FBI (and CIA, and InterPol, et al) said they had no hard evidence against bin Laden?  If no hard evidence is proof of israel's innocence, why is it not also proof of bin Laden's innocence?  Who is being a hypocrite?

Well, firstly, I haven't called anyone a "hypocrite", so I'm not sure why you're using this sort of rhetoric, unless you're trying to use a subtle ad hom to carry an argument that really doesn't suffice otherwise.

I've already explained why I don't think the Israelis did it.  I didn't "rule them out" insofar as my rejection of your "theory" was not out-of-hand, but rather, as shown already, based on understading the way that international politics works.  Biting the hand that feeds you only works when the bite is worth more than the food.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"My claims are no more extrordinary than yours.  Show me YOUR extraordinary evidence that bin Laden did it.

C'mon, now.  I showed you mine.  Now show us yours!

The fact is that the connections between the 19 Arabs on those planes, and bin Laden is well documented. The evidence is not extraordinary; it is as mundane as cash transfers.

But -- your claims are more extraordinary, because while I'm asking you to believe that an enemy of the US attakcked the US, you're asking everyone to believe that a putative US ally attacked the US.  There is a qualitative difference in our claims based on that simple fact.

You are asking people to believe that Israel would risk four biliion dollars per annum assistance, and world opprobrium, in this attack.  I am asking people to believe that people believe that militant Arabs who hate America attacked America.

That is why your claim is extraordinary.

Occam's Razor, and all that.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I was just trying to make the point that as a skeptic, I prefer to examine actual facts on the ground, and try to put them into context.  I don't think context supports an "Israelis did it" theory behind WTC.  That means that the "facts", such as they are, had ought to be goddamned well golden.  And they're not.

Oh no, I completely agree. I don't think there is even remotely enough motivation, much less evidence, to link Israel at all.

Also... I typed Italia 3 times trying to type Israel. Genius, Shiranui. Genius.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Rhetorical point, sure.  But do you have evidence it was controlled? After all, it is you making the claim.

Yes I do.  Freefall!

WTC 7 fell at freefall acceleration and that is proof of controlled demolition.  So based on controlled demolition, which can not be rigged in a matter of only a few hours, there had to be insiders at the WTC.  Who were they?  Why have they not been caught?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I base my claim that 9/11 was done by Arab terrorists on the fact that Arab terrorists were, you know, on the airplanes; we have recorded phone calls verifying that.

First of all, I never said Arab terrorists were not on the airplane.  I have doubts about the official conspiracy theory that Osama bin Laden and a bunch of cave dwellers pulled it off without a little help from their friends on the inside.My whole argument is that there were more accomplices than we know about, and it is possible that some of them are israelis.  You are claiming that Arab terrorsts and ONLY Arab terrorists pulled it off.  I do not deny that Arab terrorists may have been a part of the scheme.  But WTC 7 was demolished -- controlled demolition.  That means somebody had to rig the demolition.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I've already explained why I don't think the Israelis did it.  I didn't "rule them out" insofar as my rejection of your "theory" was not out-of-hand, but rather, as shown already, based on understading the way that international politics works.  Biting the hand that feeds you only works when the bite is worth more than the food.

Or if you feel confident of not getting caught.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The fact is that the connections between the 19 Arabs on those planes, and bin Laden is well documented. The evidence is not extraordinary; it is as mundane as cash transfers.

Flogging a dead horse again, are we?  For the umpteenth time, I am not saying bin Laden and the cave men are innocent beyond all doubt.  I say there is no more hard evidence proving their guilt than there is of israeli covert operators.  The fact that 19 Arabs were on those planes is no more proof of their guilt than the flight crews being on the planes.

Since I am sure that someone is going to deny the obvious fact that freefall proves WTC 7 was pulled in a controlled demolition, I have just started a new discussion of this matter.  All followers of the current topic invited to participate.

Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&p=988491#p988491

QuoteI have doubts about the official conspiracy theory that Osama bin Laden and a bunch of cave dwellers...

>Jewish Motherfuckers
>Arab Cave Dwellers

(//http://fakeplus.com/pictures/jpg/-oh-you_20120320221925.jpg)

This guy lol.

