Reading Current Events

Sep 30, 2004 04:02 # 27153

mclaincausey *** announces...

Things that make you go "hmmmm"

78% | 5

Note: despite the well-documented and compelling evidence presented in the links I'm about to supply here, the jury, for me, is still out on 9-11 foreknowledge.

The audio, recommended: The Truth and Lies of 9-11

The text, if you don't have an hour or high bandwidth:
Oh Lucy, You Gotta Lotta 'Splainin to Do

These two links are presented by Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer who was involved in the discovery of CIA complicity in crack distribution which eventually led to Iran-Contra.

The talk is very interesting and it covers more material, including a very alarming dissection of US-PATRIOT.

I would like skeptical but open-minded people to listen to the audio, preferably, or read the text, and I would like to open a discussion based on these and any other sources you would like to include on the case for and against government foreknowledge and/or complicity in 9-11.

Did they orchestrate it? Did they ignore it? Or are our intelligence services really that bad?

I'm not interested in wild conspiracy theories, but well-documented information and reasoning building cases for and against a conspiracy.

Let's go!

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Sep 30, 2004 10:02 # 27158

Martin *** throws in his two cents...

Re: Things that make you go "hmmmm"

95% | 2

"Who do you believe?" Thats how the article you linked here ends. And I guess thats pretty much the essential of it all. It comes down to believing again.

As much as I would want to discuss this, I simply cant, because I'm overflooded with information. There is no more chance for a simple guy like me to make a difference between relevant and insignificant facts, even between facts and created facts, created in favor of BOTH sides of the coin.

I tried to follow as much as it was covered of the 9-11 hearing on CNN and I found that a really ridiculous event. Politicians questioning military personal in verbalizations and variations of it, that made the non native English speaking listener dizzy. Reading these articles and related links does the same. I just feel like I'm not fit enough to follow that anymore, intellectually as well as by required background information.

Is that calculated tactics?

Should the flood of information and coherences sort of divert from the core questions? As much as I tried to listen and find out I really got no answers. Just a jigsaw puzzle of a 1000 pieces that I cannot put together anymore. And even if anyone can, does that give a picture clear enough to actually see, what happened?

I feel being manipulated. In several ways. Not being told the truth of the matter by the people, who are responsible for leading their respective countries. But also by their opposers, who want to take advantage of mistakes being made. For what? To support their point of view and bring/keep them to power? The problems we're facing are system immanent. The persons involved are interchangeable. For me it doesn't matter anymore, if and who actually knew how much. The only fact that shows clearly is everybody involved has the need to hide something, and THAT really makes me scared to the bones. Power corrupts, that has always been the case, but what we see here - as complex as it is - is STILL just the tip of the iceberg.

I dont know, what to believe anymore. Of course I have my opinion about it, but I cannot base it on facts anymore, that are not 1000 times discussed, rejected or confirmed on other occasions. I feel helpless and humiliated facing the man-eating apparatus of politics and it makes me shiver to think about where its inevitably gonna lead to.

There was a scene during the hearings when a General was asked whether or not it would have been possible to shoot down those planes. After about 10 times re-phrasing the question adding about 100 ifs and whens the General said simply "yes". I guess, thats all that counts. Then again... with NOT seeing what happened to the towers... who would have been happy with shooting down civilian airplanes?

I do not believe in information politics.

EDIT: added some time later

Mmmmmh...yes...its gonna make you "Mmmmh" in deed! I just have to return again after listening to the 1 hour lecture by this Michael Ruppert guy (is he the long lost twin brother of Michael Moore?)

First of all.. yes, people, take your time and listen to it, its worth every minute of it, for several reasons. But DONT switch off your brains! Listen to the contents AS WELL as to the ways its presented. We have a brilliant example of how information paired with blunt propaganda can catch your attention. Borders between truth and lies, facts and speculation are easily extinguished just with the stylistic means of using dates and quoting sources. What makes it interesting and intriguing is the person himself. The vibes and charisma he's presenting are a big part of his success in transporting his message. It keeps your attention way closer than just reading the facts on a website!

After all there are not many new things in it, since its actually from 2002 and most of it has been publically available and discussed for a long time. We even talked about parts of it in this thread (4536) already back in 02. And still just the listing of dates, the order of facts, the density of accusations... all that DOES make you "Mmmmh" ...still. It would be too easy to just wipe it away with the "just another conspiracy theory" argument. On the other hand believing in conspiracy here has the potential to take away all your trust in mankind as a whole and ultimately doom this planet, because this is not about single exchangeable persons, but its the system that breeds these attitudes, everyday anew, millionfold.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

This post was edited by Martin on Sep 30, 2004.

