Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
In fact, I would recommend the entire 'Hard Facts' website presented as a high quality and well written book in 26 chapters, covering in detail most or all of the objections of the pseudosceptics here:
There is a whole matrix of information pointing to U.S. Government involvement in the planning and execution of September 11th. From the ominous writings of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), to the scores of so-called 'intelligence breakdowns', to the lack of military response and the comprehensive dismissal of standard operating procedures in reaction to a declared emergency, to the bizarre collapse of WTC 7, to the freefall speed and explosive collapse of the Towers, to the miraculous aeronautical maneuvering of the jets, to Dick Cheney's suspicious behavior in the underground bunker, and on and on. The incriminating data is there, and has been presented at length in this paper. The only thing keeping the truth about 9/11 from emerging is our collective desire to continue to spin the fairy tale we have been fed.
9/11 is a highly emotional subject. And people react to it in a highly emotional way. If all we have read and/or seen about September 11 are the images fed to us by the mass-media, and all we know about the story that those images tell is the framing of the events offered by the U.S. Government, then it is perhaps reasonable to think that 19 Arabs, under the direction of a crazed lunatic in a cave in the Middle East, used box cutters and guile to thwart a multi-trillion dollar defense apparatus. But any thorough consideration and investigation into the hard facts of 9/11 will unearth evidence that makes the 19 Arab hijacker narrative a wholly unreasonable consideration. But even so, this highly emotional subject proves difficult to discuss rationally and seriously. There seems to be some kind of emotional investment we have in believing what we have been told by our 'leaders', by the people in positions of authority over us. Or, perhaps, we do not have the emotional fortitude to bear the implications of being lied to and duped so easily and horrifically.
All of us - individuals and nations - have fictitious myths that we create, believe, and weave our identities into. We have all invented some aspect of ourselves, or the world, that we desperately want to believe, often despite ample evidence pointing to the absurdity and falseness of the created myth. This myth creation is some kind of defensive mechanism, used to evoke a sense of security in an insecure world, utilized to invoke a sense of personal worth in an often brutal and uncaring world. And while the psychology behind this myth making is an interesting and worthy topic for another essay, the principal subject of this paper is the fact that we have dramatically animated and amplified one of these myths. And it has metastasized into an out of control force that is wreaking havoc in our own country, and across the globe.
Unfortunately, the actual facts, context, and details of what it was that truly took place that day have been swallowed by the force and momentum of what is now perhaps the largest American myth that exists; i.e. the story that 19 Arab hijackers, under the exclusive direction of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and fueled by a religiously driven fundamental hatred and jealousy of American values, blind-sided and plunged an unforeseen dagger into the heart of American democracy, freedom, and innocence.
For me, it only takes one gross error in a story to know that the entire story is probably just as unreliable. This paragraph being one of those that either shows the ignorance of the writer or shows the author is being deceiptful. Either way, there's no use in reviewing the rest of the story as this paragraph sums up the ineptitude...for me at least...
I would give an explanation, but as I've already pointed out, CTers prefer to bombard the reader with a flury of posts in an attempt to discredit reality. If one needs a reply on the above paragraph, think land vs sea, think intercept orders, and think actual response times...
I'm not even going to get into the US being fascist thing, but I'm sure you can find better people to quote then Hitler - and the way you did so gave the impression you put him in a favourable light.
You've made statements about Israel being behind 911 and you've quoted Mein Kampf. I agreet that it's possible to make such comments without being an anti-semite or Hitler supporter but I will ask you outright: are you an anti-semite and do you support Hitler's racial views?
I have an extensive academic background, though even in my political science/history degree I never came across that quote (well, except I suppose when I read Mein Kampft for a paper). I suppose its possible that non-racist academics would site him in arguments, and certainly academics have studied Hitler directly (I wrote a paper or two on him myself). But in casual conversation when someone quotes Hitler approvingly it gives rise to questions. Now, reading your follow-up post it seems you might have been doing so in order to cast aspersions on the US - but the manner in which you wrote it didn't make that clear the first time.
Well, I don't think the government should prevent you from approvingly citing Hitler, but neither would I want to regularly converse with a jew-hating Hitler fan. Again, not saying that you are but the anti-Israel comment then the Hitler quote raised red flags for me.
