First Salvo Launched From HMS Truefaction - Reason for Purge Clear, Not Surprising

gretavo's picture

ZIHOP as Limited Hangout

Danse, the truth movement's most erudite anarcho-syndicalist, had long ago achieved a reputation for being fair and balanced by including the Danicng Israelis in his video The Thrid Stage.  It was the first significant truth film to my knowledge to do so, and as such it exceeded even Danse's expectations for popularity.

Now that the shills have turned Truthaction into the next 911blogger, cleaned out of anyone not on board with the "blame bush for Israel" strategy of damage control, Danse feels it is safe, apparently, to say what he REALLY thinks.  And that is that concern for Israel was not foremost in the minds of those who planned and executed 9/11.  Instead it is the ol' Anglo-American power elite who have dragged their little vassal state kicking and screaming into this horrible plot against the American people.  Lest his point not be clear, Danse makes sure to make clear that Zionism and Zionists are just bogeymen, and that really what (presumably) we are talking about is (surprise!) Jews.

Danse is turning into the intelligent person's Alex Jones, eschewing NWO for MIC, that is the military industrial complex.  Strangely enough, he cites Eisenhower as a source of much of the strategy of dominating resource-rich muslim lands.  The same Eisenhower of course who popularized (or perhaps even coined, not sure) the term military-industrial complex in his farewell address warning to Americans of the threat it posed to their democracy.

I want to leave this thread at the top for a while and call on folks here to take seriously this challenge by one of the more worthy of those remaining at truthaction amidst the controllers.  We should take him to task or risk having people misunderstand our position--that which finds Zionism to play a more important role in world affairs than Danse thinks.  For all his abilities Danse has presented a woefully incomplete version of "ZIHOP" in his essay, and if we don't correct him, who will?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
gretavo's picture

Another pillar of the new platform at trufaction

Can be found in Johndoraemi replacing us all as the voice of ZIHOP.  Remember the principle!  Ostensible diversity masking an actual uniformity.  This gives readers the impression that a wide range of views is represented by the regular contributors to Truefaction.  JDRM plays the role of the anti-zionist progressive and then Adam1 slaps his wrist expressing the view that "Zionist" IS in fact code for "Jew" used only by bigots who want to maintain respectability.  Col. sparks, the comic book obsessed resident dim bulb then provides an example  of someone who tries to strike a balance, but of course the desire to be as unlike Col. Sparks as possible is calculated to push the reader more towards adumbone's side, or at the very least decide not to get into the middle of an argument between such "radicals" as adumbone and jdrm...  It seems the strategy for growing fake movements is a lot like gardening.  Let the plant grow freely to establish good roots and strong stems, THEN begin pruning and shaping, leaving a lushly growing but utterly controlled and therefore misleading appearance.

Annoymouse's picture

Choices

RT are you just Mad because the just don't agree with you, or do you think they are ignoring the facts because of the pressure of society not to conform to the truth about Zionism.

They do a good job about limiting speech in a truth movement. WOW

gretavo's picture

i'm not mad

i'm disappointed in some people who I thought better of (YT and Danse) and sad that somewhere, someone is trying to sabotage the truth movement in the interest of protecting one certain kind of criminal involved in 9/11. sad because I know they will not succeed and will only make the problem they claim to oppose worse--that is they are going to create anti-semitism (or perhaps better put "distrust of jewish people") by their actions.

when Zionists commit crimes as Zionists (i.e. in support of the rogue state of Israel) and convince Jewish people that a) they did not commit any crime and b) that they are being accused because of their support for Jewish people, innocent Jewish people are duped into lending their support to criminals, which obviously makes them look suspect in the eyes of many non-Jewish people.

once again, to be clear--Israel is not good for Jews. Israel does not particularly care about Jews. No more than those who currently control America care about Americans. Americans who want to support Israel should first try to understand what exactly it is they are supporting. People who want to support Jewish people should first try to figure out who and what really causes problems for Jewish people.

those who continue to play out the charade taking place on 911blogger and truthaction should be ashamed of themselves and should be under no illusion that they are helping anyone but a gang of criminals.

juandelacruz's picture

I just read the post by

I just read the Zihop@limited hangout at truthaction. I agree with you calling that one out. That post was virtually a free pass for Israel.

juandelacruz's picture

it feels weird at 911B as

it feels weird at 911B as well, its like ok to talk zionists did it now. no opposition except for obvious and easy to refute shills.

gretavo's picture

it's about control

if you play by their rules its ok, you actually help to provide the ostensible diversity they need to mask their actual uniformity... much more subtle than overtly attempting to enforce a consensus...

juandelacruz's picture

I will see how things play

I will see how things play out. Sooner or later someone will have to show their hand.

Tahooey's picture

doraemi, is that name made up?

Maybe it's time for my imaginary friend & gardener, Cuban-exile Juan Solatito to say a few words. Then they can break out into a big doraemi-solatito flame war. 

gretavo's picture

viva solatito!

que se haga!! (let it be done!!)

casseia's picture

Wow, really subtle...

Look at the parade of Truefers who come out to congratulate Danse for his polemic -- now that the site has been rendered safe for their mischaracterizations and snarkiness. (If Danse had posted that before we had all been banned, then...then, someone might have been MEAN to the sycophants by disagreeing.)

gretavo's picture

or disagreed with them by being mean

which is what I would have done. I want to say though, that *I* was not banned from Truefaction, I quit. :)

can't wait to see when they start talking up The Shill Game...

gretavo's picture

Sylvester Stallone Endorses Real Truth

Stallone replies: "The phrase ‘politically correct’ is basically a euphemism for bold face lying because unfortunately, lies keep society functioning. The day we have our politicians actually tell us the real truth, we’d have anarchy in the streets. So we’re told what they think will pacify the masses not inflame them. "

Danse's picture

Hey guys, I’m

Hey guys,

I’m disappointed but alas, not surprised at the response.  

For the record, I fall somewhere between Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Tucker, Tolstoy and Zerzan, which is to say that “anarcho-syndicalist” is not an entirely accurate representation of my political philosophy.  So it goes, there are as many forms of anarchism as there are anarchists.  But it’s all good.  

“long ago achieved a reputation for being fair and balanced by including the Danicng Israelis in his video The Thrid Stage.  It was the first significant truth film to my knowledge to do so, and as such it exceeded even Danse's expectations for popularity.”
I do try to keep things in perspective.  And yes, Third Stage was indeed the first 911 truth film to present a coherent account of the dancing Israelis.  No respect, I tell ya.  

"Danse feels it is safe, apparently, to say what he REALLY thinks."

I wrote the piece mostly out of disappointment, to be honest, that certain individuals are engaging in what I believe to be self-defeating behavior.  Turning Zionism into a caricature, a boogeyman, an all-encompassing bete noir does not help the cause of 911 truth, nor aid in exposing the Israeli role in 911, nor contribute to the defeat of Zionism itself.  Quite the opposite, delirious rantings tend to discredit. 

Safe?  Nah.  If I felt threatened by anyone on this forum I wouldn’t be here.  And nothing in that post contradicts anything I’ve written previously.  I have always maintained that Zionism is more a symptom than a cause, and that tunnel-vision focus on Jews and Zionism is neither rational nor productive.  At the same time I have attempted to highlight the significant Israeli role in TWAT.  Except for individuals plagued by binary thinking I see no contradiction.  

“concern for Israel was not foremost in the minds of those who planned and executed 9/11.”  

I’m sure it was a concern for some of the participants.  

“Instead it is the ol' Anglo-American power elite”

I tend not to view states in these simplistic terms.  It’s of little significance to me whether it is Canada aiding military juntas in Haiti or Israel killing children in the West Bank or the “Anglo-American” empire engaging in some other atrocity – I don’t play favorites.  

“who have dragged their little vassal state kicking and screaming into this horrible plot”

tsk tsk.  This shit is really beneath you – or so I would have thought until recently.  

“Danse makes sure to make clear that Zionism and Zionists are just bogeymen”

They are made into boogeymen by certain people.  There’s a trick that’s all the rage in cinematic circles – B & W with one color revealed.  Some see one color, others see a rainbow.  

“Strangely enough, he cites Eisenhower as a source of much of the strategy of dominating resource-rich muslim lands.”  

It’s not really controversial, sorry to say.  This may come as a surprise but non-Jews are quite capable of acting in a less than noble fashion; some of these non-Jews have even attained quite powerful positions over the years.   

Check out Bamford’s work for some interesting linkages between Eisenhower and Northwoods.  

“in his farewell address warning to Americans of the threat it posed to their democracy.”

Democracy?  Lol.  

“that which finds Zionism to play a more important role in world affairs than Danse thinks.”

I’m open to the idea, certainly.  I think Zionism plays a significant role in world affairs. 

Casseia:

“Look at the parade of Truefers who come out to congratulate Danse for his polemic”

Casseia.  I’m sorry to hear you got banned.  I always thought your posts were a sterling example of how NOT to get banned.  If you still wish to post there I’ll try and see what happened behind the scenes.  “Truefers”, sounds like Nico.  :(

Please do keep this thread on top for a few days.  I’m off to my father’s funeral and probably won’t be able to post again for a few days but I'll try and respond to further posts ASAP. 

gretavo's picture

sounds good Danse, thanks for stepping up.

You are of course free to post wherever you want, here or at truthaction or even 911blogger and that is your decision and not something that I would hold against you. I also am glad that you will continue to keep a dialogue open with those of us who have much less of a problem with you than with the company that surrounds you (which is not entirely your fault of course.) willingly or not you are one part of a strategy that aims to control the discourse of the "truth movement". your views are considered OK by certain standards imposed by certain people which/who do not consider my views OK. and so we divide and multiply like any good eco-system encourages its denizens to do.

In any case, sorry to hear about your dad, and do keep up the good work that you've been doing. And I know you probably don't/wouldn't, but don't take our disagreements or rhetoric personally. Our cause is more important than any one of us.

gretavo's picture

I’m disappointed but

I’m disappointed but alas, not surprised at the response.  

not surprised because presumably you know what the probloem there is too.

For the record, I fall somewhere between Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Tucker, Tolstoy and Zerzan, which is to say that “anarcho-syndicalist” is not an entirely accurate representation of my political philosophy.  So it goes, there are as many forms of anarchism as there are anarchists.  But it’s all good.

whatever you wanna call it is fine. if you come up with a label that works for you please advise. 

“long ago achieved a reputation for being fair and balanced by including the Danicng Israelis in his video The Thrid Stage.  It was the first significant truth film to my knowledge to do so, and as such it exceeded even Danse's expectations for popularity.”
I do try to keep things in perspective.  And yes, Third Stage was indeed the first 911 truth film to present a coherent account of the dancing Israelis.  No respect, I tell ya.  

plenty of respect, just decreasing is all...

"Danse feels it is safe, apparently, to say what he REALLY thinks."

I wrote the piece mostly out of disappointment, to be honest, that certain individuals are engaging in what I believe to be self-defeating behavior. 

not gleefully accepting a double standard is self-defeating--who knew! 

 Turning Zionism into a caricature, a boogeyman, an all-encompassing bete noir does not help the cause of 911 truth, nor aid in exposing the Israeli role in 911, nor contribute to the defeat of Zionism itself.  Quite the opposite, delirious rantings tend to discredit. 

not sure who/what this applies to.  your own description of what you cliam to be ranting deliriously about is itself a caricature, sorry, you can and should do better!

Safe?  Nah.  If I felt threatened by anyone on this forum I wouldn’t be here.  And nothing in that post contradicts anything I’ve written previously.  I have always maintained that Zionism is more a symptom than a cause

 i didn't mean you would feel personal;ly unsafe, I meant it was safe from criticism ON TRUTHACTION. the devil is in the details.  less (of a cause) is still some, and that some is more studiously ignored than almost anything else. and actually i think you're just wrong--imperialism, capitalism, etc. cause plenty of problems all by themselves without Zionism. to pretend that I blame all the world's ills on Zionism is just something people like to say to try to make me look bad. what I am saying is that 9/11 happened because of Zionism more than because of imperialism or capitalism. imperialists and capitalists do not want chaos in the middle east, they want to exploit the resources there, which is eaiser to do when people aren't killing each other. there is however a little racist state that is keen to establish regional hegemony. and that is well known to anyone who reads the work of Israelis like Israel Shahak.

, and that tunnel-vision focus on Jews and Zionism is neither rational nor productive. 

 who has tunnel vision focus on it?  not me.  you seem to be reacting to a reaction against the gross imbalance that you know exists in coverage of the issue.

At the same time I have attempted to highlight the significant Israeli role in TWAT.  Except for individuals plagued by binary thinking I see no contradiction.  

still not sure who your beef is against--are you seriously saying we are more binary thinking than the NWO/evil Bush done it for oil crowd you are now in bed with?

“concern for Israel was not foremost in the minds of those who planned and executed 9/11.”  

I’m sure it was a concern for some of the participants.  

which ones, Danse?

“Instead it is the ol' Anglo-American power elite”

I tend not to view states in these simplistic terms.  It’s of little significance to me whether it is Canada aiding military juntas in Haiti or Israel killing children in the West Bank or the “Anglo-American” empire engaging in some other atrocity – I don’t play favorites.  

what do you play then? you're not advancing much of an argument yet. last i checked the anglo-american power elite were not a state, but an affinity group that includes wealthy British and American citizens. the fact that many of these are radical Zionists is glossed over by the NWO crowd who prefer that the anglo-american elite not be identified with its Zionist offspring.

“who have dragged their little vassal state kicking and screaming into this horrible plot”

tsk tsk.  This shit is really beneath you – or so I would have thought until recently.  

the way your words are read may not be the way you intend them but that is the subtext of your words in the context that you choose to put them in (i.e. a controlled shill site)  anyway, keep watching and you'll keep learning more about what shit is or is not beneath me if you are so inclined.

“Danse makes sure to make clear that Zionism and Zionists are just bogeymen”

They are made into boogeymen by certain people.  There’s a trick that’s all the rage in cinematic circles – B & W with one color revealed.  Some see one color, others see a rainbow.  

And some see a criminal gang where others see an illusion created to mislead.  I think criminal gangs are more dangerous.

“Strangely enough, he cites Eisenhower as a source of much of the strategy of dominating resource-rich muslim lands.”  

It’s not really controversial, sorry to say.  This may come as a surprise but non-Jews are quite capable of acting in a less than noble fashion; some of these non-Jews have even attained quite powerful positions over the years.   

oo, here's some shit i thought was beneath *you* Danse. obviously you mean that I think only jews can be evil.  tsk tsk! on eisenhower, i wasn't disputing the factuality of what you stated, just wondering how you interpret Eisenhower's warning about the MIC.

Check out Bamford’s work for some interesting linkages between Eisenhower and Northwoods.  

“in his farewell address warning to Americans of the threat it posed to their democracy.”

