| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: PRESS FOR TRUTH investigation thread |
 |
|
Titile edited from:"So what do critics make of this?" 18/09/06
www.911pressfortruth.com
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to point out that I dont expect immediate replies here: but if holes can be found in what the Jersey Girls and Paul Thompson are saying, they need to be found, and I would like to also discover how critics view things if they cannot succesfully debunk this information
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | I'd like to point out that I dont expect immediate replies here: but if holes can be found in what the Jersey Girls and Paul Thompson are saying, they need to be found, and I would like to also discover how critics view things if they cannot succesfully debunk this information |
Which information, specifically? I'm not entirely familiar with their position and am having trouble finding any definitive assertions they might be proposing.
I can't even seem to find a list of questions that they would like answered. A lot of hints about what they might like answered, but not many clearly stated questions.
They seem to be of the belief that someone in the US chain of command is to blame and should be punished--for incompetence at best, willful neglect at worst.
There is no hint of MIHOP. (See the Timeline, for instance):
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah. Didn't realize it had been pirated. Will have a look this weekend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No piracy on google: creative commons license
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
Ah. Didn't realize it had been pirated. Will have a look this weekend. |
lol anything to avoid the truth  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I watched the whole movie. For a documentary that criticizes the government for leaving so many questions unanswered, it presents many questions itself that it fails to answer.
Although the widows frequently said, "Our questions weren't answered," it was unclear what their questions were, other than some that bordered on rhetorical, such as, "How could a skyscraper just collapse in ten seconds?"
Was she promoting the controlled demolition theory, or was she bitter about construction practices that failed to provide her husband a safe place to work? It doesn't say.
If taken at face value, I would say that the documentary makes a strong case that the Bush administration stonewalled on several issues in order to save face on its response to the attacks. This includes the suppression of the August memo that contradicts the President's claim that no one had foreseen airplanes used as missiles. I think in this and in other areas, the administration could have handled it better, no question. However, there's a big difference between putting a positive spin on getting caught off-guard and perpetrating mass murder.
The documentary describes time and time again how the widows successfully pressured the administration into acting and/or releasing information about the attacks. It's too bad that they had to be pressured into doing this, but as far as I can tell the administration has cooperated, albeit reluctantly and belatedly.
I sympathize with the widows, and I believe they were treated poorly by the government. However, if you are interested in getting at the truth, you are unlikely to get an unbiased analysis from someone who has such a powerful personal stake in the matter.
The single most important complaint, as far as I could tell, was that the government knew something about the danger of terrorist attacks by air but failed to stop it. The narrator was misleading here; at one point he said (paraphrasing) "...the administration claims it didn't know where and when the attacks would occur, but it has been shown that they had detailed information available to them." What he left out was that the details did NOT include where and when.
It's also important to look at this in its historical context. There have been times in the past when the government has had much better intelligence than this, a much clearer picture of who the enemy was and why they wanted to attack, and the readiness to respond...and yet were STILL caught off guard. It happened twice in 1941, at Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines. These were MILITARY targets, the kinds of targets that are designed to fight back.
The fact is, sometimes you can do all the right things and still not get a favorable result, and people rarely do all the right things. That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy at work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thankyou for the opinion aggle-rithm: its certainly a very generous one
I will give this thread a few more days for critics to get up to speed, and then I shall be looking to get into the nitty-gritty of this, probably after the weekend
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this the best 9/11 film to date? I learned a lot about the 911 commission that the maimstream media have managed to keep from me personally, the story of post 9/11 and the mainstream media?
The so called 911 Commission 444 days late starved of cash,inadequate time and refereed by an arch neocon, Bush and Cheyney refusing to appear publicly,separately and give their "testimony" under oath 'softball' questions , Condi Rice's wriggling performance what was the name of the document Dr.Rice?
What motivates someone to come here and defend that bunch of crooks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What motivates someone to come here and defend that bunch of crooks? |
They aren't being accused of being crooks, they're being accused of being murderers, based on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.
