New York City activist

April 22, 2008

9/11 Truth movement goals and strategy?

Filed under: 9/11,9/11 Truth — Diane @ 1:49 pm

In a comment here, in reply to my post U.S. government foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, realitydesign wrote:

Many of the these warnings and subsequent lies are so well documented that it demonstrates how powerless/sloth we really are against/within this system. … As far as I’m concerned foreknowledge has been adaquately demonstrated. Paul Thompson and others have already done this work.

It would be a lot more ’shocking’ to prove CD or as the pilots are doing- impossible flight paths with respect to their reported trajectories- things like this would cause more of a reaction imo- to those oceans of people that are still asleep.


These more “shocking” things, especially the “impossible flight paths,” are far less likely to be convincing to most educated people. The majority of educated people will most likely conclude that you must have gotten some of your facts wrong, because the conclusions you’re trying to promote with the “impossible flight paths” idea are fundamentally at odds with most educated people’s sense of how the world works.

The average person probably would equate foreknowledge with ‘just complicated politics.’

No. If indeed the foreknowledge was sufficiently specific and credible, then it is a very serious matter. It implies at least criminal negligence and possibly treason.

And the idea of suppressed foreknowledge will seem much more believable, to most educated people, than the “impossible flight paths” and the extremely complex (in terms of coordination) scenarios which are suggested by that claim. The suppressed-foreknowledge idea is consistent with most people’s experience of how bureaucracies work, whereas the idea of a remote/automated takeover plus terrorist “patsies” plus fake phone calls will seem, to most educated people, like something out of science fiction, not reality. The amount of coordination such a scenario would require is definitely not consistent with most educated people’s experience of how bureaucracies work.

Furthermore I don’t believe an investigation will ever happen from within the states. I mean even with supeona power, these guys won’t show up.

Then what is the point of the 9/11 Truth movement, as far as you’re concerned? What is your goal?

For me, the main goal is to call for a new and independent investigation of 9/11. And that, to me, is why it’s so important to make a credible case.

Note: Please confine further debate about the facts of the “impossible flight paths” issue to the thread following my post No-hijacker theories (to realitydesign). Here in this thread, let’s discuss that issue’s implications for the goals of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Advertisements

42 Comments »

  1. Why do you keep treating remote control/computer control and fake phone calls as having to both occur in the same theoretical instance?

    Comment by realitydesign — April 22, 2008 @ 1:57 pm | Reply

  2. “because the conclusions you’re trying to promote with the “impossible flight paths” idea are fundamentally at odds with most educated people’s sense of how the world works.”

    So professional pilots looking at official flight data recorder info and showing that it contradicts what we were told happened that day is at odds with how most people see the world? Wow, America is doomed if this is the case.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 22, 2008 @ 2:08 pm | Reply

  3. Is there a hypothetical scenario you would propose which does not involve both “remote control/computer control and fake phone calls”? (Note: by “fake phone calls” I mean faking via either voice-morphing or via lying, or via any other means.) What kinds of hypothetical scenarios do you consider likely?

    Comment by Diane — April 22, 2008 @ 2:10 pm | Reply

  4. realitydesign wrote:

    So professional pilots looking at official flight data recorder info and showing that it contradicts what we were told happened that day is at odds with how most people see the world?

    In the other thread, I’ve already provided links to examples of writings by pilots who do not agree with Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Please read those articles if you have not done so already. (And let’s debate them in the other thread rather than here.)

    Comment by Diane — April 22, 2008 @ 2:13 pm | Reply

  5. “Then what is the point of the 9/11 Truth movement, as far as you’re concerned? What is your goal?”

    Well, it’s just historically with all the a atrocities/scandals that have gone on in the US (the 2 jfk assasinations, mlk, vietnam, east timor, iran-contra, mkultra, gulf 1 & 2, 911) to name a few- we never see any justice served. Just a bunch of ‘conspiracy theorists’ hopelessly following breadcrumbs and a slow leak of ‘declassified’ files and a bunch of hollow dreams to have real hearings. It never happens. Why should 911 be different considering how powerful these syndicates have gotten.

    My goals are to expose the corruption, fraud and criminality grassroots- and to help create new cultures outside of this control grid. World Peace, stop ruining the environment…stuff along these lines- the future of humanity and planet earth. You know, rainbows n’ shit.

    🙂

    Comment by realitydesign — April 22, 2008 @ 2:45 pm | Reply

  6. How do you propose to “create new cultures outside of this control grid”?

    Anyhow, Bush has carried the “atrocities/scandals” a lot further than previous presidents, would you not agree? I really do think we should try to build a mass movement to get him tried for war crimes, torture, etc., and that a new investigation of 9/11 should be a part of this. If we don’t rise up and hold Bush accountable, future presidents will only get worse.