Democracy?  Lol.  

ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.  Americans!  You have no democracy!  so, don't try to exercise any!  because you have no power!  you should not be so stupid as to believe that you have any right to complain!

“that which finds Zionism to play a more important role in world affairs than Danse thinks.”

I’m open to the idea, certainly.  I think Zionism plays a significant role in world affairs. 

but not nearly as much as... you don't quite say, do you.  the will to power?  greed?  hunger?  say what you mean if you want us to believe that you mean what you say.

Casseia:

“Look at the parade of Truefers who come out to congratulate Danse for his polemic”

Casseia.  I’m sorry to hear you got banned.  I always thought your posts were a sterling example of how NOT to get banned.  If you still wish to post there I’ll try and see what happened behind the scenes.  “Truefers”, sounds like Nico.  :(

Danse, what makes you think anyone would want to post there anymore, if one's privileges will be revoked when one steps out of line while others have the run of the place?  sorry to say but 911blogger and now truthaction are hardly paragons of credibility.  trust, once betrayed, is not easily regained.  you should be celebrating the diversification now taking place, as an anarchist.  and you must think that invoking he who shall not be named is in any way going to cow us into not applying snark where snark is merited.  if you think that what makes Nic--er he who shall not be named what he is is his use of puns then perhaps you need to reread your psychology textbook.

Please do keep this thread on top for a few days.  I’m off to my father’s funeral and probably won’t be able to post again for a few days but I'll try and respond to further posts ASAP. 

As I said, sorry to hear about your dad.  Then again, a cynic might say there was no need for you to insert into this kind of post such a blatantly sympathy evoking statement of fact.  But of course I'll be called heartless for even mentioning it, so never mind. gotta go now, to take mom to her chemo session...

Big_D's picture

Hey Danse...

Sorry to hear about your father. I'm not a religious person, but I believe he's in a better place.

However, I find that the idea of "ZIHOP as Limited Hangout" to be intellectually dishonest bordering on shillery. I guess we here at WTCDemolition should accept your assertion that Zionists are just another scape-goat of the American Imperial Complex and forget in who's honor the term "terrorist" was coined, the long list of false flag terror blamed on Muslims and the fact that the Zionist goals for Israel seem to perfectly align with American / English Imperial goals. (Just three examples from the laundry list.)

Guess I'm just not a coincidence theorist.

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> the Zionist goals for

> the Zionist goals for Israel seem to perfectly align with American / English Imperial goals

People seem to have forgotten that Iran also supported the US invasion of Iraq. A sampling of that appears here:

http://emperors-clothes.com/news/iran.htm

http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/helping.htm

Should we believe that Iran's leaders were just being stupid by choosing to "perfectly align with American / English Imperial goals"? Perhaps they were being stupid. Perhaps Bush will invade Iran next week and then we'll all be looking at Iran's early cooperation with the US invasion of Iraq as self-destructive stupidity. But the picture is not so clear at this time.

Most of the "war for Israel" arguments go back to the paper on "A Clean Break" which Netanyahu helped to oversee. Since then we've had lots of official statements coming from Israel asserting that Israel really didn't want Iraq ro be invaded because Iran was stronger and Iraq was the only balancing power against Iran, etcetera, etcetera. Much of this has been contemptuously dismissed by people pushing the "war for Israel" thesis and, for the most part, Israel's leadership deserves such contempt. But that doesn't really tell us what exactly is going on behind the scenes, and people shouldn't pretend to know so readily.

It is known that during the hostage crisis which was running in the 1980 election, Bush and other Reagan campaigners went dealing with Iran behind the scenes to keep the hostages there until Reagan took office:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

Now if one can believe that the rush of Israeli disclaimers of responsibility for the Iraq invasion are just a cynical cover-up, then why shouldn't one also entertain the possibility that some of the hostile gestures of late by Washington towards Iran are perhaps a cynical maneuver aimed at covering over US-Iranian cooperation in the assault on Iraq? If one can believe that Iran's cooperation with the US against Iraq was a mistake and that the officials in Washington really always meant for the invasion of Iraq to be a prelude to an invasion of Iran, then why can't one also believe that Netanyahu's attaching his name to "A Clean Break" was a mistake and that the officials in Washington always meant for the invasion of Iraq to be a way of strengthening Iranian Shiite Islam and using this as a tool against Russia?

The fact is, we do know that Washington continues to regard Russia as a rival power, even after the end of the Cold War, and that attempts to place nuclear weapons in Czechoslovakia have been made as part of this strategy. That strategy against Russia clearly doesn't much to do with Zionism per se. It's also a fact that in earlier times, specifically during the Cold War, part of Washington's strategy was to encourage the growth of radical Islam in Iran, Afghanistan and other places as a way of aggravating the southeast portions of Russia. It would be surprising if this strategy were now actually abandoned in entirety. The question is simply what portion of the current events around Iraq stem from a continuation of this strategy, as part of a plan to destroy Iran's main counter-influence and thereby make possible a wider growth of radical Islam pointed at Russia, and what part of of it was really meant to serve the goals of Netanyahu. We'd don't honestly know the answers to those questions right now, and it doesn't help to pretend that we do.

Big_D's picture

Umm...

From one of your links. Mind this was written in 2003.

"...Since becoming convinced that the Bush administration is indeed determined to effect forcible change in Iraq, Tehran has been egging on Washington, albeit in private. Whenever the US has needed Tehran's help, the Iranians have been more than happy to oblige.

-- From "War Sirens Herald Iran's Hour of Revenge," Financial Times "

Doesn't sound much different than their position today.

"This contradicts the popular notion that a) this is a war against Islam per se and therefore b) Iran "is next.""

Ouch! Couldn't get more wrong than that, or could they?

"We agreed that Saddam Hussein's Baath party is fascist. We agreed that the US war will not - was never intended - to bring democracy to Iraq."

I guess they could...

I don't pretend to know it all. But I do know propaganda when I see it.

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

The fact that Iran did

The fact that Iran did support the US move against Iraq as a way of increasing Shiite influence is not really in doubt at all. The only question is whether they were shooting themselves in the foot when they did that at the time. If Bush invades Iran next week then we can all point out how stupid the Government of Iran was to support the Iraq invasion. But it's just as plausible to suggest that the apparent confrontation with Iran today is a smokescreen meant to hide a different agenda. I won't pretend to know the answer at this time, but many people speak too quickly as if they did.

Big_D's picture

Russia and China have warned against an attack on Iran.

In my mind it's still very unclear who was bamboozled and who the bamboozler was.

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> In my mind it's still very

> In my mind it's still very unclear who was bamboozled and who the bamboozler was.

Well that's a fair enough statement which I can't dispute. There's a lot of vagueness in the situation right now. I think that if Bush really invades Iran in the next month or so then the only plausible motives would that either it was done for the Israel lobby or done out of nuclear-masochism, or both. But perhaps the intent always was to leave Iran be? I don't know. It's not surprising that Russia would warn against US troops moving even closer to its border in Iran. But was that ever the intent? In the 1970s Carter, out of nowhere, started following a human rights policy in Iran which destabilized the Shah's government and made possible Khomeini. Many Leftists of that time were angry enough about the CIA's role in installing the Shah that they took this as a defeat for US imperialism. But having Khomeini come into power on an "anti-American" agenda was a great boon to the effort at stirring up a war in Afghanistan which would draw the Soviets in. It gave enormous credibility to the radical Islamic forces who were then funded by the CIA afterwards. They didn't come off as sock-puppets because Khomeini was known to be anti-American, and this was a great help in a policy aimed against Russia. Perhaps that was the intent of Carter's human rights policy in Iran all along? We don't know for sure. Just like we don't for certain right now whether Bush ever intended to move agsinst Iran or if the intent all along was simply to break up Iraq to Iran's advantage.

kate of the kiosk's picture

intentions towards Iran

interesting perspective.

You do make a point in that this admin, being still comprised of hard-core, old-schooled, supposed commie-haters, would want to encourage a strong antiRussian Shiite Iran intact. Although the admins treatment of the Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad in the UN and otherwise would belie that fact.

But, of course, shoring up Iran would not appear to be in the best interest of Israel. so there is always this tension. And, as Iran has posed no serious, in reality, direct threat to Israel (wipe away the media crap and propaganda), except by way of aid to the Palestinian cause/ Hezbollah/Hamas, Iraq has posed more of a direct threat to Israel as demonstrated in the first Gulf War with missile attacks.

There are over 25,000 Jews now abiding safely in Iran, a Jewish population has lived there for centuries.

Now if Israel would just stop expansion into more Palestinian territories, and would promote a freer, more democratic envelopment of Palestinians into just land agreements and government, would not her security be so much more enhanced?

Why would anyone Jew or fake-Jew want to live in Israel? to live in land seized illegally and to have the antipathy and hatred of your neighbors whom you denigrate and abuse? it goes beyond me.

the ultimate solution is the dissolution of the state of Israel for Jews only and the Palestinians' right of return.

Simplistically, if our administration and others (Britain)  had spent the kind of time, money, and effort into endeavors such as this instead of killing and occupation...just imagine what a beautiful Near East would  have evolved. where children could have hope for peace and sharing between peoples of different faiths and cultures...

Israel! Oh Israel! Lift up thy neighbors! Be a beacon of peace and knowledge! I pray every day.

all i know is that as long as i live, my faith and belief directs me to pursue this end. 

 

 

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> Although the admins

> Although the admins treatment of the Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad in the UN and otherwise would belie that fact.

Thus far at least, all of this has been at the level of a public show. It certainly would be necessary, if Iran were to serve as an effective instrument in generating radical Islamism within the Russian underbelly, for the anti-American credentials of Iran to be intact. The question which has to remain open for now is whether some false rhetoric has been thrown at Iran by Bush & Co. for the purpose of increasing Iran's Islamic credentials, or whether Bush really aims to attack Iran. It's possible that we'll get an answer to that in the next few months if such an attack on Iran occurs. But for now it's equally possible that some of these confrontational incidents with Iran have simply been stage-managed for show. Iran, for now, has definitely gained from the Iraq war.

> Simplistically, if our administration and others (Britain) had spent the kind of time, money, and effort into endeavors such as this instead of killing and occupation...

Yes, that could be said about a lot of things in human history. But it doesn't really tell us anything specific about hidden agendas which may go on behind the scenes.

gretavo's picture

good question

"Why would anyone Jew or fake-Jew want to live in Israel? to live in land seized illegally and to have the antipathy and hatred of your neighbors whom you denigrate and abuse? it goes beyond me. "

Look at who the settlers in illegal lands are--right wing religious orthodox Jews.  They are bribed by the government to do it and because of their extreme ideals actually have the balls to.  That's one of the interesting paradoxes that Shahak discusses--the fact that one set of devout Jews like NK are anti-Zionist and yet the political right wing succeeded in cultivating a militant religious movement in the service of expansionary policies.  Make no mistake--the reason Israel wants regional hegemony is precisely because they want to expand beyond their existing borders, basically as far as they can get away with.  The myth used of course is that of eretz Israel, the biblical boundaries that place the promised land between the banks of the nile and the euphrates.  building up the Islamofascist myth and ascribing to it the desire to take over the world by force is actually a way of concealing (in plain view) the fact that the Zionist plan is actually quite similar.

Iran and Turkey are the main powers that Israel is concerned about (look at a map,) and also understand that unlike the gulf pseudo states they are much more solid historically and culturally than the lines drawn around nomads by the british in the sands of the middle east... 

kate of the kiosk's picture

found a brief but informative history of Palestine

while in search of educational institutions/universities in Palestine pre 1948. for my little head... and for those of any others in need of historical food for thought.

 http://www.internationaleducationmedia.com/palestine/

Lazlo's historical research warrants revisiting, too. 

Annoymouse's picture

You really need to read Open Secrets by Israel Shahak

In any case the whole plan all along was not to stop with Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two countries just HAPPEN to surround Iran. The war is bankrupting the United States and it is our young men and women who are doing the dying and killing for a cause that a majority of Americans oppose. On the other hand, I suspect a majority of Israelis are quite supportive of the various US fought and funded wars. Now, call me cynical, but given the absurd amount of influence that AIPAC wields over US politicians it sure seems that all this crap is more in Israel's interests than America's. That's why we have to be lied to about arab muslims hating us. Because otherwise Americans would laugh at anyone suggesting that America's and Israel's interests were remotely similar. Israel is an enemy of the American people. It steals our technology and sells it to our rivals, and it spies on our government. With so many Zionists directly linked in major ways to the 9/11 attacks you have to be blind not to understand what that means. If it were anyone else, ANYONE else, the truth would already have come out because the media would actually be doing their job. Continuing to play dumb when the facts as troubling as they are are so obvious is only making things worse. And we will know very well who to blame if things do get worse--eventually the piper will be paid.

-gretavo

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> In any case the whole plan

> In any case the whole plan all along was not to stop with Afghanistan and Iraq.

That statement is just a matter of opinion. Perhaps a correct opinion, perhaps not. But no one among the ordinary civilian population today really has access to enough information to be able to say what was the "real" plan.

> If it were anyone else, ANYONE else, the truth would already have come out because the media would actually be doing their job.

By comparison with earlier eras the media today is far more critical. In the days when the US was engineering coups across Latin America from Guatemala to Chile there was no special uproar in the media.

gretavo's picture

funny how the media didn't call out Kissinger...

but they did call out Ollie North. Hmmmm.... HMMMMM.... what could the difference be?

Big_D's picture

Slightly off topic, though it pertains to this discussion.

Ever seen "The Panama Deception"? I highly recommend it if you haven't. This is also a good ice-breaker for 9/11 newbies.

"Acclaimed filmmakers Barbara Trent and David Kasper uncover the real reasons for this internationally condemned attack, and reveal General Manuel Noriega's longstanding relationship with the C.I.A., theD.E.A, and George Bush, Sr. Utilizing devastating footage, expert commentary and eyewitness testimony, the film shines a spotlight on this pivotal moment in U.S. history. Network news clips and media critics contribute to a staggering analysis of media control and self-censorship used to deceive the American public--a film hauntingly relevant today."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-446387292666223710&q=panama+dec...

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> but they did call out

> but they did call out Ollie North. Hmmmm.... HMMMMM.... what could the difference be?

The Iran-Contra hoopala was an excellent example of how the 1960s affected the later world. Notice that the only point raised by Congress and the media over Iran-Contra was that Reagan might have given some arms under the cover to the Nicaraguan contras. The matter was never raised that funding a war in Central America was immoral or anything of the sort. It was simply that because of all the protests of the Vietnam era, and the fact that members of Congress knew that there was a reluctance among the public of getting involved in a similar war in Central America, that Congress imposed some restrictions on Reagan. When he violated those restrictions that became a kind of substitute scandal. Not that the war in Central America was ever treated as a scandal. The media and Congress went very light on Reagan over this. But the violation of Congressional restrictions on aid to the contras became the substitute scandal.

gretavo's picture

you have to be joking

the media didn't cover the death squads while they were going on and so people had no idea they were happening. just as now the media don't report on things as they are happening--which is why you don't know what it is they aren't reporting (except 9/11 which was so blatant that we figured it out despite the blackout). control of the media amounts to control of who can and cannot, will or will not be ratted out for their crimes. Bush doesn't control the media, so he will be ratted out for a number of things (though not everything.) Larry Silverstein will apparently never be ratted out by the media. Interesting, huh?

