| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: Daily Mail - An Explosion of Disbelief |
 |
|
An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
09.02.07
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385010-details/An+explosi on+of+disbelief+-+fresh+doubts+over+911/article.do
A new film alleges the U.S. staged the 9/11 disaster to justify the Iraq war
The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001.
Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C.
The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93.
Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow.
Or that's how the official story goes.
Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster.
The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers.
Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.
A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack.
The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up.
Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services.
Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier.
Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11.
Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis."
These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II).
Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S.
Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro?
In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq?
This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic.
Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?
An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.
Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job.
It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.
And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack.
Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.
Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.
Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.
But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late.
And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it.
Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.
So what of the fall of the Twin Towers?
The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.
It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain.
But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees.
Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up.
The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off?
And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all.
The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times.
How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft?
The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.
"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"
Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons.
"Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building?
"Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively.
"If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole."
And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin.
So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ.
Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane.
So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio?
No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded.
They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target?
Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour.
He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened.
The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not?
He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway."
Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds.
He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers.
The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion.
Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame.
Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington.
The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change.
President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil."
The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror.
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html
Last edited by mason-free party on Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:22 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Graham
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 350
Location: bucks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackbear
Validated Poster
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 656
Location: up north
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: Daily Mail - An Explosion Of Disbelief |
|
|
Sue Reid......Daily Mail.. Feb 10
An internet video alleging the U.S. staged the twin towers disaster to justify the Iraq war is sweeping the world. And some of the claims seem impossible to rebut.
| Quote: |
An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
By SUE REID - More by this author »
Last updated at 22:07pm on 9th February 2007
A new film alleges the U.S. staged the 9/11 disaster to justify the Iraq war
The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001.
Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C.
The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93.
Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow.
Or that's how the official story goes.
Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster.
The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers.
Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.
A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack.
The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up.
Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services.
Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier.
Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11.
Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis."
These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II).
Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S.
Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro?
In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq?
This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic.
Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?
An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.
Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job.
It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.
And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack.
Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.
Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.
Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.
But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late.
And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it.
Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.
So what of the fall of the Twin Towers?
The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.
It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain.
But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees.
Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up.
The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off?
And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all.
The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times.
How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft?
The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.
"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"
Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons.
"Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building?
"Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively.
"If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole."
And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin.
So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ.
Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane.
So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio?
No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded.
They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target?
Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour.
He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened.
The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not?
He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway."
Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds.
He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers.
The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion.
Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame.
Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington.
The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change.
President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil."
The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_ article_id=435265&in_page_id=1811
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pikey wrote: | One of the comments:-
| Quote: | I watched Loose Change about a year ago, after a Muslim friend recommended it. It's pure bunk. What kills the conspiracy theory, utterly and totally and beyond any and all doubt, are at least two Osama Bin Laden videos in which Mr bin Laden happily takes credit for 9/11.
- Michael, Leatherhead, Surrey |
   |
whats Michael Twathead on?
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
humanoid
Minor Poster
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 48
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Plus they fail to mention the British victims.
And the reference to Operation Northwoods is incorrect. (It was Kennedy who stopped it) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
humanoid
Minor Poster
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject: comments |
|
|
what i find quite bizzar, are the comments from the "public" i feel they must be under some type of hypnosis, or another type of mind control?induced by the drugged aspartime laced drink,or the mind suppressant flouride...its gotta be something......
the truth is sooooo blatant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i would'nt be so sure they are the public, more like the shills attempting to play it down, the reasoning is bizarre and designed to ridicule anyone who believes it for a second. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone have any ideas why all the 9/11 publicity recently ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the exxcerable Mail's article
| Quote: | | Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro? |
Kennedy as I recall did NOT commission Northwoods. He pulled it when he found out about it. I could be wrong about this but...
....looks like yet another psyop - 'US done it - self inflicted wound' etc. Avery's crew are Jewish and jew-financed apparently - the controlled opposition strikes again. You don't reach a hundred million without TPTB complicity.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fixuplooksharp
Moderate Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Mark Gobell"]Does anyone have any ideas why all the 9/11 publicity recently ?[/quote]
because the bbc will come ut with their docu making us sound like a bunch of anti-semites or muslim haters- becuase simly we dont believe they would be able to carry it out.
all this publicity is good tho. yeah!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fixuplooksharp
Moderate Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="rodin"]From the exxcerable Mail's article
[quote]Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro? [/quote]
Kennedy as I recall did NOT commission Northwoods. He pulled it when he found out about it. I could be wrong about this but...