If someone is unjustly accused of committing a crime, his OTHER misdeeds do not justify the accusation, nor do they remove his right to be defended by more reasonable individuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What motivates someone to come here and defend that bunch of crooks? |
They aren't being accused of being crooks, they're being accused of being murderers, based on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.
If someone is unjustly accused of committing a crime, his OTHER misdeeds do not justify the accusation, nor do they remove his right to be defended by more reasonable individuals. |
circumstanial evidence? theres so much of it when does it not become circumstantial in your mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | some that bordered on rhetorical, such as, "How could a skyscraper just collapse in ten seconds?" |
That is a rhetorical question in the mind of an oftb!!! Says it all really.
The evidence is flimsy!! That's probably what the Nazis came up with at Nuremburg. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:33 am Post subject: speaking of murderers |
|
|
speaking of murderers, watch this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY
According to this news item the government gave it's consent to Bayer to ship a product to Europe, and Asia. A product for treating heamophiliac children that they didn't want to sell in the US because it was infected with aids and had already been responsible for deaths of children in the US. This has resulted in, the newspresenter says, the deaths of 1000's of heamophiliac children in Europe and Asia.
We are told this was with the US government consent and full knowledge that the product was infected. I don't think there's any doubt, the Bush administration are murderers, I dont think they see themselves as such though, more... farmers of humanity, to them you are less than a farm animal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | circumstanial evidence? theres so much of it when does it not become circumstantial in your mind? |
Circumstantial evidence doesn't become direct evidence merely by virtue of its volume.
Are you saying you now have DIRECT evidence that the US government was behind the attacks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: speaking of murderers |
|
|
| ishaar wrote: | speaking of murderers, watch this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY
According to this news item the government gave it's consent to Bayer to ship a product to Europe, and Asia. A product for treating heamophiliac children that they didn't want to sell in the US because it was infected with aids and had already been responsible for deaths of children in the US. This has resulted in, the newspresenter says, the deaths of 1000's of heamophiliac children in Europe and Asia.
We are told this was with the US government consent and full knowledge that the product was infected. I don't think there's any doubt, the Bush administration are murderers, I dont think they see themselves as such though, more... farmers of humanity, to them you are less than a farm animal. |
I'm a little confused.
Why does a German pharmaceutical company require the consent of the US to sell its product in Europe and Asia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moving on from the interesting diversion into the motivations of big pharma, here is some more meat and gristle with this info source:
| Quote: | http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/18364/_9_11_Press_for_Truth_not_a_docu drama
'9/11 Press for Truth' - not a 'docudrama'
B18364 / Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:54:34 / "War on Terror"
by reprehensor.
The new documentary, 9/11 Press for Truth, has been released in time to coincide with the 5th anniversary of 9/11. In stark contrast to big-budget propaganda “docudramas” being churned out by media behemoths like ABC, “9/11 Press for Truth” (heron P4Truth), features no Hollywood draws like Harvey Keitel, and no multi-corporate alliances like the embarrassing and unfortunate team-up between Scholastic and ABC.
The executive producers are Kyle Hence, co-founder of 9/11 Citizens Watch, and Rory O’Connor, co-founder of Globalvision. Other producers are John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski, the latter also the Director and co-writer of P4Truth. The heavy lifting was done by Nowosielski in a multi-capacity role, with the final production getting a professional buffing at the Globalvision production suite. (Ken Ellis, Senior Producer at George Lucas’ edutopia, is listed as a co-executive producer in the press kit.)
The fortunate application of professional production acumen makes P4Truth very easy to watch, despite the very uncomfortable message it brings. The message?
The 9/11 Commission failed to deliver the goods.
——————————————-
You may ask, “How can this be? I’ve got the Report, it’s massive!”
Consider the amount of money that was allocated to the Commission, it wound up getting $15 million, whereas estimates for Kenneth Starr’s jihad against Bill Clinton land somewhere around $70 million. Washington lawmakers put a higher premium on Clinton’s indiscretion than on getting to the bottom of the murder of 3,000 people, most of them American citizens.
