History 5/2/15 New allegations of Saudi involvement in 9/11

[Lebbo73]

lol. i know the answer to the question and have done so for years mate. i don't see the need to provide it to idiots like yourself that haven't been able to figure out 911 for 14 years now. how much longer do you need? another 14?

providing facts to conspiratards is a waste of time. enjoy the koolaide.

Sure you do.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Sure you do.

what is this? primary school psychology? rofl.

i mean honestly. if you can't think of a better answer than "BBC were in on it" then you're a moron of the highest order. you shouldn't need me to spoon-feed reality to you

 

[rowie343]

lol. i know the answer to the question and have done so for years mate. i don't see the need to provide it to idiots like yourself that haven't been able to figure out 911 for 14 years now. how much longer do you need? another 14?

providing facts to conspiratards is a waste of time. enjoy the koolaide.

Reading this thread, you are certainly someone who has alot of time on your hands anyway so why don't you take a few extra seconds to answer the question.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Reading this thread, you are certainly someone who has alot of time on your hands anyway so why don't you take a few extra seconds to answer the question.

it's called a boring job. and sure, for you i will . of course, there's every chance you're as detached from reality as the rest of them, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just honestly curious.

so, WTC7 was hit by falling debris from the closest tower, which gouged out about a third of the structure, and started a fire. this fire went un-fought for approx 7 hours. by the time the NYFD did get around to it, it was decided the building was too far gone, and they were unwilling to risk more lives on a lost cause. there's plenty of first-responder and other eye-witness commentary available that supports this.

[boyle] Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

[firehouse magazine] When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

[boyle] There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did.

So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

(there's plenty more supporting commentary here, i just chose these for brevity's sake.)

so, combined with the professional opinion on the ground that WTC7 was doomed, the truly chaotic and unprecedented context of the day, and the natural tendency of the media to report first and check facts later, we have an innocent mistake from a BBC reporter who reported a collapse that many thought was going to occur, before it actually did.

the BBC's comment:

In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving....

Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services....

If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

and that's really all there was to it. thanks for reading.

 

[CountryRace]

Robert David Steele – a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

***

In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI.

In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism.

We’ve become a lunatic asylum.


Background here and here.

 

[Long Live HFC]

oh, so it wasn't the saudis, it was the US government. can't you make up your mind? you've had 14 years lol!

The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.

The more people were likely to endorse the idea Princess Diana was murdered, the more they were likely to believe that Princess Diana is alive," explained Douglas. People who thought it was unlikely she was murdered were also unlikely to think she did not die.

They also asked 102 students about the death of Osama bin Laden last year. The students rated how much they agreed with statements purporting that: bin Laden had died in the American raid; he is still alive; he was already dead when the raid took place; the Obama administration appears to be hiding information about the raid.

Once again, people who believed bin Laden was already dead before the raid were more likely to believe he is still alive. Using statistical analysis, the researchers determined that the link between the two was explained by a belief that the Obama administration was hiding something.

it was definitely the saudis AND the US government, then.

 

[blackcat]

The US isn't reliant on Saudi oil any more. It's taking a while to unravel but it changes the whole dynamic of the Middle East. The US has underwritten the regional security order for the past 70 years but now there's no reason to. The US could disengage and leave them to it, including Israel.

but why allow the Sino's to move in and take Iran and Iraq and Saudi control and influence. It is still the most strategic asset in the world, and international hegemony as a function.

If the Americans move out because they could cover oil deficit, they allow other nation states to step into this unpeered asset of power.

 

[blackcat]

Arsenal

In the new book Bin Laden: Behind The Mask Of Terror, author Adam Robinson even tells of how the terrorist had become so smitten with the team that he bought a replica shirt for his eldest son.

Inamoto was called t-shirt
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/...moto-reflects-on-nomadic-career/#.VQbPEOGjFFc

 

[Lester Burnham]

but why allow the Sino's to move in and take Iran and Iraq and Saudi control and influence. It is still the most strategic asset in the world, and international hegemony as a function.

If the Americans move out because they could cover oil deficit, they allow other nation states to step into this unpeered asset of power.

