A
Anonymous
Guest
For those still not convinced over these 9/11 conspiracies, this article provides some interesting points over the official version of what went on aboard Flight 11 on September 11th.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 755
Just one question.
Why shouldn't I believe it?
Why shouldn't I believe it?
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 623
This report makes much of the transcript of a cell phone call by one of the stewardesses. Has this transcript been published in full, complete with times? Its not in this report or in the link to the LA Times.
The amount of detail needed to confirm or deny a conspircy may be unavailable since the transcript is a reconstruction from FBI interviews rather than a recording. A fact mentioned by the LA Times but not by whatreallyhappened.
Without this detail the report can only be speculation and anti-US government spin.
The amount of detail needed to confirm or deny a conspircy may be unavailable since the transcript is a reconstruction from FBI interviews rather than a recording. A fact mentioned by the LA Times but not by whatreallyhappened.
Without this detail the report can only be speculation and anti-US government spin.
A
Anonymous
Guest
And how do we know the hostess' call isn't a fake? It would also explain the discrepancies.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Another discussion forum revealed this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1556000/1556096.stm
the last paragraph(s) are the revealing ones - What does this last sentence mean? Madeline Sweeney listed the seat numbers of the hijackers, so that they could be identified. But the FBI is pinning the blame on a different set of people - with different seat numbers - with Arabic-sounding names.
IS THIS A SET-UP?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1556000/1556096.stm
the last paragraph(s) are the revealing ones - What does this last sentence mean? Madeline Sweeney listed the seat numbers of the hijackers, so that they could be identified. But the FBI is pinning the blame on a different set of people - with different seat numbers - with Arabic-sounding names.
IS THIS A SET-UP?
I'll say it one more time.
1) taking over the aircraft by remote control would require more modifications to a 737 than just a software fix.
also
2) The hijackers did not need full flying ability, just the minimal brainpower to turn the aircraft onto an approximate bearing until the target cities were sited. Note that it was the Pentagon that was struck, a far easier target than the White House for the inexperienced
3) If the call was faked, a few background screams would be expected and easily added to the soundtrack. In addition the story would have included the seat numbers that were to be later identified with the hijackers.
Saying that the *secret government* of the US arranged the disaster means they have to be incredibly clever and incredibly stupid.
However, assume that the intelligence community knew there were to be hijack attempts but were ignorant of the purpose of the hijack. Their presumption would be that they would follow the usual pattern of previous hijacks ie fly to an airport, demand refueling, fly on to a country outside the US, land and make political demands.The few American lives lost in such a scenario would have been all the justification needed for a war, especially if anthrax attacks followed.
So what do you do if you want such a thing? You do your best to make the hijack successful including blocking radio communication between the cockpit and the ground. Possibly plant a couple of agents to ensure minimal problems, perhaps even prime the flight crew.
This to me is more plausible than either the hijackers did it on their own or the secret government did it. It explains the inaction of the Air Traffic Control, the phone call (the words used were for ears other than the call recipients), the FBI loosing 2 of the hijackers and might even explain the mystery of the 4th hijack as a failed attempt to regain control.
In this scenario there is no need for more than usual callousness in the intelligence community just an inability to get inside the minds of the extemists
1) taking over the aircraft by remote control would require more modifications to a 737 than just a software fix.
also
2) The hijackers did not need full flying ability, just the minimal brainpower to turn the aircraft onto an approximate bearing until the target cities were sited. Note that it was the Pentagon that was struck, a far easier target than the White House for the inexperienced
3) If the call was faked, a few background screams would be expected and easily added to the soundtrack. In addition the story would have included the seat numbers that were to be later identified with the hijackers.
Saying that the *secret government* of the US arranged the disaster means they have to be incredibly clever and incredibly stupid.
However, assume that the intelligence community knew there were to be hijack attempts but were ignorant of the purpose of the hijack. Their presumption would be that they would follow the usual pattern of previous hijacks ie fly to an airport, demand refueling, fly on to a country outside the US, land and make political demands.The few American lives lost in such a scenario would have been all the justification needed for a war, especially if anthrax attacks followed.
So what do you do if you want such a thing? You do your best to make the hijack successful including blocking radio communication between the cockpit and the ground. Possibly plant a couple of agents to ensure minimal problems, perhaps even prime the flight crew.
This to me is more plausible than either the hijackers did it on their own or the secret government did it. It explains the inaction of the Air Traffic Control, the phone call (the words used were for ears other than the call recipients), the FBI loosing 2 of the hijackers and might even explain the mystery of the 4th hijack as a failed attempt to regain control.
In this scenario there is no need for more than usual callousness in the intelligence community just an inability to get inside the minds of the extemists
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,692
Yep, agree with Intaglio on all of that - the most difficult bit of flying planes is take off and landing - once they're up, particularly the big ones with lots of electronic back up, they're pretty easy to steer, especially if the hi-jackers had a bit of training.
Also, the damage limitation re a normal hi-jack makes sense.
For once, I think we can take all this at face value.
Also, the damage limitation re a normal hi-jack makes sense.
For once, I think we can take all this at face value.
A
Anonymous
Guest
While reviewing this information, keep in mind that it is put together by anti-semites with an agenda. Some or all may be true. But WHO is making these outrageous claims is important and goes towards credibility.
Yikes. Dont be fooled. Scary stuff
Yikes. Dont be fooled. Scary stuff
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well said Nemesis. The link in the original post is to a specifically anti - Jewish site.
In a more general sense:
Many conspiracists actually mean Jews when they speak vaguely of the New World Order which they are so keen to denounce. Big-business (the conspiracists' bogey men) are, of course, either Jewish, or at least, pro - Zionist.
Judge these conspiracists by their associations. Judge their web sites by the links you find from them. If they've got links to white extremist, gun toting, anti - government, extreme Christian nonsense .... then more likely than not you're in the company of hick - crypto - fascists.
In a more general sense:
Many conspiracists actually mean Jews when they speak vaguely of the New World Order which they are so keen to denounce. Big-business (the conspiracists' bogey men) are, of course, either Jewish, or at least, pro - Zionist.
Judge these conspiracists by their associations. Judge their web sites by the links you find from them. If they've got links to white extremist, gun toting, anti - government, extreme Christian nonsense .... then more likely than not you're in the company of hick - crypto - fascists.
A
Anonymous
Guest
You can not ignore conspiracy theories based on whatever intentions the people promoting it are. As forteans we should be able to look at conspiracies and find out whatever truth may be within them.
Even anti-semites can provide us with useful knowledge. As the saying goes... "Even paranoids have real enemies."
Even anti-semites can provide us with useful knowledge. As the saying goes... "Even paranoids have real enemies."
A
Anonymous
Guest
As 'Forteans' I think we should resist falling for the re telling of old lies and myths in new forms of language.
As 'Forteans' I think that we should see these conspiracies as 'Fortean' phenomena. Why do people believe and propogate such stuff. What are the roots and patterns of such stories?
The, mostly US, anti - government, anti UN, conspiracy sites represent the curious merger of semi fascist propaganda and neo-leftists sloppy thinking.
I have yet to see a well researched and fair minded conspiracy site. Most of what they publish would not even make the pages of Nexus. It is all, invariably, FOAF style nonsense.
As 'Forteans' I think that we should see these conspiracies as 'Fortean' phenomena. Why do people believe and propogate such stuff. What are the roots and patterns of such stories?
The, mostly US, anti - government, anti UN, conspiracy sites represent the curious merger of semi fascist propaganda and neo-leftists sloppy thinking.
I have yet to see a well researched and fair minded conspiracy site. Most of what they publish would not even make the pages of Nexus. It is all, invariably, FOAF style nonsense.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Simon, no ones asking you to beleive or fall for it. As I said even paranoids have real enemies. Although a lot of what they say should be taken with a large pinch of salt, I would expect when an actual conspiracy arises these people not CNN would be the first to report it.
As forteans we should be able to examine individual cases that they present and find out wether theres any truth in them.
As forteans we should be able to examine individual cases that they present and find out wether theres any truth in them.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Okay Adam, I take your point to an extent and I'm certainly interested in what these people might say. But then again:
Why?
Until the Gulf War CNN was largely ignored. They were seen as outsiders, indy - media, which is why that had access to Iraq when most other organisations apart from the BBC had been expelled. Or had fled. When you say 'CNN' I take that to mean media organisations in general.
They aren't instruments of some kind of state terror. These are largely staffed by responsible and educated people. Remember that it was CBS which destroyed McCarthy and his 'witchhunts', with one monumental Ed Murrow programme entitled "See it
Now". And it was the media which ended the Nixon presidency (The Washington Post and, maybe, Rolling Stone).
Why?
Until the Gulf War CNN was largely ignored. They were seen as outsiders, indy - media, which is why that had access to Iraq when most other organisations apart from the BBC had been expelled. Or had fled. When you say 'CNN' I take that to mean media organisations in general.
They aren't instruments of some kind of state terror. These are largely staffed by responsible and educated people. Remember that it was CBS which destroyed McCarthy and his 'witchhunts', with one monumental Ed Murrow programme entitled "See it
Now". And it was the media which ended the Nixon presidency (The Washington Post and, maybe, Rolling Stone).
A
Anonymous
Guest
The times have changed. I bet you that if the internet had been around during the McCarthy 'Witch hunts'. Websites like whatreallyhappened.com would be the first to critisize was going on. The media today also tends to ignore 'outragous conspiracy theories'. As sad as it is to say it, the biggest conspiracies of today, if they occur, will be buried under anti-semite or anti-goverment material.
A
Anonymous
Guest
So wrong. The point is that only anti Jewish, anti government and anti business web sites report such rubbish. Doesn't that lead one towards a very obvious conclusion? Surely - if these theories had any basis in fact - then it would not only be such hooligans who would be reporting this rubbish. Surely there would be fair minded, middle of the road, conspiracy sites. Sites without an agenda. Sites that did not seem mad.
Murrow was a top liberal journalist (witness his reporting of WW2 London etc). Where as whatreallyhappened.com is an anti jewish, anti government ramble through sloppy thinking and ill researched nonsense.
Simon, Have I missed something here? Of course NWO conspiracy sites are anti-government and anti-business, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy without them! 
As for anti-semitic well a lot of the right wing ones are, the Left wing is more anti-Israeli - which is not the same thing at all. You can be Jewish and anti-Israeli - as long as you are willing, unjustifiably, to be branded a traitor to your race. The frightening thing about Israel is that it is coming to resemble 1930's Germany rather closely.
As for how the Media responds to scandal, they will only do it if it will sell to their target audience or if they are encouraged by vested interests to publicise. Those same interests can suppress information. Check out the way that Japan was treated by the media following their surrender. Or, more recently how Cuba was villified where Haiti, Chile and Indonesia were not.
But all of this is off thread, I apologise to all
As for anti-semitic well a lot of the right wing ones are, the Left wing is more anti-Israeli - which is not the same thing at all. You can be Jewish and anti-Israeli - as long as you are willing, unjustifiably, to be branded a traitor to your race. The frightening thing about Israel is that it is coming to resemble 1930's Germany rather closely.
As for how the Media responds to scandal, they will only do it if it will sell to their target audience or if they are encouraged by vested interests to publicise. Those same interests can suppress information. Check out the way that Japan was treated by the media following their surrender. Or, more recently how Cuba was villified where Haiti, Chile and Indonesia were not.
But all of this is off thread, I apologise to all
A
Anonymous
Guest
The conspiracy theories are conspiracies. Who propogates such rubbish and why?
The initial post in this thread contains a link to a basically fascist and certainly deeply nasty and stupid web site.
The initial post in this thread contains a link to a basically fascist and certainly deeply nasty and stupid web site.
You know my stance on this particular conspiracy so you may guess I hold the original link in deep distrust. That still does not mean I think there was no conspiracy. A lot of people propagate these tales, why? because there are conspiracies. Perhaps not as all encompassing as the NWO conspiracy but still . . .
Examples
a) It wasn't until the last 3 years that the US government even admitted the existence of Groom Lake (Area 51).
b) Churchill connived at the destuction of Coventry so that the secret of Ultra would not be revealed. This destruction was then used as a justification for the later bombing of Dresden.
c) There is a conspiracy between the UK and US governments over the signals intelligence obtained by Menwith Hill and GCHQ
d) The US, the UK and the USSR all connived to keep German rocket engineers and Japanese biologists out of the War Crimes Tribunals.
e) Howard Hughes really did do secret work for the CIA
f) Armand Hammer really was a secret go-between for the US and USSR
g) Anthony Blunt was never prosecuted for spying
There are probably many more.
Examples
a) It wasn't until the last 3 years that the US government even admitted the existence of Groom Lake (Area 51).
b) Churchill connived at the destuction of Coventry so that the secret of Ultra would not be revealed. This destruction was then used as a justification for the later bombing of Dresden.
c) There is a conspiracy between the UK and US governments over the signals intelligence obtained by Menwith Hill and GCHQ
d) The US, the UK and the USSR all connived to keep German rocket engineers and Japanese biologists out of the War Crimes Tribunals.
e) Howard Hughes really did do secret work for the CIA
f) Armand Hammer really was a secret go-between for the US and USSR
g) Anthony Blunt was never prosecuted for spying
There are probably many more.
A
Anonymous
Guest
AdamRang said:
You couldnt be more right if you tried. Hopefully we are coming to a time with the aid of the internet we can fially find out whats happening in this world and not rely on government ran news stations and newspapers altho you forgot one thing AdamRang, Its not on the media that ignores outragous conspiracy theories it is also people that are scared to believe that their government is lying to them or they are scared that the theory could be and is true. Those are the people that i fear the most.
A
Anonymous
Guest
This one has been thoroughly put to bed. Historians have shown that it simply isn't true. The story originated, I think, during the 1970s when some information about Project Ultra had been published but before the then classified material was released. Consequently the story could not be denied, hung around too long and entered folk law.
As for the rest of the examples -- military and government secrets are, er secret. That's the point surely. Wouldn't be much point if everything was published.
But most worrying sometimes are those people who will believe everything and anything.
A
Anonymous
Guest
simonsmith said:
This is also true and there are some people that do take it a step to far when it comes to conspiracys, altho i do believe it is healthier to have an open mind than a closed one.