    Comment by Diane — April 22, 2008 @ 3:06 pm | Reply

  7. “Anyhow, Bush has carried the “atrocities/scandals” a lot further than previous presidents, would you not agree? I really do think we should try to build a mass movement to get him tried for war crimes, torture, etc., and that a new investigation of 9/11 should be a part of this. If we don’t rise up and hold Bush accountable, future presidents will only get worse.”

    I think you are right in theory although I don’t believe it’s specifically Bush who is in any real position- his role is simply the smooth, bold face liar. And that is a hard job I mean, imagine lying to the public- in public places etc… routinely about such travestian, horrid things- with a straight face…that takes real skill, seriously. Talk about a steady hand. But I know what you mean- going through the motions would be good. However there are so many players though- taking out one wouldn’t really disable their syndicates. Actually It may even be in the cards as a distraction and to make the people feel a sense of accomplishment and justice- that’s what i was hinting at with the UN’s role in a new psy-op/911 investigation- it would set up a chance to implement new changes which of course would further erode US sovereignty.

    Unfortunately in reality- all the legislation is in place to protect these guys. The constitution is suspended. So technically, they can do (and do) whatever they want.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 22, 2008 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  8. In terms of raw body counts, I’d say that the assault on Indochina went beyond what we’ve seen in Iraq so far. Perhaps within a few years I’ll have to modify that judgment, but not yet. Training death squads and preparing military coup d’etats all across Latin America in the sixties and seventies went much further than what Bush has been able to do so far.

    In any event, one should be wary of mixing technical questions about 911 with the general criminal record of US imperialism. If that distinction is not observed then one runs the risk of allowing a purported 911 indictment to descend into simply an ideological accusation.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 22, 2008 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

  9. Well, I would like to think many people are starting to realize- and it took an event like 911- that we as a society (esp in the usa) have been getting manipulated. Once we can become aware of this exploitation and manipulation we can choose to function outside of it…and if we can build communities of like minded individuals we can thwart the influence of these regressive paradigms.

    I guess in terms of concrete solutions, here are but a few that I think would help- small steps multiplied out over large populations…it’s not going to happen over night.

    Preventative health instead of pharmaceuticals = no support for big pharma- none, preventative methods, natural healing.
    Local, community food production/agriculture+ eating in season.
    Grow fruit trees and gardens instead of lawns.
    Reject GMO products, growth hormones etc.= Buy Organic/ethical whenever possible.
    Get off oil! Bikes, walking, TINY CARS, carpooling- support public transport.
    Internet instead of jet travel for business.
    No support for military, withold federal income taxes in proportion to military budget ( circa 50%)

    Spread the word about the universal deceit and deception, ultimately we can use our wallets to curtail the bonanza.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 22, 2008 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  10. An interesting item has appeared:

    —–
    Al-Qaida No. 2 says 9/11 theory propagated by Iran

    Osama bin Laden’s chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al-Qaida terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
    —–

    I am familiar with the speculative charges that some of these audiotapes may be either faked or otherwise not exactly what they seem. That’s always possible. But this one has some interest insofar as were it authentic it would seem like a refutation of the charges that 911 was really an inside-job. Is it possible that this video is faked? Where exactly did it come from? How are such videos produced within a climate where allegedly all stops are being run by Washington to track down al Qaeda? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but the matter deserves some notice.

    [Comment by Patrick S. McNally, edited by blog author Diane to HTML-ize and prettify link.]

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 22, 2008 @ 10:47 pm | Reply

  11. “…it would seem like a refutation of the charges that 911 was really an inside-job.”

    I don’t follow you here- what notion specifically would refute the inside job concept?

    Comment by realitydesign — April 23, 2008 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  12. > I don’t follow you here- what notion specifically would refute the inside job concept?

    If we for a moment accept that the video is authentic and has not somehow been crafted by the CIA or related agencies, then this is an instance of the alleged al Qaeda leadership taking credit for 911 even to the point of attacking the Iranian leadership for asserting the inside-job thesis. Doesn’t that conflict somewhat with the view of an inside-job being falsely attributed to al Qaeda?

    Perhaps the video itself is some type of staged production? I’ve always found it a bit odd the way that allegedly Osama was placed on the run from Afghanistan but has somehow been able to set himself up in a position where he can make well-informed videos and distribute them with ease. Pakistan is the only place I can imagine where he could have gone to.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 23, 2008 @ 7:08 pm | Reply

  13. “If we for a moment accept that the video is authentic and has not somehow been crafted by the CIA or related agencies, then this is an instance of the alleged al Qaeda leadership taking credit for 911 even to the point of attacking the Iranian leadership for asserting the inside-job thesis. Doesn’t that conflict somewhat with the view of an inside-job being falsely attributed to al Qaeda?” – patricksmcnally

    Yes, and basically everything conflicts with it being an “inside job.” Bin Laden and others have been making statements for years saying why they attack the US. If US operatives were creating these tapes, then why don’t the terrorists say they are attacking because they “hate freedom?” INSTEAD, we see things like this: In an Oct. 2004 speech, Osama bin Laden said that Bush is still misleading the American people by not telling us the real reason why al-Qeada attacks us. Bin Laden said that, “contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims — that we hate freedom –let him tell us then, “Why did we not attack Sweden?” It is known that those who hate freedom don’t have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19.” [The 19 hijackers of 9/11]

    Bin Laden is angered by U.S. support for Israel and was angered when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. He is angered by the injustice and was determined to punish the transgressors. He decided “we have to punish the transgressor with the same — and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.