The US has got so much oil they don't know what to do with the stuff.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bu...oom-to-store-oil/story-fni0xqe3-1227256761400

Maybe the Middle East becomes less important in the big scheme of things.

Interesting that declining oil prices have contributed to a stall in CO2 emissions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...y-have-stalled-in-2014--why.html#.VQaN7nyUeSo

 

[blackcat]

The US has got so much oil they don't know what to do with the stuff.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bu...oom-to-store-oil/story-fni0xqe3-1227256761400

Maybe the Middle East becomes less important in the big scheme of things.

Interesting that declining oil prices have contributed to a stall in CO2 emissions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...y-have-stalled-in-2014--why.html#.VQaN7nyUeSo

declining oil price is a product of demand coming off. and the world economy not doing capital works projects in china as the driving force.

ME oil will always be the strategic king. Its not about the US using the oil, its about the others having INFLUENCE over who uses it. If the Americans dont like the Sinos managing some of the oil fields in Iraq atm with their state owned oil firms. They will let ISIS take those fields, then they will come back in with the marines, take it over, then not hand it back to the Sinos. see? Iran is not just about Bibi. It is about the shiaa dominance BUT partnership with China for their oil revenue. Take out China, then the State dep't would find it much easier to tell Bibi and AIPAC to stfu and tell ur story walking.

Kerry can still fly into Riyadh and tell the house of saud to bring some production off so the price goes up, or, to hurt Russian, flood the market with extra production so the barrel price drops precipitously.

 

[CountryRace]

it's called a boring job. and sure, for you i will . of course, there's every chance you're as detached from reality as the rest of them, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just honestly curious.

so, WTC7 was hit by falling debris from the closest tower, which gouged out about a third of the structure, and started a fire. this fire went un-fought for approx 7 hours. by the time the NYFD did get around to it, it was decided the building was too far gone, and they were unwilling to risk more lives on a lost cause. there's plenty of first-responder and other eye-witness commentary available that supports this.







https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

(there's plenty more supporting commentary here, i just chose these for brevity's sake.)

so, combined with the professional opinion on the ground that WTC7 was doomed, the truly chaotic and unprecedented context of the day, and the natural tendency of the media to report first and check facts later, we have an innocent mistake from a BBC reporter who reported a collapse that many thought was going to occur, before it actually did.

the BBC's comment:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

and that's really all there was to it. thanks for reading.

http://www.wtc7.net/cnn.html


CNN did the same, by an hour.

quite the coincidence that

Only day, fire made a tower fall down too



.

oh, so it wasn't the saudis, it was the US government. can't you make up your mind? you've had 14 years lol!





it was definitely the saudis AND the US government, then.

Yes you have the moral high ground - cause the average bloke doesn't know exactly what happened outside of the nonsensical offical gov. Version. Well done.

Where's your prove Osama was killed '11? Oh yeah his body in th sea

 

[CountryRace]

The US has got so much oil they don't know what to do with the stuff.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bu...oom-to-store-oil/story-fni0xqe3-1227256761400

Maybe the Middle East becomes less important in the big scheme of things.

Interesting that declining oil prices have contributed to a stall in CO2 emissions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...y-have-stalled-in-2014--why.html#.VQaN7nyUeSo

You could argue syria and ukraine are vital as they are battleground for superpowers

 

[Long Live HFC]

http://www.wtc7.net/cnn.html


CNN did the same, by an hour.

quite the coincidence that

ohhhhh, so CNN were in on it too then? sounds legit. maybe they helped plant the invisible and silent explosives too?

Only day, fire made a tower fall down too

911 was a unique event in the history of mankind, of course there would be "firsts" happening, lol.

Yes you have the moral high ground - cause the average bloke doesn't know exactly what happened outside of the nonsensical offical gov. Version. Well done.

i don't give a s**t about supposed "moral" high grounds. i just care about facts, logic and science. 3 things you seem to despise.

Where's your prove Osama was killed '11? Oh yeah his body in th sea

so, he's still alive then i take it? or was he killed before 2011 and it was kept secret? or he never existed at all? perhaps all 3?!

 

[CountryRace]

Its all very complicated thats for sure. When in doubt i find a good rule of thumb is to listen to people that have authority like Major Generals of the American army.

Here is two:

1. https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

oh, so it wasn't the saudis, it was the US government. can't you make up your mind? you've had 14 years lol!





it was definitely the saudis AND the US government, then.

2.

Albert N. Stubblebine III is a retired Major General in the United States Army. He was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984. In this compelling interview, Stubblemine reveals the following information (what he calls “dots”) about the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001:

7:45 Stubblebine then saw a photo of the Pentagon showing the hole in the Pentagon supposedly made by a Boeing 757. “Something’s wrong. There is something wrong with this picture…”

8:30 “Well there was something wrong. And, so I analyzed it not just photographically, I did measurements… I checked the plane, the length of the nose, where the wings were… I took measurements of the Pentagon – the depth of the destruction in the Pentagon.”

9:05 “Conclusion: airplane did not make that hole.”

9:10” I went public at the time. I am the highest ranking officer, I believe, that has ever gone public… The official story was not true.”

9:25 “I was very careful to not say what it was because I couldn’t prove it. I was careful to say that it was not the airplane that did that, because I can prove that it was not the airplane.”

http://consciouslifenews.com/911-prove-airplane-hit-pentagon-major-general-albert-stubblebine/

 

[Long Live HFC]

Its all very complicated thats for sure. When in doubt i find a good rule of thumb is to listen to people that have authority like Major Generals of the American army.

well that explains why you're such a s**t student of history: an inability to determine credible sources.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

for example, "Conclusion: airplane did not make that hole.”

a crazy old man's opinion being put above the ~200 people that saw flight 77 hit the pentagon, the DNA of all the passengers and crew known to be on that flight, all the wreckage of the plane, etc etc etc. go on, see for yourself. go look on google maps and check out where the pentagon is, right next to a major highway which was packed with near-peak traffic at the time.

no no, we'll throw all our support in this guy:

After retirement Stubblebine became widely known for his interest, while on active duty, in psychic warfare and his hope to develop an army of soldiers with powers such as the ability to walk through walls.

 

[blackcat]

no no, we'll throw all our support in this guy:

yeah whacky, but you are also smearing the messenger. ok, so that quote, assuming it is correct, would hypothetically indicate he's a whackjob

but it gets back to Dunning Kruger law, and humans need a neat comfortable answer one can understand. sometimes an answer just will never reveal itself. And rarely will the answer that is genuine and legit, this answer that reveals itself, cannot be reconciled with the individual's preconceived biases and discrimination.

 

[Long Live HFC]

yeah whacky, but you are also smearing the messenger.

sure, and I understand the poisoned well fallacy. but since CR made an appeal to authority fallacy, I felt i'd even it up

but it gets back to Dunning Kruger law, and humans need a neat comfortable answer one can understand. sometimes an answer just will never reveal itself. And rarely will the answer that is genuine and legit, this answer that reveals itself, cannot be reconciled with the individual's preconceived biases and discrimination.

I don't necessarily disagree.

 

[blackcat]

sure, and I understand the poisoned well fallacy. but since CR made an appeal to authority fallacy, I felt i'd even it up



I don't necessarily disagree.

remember, its Country Race. dont know if he/she was rick james or smiling buddha in another sockpuppet iteration. anyway, some of his stuff, if it is his not her, i pavlov agree without having to skip past the first para. but the crazy stuff, can also be divined in the first para too.

 

[rowie343]

Conspiracy theories aside, is it that hard to believe that 911 could have been an inside job, involvement of players from saudi, pakistan or whatever tied in with intelligence agencies or saudi (or whatever nationality) agents coralled/aided by intelligence personnel? To further an agenda. I mean look at what has happened since 911 and the way events rolled out from that event. Events almost played out to perfection from 911 and with great speed, invasion of Afghanistan, annihilation and occupation of Iraq and massive military presence ever since. With the types that were in charge at the time in the US govt, its amazing that anyone would believe the official story entirely. And give no credence whatsoever to other possibilities, others involvements or the furthering of other agendas. There are just so many things that dont add up. Im not talking about whether or not there was an actual plane that flew into the Pentagon. Look at the agenda put forward by washington think tanks for the rebuilding of americas defences and its global expansion. This was at the turn of last century as well, an outline for aggressive expansion for the next century. They even mentioned a way of rapid expansion would be to respond to the modern day equivalent of a pearl harbour event. These guys were in control at the time. Look at what has happened since, surely cause for deeper questions and skepticism of 'official stories' at the very least?????

 

[Long Live HFC]

Conspiracy theories aside, is it that hard to believe that 911 could have been an inside job, involvement of players from saudi, pakistan or whatever tied in with intelligence agencies or saudi (or whatever nationality) agents coralled/aided by intelligence personnel?

i tend to go with evidence rather than mere belief. if the evidence showed any of this occurred, then that would be different.

I mean look at what has happened since 911 and the way events rolled out from that event.

ironically (though perhaps not for you) it's the actions post 911 that help illustrate it wasn't an "inside job". i mean seriously- why the * did the US want to go to afghanistan? the country held no strategic value whatsoever, nor anything of value. and as for iraq- where were those WMDs again? we're to believe that the US government caused/aided the 911 terror attacks (in the most convoluted way too), but then didn't plant some weapons to "find" in iraq? really?

And give no credence whatsoever to other possibilities, others involvements or the furthering of other agendas.

again, evidence. note that politicians profiteering from the attacks is not the same as having caused them. as chomsky noted, 911 was a boon for all authoritarian regimes, it helped various governments justify all kinds of things.

Look at the agenda put forward by washington think tanks for the rebuilding of americas defences and its global expansion. This was at the turn of last century as well, an outline for aggressive expansion for the next century. They even mentioned a way of rapid expansion would be to respond to the modern day equivalent of a pearl harbour event.

have you actually read the PNAC document? i mean, more than the constantly cherry-picked "new pearl harbour" sentence? that chapter was actually about a revolution in military technology, and had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with technological progress:

The use of Pearl Harbour here means "a form of attack which we don't have the technology to counter", which now lets us make more sense of the first quote. All they're saying is that "the process of updating the US military will take a long time, unless the problems are made apparent by an attack that reveals our technical failings". 9/11 undoubtedly revealed failings in intelligence and response on the day, but nothing that matches the PNAC’s agenda. There’s no military technology fix that would have prevented it.

http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

These guys were in control at the time. Look at what has happened since, surely cause for deeper questions and skepticism of 'official stories' at the very least?????

i'm really not one to believe that evil-doers publish their plans ahead of time, but even still, at this point (14 years after the event) the only "scepticism" remaining is anything but. scepticism is about doubting something until/unless a requisite amount of evidence allows one to make up their mind. it's not a position you take against any and all consensuses, "just because".

 

[rowie343]

But your does evidence suggests that there were other players involved in 911. Ok so where then is your irrefutable evidence showing that a man in a cave named Osama Bin Laden was chief orchestrator of the attacks if that is in fact what you believe? What exactly is the evidence for this, how did he finance it how often did they meet etc.
The evidence suggests that the hijackers were shadowed by Mossad months prior to the attacks occuring.
But because you are confident in your understanding of the topic, please point towards the evidence of OBL's involvement.
PNAC was a think tank with influence on Americas foreign policy. Lets not cloud the issue, people involved in the think tank were very much a part of the administration of the country and the direction of foreign policy. It gives you an idea of their blatantly rather than covertly aggressive foreign policy stance. Im not saying that these people were directly involved rather that there are huge influences on all aspects of administration, politics, intelligence agencies etc etc on the direction. I think that there is a huge grey area between for example the intelligence agencies and the people they are trying to stop.
Anyway, back to the evidence.
Also, you dont actually believe that they went to Iraq to look for WMD's do you? You dont think that they were well aware that there were no WMD's in theh first place? What Im saying here is in response to you implying that they could have planted WMD's. Why would they have needed to do that, they already had sufficient general consensus to invade and destroy Iraq. Thats all they were looking for. Once in, you can paper over the WMD excuse. The hard part was getting general consensus, 911 helped them get that immensely. Of course they knew there were no WMD's.

 

[rowie343]

i tend to go with evidence rather than mere belief. if the evidence showed any of this occurred, then that would be different.

Just read over the early part of this thread and your response to information has been "i dont really give a s**t". So info that doesnt fit your rigid view is dismissed. Its clear your not after evidence. This discussion is a waste of time really.

 

[Long Live HFC]

But your does evidence suggests that there were other players involved in 911. Ok so where then is your irrefutable evidence showing that a man in a cave named Osama Bin Laden was chief orchestrator of the attacks if that is in fact what you believe? What exactly is the evidence for this, how did he finance it how often did they meet etc.

I've never really understood the barely-contained racism of questions/thoughts like this? :/ I mean honestly, there really wasn't too much (logistically) to the attacks. hijack plane, crash plane. it wasn't the great train robbery or anything.

anyway, Osama himself took credit publically for the attacks on many occasions (after his initial denials, once the US invaded Afghanistan all pretences were gone). there's the home movie he made with his buddy where they talked about their attack. i'm not sure about his financing, given he had his family's wealth and KSM was the main donation driver.

The evidence suggests that the hijackers were shadowed by Mossad months prior to the attacks occuring.

at this juncture I don't really have the time nor inclination to chase down every red herring thrown up by the "truth" movement. people that think mossad were somehow involved are nutters.

But because you are confident in your understanding of the topic, please point towards the evidence of OBL's involvement.

as above. you've had 14 years to find this yourself. I am not going to bother with another denier.

PNAC was a think tank with influence on Americas foreign policy. Lets not cloud the issue, people involved in the think tank were very much a part of the administration of the country and the direction of foreign policy.

so what? 911 happens and the neocons desperately try to pin it on Iraq. the facts tell them otherwise, so they go after Afghanistan. they then finally make it to Iraq, which they've had an issue with ever since the gulf war. so what? what does this tell us about 911? nothing.

Also, you dont actually believe that they went to Iraq to look for WMD's do you?

of course not, but again I don't see the relevance to 911 here.

You dont think that they were well aware that there were no WMD's in theh first place?

nope.

What Im saying here is in response to you implying that they could have planted WMD's. Why would they have needed to do that, they already had sufficient general consensus to invade and destroy Iraq.

politics. we're meant to believe that they facilitated the murder of 3000 citizens, but didn't plant WMDs so they could say "told you so", and as a consequence lost the house and presidency.

Thats all they were looking for. Once in, you can paper over the WMD excuse. The hard part was getting general consensus, 911 helped them get that immensely.

except they didn't "paper over" anything. they lost elections, lost credibility, lost the war.

Of course they knew there were no WMD's.

the evidence does not support this assertion. those making the decisions certainly believed in the existence of WMD, regardless of how little intelligence they had to support their belief. 911 conspiracy theorists and the neocons have that in common

 

[Long Live HFC]

Just read over the early part of this thread and your response to information has been "i dont really give a s**t".

lol, so you can't actually read and make reasonable inferences from available information then? no wonder you're a truther. I didn't say I didn't give a s**t about 911 per se, that I didn't give a s**t about the (rather obvious duh) role of Saudi $$ in the attacks (you know, given most of the hijackers were Saudi). totally unsurprising and not at all interesting.

This discussion is a waste of time really.

I knew that in 2004 when your ilk first started talking idiocy. you can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into. the fact someone believes in the fantasy of the "truth" movement is evidence they can't be trusted with information.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

anyway, Osama himself took credit publically for the attacks on many occasions (after his initial denials, once the US invaded Afghanistan all pretences were gone). there's the home movie he made with his buddy where they talked about their attack. i'm not sure about his financing, given he had his family's wealth and KSM was the main donation driver.

Reckon the 28 redacted pages may tell a different story

the evidence does not support this assertion. those making the decisions certainly believed in the existence of WMD, regardless of how little intelligence they had to support their belief. 911 conspiracy theorists and the neocons have that in common

Rubbish, they cherry-picked UNMOVIC reports to highlight the spurious claims of Iraqi non-compliance with inspections. One only has to remember the way Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA operative, due to hubby's dismissal of the Niger-uraniam theory, as an example of how they tried to suppress any evidence that did not support their unbridled march towards war