If it wasn’t for the victim’s families, there may never have been even this $15 million dollar investigation (which started as a $3 million investigation). If it wasn’t for the Jersey Girls; Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg, it’s doubtful that the Commission would have been convened at all. For the most part, the ballad of the Jersey Girls is the core of P4Truth.
The Jersey Girls were widowed on 9/11, the shock of their loss turned into grief, and eventually into a desire for a clear, concise explanation of what happened on that day.
They are still waiting.
They began to research independently at first, combing the internet and any other media source for information about what happened, who did it, who was to blame for the lack of defense that day, and how these terrorists could just walk through America’s intelligence network.
Along the way, they discovered the work of independent researcher Paul Thompson, who has created a timeline of 9/11 that you can view at Cooperative Research.org. In Thompson’s work, the Jersey Girls saw their research embodied online. (Thompson’s research is also available as a book, “The Terror Timeline”.)
The uphill battle of the widows as they strove to make the Bush administration acknowledge the fact that it wasn’t just them asking for answers is presented through a series of new interviews conducted for P4Truth, as well as compiled snippets of previous mainstream media appearances. The end result is a sympathetic treatment by director Nowosielski of a very trying public experience by 4 women who were previously anonymous private citizens. (Of the 4, Breitweiser is not featured in new interviews for the doc.)
——————————————-
When the Bush administration finally responded to pressure from the public they announced the formation of the 9/11 Commission, to be headed by Henry Kissinger. This is not the first time that Kissinger’s name has been associated with the date September the 11th. (google kissinger pinochet september 11 1973)
When asked about Saudi Arabian clients of Kissinger Associates by the Jersey Girls and the Family Steering Committee, Kissinger saw fit to recuse himself from the Commission.
However, the Commission was still remarkably compromised with the placement of Philip D. Zelikow as Executive Director of the Commission. In 2004, journalist Paul Sperry reported that;
“Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice’s testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.” (1)
Zelikow’s partisan leanings run deep, including the co-authorship of a book about “Statecraft” with Condoleeza Rice; “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed”.
However, even more troubling is this information;
”...Zelikow’s self-described area of academic expertise is the creation and management of “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community. In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “searing” or “molding” events [that] take on “transcendent” importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene” (Zelikow, 1999). Almost three years before 9-11, Zelikow said that “generational” public presumptions “are formed by those pivotal events that become etched in the minds of those who live through them. The current set begins in approximately 1933, although the New Deal generation is fading” (Zelikow, 1999). No doubt a different set of generational public presumptions was established after September 11, 2001, and Zelikow’s compromised 9-11 Commission will have played a large role in cementing those presumptions.” (2)
The widows and the Family Steering Commission were moved to ask for the resignation of Zelikow as Executive Director once his partisan nature was revealed. This plea was ignored.
P4Truth reveals the compromised nature of the Commission and then moves on to the informal nature in which the Commission gathered testimony. Many witnesses were never sworn in, nor were transcripts made. In the cases of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, they were allowed to testify together, (a perp’s wet dream), in private session, and no transcript has been been made publicly available.
All of this left the widows exasperated, coupled with the fact that nearly all of the questions that they gave to the Commission to be asked of the witnesses were not asked. This example of omission is typical of the way in which the Commission chose not to deal with sticky issues.
Among the many omissions of the Commission is that of the story of Omar Saeed Sheikh, General Mahmoud Ahmad, and their direct connection to alleged hijacker Mohammed Atta.
Omar Saeed Sheikh was a high-level Al-Qaeda operative. According to testimony by former Military Intelligence analyst John Newman, Sheikh has a long, infamous career which includes: the kidnapping of an American and 3 British citizens, the death of a different American citizen in a bungled attempt to get Sheikh out of an Indian jail, and the murder of an Indian citizen in a successful bid to spring Sheikh from jail orchestrated by Al-Qaeda and ISI.
“During his imprisonment there was no indictment and no trial in India, there were no indictments in Britain or the United States either. Despite his kidnapping of British citizens he was allowed to immediately travel to London… go figure.” (3)
Sheikh was at least working for ISI and Al-Qaeda, and Newman suspects that his seeming immunity in British and American circles indicates that he may have been an informant for British intelligence as well. A triple agent.