Sorry, but I am resisting the temptation to call you a fool outright. I did not 'quote Hitler in a favourable light', that is entirely your subjective and personal intepretation, and one that cannot possibly be made from the reference I made to similar circumstances in European history. It is adversely comparing the US to the extremely unpleasant Nazi regime of the 1930s to a more educated reader, but I note you didn't get it and have chosen to interpret it in an entirely different way. I question your 'extensive academic background and political science/history degree', because you show very little awareness of academic convention or historical or political insight for that matter. I am citing the people who have been held up by many as being involved due to a trail of evidence as the managers of the affected infrastructure, as being arrested in events on the day under suspicious circumstances, and as primary beneficiaries. I'm sorry there are many neo-Nazis in your country to set off red flags, that problem fortunately does not exist here meaningfully. I have an academic background in pol sci and have cited the most relevant quote to the problem you have. I have already said above I am personally completely anti-fascistic, and pointed out that is the problem your country now faces. I perhaps could have thought that certain people who are not used to academic quoting and citing might get the wrong idea by the juxtaposition of a quote and the evidence, but that is an entirely spurious connection to make. I would point out academically also that the entire Arabic population is also Semitic in origin, but observations like that are often lost on ordinary folk. Some people like to conflate concerns about how the nation state of Israel was created and how it conducts itself with European 'anti-semitism', such people usually conflate these things on purpose in order to deflect scrutiny of the actions of the nation state. I have many pro-Israel friends and I am deeply unhappy about the events of the day and the likely machinations behind it, and it leaves me in deep disquiet. I would personally like everyone in the world to be able to get on in a peaceful and harmonious way, but the actions of the Bush govt in this scandal were designed to preclude that kind of peaceful world. It would have been better if it never happened, as it exposes a rather seamy underbelly to geopolitics, governmentality and the government-business nexus. The theories are all out there in black and white, and personal attacks will not serve to change the evidence. I don't owe you or anyone any further explanation than that, although I may choose to comment further. Please keep your unpleasant racist aspersions to yourself in future. If you think that you can't, I will notify your posts to the administrators to decide how to deal with them.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 29 Sep 2012, 05:44, edited 2 times in total.
Where's the gross error? Oh, no real explanation, just like the other times. The author on the website goes on at great length to point out how Rumsfeld for no good operational reason suddenly changed the protocols in June 2001 to require the approval of his office for any interception or shoot downs. That sets off alarms for me, somewhat like the clauses written into the WTC insurance contracts about terrorist attack only 6 weeks beforehand, apparently not for you. It's clear the NORAD exercises and FAA response and protocols indicate that the normal timely responses were being tampered with. The author does floridly labour the level of protection that the US should be capable of vs its apparent bungling and complete incompetence on the day. For you to dismiss 'the entire website', author and arguments being made on the strength of one sentence you object to for no good reason indicates once again that you have other agendas here.
That way, you don't have to read about further verifiable evidence about WTC security and access to the floors which was contested on an uninformed and pseudosceptic basis earlier in the thread:
Guys, I've got to say SydneyPSIder has done his homework. I agree with much of his research and analysis. I do not think SydneyPSIder is being unreasonable and that he is trying to explore what so few people will talk about. Just my two cents, guys.
Why in the world would you think he's done his homework ? Isn't it likely the sites and people he's quoting are as misguided as he is in their fabricated narrative to fit a pre-existing worldview they all seem to have in common. Surely you must be watching the current news and are aware of the recent violent demonstrations against America by a small percentage of Muslims over a recent short film posted on YouTube and over the course of the last 11 years all of the death to America rhetoric by the leaders of Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists. Why is it so damned hard for a few to realize there are some Muslims that hate America; hate it enough to carry out a terror plot ? Conversely why is it so much easier to believe 9/11 was an inside job ?
Tell us Misha why is it so damned hard ?
Like ProWay has used with the phrase - "From where I sit." Really, let us take a long look in the mirror first before we talk about extremism. I do not care for extremists whether that be Muslim, Jew, Christian or whatever. Why is it do damn hard for people to see that the official government version is poppycock.
At some point it can be misconstrued by others when one keeps beating or driving their point home as extremism. I think SydneyPSIder has driven it home quite well. I don't think SydneyPSIder is an extremist in the least. However, It appears with some that they will accept the official version over reason like a young Muslim boy rocks back and forth chanting a verse in one of the madrassas. I shall not rock back and forth, Really.
Poppycock my you know what. I never insinuate Syd is an extremist. He's a ct'er.
Isn't it odd that no one, not the liberal media or conservative media alike has found one fact that would open the floodgate and expose once and for all it was a conspiracy fomented by out government except a fringe minority that keep harping on on forums like this. Isn't it odd ?