Sep 30, 2004 13:47 # 27163

mclaincausey *** replies...

Re: Things that make you go "hmmmm"

95% | 2

"Who do you believe?" Thats how the article you linked here ends. And I guess thats pretty much the essential of it all. It comes down to believing again.

Or, to put it another way, disbelief and skepticism.

The 9-11 commission you mentioned is a farce:
Conflicts of interest
Further tinkering: a timeline

(is he the long lost twin brother of Michael Moore?)

No, I think Michael Moore spreads disinformation and attempts to manipulate and distort. It's possible Ruppert occasionally does the same sorts of things, but his presentation is so much more minutely and completely documented from so many legitimate sources (excluding only a minority of questionable sources, like Vreland). And he has the background of being an investigator with a history of legitimate whistleblowing.

Moore, OTOH, is a proven liar and manipulator.

And still just the listing of dates, the order of facts, the density of accusations... all that DOES make you "Mmmmh" ...still. It would be too easy to just wipe it away with the "just another conspiracy theory" argument.

Perspective is an important factor in viewing the unknown. The sheer number of facts that surround 9-11 is so dense that it's difficult to see the forest for the trees. There are a lot of incongruencies that have been ignored or given inadequate answers that have raised more questions still. Hearing the arguments presented in a logical order from the bottom up gives a clear perspective on one version of events.

All I'm saying is that I would like to hear the government's logical timeline that gives a clear perspective on their nonsensical version of events. Because so far, Ruppert's story makes much more sense.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Sep 30, 2004 16:02 # 27167

Martin *** replies...

Bin Laden is in Switzerland getting his nails done

?% | 1

Or, to put it another way, disbelief and skepticism.

Exactly. In EVERY direction!

The 9-11 commission you mentioned is a farce

Absolutely not the slightest hint of a doubt about that! It was just interesting to see those puppets on strings struggling to perform their play. ONE side of the medal, well constructed, with the smell of lies in every word they stated, no matter if investigator or testifier. Sometimes there is more information in what is NOT said than there is in the stream of memorized words!

And he (Ruppert) has the background of being an investigator with a history of legitimate whistleblowing.

I never heard of him before. I just now took a closer look at his site and, to be honest, I cant see too much of a difference between the guys ...on first sight. May be I'm doing wrong to him. But when I see how even Ruppert tries to make money from his opinions by offering a subscribers service, videos and stuff, or even using such populistic means as offering $1,000 for proving him wrong, that doesn't make him more trustworthy in my eyes. Its more like just another guy using the resources of the system he's attacking for his own profits. I may be totally wrong, but thats my first impression.

The sheer number of facts that surround 9-11 is so dense that it's difficult to see the forest for the trees. There are a lot of incongruencies that have been ignored or given inadequate answers that have raised more questions still. Hearing the arguments presented in a logical order from the bottom up gives a clear perspective on one version of events.

Yes, exactly! Thats what I said as well. I dont know what to believe anymore.. or, to put it this way, I'm struggling for perspective. To make that clear: me, personally, I am way closer to what Ruppert presented than to any other theory or wonnabe explanation, but not because of any kind of sophisticated presentation, but because of a natural inborn suspicion - call it paranoia - against everything governmental, or lets say, any weaving of economics and politics. And no matter what in detail happened around 9-11, its a matter of fact that economical interest DRIVE all politics nowadays, always did, just that it has become a global issue nowadays unlike even 50 years ago. Connect that to the jingoistic, sick minded belief to be something better than the rest of the world and literally EVERYTHING is possible.

The point is me as an individual, I feel more helpless than ever before facing these facts. This has become a dimension I cannot follow anymore, and at least I should be able to understand it before I can act against it. And what do I even do with that knowledge? If I decide to act against it, what would be left to do? Change the President? He himself is a puppet on strings. Exchange the leading heads in the intelligence services around the world, the stock exchanges, the international banks? They are just nameless faces, which are replaced quicker than one can get rid of them. Where is the actual point to show resistance? All these things around drugs, 9-11, the middle east, oil are so easy to see. People DO act upon it as outspoken as they can be, sometimes manipulating and exaggerating themselves reaching a lot of people out there. And still... do those guys come under any pressure whatsoever? No. We had these facts at hand during the Afghanistan raid, BEFORE the war in Iraq started, still they did get away with it. And today they are focusing their view on Iran, and again nothing happens to stop them. And those are just the VISIBLE moves... what about all the hidden, secret weavings going on right this moment? Who is actually to blame for it? I think its not about single persons. No matter who is exchanged, the direction we're steering will stay the same, because thats what politics, democracy, economics, free markets is all about: growth and domination.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Sep 30, 2004 17:41 # 27174

mclaincausey *** replies...

