Press for truth!

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Oh no! Please Childlike, don't start making connections... PLEASE!

OK, i have to leave now anyway. You are are real Skeptic, Pardalis! *handsoverbadge*

[gumboot]

Okay, 50 minutes in now...

We get the whole "we didn't catch anyone in Afghanistan" thing. I'm not sure when the doco was made, because at present Al Qaeda's command structure has been decimated.

I'm starting to see American arrogance in the doco now, which isn't surprising. People are arguing there's no way these Al Qaeda fighters could escape from the US. Well... nonsense. Come on people. Do some military history research.

Most of the American troops in Afghanistan had no previous combat experience. Even fewer had any decent experience in the sort of warfare or climate that they had to face (hence why NZSAS ended up playing such a disproportiantly significant role).

In contrast, the Al Qaeda fighters have been fighting around the world, basically constantly, for THREE DECADES. They defeated the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and know the terrain backwards. They have high level friends in Pakistan - the neighbour that the US was relying on for support.

It's is quite plain and simple. Al Qaeda were BETTER than the US Military. It might be a hard pill for arrogant Americans to swallow, but it's true. Al Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups were running circles around the US intelligence community for a decade leading up to 9/11, and in Afghanistan, for the first year or so, Al Qaeda ran circles around the US Military.

I simply don't understand this incredulous "US is invincible" stance that is so often espoused by those claiming inside involvement. Would anyone we so utterly disbelieving if Soviet cold-war intelligence out-foxed US or British intelligence? Of course not. Yet Al Qaeda beat BOTH the Soviets AND the West. We grossly underestimated them. And by fixing blame on "incompetent US officials" we are CONTINUING to underestimate them. They are a REAL threat. They are not a bunch of towel-heads hiding in a cave. They are highly trained, incredibly experienced, thorough, patient, smart, and dedicated.

Want to know what Al Qaeda looks for in its members? This, according to the Al Qaeda training manual (Second Lesson):

Quote:

Necessary Qualifications fro the Organization's members

1-Islam:
The member of the Organization must be Moslem. How can an unbeliever, someone from a revealed religion [Christian, Jew], a secular person, a communist, etc. protect Islam and Moslems and defend their goals and secrets when he does not believe in that religion [Islam]? The Israeli Army requires that a fighter be of the Jewish religion. Likewise, the command leadership in the Afghan and Russian armies requires anyone with an officer's position to be a member of the communist party.

2-Commitment to the Organization's Ideology:
This commitment frees the Organization's members from conceptional problems.

3-Maturity:
The requirements of military work are nUfflerous, and a minor cannot perform them. The nature of hard and continuous work in dangerous conditions requires a great deal of psychological, mental, and intellectual fitness, which are not usually found in a minor. It is reported that Ibn Ornar -may Allah be pleased with him -said, "During Ahad [battle] when I was fourteen years of age, I was submitted [as a volunteer] to the prophet -God bless and keep him. He refused me and did not throw me in the battle. During Khandak [trench] Day [battle] when I was fifteen years of age, I was also submitted to him, and he permitted me [to fight] .

4-Sacrifice:
He [the member] has to be willing to do the work and undergo martyrdom for the purpose of achieving the goal and establishing the religion of majestic Allah on earth.

5-Listening and Obedience:
In the military, this is known today as discipline. It is expressed by how the member obeys the orders given to him. That is what our religion urges. The Glorious says, "0, ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger and those charged with authority among you." In the story of Hazifa Ben AI-Yarnan -may Allah have mercy on him -who was exemplary in his obedience to Allah's messepger -Allah bless and keep him. When he [Mohammed] -Allah bless and keep him -sent him to spy on the Kureish and their allies during their siege of Madina, Hazifa said, -As he [Mohammed] called me by name to stand, he said, 'Go get me information about those people and do not alarm them about me.' As I departed, I saw Abou Soufian and I placed an arrow in the bow. I [then] remembered the words of the messenger - Allah bless and keep him -'do not alarm them about me.' If I had shot I would have hit him."

6-Keeping Secrets and Concealing Information
[This secrecy should be used] even with the closest people, for deceiving the enemies is not easy. Allah says, -Even though their plots were such that as to shake the hills! [Koranic verse]." Allah's messenger -God bless and keep him -says, "Seek Allah's help in doing your affairs in secrecy."It was said in the proverbs, "The hearts of freemen are the tombs of secrets" and "Moslems' secrecy is faithfulness, and talking about it is faithlessness." [Mohanlned] -God bless and keep him -used to keep work secrets from the closest people, even from his wife A'isha-may Allah's grace be on her.

7. Free of Illness
The Military Organization's member must fulfill this important requirement. .Allah says, -There is no blame for those who are infirm, or ill, or who have no resources to spend."

8. Patience
[The member] should have plenty of patience for [enduring] afflictions if he is overcome by the enemies. He should not abandon this great path and sell himself and his religion to the enemies for his freedom. He should be patient in performing the work, even if it lasts a long time.

9. Tranquility and "Unflappability"
[The member] should have a calm personality that allows him to endure psychological traumas such as those"involving bloodshed, murder, arrest, imprisonment, and rever,se psychological traumas such as killing one or all of his Organization's comrades. [He should be able] to carry out the work.

10. Intelligence and Insight
When the prophet -Allah bless and keep him -sent Hazifa Ben AI-Yaman to spy on the polytheist and [Hafiza] sat among them, Abou Soufian said, "Let each one of you look at his companion." Hazifa said to his companion, .Who are you?" The companion replied, "So-and-so son of so-and-so."

Now. Does that sound like a rag-tag bunch of cave-dwellers? Or a sophisticated unified organisation?

-Andrew

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

OK, i have to leave now anyway. You are are real Skeptic, Pardalis! *handsoverbadge*

It's a difficult balance between paranoia and cognitive dissonance, and nobody is immune to either of them.

[Childlike Empress]

@gummi: Sorry, forget to name your agenda. A very sophisticated kind of fear mongering.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

On what grounds should the USA give up their sovereignty and allow for who exactly to investigate precisely what about 9/11?

Fair point, but you might want to remember that your Government has a habit of "requesting" that the FBI and other bodies helps with criminal investigations involving American citizens in other countries before you get too bolshy about it.

[jhunter1163]

Childlike:

If I had to guess, I'd say your theory re: paid disinfo agents in the truth movement didn't resonate because it added another layer to the conspiracy. If even one of them gets tired of the game, all they have to do is wave their checks from the NWO in front of a camera and there goes your conspiracy. JREFers will hack you to death with Occam's Razor at any opportunity.

If you'd said something like "I think the Bushies counted on the emergence of nuts after 9/11 and used their CIA media assets to play up the nuttiest of them to discredit the truth movement", at least that would be a starting point for discussion. You'd still be asked for evidence though....

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Could we keep this discussion board in English please?

Si ça continue de même j'vais écrire en français bâtard!

So... That said, for the sake of it Childlike, I'll watch the movie.

ce n'est pa une probleme pour moi, francais at allemands sonts sujets obliqitoire dans les ecoles ecossais(e)

[Childlike Empress]

@jhunter: no need to guess. And don't forget the basement of it which is the topic of this thread: the cover-up.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Architect

ce n'est pa une probleme pour moi, francais at allemands sonts sujets obliqitoire dans les ecoles ecossais(e)

Your french is very good. You are lucky, it's a very good asset to speak so many languages.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Anyway, what is that strange connection between Rodriguez and Randi about? Insider information availible?

There's something strange about someone who likes illusionists liking James Randi?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Gravy

There's something strange about someone who likes illusionists liking James Randi?

I'm often told my "thing" for 80's pop princess Debbie Gibson is rather strange.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

@gummi: Sorry, forget to name your agenda. A very sophisticated kind of fear mongering.

Hmmm... very interesting observation.

Would I be right in guessing this is due, primarily, from my opinion that Radical Islamic militants pose a genuine and serious threat to Western civilisation and values?

Just asking questions.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

60 minutes in... and it's a return to the "Al Qaeda couldn't have pulled this off alone" argument.

Like the "collapse in own footprint" argument, this is one that has just befuddled me from day one. "Elaborate"? "Complex"? C'mon. They hijacked four planes. All they needed was a bunch of guys, some watches, some knives, a fake bomb or two, and an airline timetable.

How hard could it be? This was hardly Operation Overlord.

Not that I think Al Qaeda can't do complex (see my post above...). But this just didn't require a whole heap of effort. The perfect success of the mission lay in its simplicity. Western, liberal, life-loving societies simply never seriously thought about airliners being used as a weapon. There was no system in place to RESPOND to a threat like that.

-Andrew

ETA. It also goes into the whole "CIA created Bin Laden" argument. Grossly simplified (to the point of being inaccurate).

[MarkyX]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Were any non-US individuals involved in the investigation? Have any non-US individuals asked to take part, or to do their own; and subsequently been denied? blah, blah, blah

CE, prove your statement about mocking victims, or retract it; or it will be reported as an abusive post.

I believe there was one Canadian engineer invited by FEMA. His speciality was dealing with fire damage on material, considered the best in the world or some such.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I find this a little ironic. You have never hid your significant dislike of the current US government.

And here you are, accusing people here of mocking victims, while peddling a documentary that uses families of 9/11 victims to push a political agenda that you support.

Sick.

I'm ten minutes into the film. So far I've heard the same boring and fact-less "NORAD Stand Down" argument I have heard repeatedly from CTers.

It's very simple CLE. Please pay attention.

...reading?

...

The moment the 19 hijackers were on board the aircraft the nearly 3000 victims' fates were sealed. There was nothing anyone could do to prevent 9/11 happening at that point.

The mighty USA is NOT invincible, anymore than Battleship Row was. The US got beaten by people who were cleverer and more dedicated. Simple as that.

-Andrew

Hard to admit easier to deny.

[gumboot]

Right, we're 70 minutes in now...

We've just covered ISI connections to Al Qaeda in more detail. It's really about the money trail. Did the ISI fund it, did they not?

Of course, there's some issues here. As we know the ISI is heavily filled with Taliban/Al Qaeda sympathisers. Not surprising, since they have three decades of involvement with each other. The mistake is to think these connections are official.

In other words, just because an ISI agent is also supporting Al Qaeda doesn't mean the ISI is involved in 9/11.

That logic would determine that the CIA was involved in the 1998 embassy bombings, since CIA agent Ali Mohamed was actually planning the bombings as an Al Qaeda member.

My hypothesis. The US underestimated the level of Al Qaeda infiltration of the ISI (probably partly because Pakistan down-played it) and decided it wasn't enough to hinder operations in Afghanistan. They took the gamble. (Don't forget Pakistan has nuclear weapons...).

-Andrew

[Oliver]

Hello?

[MarkyX]

You can read more information on the ISI rumor here:

http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/20....html#78639317

[gumboot]

Well, I'm disappointed.

This would have to be one of the poorest conclusions I've ever seen. It really makes the entire program fall apart...

It begins with three bold statements:

"The sponsors of the attack yet to be confronted"

A number of international laws passed post-9/11 have strickly clamped down on terrorist funding networks (which were incredibly comprehensive and well-networked). Organisations like Al Taqwa Bank were closed down. These are the people who "sponsor" terrorism. There's certainly holes - a number of nations continue to get away with sponsoring terrorism. This needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure a simultaneous war with Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is a good idea.


"The men named as the culprits allowed to escape"

The key word here is "allowed". The US-arrogance syndrome dictates that, if they escaped, the US must have allowed it. There's an obvious flaw in this logic. Al Qaeda were on their home turf. US forces were not that hot on alpine counter-insurrgent warfare. I'm not surprised so many escaped for so long (I'm guessing this doco is now dated since the coalition has since taken big chunks out of Al Qaeda including KSM - the mastermind of 9/11).


"The government officials who ignored warnings before 9/11 still in their positions"

As I said, I've yet to hear a single example of a credible piece of actionable intel regarding the 9/11 threat. I'm not surprised the admin ignored vague rumours of threats. I'm sure the US public would have gone postal if the US government had clamped down on civil liberties BEFORE 9/11. People like
Michael Moore would have had a field day.


"Despite years of inquiry...the official story of what happened on 9/11 remains little changed"

Yeah. Because it's pretty much spot on. Aside from the brief CT arguments at the beginning (NORAD stand down, buildings don't collapse) the documentary actually offers no argument whatsoever that anything happened on 9/11 other than 19 Al Qaeda operatives hijacked 4 aircraft, flew three into buildings, while passengers on the 4th revolted and caused it to crash. Why would the official story change? Even if it were proved Pakistan officially DID fund the attacks, how does "what happened on 9/11" suddenly change?



Okay, so after this "conclusion" the doco loses it, because it just randomly goes off into a whole new realm that really related only loosely to the rest of the doco...

It basically goes into a rant about the media and how they have to "hold everyone accountable". It seems to imply that after 9/11 the media suddenly stopped doing serious investigating, pushing an agenda instead (never mind all the "failing to connect dots" the doco talks about occured BEFORE 9/11). It's laughable. Did the media only suddenly become subjective, biased, corrupt, political, sensationalist, and straight out false AFTER 9/11? Please. It has been that way for decades.

We get these widows saying no one can get up to speed on everything... it took them thousands of hours of research to learn about 9/11 (yet they still think no fighters were launched... )

Apparantly there's no one "connecting the dots". Of course, these "dots" are really mainly just "false articles". These days journalists are so desperate to push a story first, they publish stuff that turns out to be false. Instead of retract it with a follow up, they just leave it hanging. Hence you get a "dot" (the Osama kidney dialysis myth is one of the "dots" the doco presents).

There's then a bit about how people are "afraid to consider the truth" which smacks of typical CT logic when confronted with a superior argument. As this subforum demonstrates, there's plenty of people who have managed to gather enormous amounts of information about 9/11, and yet none of the claims made in this documentary have surfaced. Funny that.

My favourite is the argument that basically runs "we should be questioning the official story because governments are evil liars". Bravo. Nice objective reasoning there. It's the same tired "accepting the official story" line. No one here that I've seen "accepts" the official story. They've independently researched everything and come to the conclusion that the official story is accurate.

If you want to take me, for example, I've never read the entire 9/11 Commission Report. Why? Because I've gathered my understanding of what happened from first hand evidence and materials, not from someone else's version of them. My NORAD research is entirely independent of the 9/11 commission report. Yet still I get labelled as "blindly accepting the official story". It's just ridiculous.

The tragedy is these filmmakers of this documentary are oblivious to the irony in their claim that anyone who doesn't have their point of view must be a blind sheep.

Then we have pearls like "Yes they lied, they all lieds, whether consciously or unconsciously" (from one of the widows). How exactly do you unconsciously lie?

Of course, the documentary has never really presented WHAT they apparantly lied about. It just throws in a whole heap of unsupported arguments at the end that don't really reflect the remainder of the doco. Kind of reminds me of a History Channel programme.

And in conclusion?

Well, I'll be a little insensitive here. The four widows are the centrepiece of the documentary. It's pretty clear from this documentary (unless, of course, they have been very badly misrepresented) that they are on a witch hunt, plain and simple. Their loved ones died, and they want someone to burn. The terrorists who did it are all dead, or on the loose. No one has been brought to trial.

They can't accept that the US was simply out-smarted (maybe no one has sat down and talked about this with them, because very few people seem willing to even consider it). Therefore US officials must be at fault. Someone needs to swing.

I think their sentiments are wrong, and their research appears to be flawed, but I understand their feelings - grief impairs reason.

What is sickening is the way the filmmakers have used that to their own advantage, to make a propaganda piece.

I'm not overly impressed.

On a technical and stylistic note Loose Change and Terrorstorm are both better made and better structured documentaries.

-Andrew

[Kent1]

I would recommend a much better video that deals with the same subject is called On Native Soil: The 911 Commission report. I would also recommend
http://www.911myths.com/html/foreknowledge.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/august_6_memo.html

At least this video tends to push LIHOP and incompatance rather than MIHOP.
Although I haven't watched it all yet.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Now watch this video: 9/11 Press for truth.

You've been told the truth. And to borrow from another movie, you can't handle the truth.

What the hell is it w/ 9/11 deniers and movies? If you have evidence, post it. This isn't a film discussion board.

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by Kent1

At least this video tends to push LIHOP and incompatance rather than MIHOP.

Oh come on, you know that doesn't matter.

Whether it's MIHOP, or whether it's LIHOP.
We have to find a way to make this war stop.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Oh come on, you know that doesn't matter.

Whether it's MIHOP, or whether it's LIHOP.
We have to find a way to make this war stop.

Um. What?

-Andrew

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The key word here is "allowed". The US-arrogance syndrome dictates that, if they escaped, the US must have allowed it. There's an obvious flaw in this logic. Al Qaeda were on their home turf. US forces were not that hot on alpine counter-insurrgent warfare. I'm not surprised so many escaped for so long (I'm guessing this doco is now dated since the coalition has since taken big chunks out of Al Qaeda including KSM - the mastermind of 9/11).

The US has an entire division trained specifically for mountain warfare. The problem is, Tora Bora was just a few months after 9/11. We just didn't have enough troops or materiel over there yet, and really had no choice but to let local allies fight the battle.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Um. What?

-Andrew

You haven't seen Abbyas's charming doco on the nutters at GZ?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...54424113&hl=en

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Um. What?

-Andrew

See the video Abby and realitybites made...

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by WildCat

See the video Abby and realitybites made...

...And run the risk of having that damn song run through your head in every single waking moment for three days!



Seriously, though, watch the video. It's hilarious.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The US has an entire division trained specifically for mountain warfare. The problem is, Tora Bora was just a few months after 9/11. We just didn't have enough troops or materiel over there yet, and really had no choice but to let local allies fight the battle.

I'd really like to know the date that doco was made. They talked about "the war in Afghanistan was over and no one was caught". Yet as we know, fighting is still ongoing in Afghanistan, and every now and then another prominent Al Qaeda member is either captured or knocked off.

Perhaps people just expected instant results?

Sorry, I don't meant to deride the excellent 10th Mountain Division.

But the US Military is not geared to fighting a guerilla war. IIRC the 10th Mountain had not seen alpine combat since Korea, which means none of the troops in Afghanistan had alpine combat experience.

What the US really needed was highly skilled alpine trackers - that's why NZSAS were called in so early, and used so extensively - they're widely accepted as the best trackers in the world.

Of course, the Americans learned FAST, which is why they later rapidly proved far more successful. I was reading a USMC newspaper recently that talked about a single USMC infantry platoon that was testing new techniques and tactics for warfare in Afghanistan that were producing exceptional results.

You're also certainly right in that all that early stuff happened too early - it takes time to invade a country! (Kind of discredits CT claims that the US had forces poised to invade as well).

I think it might have been Huntsman who was talking about the enormous number of troops that would be required to secure the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. You practically need a guy every hundred paces!

As a result you guys had to rely on Pakistan to do the deed. Well, we know how big an issue that is. Osama bin Laden is a hero for a good chunk of the country.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Gravy

.
Seriously, though, watch the video. It's hilarious.

I feel stupid.

I have seen the video. I just completely missed the reference. I thought Peephole was a raving CTer who had totally misunderstood Kent1's comments.

Man I feel like a dummy...

-Andrew

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by Brainache

You haven't seen Abbyas's charming doco on the nutters at GZ?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...54424113&hl=en

I'm getting an error message from Google. Working for others?

[David Wong]

I think somebody accidentally copied and pasted the truncated address. This forum software shortens links and puts ... in the middle of them.

It works fine if you try to click it, but if you try to copy it into another thread you get a broken link.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by gumboot

What the US really needed was highly skilled alpine trackers - that's why NZSAS were called in so early, and used so extensively - they're widely accepted as the best trackers in the world.

Yeah, lots of gorgeous mountains in NZ, I'd love to visit there some day. Looks dangerous though w/ all those Orcs running around... you should really do something about them.

[calebprime]

I'm a mac user: Tried Firefox (logged in) and Safari (not logged in), but got the same Google "video may not be available" message.

liked your writing about LC, Mr. Wong.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by David Wong

I think somebody accidentally copied and pasted the truncated address. This forum software shortens links and puts ... in the middle of them.

It works fine if you try to click it, but if you try to copy it into another thread you get a broken link.

D'oh. Yes find the footage from GZ thread. By Abbyas.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yeah, lots of gorgeous mountains in NZ, I'd love to visit there some day. Looks dangerous though w/ all those Orcs running around... you should really do something about them.

They keep us on our toes...

And yes, it is a rather pretty place:



-Andrew

ETA. Eek! How do I get the picture up smaller with the little "thumbnail" box around it?

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Oh come on, you know that doesn't matter.

Whether it's MIHOP, or whether it's LIHOP.
We have to find a way to make this war stop.

It makes a hell of a difference.

And please, this is not about politics.

[Dog Town]

Quote:

Whether it's MIHOP, or whether it's LIHOP.
We have to find a way to make this war stop.

Thanks for putting that freaken song in my head, again!
All it makes me think about is breakfast at you know where. Rooty tooty fresh and fruity, anyone? Not you reality bites!

FUDGE.... it won't get out of me head!

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I think their sentiments are wrong, and their research appears to be flawed, but I understand their feelings - grief impairs reason.

What is sickening is the way the filmmakers have used that to their own advantage, to make a propaganda piece.

This has some some elements of truth to it.

But I also tend to believe one of the women at the end when she comments on Bush's remark that "the government needs to be right all the time, and the terrorists right only once". I think she's right that this is over simplifying things. Al Qaeda were right a bunch of times, they could have been detected a number of times before 9/11. On the day of 9/11, that was too late. You have to be accountable for your incompetence. She's right about that. But yet most of these guys are still in office.

Whether they let them pass throught their security and intelligence on purpose, that is yet to be proven, I tend to believe more on incompetence than malevolence.

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I feel stupid.

I have seen the video. I just completely missed the reference. I thought Peephole was a raving CTer who had totally misunderstood Kent1's comments.

Who said I wasn't....


Mwhahahaha

[realitybites]

Originally Posted by WildCat

See the video Abby and realitybites made...

I have to admit, I had nothing to do with the making of this film any more than LIHOP/MIHOP guy did. It was all Abby and her ex.