    Bin Laden has been consistent, this is from the 1997 interview:

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you’ve declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States’ troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?

    BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet’s Night Travel Land (Palestine).And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (killings in Lebanon perpetrated by Israel)

    “… the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries.” -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003

    There are just so many statements talking about motive, does it make any sense for “the CIA or related agencies” to “craft” tapes which talk about a motive which Bush and other politicians work so hard to suppress? In fact, 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks. If the tapes were fake, the terrorists would probably be saying “we hate your freedoms” but they don’t, instead we hear grievances which turn out to be real injustices for which US politicians and policy makers are behind.

    Comment by representativepress — April 24, 2008 @ 7:38 am | Reply

  14. To Tom (representativepress): In support of your claim that al-Qaeda’s wrath at the U.S.A. is all about Israel, you linked to a post in which you quote bin Laden as saying, “we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries.” Note here that Israel (Palestine) is sandwiched in between Iraq and “the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries” (Saudi Arabia), where the U.S. had a bunch of military bases left over from the first Gulf War. So it isn’t just about Israel, but about the U.S.A.’s Middle East policy in general.

    Comment by Diane — April 24, 2008 @ 4:21 pm | Reply

  15. I have some suspicions about at least a few of the Osama tapes, but nothing definitive. It may be worth going across some of the pre-911 speeches of Osama and comparing them to the speech which is identified with October 7, 2001.

    From March 1997 with Peter Arnett:

    —–
    http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_cnn.htm

    Due to its subordination to the Jews the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached, to the extent that they occupied the qibla of the Muslims (Arabia) who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God’s word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries…

    We believe that the American army in Saudi Arabia came to separate between the Muslims and the people for not ruling in accordance with Allah’s wish. They came to be in support of the Israeli forces in occupied Palestine…
    —–

    From May 1998 with John Miller:

    —–
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

    We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. … Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel…

    The Western regimes and the government of the United States of America bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests. …

    The enmity between us and the Jews goes far back in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable. For this reason it is not in the interest of Western governments to expose the interests of their people to all kinds of retaliation for almost nothing. It is hoped that people of those countries will initiate a positive move and force their governments not to act on behalf of other states and other sects…

    The leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail…

    Once again, I have to stress the necessity of focusing on the Americans and the Jews for they represent the spearhead with which the members of our religion have been slaughtered. Any effort directed against America and the Jews yields positive and direct results…

    We are certain that we shall – with the grace of Allah – prevail over the Americans and over the Jews, as the Messenger of Allah promised us in an authentic prophetic tradition when He said the Hour of Resurrection shall not come before Muslims fight Jews and before Jews hide behind trees and behind rocks.

    We are certain – with the grace of Allah – that we shall prevail over the Jews and over those fighting with them…

    We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world, especially the Islamic world. American presence in the Gulf provides support to the Jews and protects their rear. And while millions of Americans are homeless and destitute and live in abject poverty, their government is busy occupying our land and building new settlements and helping Israel build new settlements in the point of departure for our Prophet’s midnight journey to the seven heavens. America throws her own sons in the land of the two Holy Mosques for the sake of protecting Jewish interests…

    We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews…

    Unlike those, the European and the American people and some of the Arabs are under the influence of Jewish media…
    —–

    From September 28, 2001, with the Pakistani Ummat:

    —–
    http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

    In the U.S. itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American-Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him…

    However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan…

    This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word.
    —–

    From the October 7, 2001, video, no mention at all of Jews directly, and only a passing reference to Israel:

    —–
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/terror/front/1079137.html

    In these days, Israeli tanks rampage across Palestine, in Ramallah, Rafah and Beit Jala and many other parts of the land of Islam, and we do not hear anyone raising his voice or reacting…

    I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine, and before all the army of infidels depart the land of Mohammad, peace be upon him.
    —–

    The speeches up to Spetember 28, 2001, seem to make a fair number of references to Jewish influence in the US media and politics, but the famed confession of October 7, 2001, suddenly leaves this out. That isn’t really absolute proof that the video was faked, but it does come across as a very off shift. Particularly when one recalls the positive response by sectors of the US public to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, it’s hard to understand why would the real Osama suddenly drop references to Jewish lobbying at precisely the moment when he allegdly issues a video which takes responsibility for 911.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 24, 2008 @ 6:51 pm | Reply

  16. “Yes, and basically everything conflicts with it being an “inside job.””