....looks like yet another psyop - 'US done it - self inflicted wound' etc. Avery's crew are Jewish and jew-financed apparently - the controlled opposition strikes again. You don't reach a hundred million without TPTB complicity.[/quote]
if the US didnt do it, then who are you implying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just posted my comment, doubt it will get printed as it appears that the paper are refusing to publish the tough questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds about right. Do you mean the BBC Conspiracy series ?
If so, do we know when it is coming on ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand why all the comments on this thread are so negative. Are people so blinded by their hatred of the Mail.
I've always loathed it too but when someone told me about the article I went out and bought the paper.
This is a full double-page spread that covers all the really controversial CONTENT of Loose Change 2 without criticism or ridicule as well as giving info about the filmakers. When I say 'controversial content' I don't mean the Cleveland airport stuff but WTC7, controlled demolition and the Pentagon riddles.
This article was really GOOD for 9/11 Truth.
OK, it baffles me why the Daily Mail should be the paper throwing these bombs into the public domain (maybe journalists are really getting difficult about their employers' news blackout and editors have to retreat a step.....let's hope it is this) but let us all be glad they have done it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: |
Kennedy as I recall did NOT commission Northwoods. He pulled it when he found out about it. I could be wrong about this but...
....looks like yet another psyop - 'US done it - self inflicted wound' etc. Avery's crew are Jewish and jew-financed apparently - the controlled opposition strikes again. You don't reach a hundred million without TPTB complicity. |
You made a good observation there - I missed that. Very subtle. It was Lemnitzer's plan - Kennedy sacked him when he saw the plan. An honest mistake in the article? Hmmm - I'm not sure.
Let's hope the article arouses people's curiosity and swells attendance at the upcoming W R events!!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alexsandie
Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| George Monbiot writes a disinfo piece about 9/11 in the Guardian and there are over a thousand replies, mostly from 9/11 truthers. The Daily Mail prints a piece that doesn't appear to be disinfo and there are - so far -only 16 comments. The tone of these comments speaks volumes. How many comments aren't getting past the Daily Mail censors? I've posted a comment and it hasn't appeared. I simply pointed out that Wilma Prince (or whoever) who is surprised that it has taken so long for the conspiracy theories to surface should do a bit more research. I did of course refer to Fintan Dunne's website (breakfornews) which might explain why my post hasn't - so far - got through |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why all the recent publicity - any thoughts ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Why all the recent publicity - any thoughts ? |
The South Park 9/11 episode gets its first British showing on Paramount this evening.
It's obviously reached tipping point numbers and they've decided they're going to have to deal with it in some way
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This is a full double-page spread that covers all the really controversial CONTENT of Loose Change 2 without criticism or ridicule as well as giving info about the filmakers. When I say 'controversial content' I don't mean the Cleveland airport stuff but WTC7, controlled demolition and the Pentagon riddles |
The article fails to mention anything about WTC7!!! Maybe we need to highlight that fact.
The article is clearly an attempt to shoot the messenger, theres no such thing a bad publicity though.
As 911 truthers we should take heed of the words of wisdom provided by Mahatma Gandhi:-
| Quote: | | First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, and then you win! |
The publication of the article is imo definitely good news for the 911 truth campaign and we must take full advantage of it.
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pikey wrote: |
[color=blue]The article fails to mention anything about WTC7!!! Maybe we need to highlight that fact.
|
Sorry, I thought it had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alexsandie
Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| STILL only 16 comments (and negative at that). That is what this article was planted for. To ridicule those fighting for the truth. So, what's the deal between the Mail and the Guardian these days? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Probably the same as it's always been; two apparently different sides of the same coin.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ianrcrane
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 352
Location: Devon
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: Daily Mail censorship |
|
|
I wrote a response earlier today congratulating the Daily Mail & Sue Reid for producing a balanced report. I also took the opportunity to promote the William Rodriguez tour ... but it has yet to appear on the Daily Mail Comments page.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_ article_id=435265&in_page_id=1811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartCom ments
My second post (see below) is self-explanatory:
| Quote: | Sue Reid's article may have been balanced but it is quite apparent that censorship is alive and well in the administration of the Daily Mail on-line comments facility. 10pm on Saturday evening and only 16 comments listed, the majority of which unquestioningly accept the official version of events? Give me a break …!
Even though the Guardian elected to run with an ill-researched hit-piece by George Monbiot, they did not apply the degree of selective censorship that appears to be the order of the day here!
But it's all good, … the greater the censorship, the greater the credence to the questions of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Thanks for confirming what we already know.
Ian R. Crane
Chair - 9/11 Truth Campaign (UK & Ireland) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