Don't know if this has been mentioned
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/commen ... er_on_911/ (http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/how_many_jews_died_at_the_world_trade_center_on_911/)

As I pointed out, Jews represent about 1/400th of world population. By that number, if 18% of the people killed were Jewish, then the numbers far exceed a representative number percentage wise.

There is no question who was flying the airplanes in the four hijackings. No Jews in any of the group. If you assume that Jewish sources somehow knew that the attacks would take place and then coordinate a planned demolition of the building, good luck.

Also, planned demolition requires a great deal of deconstruction and an enormous amount of explosives. It would take a huge effort and considerable amount of time in both buildings to install all of that. I guarantee that you would never prove that large an amount of explosives could surreptitiously be installed over any period of time to effect that level of destruction.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"WTC 7 fell at freefall acceleration and that is proof of controlled demolition.

No, it is not, as I have also pointed out in your thread you've started.  It is only proof of a sudden removal of structural support, and says absolutely nothing about what cause(s) that may have.

QuoteFlogging a dead horse again, are we?  For the umpteenth time, I am not saying bin Laden and the cave men are innocent beyond all doubt.  I say there is no more hard evidence proving their guilt than there is of israeli covert operators.  The fact that 19 Arabs were on those planes is no more proof of their guilt than the flight crews being on the planes.

Except that there is, in the form of bank records showing funding from AQ, which was used to offset living expenses as well as fund their attendance to a flight school -- that's a pretty direct link, don't you agree?

Also, I prefer to avoid sarcasm in discussions like this because it tends to introduce more heat than light into the talk.  I'd like to be treated with the same courtesy I'm showing.

Lastly, perhaps you should consider how your derogatory remarks about both Jews and Arabs say something about you whether you like it or not.

It's been more than 10 years, and every claim you make will never be substantiated and you are wasting brain power on a pointless endeavor. Get on with your life.

Proof that the Jews are controlling the world:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion)


 :Hangman:

From the POV of the people presenting the evidence, the claims for the most part HAVE been substantiated; all that's left is for people like you to stop stonewalling like Christians.

here (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair)

and

here (//http://www.ussliberty.org/why.htm)

They did some pretty evil, sneaky shit even without 9/11

This "underground" website (//http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=5367.0) provides dozens of links to Haaretz and Cnn et al and makes a clear distinction between Israelis and American Jews.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Yeah, like every sovereign country they committed atrocities and they still do. You realise that the only people on earth who are brainwashed to think that Israelis in danger to be wiped out and that must be protected are Americans, right? The big banana republic and its free citizens. Israel is a rabid dog for the rest of the world with its war politics. Just like USA. Everyone knows what the fuck it is.



:arrow: Now, what I want to know is the motivation and the big plan that Israeli 9/11 supposed to be the part of. What's that? What step it represents? What is the gain? What's the logic?

My country is controlled by the elite who use commercialism and propaganda to brainwash the public into doing their bidding while also creating dozens of conflicts across the world in order to generate funds for their multi-national corporations.

Elite theory + a little bit of hyperpluralism+ no small dose of 1984

Great time to be an American

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Israelis and Jews are behind 9/11?! What the fuck is this? Is there anything else left these people didn't do?

Well, there isn't a conspiracy theory that the Jews are behind antisemitic conspiracy theories...yet...

But yeah, they're scapegoat-fodder for political nutters like gays are for religious nutters.  It's a shame, really.  But the tinfoil folks have to have some outside group to blame and they're a pretty high profile but small group.  Oh well, at least it takes the heat off the Illuminati and Freemasons.  All these minority groups are all so frightening and dangerous and subversive.  Turn around and they stab you in the back...

It's time for the Jews to kill the Jews to save the Jews from the Jews.

Quote from: "Harbinger"It's time for the Jews to kill the Jews to save the Jews from the Jews.

"Jews? We've already dismissed that claim."

The Jews totally control the media (//http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/10/do_jews_really_control_the_media.html).

The Jews totally control the media (//http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19).

lol

If the Jews control the media, does that mean FOX news is their revenge on everyone else for the holocuast?

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"If the Jews control the media, does that mean FOX news is their revenge on everyone else for the holocuast?

Fox is hardly "news". Just saying. :)

Quote from: "Moriarty"

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"If the Jews control the media, does that mean FOX news is their revenge on everyone else for the holocuast?

Fox is hardly "news". Just saying. :)

#-o Thats the joke.

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The Jews totally control the media (//http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19).

And the christians control everything else.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The Jews totally control the media (//http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19).

And the christians control everything else.

And in the end the governments and corporations who love the constant infighting and hatred between religious groups control completely everything and get the benefit of blaming religions.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"NIST claimed they found no evidence of controlled demolition.  Then someone thought to ask them if then looked.  The astonishing reply was that they did not!   :shock:   No wonder they found no evidence.  They didn't even bother to look!  What a surprise ( <-- sarcasm! )

Why do you insist on ME providing evidence for my claims (which I do), but you offer no evidence of your own?  I base my claim that the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail on the fact that BOTH co-chairmen SAID SO.  Google it.  "9/11 Commission set up to fail".
//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

bla bla bla more tinfoil hat bullshit

C'mon, now.  I showed you mine.  Now show us yours!

The reason no investigation was needed to verify the lack of a controlled demolition was that there was a team of highly trained explosive experts STATIONED IN WTC BUILDING 7!!! You claim to be looking up evidence yet failed to find that the US Secret Service and military EOD's used WTC building 7 as an office for the guarding of the UN from explosive(and other types of) attacks. You also failed to notice in all this supposed "research" of yours that the largest gathering of the UN General Assembly(where kings, queens, presidents, etc show up) OCCURS EVERY SEPTEMBER. During that time those heads of state also bring their own security details(including more EOD's). The EOD's walk the area dressed in civilian clothes wearing a backpack inside of which is an explosive detecting device(sniffer). NONE of these experts of demolitions NOR their equipment picked up explosives prior to that day nor in the weeks coming up to it. THERE WAS NO NEED TO "INVESTIGATE' A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FUCKING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Quote from: "Moriarty"

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "zarus tathra"The Jews totally control the media (//http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19).

And the christians control everything else.

And in the end the governments and corporations who love the constant infighting and hatred between religious groups control completely everything and get the benefit of blaming religions.

Not this shit again.

Yes, propaganda has an effect, but people have to be predisposed to accept it in the first place. So no, you can't blame the big bad gubmint when it comes to public opinion. When the public's opinion is shit, that's because the public is shit.

When you start the blame game, you know when you started, but you don't know when it will end.

This is the Internet Age and the age of democracy, all blame for political missteps falls squarely on the shoulders of the public.

Gilbert gottfried
Pauly shore
Adam sandler
Ben stiller

jesus the line of lousy jewish actors could go on forever, and yet they made millions..yep, I'm buying the jewish conspriacy, ever since Blossom, the worst show ever......luckily she is quite enjoyable on Big Bang but still,.....

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Not this shit again.

Yes, propaganda has an effect, but people have to be predisposed to accept it in the first place. So no, you can't blame the big bad gubmint when it comes to public opinion. When the public's opinion is shit, that's because the public is shit.

No, you're right. The "people" should have rejected the idea years ago that governments ruled by divinity, and that at death their lives weren't going to get any better just because they died and went to fairyland.  Still doesn't change the fact that in Western countries today that don't even push that agenda anymore, still take advantage of it. Sad really.

There's another theory that Saudi Arabia funded the attacks (//http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42013/cia-leak-says-saudi-arabia-carried-out-9-11-not-bin-laden/). Regardless, the media and the government pounced on "Osama bin Laden and those naughty Afghanis did it!" way too quickly, like 2 hours after the second plane hit.

Why would the Saudi's need to fund it when Al Qaeda was run by a rich Saudi...?

Quote from: zarus tathra on February 26, 2014, 09:58:19 AM
There's another theory that Saudi Arabia funded the attacks (http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42013/cia-leak-says-saudi-arabia-carried-out-9-11-not-bin-laden/). Regardless, the media and the government pounced on "Osama bin Laden and those naughty Afghanis did it!" way too quickly, like 2 hours after the second plane hit.

1. Bin Laden was not Afghani

2. al Qaeda is/was not Afghani

3. The guys who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were not Afghani (Mohammed Atta was Egyptian)

4. The Taliban actually hated al Qaeda for bringing foreign attention (and ultimately intervention) into Afghanistan.

5. Counter terrorism and intelligence forces throughout the globe were well aware of the position of AQ in Taliban held regions in Afghanistan as a result of 4. Also really helped when AQ claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

Oh...it's this thread again...Fuck.