    Not at all. You can have al-CIAda involvement with 911- true involvement where they really are executing moments of their own design- but at the same time receiving help from other sources- unbeknownst to them or parts of the help known partially by the double agents with al-CIAda.

    Secondly. In the world of counterintell/disinfo it would be very smart to have a fake debate going on about why al-CIAda realy strikes and what the administration says- that way you set up further arguments domestically between the educated/informed folks who understand the plite of the muslims and those who lap up the neocon talk points about hating freedom etc…

    That way those debates can carry on ad nauseum- like they are doing now- and people get lost in that debate instead- it’s standard counter intel deflectionary measure against our own citizens- very elegant.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 25, 2008 @ 3:55 am | Reply

  17. “In support of your claim that al-Qaeda’s wrath at the U.S.A. is all about Israel.” – Diane

    I have never said that Diane, try to find a quote that backs up your assertion. What I have written is clear as far as the 9/11 terrorists’ motives. I have written that it is the main motive and I have written that I have written that it is the main motive and I have written that “the MAIN issue was U.S. support of Israel and in all in all likelihood the terrorists would have concentrated on someplace else like Chechnya if the U.S. was not supporting Israel.” I never said it was “ALL about Israel.”

    You write that I “linked to a post in which you quote bin Laden as saying, “we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries.””

    I not only linked to it, I quoted it in my post to you and I know what I am quoting. I am quoting what I have been quoting for years, which is the motives for the attacks. You are making a straw man argument.

    Diane, again you have characterized what objectively is the second in a list of three things as “sandwiched in between.” The phrase “sandwiched in between” is not an objective and neutral reference for what most people would call the second in a list of three things. It appears that you trying to downplay Israel as a motive.

    Now sometimes bin Laden mentions Palestine first, sometimes second and sometimes third in the usual list of three grievances but as far as the main motive which motivated the 9/11 attack, look at all these statements from the hijackers, the mastermind of 9/11 and others.

    The 9/11 report at least mentioned this about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 (although we know commissioners pressured to not include Israel as a motive for the attacks because they didn’t want the American people to reassess the policy of supporting Israel) “By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” Chapter 5

    The report also showed that the two terrorist pilots shared the same motivation. Both Mohammed Atta, the leader of the mission and terrorist pilot who crashed into World Trade Center 1, and Marwan al Shehhi, the terrorist pilot who crashed into WTC 2, were angry about what Israel was doing to the Palestinians: “when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, ‘How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?'” p 162

    In March of 2002, MSNBC aired “The Making of the Death Pilots.” In that documentary, German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohammed Atta. Ralph said, “He (Atta) was most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that.”

    Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, “My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine.” Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, “Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed.”

    We see that the main motive is what many Middle East experts say is the main grievance in the Middle East which is what Israel has been doing to Palestine. It is not surprising that the main grievance in the Middle East is the main motive for the attacks. There is no evidence that bin Laden isn’t actually angered by the specific foreign policies he complains about.

    Comment by representativepress — April 25, 2008 @ 8:20 pm | Reply

  18. retrying this post:

    “From the October 7, 2001, video, no mention at all of Jews directly, and only a passing reference to Israel” – patricksmcnally

    patricksmcnally, I wanted to make a quick point. Even in the Oct. 7th video, bin Laden is doing a hell of a lot more than making a “passing reference to Israel.” You should think this over and examine why you are trying to downplay the issue of Israel. Even the two things you did quote, they are NOT a “passing reference.”

    I think you know, when he refers to Palestine, or when others refer to Palestine, they are talking mainly about Israel, directly about what Israel does to Palestine. The references to Palestine ARE talking about the grievances caused by the injustices caused by Israel or Zionists. So the two things you quoted are not a “passing reference,” they are a directly talking about the specific grievance of Israel’s crimes.

    And it simply is incorrect, to say the least, to characterize this as a “passing reference”:
    I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine, and before all the army of infidels depart the land of Mohammad, peace be upon him.” I say that is dramatic and direct and that alone disproves the point you are trying to make.

    And there are other references in that particular speech which you overlooked. Right at the top, bin Laden refers to Palestine when he talks about the 80 years:

    “and thanks be to God that what America is tasting now is only a copy of we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated. ” (80 years ago was the 1921 Cairo Conference which dealt with British power over Palestine and Iraq and I don’t know if it is a coincidence but September 11, 1922 is when the British mandate came into force over Palestine.)

    Bin Laden also said this is that same speech:
    “When those have stood in defense of their weak children, their brothers and sisters in Palestine and other Muslim nations, the whole world went into an uproar, the infidels followed by the hypocrites.”

    It is disturbing to see the “9/11 Truth” movement downplaying and misdirecting the public away from the real motives. This is the same thing liars like Thomas Friedman have been doing.