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

The mass-media didn't cover

The mass-media didn't cover the death squads, but by that time in the early 1980s there was already plenty of alternative media circulating around. That played an important role in Reagan's need to circumvent the Congress and in the willingness of Congress to act outraged over it. Hence the Iran-Contra affair.

Big_D's picture

Double post

...

dicktater's picture

Dear Danse,

Please accept my deepest sympathy for you in your loss. I wish a safe trip for you.

dt

casseia's picture

Very sorry to hear about your dad

Please accept my condolences and take care.

Lazlo Toth's picture

My deepest condolences to you Danse

on the passing of your dad. I hope you guys had a good relationship and that he went relatively painlessly. I remember watching my dad slowly die of Parkinson’s disease, and although we all loved him, we prayed for his death. He also prayed for his own death. Watching someone you love turn into a mindless, drooling vegetable is very painful, to say the least. I wish you well on your trip, and in your emotional recovery process as well. Godspeed, my good brother.

Lazlo

Lazlo Toth's picture

My little two cents on some of these ideas about Zionism, 9/11,

Delirious KKK-style rantings about Jews and Zionists are extremely bad for the 9/11 truth movement’s cause. You are correct about that, but to my knowledge, on this site, there has been no “delirious rantings” of hatred against Jews, and as far as I know one of our educational missions here is, with knowledge and information, to separate Jewish people from Zionists so that Italian kids from Bensonhurst who start finding out about the real truth about 9/11 don’t march down into Flatbush and start burning down Jewish neighborhoods. This can be avoided only through education and discussion.

Regarding this site’s supposed obsessed, ultra-concentration on the Zionist angle to 9/11, we do discuss it a lot, and that is because few sites will tolerate any discussion of anything bad being connected to the image of “Israel,” what to speak of its connection to 9/11 and other such events. There are sites that talk about the Pentagon incident, and sites that talk about the Atta’s and the Pakistan’s, and sites that discuss the overwhelming empirical evidence of controlled demolition, and this is where most sites stop the discussion. Who wired the buildings? “Well, we just won’t know until, in some fabled hour, we get a “new, impartial investigation.” As Cossiga correctly pointed out, intelligence agencies around the world looked at 9/11, and immediately thought – Israel, duh. If we seem to concentrate here on a lot of characters passing themselves off as Semites and Jews, it is because, with regards to 9/11, there are quite a lot involved. The only Arabs actually involved are the false flag patsies, most of whom didn’t even come to the States, and were unaware that their pictures were being turned over to the FBI by Israeli intelligence. When 9/11 truth researchers discovered that Lewis Eisenberg – whose uncle Shaul sold U.S. nuke secrets to China in the 1970s in cooperation with Henry Kissinger – was appointed by Christie Todd Whitman to privatize the properties of the NY-NJ Port Authority and does a deal for the WTC with two Zionist friends of his (they all belong to the same clubs, no, not Runway 69) only three months before 9/11 with a heavy “terrorist insurance” policy; and then we find out about all kinds of Eisenberg-authorized elevator shaft work at the core of the building during the summer, and the building shutdowns on the weekend of 9/11; and then we find out that airport and airline security at Boston’s Logan and Newark International are handled by Huntleigh USA, a subsidiary of ICTS, a company owned by two highly placed Israelis, one of whom, Ezra Harel, has long-time Mossad connections; and when we see that one of the main 9/11 Pentagon players, Dov Zakheim, another dual-national “Israel-firster,” has access to advanced aeronautical remote control systems that have already been successfully tested on large commercial aircraft; and when we see that the EXACT military results of 9/11 are to be found in the Likud Party’s wish lists; and when we see – on the INSIDE – that all the key positions of control in the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and White House are occupied by Neo-Cons and radical Zionists who would be in a position to Let the outside Israeli operatives Make This Happen; and finally when 9/11 truth researchers look at the history of Zionism, they see that Israel has a sixty-year history of false-flag attacks against their allies in order to get their allies to attack Israel’s enemies, i.e. the Arabs. I will tell you one thing, American CIA agents did not wire those buildings. They were wired by fanatic, Mossad operatives. Some of these guys and gals are trained from a very young age in a type of religio-military cult. Killing a few Gentiles for the long-term Middle Eastern strategy of Israel is, in their minds, completely acceptable. The dancing and lighter flicking of Shmuel and his Urban Moving crew are proof enough of that. They have been pulling this shit for about fifty years now under the cover of being Semites and persecuted Jews, which they are neither, and blowing up buildings while dressed like Arabs is one of their specialties. Because no one in the “mainstream” 9/11 truth movement wants to talk about who really did 9/11, because of fears of being labeled anti-Semites, at WTCDemolition we have taken on that unwanted truth-task, and I think that everyone here represents well a policy of being willing to face the truth, but to understand it and present it with reason, information, and high consciousness understanding. Anyone who says this a Jew-hating site hasn’t read a single word published here.

Regarding the real reasons, the U.S. is in now in Iraq and will soon be bombing Iran is explained in highly referenced detail in an entire chapter unto itself in Mearsheimer & Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” on how ‘The Lobby’ and its PNAC buddies took the U.S. into Iraq for Israel’s “security interests,” i.e. American soldiers are dying, murdering, being maimed, and psychologically fucked for life, all for the “security interests” of Israel. The nuking of Iran is also part of their sicko plan which Americans are paying for and dying for, what to speak of the ruination of America’s economy and position in the world for the next 40 years. If one of the focuses of this site is on the primary Zionist role in 9/11 (government Neo-Cons and sayanim like Larry, Lewis, and Frank on the inside, with Israeli Mossad operatives brought in from the outside for demolition work and airport “security.”), it is because “mainstream” 9/11 truth sites refuse to have an intelligent discussion about the very grim realities of, not only 9/11, but the entire Zionist control apparatus that has taken control of key elements of America.

The beauty of the scam, of course, is that crimes on a grand international scale are being committed, but no one is “allowed” to talk about the ‘little man behind the curtain’, because you’ll get called a racist, and you will lose your job, or get sent to prison. The little man behind the curtain that I refer to is not Jewish. He is a psychopathic adherent to a militant, racist ideology called Zionism, a 20th century ideology completely antithetical to the religious faith called Judaism. The Zionists have, of course, cleverly conflated these two in the minds of the public so that they may use Judaism as a shield and cover for their crimes of violence against humanity. 9/11 is the Absolute Worst Thing that this small minority of highly militant Zionists and treasonous Neo-Cons could have done to the Jewish people, but many are now awakening, and it is horribly hard.

kate of the kiosk's picture

hugs, dear Lazlo

we are blessed to have you here!

gretavo's picture

thanks lazlo

it helps to know that there are people who understand and appreciate the importance to JEWS of acknowledging that one need not feel compelled to support Israel "right or wrong" to be a "good jew". Zionists thrive on this ignorance and this misunderstanding that is enforced by propaganda, that a) all good Jews support Israel and b) Israel could never do anything wrong (at least not anything as wrong as what arab muslims are allegedly capable of.) Precisely because this time the crimes that have been committed are so horrendous that we cannot ignore them and we also cannot lie about them there HAS to be an alternative to the voices that say that to suspect Israeli agency in 9/11 is something only an antisemite would do. The result of pushing that ridiculous position is that some people will understand it as meaning that if Israel did in fact "do 9/11" and one is not OK with that, then one is an anti-semite and, what the heck, one should act like one. Not only is that bad for Jews who have absolutely no responsibility for the actions of criminal Zionists nor any reason to feel ashamed of being Jewish as a result, it amounts to Zionists blackmailing the world, including Jews, that if they are called to account for their actions they are perfectly happy to unleash the hounds of real race hatred in order to escape amidst the flames.

THAT is why we are so strident here. We would not be upset at all to be proved wrong about Zionist agency in the events of 9/11 if in fact that is the truth. Can our critics claim they believe the corollary to that? That they don't care if it was Zionists or not, that they just want to know the actual truth? I have a very hard time believing that given how studiously they ignore any and all discussions of the significance of the identification with radical Zionism of so many key players in this sordid affair (and others, like the Iraq War fraud.)

It is THOSE people who frighten ME because of what their lies and dissembling could potentially trigger, which is something that EVERY DAY I worry about, and makes feel concerned for the well being of all of my Jewish friends and acquaintances, most of whom are as brainwashed when it comes to Israel as so many well-meaning but gullible Americans are about the Democrats and Republicans.

The shame here is entirely our critics'. I sleep with a clear conscience, and I wish that I could say I sleep in peace as a result. I will not sleep peacefully until we are well and truly OFF this insane track towards mass destruction in the interest of a few criminals' reputations. I will not sleep peacefully so long as innocent men women boys and girls are murdered daily in my name, with my money, and against my strongest convictions. Shame on those who misrepresent our work here. Shame on those who insist on clinging to their lies. Oh what shame is theirs...

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> As Cossiga correctly

> As Cossiga correctly pointed out, intelligence agencies around the world looked at 9/11, and immediately thought – Israel, duh.

Except that Cossiga never said that. Cossiga's opinions as given here

http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/11settembre2001/200609artico...

are that

"I refuse the conspiracy theory, which is a smart and sometimes sincere contrafaction of reality caused by the fear of that (reality)... Rembering how "open" american society is ... I think it's very unlikely, I may say impossible, that 9/11 was an inside job".

The sometimes misquoted piece here

http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_...

carries a statement that

"all the democratic parties in Europe and USA know very well that the attack was organised by CIA and Mossad, whit the help of sionistic world, just to accuse arab countries and induce occident to intervein both in Iraq and Afghanistan."

But when read in context it becomes clear that Cossiga was only making fun of the italian Left.

gretavo's picture

VERY interesting find on Cossiga, Patrick--thanks!

I do in fact understand enough Italian to get the the gist, and with a little help from Babelfish can summarize his short op-ed there thusly:

"On this anniversary (five year) of the attacks lets not let ourselves be led by conpiratorial thinking to think that there is not really a threat from Islamofascism. It is the fear that indeed there is a clash of civilizations that leads people to take comfort in thinking that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound intended to facilitate the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt it was an American conspiracy because look at how they have been defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also how Israel was very nearly defeated by Hezbollah, but really by Syria and Iran. The fact that iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, which the UN won't be able to stop, should make us all fear a final showdown between mulims on one side and Israelis motivated by their strong survival instincts (SHoah and Masada influenced) and their liberal western allies on the other."

So.... in this context, it seems that either Cossiga had a change of heart or in fact that he DID mean by his later comment to mock the Italian left.

Recall that the story about Cossiga's "groundbreaking claims", i.e. the misinterpretation, came from? Drum roll please.... ALEX JONES!

Let us recall one of those trusty maxims from Nietzsche (which I can now quote by heart so no need to cut and paste)

"The most perfidious way to harm a cause is to defend it delibertaely with faulty arguments."

AJ, you have the benefit of the doubt no longer. Your goal is now clear, and you will be held accountable for your deliberate actions to discredit the movement to expose the truth about 9/11.

And I also now wonder about the appearance of a certain irksome user posting lots of Holocaust revisionism just before all hell bropke loose at truthaction, such that Col. Jenny Sparks could now be telling people what awful Jew-haters we all supposedly are. The certain unnameable former poster's quote about ANglo women can now I think be understood for what it was. A little thing that was meant to be quoted as representative of the "kind of people" who post here. While it was not necessarily a popular decision to ban him, I am VERY glad I did now.

juandelacruz's picture

Cossiga is a product of the

Cossiga is a product of the intelligence and political community of Italy which I presume is as corrupt and tainted as anywhere else. He has no track record of being a do gooder either as a progressive or a truth advocate, in contrast with someone like say Ray McGovern*. If anything, he seems to have a reputation for being a loose canon. With such a background and reputation I was very weary of his little gift for 9-11 truthers. His type is among the last that I would expect to honestly support the truth movement. If anything comes from one of "them" that seems to support 9-11 truth, my first question is what is he doing this for?

(Im not saying McGovern is ok, I haven't read all his writings yet to determine if he has a hidden agenda. These days you can't be too careful)

juandelacruz's picture

The Cossiga revelation

The Cossiga revelation regarding 9-11 is bearing bad fruit. An article such as at the link below is written up using Cossiga's statements as the primary source for it's arguments.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18569/26/

Given what we know now that Cossiga's statements were mistranslated, the article may come across to the uncritical reader as being totally debunked.

gretavo's picture

RT left a comment there

3 months ago! But unfortunately his link to Lazlo's opus got screwed up in transmission. Oh well. Good for RT that he didn't say Cossiga could be taken literally, just encouraged people, especially Jewish people, to consider that Israel should be held under close scrutiny as a supposed benevolent force...

Annoymouse's picture

Hi Lazlo, Just visiting. I

Hi Lazlo,
Just visiting. I must start by saying I've been called a self-hating Jew on more than one forum/YouTube debate, but there exists contraindications that Sept 11/Afgh War/Iraq War was completely set up to benefit Israel -- though it did and certainly seems to be part of the agenda.

For one example, cooperativeresearch (no i don't buy their conclusions completely or anyone's) had a history of Chalabi going back to 1991. At that time, Poppy Bush told the CIA to begin creating foreign propaganda to overthrow Saddam.

By the way, Bush was considered an enemy by many Israelis -- Ari Ben Menashe's ex-spy book Profits of War said Israelis plotted to killing Bush and blame Palestinians. Or was that Ostrovsky? Or both? Anyhow ...

The CIA funded the Rendon Group in London and a Mr. Francis Brooks (evangelical Christian) began disseminating anti-Iraq propaganda for $40,000/month. Rendon group is who "created" Chalabi. Chalabi wanted Saddam's job. Chalabi moved to DC, and Brooks and Brooks' family moved into Chalabi's expensive Georgetown condo. In a nutshell, they tried lobbying Democrats, but Dems were reluctant to launch a war, so Brooks had Chalabi switch to Republicans, Neo-Cons. Chalabi allegedly "charmed" Wolfowitz. Brooks also told Chalabi to woo Israel by telling them he'd open up an old pipeline that Saddam had sealed. And the rest ...

This shows that the Iraq War was planned LLLOOONNNGGG before Bush Jr. was appointed. Let's say that the Neo-Cons, having a plan, needed to hire a front man. Good ol Gomer Bush was selected from a field of other dignified men. Bush embodies certain PR skills that dignified men don't.