In August of 2001, Sheikh wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. The Times of India reports that Indian intelligence traced communications back to General Mahmoud Ahmed, head of Pakistan’s ISI, that gave Sheikh the go-ahead to wire the money.
The Times of India further reports that the FBI worked with Indian intel to establish this link.
Why is this essential information that links a national sponsor to the 9/11 attacks omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report?
P4Truth spends one its longest segments on the mystery of Omar Saeed Sheikh. (You can look for Omar Saeed Sheikh in the 9/11 Commission Report, but you won’t find that name. What you will find is one instance of one of his aliases, “Sheikh Saeed al Masri” in passing, with no context as to true identity or importance to Al-Qaeda and this alias is also in the back of the book where he is listed as “Egyptian; head of al Qaeda finance committee”. No Mahoud Ahmad, no $100,000.)
Perhaps the Commission doesn’t bring up this connection because of the people that Ahmad was meeting with in the days leading up to and on 9/11.
According to this schedule posted at Canadian researcher Michel Chossudovsky’s website, Ahmad was meeting with the cream of America’s intel crop;
Schedule of Pakistan’s Chief of Military Intelligence Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, Washington, 4-13 September 2001
Summer 2001: ISI Chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad transfers $100,000 to 9-11 Ringleader Mohamed Atta.
4 September: Ahmad arrives in the US on an official visit.
4-9 September: He meets his US counterparts including CIA Head George Tenet.
9 September: Assassination of General Massood, leader of the Northern Alliance. Official statement by Northern Alliance points to involvement of the ISI-Osama-Taliban axis.
11 September: Terrorist Attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. At the time of the attacks, Lt General Ahmad was at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss. Also present at the meeting were Sen. John Kyl and the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., Maleeha Lodhi.
12-13 September: Meetings between Lt. General Ahmad and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Agreement on Pakistan’s collaboration negotiated between Ahmad and Armitage. Meeting between General Ahmad and Secretary of State Colin Powell
13 September: Ahmad meets Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (4) |
| Quote: |
So let’s just consider the seriousness of this information.
The man who authorized the transfer of $100,000 to Atta, was meeting with the DCI and unspecified members of the NSC, just days before 9/11.
I’ll bet those were some interesting conversations, hey?
To accentuate aspects of this omitted story, Paul Thompson’s timeline is referred to several times, and Thompson is interviewed. It should be noted that Thompson does not necessarily believe that Pakistan is the end of the line on 9/11.
Neither do I.
Although P4Truth is not a theoretical film, the viewer is left to ponder several things. Like the multiple warnings of Al-Qaeda attacks from multiple foreign intelligence services. Like the fact that in the discovery of the Bojinka plot, another plot that would crash commercial jets into buildings including the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia; the World Trade Center in New York; the Sears Tower in Chicago; the TransAmerica Tower in San Francisco; and the White House in Washington, DC was uncovered, in 1995. Like the fact that John Ashcroft stopped using commercial jets to travel in the months before 9/11. Like FBI informant Randy Glass meeting with a Pakistani agent who tells him that the WTC towers are coming down, in 1999.
P4Truth covers all of these things, playing TV news segemnts where available, displaying news clippings at other times, all of which can be independently verified in the public domain, except for a couple rare TV clips.
What you are left with at the end of the film is an investigation that never really got off the ground. An investigation that was directed away from certain questions that would like to troubling answers that would reveal aspects of covert foreign policy that don’t normally see the light of day.
Regarding 9/11, blowback doesn’t explain certain things. It doesn’t explain how multiple wargames conveniently converged on 9/11. It doesn’t explain how the majority of the 9/11 hijackers got their visas from the US consulate in Jeddah, a consulate that has been described by the former head of the Visa program there as a practical visa mill for mujahadin. It doesn’t explain how there was no “Reno wall” but individual FBI employees editing information from FOIA requests. It doen’t explain how NORAD blew it on 9/11.
What I am left with is the sense that the Commission was indeed a cover-up. What is being covered up is a working relationship between Western intelligence services and Al-Qaeda that facilitated 9/11. Of course, this is just my interpretation of events.
I recommend viewing “9/11 Press for Truth”, doing your own research, and drawing your own conclusions.
Links
1. Sperry, Paul. Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission? , 2004.
http://antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2209
2. Sacks, Bryan. “Making History: the Compromised 9/11 Commission” in Zarembka, Paul ed., THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 , Elsevier, 2006.
http://www.gnn.tv/B16240
3. Newman, John. Testimony from Congressional Briefing, 2005
http://www.gnn.tv/B12001
4. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html
Further reference on the 9/11 Commission:
Whitewash as Public Service – How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation by Benjamin DeMott
http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html
Philip Zelikow: The Bush Administration Investigates the Bush Administration by Bryan Sacks.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051128144916707
|
personally speaking, I am going to be looking to get more into this question of provable foreknowledge, illustrating how the Bush administration perjured itself continuosly in front of the american people
I am looking for critics to especially address themselves to this point
Regards, John
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
personally speaking, I am going to be looking to get more into this question of provable foreknowledge, illustrating how the Bush administration perjured itself continuosly in front of the american people
I am looking for critics to especially address themselves to this point
Regards, John |
Please highlight the portion of your post which constitutes provable and objective evidence. Something one could present in court. Absent that posting a laundry list of links and baseless claims is not evidence of anything more than your frenzied willingness to believe anything that bolsters your pre-packaged paranoia.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
I watched the whole movie. For a documentary that criticizes the government for leaving so many questions unanswered, it presents many questions itself that it fails to answer. |
Of course. This is to be expected from a documentary pressing for truth: questions, not theoretical answers
| Quote: | | Although the widows frequently said, "Our questions weren't answered," it was unclear what their questions were, other than some that bordered on rhetorical, such as, "How could a skyscraper just collapse in ten seconds?" |
An interesting specualtion on what those questions might be. Not a bad question either, though one investigated rather thoroughly by other threads IMO
| Quote: | | Was she promoting the controlled demolition theory, or was she bitter about construction practices that failed to provide her husband a safe place to work? It doesn't say. |
again interesting speculations. in fact the docuymentary states "our first question was why the US Air defenses failed to stop the attack"
| Quote: | | If taken at face value, I would say that the documentary makes a strong case that the Bush administration stonewalled on several issues in order to save face on its response to the attacks. This includes the suppression of the August memo that contradicts the President's claim that no one had foreseen airplanes used as missiles. I think in this and in other areas, the administration could have handled it better, no question. However, there's a big difference between putting a positive spin on getting caught off-guard and perpetrating mass murder. |
Well of course the big issue there is the question of foreknowledge of the attacks
| Quote: | | The documentary describes time and time again how the widows successfully pressured the administration into acting and/or releasing information about the attacks. |
Complete accurate reporting of facts there
| Quote: | | It's too bad that they had to be pressured into doing this, |
A failure of duty perhaps?
| Quote: | | but as far as I can tell the administration has cooperated, albeit reluctantly and belatedly. |
being dragged into admission of anything is not co-operation
| Quote: | | I sympathize with the widows, and I believe they were treated poorly by the government. |
Excellent. What about all the dead people?
| Quote: | | However, if you are interested in getting at the truth, you are unlikely to get an unbiased analysis from someone who has such a powerful personal stake in the matter. |
Again an interesting specualtion: but firstly it is required to prove imbalanced bias. Over to you there critics
| Quote: | | The single most important complaint, as far as I could tell, was that the government knew something about the danger of terrorist attacks by air but failed to stop it. |
One of the most serious, agreed
| Quote: | | The narrator was misleading here; at one point he said (paraphrasing) "...the administration claims it didn't know where and when the attacks would occur, but it has been shown that they had detailed information available to them." What he left out was that the details did NOT include where and when. |
Its not possible to fully establish that, due to the failure of the commision. It can be clearly established that there were multiple warning of specific plots to fly planes into buildings and that the captured Al-queda agent spilled WTC and Pentagon as targets as far back as 1999. The security arraingments for the G8 summit in July 01 and the anti-aircraft batteries on top of Bushes residance the night before paint a different picture perhpas?
| Quote: | | It's also important to look at this in its historical context. |
Oh always
| Quote: | | There have been times in the past when the government has had much better intelligence than this, a much clearer picture of who the enemy was and why they wanted to attack, and the readiness to respond...and yet were STILL caught off guard. It happened twice in 1941, at Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines. These were MILITARY targets, the kinds of targets that are designed to fight back. |
Even the History channel admits presidential foreknowledge of Pearl Harbour these days. Please catch up there. You may or may not be correct about the Phillipines, I havnt studied that personally. Back to Early 21st Century history (although historical false flag is a fascinating topic: Reichstag fire for example)
| Quote: | | The fact is, sometimes you can do all the right things and still not get a favorable result, and people rarely do all the right things. That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy at work. |
Neither does it discount one
Thought it time for a detailed response their aggle-rythm, your continued involvement appreciated
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | | John White wrote: |
personally speaking, I am going to be looking to get more into this question of provable foreknowledge, illustrating how the Bush administration perjured itself continuosly in front of the american people
I am looking for critics to especially address themselves to this point
Regards, John |
Please highlight the portion of your post which constitutes provable and objective evidence. Something one could present in court. Absent that posting a laundry list of links and baseless claims is not evidence of anything more than your frenzied willingness to believe anything that bolsters your pre-packaged paranoia.
-z |
Do some work Jay-ref. Your response is also equally baseless, unless you can demonstrate you have studied the material and done work to refute the claims. I am looking for involvement, not spam
If you need help, start at the first paragraph and work down
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Jay Ref wrote: | | John White wrote: |
personally speaking, I am going to be looking to get more into this question of provable foreknowledge, illustrating how the Bush administration perjured itself continuosly in front of the american people
I am looking for critics to especially address themselves to this point
Regards, John |
Please highlight the portion of your post which constitutes provable and objective evidence. Something one could present in court. Absent that posting a laundry list of links and baseless claims is not evidence of anything more than your frenzied willingness to believe anything that bolsters your pre-packaged paranoia.
-z |
Do some work Jay-ref. Your response is also equally baseless, unless you can demonstrate you have studied the material and done work to refute the claims. I am looking for involvement, not spam
If you need help, start at the first paragraph and work down |
So you admit there is not one thing in your post that's highlight-able? My response was in calling your information baseless. Calling my response baseless is ridiculous. To refute my comment merely post the hard evidence you are basing your rambling BS on. If you can't then it's rambling BS and my work here is done.
You want me to do some work? Post your best evidence. If you have any. Basically there is no proof supporting any of the nonsense you posted, that's what's got you stuck isn't it?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its not for me to tell you what you should or should not find significant Jay-ref. However, I do find an inability to find any points to answer somewhat willfull
Lets be clear here:
Have you studied the 911pressfortruth video?
If not, I would appreciate you refraining from comment until you at least know what your talking about
regards, John
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Even the History channel admits presidential foreknowledge of Pearl Harbour these days. Please catch up there. You may or may not be correct about the Phillipines, I havnt studied that personally. Back to Early 21st Century history (although historical false flag is a fascinating topic: Reichstag fire for example)
|
I don't accept the History Channel as the final authority on anything. A better source would be the book "And I was There" by Edwin T. Layton, who, as the title suggests, was actually there, working as an intelligence officer at Pearl Harbor both before and after the attacks. He describes in this book the exact sort of bureacratic nightmare that no doubt was responsible for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11: Lack of communication, territorialism, counter-productive procedures, and just overall poorly conceived systems. Did the President have foreknowledge? He may have gotten some vague idea that some in the military were worried about an attack on Pearl Harbor, but that had been a concern for a long time. However, a lot of vital communication both coming and going from the White House was intercepted and distorted, and the right people never got enough information to build a complete picture of what was going on. Very similar to what happened on 9/11.
As for the Reichstag fire: It is still just speculation that this was orchestrated by the Nazis. It seems reasonable to assume that they were involved, given the Nazi's history of deceipt and the sort of tactics they used, but there is no direct evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Its not for me to tell you what you should or should not find significant Jay-ref. However, I do find an inability to find any points to answer somewhat willfull
Lets be clear here:
Have you studied the 911pressfortruth video?
If not, I would appreciate you refraining from comment until you at least know what your talking about
regards, John |
I have watched it...and although the Jersey girls have played a positive role in steering the 9/11 comittee their remaining concerns amount to minutae. There is not a single remaining question of theirs that if answered would change the verdict on who perpetuated the 9/11 attacks.
If there is please show me the evidence of it. If not then STFU.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
personally speaking, I am going to be looking to get more into this question of provable foreknowledge, illustrating how the Bush administration perjured itself continuosly in front of the american people
I am looking for critics to especially address themselves to this point
|
Can you clarify what you mean by "foreknowledge"?
1. The President had been briefed on the possibility of attacks from al Qaeda a month or so before 9/11, or
2. The President knew that al Qaeda would attack on September 11, using commercial airliners as missiles, and would target the WTC and Pentagon, or
3. Somewhere in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well your guilty of conspiratorial thinking there yourself Jayref. Your comments meerly reflect your own POV on the matter: thats the beauty (if you like) of documentaries that require the viewer to think for themselves
Being as your struggling so much, I shall have to help you out with some specific pointers:
1) Why did the administration Lie about prior knowledge to the american people?
2) Does the 911 Commision have any remaining credibility?
3) Why did the US Army permit Bin Laden to esacpe twice in the Afghanistan campaign?
The Jersey Girls have shown valid concern over all three areas with accredited MSM news reports and material directly from the commision procedings. Their information is not about declaring proof positive that the Bush administration perpetrated the 911 attacks, so comments criticing it on that basis are pointless
The question here is:
Can there be any credible argument against demanding a new 911 commision
Thats for the critics to make of course: obviously I believe their should be one. In case you missed it:
Campaigning for a new commison is the principle aim of this site
Useful to know being as your camping here, I should think
To argue against the need for a new commision, critics are required to find fault with the source material: get busy, its quite a job
If, on the other hand, you are not interested in genuine research, then by all means continuing seeking strawman arguments elsewhere
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: |
personally speaking, I am going to be looking to get more into this question of provable foreknowledge, illustrating how the Bush administration perjured itself continuosly in front of the american people
I am looking for critics to especially address themselves to this point
|
Can you clarify what you mean by "foreknowledge"?
1. The President had been briefed on the possibility of attacks from al Qaeda a month or so before 9/11, or
2. The President knew that al Qaeda would attack on September 11, using commercial airliners as missiles, and would target the WTC and Pentagon, or
3. Somewhere in between. |
Lets start with the basics, rather than try to choose betwenen speculative scenarios (unless you wish to become a conspiracy theorist  )
The video shows MSM news reports and other coverage of multiple warnings, inluding plots top fly planes into buildings from as far back as 1995. I am in the process of making a transcript of that section, though it wont be done today, too much on y'know
However, we can accept the above as given material coming from the video source from accredited reputable sources
On that basis, is the repeated and constant denials from the Bush administration of any foreknowledge, including complete denial of foreknowledge of any plans to fly planes into buildings (Bush, Rice, et al), credible?
If so, why? (obviously a good argument needed here!)
If not, how can we conclude any differently than:
"The Bush administration knowingly and willfully decieved the american people"
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | Even the History channel admits presidential foreknowledge of Pearl Harbour these days. Please catch up there. You may or may not be correct about the Phillipines, I havnt studied that personally. Back to Early 21st Century history (although historical false flag is a fascinating topic: Reichstag fire for example)
|
I don't accept the History Channel as the final authority on anything. |
Probably wise! however, the history channel is well known for NOT presenting points of views that are academically controversial | Quote: | | A better source would be the book "And I was There" by Edwin T. Layton, who, as the title suggests, was actually there, working as an intelligence officer at Pearl Harbor both before and after the attacks. He describes in this book the exact sort of bureacratic nightmare that no doubt was responsible for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11: Lack of communication, territorialism, counter-productive procedures, and just overall poorly conceived systems. Did the President have foreknowledge? He may have gotten some vague idea that some in the military were worried about an attack on Pearl Harbor, but that had been a concern for a long time. However, a lot of vital communication both coming and going from the White House was intercepted and distorted, and the right people never got enough information to build a complete picture of what was going on. |
Its a source. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of books on the subject. Finding one to support a certain POV does not answer the question. However, this is getting into red herring territory. If you'd like to start a "did the administration know about Pearl Harbour beforehand" thread you may get some takers, but I dont have time to devote to it personally
| Quote: | | Very similar to what happened on 9/11. |
Entirely specualtive, somewhat over eager, and arguable completely the other way of course
| Quote: | | As for the Reichstag fire: It is still just speculation that this was orchestrated by the Nazis. It seems reasonable to assume that they were involved, given the Nazi's history of deceipt and the sort of tactics they used, but there is no direct evidence. |
Here your having fun surely? although I do believe David Irving argued against the reichstag fire as falseflag, so if you wish to side yourself with him, your welcome obviously. The facts are it is taught as a False Flag op in sylabuses across the planet. Arguing that governments have not decieved their own people throughout history is a highway to nothing, and I trust you find it wise to agree
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Well your guilty of conspiratorial thinking there yourself Jayref. Your comments meerly reflect your own POV on the matter: thats the beauty (if you like) of documentaries that require the viewer to think for themselves |
How so?
| Quote: |
Being as your struggling so much, I shall have to help you out with some specific pointers: |
The only pointers I want from your are pointers to some real evidence.
| Quote: |
1) Why did the administration Lie about prior knowledge to the american people? |
This is an accusation...not evidence.
| Quote: |
2) Does the 911 Commision have any remaining credibility? |
This is a completely meaningless non-sequitur...not evidence.
| Quote: |
3) Why did the US Army permit Bin Laden to esacpe twice in the Afghanistan campaign? |
This is an accusation...not evidence.
| Quote: |
The Jersey Girls have shown valid concern over all three areas with accredited MSM news reports and material directly from the commision procedings. Their information is not about declaring proof positive that the Bush administration perpetrated the 911 attacks, so comments criticing it on that basis are pointless |
Then why are you using their documentary?? One wonders why a CTist would trumpet a documentary which in no way brings evidence to their claims.
| Quote: |
The question here is:
Can there be any credible argument against demanding a new 911 commision |
Loaded question. Here's one for you: Upon what evidence would you base a demand for a new investigation?
| Quote: |
Thats for the critics to make of course: obviously I believe their should be one. In case you missed it:
Campaigning for a new commison is the principle aim of this site |
Ok...I'll ask again. Your call for this new investigation is based upon what evidence?
| Quote: |
Useful to know being as your camping here, I should think
To argue against the need for a new commision, critics are required to find fault with the source material: get busy, its quite a job |
No we don't. You are the one seeking...nay, demanding...a new investigation. Therefore you have to say why. In other words you need to present evidence compelling enough to bolster your calls for this investigation. I don't need to do anything as I am not seeking anything. It's all on you mate. As Astro the Space Dog would say: "Rotsa ruck"
| Quote: |
If, on the other hand, you are not interested in genuine research, then by all means continuing seeking strawman arguments elsewhere |
I have offered no strawman arguments. Hey I'm sitting here in this little critic's corner box. You guys keep me here because you can't stand the idea of someone tearing your pet theories apart on your other pages...and yet you come here to seek me out. When you do I tear your upside down logic apart as I have in this very posting. Why is that? Are you gluttons for punishment?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Then why are you using their documentary?? One wonders why a CTist would trumpet a documentary which in no way brings evidence to their claims.
|
Back to your own perceptions Jay-Ref
You obviously arn't aware of the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a truthseeker
perhpas Aristotle will help you out:
| Quote: | | "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it |
understand that, and you will understand the differece between thinking and dogma
I note your inability to engage with the substance of the Jersey girls information, and find it most encouraging, thankyou[/quote]
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