    Friedman has been lying to the public for years. Back in 1998 he claimed that the terrorists make no specific demands, “no specific ideological program or demands.” he claims and that it is just a “generalized hatred”. Friedman has enormous influence over the public discourse and it looks like he’s the one behind the “conventional wisdom” that bin Laden never focused on this issue of Palestine until recently. Friedman put that lie in his best selling book “Longitudes & Attitudes.” Friedman claims, “the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about “Palestine” after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street. ” (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and ” Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world. ” (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: “Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ” – Osama bin Laden, May 1998. Also, Peter Bergen points out that lies have been pushed: “conventional wisdom has it that bin Laden adopted the Palestinians issue only recently. Reading this declaration [the first declaration of war, issued in 1996] SHOULD PUT THAT CANARD TO REST.” p164 The Bin Laden I Know, Peter Bergen

    It is beyond the pale for Zionists to lie to us about why we were attacked on 9/11.

    Comment by representativepress — April 25, 2008 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  19. realitydesign, that doesn’t make sense, it is just convoluted reasoning. You think they are creating tapes, tapes which talk about the same grievances shared by millions, and they created these tapes to call themselves liars?

    There is nothing elegant about your reasoning. And what “debate” do you think is happening? What I see is suppression, denial and misdirection about the actual motives. And the “9/11 Truth” movement has filled this role so perfectly that powerful people like it. Chomsky is right when he points out that the 9/11 truth movement is “treated so tolerantly” and he suspects that “people in positions of power like it.” He points out that “It’s diverting enormous amounts if energy away from real crimes of the administration … so much potential activist energy is directed into 9/11 discussions. From the point of view of power centers, that’s great. We’ll give these people exposure on C-SPAN and have their books right up front at the local bookstores. A pretty tolerant reaction. We sort of say we think it’s a bad joke, but you don’t get the kind of reaction you do when you really do after hard issues.” p36, Chomksy, What We Say Goes

    Comment by representativepress — April 25, 2008 @ 8:55 pm | Reply

  20. My comment to patricksmcnally didn’t show up, this is a link to it.

    Comment by representativepress — April 25, 2008 @ 9:07 pm | Reply

  21. If you go back and review the comments which Osama had made in his interviews prior to October 7, 2001, you’ll see that the comments in later speeches really do merit the description of “a passing reference.” Peter Bergen is correct in saying that Osama didn’t pick the issue up on the fly. The earlier interviews up to September 28, 2001, show a striking emphasis by Osama on Jews as a political lobbying group within the USA seeking to bend things in their direction. In his May 1998 interview with John Miller, bin Laden stated that:

    “We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them.”

    By comparison, the statements attributed to Osama after October 7, 2001, have watered this down substantively. I’m not ready to say that proves that the later videos are all fake, but it does strike me as odd.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 25, 2008 @ 9:34 pm | Reply

  22. “I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine.” – patricksmcnally

    What is “watered down” about that? You ignored my point that if they were fake, wouldn’t the liars who insist that it is “hatred of freedom” have made these tapes say such a thing? In tapes for years after 9/11, bin Laden has been saying things that the powers that be in the US do not want said so you point lacks internal logic. What in the world would be the point of creating these videos?

    Why is there this constant attempt to deflect away from what we KNOW. You should take note of the fact that Michael Scheuer, the former Chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, says Bush is simply lying: “The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We’re being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there’s a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people.” – Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief

    Why isn’t the “Truth Movement” dealing with THAT? Isn’t that outrageous enough. Instead, the “Truth Movement” functions as a misdirection away from the fact that a former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief is calling Bush and Clinton LIARS.

    And why is there an insistence not to deal with the betrayal of the 9/11 commissioners? Look at what they did, they failed to fulfill their mandate because commissioners “rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda’s opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy.” Again, why isn’t THIS something the “9/11 Truth” movement talks about?

    Comment by representativepress — April 25, 2008 @ 10:10 pm | Reply

  23. What is watered down relative to the speeches up to September 28, 2001, is that in the later speeches Osama bin Laden, assuming it is him, effectively drops the theme of Jewish lobbying through the US media and politcal apparatus. If you want a parallel with intellectual trends here in the US, until September 28, 2001, bin Laden spoke in Mearsheimer/Walt terms. After October 7, 2001, bin Laden shifted to speaking in Chomskyesque terms. His speeches from this point onward carry many general statements against US interventionism overall and include Palestine/Israel within this category, but they no longer involve charges that:

    “This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States.”

    The latter statement was made in the September 28, 2001, interview. Many statements similar to it appeared in earlier pre-911 interviews with bin Laden. But nothing like, as far I’ve been able to trace, has appeared since.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 25, 2008 @ 10:42 pm | Reply

  24. patricksmcnally, what he is complaining about, the specific policies, has remained consistent. What difference does it make if he thinks the policies are the result of this lobby or that influence? He could have even considered Chomsky’s view more accurate as to why the politics are in place, that is not impossible. Chomsky did get more exposure after 9/11. He has read Chomsky and mentioned him by name so I doesn’t see it as odd. The main point is that the powers that be in the US do not want the POLICIES discussed. Who would be and WHY in the world would they be making videos calling Bush a liar? “… the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries.” -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003

    Again, what you are doing is off on a tangent and away from the fact: a former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief is calling Bush and Clinton LIARS AND 9/11 Commissioners were more worried about protecting the policy of supporting Israel than fulfilling their mandate concerning 9/11.

    Comment by representativepress — April 25, 2008 @ 11:13 pm | Reply

  25. In the context of 911, I did find it odd that such a clear shift in Osama’s talking-style should occur in a way which matches the shift from maintaining that he was not responsible for 911 (September 28, 2001) to accepting responsibility (October 7, 2001). It’s hard to say anything more definite, but there’s no reason to view it as tangential. If anything, the pre-911 comments by Osama make much more starkly clear the role of the Israel lobby in these issues. Whether that actually means that some Osama videos have been faked since 911 is speculative, but in connection with that I have to bring up the question once more of where did he go? Pakistan is the only plausible spot that I can think of offhand. But it’s very odd to seem Osama altering his tune at a time when the Mearsheimer/Walt matter has made it clear that there is a receptive audience for such views.

    Comment by patricksmcnally — April 26, 2008 @ 12:30 am | Reply

  26. Unfortunately I think this goes far deeper than any investigation.

    We are talking about the nation that put men on the moon 39 years ago. How great an engineering feat was that? We are talking about buildings designed before the moon landing. Do you think it is possible to design and construct 110 story skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel and how much concrete to put on every level of the towers? Every level had to be strong enough to support all of the weight above.

    Every architectural and engineering school in the country should have been demanding that information within SIX WEEKS of 9/11. But I don’t see most people bringing it up more than SIX YEARS later. How many tons of steel were on the impact floors? I don’t know. What temperatures do you need to heat XXX tons of steel to 1100 deg F in 56 minutes. You gotta know the tons.

    Even if the collapse started how can a lighter mass crush a heavier mass at almost free fall speed? So why don’t we know how much heavier at each level was all of the way down?

    Why aren’t a lot of people asking? Steven Jones should understand the significance of the question.

    [Video link, prohibited by comment policy, edited out by blog author Diane.]

    This shows a problem with the science education in the entire country.

    psik

    Comment by psikeyhackr — April 26, 2008 @ 2:27 am | Reply

  27. “We sort of say we think it’s a bad joke, but you don’t get the kind of reaction you do when you really do after hard issues.” p36, Chomksy, What We Say Goes”

    First off, Chomsky is obviously compromised. He looked into JFK years back and walked away…a believer in the Oswald fairytale. I truly believe he knows 911 was ‘enhanced’ by others than Al-CIAda but won’t go there because of pressure- he is a pretty prominent person so they need him to play it real cool on the 911 issue- and so he does. He is a sell out. I know you and your website worship him (and he has done a lot of amazing work)but there are obviously places he won’t go.

    Next up I never said tapes were faked but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    Try to see my point: Al-Qaida could have been involved 100% in 911 and all the tapes could be real AND they could have had technical help on the inside- as I believe they did (unbeknownst to them or not)- to make the attack a success on the many fronts it was.

    Even Bin Laden Himself- said he never thought the towers would actually fall based on his training as an engineer-but just that the floors where the towers were hit.

    Furthermore, the Al-CIAda cats in the USA like Atta- these guys were not devout muslims- that is a crock of nonsense. They liked to blow coke off strippers’ breasts and rip it up in the sleazy bars of Florida. You don’t know the extent to which they were doubling up and serving two or more masters.

    And finally- this idea about the 911 movement distracting people from other crimes- let people be activists on the atrocity of their choice. You focus on the war (and that movement isn’t getting ANYWHERE) and maybe some will focus on torture- things fucked up beyond belief man, there is lots to choose from.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 26, 2008 @ 4:25 am | Reply

  28. “In the context of 911, I did find it odd that such a clear shift in Osama’s talking-style should occur in a way which matches the shift from maintaining that he was not responsible for 911 (September 28, 2001) to accepting responsibility (October 7, 2001).”

    I always found that super weird that he denied it twice first and then admitted it? Why?

    Comment by realitydesign — April 26, 2008 @ 4:39 am | Reply

  29. Bin Laden when he still was on the run and had to worry that the Taliban would arrest him. That time period is critical to understanding what he said. The Taliban DID say they would arrest him IF there was evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt. CLEARLY bin Laden couldn’t make an admission of guilt RIGHT AT THAT critical time.

    Comment by representativepress — April 26, 2008 @ 5:19 am | Reply

  30. “Bin Laden when he still was on the run and had to worry that the Taliban would arrest him. That time period is critical to understanding what he said. The Taliban DID say they would arrest him IF there was evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt. CLEARLY bin Laden couldn’t make an admission of guilt RIGHT AT THAT critical time.”

    Funnily enough, the FBI says it does not to this day have ANY hard evidence linking OBL to 911. Check their most wanted page for a shocker. Imagine- no hard evidence.