Another indication that Israel was not necessarily the lead is a book I consider a matching pair to the PNAC documents -- the Grand Chessboard. Brzezinski's book -- while not outright advocating military invasion, he's against that you see - more into Black Ops like forming Al-Qaeda -- did focus heavily on *controlling* Eurasia. This was about preventing any local factions from forming that could threaten the US (i.e. a strong Iraq) but more importantly, to prevent Russia/China from having free play there. Dr. B did not specify WHICH country to invade and overthrow. The Neo-cons did. But so did Bush/CIA, notwithstanding CIA analysts' disagreements over WMD's and the NIE. But Brzezinski was definitely interested in controlling Russia's and China's border states. A friend tells me about a Tenggezz (sp?) oil field North of Iraq, one that Russia covets.

PNAC (the whole group and dozens of ally "think tanks" i.e. PR pressure groups found on Rightweb IRC website) were not the only warmongers, nor Dr. B. American Enterprise (AEI) was in on it. So was Heritage, which originally sponsored the Afgh "freedom fighters", i.e. Al-Qaeda. We already have a bunch of "conservative-identified" war proponents, but also a Brookings/CFR member (considered a "liberal" group) and others.

Futhermore, MOSSAD participated in a lot of School of the Americas Latin American shit in the 80's, selling weapons, training military thugs on "counter-insurgency" from their skills kicking the Palestinians around, but it was the US/CIA leading these ops. (Some of what's now "Neo-Cons" were part of Team B in the 80's. Their role was to hype the Soviet communist threat, all out of proportion and literally based on "imagination".)

Given these examples and a few more I can't think of, I see what amounts to a dovetailing of interests between Israel and the US.

I don't discount Israel's crimes in Palestine. I don't discount the near-total media blackout on Israel and pressure to silence critics, plays (Rachel Corrie), Kahlil Gibran, Congressmen, etc. I find it impossible to discount "Jewish-controlled media", though it's not clear that all Jews in media are necessarily pro-Israel at their roots, there's a strong bias.

My impression is that in a "democracy" -- I mean a democracy amongst the elites in the sense they use that word, i.e. a business deal -- various players must come together on agreement, sign a contract. All the players expect to get SOMETHING out of it. One of the PNAC documents asks American business (high level target audience) to do some short-term sacrifice for longer term US hegemony and therefore, their own profitability and power.

Notwithstanding Zackheim, Feith (whose law partner is in Israel), Wurmer, Wolfowitz, and many others, and considering how "in charge" or in collaboration the US is with other Intell orgs around the globe (Brit, Pakistan, Germany, Indonesia, Saudi, etc), I tend to see 9/11 as more of a joint covert military operation which INCLUDED Israel, and Iraq as an overt operation the same.

I am willing to be found mistaken on this, but to me, it just makes more sense overall.

Big_D's picture

Yeah, PC = Liars etiquette

Just more 'newspeak'.

I, BTW, also got banned from 'truefaction' last night for pointing out the latent hypocrisy in JDR's latest entry - ""Progressive" Censorship: Banned Again For Telling It Like It Is by John Doraemi"

Oh, the irony...

gretavo's picture

subtle disinfo shill Kurt Nimmo LIHOP Remix

I had to edit and rearrange the essay a bit for it to make sense... 

According to the German newspaper Die Zeit, Mohamed Atta and his U.S. military base trained accomplices were followed around by the Mossad’s “Israeli art students” and the CIA. Ramzi Binalshibh “led the CIA to Atta, who was then followed to the States,” writes Jack Riddler.

Sure, and big fat chartreuse raspberries grow on the dark side of the Moon.

And angels dance on the head of a pin.

casseia's picture

Truthaction has been rendered safe for Jessica

He emerges from his lair to engage the Colonel in discussion in the newly revived Portland thread.

Big_D's picture

You beat me to it.

I just went to see how many more comments there are against people who can no longer defend themselves & noticed ole' jess himself finds it safe to slink to the surface.

I can't help but to think of the old line something to the effect of "You shall know them by the company they keep".

casseia's picture

Cry havoc and loose the dogs of Jenny...

She's on a rampage at 911b and I'm misbehaving by stooping to her level. (Bear in mind that it could get a lot worse than this on my end.)

Responding to a suggestion that people check out this site for themselves:
Oh dear, you don't want to tell people that
They'll find stuff like this:
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/530
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/583
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/637
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/423
By all means, read through the rubbish and decide for yourselves.

The silver lining is this site is well on the way to becoming so obviously un-credible that, like Nico's 911Bloglines, nothing they say about anything or anyone can be taken seriously .
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 1:57pm.

You wish.
Perhaps that's the impression you're getting at your newly renovated echo chamber, Truthaction. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, since nothing you say about anyone or anything has been taken seriously for a while. Why don't you put down the dictionary of British slang and do something for 9/11 Truth? (And don't give *me* that crap about Brit raised Yankee.)
wtcdemolition.com/blog
Submitted by casseia on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 2:09pm.

Exibit A
Moving from selectively telling bits of stories guaranteed to cause drama, to outright saying things known not to be true.
Oh, no I'm not going to have a melt down and shout all over the internet about how I know you know this. See, I'm not the person who posts personal shite about people, true or otherwise, like a disturbed 7th grader all over the internet just because I'm not getting on with someone.
That's you.
My mates know I can be trusted even if we part ways.
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 2:41pm.

Is that an acknowledgment
that you are, in fact, not "a Brit raised Yankee" as you have been telling people? Sounds like it.
"Oh, no I'm not going to have a melt down and shout all over the internet about how I know you know this. See, I'm not the person who posts personal shite about people, true or otherwise, like a disturbed 7th grader all over the internet just because I'm not getting on with someone."
I know you are, but what am I? Do you have any links to this disturbed shite? I think what you might be referring to are places where Petros and I acknowledged that we know you in real life, which complicated things like your effort to link a Canadian anti-war activist's identity to your user name.
Anyway, I'll stop there.

wtcdemolition.com/blog
Submitted by casseia on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 2:53pm.

New Exibit B
Still trying to stir up shite--instead of doing the slow fade which would be the smartest move for someone whats been outflanked.
The jew/moon hoax site you help administrate takes the mickey out of anything you have to say. Don't have to take anything you say as fact--I mean look at the stuff you make up about Jon Gold.
Clearly there is a history of needing to make up things about people to get a feeling of being in control. Have fun with that. ;-)
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 3:01pm.

Again, no links?

No links to the "personal shite [sic]" so you fall back on "stuff I make up about Jon Gold"?

Clearly, there is a history of not feeling in control that motivates much of what you do, in real life and online.

"Jew/moon hoax site" -- did you make that up or was it suggested by one of your handlers? In what way is it a "Jew" site? BTW, it's spelled 'exhibit.'

wtcdemolition.com/blog
Submitted by casseia on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 3:08pm.

New Exhibit C
Which is mostly time wasting rubbish, but--
Can't stay away, even when that would be in her best interests.
Maybe this link will sort everything out:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11323#11323
Start comparing notes, everyone--you'll be glad you did.
And cheers for the spelling tip. ;-)
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 3:15pm.

casseia's picture

And now her posse has been by

to do extensive down-voting. Or maybe she fired up Tor -- it's hard to know.

Big_D's picture

Pretty sad.

What I find funny is that constantly referencing WTCDemo is gonna backfire big time.

After all, I would have never thought to question certain historic myths if it weren't for Idiots & Shills not unlike jess & that sparks creature.

gretavo's picture

well I think it can finally be said openly

"Col. Jenny Sparks" is an ignorant and obnoxious person who no one takes seriously because she contributes absolutely nothing of value--no actions, no analysis, no insight to the cause of exposing the truth about 9/11. She would seem to be a fine example of a hack charged with playing a role she just isn't up to playing. She is neither clever enough nor intelligent enough to pull off what she is trying to pull off, which is to be looked upon as a well-liked and respected "member of the 9/11 truth community". My guess is that her handlers will soon realize what a liability the Col. Sparks persona is to their mission and will pull the plug, soon after we will see, totally coincidentally of course, a different character come out of the woodwork intended to appeal to younger and less intelligent would be truthers as a role model. And by god is she a bad speller!

Big_D's picture

I'm in awe of the sheer power of the truth.

We're seeing them change their strategy mid-swing. Now they're going to try diffuse the demand for Zionist accountability with this lame attempt to paint them as scape-goats.

As for the col. I always found her annoying but harmless, and funny enough, my opinion hasn't changed.

Scrubby's picture

...

"As for the col. I always found her annoying but harmless, and funny enough, my opinion hasn't changed."

You know, i remember a time , long time ago , when i quite enjoyed her posts on 911 blogger. Remember when she was playing around with that Ronald Wieck dude ? Hmm.
These days , i can hardly find a reason to even bother reading her posts. 100% annoyance with that same old stupid slang.
Anyway, speaking of that Wieck joke, i found this sort of interesting:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2889
Huh, so now were going to see one of those Wieck 'discussions' with Diane , the 'i am not sure about WTC7' activist, about WTC7? Huh ....

Tahooey's picture

i remember

when col jenny first started posting at 911b back in the wild west days of no membership required, she seemed both intelligent and amusing. boy how times change.

gretavo's picture

nice avatar scrubby!

the cool hand of god!

juandelacruz's picture

Hi Cass and Kate, Thanks for

Hi Cass and Kate,

Thanks for helping out at 911B. I had to go to sleep at 5am just when Jenny started the spat. Her attempt to discredit this site is pathetic. It was funny watching the points, at first everyone agreed with my posts and my points were going up, then someone sniffed me out and my points started to go down but nobody was arguing against me, just neg points. When Jenny showed up the conversation just lost any merit and my points went really negative.

gretavo's picture

your standing up there is appreciated

I know what it's like to be attacked for no good reason and to have to have faith in people's ability to figure out who in the whole mess is lying and who is telling the truth. Thanks for linking to wtcd over at 911b--let's see how long you can get away with it!

juandelacruz's picture

I think there are a lot of

I think there are a lot of good people there. They just need to see other points of view to snap out of the matrix.

juandelacruz's picture

Hi Gret, Reprehensor

Hi Gret,

Reprehensor requested that I remove the link to this site on my sig because of WTC's low regard for 911B. He asked nicely and I thought he was within his rights as admin to ask, so I dropped the link today.

I hope you and Lazlo don't mind that I posted parts of Lazlo's articles on Zionist involvement at 9-11B which I now link to in my sigs. I did credit Lazlo and this site on that post.

You can find my new sig here http://www.911blogger.com/node/13444#comment-174926

just click on the sig to the post with Lazlo's article.

If either you or Lazlo disapprove of how I am using the article, please say so and I will remove it asap.

gretavo's picture

you're the man, juan

do as you see fit--we're behind you 100%!

Lazlo Toth's picture

Hey Juan

OK by me as well.

I love the notions of censorship and free speech that are developing now in the Brave New World of the modern political internet. Unbelievable. Thomas Jefferson barfs in heaven...

juandelacruz's picture

Thanks Lazlo and G

Thanks Lazlo and G

Big_D's picture

The MSM doesn't link to apt. 911b,

and apt. 911b doesn't want any links to WTCDemo, is there a pattern hear?

I'd just like Reprecensor to shoot an email my way explaining why I'm in moderation que. I know why & they know why, I'd just like to see it in writing.

gretavo's picture

and so it begins...

i guess we're really starting to make 'em sweat over there! good job everyone! you know what that means right? It means we're on the right track. :)

Big_D's picture

I "here" that, G!

(Just giving myself a hard time, and yes, english is my first language.)

Seriously though, I figured the resident censors would either ban anyone linking to WTCDemo or stick them in apt911b limbo with myself, and I'm sure many others. After all it's against their job description to allow anything resembling the real truth or an opposition to the limited hang-out agenda.

I still can't get over the hypocrisy / latent racism in shilling the "Islamofascist" myth while calling those who question the Israeli intelligence / high level dual Israeli/American citizens role in 9/11 a racist.

Danse's picture

“whatever you wanna call

“whatever you wanna call it is fine. if you come up with a
label that works for you please advise.”

 

Sure. I suppose I’d
prefer plain old “Anarchist” to anarcho_blank. Less pigeonholing involved.
Many anarchists disliked being labeled “anarchists” in the first place
because any “ist” denotes adherence to dogma.
I view anarchism as an attempt to challenge any unnecessary power
structure and create in its place a society where people are allowed to make
decisions for themselves on how society should be organized.

“not gleefully accepting a double standard is
self-defeating--who knew!”

I’m not talking about criticizing the moderation policy at
truthaction or 911blogger and/or declining to post there. That’s your prerogative. Moderation is a shitty business. Since mods are human not computer programs
biases are inevitable. I’m sure there
have been double standards. Hopefully,
over time, these problems can be corrected.

I’m talking about referring to people as “shills” simply
because they reject your ideas about Zionist master control of the
universe. We should be able to disagree
on such matters without resorting to charges of shillery.

“plenty of respect, just decreasing is all...”

How come? Would you
have more respect for me if I lied and pretended to agree with your world view
in its entirety?

“what I am saying is that 9/11 happened because of Zionism
more than because of imperialism or capitalism.”

Again with the either/or.
This is precisely the problem I was trying to address.


Agents of state do not
require Zionism to engage in false flag operations.

“you seem to be reacting to a reaction against the gross
imbalance that you know exists in coverage of the issue.”

That’s a fair description, I agree.

“still not sure who your beef is against--are you seriously
saying we are more binary thinking than the NWO/evil Bush done it for
oil crowd you are now in bed with?”

NWO crowd – yes, I think, there is a similarity in terms of
the reductionism and obscurantism.
Oil? I’m gonna take a shot in
the dark and suggest that oil probably had something to do with 911.

But again, why the either/or? Is it so hard to fathom that powerful groups form alliances for
mutual benefit?

“which ones, Danse?”

The Dancing Israelis?
Silverstein? (Although I’m
willing to bet that dollars were of greater concern to Larry than Zion). Zackheim?
Any hardcore Zionist who participated in the operation.

“what do you play then? you're not advancing much of an
argument yet. last i checked the anglo-american power elite were not a state,
but an affinity group that includes wealthy British and American citizens.”

It includes both.
States are masters as well as instruments. Like capital.

“the fact that many of these are radical Zionists is glossed
over by the NWO crowd who prefer that the anglo-american elite not be
identified with its Zionist offspring.”

I think that’s a valid critique for many prominent
“truthers”. Not me however.

“i.e. a controlled shill site”

Damn. For a second
there I thought you might get through an entire post without calling someone or
a group of someones a shill.

“but not nearly as much as... you don't quite say, do
you. the will to power? greed? hunger?”

Sure. All
characteristics of the Zionist state, and all characteristics of states
period.