No, Really. SydneyPSIder is not a "Conspiracy theorist." At least not how the majority of people perceive the word. From my vantage point, SydeyPSIder is an excellent "cognitive patternist." So, I will say in the future that Sydney is a CPer.
Misha, who agrees with you Syd, has stated you have done your homework. I wasn't going to post much more on this subject, but since you won't do your homework, then I will point out just one of your gross errors to show that there are undoubtedly more.
Popular Mechanics and others have NOT claimed it was the only plane to have ilicited a military intercept in the U.S. There have been many, many intercepts by the U.S. military--albeit most were over WATER. Had Syd done his real "homework" as Misha claims he had, he would have realized the article he referenced was misleading and inaccurate (hence my "gross error" comment.)
Popular Mechanics full statement is as follows: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent."
Misha, if you wish to continue to believe Syd, that's fine with me. But you must know that he, himself, has NOT done his homework--he's only quoting others...
Give this a read. It comes from the GAO:
NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:
intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;
tracking hijacked aircraft;
assisting aircraft in distress;
escorting Communist civil aircraft; and
intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and
peacetime military intercepts.
Of these tasks, NORAD considers intercepting drug smugglers the most
serious. Under 10 U.S.C. 124, DOD is designated the single lead
agency for detecting and monitoring air and maritime shipments of
illegal drugs to the United States.\1
DOD gave NORAD the responsibility for intercepting suspected airborne
drug smugglers. However, only 7 percent of NORAD fighter intercepts
from 1989-92 were drug related (see table I.1).
NORAD plans to reduce the number of alert sites in the continental
United States to 14 and provide 28 aircraft for the day-to-day
peacetime air sovereignty mission. Each alert site will have two
fighters, and their crews will be on 24-hour duty and ready to
scramble within 5 minutes.
Now, fly over a sensitive military site within the continental United States at any time, especially before 9/11. Would you be intercepted? Do military planes scramble and intercept UFOs within the continental United States? Say a nuclear device is accidentally launched or a wayward rogue military jet is off track, would NORAD and interception happen?
As for finding the truth with Sydney's research on interception should be looked at. I have no problem with this at all. However, I do have a problem when one engages in bathwaterism and throws out his research entirely. Sydney "overall" has done his homework. If he or I are wrong about something than I have to be honest and say so. Remember, ProfWag. Douglas P. Horne was wrong when he thought the Bethesda hospital report was partially based on the doctors finding out about James Tague's injury. Horne came back and admitted his faux pas. However, this did not undermine Horne's thesis nor his overall homework on the assassination.
Last edited by Misha on 30 Sep 2012, 06:46, edited 1 time in total.
heh- "bathwaterism" - I like that!
Hi Arouet, Actually, I first read the word "bathwaterism" years ago in Arthur Koestler's book - "The Thirteenth Tribe."
I did not really want to broach this subject on this forum, but I think it is relevant to this discussion on interception WITHIN the continental United States and Canada. Moreover, upon detection and interception there are protocols in place which do not lend itself to public scrutiny. This means detection/interception of any unknown may fall within the rubric of National Security. If an aircraft is unknown and has turned off its IFF transponder than does it fall within JANAP 146E purview?
JANAP 146 - National Security Agency
Addendum: The NSA JANAP 146 document PDF is the third one down
Yes, I am quoting others, but I'm not buying the Popular Mechanics whitewash. The conjunction of several warnings being given to the US govt in previous months (rather strange circular leaks in my opinion) and the ludicrous notion that jets were prohibited by a 'rule' from going supersonic when you know that jetliners are (nominally) being piloted into buildings and that time is of the essence goes beyond incompetence or unpreparedness. PM and the FAA (who seem heavily involved in the cover-up and creation of fake flights and who have been far from transparent in any of this) are suggesting that there was no domestic protection worth talking about, when in fact jets are on standby 24/7 with a 5 minute scramble time. You're saying 1) Condy Rice just ignored all the warnings and 2) consequently nothing was put in place as a result of dire warnings, even though something perfectly adequate was actually in place already. Which account are we to believe? The 'Hard Facts' website minutely analyses the Condy Rice 'meeting, what meeting? oh that meeting!' set of coverups and lies in close detail. Oh, but you want to put your fingers in your ears and say 'lalalalala' because you claim the author has a single fact wrong on something else -- which he doesn't. How convenient.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests