Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
more info on 911
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 77, 78, 79, 80  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9536
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-07-2012 12:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

ramonmercado wrote:
jimv1 wrote:
stuneville wrote:

PS - Bin Laden said he did it, and is now dead. Not a strong litigatory risk.



Hmmmmm. Is he now? Hmmmmm.


Hes running a dairy farm in County Tipperary. es a milk sheik now.


Changed his name to O'sama.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Sergeant_PluckOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Total posts: 488
Location: The Hague, Netherlands.
Age: 41
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 14-07-2012 14:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

It always amazed me that OBL first claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in a 2004 video.

Now, if it was me and I'd been behind the most 'successful' terrorist attacks in history against my hated enemy, believe me, the whole goddamn world would have known about it by sundown on 9/11. I'd've been jumping up and down, screaming it from the rooftops.

It's like cheating on your wife - if she keeps accusing you of doing it for years and years, you may as well end up doing it, or at least admitting it, even if it is falsely. I don't know who was responsible for 9/11 - I can scarcely credit it was a home-grown job (although the US have near-form for that too), but I am tempted to think OBL was a convenient scapegoat. As for him being dead, I think he's been dead a lot longer than since they supposedly killed him.

Interestingly enough, while watching the footage on TV that day, I said to the wife: Saddam Hussein will end up paying for this somehow.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 20963
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 14-07-2012 15:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

I googled Irish farmer muslim and got this!

http://cache.tcm.ie/media/images/o/OsamaBinLadenJan01AP.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9536
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-07-2012 16:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile 
garrick92Offline
Invisible Flaneur
Joined: 29 Oct 2001
Total posts: 1161
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 19-07-2012 22:44    Post subject: Reply with quote

stuneville wrote:
Bin Laden said he did it


Did he, now?

ISTR that the alleged 'confession' was slightly more ambiguous than that. Can post link to transcript of VT if you like.

BTW I don't doubt al-Qaeda were behind 9/11. My money goes on LIHOP.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9536
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 19-07-2012 23:03    Post subject: Reply with quote

garrick92 wrote:
My money goes on LIHOP.


Lubbock International House of Prayer? confused
Back to top
View user's profile 
garrick92Offline
Invisible Flaneur
Joined: 29 Oct 2001
Total posts: 1161
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 19-07-2012 23:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mythopoeika wrote:
Lubbock International House of Prayer?


Beg pardon.

LIHOP = "Let It Happen On Purpose."

Roughly speaking: That the US Govt knew *something* was in the pipeline from al-Qaeda (probably plain old hijackings), and decided to simply let events unfold as an excuse for a predetermined war.

This is quite a subtle conspiracy theory, but is the one with the greatest amount of supporting evidence -- from the FBI's blocked investigations to the forewarnings by the intel agencies of other countries, all of which is on the record.

If you're interested in having a google, Russ Kick wrote a very good piece called "September 11: No Surprise" which serves as an excellent primer to LIHOP thinking.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 8615
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 20-07-2012 07:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

garrick92 wrote:
stuneville wrote:
Bin Laden said he did it


Did he, now?

ISTR that the alleged 'confession' was slightly more ambiguous than that. Can post link to transcript of VT if you like.

BTW I don't doubt al-Qaeda were behind 9/11. My money goes on LIHOP.

Hello Garrick! Long time no see Smile.

To be honest, I've just been lazy on that front - I accepted that a VT of a bloke speaking Arabic on the News at Ten was saying what the News at Ten said he was saying - i.e. "It's a fair cop, guv, it was me and that" or words to that effect. So yes, would like a transcript link, please.

As for LIHOP, yes, I go along with that. I've certainly believed (and said all along) that it was a genuine Al Qaeda attack, and that Bush used it as a way of not only giving him an excuse for his middle-Eastern adventures, but also invoking patriotism to shore up his popularity, given that he'd been elected in the most dubious of circumstances (usual plausible deniability clauses apply).

No need for thermite, CGI, etc. Just a few people looking the other way, and as a result no need for thousands of people having to keep shtum, either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
Quake42Offline
Warrior Princess
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Total posts: 5546
Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 20-07-2012 09:03    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I've certainly believed (and said all along) that it was a genuine Al Qaeda attack, and that Bush used it as a way of not only giving him an excuse for his middle-Eastern adventures, but also invoking patriotism to shore up his popularity, given that he'd been elected in the most dubious of circumstances


That's certainly true - but it's several steps beyond to claim that the fact that the attacks worked out well for the Bush administration means that a deliberate decision was taken to allow them to happen.

