• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?

waitew said:
Mike_Pratt33 said:
waitew said:
Motive?well,by God, where the hell do we start?How about the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon 'lost' announced a day before the 'plane' slammed into the Pentagon's accounting offices killing the accountants & destroying the records?

They made and announcement and then destroyed the evidence?

What devillish cunning :twisted:


Yep,that's exactly what they did.Which is better:to announce the money is missing knowing all the evidence will be destroyed in a 'terrorist' attack the next day & the story completely forgotten (all most) or risk having a survivor (a Pentagon accountant) give an interview from his hospital bed & spill the beans about the missing trillions?Besides it plays right into their arrogance.They're doing right in front or our noses & bragging about it & there's nothing we can do about it.They get off on that!

Have you actually got any proof that the evidence was destroyed. I guess we are talking about computer records here. Most organisations make provision to keep backups of data at seperate locations so that no disaster can destroy them. Given the nature of their business I expect the US Department of Defence are very thorough about this.
 
Mike_Pratt33 said:
I expect the US Department of Defence are very thorough about this.

They're actually famous for not keeping records very well hence the missing dosh, do some research on the matter it's been well covered in the mainstream print media.
 
Jerry_B said:
But that's also just more conjecture...

Nowt wrong with that, why do you ask for proof when you know it's not available to us peons, what have you got against conjecture ?
 
crunchy5 said:
Mike_Pratt33 said:
I expect the US Department of Defence are very thorough about this.

They're actually famous for not keeping records very well hence the missing dosh, do some research on the matter it's been well covered in the mainstream print media.

So there were no records there to destroy :D
 
waitew said:
Yep,that's exactly what they did.Which is better:to announce the money is missing knowing all the evidence will be destroyed in a 'terrorist' attack the next day & the story completely forgotten (all most) or risk having a survivor (a Pentagon accountant) give an interview from his hospital bed & spill the beans about the missing trillions?Besides it plays right into their arrogance.They're doing right in front or our noses & bragging about it & there's nothing we can do about it.They get off on that!

Surely the best thing to do would be to not announce the missing money? The fact that the money could only have gone missing (or, more accurately, been unaccounted for) over decades would suggest that Rumsfeld was the only one who was bothered about it. The pentagon bean counters seemed unable to expose anything to anyone's detriment before - why all of a sudden were they considered such a threat?

Also, the department which housed the accountants and those dealing with budgets had 65 members of staff. As a result of the Pentagon attck 34 of them died. Why have none of the other 31 members of staff come forward to expose this problem given the situation was so urgent that the perps were prepared to kill more than 150 unconnected members of staff just to get at them and the records (which evidently don't seem to have existed)?

Also I must be missing the bits where the nefarious conspirators are openly bragging about what they've done. It seems that we have here a conspiracy which required extraordinary resources so we could be subtly persuaded of the case for war in Afghanistan and Iraq such is the reason, logic and wise counsel of the public. Yet this same mass of brain-dead goons is apparently too stupid to notice the brazen way in which they're being shafted by boastful devils?

And I thought I was a misanthropist. :roll:
 
And if people are too 'stupid' to notice such things, why go to all of the bother in the first place of orchestrating 9/11 in order to provide an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? After all, if the lumpen proles (or 'sheeples') are so dim-witted, why not engineer something alot less convoluted than 9/11 in order for the nefarious Powers That Be to get their way? That's the problem with the conspiracists misanthropism - they think we're all stupid, but at the same time think that we require very ornately engineered events/conspiracies in order to sway our opinions.
 
Of course, using a magician's sleight of hand distraction could mean they've entirely got away with something else without anyone even noticing or commenting.
 
Jerry_B said:
And if people are too 'stupid' to notice such things, why go to all of the bother in the first place of orchestrating 9/11 in order to provide an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? After all, if the lumpen proles (or 'sheeples') are so dim-witted, why not engineer something alot less convoluted than 9/11 in order for the nefarious Powers That Be to get their way? That's the problem with the conspiracists misanthropism - they think we're all stupid, but at the same time think that we require very ornately engineered events/conspiracies in order to sway our opinions.
These highlighted words are yours, I take it?