Re: Bin Laden is in Switzerland getting his nails done

?% | 1

I never heard of him before. I just now took a closer look at his site and, to be honest, I cant see too much of a difference between the guys ...on first sight.

Well, there are huge differences. First of all, Ruppert provides stringent documentation, usually from multiple sources, where Moore might cite one questionable source, might not, or might distort what that source said.

What Ruppert says is far more damaging to the establishment than what Moore says, yet Ruppert has never been sued or incarcerated for saying it. The only explanations for this would be that he wasn't taken seriously or that he was so well-documented that he couldn't be sued for libel or slander. Probably a bit of both in his case.

May be I'm doing wrong to him. But when I see how even Ruppert tries to make money from his opinions by offering a subscribers service, videos and stuff, or even using such populistic means as offering $1,000 for proving him wrong, that doesn't make him more trustworthy in my eyes.

Mine either. But it takes money to run a site, and he employs researchers and writers on top of that. Furthermore, it probably consumes a good bit of his time. People deserve to be compensated for time and effort. So you can't reasonably fault the guy for trying to make a living, especially when you have no idea what kind of living he's making.

Its more like just another guy using the resources of the system he's attacking for his own profits. I may be totally wrong, but thats my first impression.

It's interesting that you would get that impression having listened to his talk and heard the growing outrage in his voice as he went through the information. He started off fairly calm, presenting the case as one would expect a DA to to a jury (as he himself describes it), with his professional facade punctuated occasionally by wry humor. But by the end of the section on the Patriot Act, the guy was almost shouting.

It seems to me that the man is passionate, right or wrong, about what he believes, and that he isn't just cynically gouging the system.

Michael Moore is trying to make money too, but I think he is also genuinely outraged by the Bush crime family. One (profitability) does not negate the other (performance of patriotic duty).

ALL THAT ASIDE, my point in bringing this ONE source who believes in foreknowledge (there are many others too) was to open a discussion not on his character, but on his evidence. So let's stop discussing Ruppert and try to find an explanation for insider trading prior to the attacks, or the convenient placement of forces around Afghanistan prior to the attacks, or the links between the US, CIA, and al-Qaeda, or the intelligence presented to the US by foreign intelligence bureaus prior to the attacks, or the implausibility of the Pentagon attack being perpetrated by a bad flight student (500 mph into such a low building, etc), or the failure to scramble jets per FAA regulations THE MINUTE a plane goes off course, or the US$100,000 sent to Mohamman Atta by the chief of Pakistani intelligence the day before the attacks, etc... Are there reasonable explanations for these things other than a conspiracy? If so, let's hear them. Those are the issues that need some explanation. It's pointless to try to dissect Ruppert's motives and character and I refuse to do it. There's no reason to, because he documents what he says--he's just parroting source material.

--Mac
P.S.:
Isn't there historical evidence of the US allowing other atrocities (ie Pearl Harbor, sinking of the Lusitania) to occur to motivate public support for wars?

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Sep 30, 2004 19:34 # 27180

Martin *** replies...

Re: Bin Laden is in Switzerland getting his nails done

?% | 1

You're fighting the wrong guy, Mac! I'm on your side!

It's pointless to try to dissect Ruppert's motives and character and I refuse to do it. There's no reason to, because he documents what he says--he's just parroting source material.

Excuse me, but its you, who just picked out my statements about the person and left the topic related paragraphs uncommented, so allow me to go into this one more time.

He DOES provide the evidence we're seeking and thats why I need to know more about him than just his name. I dont know about you, Mac, but with such strong points he's making I want to know, who is talking to me there. For either knowing I can trust him or realizing how he's also one of the manipulating kind. And I DO believe in the facts he's presenting, I even did before listening to him, because they do make sense, the only sense I can make out in the whole thing. Still that doesn't mean to give up my suspicion, which I would hope you still have as well, since there ARE a few points, that might put him into another light.

having listened to his talk and heard the growing outrage in his voice as he went through the information. He started off fairly calm, presenting the case as one would expect a DA to to a jury (as he himself describes it), with his professional facade punctuated occasionally by wry humor. But by the end of the section on the Patriot Act, the guy was almost shouting.

As its stated in the beginning, this is a recording of the 7th lecture of this kind of God knows how many he did of them. So he sort of was "on tour" with this, which means his shouting and as well as his humor are part of the "show", deliberately added for effect reasons. All the more since there are AT LEAST 20 cuts in this special audio, spots of editing, when a sentence was added later on, or whole passages exchanged. So I guess what we have here is just a sort of "best of" compilation of his combined lectures.

As for his evidence, it seems to be waterproof. But what chance have I got to question any french doctors, who once claimed to have treated Bin Laden and then unsaid their statements? What chance do I have to listen to 10 years old radio shows or read 10 years old newspapers? Unless I put in a LOT of effort to verify his sources I simply have to believe in what he claims, since it would be very perky to quote wrong or non-existent sources here. So, if I decide to believe him - which I do - the consequence is ultimately to believe in conspiracy. May be not at once, but if there hasn't been any try for explanation of any sorts from the governmental side even 2.5 years after these statements (and they are NOT exclusively his), if we get this ridiculous show of public hearings instead, all those lil pieces DO sum up to the conclusion there must be something awfully wrong. Provided the quoted sources are true, what possible explanations COULD there be that made any sense at all? I cant think of any, not at all have I got any sources to offer, that might give some.

Anyway, dont get me wrong! In no way I mean to discredit him or his evidence. I just need to know about the who and how, before *I* start parroting him myself, just to be prepared for possible arguments. ;)

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Sep 30, 2004 22:41 # 27191

mclaincausey *** replies...

Re: Bin Laden is in Switzerland getting his nails done

?% | 1

You're fighting the wrong guy, Mac! I'm on your side!

It's not my intention to fight anyone.

Excuse me, but its you, who just picked out my statements about the person and left the topic related paragraphs uncommented, so allow me to go into this one more time.

Correct, I never finished reading the post because I responded reflexively to the early paragraphs and then had to go to work. Sorry about that.

He DOES provide the evidence we're seeking and thats why I need to know more about him than just his name. I dont know about you, Mac, but with such strong points he's making I want to know, who is talking to me there. For either knowing I can trust him or realizing how he's also one of the manipulating kind. And I DO believe in the facts he's presenting, I even did before listening to him, because they do make sense, the only sense I can make out in the whole thing. Still that doesn't mean to give up my suspicion, which I would hope you still have as well, since there ARE a few points, that might put him into another light.

Well, you've hit the crux of why I posted this in the first place: no one has even asked for the mitigating circumstances that the establishment might cite in defending these ubiquitous and odds "coincidences" and inconsistencies in the official verison of events. So the government hasn't had to provide them. I would like to consider both sides of these events: but right now, the preponderance of evidence IMO is firmly supporting a conspiracy. In order to consider both sides, we need to hear a compelling defense.

I want to hear why Ruppert is wrong.

As its stated in the beginning, this is a recording of the 7th lecture of this kind of God knows how many he did of them. So he sort of was "on tour" with this, which means his shouting and as well as his humor are part of the "show", deliberately added for effect reasons. All the more since there are AT LEAST 20 cuts in this special audio, spots of editing, when a sentence was added later on, or whole passages exchanged. So I guess what we have here is just a sort of "best of" compilation of his combined lectures.

It's a sort of "greatest hits" assembled by a radio program, but it does state that all of it came from one lecture, and I would assume it is presented in the order the essay was presented, since organizationally if flows so well. The sound quality and room acoustics do not change, so I'm assuming it is in fact from the same lecture.

As for his evidence, it seems to be waterproof. But what chance have I got to question any french doctors, who once claimed to have treated Bin Laden and then unsaid their statements? What chance do I have to listen to 10 years old radio shows or read 10 years old newspapers? Unless I put in a LOT of effort to verify his sources I simply have to believe in what he claims, since it would be very perky to quote wrong or non-existent sources here.

Actually, the French doctors seeing a CIA operative visiting bin Laden is one of those pieces of evidence that to me is superfluous. I throw out that sort of thing in my personal evaluation. Sure, it's possible, perhaps even likely: but there is enough compelling evidence from more reliable (or more easily verifiable, at least) sources to make some of the stuff he presents irrelevant.

What we can easily do is Lexis/Nexis the periodicals he cites or read the other literature, such as the Brzezinski book he reads passages from. We [i]can[i] look at the evidence, as you mentioned before, with which we are already familiar, and consider it within the timeline he presents, and determine for ourselves if it's damning or circumstantial.

If we look at him as an organizer and reporter of information and not an arbiter of truth, I think he becomes a valuable source

Believe me, I would never advocate letting someone else do your own thinking for you. I regard Ruppert with due skepticism, but trust him more than, say Michael Moore or George Bush, because I haven't caught him lying to me yet.

But, as you would of course agree, only a fool takes things at face value.

Anyway, dont get me wrong! In no way I mean to discredit him or his evidence. I just need to know about the who and how, before *I* start parroting him myself, just to be prepared for possible arguments.

Well, there has been a campaign to discredit him, so my advice is to distance yourself from him when discussing these events unless you can get someone to listen to that audio. I would recommend just talking about the strange incongruencies, perhaps by borrowing Ruppert's source information. Go to the evidence, not the man. He has the sort of charisma that will attract loony followers who will accept everything he says without question: if people like us are percieved as being peope like that, we will be discredited in some folks' minds before we start.

Now, on to another September 11 oddity: that an incompetent, lowly-graded aviation student somehow flew a plane at 500mph+ so low to the ground that traffic lights were dragged behind (yet the jets didn't break off the wings) into a relatively short building, without jet wash knocking cars off the bridge it barely scraped over. A scientific analysis here.

Again, the jery is still out for me, I would love to believe that a bunch of barbarians in the Afghani mountains orchestrated this. But I have my reservations.

Regards,
Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Sep 30, 2004.

Oct 01, 2004 13:42 # 27221

Martin *** replies...

Re: Things that make you go "hmmmm"

?% | 1

Okay, lets go. Thanks to Mac he pointed out an astounding new series of questions to me. You may find all this stuff in the links he provided, presented way nicer and even more detailed, but I feel it necessary for myself to summarize some facts about this specific problem.

The question is: what actually happened at the Pentagon on 9-11?

The official version:
American Airlines flight 77 from Dulles crashes on the helicopter landing pad adjacent to the pentagon and hits the building between corridors 4 and 5.

Now, lets have a look at the crash site

The first question arising: where is the plane?

There is no debris from the plane whatsoever, not IN the building, but more importantly in front of the building.

The plane crashed on the helicopter landing pad? That seems sort of impossible with the condition of the lawn. With a 100 tons airplane crashing on the lawn one would expect some kind of crater and scattered debris. But instead of securing the area for seeking necessary evidence, what did they do?

Look at this again. Where IS the damned plane? Did it completely vanish inside the building? There is not much visible damage to the facade, which later on collapsed. One might say we saw the planes vanishing inside the WTC buildings. Yes, but that looked like this. You can clearly see the silhouette of the plane penetrating the facade, no wings broke off on impact, you can even make out the tail slicing through the structure. The damages at the pentagon do not fit a plane flying in. The wings must have broke off before the impact and must have been twisted to the back. But then still there should be more damage to the facade AND debris in front of the building.

On the other hand, IF the plane completely vanished inside the building, why is there relatively minor damage to the second ring? Not much visible damage other than this, a tunnel of 3 m diameter penetrating THREE rings!

Now, memorize the projected angle of impact and look at this again. Its about the angle the plane is said to hit. The facade collapsed later. Imagine an airplane of 40 m wingspan, 15 m height, 50 m length and a mass of 100 tons penetrating the building at an angle of roughly 40 degrees with a speed of approximately 500 km/h... causing an explosion fierce enough to VAPORIZE the last bits and pieces of the plane, leaving NOTHING at all of the plane itself. Does such an explosion leave the facade in one piece to collapse later on to the inside and does such an explosion leave the computer monitors standing on the desk of the 4th floor approximately 15 m away from the center of the blast?

The wreckage of the plane is not inside the building, is not outside, and the force of a blast powerful enough to cremate the complete plane is simply impossible compared to the damage done. So, what actually happened here?

And now the best part of it all: This stunt - flying a Boeing 757-200, descending from 7,000 feet in one nice and smooth 360 turn in 2.5 minutes to hit a target with a height of about 30 meters 5 m above the ground with almost pinpoint accuracy - this stunt was performed by a guy, who had a handful of flying lessons on a Cessna and learned the rest on his home PC by a flight simulator. I've tried different flight simulators myself... for years... but as hard as I tried I've never managed to land a civil passenger airliner without instrumental control, and one MIGHT assume there is a small difference still between an electronic toy and flying a 100 tons airplane, while you know you will be dying within the next minute.

I'm trying not to assume anything. There are just questions. Questions that were not answered during all the time since 9-11-01. I would be more than glad to be convinced these are wrong facts, no kidding, because what may result from it, if they are TRUE as stated here... that is far more inconceivable than anything we ever imagined.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)