I still tend to opt for the cock up (or multiple cock up) theory myself; a combination of data overload, poor information sharing, inter-agency rivalry and crap airport security.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Sergeant_PluckOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Total posts: 488
Location: The Hague, Netherlands.
Age: 41
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 20-07-2012 09:11    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quake42 wrote:
it's several steps beyond to claim that the fact that the attacks worked out well for the Bush administration means that a deliberate decision was taken to allow them to happen.


Oh, I dunno. The cause/effect aspect of this was pretty obvious. i.e. if we are attacked, we can go in and f*ck up someone we hate.

Let's not forget Operation Northwoods in the 60s - a plan to commit various terrorist attacks on US soil and blame them on the Cubans, and therefore invade Cuba and stop those pesky Russkies from getting a foothold.

Off the top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.

Edit: typos.


Last edited by Sergeant_Pluck on 20-07-2012 09:24; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 8615
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 20-07-2012 09:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quake42 wrote:
That's certainly true - but it's several steps beyond to claim that the fact that the attacks worked out well for the Bush administration means that a deliberate decision was taken to allow them to happen.

Bush certainly capitalised on it. Whether or not he had prior knowledge is another matter, I agree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4592
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 20-07-2012 09:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sergeant_Pluck wrote:


Oh, I dunno. The cause/effect aspect of this was pretty obvious. i.e. if we are attacked, we can go in and f*ck up someone we hate.

Let's not forget Operation Northwoods in the 60s - a plan to commit various terrorist attcaks on US soil and blame them on the Cubans, and therefore invade Cuba and stop those pesky Russkies from getting a foothold.

Off he top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.


Let's not also forget that had the Taliban extradited Bin Laden in the wake of the attacks - which they were obliged to do even before 9/11 - then no invasion would have been possible. It would have left the Bush administration searching around for another terrorist spectacular to hitch their wagon to in order to invade Afghanistan.
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 947
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 24-07-2012 10:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry_B wrote:
Analis wrote:
But then, they couldn't rely on the protection provided by the publicization of their claims, and could end with a bullett in their head soon.
And I doubt that anybody would be given witness protection or immunity in the case of such major crimes. And I don't believe that even if that were the case, anybody could trust a witness protection, given that people at high levels would be involved.


That sounds like guesswork.


But your claims that there woud inevitably be whistleblowers from the inside are themselves guesswork. I intended to show that they are all disputable, and they are indeed. The motives I gave for their absence are plausible.

Jerry_B wrote:

Quote:
It doesn't answer the question. Your stance is that no whistleblower involved in the 911 crimes have surfaced because nobody was involved. You took the case of people who came forward with their supposed involvment in the storage of crashed flying saucers at Area 51, or the retrieval of one at Roswell. By inference, it means that you held these events as real. But you probably don't ; so you can deduce nothing from this comparison.


Remember that we're dealing with conspiracy theories. At the present time, those that deal with 9/11 are no more real than those that deal with Area 51, Roswell, etc..


Which is exactely why kamalkt's argument is useless, which is my point. You should have said that to him.

Jerry_B wrote:

Quote:
People who claim involvment with Roswell, Area 51 or reptilian Illuminati are probably doing it just for spreading confusion.


More guesswork.


There has already been discussion around the existence of many crashed saucers whistleblowers on other threads.
But your remark doesn't adress the question I had asked. It may seem a minor aside question, and it is in my opinion indeed minor, but it remains : what explains this difference ?
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 947
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 24-07-2012 11:11    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sergeant_Pluck wrote:

Off the top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.


False flag attacks of all kinds are indeed not aberrations, isolated incidents, but are probably very common, much more than usually guessed. Author of Ben Gurion's Scandals Naeim Giladi provided evidence that the Mossad and the Haganah bombed synagogues in Iraq and other Arab countries in the early 50s to cause Arab jews to flee. We've seen recently other examples in Kosovo, probably in Sarajevo, last year in Lybia. Currently, we're seeing a huge scale example with Syria.
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 947
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 24-07-2012 11:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

stuneville wrote:

As for LIHOP, yes, I go along with that. I've certainly believed (and said all along) that it was a genuine Al Qaeda attack, and that Bush used it as a way of not only giving him an excuse for his middle-Eastern adventures, but also invoking patriotism to shore up his popularity, given that he'd been elected in the most dubious of circumstances (usual plausible deniability clauses apply).

No need for thermite, CGI, etc. Just a few people looking the other way, and as a result no need for thousands of people having to keep shtum, either.


Inside job begins as soon as they looked the other way, to allow the attacks to be conducted. The rest, indeed is relatively less important. LIHOP, HIHOP or MIHOP, what really matters is that US insiders were involved.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 77, 78, 79, 80  Next
Page 78 of 80

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group