“Danse, what makes you think anyone would want to post there
anymore, if one's privileges will be revoked when one steps out of line while
others have the run of the place?”

I think there are valid critiques to be made of the
truthaction moderation policy. YT isn’t
raking in the cash like AJ and has been struggling to even find a
moderator. The site is generally geared
toward activism; squabbles on the specifics of 911 was not the site’s original
purpose; it attained that distinction when blogger suspended comments and
designated truthaction a viable alternative; the KB warning also
contributed.

It’s an ongoing process and there’s obviously room for
improvement. In any case, I understand
YT’s anger at being continually maligned by people at this website. He lost a beloved family friend on Flight 93
and has basically devoted his life to the cause. I think it’s shameful that people here constantly take pot shots
at him and truthaction, even accusing the site of being a false front. Instead of engaging in constructive (and
therefore productive) criticism. I
don’t think it’s too much to ask that people refrain from calling other posters
government agents every ten seconds.

“you should be celebrating the diversification now taking
place, as an anarchist.”

I do and always have.
I’m glad you have your own corner of the net in which to post your
ideas. I’m just disappointed that sites
like truthaction, WTCD etc. cannot maintain an harmonious (if not united)
front. Calling everyone who disagrees
with you a “shill” puts you in WingTV territory. It’s juvenile. Have you
studied COINTELPRO in any detail? A
favorite trick of FBI informants was to accuse effective activists of being –
you guessed it – FBI informants.
Something to keep in mind. You
can deliver the same critiques without resorting to baseless accusations of
shillery. It undermines you message and
your credibility, which is why I think this site may actually be doing more
harm than good AT PRESENT in terms of exposing Zionism and the Israeli role in
911. Nothing that can’t be
corrected.

“As I said, sorry to hear about your dad. Then again,
a cynic might say there was no need for you to insert into this kind of post
such a blatantly sympathy evoking statement of fact.”

You can interpret the statement as you wish. You’re right that I probably shouldn’t have
brought it up; I wrote the post literally five minutes before I had to leave
for the ferry to Vancouver island. In
any case, I was under the impression that I still had a few friends on this
website. I do, judging from comments a
few posts down (thank you Cas, Lazlo, Kate), and I’m thankful for
that. I also felt it necessary to
explain why replies to forthcoming critiques might take awhile.

“But of course I'll be called heartless for even mentioning
it, so never mind.”

Too late old "friend", you already did.

BigD:

“I guess we here at WTCDemolition should accept your
assertion that Zionists are just another scape-goat”

Scapegoat? Not at
all. I think Zionism is a cancer. I think the state of Israel should be
dismantled just like apartheid South Afric.
I applaud efforts to expose Mossad and Zionism in general. I consider Mossad etc. essential partners
and facilitators of TWAT, as I stated in the original piece.

But in the absence of Israel, 911 or something very like it
would have occurred anyway. That’s
basically all I was saying. So it’s
important not to lose sight of the big picture. We do ourselves a disservice by focusing exclusively on Zionism
while ignoring or downplaying the many other heads of the hydra.

Lazlo:

I don’t really disagree with anything you said.

I think we should expose the Israeli role in 911. We expose the dancing Israelis, we expose Dov Zackheim, we expose
the Israeli “security” companies, we expose Odigo and Binny Net and his “TWAT”
tour, we reject the Patsyian limited hangout, we encourage boycotts of the sate
of Israel, we do everything we can to put an end to Zionism, we nail Israel on
911.

Yet. We also:

Recognize that while the mossad agent Josie Hadas rented the
Ryder van to Salem in the ’93 bombing of the WTC, it was the FBI that cooked
the bombs.

The point I was trying to make is that we are fighting a
many headed hydra. I’d hate to see the
wisdom that could be gained from 911 squandered on one snake when there is an
entire nest to be dealt with.

Lions become confused by a three-pronged chair at the
circus.

We’re not lions, we’re humans; we should be able to
entertain more than one idea at the same time.
Three, even thirty prongs should
be easy to handle.


gretavo's picture

as always, appreciated, but...

Danse I appreciate your thick skin and the fact that you can parry snark without losing sight of the need to address substantive points. To conserve space and to change up the pace a little I won't do the point by point thing this time. I want to expound a little (in an early morning, post coffee moment of relative calm!) on some of the broader issues we've been touching on. I may ramble, sorry, but a lot needs to be said and this is a blog, not an academic journal.

So... One of the main problems I have with your critique of (for lack of a better word) the ZIHOP approach to 9/11 truth is that you repeatedly impute to me and others (but let's focus on me in this case) a kind of blindered tunnel vision that suggests that I do not appreciate the larger context in which Zionism operates in the world. The more or less hidden insinuation is that I have a problem with Jews (and please don't deny that this is how much of your critique reads.)  Therefore you frame the argument in an unhelpful way, and I hope that through this exchange we can come to a better understanding of where we disagree so that we not waste time or energy talking past one another or needlessly attribute motives or attitudes to each other.

I think that what we seem to be disagreeing on, and what we should focus the discussion on (instead of style, movement politics, etc.) is this statement of yours:

 "But in the absence of Israel, 911 or something very like it would have occurred anyway."

This is a remarkable statement for various reasons.  The first is that it is pure speculation.  I'd like to hear more of your reasoning on it, and I hope it is not a reiteration of the fact that false flag incidents are used routinely, etc."  9/11 in my view is not something that deserves to be lumped in with every other instance of false flag tactics being used.  It is a crime of a magnitude deserving of a full accounting as to participants and motives, not something we can at this point (sans any real investigation) attribute to some kind of shadowy world domination plan on the part of elites, the military industrial complex, or whatever entity you think is to blame for it or whatever else you seem to think would have happened had it not been specifically what happened on 9/11.

The fact is simple but of supreme importance.  9/11 was a crime, committed by criminals.  Each criminal who in any way contributed to the crime had a motive for their participation.  No doubt as in most crimes the motives of many involve was money.  But was 9/11 SIMPLY a crime?  Or was BushCo et al right in some way when they defined it as an act of war?  To the extent that (even some of) those involved had political motives, the crime becomes an act of terrorism (if not state-sponsored) or an act of war (if any state apparatus was involved.)

I don't see how we can attribute any level of relative importance of Zionism to the greater context of power-relations in the world if we do not fully suss out and understand what role Zionism played in motivating not just a false flag attack that occured on september 11, 2001 but and this is crucial--the SPECIFIC fals flag attack that occured that day.  The one that has been dubbed 9/11.  The one that has been by most reasonable accounts falsely attributed to a specific political ideology and that became the key for the implementation of a specific set of policy enactments.  The one that continues to be alluded to in varying degrees by various interest groups in advancing their specific agendas. 

Aside from the evidence of what happened on the day of 9/11, it is instructive to observe in the years following how various interest groups have contributed to the official myth because it advances their agenda.  Now it's true that once a crime has been committed that can serve as a means to profit monetarily by so many groups (here I would include the oil, weapons, and insurance industries as examples) complicity in promulgating the myth should not be understood as necessarily indicating guilt in the actual crimes.  The actual crimes were a brazen act, one fraught with risks for the perpetrators, and those whose motives are mainly financial gain are unlikely in my view to have assumed such risks.

I think that 9/11 was a desperate act on the part of an ideology, in other words, one powerful enough that its adherents might well have thought the risk both necessary AND worth taking.  Things like the bizarre decision to demolish building 7 with no good cover story are the giveaways here.  Had the crimes of 9/11 been masterminded within the state apparatus of the American government it would hardly seem worth the risk to demolish building 7 without a much better and more plausible scenario being devised to explain it away, something that the USG would have been able to do handily.  Instead we find that something absurd happens, something indicating desperation on the part of the guilty.  And that the POLITICAL elements of the government are most complicit in hushing it up.  In not pressing the issue.  If the demolition of WTC7 in particular had been a matter of policy, covert or not, of the USG, then I imagine they would have done a much better job of making it believable. 

Instead it seems that whoever did it was counting on not being exposed for some reason, which leads us to a certain lobby that more than any other gets everything it wants and more, and that of course is the Israel lobby, by which I mean not just AIPAC but also the ADL, Wiesenthal Center, UJA, and every other organization in the US whose primary role is Israel advocacy, and whose sympathizers are well represented in all branches of the government (e.g. Hellerstein, Feith, Pelosi; judicial, executive, legislative).

Moreover we find that in the so-called truth movement there have been numerous efforts based on the flimsiest cases to draw attention away from Zionist agency and towards ridiculous propositions such as the Pakistanis or Saudis having targetted their biggest patron, allegations never substantiated with either facts or plausible motives other than those that suggest that they are in league with Isalmofascism.

To me the conclusion is clear as to where MUCH more focus is needed, and as to why exactly people like those on this site who dare to discuss such issues are routinely mischaracterized and have our motives questioned by individuals whose merits are difficult, if at all possible, to identify.

gretavo's picture

was SEC evidence of wall street crimes really destroyed in WTC7?

Or did someone make off with it, or copy it before its destruction, in order to hold as blackmail over those who might have the power to reject the 9/11 frame-up of the arab/muslim world? "Take our gift of the destruction of the evidence against you, by shutting up, or speak out against us and have the records of your guilt be discovered to have been salvaged after all!"

larry horse's picture

SEC evidence

this is a response from someone i know very well RE: building 7 and the SEC files. keep in mind this is from 2005 and this person has since been told by their employer that there is a moratorium on 9/11.

 

All right, first of all, Worldcom did not financially collapse until 2002 and according to most websites, the SEC did not even begin its investigation until March 2002 (see link). So what are you talking about? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49156-2002Jun26.html
But according to your theory, the government sure accomplished a lot on that day -- laid the groundwork for war in Iraq AND erased the files connecting Citi to Worldcom which it hadn't even started investigating yet. That's good planning. Even if it had begun investigating, as someone who's practiced before the SEC for almost twenty years, (and btw had been in building 7's SEC offiice probably fifty times) I know as does everyone else that no one produces files to the government without maintaing copies -- both originals and copies at the law firms that produced them. It would be malpractice for any lawyer not to maintain copies. So to follow your theory, the companies being investigated by the government conspired to not keep copies of files that only would be held at the SEC (also the government) that then would then be "controlled demolished" by the government.
Also, if this was the big motivation behind bringing building 7 seven down, it didn't work. The City of New collected tens of millions of dollars from the Worldom underwriters (including Citi, JPMorgan, etc), Citi also paid $400 million to the NYAG, and subsequently paid 1.65 billion in class action settlements. Surely, the corporate warlords who you think now ALSO were behind 9/11 could have easily figured out how to sabotage those files if they could pull off 9/11, couldn't they?
By the way, my firm had several ongoing matters with the SEC in building 7 and with the NYSE, which had offices on the 20th floor of Tower 1. Those investigations were not compromised at all -- the government simply asked for the files again and got them.
This is exactly the problem with the stuff you're reading and trying to get other people to believe. It based on completely inaccurate information and half-baked assumptions.
Also, I note that the article you referenced did not say that the SEC lost files, just that in 2002 when the investigations first began Citi did not have certain back up tapes that had been stored in building 7.
For the theory to work though, the Citi warlord profiteers would have had to think that months later Worldcom would collapse, investigations would begin, and only the backup files being held at Building 7 would be asked for and relevant to the investigation. Otherwise, of course, they would have had ALL relevant files destroyed so as not to have to later pay out the amounts referenced above.

gretavo's picture

your friend seems awfully keen to deny stuff!

Just because "most websites" claim that worldcom wasn't being investigated until 2002 doesn't mean that it wasn't being investigated before then. Investigations are not usually made public until they have been going on for a while otherwsie it wouldn't be very effective investigation, would it. And remember that Enron was in trouble BEFORE 9/11. Also it seems ridiculous to think that whatever the SEC had in WTC7 that was destroyed was simply asked for and received from those the SEC was investigating. Most likely they asked for copies and got everything but whatever the most damning stuff they had uncovered was. Under the leadership of the corrupt Bush admin it's quite possible that the SEC would have been happy to have an excuse to "lose" some of its more damning evidence against important people, since the role of the SEC anyway is not so much to police wall street as it is to reassure the public by giving the appearance of policing wall street.

thanks for sharing though, since it's usually stuff like this that gives insight into what the powers that be want people to think!

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> it would hardly seem worth

> it would hardly seem worth the risk to demolish building 7 without a much better and more plausible scenario being devised to explain it away

This angle is undermined by the fact that the official explanations for WTC 7 are quite plausible, if not necessarily satisfactory. It's a problem with many 911 troothers that they don't spend any time looking at the more quality debunking sites to at least get an idea of what the arguments on the other side may be.

This link illustrates how some frequently cited photos of WTC 7 have been manipulated:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

This one addresses the small fires myth which the manipulated photos have been used to push:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

A more fuller discussion of WTC 7 appears at:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

It's definitely worth contrasting the errors made by many 911 troothers to more professional revisionists such as Robert Faurisson. Partly this may be explained by the fact that the scientific questions in the collapse of three buildings are much more complex than the more basic questions about cremation technology which Faurisson and others inspired by him have addressed. But there's also a sharp difference in the way that someone like Faurisson made it a point to methodically study the orthodox historians of the alleged Holocaust ala Raul Hilberg et as, whereas most 911 troothers simply flip out at the suggestion that counter-arguments exist.

It's worth taking note of Faurisson's comments following 911. As far as I've been able to tell, there's no evidence that he withdrew these statements:

-----
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p52_Faurisson.html

The revisionists will follow the example set by Paul Rassinier, the first revisionist. Proof against all war propaganda, they will aim for exactitude even as emotions on both sides are breeding lies. They will refuse to spread the inventions of anti-American, anti-Jewish, or anti-Arab propaganda. As for September 11, they are duty-bound to spare us such typical conspiratorial scuttlebutt as "Bush knew," "The CIA must have known," "The FBI was in on it," "It was all a Mossad plot," "Four thousand Jews didn't show up for work that day," "Explosives had been planted in both buildings," etc. Arab propaganda will harp more than ever on the myths of Jewish ritual murder or Jews poisoning gentiles' wells, and it will invoke that patent forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Many more rumors, delusions, lunacies, and examples of mass delusion are to be anticipated.
-----

Should we therefore allege that Faurisson is a Zionist agent simply because he rejected the 911 troother view and apparently hasn't withdrawn that rejection? I can assure you that if someone like Faurisson ever were to take up the 911 troother cause he would very methodically study the debunkers sites, rather simply repeating the story that WTC 7 fell down without explanation. There is an explanation. Maybe not a satisfactory one. But an explanation nonetheless.

gretavo's picture

oh my god...

Don't know where or even if to begin picking apart your various claims here. First there is no official explanation for the collapse of WTC7. Second, you cherry pick one or two instances of people making claims based on photos that are by no means the only available evidence. Third you seem utterly oblivious to evidence such as the molten steel in the rubble pile and the eyewitness accounts of explosions in the building (see Barry Jennings). Fourth, you make a bizarre comparison to Holocaust revisionists, presumably thinking that we all somehow endorse anything that people like Faurisson say. I don't need to ascribe any motives to anyone to know what I believe based on my knowledge of basic physics and my review of the record of available evidence. The reason we ignore the "debunker" sites now is because we already looked at their claims and already realized how pathetically shoddy their reasoning is. You may, for example, think of actually reading Prof. Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking and beginning your critique there. In any case, thanks for playing, and do please remember to wear your tinfoil Islamofascist repelling hat on your way home lest you be abducted by one of the many al Qaeda sleeper cells that might at any given moment awaken to hate you because of your freedoms.

Lazlo Toth's picture

Oh Cult Leader of the Church of Holy Demolition,

You’re a fuckin’ hoot, man.

“thanks for playing, and do please remember to wear your tinfoil Islamofascist repelling hat on your way home lest you be abducted by one of the many al Qaeda sleeper cells that might at any given moment awaken to hate you because of your freedoms.”

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> First there is no official

> First there is no official explanation for the collapse of WTC7.

That already is a false statement. As I've indicated already, the "official" explanation is available in great depth at the links above. Whether that explanation is considered satisfactory or not, it exists and should not be falsely ignored.

> Second, you cherry pick one or two instances of people making claims based on photos that are by no means the only available evidence.

If you actually examine the issue, you will find that there is enough evidence available showing that firefighters were expecting WTC 7 to come down. It did not simply happen out of nowhere.

> Third you seem utterly oblivious to evidence such as the molten steel in the rubble pile

I'm perfectly well familiar with that story and even ran after the troother claims uncritically for awhile. There's a fair run-down on many of the various versions of this story here:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

It raises enough questions that 911 troothers would need to address it methodically, if they can, not brush it aside.

> Fourth, you make a bizarre comparison to Holocaust revisionists, presumably thinking that we all somehow endorse anything that people like Faurisson say.

I make no assumptions about what individuals think. The fact is though that people like Faurisson, regardless of what anyone makes of his conclusions, have generally followed a level of professionalism that is quite lacking among 911 troothers. Carefully and calmly reviewing the very best presentations of the official story to examine all arguments and alleged evidence, that's how someone like Faurisson proceeds. This is rather absent among much of the present-day troother moovment.

> You may, for example, think of actually reading Prof. Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking and beginning your critique there.

It's not just a matter of reading Griffin. It's a matter of reading Griffin and the rebuttals to Griffin to compare which is more methodical. Plenty of holes have been shot in Griffin's DEBUNKING 911:

http://911myths.com/drg_nist_review_1_1.pdf

Can anyone offer to repair some of these holes, using systematic logic?

gretavo's picture

OK, here you go...

From: http://911myths.com/drg_nist_review_1_1.pdf 

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully, fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Uh, just absolutely no comparison between the two. [19]

As we can plainly see, Mr. Robertson does not support Dr. Griffin’s assertions.

He suggests that the WTC Towers were designed to handle a 707 impact, but that the actual requirement stipulated a much lower speed collision, with “absolutely no comparison” between the requirement and the actual events of September 11th.

Emphasis added by me. 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

says that a Boeing 767-200ER contains 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L) fully loaded.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070606105821AAVxcui&show=7

says the weight of a gallon of jet fuel is about 6.7 lbs

Therefore the fuel in a fully loaded 767 would weigh 160,666 lbs.

According to NIST:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf 

(page 54 of 290 in the pdf)

Fuel weight of AA11=66,100 lbs and UA175=62,000 lbs

 

Once you acknowledge that a) Leslie Robertson was either lying or misinformed and that b) the author of this supposedly authoritative debunking piece seems not to have read the NIST report he is defending, then I MIGHT deign to find the next error for you.  SInce that one appeared on one of the first pages I don't think it would be too difficult, but neither do I see why I should waste my time helping you find what are likely numerous other problems with the work you so confidently cite.

gretavo's picture

Patrick? >cricket< >cricket< Patrick?

Hello? Patrick? Do you see now why you should quit before you're indicted as an accessory after the fact? For your sake I hope you're hiding behind an IP anonymizer! Because I will very happily help the authorities identify every last person who comes on my site to lie to help cover up mass murder.

gretavo's picture

replying again myself, since Patrick won't

Patrick, you haven't been able to explain why you tried to pass off an obviously flawed paper with gross errors as authoritative. Will you retract your support of this document or just ignore the fact that we have exposed it as worthless? Do you have any intention of standing by the things you post here?

gretavo's picture

Patrick McNally deserves a more detailed response...

so here it is:

This link illustrates how some frequently cited photos of WTC 7 have been manipulated:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

It does no such thing.  No photos have been manipulated by anyone in the truth movement.  No photo on that entire page shows any kind of huge raging fires.  Like every other photo of 7 it shows the fires on or around on side of the 8th floor.  What that site does is pretend that photos showing a bunch of smoke prove that there were massive fires in the building.  First, if there were indeed massive fires in the building you'd think that someone would have a picture of them.  Even just one.  Nope, doesn't exist.  Second, smoke coming out of a building doesn't prove that a fire was causing the smoke.  The smoke visible in the photos on that site may well be mostly comprised of aluminum oxide which is the byproduct of an alumino-thermic reaction such as would be expected if, as is likely, thermite or an analogous compound had been used to weaken key parts of the steel frame to minimize the amount of explosives needed to effect the total, symmetrical, and controlled collapse observed.

 

This one addresses the small fires myth which the manipulated photos have been used to push:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

The most remarkable thing about this page is that the first picture shows just how implausible the official explanation of the collapse of the north tower is.  It shows the north tower erupting like a volcano into an extremely large debris field.  To suggest that this is being caused by the top 15 floors crashing through the undamaged bottom portions of the structure is simply laughable (bear in mind the buildings tapered so that they got progressively lighter as they went up and stronger as they went down so that the top 15 floor were literally the lightest and most redundantly supported parts of the building).

Presumably the "debunkers" include the picture because they need to show somehow that WTC7 could have been hit by something from the north tower.  Two problems here: other than one grainy photo of an allegedly damaged corner, there is no proof of such damage occuring.  Second is that the very idea that something so massive as to be able to cause the kind of damage alleged to 7 could have been propelled the more than 300 feet laterally from the north tower to building 7 requires accepting that gravity alone could hardly have been responsible for the destruction of the north tower.

The rest of the article is more pictures of smoke.  Again, if there was at some point a raging fire you would think someone would have taken at least one picture of those flames, aside from the well known shot of the single floor with flames coming out of a portion of one side. 

A more fuller discussion of WTC 7 appears at:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Just what we need at this point--a MORE fuller discussion.  :)

Fine.  I would have expected that a more fuller discussion would include some mention of Barry Jennings, the employee of the NY Housing Authority who escaped from 7 with Michael Hess, the Corporation Counsel for NY.  On their way down, Jennings told a reporter that day and has subsequently reiterated that an explosion blew him and Hess "back into the 8th floor" as they climbed the stairs towards the seventh floor.  Mind you, this is before either tower had collapsed.  Other accounts also tell of the lobby of 7 showing extensive damage before anything other than the plane crashes into the towers is alleged to have happened.

The page does talk about warnings that the building "might" come down as an explanation of why the firefighters were not trying to put out the fires in 7.  It should be noted here that the sprinkler system in building 7 is known to have inexplicably been set to test mode that morning such that what small fires WERE burning inside were allowed to spread.  Negligence, anyone?  The point that needs to be made is of course that the evacuation of firefighters and warnings of impending collapse do not actually preclude the building having been deliberately demolished.  If anything the case is strengthened, since no one could have predicted the building would collapse with any certainty, and yet the warnings seem not to have been just to get out of the building, but to move far away enough to be safe when the building collapsed.  The order to evacuate could have originated with someone who knew that the building was going to be pulled (in the sense of deliberately brought down with some well placed explosives) and in fact probably did.

The page cited also includes an explanation (of sorts) for Silverstein's words in the documentary America Rebuilds.  It is a reiteration of Silverstein's spokesman's explanation (not Silverstein's own, presumably he is afraid to speak directly on the subject) that Silverstein was referring to "the team of firefighters" when he suggested to the Fire Commander that "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it".  Who is this "fire commander", Patrick?  Surely he could be asked to make a statement on the nature of his conversation that morning with SIlverstein--why is there no such statement?  In any case, what Silverstein said or didn't say, or meant or didn't mean, is not relevant to what actually made the building collapse the way it did.  The odd choice of words and the way they were selectively edited into the documentary (not made by PBS, by the way, but a private NYC based company called GreatProjects) are suggestive of Silverstein's need to cover his legal bases.  First by suggesting that the collapse of the building need not be seen as anomalous (given the fact that most people on first hearing his statement assume that he means the decision was made to abandon efforts to salvage the building and instead, essentially "put it out of its misery") and later, when the need arised (during his insurance cases and when skeptics questioned this presumed meaning, claiming through a spokesperson that he was talking about something else (the firefighters) with the implication that the collapse was unplanned and occured spontaneously.

Patrick...

Is Barry Jennings lying?

Who is the fire commander SIlverstein spoke to?

Can you point us to any picture showing fire, not just smoke, other than the same old limited fire coming out of a portion of one of the lower floors?  The building, by some (unreliable) accounts was "blazing like a giant torch".  Why did no one manage to get a single video or picture of that great conflagration?

 

Lazlo Toth's picture

Those who say kerosene fires brought down the Twin Towers

Those who say kerosene fires brought down the Twin Towers at the speed of gravity lie with the tongues provided them by the Lord of Deception himself. Defenders of the OCT are defenders of the psychopathic perpetrators of an attack on America, an act of treason, and an act of war. Paid government puppy dogs once again bringing their cute little stories of the magical, building-melting powers of kerosene. Hey Patrick, someone blew up the fucking buildings. The King is fucking naked. There are no emerald shoes or fine crown of gold. I do understand though why you must so desperately defend such an irrational position regarding what is obviously controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on 9/11, for when the identities of all the parties behind this shock-and-awe spectacle of mass murder are fully revealed, the tiny State of Israel will stand alone by itself without a single ally in the world, and no more U.S. taxpayer foreign aid shall ever flow there again.

Oh by the way, we aren’t “truthers,” we’re intelligent, highly educated human beings who are onto your pathetic lying shit. People who engage in the protection of criminals and serial killers - Pretty fuckin’ sad man, I’ll tell ya that.

Excellent write-up G! Thanks for the hard work.

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> Those who say kerosene

> Those who say kerosene fires brought down the Twin Towers at the speed of gravity

The towers did not come down with speed of gravity and no one has yet claimed as far as I know (maybe some oddball newspaper reports do) that fires alone brought the towers down. If we are just seeking to state the thesis of the NIST FINAL REPORT accurately, without accepting or challenging it, then you've completely distorted it. The NISt report alleges that the insulation on steel girders was destroyed by the actual plane crash, not by kerosene fires, and that consequently these girders became vulnerable to weakening, not melting, via the fires. Now whether right or wrong, that is several light years away from the straw man which you've asserted whereby fire alone brings down the towers. No one ever said that.

juandelacruz's picture

Hi Patrick, Do you realize

Hi Patrick,

Do you realize that defending the OCT is being a supporter of mass murder? Forget the money and leave them while you can. Do not think that the top level perps that did 9-11 will take care of you when the ship goes down, they can sacrifice their own people when it's convenient for them. You ought to know that by now.

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> Do you realize that

> Do you realize that defending the OCT is being a supporter of mass murder?

This deserves to be highlighted as an illustration of how shallow the troother moovment has become. Presented with some simple facts (such as that WTC 7 took 18 seconds to colapse and not 6.5 as the troothers have claimed) there is absolutely zero effort to examine facts and iron out inconsistencies in the troother theory. Instead we simply get ad hoc accusations pulled out of the air. I encourage you by the way, to seek someone in the troother moovment near Berkeley, California, or any school with an Italian studies department and get a professional translation of both of Cossiga's articles. I myself have no professional translation experience, had to depend on dictionary translation of an amateur kind, and wasn't satisfied until I found the earlier piece by Cossiga where he made it absolutely clear that he rejected anything but the most official scenario asserting a great Muslim menace to the west. Now I'm satisfied. If you're not though, you should do more legwork of your own and find full authentic translations of both Cossiga pieces until you are completely satisfied. It's the only good thing to depend upon.

gretavo's picture

a perfect example of OCT defender dissembling

"WTC 7 took 18 seconds to colapse and not 6.5 as the troothers have claimed"

You say it took 18 seconds, not 6.5 (or whatever it is) to collapse. Of course what you mean is that since the center portion of the building was imploded first, the timing should begin then and that we should include the time that they waited before collapsing the rest.

What you seem to think people won't understand is that the 6.5 second figure is the significant one because it is not, as you imply, intended to show that the destruction of the building took 6.5 seconds, it is intended to show that the part that was not in the centertook 6.5 seconds to fall once IT started falling. Which means of course that that part of the building (indeed the bulk of it) fell at the rate of free fall, which you can't deny. This is signifcant, of course, because it means that the support columns of these sections had to have been exploded, since otherwise the collapse of those sections would have been much slower if they collapsed at all (which they almost surely would not have.

Dude, do you have ANY shame? Do you realize that what you are doing here is worse than molesting children? I want you to understand that point--you are worse than a child rapist, and the sad thing is you know it and don't care.

casseia's picture

Very well put regarding the 6.5 seconds

Frankly -- and I'm putting this out there just as my personal opinion -- I'm getting pretty tired of Patrick and his inability to spell "Truther" correctly. I'm also bitter and vindictive because my comments are being moderated at 911b, and I would like to take this frustration out on some hapless troll.

gretavo's picture

i wouldn't be surprised if this shill was here with...

the specific mission to tie us up arguing with him so that we lay off the faux truthers for a while--seems they need to get their bearings since their entire charade that they've worked so hard on for so long is starting to crack and crumble.

casseia's picture

Yes, 'the recent unpleasantness' is how

a certain fake superhero describes it over at Truthaction -- yikes. JDRM was there to smack down Adam over his "all Jews are Zionists" post, and Jenny responds "Deep breath. We are not the enemy and you are appreciated." And then they held hands and sang "Kumbaya" to calm themselves down.

juandelacruz's picture

I broke out in uncontrolled

I broke out in uncontrolled laughter when I read your post. They must be hurting.

kate of the kiosk's picture

"kumbaya"! They must be protestant

missionaries!

ahhh, poor kenya...have met some super people from nairobi...

the world is too big

kate of the kiosk's picture

adams family values

that was the last time i heard that song

juandelacruz's picture

18 seconds, even 60 seconds

18 seconds, even 60 seconds is not the rate that I would expect a building to collapse from fires. Given the time that a kink developed on the roof of the building to the time that the building could no longer be seen in the video took less than 10 seconds.

Consider the steel columns on the building at the side facing away from WTC 1 and 2 which:
1. would have been shielded from any debris from WTC 1 and 2,
2. was not engulfed in flames since the windows they were nearest to were not shattered by intense heat
3. was pretty solid since they held the building for years before 9-11
then on that day itself those same columns would just buckle in 7, 18, even 60 seconds? Is that how you wish to proceed with your argument?

You are pulling our leg here. If you had this questions when you signed up 3+ weeks ago, why didn't you say so back then given that the site is named WTCDEMOLITION. An honest question would have been answered politely. You played low profile picking this or that topic to inject yourself as an intelligent commenter to create credibility - and I think you are(intelligent but not credible). But suddenly you go on this stupid streak claiming against the obvious CD theory. You were not even giving us the benefit of the doubt, you just wanted to FUD the CD issue.

SHILL!

I guess you guys can't find a way to shield the Zionists and Neocons unless you take away the CD aspect first.

Big_D's picture

Yeah, us raging Anti-semantics.

Let's be generous & give 'pat' a second per floor. Just don't tell 'it' that NIST couldn't duplicate their theory in reality & had to rely on a heavily 'tweaked' computer simulation. It might warp 'it's' poor widdle mind.

How 'bout those cut beams & molten Iron, eh 'pat'?

PatrickSMcNally@aol.com's picture

> No photos have been

> No photos have been manipulated by anyone in the truth movement.

This statement has a very specific form it is worth just going back to Jim Hoffman's page 9 in this series that he carries on his site:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/blamefire.html

On page 9 Hoffman gives a picture of WTC 7 which he uses to assert that the fires were not severe. The pictures on these pages

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

While were at this though, let's remind ourselves that the seismograph readings

http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html

took 18 seconds to collapse. WTC 1 went down in 10 and WTC 2 in 8. So there is a difference reflecting the fact that no actual plane of any type hit WTC 7 but that it was damaged by flying debree. Now again, maybe that's a sufficient explanation and maybe not, but the troother moovment needs to do a better job one way or another.

casseia's picture

This person appears to be a new type of shill.

This is the 'you must pour over sites known to be the work of bad-faith bedunkers and meticulously deconstruct their fairy tales' kind of shill/troll.

gretavo's picture

i don't understand why he keeps referencing pics of smoke

as showing raging fires. it certainly is a new level of dishonesty from what I've seen. Plus when we point out gross errors in the documents he cites (the one that falsely claims that the planes were fully loaded with fuel when the NIST report itself makes clear they were not (OK they don't make it clear, but that itself says a lot!)

Patrick McNally deserves to be banned but we would be losing a great opportunity to discredit one of the last defenders of the OCT.

Keep lobbing them over, Patrick, and we'll keep smackin em back at you. Also I hope you know that pretty soon you will start having some pretty awful nightmares because of what you're doing. I assume even your self-delusion has its limits, after all!

P45's picture

Can we keep him as a pet?

Oh can we can we?

Annoymouse's picture

re: new type of shill.

Hilarious comment:
This is the 'you must pour over sites known to be the work of bad-faith bedunkers and meticulously deconstruct their fairy tales' kind of shill/troll.

I know Patrick (online). Someone at Break for News directed me to this (excellent) site. B4N has some excellent stuff and some weirdness.

Two quick things:
Pat is a person who posts articles from WSWS, yet posts stuff about H-caust Revision. That's quite a contradiction, since Marxists typically hate Nazis.

Yet he outright dismisses any Protocols crap, which many Revisionists promote.

By the way, I'm Jewish, but I welcome these dicussions as long as they're not idiotic.

Pat also discusses 9-11 Truth, but is very meticulous about details. He just posted a long article from WSWS critical of Naomi Wolf's "took advantage of it on purpose" book (TAIOP?).

I don't think Pat was PROMOTING 9-11myths here on WTCD, so much as arguing for rigor against counter-claims.

Nunna my bizness, but great site, lots of in depth discussions.

If interested, my website has what I think is a good breakthru argument about "patriotic" Media Shills who treasonously called for a NEW 9-11 in 2007, but *also* Government types who published articles prior to Sept 11 about their imperative NEED for a BLOODBATH on US soil, in order to launch their pre-planned wars. Most 9-11 dissidents assume this connection, as do most liberals like Naomi Wolf, but most people don't know it was published in advance, nor the context, i.e., the number of people/groups and their status and connections to the MIC *and* some of them to Israel. (I've found it mostly debunker-proof, even in forums resistant to most Truther ideas.)

http://www.Takeoverworld.info/proterrorism.html

juandelacruz's picture

There are lots of photos AND

There are lots of photos AND videos of WTC7 right before it collapsed. All of them show that the windows facing the rear of the building (away from WTC 1 and 2) were intact. The windows in fact started to shatter only when the building started to collapse rapidly in the videos.

The intact windows on one whole side of the building indicates that fires were not raging on at least that side of the building. It was a controlled demo, just face it.

Big_D's picture

Sorry, Pat, it's not gonna work.

It's evident your divorce from reality has also left you morally bankrupt. I might suggest that you actually familiarize yourself with the OCT before running off at the mouth & flaunting your ignorance. NO ONE DISPUTES THE 'COLLAPSE' TIMES OF THE TOWERS, NO ONE! Not even the liar & shills that make up FEMA & NIST.

Big_D's picture

Lucky us, we're assigned our very own "debunker".

Speaking of pathetically shoddy, I've looked at the links to Lemmings in denial & paid Shills you reference, can't say I'm surprised to find out you're of that ilk. Your weak, bordering on delusional, arguments gave you away. I'm not one to cry "Shill" until I have good reason, thanks for supplying all I needed to know, Shill. (Or is it Lemming?)

juandelacruz's picture

Man that was some spectacle,

Man that was some spectacle, a real shill casting away his stealth cloak right in front of everyone. McNally had a nice post about Cossiga, now I wonder if it was really nice at all. I wish I knew Italian.

Lazlo Toth's picture

The Many-Headed Hydra

Yes, Danse you have friends here, including myself on the east coast of Canadia, and if someone has a different view or perception of the evidence as to who did 9/11 and its context within the bigger picture, we are always willing to intelligently discuss, and it is my hope that we can all do this without getting shrill and unnecessarily personal when we disagree (although some people really do put you to the test). And you are correct about the over emphasis sometimes regarding who is or is not a “shill” or “agent of infiltration.” I must also say that I am sorry to see Alek Hidell check out over the so-called Apollo moon landing controversy. I believe there is only one thread on this entire site that deals with the subject, and the only thing I mentioned about it was that I appreciated this site’s willingness to freely discuss such controversial subjects, as I am an ardent devotee of the principle of Free Speech. However, whether or not astronauts walked on the moon really doesn’t concern me personally very much at all. The undue influence, and often outright control over U.S. politicians, national elections, and U.S. foreign policy by a Zionist “fifth column” is of far greater concern and import than whether someone planted an American flag on the moon. Of course the “moon walk hoax” thread is the very first thread that Col. Jenny (and I am holding my tongue here on words like “wanker” and such) links to in her diatribe against WTCD, as if the “moon walk hoax” thread was the most representative example of what this site is all about. I noticed she didn’t link to any of my writings. Probably too many references. Her method of presenting “the whole story” through a skewed, unrepresentative sample of selected texts, leaving aside others which would prove her thesis wrong, is commonly referred to as one of the tactics of dishonest scholarship. Unlike Casseia, the Col. obviously doesn’t have any university-level training in these things.

But back to the many-headed hydra you speak of, and which I am in agreement with you, it must be said that certainly the fanatics who have controlled Israel from Day One are not the only purveyors of evil on this planet. For example, we have information that MI6 along with Israeli intelligence and (drum-roll, one more time) ICTS security was involved in the 7/7 London bombings. ISI and Saudi intelligence certainly gave crucial assistance to the creation of the al-Qa’ada bogeyman and backstory. Pakistan gets a lucrative Caspian pipeline deal out of the arrangement, plus a share of the multi-billion dollar Afghan heroin industry, and both the Saudi royals and the Iranians were never huge fans of Saddam anyways, so they benefited as well. I also have never said that elements of the Bush administration, including George Tenet, former Zionist head of the CIA, should be let off the hook for the crimes of 9/11 and the War of Terror. I do believe, however, that there are good and patriotic elements in the government and military who have attempted to thwart many of the plans of these treasonous few. Ray McGovern, I believe, would back me up on this, and the NIE report is further proof of this assertion. Based on the piles of evidence I have looked at though, it appears strongly that with regards to the actual ‘operational execution’ of the 9/11 attacks, outside Israeli operatives – like those from among the 250 Israeli spies picked up just after 9/11 and escorted quietly out of the country – could have pulled off the whole shebang with only minimal assistance (the flight interception stand-down, for example) from Neo-Con insiders at the Pentagon. Mossad operatives could have been brought in under the cover of working airport and airline “security” for Huntleigh USA/ICTS in order to install SPC Flight Termination Systems or explosives on the planes used in the operation, while those trained in using this remote system could have handled the actual remote-hijacking of the planes and the flying of them into their targets (with the crucial aid of electronic homing devices pre-installed in the Twin Towers, cf. Marsh & McClellen, Paul Bremer, the Greenbergs). The wiring of the Towers and WTC7 was done (at night and over several months) also by Israeli operatives. If you want their names, you will have to ask, via subpoena, Lewis Eisenberg or Michael Chertoff. Good luck on that. I do feel that the attack on the Pentagon, however, was an “inside job” supervised by Neo-Cons like Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, et al. So you are right that the forces of international evil are many and varied, but operationally, on 9/11, it seems from all the prima facie evidence, that Israeli operatives carried the bulk of the operational load. Although many 9/11 truth sites are ever eager to discuss all these other forces of evil in the world, there is a giant elephant in the room that everyone seems unwilling to discuss, and talking about Mossad following around drunken Arab patsies from San Diego to south Florida to Newark doesn’t count. Oh yeah, there is a petroleum element involved in this whole deal, and most of it will be flowing from Mosul to Haifa via two pipelines protected by a series of U.S. military bases now under construction. The hard-core Zionists who govern that little land are pretty slick though, I’ll give ‘em that. America gets tricked through 9/11 into killing all their “enemies” for them, and the Israelis end up controlling all the oil in the end, and the whole operation doesn’t cost them a dime or a single life. They have got to be the greatest con artists on Earth.

On YT/Cosmos, as I’ve said before, I have always liked him (I must have watched the YouTube vid of him screaming bloody murder outside the ABC studios in SF about 10 times), and I feel that he may be an unwitting victim of circumstances which we do not fully understand, much like DZ was over at 911b before the “purge of the dissidents.” My philosophy is simply to present the truth as honestly as I can without wasting unnecessary time (that could be put into further, useful research work) arguing with people who are often arguing only for the sake of creating argument. I feel if you present the actual truth, it will stand by itself, and the shills and agents will eventually fall away. I do understand though a lot of the frustration and anger that many here feel about so-called veteran “truthers” who have mysteriously decided to backpeddle on the obvious controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, and who seem unduly obsessed with Pakistan and the Arab false flag patsies like Atta and al-Shehi. The key to understanding who is actually behind a false flag operation is to not look at the false flag elements, which are there for the sole purpose of directing our attention away from the real culprits. The admission of controlled demolition is now a big problem for the 9/11 truth movement because it naturally leads to Israel, and it takes the wind right out of the Arab hijacker myth, especially when you look at the coordinated timing of explosions at the buildings’ foundations as the planes are hitting at the top. Whoever was at the demolition console was obviously in coordinated communication with the remote control plane crew. It is for these reasons that many here get really upset when they see these things, for it looks like people who should know better have decided to protect the perpetrators and help them promote their little story about crazy, suicidal Muslim hijackers able to bring down three skyscrapers with only two planes. Ah the power of Allah to alter the laws of physics, if only for a single day. And are American politicians and media executives making boatloads of money on this endless, fake “War on Terror”? Do they have a vested interest in maintaining this myth? Absofuckinlutely! Would Zionist agents want to control the 9/11 truth movement and its most popular websites to shut down any conversation leading down the breadcrumb trail to Herzliya? Again, that would be an affirmative. Feeding Bush and Cheney, if necessary, to the angry American truth mob to keep the focus off of Israel is definitely part of any limited hangout. At all costs, and by all means necessary, Israel’s operational role in 9/11, i.e. the actual massacre of the Americans, must be kept off the discussion table. Unfortunately for them, the old anti-Semite trick has been pretty well exposed, and doesn’t hold the sway it once did. This poses for them a bit of a problem, which only grows larger every day. I have noticed everywhere now, out in the blogosphere beyond 911B and TruthAction, that a lot of people are getting pretty hip to the Israeli angle to 9/11, and I haven’t heard a single one talking about burning down Flatbush in Brooklyn, and a lot of these folks are big fans of Rabbi Weiss. Thanks to the internets, there is an educational Zeitgeist going on concerning Zionism, Palestine, and 9/11, and it turns out that Americans are a lot smarter than the MSM would have us believe.

Anyway, Danse, I hope all is well with you out in super gorgeous British Columbia, you lucky bugger.

Ciao,
Lazlo

bruce1337's picture

"What?"

"You guys don't have internet connection? You can't google WTC7?"

<3

Danse's picture

 "But in the absence of

 "But in the absence of Israel, 911 or something very like it
would have occurred anyway."

This is a remarkable statement for various reasons.  The first is that
it is pure speculation.  I'd like to hear more of your reasoning on it,
and I hope it is not a reiteration of the fact that false flag incidents are
used routinely, etc."

I think it’s important that 911 be viewed in context.   Although it was surely the most spectacular
(known) false flag operation in history it was also part of a clearly discernable
pattern. 

 

You’ll recall Mencken’s quote that the aim of politics is to
keep the public terrified “by menacing it with
an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”   Do you the read The Onion?  There’s a terrific Onion book entitled “Our
Dumb Century”.   Presented in
mock-newspaper form, it chronicles 20th Century American history
from 1900 onwards, with each article psuedo-published at a specific date (eg
1910, 1940 etc.).   A Leitmotif appears:
first the “Negro” and the “Indian Savage” out to rape and scalp chaste white
women; next the bomb-throwing anarchist out to destroy society; later come the
immigrants, especially Italians, spreading crime and disease; by the time the
Statue of liberty appears the enemy is portrayed ravishing the stone goddess:
Krauts, then commies, then by the time the eighties roll around – evil Muslims.

 

Do you think operation Gladio
is relevant to this discussion?  I hope
so.  Because Gladio was a virtual first
draft for the war on terror.  Instead of
evil Muslims we had evil commies, socialists and anarchists.   Do you think the Lavon Affair – a series of
bombings by Israeli against British and American targets in Egypt – is relevant
to this discussion?  

 

If you answered yes to the
second question and “no” or “not very” to the first, you may want to pause and
reflect. 

 

Here’s a more modern
example. 

 

At the Evergreen Hotel, Davao
City on May 16, 2002., Philippines, Michael Meiring blew his legs off in a
bomb-making mishap.   He was cooking the
bomb in a hotel room.  The incident
occurred in the midst of
a terror campaign of bombings including an
explosion less than a month earlier in General Santos City which killed 15 and
injured 55 more. For the two days before Meiring's monumental fuck-up, bomb
threats had forced the early adjournment of the regular session of the Davao
City legislature and sent employees of around nine government agencies in the
Council building scampering for safety. 
 Meiring was charged with illegal
possession of explosives and reckless imprudence "for failing to practice
proper attention and diligence regarding the handling of explosive
materials." 
What did CIA/FBI do? 
“
They immediately
gave Meiring full protection from Davao police authorities; the local US vice
consul paid his bills in Davao; and they whisked him pronto to a naval base in
San Diego.”  All of this in blatant
violation of Filipino law. 

 

There was actually a mutiny of junior officers of the
Philippine Army in Manilla, in the summer of 2003.  They accused their military brass and the Arroyo government of
conspiring with the United States in "Operation Greenbase," which
apparently involved the staging of bombings on the island of Mindanao in order
to justify an increased US presence in the country.”   The targets were – surprise surprise – Muslim separatists. 

Why this
treachery?  Zionists?  No. 
The Pentagon wanted new bases in Asia.  
They got ‘em.  Simple
geopolitics.  Zionists not
required. 

 

Let’s travel
from the Philippines to Russia. 

 

I wrote in
reply to Bill Blum:

 

Members of the Russian FSB were actually caught planting
Hexogen explosives in an apartment complex in Ryazan with the presumed goal of
pinning the attacks on Muslim Chechen separatists. In flagrante delicto, they
claimed that the operation was in fact a drill with “fake” explosives. The
local police chief testified otherwise; Hexogen; the bomb was live and set to a
timer. No action was taken. The culprits were allowed to flee the country by
authorities.

 

Zionism?  No.  Power politics by Tarpley’s hero Putin. 

 

Finally, let’s travel to the Palestine:

 

Officials from the Palestinian Authority have accused the
Israeli spy agency Mossad of setting up a fake al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Gaza.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said that Israel had set up the mock cell in
order to justify attacks in Palestinian areas. [BBC News - 12/8/2002]

 

Why this treachery? 
Zionism.  YES. 

 

Are these issues
relevant?  If you answer yes to the
third option but no or “not very” to the first two, you may want to pause and
reflect. 

 

You asked me not to reference past false flag operations
while discussing this topic.  How are we
to understand false flag operations without talking about false flag
operations?

 

Would eradicating Zionism (yes please let’s do)
prevent the FSB from planting Hexogen explosives in Ryazan apartment
complexes?   Would it have prevented the
Joint Chiefs from pitching Northwoods?  
Would it have prevented 911?  I
seriously doubt it.   States need
bogeymen.  Muslims are sitting on the
oil.  Put 2 and 2 together. 

juandelacruz's picture

Hi Danse,

Hi Danse,

They are at it again over here. See this opinion which I think is the real score:

http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/gloriettablast/view.php?db=1&art...

other info here.

http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/gloriettablast/archive.php

That explosion could have actually killed me, I go there very often and it hit the day after I went and a day before I planned to go back.

Guess who are the bomb experts backing up the local police report?
1. US FBI
2. Australian Federal Police
3. Private Israeli bomb expert

What a coincidence. No, its not a Zionist plot, it was just local politics. It just so happens that our current administration probably has friends connected to the US anti terror network and called in some favors.

If there was no Zionism, I don't think the WTC would have been attacked as it was on 9-11. That won't stop other people(maybe Russians, Filipino's, et al) from using the same tactic in other sites, but yes I think the opportunity and motives to do it on 9-11 at WTC would not have arrived.

I see 9-11 as a confluence of the Neocons and the Zionists arriving at an opportunity where they can work together and did to accomplish several goals that benefited each party. Take away oil and Mid-east bases, and perhaps the Neocons would have balked on the project. Take away regime change in Iraq and maybe the Zionists would not have lent the Mossad and Silverstein's cooperation.

I have no problem with your thesis that the MIC (military industrial complex) may be involved in 9-11. It is possible they eventually would turn out to be the top of the food chain. But the current evidence points to the Zionists and Neocons who also happen to have motive, opportunity and ability to do so. The Zionists in particular have a history of false flag ops targeting the US as well. Perhaps if they can be questioned, they will name people higher up who are in the oil/banking/arms manufacturing sector, and I am all for that. But for now we have a strong case pointing at the Zionists and Neocons so I would rather focus on them until they can be brought to justice and questioned. With these perps in a proper investigation, there is a better chance to ferret out any higher level player.

If we shift focus away from the Neocons and the Zionists, I am afraid they will get away along with any info on who were controlling them from above if indeed there was such.

I have noticed that there has been strong pressure exerted on 9-11 truthers to shift focus away from the Zionists. Why is that so? Now all of a sudden websites that were averse to discussing the Zionist angle are starting to entertain it, but not until they have kicked out bloggers from wtcdemolition.com. It seems people who previously contested Zionist involvement are now trying to head the Zionist dialog on those sites.

There is an existing thread on this site that tries to delve deeper on higher level perps. Perhaps you can contribute to it too. I do not dwell too much on it simply because there is not much verifiable info on the matter from resources that I can access. If you can share with us what you have that would be great.

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/?q=node/208

Sorry about your dad.

gretavo's picture

wow, that is an excellent op-ed

from the inquirer. I'm glad someone is keeping us apprised of the situation in the phillipines since its gov is so tight with the US, it makes sense that similar tactics would be used there. funny how most of the fake terror since 9/11 is not nearly as well-supported in terms of myth creation and sustenance as 9/11 itself, eh?

gretavo's picture

to add to juan's excellent response...

You are presenting a non sequitur as an argument here Danse. The idea seems to be that since many different groups, including the US military/intelligence establishment, have used false flag tactics, that 9/11 was not necessarily a specifically Zionist-inspired false flag attack.

The problem is that while that is in theory true, the reality is that the facts do point to 9/11 having been Zionist-inspired and quite possible Zionist-executed. Meaning not only that concern for Israel's strategic needs (or those as they are perceived by some radical assholes) figured into the motive, but that a large number if not a majority of the people who actually committed the crimes were Zionists.

To the extent that criminals and/or traitors within the US establishment helped in the attacks, it certainly need not have been an exclusively Zionist undertaking. Certainly there are individuals who while having no special inetrest in Zionism still find it rewarding (financially, i.e.) to make their services available to the specific plotters ideologically behind the scheme.

Then of course there is the problem that the US government, or better put far too many people in the US governemnt, are under the spell of the Zionist lobby such that it's hard to see how complicity in 9/11 by some in the US government, those who openly proclaim their loyalty to Israel especially, can be seen uncritically as "just another example of American imperialism."

American imperialism, these days at least, seems to be I'm sorry to break it to you heavily influenced by the ideology and strategies long employed by Israel.

While in the long view it certainly is worth keeping in mind that all governments tend towards corruption, in the short term it is far more wise to take a more nuanced view that does not automatically lump together every action that employs a similar false flag element. In the case of 9/11 it was Americans who were targeted and made victims. Sure the corrupt Zionist-influenced response of the Bush-admin was to turn around and commit greater crimes against arabs and muslims, but that doesn't change the fact that in this current series of false-flag events there is a dmoniant narrative that serves to a T the strategic imperatives of one country alone--Israel.

As an American, and moreover one who is well aware of all the problems inherent in America's foreign policy and historical realities, I cannot ignore an existential threat to the land and to the system of government, however flawed, that I am bound to. To put it more simply, just because America has been a tool of empire for the global elite many times in the past does not mean that I will let the country be attacked as if our government's prior actions somehow justified an attack on my fellow citizens by a rogue nation that in addition to being under suspicion for complicity in the attacks of 9/11 wields undue influence in our sovereign affairs. ESPECIALLY when this influence is wielded in a manner that is designed to antagonize for the foreseeable future every arab and muslim on the planet, against the better judgement of an ignored majority of our own citizens.

Perhaps as an anarchist you welcome any circumstances that might break apart the united states, including by dividing its people amongst themselves and fomenting distrust of our institutions. If so you would not in my view be a very good anarchist since you would be encouraging far too radical a solution to the problem of centralized power without yet having a full accounting of the specifics of the event that you use to justify it.

Annoymouse's picture

"The idea seems to be that

"The idea seems to be that since many different groups, including the US military/intelligence establishment, have used false flag tactics, that 9/11 was not necessarily a specifically Zionist-inspired false flag attack."

I’m interested in ending false flag operations, Zionist or non. American military personnel with no perceivable links to Zionism have used the tactic repeatedly. Are you or are you not interested in ending the tactic of the false flag – or is exposure contingent on a Zionist angle?

"The problem is that while that is in theory true, the reality is that the facts do point to 9/11 having been Zionist-inspired and quite possible Zionist-executed."

I’ve never denied that Zionists were involved. I encourage exposure of said Zionists. Why you should feel the need to attack people who don’t subscribe to your view that Zionists run the show is beyond me.

"To the extent that criminals and/or traitors within the US establishment helped in the attacks, it certainly need not have been an exclusively Zionist undertaking. Certainly there are individuals who while having no special inetrest in Zionism still find it rewarding (financially, i.e.) to make their services available to the specific plotters ideologically behind the scheme."

Sure. And the same could be said of the Zionist creatures you’re concerned with.

"American imperialism, these days at least, seems to be I'm sorry to break it to you heavily influenced by the ideology and strategies long employed by Israel."

I don’t disagree with this.

"a more nuanced view"

A more nuanced view would entail acknowledgment that many states aside from Israel engage in this tactic, for obvious reasons – precisely the view I have tried to present.

"In the case of 9/11 it was Americans who were targeted and made victims."

If you think your own government is beyond such atrocities without the aid of Zionists, you’re terribly naïve.

"I cannot ignore an existential threat to the land and to the system of government, however flawed, that I am bound to."

You’re not bound to anything except the laws of the universe. To be bound to a state is to be a primitive fool.

"To put it more simply, just because America has been a tool of empire"

Interesting. You can’t accept the idea that your own state and her institutions have been responsible for atrocities, you feel the need to attribute them to alien entities. Exactly the point I was arguing.

"Perhaps as an anarchist you welcome any circumstances that might break apart the united states"

Go read the anti-federalist papers. I do not wish to “break apart” the United States any less my home country of Canada, but to strengthen her via horizontalism and direct democracy, ridding her of centralized power.

gretavo's picture

"The idea seems to be that

"The idea seems to be that since many different groups, including the US military/intelligence establishment, have used false flag tactics, that 9/11 was not necessarily a specifically Zionist-inspired false flag attack."

I’m interested in ending false flag operations, Zionist or non. American military personnel with no perceivable links to Zionism have used the tactic repeatedly. Are you or are you not interested in ending the tactic of the false flag – or is exposure contingent on a Zionist angle?

The subject is 9/11. If you want to go on an anti-false flag crusade for its own sake that is well and good. But I am primarily concerned with the issue of 9/11 for the time being, since it reigns above any other ecent false flag (some of which you don't even realize are false flags.)

"The problem is that while that is in theory true, the reality is that the facts do point to 9/11 having been Zionist-inspired and quite possible Zionist-executed."

I’ve never denied that Zionists were involved. I encourage exposure of said Zionists. Why you should feel the need to attack people who don’t subscribe to your view that Zionists run the show is beyond me.

Why you seem so reluctant to accept the possibility that Zionists DID run the show on 9/11 is beyond ME, and if you interpret any disagreement as an attack then get ready to be attacked mercilessly!

"To the extent that criminals and/or traitors within the US establishment helped in the attacks, it certainly need not have been an exclusively Zionist undertaking. Certainly there are individuals who while having no special inetrest in Zionism still find it rewarding (financially, i.e.) to make their services available to the specific plotters ideologically behind the scheme."

Sure. And the same could be said of the Zionist creatures you’re concerned with.

What's your point? You think I don't know that? You seem very keen to paint me as being biased against Jewish people--I can see no other explanation for your attitude.

"American imperialism, these days at least, seems to be I'm sorry to break it to you heavily influenced by the ideology and strategies long employed by Israel."

I don’t disagree with this.

Finally.

"a more nuanced view"

A more nuanced view would entail acknowledgment that many states aside from Israel engage in this tactic, for obvious reasons – precisely the view I have tried to present.

And that I have never denied, but if you look for any oportunity to cast aspersion my way, so be it...

"In the case of 9/11 it was Americans who were targeted and made victims."

If you think your own government is beyond such atrocities without the aid of Zionists, you’re terribly naïve.

Not sure how that response fits with what I wrote. I think Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen, I think that every war into which the USG has sent its citizens under false pretenses is criminal. Again, stop trying to tell me what I think, Danse, and to pretend that I am saying what you want me to be saying.

"I cannot ignore an existential threat to the land and to the system of government, however flawed, that I am bound to."

You’re not bound to anything except the laws of the universe. To be bound to a state is to be a primitive fool.

Now I'm a primitive fool. Well I guess I don't really need the food and water and shelter to which I have access only by my "social contract" with the prevailing authority in my environs. I guess I really am free to do whatever I want and suffer the consequences. But I would rather not. If we ran away from everything that we didn't like where would we end up, Danse? Canada? No, I guess you're also bound to your country, eh what?

"To put it more simply, just because America has been a tool of empire"

Interesting. You can’t accept the idea that your own state and her institutions have been responsible for atrocities, you feel the need to attribute them to alien entities. Exactly the point I was arguing.

There is a big difference between the state of which I am a citizen and the criminals who corrupt it, whether they be foreign or domestic. And anyway there you go again putting words in my mouth--if you can find somewhere where I have said anything but the opposite of the fact that the American state has been guilty of committing atrocities please cite it. I'm starting to get tired of your misrepresenting everything I say to suit your need to discredit me.

"Perhaps as an anarchist you welcome any circumstances that might break apart the united states"

Go read the anti-federalist papers. I do not wish to “break apart” the United States any less my home country of Canada, but to strengthen her via horizontalism and direct democracy, ridding her of centralized power.

dude, you obviously have an agenda that goes way beyond responding properly to 9/11. While I don't necessarily disagree with anything you might believe about power, this just isn't the time or place. What you're doing is becoming pretty clear, which is to try to give reasons unrelated to the specific facts at hand for us to give Israel and its partisans a pass on what is undoubtedly something they have at the very least been involved heavily in, at the worst were behind, and in either case have exploited ruthlessly.