I'll use it if you promise not to delete shit that doesn't hew to your ideology.
That's what really sucks about the Wayback Machine.
Ever try reading articles from the aftermath of 9/11? It's a great big hole, so much stuff has been deleted.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I'm dishonest??? If that isn't the kettle calling the pot black!
As for that lie about only one Israeli dying in the WTC, that is as per The New York Times, buddy. I've excerpted the article around here somewhere. You have problems with that figure, take it up with them.
As for snipping half your post, I replied in depth to everything you said. Liar.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
There's a style of debate that sees one side cherry-pick comments to respond to, while letting substantive comments go by. I fear that this is your style.
It's not surprising that the second Post story would attempt to back off the Odigo connection. I mean, c'mon, the Washington Post reads as if it were a Mossad field office when it comes to stories about Israel... witness the chaff they put out re: the art students as reported by Salon. The original reporting was corroborated by Haaretz, after all.
And the timing of the warning isn't all that odd. Remember that Odigo's office in New York was not in the WTC per se, but rather adjacent. I could easily envision that in the final hours of the operation someone realized that the devastation would be more widespread than just the towers and belatedly attempted to contact individuals in this expanded zone.
As for why only two employees, I think I've explained that already. They were likely the only people who identified themselves as Odigo employees through the People Finder service. The message may have simply been sent to anyone advertising themselves as working for Odigo.
As for Mossad, did you read the link contained in my second reply to you? Everybody keeps regarding them as so brilliant, but I would suggest that it is due in large part to their not being kept on a leash, like so many other nations' spy agencies are. There have been many blunders, some of them quite embarrassing. Morever, your anecdotal evidence means little here, I mean, c'mon, would you accept anecdotal evidence from me?
Exactly how is the number of deaths irrelevant here? The original point was made by you maintaining that the Arab world had a history of aggression against the U.S. This is clearly false, or at least, insignificant as compared to our history of aggression towards them.
And to accuse me of being emotional about this, I mean, one could wish that everybody could get a little misty eyed as we slay a entire race of people by the millions.
TWA 800 was relevant because you claimed that it isn't possible for so many people to be involved in a cover-up, remember? I think I've adequately demonstrated that it is. The Executive Order I linked to alone is damning evidence.
As for reporters not being intimidated, how on earth do you arrive at this conclusion? Based on your personal experiences with them? Have you ever employed a reporter? The intimidation here comes from above, so unless the answer to the previous question is 'yes', I again have to regard your anecdotal evidence as worthless in this discussion.
I'm still here, so I guess I could wish for that, too.
Well, here's an idea. Let's stop this. Your previous replies were good and demonstrated an open mind, but this last one is a real about-face. You said you told your lady friend about this conversation... did you give her a URL? Is this turnabout for her benefit?
I don't need to be involved in any of the personal compromises you make to grease the wheels of courtship, thank you very much. Why not let this be the last word?
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
You have two people who got a non specific warning about something - they haven't told the press what they were warned about (that's what I'm trying to find out), and the kicker is that there was no reason to warn them.
It wasn't non-specific at all. Both the Washington Post and Haaretz report that the warning was that the WTC would be attacked.
They were not in any danger, because they were 6000 miles away when they were warned.
This is explained in a follow up story by the Post which observes that the Odigo software has "a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain interests or demographics". The person issuing the warning could've send the message to Odigo employees, thinking it would arrive at their HQ in NY.
Why warn them, and not the Israelis who traveled on those planes?
It is easier to ascertain where somebody works than it is on what flights they have reservations on. The latter is treated as confidential information by the airlines. Place of employment however is not, esp. if you have access to state records, passports, etc.
Cheering Israelis who appeared to be Mossad: To me, they appeared too stupid to be Mossad. Sorry - where I come from, undercover agents don't take pictures of each other and get arrested while dancing on their moving van. No way.
This is a stereotype in reverse, isn't it? You don't believe it's possible that Mossad could employ idiots? After all, they don't have a lot of people to choose from.
You do realize that everyone involved in that is either dead or in Depends by now, don't you?
Yes... but it establishes a precedent. That is to say, it isn't inconceivable that Israel would participate in an attack like this to gain sympathy/support/whatever. It's happened before.
1993: World Trade Center bombing 1996: Killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia 1998: East African bombings 2000: Attack on USS Cole in Yemen
The complicity of Al Qaeda is an allegation only, at this point. Do I have to list the crimes committed by the U.S. against Arabs? Should I start with our staging the coup in Iran that overthrew a democratically elected gov't in order to install the Shah whose regime is widely regarded to be brutal? Or how about the shelling of civilians in Lebanon? Our attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which we've never apologized or made reparations for? Our unflinching support/defense of Israel as they steal Palestinian land, bulldoze their homes and torture and murder their citizens? How about those sanctions against Iraq, killing ~500,000, mostly children? Or our support of Hussein as he waged war against Iran? The bombing of Libya, killing Quaddafi's little baby girl, amongst others? Even the first Gulf War reeks, what with the lies about our giving a green light to Saddam, the lies about Kuwaiti babies being ripped from their incubators, the lies about Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi Arabia border. Afghanistan.