    Comment by realitydesign — April 26, 2008 @ 3:24 pm | Reply

  31. I just now moderated some comments by a newcomer to this blog, psikeyhackr, here, several comments up from here in this thread. Anyhow, psikeyhackr wrote:

    Do you think it is possible to design and construct 110 story skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel and how much concrete to put on every level of the towers? Every level had to be strong enough to support all of the weight above.

    Which indeed it did, as long as the building was standing still (or was swaying just slightly due to wind). Supposedly the building was designed to survive a jet impact too, but, then, the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. Engineering for events that rarely happen, and which are prohibitively difficult to test, is not a simple matter. And engineers are fallible, even in today’s world.

    I think there are good reasons to be suspicious about the WTC collapses, especially WTC 7. But we certainly do not have proof of foul play.

    Even if the collapse started how can a lighter mass crush a heavier mass at almost free fall speed?

    The mass of the lower part is not relevant to the question of whether and how easily it could be crushed by the upper part. What matters is the strength of the lower part. And the upper part, though lighter than the lower part, was still pretty darned heavy.

    So why don’t we know how much heavier at each level was all of the way down?

    A detailed computation of the mass of the towers has been done. See Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1 (PDF) by Gregory Urich, Journal of 9/11 Studies, December 2007

    Your original comment contained a video link, which I edited out in accordance with my comment policy.

    Comment by Diane — April 26, 2008 @ 6:57 pm | Reply

  32. The strength cannot be separated from the mass. The building had to be STRONG enough to hold up its own mass. Additionally for the building to come down that fast the lower material would have to be accelerated to faster than gravitational assuming that upper material was forcing it down which is what the official story would have us believe.

    Comment by psikeyhackr — April 26, 2008 @ 11:43 pm | Reply

  33. Now here is data from Urich’s spreadsheet. It is from the column “core column steel tons”. These are the six basement levels. As far as I know the columns were 36 feet long and and each level was 12 feet high. But not only is every level different but they get lighter as you go down. Now how is that possible?

    B1 469,32
    B2 461,57
    B3 453,81
    B4 446,06
    B5 438,31
    B6 430,56

    Now if you check you will notice that each level is different by 7,75. That looks like some kind of linear interpolation with the lightest on the bottom.

    But on floors 1 thru 6 are all an identical 477,07.

    That makes absolutely no sense to me. So though I admire Urich’s effort I am inclined to be suspicious of the details and wonder how he got such weird numbers. So as far as I am concerned there is no reliable data to base an analysis upon. We can’t tell with any precision what the plane hit.

    That is reason to criticize every architectural and engineering schools in the United States. Why isn’t every engineering school in the country demanding a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC.

    Comment by psikeyhackr — April 27, 2008 @ 2:16 am | Reply

  34. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    The post linked below contains complete copies of comments originally posted here in this thread, which I’ll be deleting here. I’ve decided to confine the topic of DEW theories to a thread of its own.

    – Diane

    Pingback by “Star Wars beam” / DEW theories « New York City activist — May 3, 2008 @ 8:00 pm | Reply

  35. To realitydesign and others:

    Please post all further comments on the DEW topic in the designated new thread for that purpose, underneath my new post on that topic.

    Comment by Diane — May 3, 2008 @ 8:27 pm | Reply

  36. psikeyhackr wrote, on April 26, 2008 @ 11:43 pm:

    The strength cannot be separated from the mass.

    Of course strength and mass are directly related. But they aren’t the same thing. As you yourself pointed out here, the relationship of strength to mass varies with (among other things) an object’s size.

    The building had to be STRONG enough to hold up its own mass.

    Right. But being strong enough to hold up its mass when stationary is not the same thing as being strong enough to hold up the same mass when it is falling.

    Additionally for the building to come down that fast the lower material would have to be accelerated to faster than gravitational assuming that upper material was forcing it down which is what the official story would have us believe.

    Faster than gravitational? Where do you get that?

    psikeyhackr wrote, on April 27, 2008 @ 2:16 am:

    Now here is data from Urich’s spreadsheet. It is from the column “core column steel tons”. These are the six basement levels. As far as I know the columns were 36 feet long and and each level was 12 feet high. But not only is every level different but they get lighter as you go down. Now how is that possible?

    B1 469,32
    B2 461,57
    B3 453,81
    B4 446,06
    B5 438,31
    B6 430,56

    Now if you check you will notice that each level is different by 7,75. That looks like some kind of linear interpolation with the lightest on the bottom.

    But on floors 1 thru 6 are all an identical 477,07.

    This is indeed strange. I’ll have to ask Greg Urich about this.

    I can only guess that perhaps the columns rest on a foundation that consists of more than just steel?

    Comment by Diane — May 8, 2008 @ 4:27 pm | Reply

  37. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    Pingback by To psikeyhackr: Belated replies to comments of yours « New York City activist — May 8, 2008 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

  38. {{{ But being strong enough to hold up its mass when stationary is not the same thing as being strong enough to hold up the same mass when it is falling. }}}

    I am sitting in a folding lawn chair right now. I weigh almost 200 pounds. I am not in the least bit worried about the seat of this chair failing to hold my weight. Now if I were to get up on a ladder about 5 feet above the seat and jump onto it I wouldn’t be so confident, but the seat would STILL SLOW ME DOWN and the floor would stop me.

    The falling upper mass of the tower would have to hit level after level AFTER LEVEL of the intact tower below and every level would slow it down. And the levels would be getting stronger and heavier all of the way. It is only a question of how far down it would go. I would bet the falling portion would travel less than its own original height, 30 stories for the south tower. So there should have been a 40 story stub of the south tower still standing with a pile of debris around it.

    But it is not just a matter of the lower intact portion being crushed. The bottom of the falling mass would be crushed by the top of the intact portion. If a speeding car hits a parked car does only the parked car sustain damage? NO! The moving car gets dented and the parked car gets dented and the energy to create both dents comes from the moving car. So the falling mass would be slowed down by the energy consumed in destroying itself.

    Thought Experiment

    {{{ Faster than gravitational? Where do you get that? }}}

    In the first second of free fall an object only travels 16 feet. So if an object dropped from a height falls for 5 seconds it is traveling at 160 feet per second. If it then hits a stationary object farther down then the falling object is already traveling FASTER then gravity would cause the lower object to move. So the falling object has to break whatever is holding the stationary object in place and accelerate it at faster than gravitational speed, unless it can’t break it loose or it breaks it loose but decelerates itself. So how fast it moves depends on the energy lost in doing the breakage and the conservation of momentum.

    This is why the smaller top of the building crushing the larger and heavier portion of the building, and doing it in less than double free fall time from the top is utterly ridiculous.

    psik

    Comment by psikeyhackr — May 8, 2008 @ 11:11 pm | Reply

  39. {{{ But being strong enough to hold up its mass when stationary is not the same thing as being strong enough to hold up the same mass when it is falling. }}}

    I am sitting in a folding lawn chair right now. I weigh almost 200 pounds. I am not in the least bit worried about the seat of this chair failing to hold my weight. Now if I were to get up on a ladder about 5 feet above the seat and jump onto it I wouldn’t be so confident, but the seat would STILL SLOW ME DOWN and the floor would stop me.

    The falling upper mass of the tower would have to hit level after level AFTER LEVEL of the intact tower below and every level would slow it down. And the levels would be getting stronger and heavier all of the way. It is only a question of how far down it would go. I would bet the falling portion would travel less than its own original height, 30 stories for the south tower. So there should have been a 40 story stub of the south tower left with a pile of debris around it.

    But it is not just a matter of the lower intact portion being crushed. The bottom of the falling mass would be crushed by the top of the intact portion. If a speeding car hits a parked car does only the parked car sustain damage? NO! The moving car gets dented and the parked car gets dented and the energy to create both dents comes from the moving car. So the falling mass would be slowed down by the energy consumed in destroying itself.

    Thought Experiment

    {{{ Faster than gravitational? Where do you get that? }}}

    In the first second of free fall an object only travels 16 feet. So if an object dropped from a height falls for 3 seconds it will be moving at 96 feet per second. If it then hits a stationary object farther down then the falling object is already traveling FASTER then gravity could cause the lower object to move. So the falling object has to break whatever is holding the stationary object in place and accelerate it at faster than gravitational acceleration. Unless it can’t break it loose or breaks it loose but decelerates significantly itself. So what happens will depend on the energy required to do the breackage and the mass of the stationary object. Momentum must be conserved.

    This is why the smaller top of the building crushing the larger and heavier lower portion of the building, and doing it all in less than double free fall time from the top is utterly absurd.

    So a goal of the Truth Movement should be educating the public in simple physics. Isn’t SCIENCE supposed to be a truth movement? The question is, Why aren’t there a lot more scientists doing what they are supposed to be competent at?

    psik

    Comment by psikeyhackr — May 9, 2008 @ 6:35 pm | Reply

  40. I just now de-spammed two comments by psikeyhackr, above. Sorry about the delay in letting them through. I’ll reply later — not sure when.

    Comment by Diane — May 12, 2008 @ 1:20 am | Reply

  41. {{{ de-spammed }}}

    What does that mean? Notice my two identical posts were a day apart. I got no message saying it was received and awaiting administrator’s approval. I didn’t get that “discarded” message so I didn’t know what the story was.

    Comment by psikeyhackr — May 14, 2008 @ 6:39 pm | Reply

  42. “De-spam” means moving your comments out of the “spam” area so they can appear.

    For whatever strange reasons, your comments got classified automatically as spam, which is why they didn’t appear originally. I check the spam area approximately once every day.

    Comment by Diane — May 14, 2008 @ 7:50 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: