How do we "know" Arab Muslims did it?
It's a new term, and one of my classes is "Issues of Language and Nationalism in the Middle East." The class met today for the first time and 9/11 came up about half a dozen times. I don't know if it's the topic or what, but it dawned on me slowly that the class has attracted a number of OCT true believers. (I suspect the prof, who I've had once before, is not one of them but I don't know exactly where he stands.) While one woman was emoting over the use of the term "Homeland" in "Dept. of Homeland Security" (which always strikes me as a very creepy nod to "Fatherland") because "they attacked us in our home" (sob) I started carefully formulating the strategy I am going to use to avoid viciously tearing into tender OCT-buying flesh like a Truthing jackal. Besides just seizing the next opportunity to state simply that "not all of us believe Arab Muslims were behind 9/11", I would like to have just a few moderate tidbits to throw out there in an attempt to loosen up the ol' Arab Muslim fixation. One item will certainly be the fact that Barbara Olsen, the one-woman "source" of the whole boxcutter mythos, did not actually call her husband, as the FBI formally admitted in the Moussaoui trial. In fact, maybe I'll copy that part of the new DRG book, 9/11 Contradictions. Anymore bite-size chunks of mythbusting info?
- casseia's blog
- Login to post comments
well...
there's the whole issue of cars with Korans and flight manuals said to be left first here, then there, Atta's luggage getting left behind and containing his will (intended to be incinerated?) But really I think the best way to disabuse them is step by step--the demolition of the buildings could not have happened as a result of planes, hijacked or not. i dunno, i don't have much patience with OCT true believers anymore...
Ni moi non plus
But I don't want to get kicked out of class for cruel and unusual verbal bitch-slapping. (The prof gave a little spiel about keeping dialogue civil around contentious issues.) However, your comment points toward my plan B, which should maybe be my plan A, and that's the Friendly Incredulity tactic. C'mon, you don't believe that crap about 19 hijackers, do you? Does anybody still believe that? I thought no one fell for that shit anymore. And so on and so forth.
You probably saw these already...
U.S. and Allied Intelligence Services Had Penetrated The Very HIGHEST LEVELS of Al Qaeda Prior to 9/11
by GW
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14515
Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11
by shoestring
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14639
I like your idea of the Friendly Incredulity tactic. There are so many aspects of the OTC for which it can be used.
Hani Hanjour, aerobatic pilot?
It's doubtful that you could ever convince the OTCers that Arabs weren't involved. I believe that there were Arabs involved. But, causing them to question their role as reported in the OTC may be effective.
I understand that Griffin's "Contradictions" doesn't advance any theories. So, perhaps this is a good approach for discussions in the class, too? The contradictions aren't inaccuracies or mistakes in the OTC, are they? The contradictions should be viewed more as evidence of lies and fabrications. So the fundamental question to plant in their heads would be, what's being covered up?
Hani Hanjour, aerobatic pilot?
Hani Hanjour, who couldn't fly a kite.
"Hijackers Were Testing Aviation System Against Threats
I believe that the 9/11 hijackers were brought into the U.S. by covert operatives working for criminal elements within government/industrial/financial complex and were asked to pose as potential terrorists (behave provocatively, enroll in flight schools, carry out attention getting 'dry-runs' on pre-9/11 flights, etc.)
This mock behavior would be viewed in hindsight or by real-time legitimate surveillance as genuine terrorist behavior.
On 9/11, they may or may not have participated in mock hijack simulations on flights (depending on if calls from flights were genuine) containing pilotless navigation systems that guided the planes into targets.
After 9/11, any provocative mock behavior would seem like smoking gun behavior of genuine terrorists and create an appearance of realism.
The hijackers were NOT radical. They were alcohol consuming, drug using, skirt chasing consumers of adult merchandise who liked to gamble, among other things."
Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Thu, 03/27/2008
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14534
Comment to:
Did the Government ENTRAP the 9/11 Hijackers?
Submitted by GeorgeWashington
Thanks...
I agree that Arabs may very well have been involved in events that day, but clearly they don't represent the central "agency" behind 9/11. (And by that, I mean the prime actors, not an agency in the sense of CIA or Mossad.)
I can already see that this class is going to have some major confrontations. I just hope some people drop it, because it's a little too big for good discussions right now.
I was also thinking about copying my dvd of "The Power of Nightmares" and recommending people at least watch the al Qaeda part.
arabs involved? my vote is no.
 "The hijackers were NOT radical. They were alcohol consuming, drug using, skirt chasing consumers of adult merchandise who liked to gamble, among other things."....
exactly. they could easily have been actors carrying the script, playing their very important little parts. mossad agents speak the language and love to dress up like Arabs all the time....
i really want to know more about these "200" spies/art students/kiosk workers....Â
I second that!
n/t
brainstorm:
That's all I got right now, hope it'll help.
Ted Olson's Three Official Denials
Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
by David Ray Griffin
Global Research, April 1, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20080...
Conclusion
This rejection of Ted Olson's story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson's claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife. In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?
The fact that Ted Olson's report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
How do we *know* she's a witch?
Come on, (455, she LOOKS like one! Duh. But seriously, if anyone hits you with "bin Laden confessed" then remind them that da jooz long ago "confessed" in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! Knocked the balls right off one mean and obstinate would-be debunker yesterday, should be replicatable...