You're talking at best 100 deaths. I'm talking upwards of a million, maybe more.
This is nonesense, and insulting nonesense at that. As I tried to explain, media owners couldn't put a lid on this story if it were true. The truth comes out.
How do you know this? With all the media conglomeration that's taking place, don't you think there comes a point when the power over all these reporters becomes so great that they can be silenced? Reporters aren't stupid, they can see which way the wind is blowing. Moreover, the control from the top needn't be explicit... go read The New York Times sometime, they manage their news very well by assigning reporters they know can be t
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I don't think you presented any evidence that implicates Israel in 9/11.
So foreknowledge of the event, as indicated by the Odigo story, counts for nothing? Granted, had it occurred without any other context, I could dismiss it as a fluke. But in combination with everything else, the way Israel was one of a few very parties standing to benefit, those Israelis who were cheering as the towers fell at least a few of which appeared to be Mossad, the way that the neocons were ready to seize upon the event to put us in Iraq, and the undisputable fact that Israel has done this to us before (the Lavon affair). I'm sorry, it's just too much to dismiss.
As for the art students, I don't especially find that compelling either, but the part where Israelis were seen to be in close proximity to the alleged hijackers is compelling. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
Israel has no reasonable motive, there's no evidence, and there's a much more likely suspect with a history of aggression towards the US.
Excuse me, but who are you kidding? Of course Israel has a motive! If Israel continues on its present course, it is necessarily going to be at war with the entire Arab world. Having the U.S. wage that war as a proxy is a very good thing for Israel.
And as for history of aggression towards the U.S., I'm afraid you have it backwards. The U.S. has a history of aggression towards the Arab world, and Israel has a history of antagonizing the relations between the two (again, see the Lavon affair.)
Conspiracy theories usually fail what I call the "Big Secret" test, which I outlined in my previous post in this thread.
Just out of curiousity, where are you on TWA 800? Do you believe that was a conspiracy theory too? If you're not acquainted with the specifics I'm sure you will dismiss it out of hand, however, I would point to that as an example that contradicts your assertion that a large group of people cannot be made to hold a secret. Perhaps it was that way when you were in the military (as you seem to suggest), but I would submit that they've gotten very good at it. Reply if you want more specifics on this.
One last word on media follow-up: I believe the main reason there wasn't any was that nobody was able to uncover any new information, and the media, unlike conspiracy web sites, doesn't like to publish warmed over old stories.
It couldn't be because much if not most of the media in the U.S. is owned or controlled by Jews, could it? ABC is owned by Disney whose CEO is Jewish, NBC's President in charge of news is Jewish, CBS is owned by Viacom whose chairman is Jewish, The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are all owned by Jews. Not suggesting a conspiracy here, only that a person of Jewish faith is naturally going to be defensive of their perceived homeland.
How else would you explain the almost fawning coverage this administration has received as it has waged war in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the many lies that been revealed to have been told? Our entry into Iraq for instance has done nothing to make America safer. Israel, however, has benefitted greatly.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
...no more demonstrates foreknowledge than all those psychics who claim to have predicted 9/11.
Did any of those psychics predict 9/11 before the event? No. Did Odigo get the warning before the event? Yes. Or are you calling them liars?
It also doesn't make sense - why would the conspirators warn someone four blocks from the WTC, but not those in the WTC?
How do we know they didn't? Did you catch the part where only one Israeli died in the towers that day? What's intriguing about this is that he was only visiting, i.e., it may not have been possible to warn him.
If you think the evidence is so good, why don't you take it to court yourself?
Some of the families are doing just that, and though while not specifically focused on the Israeli angle, they are nonetheless after the truth.
The real problem is that conspiracy junkies like you just can't cope with the messiness and complexity of real politics and real history.
I would say that the real problem we all face is with submissives like yourself, who obediently pledge allegience to anyone who holds power, regardless of the consequences to your family or your country.
How you can dismiss any theory about 9/11 when the official story is so fantastic and so wanting for evidence, and put forward by people who have been shown to have lied repeatedly, and who have their own motives for seeing history recorded in exactly the way it is, is shocking.
the Lavon affair
Oh my. So you do acknowledge that the Israelis have done something like this before.
Interesting.
We have precedent, opportunity, an advantage to be gained and all kinds of evidence demonstrating foreknowledge of the event, and yet you want to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory. It's a pity you won't reveal your real identity, because I have to tell you, I would never want you as my attorney.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
And if the tape truly is genuine, then why won't any government/mainstream media website host it?
You do realize that it is extremely easy using today's technology to fabricate such evidence, do you not?
You do realize that our government has lied repeatedly about other aspects of our war in Iraq/Afghanistan, yes?
So what makes you think that this isn't a lie as well?
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
There is also an assumption held by most US conspiracy theorist that if any of the conspirators were Jewish, then it must be a Jewish conspiracy. This is also demonstrably untrue...
Of course it is untrue. And neither was it ever alleged here.
But, if it gives you something you can refute...
There is also a possibility that these alleghations are being used as an intentional distraction to prevent 9-11 conspiracy investigators from looking at possibly more easily confirmable evidence implicating, either through negligence or by intent, involvement by members of our own intelligence services and/or Bush administration advisors.
This I agree with wholeheartedly. I only pointed out that there is evidence implicating Israel, not that it is conclusive, and certainly not that it points to Israel acting alone. As nasty as Mossad is reputed to be, I have to believe it is still beyond their capability to order NORAD to stand down, as appears was done that day.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Just to draw the U.S. into a war against Arab countries in the region in a warped attempt to "enhance" Israel's security or get back at its enemies?
LOL. Yeah. Just that.
(that isn't enuf?)
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
BTW, in case you haven't seen them yet, here are two more excellent links which go further:
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for an excellent reply.
There are a couple of points I could rebut, but I agree with you on the major points. It should be stressed that I don't know what to believe with regards to 9/11. I am equally capable of entertaining the idea that a bunch of Afghanis plotted this attack while sitting in a cave as I am the notion that these planes were electronically hijacked and crashed into the building via remote control. The implausibility of the official story, combined with the administration's determined efforts to see that no investigation into what happened be brought forth, have caused me to have as open a mind on this question as any.
Please refer to my original comment on this. It was only to point out that evidence implicating Israel exists. I've never claimed that I believe that they did it. Indeed, I can't believe that they could've done it alone, since that would involve their ordering NORAD to stand down that day, and I have to believe that is beyond even Mossad's capability.
The story is about heresy. And whether or not you believe Israel had a role in 9/11, you have to admit--as you seem to--that there is evidence there, evidence that should be followed up. Not conclusive evidence by any means, but then, look at the standard of evidence we used to justify bombing Afghanistan and Iraq, murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process.
If the mainstream media had given these stories anything more than the scantest follow-up, I am sure I wouldn't be making an issue of this. But they haven't.
So here we are.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
1) It isn't just that Israel spies on the U.S., but rather that a) Israeli spies were discovered in the immediate proximity of the alleged hijackers, and b) discovered to be celebrating as the towers fell.
2) The Haaretz article maintains that the warning was specifically about the WTC. Furthermore, there are always potentially dangerous terrorist situations in Israel. That's what happens when you steal people's land, bulldoze their homes, and kill and torture their citizens.
3) The one Israeli was only visiting, furthermore, some of the businesses located in the WTC are Israeli owned, so it is reasonable to infer there should have been more Israelis in the building. An interesting contrast, a nation like Jamaica had over twenty.
4) Not unsubstantiated at all. The Israelis effectively admitted to such behavior. Moreover, at least some of these individuals were Israeli spies. You can dismiss that if you want, but don't expect any of us to.
I could probably cherry-pick a few articles from the mainstream media to make it look like the Canadian government planned the attacks.
Then do it. You can't of course, because there isn't any information implicating Canada whatsoever. Moreover, Canada did not stand to gain from 9/11. Israel certainly did. Moreover, Canada has never attacked U.S. forces, clandestinely or otherwise, in a bid to influence our foreign policy. Israel has. Moreover, pro-Canadian citizens occupying the White House/the Pentagon/etc. were not poised to exploit 9/11 for the advantage of Canada. Pro-Israeli/Zionist citizens here in the U.S. were (neocons).
That wouldn't make me any better informed than you seem to be.
Excuse me, but you don't appear to be informed at all.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
You believe that the state shouldn't be involved when a woman kills her unborn baby, do you not?
As despicable an act it is, neither do I.
So what's the difference between that and the state intruding in a family's business?
The issue is government power. Let government aggregate power at will and the harms produced will far outweigh the harms we experience by keeping it in check. Yes?
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Haaretz is one of the biggest newspapers in Israel.
As for getting the exact number of Israeli citizens who worked in the WTC, I am open to suggestions as to how to do that. I have read many references to many Israelis having worked in the buildings, indeed, many of the businesses located within were Israeli owned, however, I can no longer locate the one reference claiming that there were ~1000 Israelis working in the building on any given day. There is a lot of confusion between Israeli and Jew in this matter, some of it intentional, and this number may be affected by that.
If the media weren't so afraid of appearing as anti-Semitic (many if not most major media outlets in this country appear to be controlled if not owned outright by Jews) then perhaps this story might have been investigated. Perhaps if it had been investigated, facts would come to light that would serve to dismiss or confirm the suspicions many have with regards to Israel's involvement. Perhaps it was nothing more than Israel learning of the attack, warning Washington, and when those warnings went unheeded, warning their own citizens. If so, that is entirely reasonable behavior on the part of Israel. But it may not be that simple. The flip side of the coin may be that Israel actually orchestrated the attack, at least in part. Either way, we need to know.
My original statement which started this whole thread did not accuse Israel of anything. It only pointed out that evidence existed that implicates Israel. The reaction has been highly ironic, especially when you consider the story this thread appears under.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
As I've pointed out elsewhere here, many people, including myself, do not believe the bin Laden tape to be genuine. I've posted a link or two in this thread that demonstrates why I believe this, but to summarize, the man who appears in that part of the video where bin Laden is alleged to have accepted responsibility is clearly not bin Laden, moreover, if the tape really were genuine, the White House or the mainstream media would continue to make it available to the public (after all, if it's the only proof you have, you should want people to be able to see it, yes?)
The Haaretz/Washington Post article is a smoking gun. For someone to announce that they were warned in advance of the attack is very important piece of evidence. I am sorry if your bias does not permit you to accept that. Both papers are reputable, and more to the point, highly sympathetic to Israeli concerns.
I might also point out that having read your other posts here on/. it is pretty apparent that you are mentally confused individual. I don't doubt that you struggle with issues of reality and fantasy on a daily basis.
Please do not take offense at my putting you on my foe list. It is not that I consider you an adversary in any sense of the word, but rather, a reminder to myself not to further engage with someone whose mental state is so fragile.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I see. Perhaps you could enlighten us all to what would constitute proof in your eyes?
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Monkey, you're the one who comes out of the tree throwing this anti-Semite feces all around, OK?
If you're going to dish this kind of shit out, best learn to accept same in reply.
And I love the way you ducked the Lavon affair for the second time in a row.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say, then just shut the fuck up. Thank you!
Re:Please mod this flamebait...
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Why would the Israelis participate in terrorism against the U.S.? It doesn't add up.
Under Rabin, probably not. But under Sharon? Absolutely it makes sense. Sharon has set a course for Israel that necessarily requires many if not most (or all) Arabs in the region to die. With its 200+ nukes, Israel could of course effect this unilaterally, but the retribution would probably destroy the nation. However, roping the U.S. in to do the bulk of the fighting for them, and using conventional arms, achieves their aims without spilling Israeli blood and without bearing the brunt of international criticism.
It makes perfect sense, if you're a madman, and that's what Sharon is.
As for it being hate speech, I hate to tell you, but that strawman hasn't scored for a long time now, particularly when used to defend Israel, which, after all, actually carries out hate by killing and torturing innocent Palestinians and stealing their homes and land. That's hate. Speaking out against such action is not.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hmmm, well then why not read the Haaretz story that I also linked to, which does reference the WTC.
The number of Israelis killed was in the excerpt I included from The New York Times.
Israelis are a pretty paranoid group of people, perhaps justifiably so, and so if it were seen as jeopardizing their situation I could easily see their keeping their mouths shut about this. Besides, all 1,000 (if that's the number) wouldn't need to be in on it. A supervisor or two or three could summarily order everyone to stay home without mentioning why.
Again, as I've stressed elsewhere, I don't see this as conclusive evidence. I do however see that there is more evidence implicating Israel than there is bin Laden. That's all.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
It's not anti-Semitism, but thanks for showing us all who it is that really hates here.
And for what it's worth, I do suspect that many Zionists were complicit, not just Israelis... Robertson, Falwell, Bush, and obviously Wolfowitz are all clearly Zionists. Please read what I said again. I only mention that there is evidence implicating Israel, not that Israel is solely responsible for 9/11. For instance, I can't for the life of me imagine that they would be able to infiltrate NORAD and have them stand down the way they did that morning.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll use it if you promise not to delete shit that doesn't hew to your ideology.
That's what really sucks about the Wayback Machine.
Ever try reading articles from the aftermath of 9/11? It's a great big hole, so much stuff has been deleted.
I'm dishonest??? If that isn't the kettle calling the pot black!
As for that lie about only one Israeli dying in the WTC, that is as per The New York Times, buddy. I've excerpted the article around here somewhere. You have problems with that figure, take it up with them.
As for snipping half your post, I replied in depth to everything you said. Liar.
There's a style of debate that sees one side cherry-pick comments to respond to, while letting substantive comments go by. I fear that this is your style.
It's not surprising that the second Post story would attempt to back off the Odigo connection. I mean, c'mon, the Washington Post reads as if it were a Mossad field office when it comes to stories about Israel... witness the chaff they put out re: the art students as reported by Salon. The original reporting was corroborated by Haaretz, after all.
And the timing of the warning isn't all that odd. Remember that Odigo's office in New York was not in the WTC per se, but rather adjacent. I could easily envision that in the final hours of the operation someone realized that the devastation would be more widespread than just the towers and belatedly attempted to contact individuals in this expanded zone.
As for why only two employees, I think I've explained that already. They were likely the only people who identified themselves as Odigo employees through the People Finder service. The message may have simply been sent to anyone advertising themselves as working for Odigo.
As for Mossad, did you read the link contained in my second reply to you? Everybody keeps regarding them as so brilliant, but I would suggest that it is due in large part to their not being kept on a leash, like so many other nations' spy agencies are. There have been many blunders, some of them quite embarrassing. Morever, your anecdotal evidence means little here, I mean, c'mon, would you accept anecdotal evidence from me?
Exactly how is the number of deaths irrelevant here? The original point was made by you maintaining that the Arab world had a history of aggression against the U.S. This is clearly false, or at least, insignificant as compared to our history of aggression towards them.
And to accuse me of being emotional about this, I mean, one could wish that everybody could get a little misty eyed as we slay a entire race of people by the millions.
TWA 800 was relevant because you claimed that it isn't possible for so many people to be involved in a cover-up, remember? I think I've adequately demonstrated that it is. The Executive Order I linked to alone is damning evidence.
As for reporters not being intimidated, how on earth do you arrive at this conclusion? Based on your personal experiences with them? Have you ever employed a reporter? The intimidation here comes from above, so unless the answer to the previous question is 'yes', I again have to regard your anecdotal evidence as worthless in this discussion.
I'm still here, so I guess I could wish for that, too.
Well, here's an idea. Let's stop this. Your previous replies were good and demonstrated an open mind, but this last one is a real about-face. You said you told your lady friend about this conversation... did you give her a URL? Is this turnabout for her benefit?
I don't need to be involved in any of the personal compromises you make to grease the wheels of courtship, thank you very much. Why not let this be the last word?
Here's another excellent link.
You have two people who got a non specific warning about something - they haven't told the press what they were warned about (that's what I'm trying to find out), and the kicker is that there was no reason to warn them.
It wasn't non-specific at all. Both the Washington Post and Haaretz report that the warning was that the WTC would be attacked.
They were not in any danger, because they were 6000 miles away when they were warned.
This is explained in a follow up story by the Post which observes that the Odigo software has "a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain interests or demographics". The person issuing the warning could've send the message to Odigo employees, thinking it would arrive at their HQ in NY.
Why warn them, and not the Israelis who traveled on those planes?
It is easier to ascertain where somebody works than it is on what flights they have reservations on. The latter is treated as confidential information by the airlines. Place of employment however is not, esp. if you have access to state records, passports, etc.
Cheering Israelis who appeared to be Mossad: To me, they appeared too stupid to be Mossad. Sorry - where I come from, undercover agents don't take pictures of each other and get arrested while dancing on their moving van. No way.
This is a stereotype in reverse, isn't it? You don't believe it's possible that Mossad could employ idiots? After all, they don't have a lot of people to choose from.
You do realize that everyone involved in that is either dead or in Depends by now, don't you?
Yes... but it establishes a precedent. That is to say, it isn't inconceivable that Israel would participate in an attack like this to gain sympathy/support/whatever. It's happened before.
1993: World Trade Center bombing
1996: Killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia
1998: East African bombings
2000: Attack on USS Cole in Yemen
The complicity of Al Qaeda is an allegation only, at this point. Do I have to list the crimes committed by the U.S. against Arabs? Should I start with our staging the coup in Iran that overthrew a democratically elected gov't in order to install the Shah whose regime is widely regarded to be brutal? Or how about the shelling of civilians in Lebanon? Our attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which we've never apologized or made reparations for? Our unflinching support/defense of Israel as they steal Palestinian land, bulldoze their homes and torture and murder their citizens? How about those sanctions against Iraq, killing ~500,000, mostly children? Or our support of Hussein as he waged war against Iran? The bombing of Libya, killing Quaddafi's little baby girl, amongst others? Even the first Gulf War reeks, what with the lies about our giving a green light to Saddam, the lies about Kuwaiti babies being ripped from their incubators, the lies about Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi Arabia border. Afghanistan.
You're talking at best 100 deaths. I'm talking upwards of a million, maybe more.
This is nonesense, and insulting nonesense at that. As I tried to explain, media owners couldn't put a lid on this story if it were true. The truth comes out.
How do you know this? With all the media conglomeration that's taking place, don't you think there comes a point when the power over all these reporters becomes so great that they can be silenced? Reporters aren't stupid, they can see which way the wind is blowing. Moreover, the control from the top needn't be explicit... go read The New York Times sometime, they manage their news very well by assigning reporters they know can be t
I don't think you presented any evidence that implicates Israel in 9/11.
So foreknowledge of the event, as indicated by the Odigo story, counts for nothing? Granted, had it occurred without any other context, I could dismiss it as a fluke. But in combination with everything else, the way Israel was one of a few very parties standing to benefit, those Israelis who were cheering as the towers fell at least a few of which appeared to be Mossad, the way that the neocons were ready to seize upon the event to put us in Iraq, and the undisputable fact that Israel has done this to us before (the Lavon affair). I'm sorry, it's just too much to dismiss.
As for the art students, I don't especially find that compelling either, but the part where Israelis were seen to be in close proximity to the alleged hijackers is compelling. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
Israel has no reasonable motive, there's no evidence, and there's a much more likely suspect with a history of aggression towards the US.
Excuse me, but who are you kidding? Of course Israel has a motive! If Israel continues on its present course, it is necessarily going to be at war with the entire Arab world. Having the U.S. wage that war as a proxy is a very good thing for Israel.
And as for history of aggression towards the U.S., I'm afraid you have it backwards. The U.S. has a history of aggression towards the Arab world, and Israel has a history of antagonizing the relations between the two (again, see the Lavon affair.)
Conspiracy theories usually fail what I call the "Big Secret" test, which I outlined in my previous post in this thread.
Just out of curiousity, where are you on TWA 800? Do you believe that was a conspiracy theory too? If you're not acquainted with the specifics I'm sure you will dismiss it out of hand, however, I would point to that as an example that contradicts your assertion that a large group of people cannot be made to hold a secret. Perhaps it was that way when you were in the military (as you seem to suggest), but I would submit that they've gotten very good at it. Reply if you want more specifics on this.
One last word on media follow-up: I believe the main reason there wasn't any was that nobody was able to uncover any new information, and the media, unlike conspiracy web sites, doesn't like to publish warmed over old stories.
It couldn't be because much if not most of the media in the U.S. is owned or controlled by Jews, could it? ABC is owned by Disney whose CEO is Jewish, NBC's President in charge of news is Jewish, CBS is owned by Viacom whose chairman is Jewish, The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are all owned by Jews. Not suggesting a conspiracy here, only that a person of Jewish faith is naturally going to be defensive of their perceived homeland.
How else would you explain the almost fawning coverage this administration has received as it has waged war in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the many lies that been revealed to have been told? Our entry into Iraq for instance has done nothing to make America safer. Israel, however, has benefitted greatly.
...no more demonstrates foreknowledge than all those psychics who claim to have predicted 9/11.
Did any of those psychics predict 9/11 before the event? No. Did Odigo get the warning before the event? Yes. Or are you calling them liars?
It also doesn't make sense - why would the conspirators warn someone four blocks from the WTC, but not those in the WTC?
How do we know they didn't? Did you catch the part where only one Israeli died in the towers that day? What's intriguing about this is that he was only visiting, i.e., it may not have been possible to warn him.
If you think the evidence is so good, why don't you take it to court yourself?
Some of the families are doing just that, and though while not specifically focused on the Israeli angle, they are nonetheless after the truth.
The real problem is that conspiracy junkies like you just can't cope with the messiness and complexity of real politics and real history.
I would say that the real problem we all face is with submissives like yourself, who obediently pledge allegience to anyone who holds power, regardless of the consequences to your family or your country.
How you can dismiss any theory about 9/11 when the official story is so fantastic and so wanting for evidence, and put forward by people who have been shown to have lied repeatedly, and who have their own motives for seeing history recorded in exactly the way it is, is shocking.
the Lavon affair
Oh my. So you do acknowledge that the Israelis have done something like this before.
Interesting.
We have precedent, opportunity, an advantage to be gained and all kinds of evidence demonstrating foreknowledge of the event, and yet you want to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory. It's a pity you won't reveal your real identity, because I have to tell you, I would never want you as my attorney.
Not true. Both the original Washington Post story and the Haaretz story both talk about the warning specifically referencing the WTC.
They start out crying conspiracy theory, but when presented with the facts, they do tend to grow quiet, don't they?
If you are really a lawyer, then you would understand the importance of evidence demonstrating foreknowledge of a criminal act.
In a court of law, I'd have you convicted on this "feeble" evidence.
But if you're one of those USS Liberty conspiracy freaks, rationality is probably wasted on you.
There are a lot of us, you know. And the number is growing every day.
But hey, why no comment about the Lavon affair? Is that another crazy conspiracy theory too?
Excuse me, but did bin Laden really admit this?
How do you know the tape wasn't faked?
Have you seen this?
Does that really look like Osama bin Laden?
And if the tape truly is genuine, then why won't any government/mainstream media website host it?
You do realize that it is extremely easy using today's technology to fabricate such evidence, do you not?
You do realize that our government has lied repeatedly about other aspects of our war in Iraq/Afghanistan, yes?
So what makes you think that this isn't a lie as well?
There is also an assumption held by most US conspiracy theorist that if any of the conspirators were Jewish, then it must be a Jewish conspiracy. This is also demonstrably untrue...
Of course it is untrue. And neither was it ever alleged here.
But, if it gives you something you can refute...
There is also a possibility that these alleghations are being used as an intentional distraction to prevent 9-11 conspiracy investigators from looking at possibly more easily confirmable evidence implicating, either through negligence or by intent, involvement by members of our own intelligence services and/or Bush administration advisors.
This I agree with wholeheartedly. I only pointed out that there is evidence implicating Israel, not that it is conclusive, and certainly not that it points to Israel acting alone. As nasty as Mossad is reputed to be, I have to believe it is still beyond their capability to order NORAD to stand down, as appears was done that day.
Just to draw the U.S. into a war against Arab countries in the region in a warped attempt to "enhance" Israel's security or get back at its enemies?
LOL. Yeah. Just that.
(that isn't enuf?)
BTW, in case you haven't seen them yet, here are two more excellent links which go further:
. html
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j030802.html
Thank you for an excellent reply.
There are a couple of points I could rebut, but I agree with you on the major points. It should be stressed that I don't know what to believe with regards to 9/11. I am equally capable of entertaining the idea that a bunch of Afghanis plotted this attack while sitting in a cave as I am the notion that these planes were electronically hijacked and crashed into the building via remote control. The implausibility of the official story, combined with the administration's determined efforts to see that no investigation into what happened be brought forth, have caused me to have as open a mind on this question as any.
Please refer to my original comment on this. It was only to point out that evidence implicating Israel exists. I've never claimed that I believe that they did it. Indeed, I can't believe that they could've done it alone, since that would involve their ordering NORAD to stand down that day, and I have to believe that is beyond even Mossad's capability.
The story is about heresy. And whether or not you believe Israel had a role in 9/11, you have to admit--as you seem to--that there is evidence there, evidence that should be followed up. Not conclusive evidence by any means, but then, look at the standard of evidence we used to justify bombing Afghanistan and Iraq, murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process.
If the mainstream media had given these stories anything more than the scantest follow-up, I am sure I wouldn't be making an issue of this. But they haven't.
So here we are.
1) It isn't just that Israel spies on the U.S., but rather that a) Israeli spies were discovered in the immediate proximity of the alleged hijackers, and b) discovered to be celebrating as the towers fell.
2) The Haaretz article maintains that the warning was specifically about the WTC. Furthermore, there are always potentially dangerous terrorist situations in Israel. That's what happens when you steal people's land, bulldoze their homes, and kill and torture their citizens.
3) The one Israeli was only visiting, furthermore, some of the businesses located in the WTC are Israeli owned, so it is reasonable to infer there should have been more Israelis in the building. An interesting contrast, a nation like Jamaica had over twenty.
4) Not unsubstantiated at all. The Israelis effectively admitted to such behavior. Moreover, at least some of these individuals were Israeli spies. You can dismiss that if you want, but don't expect any of us to.
I could probably cherry-pick a few articles from the mainstream media to make it look like the Canadian government planned the attacks.
Then do it. You can't of course, because there isn't any information implicating Canada whatsoever. Moreover, Canada did not stand to gain from 9/11. Israel certainly did. Moreover, Canada has never attacked U.S. forces, clandestinely or otherwise, in a bid to influence our foreign policy. Israel has. Moreover, pro-Canadian citizens occupying the White House/the Pentagon/etc. were not poised to exploit 9/11 for the advantage of Canada. Pro-Israeli/Zionist citizens here in the U.S. were (neocons).
That wouldn't make me any better informed than you seem to be.
Excuse me, but you don't appear to be informed at all.
You believe that the state shouldn't be involved when a woman kills her unborn baby, do you not?
As despicable an act it is, neither do I.
So what's the difference between that and the state intruding in a family's business?
The issue is government power. Let government aggregate power at will and the harms produced will far outweigh the harms we experience by keeping it in check. Yes?
Haaretz is one of the biggest newspapers in Israel.
As for getting the exact number of Israeli citizens who worked in the WTC, I am open to suggestions as to how to do that. I have read many references to many Israelis having worked in the buildings, indeed, many of the businesses located within were Israeli owned, however, I can no longer locate the one reference claiming that there were ~1000 Israelis working in the building on any given day. There is a lot of confusion between Israeli and Jew in this matter, some of it intentional, and this number may be affected by that.
If the media weren't so afraid of appearing as anti-Semitic (many if not most major media outlets in this country appear to be controlled if not owned outright by Jews) then perhaps this story might have been investigated. Perhaps if it had been investigated, facts would come to light that would serve to dismiss or confirm the suspicions many have with regards to Israel's involvement. Perhaps it was nothing more than Israel learning of the attack, warning Washington, and when those warnings went unheeded, warning their own citizens. If so, that is entirely reasonable behavior on the part of Israel. But it may not be that simple. The flip side of the coin may be that Israel actually orchestrated the attack, at least in part. Either way, we need to know.
My original statement which started this whole thread did not accuse Israel of anything. It only pointed out that evidence existed that implicates Israel. The reaction has been highly ironic, especially when you consider the story this thread appears under.
As I've pointed out elsewhere here, many people, including myself, do not believe the bin Laden tape to be genuine. I've posted a link or two in this thread that demonstrates why I believe this, but to summarize, the man who appears in that part of the video where bin Laden is alleged to have accepted responsibility is clearly not bin Laden, moreover, if the tape really were genuine, the White House or the mainstream media would continue to make it available to the public (after all, if it's the only proof you have, you should want people to be able to see it, yes?)
/. it is pretty apparent that you are mentally confused individual. I don't doubt that you struggle with issues of reality and fantasy on a daily basis.
The Haaretz/Washington Post article is a smoking gun. For someone to announce that they were warned in advance of the attack is very important piece of evidence. I am sorry if your bias does not permit you to accept that. Both papers are reputable, and more to the point, highly sympathetic to Israeli concerns.
I might also point out that having read your other posts here on
Please do not take offense at my putting you on my foe list. It is not that I consider you an adversary in any sense of the word, but rather, a reminder to myself not to further engage with someone whose mental state is so fragile.
I see. Perhaps you could enlighten us all to what would constitute proof in your eyes?
Monkey, you're the one who comes out of the tree throwing this anti-Semite feces all around, OK?
If you're going to dish this kind of shit out, best learn to accept same in reply.
And I love the way you ducked the Lavon affair for the second time in a row.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say, then just shut the fuck up. Thank you!
Why would the Israelis participate in terrorism against the U.S.? It doesn't add up.
Under Rabin, probably not. But under Sharon? Absolutely it makes sense. Sharon has set a course for Israel that necessarily requires many if not most (or all) Arabs in the region to die. With its 200+ nukes, Israel could of course effect this unilaterally, but the retribution would probably destroy the nation. However, roping the U.S. in to do the bulk of the fighting for them, and using conventional arms, achieves their aims without spilling Israeli blood and without bearing the brunt of international criticism.
It makes perfect sense, if you're a madman, and that's what Sharon is.
As for it being hate speech, I hate to tell you, but that strawman hasn't scored for a long time now, particularly when used to defend Israel, which, after all, actually carries out hate by killing and torturing innocent Palestinians and stealing their homes and land. That's hate. Speaking out against such action is not.
OK, then how about Haaretz?
Hmmm, well then why not read the Haaretz story that I also linked to, which does reference the WTC.
The number of Israelis killed was in the excerpt I included from The New York Times.
Israelis are a pretty paranoid group of people, perhaps justifiably so, and so if it were seen as jeopardizing their situation I could easily see their keeping their mouths shut about this. Besides, all 1,000 (if that's the number) wouldn't need to be in on it. A supervisor or two or three could summarily order everyone to stay home without mentioning why.
Again, as I've stressed elsewhere, I don't see this as conclusive evidence. I do however see that there is more evidence implicating Israel than there is bin Laden. That's all.
Independent verification of the Post story.
It's not anti-Semitism, but thanks for showing us all who it is that really hates here.
And for what it's worth, I do suspect that many Zionists were complicit, not just Israelis... Robertson, Falwell, Bush, and obviously Wolfowitz are all clearly Zionists. Please read what I said again. I only mention that there is evidence implicating Israel, not that Israel is solely responsible for 9/11. For instance, I can't for the life of me imagine that they would be able to infiltrate NORAD and have them stand down the way they did that morning.