There are are lots of reasons why a series of spectacular events might have been triggered. Lessons from History, as to how to galvanise a people into putting away there doubts and differences, were one possible reason. The NeoConservatives made no secret of their desire for another Pearl Harbor style event to help clear the way for their New Order.

So, why suggest that such ideas came entirely from the fevered imaginations of Conspiracy Theorists?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
These highlighted words are yours, I take it?

There are are lots of reasons why a series of spectacular events might have been triggered. Lessons from History, as to how to galvanise a people into putting away there doubts and differences, were one possible reason. The NeoConservatives made no secret of their desire for another Pearl Harbor style event to help clear the way for their New Order.

So, why suggest that such ideas came entirely from the fevered imaginations of Conspiracy Theorists?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that those ideas come entirely from the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists. It's more that sometimes those same theorists make claims of shadowy cabals which operating in an undetectable clandestine fashion whilst at the same time enjoying openly demonstrating their own existence and any subsequent guilt. The implication seems to be that if you can't see the truth of the conspiracy it's because the conspirators are so powerful as to be able to dupe us into being non-sentient beings distracted by trinkets. That thought isn't unique to conspiracy theorists since it's a claim which many religious types might make but it is one which is more common amongst them. For a start, if the actual conspirators thought that way themselves then they would never bother going to the lengths that they go to unless one accepts that people are generally that slow-witted.
 
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed) 16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.
George W. Bush (American 43rd US President since 2001. b.1946)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed) 16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.
George W. Bush (American 43rd US President since 2001. b.1946)

Advice given to him by a Democrat, no less.

The problem with this logic in relation to a conspiracy is that it assumes most people are easily fooled. It's a misanthropic point of view whoever it comes from but it's one that conspiracy theorists would seem to share with George W Bush. Irrespective it can hardly apply to a situation where "they're doing (it) right in front or our noses and bragging about it".
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

The problem with this logic in relation to a conspiracy is that it assumes most people are easily fooled. It's a misanthropic point of view whoever it comes from but it's one that conspiracy theorists would seem to share with George W Bush. Irrespective it can hardly apply to a situation where "they're doing (it) right in front or our noses and bragging about it".
The logic would actually appear to be that it is only necessary to fool enough people. The conspiracy theorists "share" the knowledge of this viewpoint with George W. Bush, because George W. makes no secret of it. He has chosen to share it. They may not share the viewpoint itself, in fact, they may well feel themselves to be amongst the duped.

It's hardly misanthropic to point out the obvious when the Emperor has chosen not to wear any clothes, is it?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

The problem with this logic in relation to a conspiracy is that it assumes most people are easily fooled. It's a misanthropic point of view whoever it comes from but it's one that conspiracy theorists would seem to share with George W Bush. Irrespective it can hardly apply to a situation where "they're doing (it) right in front or our noses and bragging about it".
The logic would actually appear to be that it is only necessary to fool enough people. The conspiracy theorists "share" the knowledge of this viewpoint with George W. Bush, because George W. makes no secret of it. He has chosen to share it. They may not share the viewpoint itself, in fact, they may well feel themselves to be amongst the duped.

It's hardly misanthropic to point out the obvious when the Emperor has chosen not to wear any clothes, is it?

Unfortunately for the theory enough has to be most. If the idea behind an act is to create public approval then there's little point unless you can take the majority with you. Also, George W. Bush evidently does make a secret of it unless there exists some sort of example whereby he has admitting to carrying out such a con. To believe that he has and yet enough people to support his phony wars haven't noticed is more than simply pointing out the emperor's choice of clothing. It's a belief in the essential and total stupitidy of a massive amount of people (and likely a majority). Furthermore if that belief is consistent it would essentially advocate the end of democracy.
 
But we're supposed to believe that in order to fool enough of the people they have to orchestrate elaborate conspiracies such as 9/11, whereas the US has shown that it doesn't need elaborate tricks to get where it wants to go, if it bothers with them at all. If anything, such things tend not to be elaborate, whereas (if we believe the conspiracists) in the case of 9/11 they instead decided to plump for a labyrinthine plot, which is amazingly leakproof. But at the same time the 'true believers' (conspiracists) can see through it all without, apparently, much effort because the perpetrators have left behind a trail of supposed clues.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
These highlighted words are yours, I take it?

Not mine, no. 'Sheeple' is a term which has been used elsewhere here, but not by me. I was using such terms because they seem to be those that form the attitudes of conspiracists.
 
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
These highlighted words are yours, I take it?

Not mine, no. 'Sheeple' is a term which has been used elsewhere here, but not by me. I was using such terms because they seem to be those that form the attitudes of conspiracists.
When it comes to such contentious language, may I suggest you stick to direct quotes, relating to the Posts you are addressing, rather than imaginative interpolations? To avoid any confusion. :)
 
No, because I'm merely phrasing how one side tends to portray it's outlook.
 
Jerry_B said:
No, because I'm merely phrasing how one side tends to portray it's outlook.
Well, your particular use of language and 'phrasing' does seem a bit out of context and arbitrary, to me. I fear that you may be reading more into recent Posts than is actually there. Perhaps, based on some over generalised, preconceptions on your part? :(
 
Not really. IMHO the general tenor of the conspiratorial outlook does seem slanted by a certain amount of misanthropism. Or the idea that The Powers That Be are laughing at us all or bragging about their actions whilst they go about their nefarious deeds (i.e. the post a page or so back about the missing money from the Pentagon).
 
Jerry_B said:
Not really. IMHO the general tenor of the conspiratorial outlook does seem slanted by a certain amount of misanthropism. Or the idea that The Powers That Be are laughing at us all or bragging about their actions whilst they go about their nefarious deeds (i.e. the post a page or so back about the missing money from the Pentagon).
Well, personally, I suspect that you are consistently mistaking the messenger for the message.

Whether the message be clear, or confused, that's another matter.
 
Or whether both the messenger and the message are confused ;) IMHO, I'm not mistaking anything.
 
I still like George Monbiots comments on this. I have no idea whether it has been posted before - so tough if it has.

“You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the New World Order … bought and paid for.”(1) “Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and the Special Branch recruit agents?”(2) “Shill, traitor, sleeper”, “leftwing gatekeeper”, “accessory after the fact”, “political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all.”

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the US government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my left-wing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I’ve blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by Al Qaeda, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents. I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a long-standing plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile, while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the Twin Towers with explosives without attracting attention, and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly-timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes, and induce them all to kept their mouths shut, for ever.

Bayonetting a Scarecrow

Whether you agree with Monbiot or give his words any credence is beside the point, but he does put in a nutshell all the problems with the 9/11 conspiracy. Whether you then think that Jerry_B and George Monbiot are one and the same person is a conspiracy suitable for another thread.
 
Well, someone in these forums once wondered if I was Jeremy Beadle, so I'll perhaps I'll have to add Monbiot to my apparent list of alter egos ;)
 
Jerry_B said:
Not really. IMHO the general tenor of the conspiratorial outlook does seem slanted by a certain amount of misanthropism. Or the idea that The Powers That Be are laughing at us all or bragging about their actions whilst they go about their nefarious deeds (i.e. the post a page or so back about the missing money from the Pentagon).

But surely such a generalisation gives you a safety get-out that if you don't like a piece of information, or just chose to take a contrary stance to it, you can simply say to yourself that it's from a Conspiracy Theorist and is therefore misanthropic and deluded. it also suggests (like in the zeitgeist thread) that you're making a decision on the validity of information before you've even looked at it.
 
Mike_Pratt33 said:
crunchy5 said:
Mike_Pratt33 said:
I expect the US Department of Defence are very thorough about this.

They're actually famous for not keeping records very well hence the missing dosh, do some research on the matter it's been well covered in the mainstream print media.

So there were no records there to destroy :D

This might help you get started on your research, it's in an easy televisual format from good old CBS.

http://benfrank.net/patriots/node/125/print
 
crunchy5 said:
This might help you get started on your research, it's in an easy televisual format from good old CBS.

http://benfrank.net/patriots/node/125/print

For anyone having difficulty loading that page there's a transcript here and a link to the video here.

It tends to support the view that the Pentagon's spending has been beyond account for decades and actually has little to do with Rumsfeld or the Bush regime which supposedly carried out the attacks. The $2.3 trillion figure is one which Rumsfeld chose to alert people about, probably for his own ideological ends, and has been accumulated over many, many years.
 
jimv1 said:
But surely such a generalisation gives you a safety get-out that if you don't like a piece of information, or just chose to take a contrary stance to it, you can simply say to yourself that it's from a Conspiracy Theorist and is therefore misanthropic and deluded. it also suggests (like in the zeitgeist thread) that you're making a decision on the validity of information before you've even looked at it.

No, all I'm saying is that sometimes there seems to be a general feeling of misanthropism running through some conpiratorial thinking or the way such ideas are presented. It can tend to taint things somewhat, but personally I read beyond that when considering any given theory, in order to see if the ideas/theory being presented makes any sense and holds water. And I haven't said that anyone's deluded. Even if an idea/theory is couched in misanthropism, it still has to be dissected in terms of what it's trying to say. Otherwise one could make the mistake that some pro-conpiracy types do, whereby they write off any opposition to their ideas as being stooges, cheerleaders for the Establishment/OWG/Cabal, etc.. At other times the general flavour seems somewhat more odd, because it's being suggested that the Powers That Be are openly flaunting their disdain, laughing at us all, etc. as they go about their nefarious business. That sort of thing seems to be an imaginary construct.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
It tends to support the view that the Pentagon's spending has been beyond account for decades and actually has little to do with Rumsfeld or the Bush regime which supposedly carried out the attacks. The $2.3 trillion figure is one which Rumsfeld chose to alert people about, probably for his own ideological ends, and has been accumulated over many, many years.

Yep, US military spending and what it actually buys dollar for dollar during that spending has been a problem for quite some time. One problem is that defence spending tends to suffer from hyper-inflation, whereby contractors charge over the odds for the goods and service they supply. IIRC, there was one example where the US military was spending something like $15 for a wrench, whereas the cost of the same item in a hardware store for anyone on the street was less than half that. I can't say it's really a surprise that defence spending has been a black hole.
 
Jerry_B: "why go to all the bother in the first pace of orchestrating 9/11 in order to provide an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?"
"whereas the US has shown that it doesn't need elaborate tricks to get where it wants to go"
ted_bloody_maul: "It's a belief in the essential and total stupidity of a massive amont of people (and likely a majority."

Maybe you think the neoconservatives and their allies among the military-industrial complex could have gone to war at their will. But it was not the case. They couldn't gain such support, domestic as well as international, without a new Pearl Harbor. And that's what they said: they coudn't do it without it. And they were right. A less convoluted scheme would probably not have been so efficient. In my opinion, the collapse of the WTC towers and the strike at the Pentagon were intended to strike the US people and the world much more than two suicide attacks; to frighten their political opponents as well as their followers, in such a way that they would not dare to question the official version of events; it would be so "unthinkable" that someone would do such a heinous thing... And that the few who would dare would be silenced. A strategy of absolute terror, the psychology of Blietzkrieg.

Are people, as a whole, so dim-witted? So credulous? Not all of them. But in the USA, many of them are still creationnist, for example. They have all the good scientific litterature at their disposal, they live in the most developped country in the world, the most scientific etc... yet they are creationnist. Yes, many people are dim-witted, or worse, willing to be ignorant. Deliberate ignorance is certainly a common behaviour. Maybe this looks misanthropic, but this is the way the world is. Your stance is rather naive. It presupposes that people are all rationnal, good-willed, and that it extends to the media. Indeed, the masses do have a sheeple behaviour.

How many people still believe that Saddam Hussain was behind the 11-September? And you'd be surprised to learn how many are still of the opinion that the Bologna Raiway Station was bombed by communist terrorists. I believe that most people and the media who support the official conspiracy theory, and the media, will never come to admit that they were wrong. It would mean that everything they supported for many years, including such severe wrongdoings as agression of countries, was based on a lie. And that the media can't be trusted.

So, is it ncredible that they would do it in plain sight? 20 years ago, probably they wouldn't dare. But there were so many examples of media complacnecy in the 90s. See how Gary Webb or dissenting voives to TWA 800, or to the bombings of Serbia, were defamed and insulted. The media have grown more and more a commercial industry in the 80s and 90s. People grew more and more asleep, acccustomed to a poor state of "information". More and more equated to commercial erntertainment. Plus the spreading of the X-Files mythology, a convenient tool to discredit anyone interested in disturbing matters and political conspiracies. So yes, I suspect that they believed the conditions to be right.
 
Back
Top