View Full Version : Media and 9/11, any one else noticing the change?
I've been noticing for a while now a distinct change in the way the media has reported the events of 9/11 and after. Sort of like the way they gradually changed their stance on Iraq as time went by and WMD were not found, they gradually started hedging their bets.
Now at last it has happened, a main stream right wing paper has published an article on 9/11 which does not use the word "conspiracy" once. They are no longer fighting fact with ridicule.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/
I've been noticing for a while now a distinct change in the way the media has reported the events of 9/11 and after. Sort of like the way they gradually changed their stance on Iraq as time went by and WMD were not found, they gradually started hedging their bets.
Now at last it has happened, a main stream right wing paper has published an article on 9/11 which does not use the word "conspiracy" once. They are no longer fighting fact with ridicule.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/
Well I'm convinced particularly as I have seen that same article word for word on Gage's website. Must be some truth there. Lets move on
Oh wait a minute couldnt be that Architects are so appalled that modern buildings can be felled so easily that they are looking for a reason other that poor design-could they?
What about this:
'It is important to know just why those buildings fell, for a variety of reasons. That's why this website was started. Richard Gage and his organization are doing a world of hurt to the causes they are espousing. Someone needs to show just how wrong they are, and they are very, very wrong indeed.'
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php
northener
27-Feb-10, 11:05
Nothings changed at all, Fred:
"says Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth."
One man, the founder of an organisation created purely to enquire about the demise of the buildings, does not constitute widespread belief. One thousand signatories from a country with gawd knows how many architects is a pretty poor showing IMO.
Now, if the American Institute of Architects were to start shouting loudly, then i'd take more notice. At the moment it's an unproven theory - same as WMD in Iraq was.;)
As I keep saying, time will tell.
Well I'm convinced particularly as I have seen that same article word for word on Cages website. Must be some truth there. Lets move on
Oh wait a minute couldnt be that Architects are so appalled that modern buildings can be felled so easily that they are looking for a reason other that poor design-could they?
I don't think any of the architects and engineers who signed the petition had any part in designing the WTC. If they were worried about their reputations I think they would have avoided putting their names to what everyone has been conditioned to believe is a "conspiracy theory".
But thank you for illustrating precisely what this thread is about, not the actual events of 9/11 they have been covered many times, the media portrayal. You ignored the points raised and immediately looked at the people raising them. You ignored the message and attacked the messengers. If they are too respectable to be labelled "conspiracy theorists" or "tin foil hat brigade" then they must have some other hidden agenda for saying what they say. It doesn't matter if it is credible or not, people just need some excuse to believe what they want to believe.
northener
27-Feb-10, 11:18
OK Fred, fair comment. I'm guilty of going off at a tangent too.
Regarding the word 'conspiracy', it's a very hackneyed term now, it is now becoming standard-speak like 'cannon fodder', Axis of Evil etc, etc, etc. Loses it's meaning if you keep saying it.
It's not just the WT that is not using that word, I'd say that most of the non-tabloid papers are doing the same. It doesn't mean that the papers are necessarily giving more credence to the story, it's more that they are reporting what has been said and leaving the reader to make up there own mind.
Which is what any decent paper should be doing all the time.
What about this:
'It is important to know just why those buildings fell, for a variety of reasons. That's why this website was started. Richard Gage and his organization are doing a world of hurt to the causes they are espousing. Someone needs to show just how wrong they are, and they are very, very wrong indeed.'
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php
I don't see what your site has to do with the change in the media portrayal of the events of 9/11.
It doesn't matter if it is credible or not, people just need some excuse to believe what they want to believe.
And people meaning not you I suppose?
OK Fred, fair comment. I'm guilty of going off at a tangent too.
Regarding the word 'conspiracy', it's a very hackneyed term now, it is now becoming standard-speak like 'cannon fodder', Axis of Evil etc, etc, etc. Loses it's meaning if you keep saying it.
It's not just the WT that is not using that word, I'd say that most of the non-tabloid papers are doing the same. It doesn't mean that the papers are necessarily giving more credence to the story, it's more that they are reporting what has been said and leaving the reader to make up there own mind.
Which is what any decent paper should be doing all the time.
It's interesting that at the time we invaded Iraq the vast majority of people in America believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Not because it was actually said, it was said very rarely, because the politicians in their speeches and the media in their reporting repeatedly used the words "Saddam" and "Al Qaeda" or "Iraq" and "Bin Laden" or "Iraq" and "9/11" or "Saddam" and "terrorism" etc. in the same sentence. Even when it was reported later that Iraq was not connected with 9/11 a lot of people in America still didn't believe it so effectively had they been conditioned.
For the same reason a recent survey showed 70% of Americans believe Iran already has nuclear weapons, every day they see the words "Iran" and "nuclear weapons" in the same sentence and associate one with the other.
It's interesting that at the time we invaded Iraq the vast majority of people in America believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Not because it was actually said, it was said very rarely, because the politicians in their speeches and the media in their reporting repeatedly used the words "Saddam" and "Al Qaeda" or "Iraq" and "Bin Laden" or "Iraq" and "9/11" or "Saddam" and "terrorism" etc. in the same sentence. Even when it was reported later that Iraq was not connected with 9/11 a lot of people in America still didn't believe it so effectively had they been conditioned.
For the same reason a recent survey showed 70% of Americans believe Iran already has nuclear weapons, every day they see the words "Iran" and "nuclear weapons" in the same sentence and associate one with the other.
I've been doing the same thing ducati, rich,ducati, wealthy, s'no working
And people meaning not you I suppose?
Well we wouldn't want to be making this thread personal now would we?
Can't we just keep it on general subjects and concepts?
Well we wouldn't want to be making this thread personal now would we?
Can't we just keep it on general subjects and concepts?
You were implying that "people" were wrong
"They are no longer fighting fact with ridicule".
That us poor sad individuals (who are not Fred) are allowing ourselves to be led by the nose by the media. Its insulting.
I don't see what your site has to do with the change in the media portrayal of the events of 9/11.
Oh I see you are basically saying that a certain newspaper is publishing details of an organisation that questions 9/11.
My link; http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php just questions that particular organisation..
"AE911Truth.INFO is dedicated to exposing the lies and mistakes of Architecs & Engineers for 9/11 truth. They claim to be an advocacy group for engineers and architects questioning the "official story" of the 9/11 attacks, but it's really just putting up a front for PR purposes. They pretend to be spreading real and valuable information, but their website and presentations are filled with misinformation and lies."
You were implying that "people" were wrong
Yes, people in general, not any person in particular.
Oh I see you are basically saying that a certain newspaper is publishing details of an organisation that questions 9/11.
My link; http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php just questions that particular organisation..
"AE911Truth.INFO is dedicated to exposing the lies and mistakes of Architecs & Engineers for 9/11 truth. They claim to be an advocacy group for engineers and architects questioning the "official story" of the 9/11 attacks, but it's really just putting up a front for PR purposes. They pretend to be spreading real and valuable information, but their website and presentations are filled with misinformation and lies."
Well now we could sit here and you post links to your web sites and me post links to mine and everyone lose interest after the first post.
I don't think the Architects and Engineers are putting forward any theories to what happened, just pointing out the inconsistencies in the official version of events. All they are asking for is the full and impartial investigation which we have not had. Can you think of a reason why the crime of the century shouldn't be properly investigated?
Yes, people in general, not any person in particular.
Media plays an important factor in modern minds. Its everywhere 24 hours a day and if people dont process it properly it will contaminate their view of whats actually real and whats a media fiction.
Much of what we assimilate will be governed by a multitude of internal and unconscius motives, formed probably from since we were in the womb. Most of us wont assimilate any of the information coming at us from a multitude of sources but you can be sure that it all ends up in some corner of our minds.
Sometimes though I think people must take a stance against media manipulation and I think this is what freds suggesting. He's doing the same thing though.
Hes using little titbits from various sources to show how easy people can be made to believe something incredible.
However, Fred too is a victim of media manipulation and his unique stamp is on every post he posts on the org. Its important to be aware of the manipulation fred needs you to do in the confines of your own mind to think, hey, maybe fred has a point. Maybe the American government was complicit in the Sept 11 atrocities.
Once you think that, he's got you. :lol:
Omg!! fred is back on his hobby horse again, Bekisman, northener, ducati, please do not encourage him, we had this a few years ago......sighs [disgust]
Media plays an important factor in modern minds. Its everywhere 24 hours a day and if people dont process it properly it will contaminate their view of whats actually real and whats a media fiction.
Much of what we assimilate will be governed by a multitude of internal and unconscius motives, formed probably from since we were in the womb. Most of us wont assimilate any of the information coming at us from a multitude of sources but you can be sure that it all ends up in some corner of our minds.
Sometimes though I think people must take a stance against media manipulation and I think this is what freds suggesting. He's doing the same thing though.
Hes using little titbits from various sources to show how easy people can be made to believe something incredible.
However, Fred too is a victim of media manipulation and his unique stamp is on every post he posts on the org. Its important to be aware of the manipulation fred needs you to do in the confines of your own mind to think, hey, maybe fred has a point. Maybe the American government was complicit in the Sept 11 atrocities.
Once you think that, he's got you. :lol:
Are you saying people shouldn't have open minds and consider the possibility that the American government was complicit in 9/11? Are you suggesting they should just rule out the possibility because...well just because?
Well now we could sit here and you post links to your web sites and me post links to mine and everyone lose interest after the first post.
I don't think the Architects and Engineers are putting forward any theories to what happened, just pointing out the inconsistencies in the official version of events. All they are asking for is the full and impartial investigation which we have not had. Can you think of a reason why the crime of the century shouldn't be properly investigated?
"Crime of the Century?" thought that was Hitler and the 'Final Solution' ;the Holocaust, but that's been properly investigated as true.
You lose supporters by presupposing....
Omg!! fred is back on his hobby horse again, Bekisman, northener, ducati, please do not encourage him, we had this a few years ago......sighs [disgust]
I think there might be a thread about lost cats somewhere you might feel more at home in.
I promise not to try and disrupt it or tell people what to post.
I think there might be a thread about lost cats somewhere you might feel more at home in.
I promise not to try and disrupt it or tell people what to post.
Lets open a forum for lost causes then fred can happily post away to his hearts delight[lol]
"Crime of the Century?" thought that was Hitler and the 'Final Solution' ;the Holocaust, but that's been properly investigated as true.
I believe the Holocaust occurred in a different century.
You lose supporters by presupposing....
You completely ignored the subject of the thread and pounced on four words trying to turn the attention onto them. You did the same in the cannabis thread turning it into an argument about the nature of the law not about drugs and alcohol.
I'm trying to keep this thread on topic about media manipulation in general and how it relates to 9/11 in particular.
I believe the Holocaust occurred in a different century.
You're being a bit pedantic there Fred; often referred to as the last 100 years
You're being a bit pedantic there Fred;
You started it.
I think there might be a thread about lost cats somewhere you might feel more at home in.
I promise not to try and disrupt it or tell people what to post.
The problem I have with you Fred, is that every utterance seeks to undermine my society. From doubting we are under terrorist attack to encouraging illegal drug use to accusing my government of deliberate atrocities to spreading the fear you can’t take your holiday snaps in the street. There is one theme.
Now do you see why I: a) take it personally and b) am suspicious of your motives?
northener
27-Feb-10, 16:22
It's interesting that at the time we invaded Iraq the vast majority of people in America believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Not because it was actually said, it was said very rarely, because the politicians in their speeches and the media in their reporting repeatedly used the words "Saddam" and "Al Qaeda" or "Iraq" and "Bin Laden" or "Iraq" and "9/11" or "Saddam" and "terrorism" etc. in the same sentence. Even when it was reported later that Iraq was not connected with 9/11 a lot of people in America still didn't believe it so effectively had they been conditioned.
For the same reason a recent survey showed 70% of Americans believe Iran already has nuclear weapons, every day they see the words "Iran" and "nuclear weapons" in the same sentence and associate one with the other.
Subliminal messaging, almost. Unfortunately, it's a pretty simple job to keep the great unwashed entertained, no matter whether it's Eyeraq or any other subject.
There has to be a 'good' side and a 'bad' side 'black or white' otherwise the reality of 'both good/bad' and 'grey' become too much for some people (who can't really be bothered with anything a bit complex).
The problem I have with you Fred, is that every utterance seeks to undermine my society. From doubting we are under terrorist attack to encouraging illegal drug use to accusing my government of deliberate atrocities to spreading the fear you can’t take your holiday snaps in the street. There is one theme.
Now do you see why I: a) take it personally and b) am suspicious of your motives?
Well there you go again talking about me not the subject of the thread.
I don't much care if you take it personally, I couldn't give a damn if you are suspicious of my motives.
Subliminal messaging, almost. Unfortunately, it's a pretty simple job to keep the great unwashed entertained, no matter whether it's Eyeraq or any other subject.
There has to be a 'good' side and a 'bad' side 'black or white' otherwise the reality of 'both good/bad' and 'grey' become too much for some people (who can't really be bothered with anything a bit complex).
They are using the exact same methods that have been used by advertisers for a long time to con people into buying things and it works, association works. If an advertiser associates a product with, say, a well known personality people buy it. Otherwise they wouldn't be paying out millions of pounds to celebrities to endorse their products.
The problem is they aren't selling soap powder, they are selling death and destruction and the people are being conned into going along with it.
Well there you go again talking about me not the subject of the thread.
I don't much care if you take it personally, I couldn't give a damn if you are suspicious of my motives.
Back to business as usual then. Treating you as the nutter you are.
I don't think the Architects and Engineers are putting forward any theories to what happened, just pointing out the inconsistencies in the official version of events. All they are asking for is the full and impartial investigation which we have not had. Can you think of a reason why the crime of the century shouldn't be properly investigated?
The media in America (and most other places) are owned by a certain group, whether we are talking of newspapers or magazines or television or radio. That group was able to buy the media a long time ago, because other members of their group were printing the money. The same group owns and controls Hollywood. Larry Silverstein is a member of that group.
Yes, Fred, I can think of a reason why the crime of the century will not be investigated. You know it, too.
What I cannot figure out, though, is why ordinary men and women cannot see that the whole thing was an inside job and why they are not demanding an investigation and justice. Why do they still not see through media propaganda?
Back to business as usual then. Treating you as the nutter you are.
In the last post you told lies about me hoping to draw me away from the subject to defend myself.
In this post you start hurling personal abuse.
Please, if you can't partake in intelligent debate like an adult could you find another thread to disrupt.
Back to business as usual then. Treating you as the nutter you are.
I had to report this post, ducati. You have resorted to the same old insults once too often, in my opinion. Very poor. If you cannot debate, then fair enough, but to post this over and over again is insulting to everyone. :mad:
northener
27-Feb-10, 21:52
They are using the exact same methods that have been used by advertisers for a long time to con people into buying things and it works, association works. If an advertiser associates a product with, say, a well known personality people buy it. Otherwise they wouldn't be paying out millions of pounds to celebrities to endorse their products.
The problem is they aren't selling soap powder, they are selling death and destruction and the people are being conned into going along with it.
That works on both sides of any conflict, Fred.
At the moment there's plenty of people in the ME who believe that what they are doing is right. Even to the point of blowing themselves up in a market place populated by their own civilian countrymen and women......and plenty who will cynically blame the West for their own personal ends - regardless of whatever the truth may be.
I had to report this post, ducati. You have resorted to the same old insults once too often, in my opinion. Very poor. If you cannot debate, then fair enough, but to post this over and over again is insulting to everyone. :mad:
Oh, so you and Fred can call our government Liars and Murderers and accuse them of Genocide.
And I can't use the accepted term for someone who trots out the same old conspiracy tosh over and over again. What’s to debate? :roll:
Tubthumper
27-Feb-10, 22:01
I've put him on ignore. It's quite good, excpet when any of you lot quote him, his stuff comes up. Could you do me a favour and put him on ignore as well?
You'll prbably like it.
Oh, so you and Fred can call our government Liars and Murderers and accuse them of Genocide.
If I make such a claim, then I would not do so without evidence and reasoning to back it up. For example, the Soloman Brothers Building (WTC7) was brought down by a controlled demolition. Proof? Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder, went on national television and said so. Do you know how long it takes to first of all plan and then wire up a 47-storey skyscrapper for controlled demolition into its own footprint? No? Then why don't you go and find out?
Then you could debate using your findings, observations and reasoning, rather than the one and only thing that you do.
Are you saying people shouldn't have open minds and consider the possibility that the American government was complicit in 9/11? Are you suggesting they should just rule out the possibility because...well just because?
Hell no Fred but thats a completely different thread if you want to talk about people and open minds. :lol:
I can't open my mind any more to accept the possibility that the American government was complicit in 9/11 and yes I rule out the possibilty of that being the case.
2little2late
27-Feb-10, 23:20
Let's just face facts. The whole thing was set up.9/11 was deliberate.
2little2late
27-Feb-10, 23:32
Well I don't think it was an accident.
That's exactly what I am saying. it was a set up. Lets face it. If the twin towers incident was a terrorist act they would have toppled, but they actually imploded caused by controlled explosions. Simples.
I've put him on ignore. It's quite good, excpet when any of you lot quote him, his stuff comes up. Could you do me a favour and put him on ignore as well?
You'll prbably like it.
You could just not read the threads started by me, much simpler.
I said you could just not read the threads started by me.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
What I cannot figure out, though, is why ordinary men and women cannot see that the whole thing was an inside job and why they are not demanding an investigation and justice. Why do they still not see through media propaganda?
They don't want to see, I think they just don't care if it was an inside job or not but if it was they'd rather not know about it because that would cause conflict in their brains.
Civilization is relatively new, evolution is slow, we still have the brain of a hunter gatherer living in a tribe. A tribal leader would never have done such a thing so it's not conceivable that members of a government would do such a thing. Whatever the evidence the evidence must be wrong.
My link shows there are some, a thousand architects and engineers but that is only because architects and engineers need to have brains trained to deal with reality, believe what the evidence shows not what they want to believe and then only because the evidence is so overwhelming.
I've put him on ignore. It's quite good, excpet when any of you lot quote him, his stuff comes up. Could you do me a favour and put him on ignore as well?
You'll prbably like it.
They're just talking to each other about everyone else now:roll:
I've looked at both sides of this debate and the reason that I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory is that I just don't beleive that it could have been possible to stop some blabbermouth among the legion of operatives necessary to pull it off from spilling the beans. But have I missed something along the way?
Boozeburglar
28-Feb-10, 12:32
I am with you on that one Errogie.
Seems these nutters think everyone is as weak minded as they are, and thus can be 'conditioned' and kept quiet.
You hear that a lot from these total barking mad nutjobs; they constantly talk as though society is controlled and they are fighting the great fight to inform us all of their 'inside' knowledge.
They are capable of thinking, whereas we all just absorb the mainstream media perspective, apparently.
I don't see a broad change in the reporting of 9/11, but let us not forget that no news is definitely bad news for the press, so expect a lot more reporting of the conspiracy nuts as they are the only one's mad enough to continue barking at the cat that long since left the roof.
Incidentally, it is quite ironic for people who spend all their time decrying the mainstream media as a barrel of lies to suddenly start claiming that a report in such is any indication they are swinging the way of the 'truth'.
Seems that when the cap fits they will wear it.
Hypocritical.
Tubthumper
28-Feb-10, 13:11
Apparently the media are changing all their minds
At last the truth is starting to reveal
And every little aspect of our lives in Caithness here
Is governed by reptilians who feel
That none of us are capable of dealing with the way
The world just has to work to keep us fed
And whether you believe what's in The Sun or in The Times
It's all a load of lies, says Mr Fred
'I see the way those reptiles work, those lizard little chaps
Masonic aprons on each scaly hide.
They're here to take a loan of us, I saw it on the news
The internet to me has never lied!'
'He's right you know,' says Stav-er-o,'I dreamed the other night,
As I lay in my bed in such a quake.
These people want control, they have to tell us loads of lies
The blew the World Trade Centre down, Gods sake!'
'These governments are just so clever and their business chums
Rule all the world and keep us in the dark
And they control the media, the papers and TV
While we receive of truth not merest spark!'
But then in next breath comes the word- 'They cannot organise
A thing, so bad is government behaviour
It's all a sin, those rogues are in, cahoots illuminati
I know this, listen to me, I'm your saviour!'
'I saw it on the internet!' yells Fred at top of voice
'It's true I tell you, not a fantasy
And just to back it up and show it must be genuine
They spoke about it on the BBC!'
'We're all in peril from the bomb, from famine and disease
Created by the Bush administration
But I know just what's to be done, please listen all to me
Because I need to have your concentration!'
Consider this - if there is any truth in what you say
And world runs on towards it's destination
What difference can on Caithness org we make to destiny?
Relax, enjoy the funny conversation
Oh Freddy if you truly wish, to have the sympathy
Of population for your paranoias
Please get your stories straight and lose your mad hypocrisy
Because you're really starting to annoy us!
I've looked at both sides of this debate and the reason that I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory is that I just don't beleive that it could have been possible to stop some blabbermouth among the legion of operatives necessary to pull it off from spilling the beans. But have I missed something along the way?
Would you consider it evidence that a bank robbery didn't happen because no one came forward and said "it was me that did it"?
Now suppose someone who was involved in 9/11 did decide to come forward, who would he come forward to? Would he walk into a police station and hand himself in? Would he go to the American government and tell them he wants to admit that it was them that did it? Would he go to the media so they could call him a conspiracy theorist? That person would have to have absolutely irrefutable 100% absolutely certain evidence and even then it's doubtful they would be believed because as we have seen evidence will not counter faith.
Many people who were government employees, law enforcement agents or military personnel at the time of 9/11 have come forward with some pretty damning evidence but who has ever heard of them? Two of the commission members on the 9/11 enquiry have stated publicly that the government lied to them, deliberately withheld evidence, that they were ordered not to pursue certain lines of enquiry such as where the finance came from. How many people know that? Over half the population of America still don't know there were three buildings collapsed on that day not two.
Lets face it, if someone were to contact a news organisation and say "I planted the explosives at the WTC" what do you think would happen?
Fred's quote.........Over half the population of America still don't know there were three buildings collapsed on that day not two.
Fred..I am not stealing your Thunder but would agree/add....
I have traveled the United States and half of them don't know where Ontario is. Some have heard of Toronto...the frozen North.... and of Canada..., up there somewhere.
I don't want to say there are stoooopid, but many seem to very self centred with a limited knowledge of the outside World, so perhaps that explains their mentality.....They somehow assimilate with the George Bush mentality and as long as there are guns/ weapons etc etc they seem contented.
I was recently in Casper, Wyoming and at the Post office I met...men in huge pickup trucks, with a winch on the front and back/ two dogs, a shotgun and two rifles in the back window on hangers, a 6 shot revolver and a gun belt with 30+ shells around their waists, over their harris tweed jacket and spurs on their boots! You can carry a weapon as long as it isn't concealed....there is a whole other way of life that even we as Canadians (I paid my $12.00) don't even recognize.
So when you say about the 3 towers it really doesn't surprise me at all. They think differently...maybe they are not wrong!
Tubthumper
28-Feb-10, 16:50
How many orgers (or Scots) can say they could put their fingers on Penicuik? Kirriemuir? New Lanark? Colchester? Reading? Windsor? How many Brits (or Canadians) can pont out Kyrgizistan, Omaha, Sri-Lanka or even Japan?
Ignorance of the world, or even one's own backyard, is an international phenomenon. So is the tendency to home in on conveniently-placed conspiracy. It beats having to go through any mundane learning process and is much more fun. You can choose who you listen to as well. Only downsides are (a) you end up talking to the same people all the time, and winding each other up (b) all the real people dislike you (c) you become like a trainspotter eventually.
It is much better for ones health & fitness though, as one gets all worked up, jumps to conclusions and has one's imagination run away.
Read your prose and pls excuse me but I come from Kaitness.....am attempting to ascertain what you sayeth??
Are you saying that some are a wee bit easily swayed....Have you seen the Documentaries on these theories.....they are playing here regularly.... Plus..... Has sthe Gov't ever lied to the people...of course they have....so people become cynical of the system and to each his own...
Personally I find it difficult to believe these theories...even tho' I worked in a semi-Gov't position, but there are times when we do not know what is going on!
And I dealt with the media/ major media/ and they have been known to cover up/ subscribe to or whatever stories which were even planted....no one is immune...and I mean no one!
Tubthumper
28-Feb-10, 18:03
SandyR, sorry my prose isn't very clear - I'm chust an enthusiastic amateur:D
These documentaries you've seen, they'll be the ones on the TV then? The TV that's controlled by government/ big business? What luck for us that there's an independent channel and a brave editor somewhere who are willing to push the envelope and get this stuff out into the open eh? And also lucky that none of 'them' have spotted it yet?
Then again, without all this stuff, those of us who find eastenders and corrie boring would all just have spend our time examining Ms Gunn's photo online.
Media for the masses - dontcha just love it?
[ examining Ms Gunn's photo online.
...........................Do u mean on the OrG?
On the other I concur!!!
Tubthumper
28-Feb-10, 18:32
Help for Heroes calendar thread. Very small drawers.
How many orgers (or Scots) can say they could put their fingers on Penicuik? Kirriemuir? New Lanark? Colchester? Reading? Windsor? How many Brits (or Canadians) can pont out Kyrgizistan, Omaha, Sri-Lanka or even Japan?
Ignorance of the world, or even one's own backyard, is an international phenomenon. So is the tendency to home in on conveniently-placed conspiracy. It beats having to go through any mundane learning process and is much more fun. You can choose who you listen to as well. Only downsides are (a) you end up talking to the same people all the time, and winding each other up (b) all the real people dislike you (c) you become like a trainspotter eventually.
It is much better for ones health & fitness though, as one gets all worked up, jumps to conclusions and has one's imagination run away.
Actually Tubs I think I see what they are getting at now. What!! you are saying? But keep with me. I googled "the truth about 9/11" and its all there! Imagine my suprise! But you can't argue, Its on the Internet! [lol]
Help for Heroes calendar thread. Very small drawers.
As one great man said....Aye, she's a bra lookan lassie!!
And Yes Ducati...It's all there....It's the truth for Heavens Sake!
On another note....Big Olympic Hockey Game today...
Canada vs United States.....rarara...
Fred, If the authorities cannot squash a possibly dubious story about our Prime Minister bullying his staff or I suppose the example of Watergate which eventually leaked out how on earth have the authorities kept the lid on a 9/11 cover up.
I'm sorry but I just don't credit the organs of government with the degree of competence which you obviously do. There are probably far more cock ups than cover ups around most administrations and in my experience their survival often owes more to good luck than ability. I simply don't share your faith in super efficient control of an operation like a 9/11 conspiracy which is potentially such a leaky colander of bureaucratic delivery.
Fred, If the authorities cannot squash a possibly dubious story about our Prime Minister bullying his staff or I suppose the example of Watergate which eventually leaked out how on earth have the authorities kept the lid on a 9/11 cover up.
I'm sorry but I just don't credit the organs of government with the degree of competence which you obviously do. There are probably far more cock ups than cover ups around most administrations and in my experience their survival often owes more to good luck than ability. I simply don't share your faith in super efficient control of an operation like a 9/11 conspiracy which is potentially such a leaky colander of bureaucratic delivery.
But I think there is much evidence that governments can suppress information, can keep things secret. There is much coming out in the Chilcot enquiry that was well known to those who read the right web sites years ago but has never made the mainstream media till now. Every year documents are released that give information which has been kept secret for 50 years.
Every year documents are released that give information which has been kept secret for 50 years.
That might not happen for much longer either. Remember when Blair ordered some documents that were going to reveal certain facts about Churchill to be destroyed a few years back?
That might not happen for much longer either. Remember when Blair ordered some documents that were going to reveal certain facts about Churchill to be destroyed a few years back?
Psychopaths look after their own.
Psychopaths look after their own.
True enough. :)
luskentyre
01-Mar-10, 01:37
The problem I have with you Fred, is that every utterance seeks to undermine my society. From doubting we are under terrorist attack to encouraging illegal drug use to accusing my government of deliberate atrocities to spreading the fear you can’t take your holiday snaps in the street. There is one theme.
Now do you see why I: a) take it personally and b) am suspicious of your motives?
Very well said. I honestly believe that people who continually spread unrest and suspicion are damaging society as much as any terrorist. I'm not saying that it's wrong to question things, but rampant paranoia needs to be checked.
It's like those who will defend our "civil liverties" (note the quotes) to their last breath - forgetting of course that some legislation is there to protect us from those who seek to deliberately inflict damage to our society. I've no problem with DNA testing for instance, knowing full well that it could be used to prove my innocence as much as any guilt.
I've a greater problem with those who campaign for measures that will protect criminals (and would-be criminals) and therefore increasing the risk to myself and other innocent parties.
Our Government may not be perfect but I'd rather trust them than a handful of paranoia-fuelled individuals with an internet connection and too much time on their hands.
oldmarine
01-Mar-10, 03:30
I've been noticing for a while now a distinct change in the way the media has reported the events of 9/11 and after. Sort of like the way they gradually changed their stance on Iraq as time went by and WMD were not found, they gradually started hedging their bets.
Now at last it has happened, a main stream right wing paper has published an article on 9/11 which does not use the word "conspiracy" once. They are no longer fighting fact with ridicule.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/
I remember seeing the buried vans that originally carried WMD. Some have speculated that the WMD went to Iran or to Syria.
Aaldtimer
01-Mar-10, 04:09
That might not happen for much longer either. Remember when Blair ordered some documents that were going to reveal certain facts about Churchill to be destroyed a few years back?
No, don't remember that at all. Can you provide details? :confused
northener
01-Mar-10, 09:09
Psychopaths look after their own.
Interesting medical fact, thanks for that.;)
I remember seeing the buried vans that originally carried WMD. Some have speculated that the WMD went to Iran or to Syria.
There were no WMD, Saddam destroyed his WMD after Gulf War I, evidence was presented to the UN, the UN inspectors could find no evidence that Iraq had WMDs and a lot of evidence they didn't.
You were lied to by your government and you were brainwashed by the media to create public support for a war that was going to happen anyway regardless of WMD.
So far 4,698 American servicemen have died, countless more maimed for life because of government members evil enough to lie to their people and a people too apathetic to realise it.
I remember seeing the buried vans that originally carried WMD. Some have speculated that the WMD went to Iran or to Syria.
You might well be right Oldmarine, This is from the Left-wing Observer Newspaper:
"Melanie Phillips talks to Dave Gaubatz, a former US Air Force special agent, who passed on vital intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group — and is dismayed that nothing happened
It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist.
He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war.
You may be tempted to dismiss this as yet another dodgy claim from a warmongering lackey of the world Zionist [who's that?] neocon conspiracy giving credence to yet another crank pushing US propaganda.
If so, perhaps you might pause before throwing this article at the cat. Mr Gaubatz is not some marginal figure. He’s pretty well as near to the horse’s mouth as you can get... [Click on link to continue]
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/29092/i-found-saddams-wmd-bunkers.thtml
Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist.
He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored.
I don't think there is any doubt Iraq did at one time have WMDs, Dick Cheney still has the receipts of delivery.
There is also no doubt he destroyed them after GWI.
Considering all the real evidence they were destroyed why do you jump on someone finding an empty space where WMD might have been as evidence they existed? Do you need to believe so much? Can't you just admit you were wrong?
Nerve gasses have a limited shelf life anyway, even if Iraq had kept some back since before GWI they would have been useless, it isn't an empty space you would have to find it is a means of production. Even if you could show the claims of yellowcake from Niger true which it has been shown they weren't it would be pointless unless they had found some centrifuges which they didn't.
But as I have said before, you can't fight faith with facts.
What I cannot figure out, though, is why ordinary men and women cannot see that the whole thing was an inside job and why they are not demanding an investigation and justice. Why do they still not see through media propaganda?
Very bold and incorrect statement to make to be fair.
All conspiracy theorists do is take what might be said out of confusion when an event happens like this and then add their own twist to make it into what they think the real story is.
I have seen the Loose Change documentary and for a few years was convinced that it was an inside job. Then I noticed they creators had to release a few different editions with certain parts changed or edited because they got it wrong the first time.
Another thing I have noticed is a lot of conspiracy theory believers taking the very early reports where numerous witness' and news reporters said "explosion" and then saying that is proof there were bombs planted.
Its conspiracy nuts that manipulate what hasn't been properly researched in the immediate aftermath of an incident that make conspiracies seem real.
Oh and if anyone wonders why I don't believe it now I checked out this guy on youtube who provides proper evidence and explanations.....
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4?blend=2&ob=1
Oh and if anyone wonders why I don't believe it now I checked out this guy on youtube who provides proper evidence and explanations.....
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4?blend=2&ob=1
Not demolished by the CIA then?
Not demolished by the CIA then?
As In I don't think that the World Trade Towers were brought down by anyone other than some muslim terrorists? Correct!
I think it was terrorists in the form of a bunch of Muslims who did it
Very bold and incorrect statement to make to be fair.
All conspiracy theorists do is take what might be said out of confusion when an event happens like this and then add their own twist to make it into what they think the real story is.
I have seen the Loose Change documentary and for a few years was convinced that it was an inside job. Then I noticed they creators had to release a few different editions with certain parts changed or edited because they got it wrong the first time.
Another thing I have noticed is a lot of conspiracy theory believers taking the very early reports where numerous witness' and news reporters said "explosion" and then saying that is proof there were bombs planted.
Its conspiracy nuts that manipulate what hasn't been properly researched in the immediate aftermath of an incident that make conspiracies seem real.
Oh and if anyone wonders why I don't believe it now I checked out this guy on youtube who provides proper evidence and explanations.....
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4?blend=2&ob=1
I looked at your video and have found several things in it which just aren't right but that isn't what this thread is all about.
I think you know the video isn't right, the reason I think this is because you can't present a logical argument without calling people "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy nuts". I think anyone who can't rely on the facts without resorting to denigrating those with other views has to know the facts don't back their argument.
I looked at your video and have found several things in it which just aren't right but that isn't what this thread is all about.
I think you know the video isn't right, the reason I think this is because you can't present a logical argument without calling people "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy nuts". I think anyone who can't rely on the facts without resorting to denigrating those with other views has to know the facts don't back their argument.
Ive just watched the documentary and it was good. For me the evidence was presented in a respectful fashion and gives me enough courage to say that fred is indeed a fantasist. Mind you hes in good company. There's lots of strange beliefs around the org. :eek:
Interestingly the programme referred to conspiracy theorists as 'truthers' so in future I'll refer to Fred as a truthist. Its just like any other religion and thats what this threads about. Its about mind manipulation by the media and why we believe what we believe.
Ive just watched the documentary and it was good. For me the evidence was presented in a respectful fashion and gives me enough courage to say that fred is indeed a fantasist. Mind you hes in good company. There's lots of strange beliefs around the org. :eek:
Interestingly the programme referred to conspiracy theorists as 'truthers' so in future I'll refer to Fred as a truthist. Its just like any other religion and thats what this threads about. Its about mind manipulation by the media and why we believe what we believe.
Well no, it was propaganda. It accused the truth movement of a straw man argument by saying the fires were not hot enough to melt steel when it wasn't claimed that the steel had melted. I distinctly remember as I'm sure many others do after 9/11 the media claiming repeatedly that the buildings had collapsed because the fires melted the steel. It wasn't until the truth movement pointed out that the fires didn't burn hot enough to melt steel they changed their story. They also failed to address where all the molten steel, which there is a vast amount of evidence existed, came from if the fires didn't melt it.
I don't see why you need to call me anything, I don't call you names, why do you feel you have to call me names?
I don't see why you need to call me anything, I don't call you names, why do you feel you have to call me names?
I know. Its difficult not to be insulting even if it's not the intent. I'm sorry.
I find beliefs interesting and you said yourself this thread was about media manipulation.
I'm trying to understand how people can believe such things as you believe about the nature of our social world. I'm struggling but I see it as the same mechanism as other mainstream beliefs. :roll: Its deeper than this thread could ever expose.
Whats wrong with being called a truthist anyway?
I know. Its difficult not to be insulting even if it's not the intent. I'm sorry.
I find beliefs interesting and you said yourself this thread was about media manipulation.
I'm trying to understand how people can believe such things as you believe about the nature of our social world. I'm struggling but I see it as the same mechanism as other mainstream beliefs. :roll: Its deeper than this thread could ever expose.
Whats wrong with being called a truthist anyway?
Like I said, I don't see why you feel you have to call me anything. I'm not a member of any organisation, I'm not in any club. I just look at all the data and form my own opinion based on the facts, you must admit I have a pretty good record for getting it right when everyone else was getting it wrong.
I have looked at the evidence surrounding 9/11 and am of the firm opinion that there are enough contradictions in the official version of events to warrant a full, independent and thorough investigation, something there has never been, something there should have been. It was a crime, it should have been investigated as a crime, the crime scene should have been preserved until after that investigation.
Don't you think we owe it to the relatives of those who died on 9/11?
Don't you think we owe it to the relatives of those who died on 9/11?
I think we owe more to the people who died. Your trying to tell me their governemt were complicit in their deaths. Thousands of them and thousands more Americans complicit in their deaths. If I owe anything to the relatives it would be to challenge opinions like ive been reading on my local website.
All the physical evidence shown on the documentary tonight pointed to the story as we have been fed it by the media being correct. No American government complicity.. All the truthers questions were answered although they didnt want to hear it.
David Arronavich the author raised a seperate issue concerning the psychological factors that may be driving truthers.
I have no reason to accept your version of reality and If I owe anyone anything its to challenge your views.
I think we owe more to the people who died. Your trying to tell me their governemt were complicit in their deaths. Thousands of them and thousands more Americans complicit in their deaths. If I owe anything to the relatives it would be to challenge opinions like ive been reading on my local website.
All the physical evidence shown on the documentary tonight pointed to the story as we have been fed it by the media being correct. No American government complicity.. All the truthers questions were answered although they didnt want to hear it.
David Arronavich the author raised a seperate issue concerning the psychological factors that may be driving truthers.
I have no reason to accept your version of reality and If I owe anyone anything its to challenge your views.
My views are that there should be a full and independent investigation.
What do you have to fear from that if you are so sure that no one in the American government was complicit in 9/11? Surely the full and independent investigation would just prove you right.
Well no, it was propaganda. It accused the truth movement of a straw man argument by saying the fires were not hot enough to melt steel when it wasn't claimed that the steel had melted. I distinctly remember as I'm sure many others do after 9/11 the media claiming repeatedly that the buildings had collapsed because the fires melted the steel. It wasn't until the truth movement pointed out that the fires didn't burn hot enough to melt steel they changed their story. They also failed to address where all the molten steel, which there is a vast amount of evidence existed, came from if the fires didn't melt it.
Correct.
Why was there molten steel, gleeber? What is your explanation for that? :confused
Correct.
Why was there molten steel, gleeber? What is your explanation for that? :confused
I think Stavro the documentary covered all that adequately so if you want an answer watch it. I was left in no doubt about the evidence offered.
I'm much more interested in the psychological aspects of what makes people believe such a thing as yourself and Fred believe.:eek:
I would have no problem with an independant inquiry fred but I suspect if it didnt trun out to support your view you wouldnt accept it anyway.
Yoda the flump
01-Mar-10, 23:48
Correct.
Why was there molten steel, gleeber? What is your explanation for that? :confused
So where did the molten steel come from then?
So where did the molten steel come from then?
No, no, no, Yoda. Just so you can all shout conspiracy nutter, as usual. Let the official government conspiracy nutters tell us where it came from first.
I think Stavro the documentary covered all that adequately so if you want an answer watch it.
Sorry gleeber, I missed your quick response. I'll have a look at the documentary (though the one I watched earlier did not touch upon this question).
luskentyre
02-Mar-10, 00:01
There were no WMD, Saddam destroyed his WMD after Gulf War I, evidence was presented to the UN, the UN inspectors could find no evidence that Iraq had WMDs and a lot of evidence they didn't.
You were lied to by your government and you were brainwashed by the media to create public support for a war that was going to happen anyway regardless of WMD.
So far 4,698 American servicemen have died, countless more maimed for life because of government members evil enough to lie to their people and a people too apathetic to realise it.
...and said with such authority as well. The fact that no WMD were found speaks volumes to me. If the UK & US Governments are as corrupt as you allege, then don't you think they would have been conveniently "found"?
Believe me, you do not go to war citing a reason that you know you'll have to retract at a later date. That would be plain stupid. You simply do not put that much store in something - your reputation hinges on it at the very least (and politicians value reputation very highly in case you hadn't noticed).
I don't know if they existed or not (and neither do you), but I do believe that they were thought to exist at the time. Too much hinged on their existance for them to be a convenient "excuse".
Sorry gleeber, I missed your quick response. I'll have a look at the documentary (though the one I watched earlier did not touch upon this question).
To quote the documentary, gleeber, "Of course it didn't melt."
What have I missed? What is the official reason for the melted steel, if you don't mind just answering this to save me watching more drivel and false claims?
Yoda the flump
02-Mar-10, 00:10
No, no, no, Yoda. Just so you can all shout conspiracy nutter, as usual. Let the official government conspiracy nutters tell us where it came from first.
That answers itself then
That answers itself then
Come along now. What caused the molten steel?
The US government has had years to "explain" it, so what is the official explanation?
To quote the documentary, gleeber, "Of course it didn't melt."
What have I missed? What is the official reason for the melted steel, if you don't mind just answering this to save me watching more drivel and false claims?
Stavro min. If I told you some of the molten metal you saw coming from the buildings were aluminium coming from the remains of a large airliner you would still say its not enough evidence. The steel softened thats why the top section dropped in a wunner and caused a domino effect.
This is much more to do with individual beliefs and the comfort they give to their believers than the American governemnt killing thousands of its citizens.
Its very similar to debating whether God exists or spirits talk to us.
Waste of time to be honest.
Yoda the flump
02-Mar-10, 00:18
Guess you will find it all on here
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
Stavro min. If I told you some of the molten metal you saw coming from the buildings were aluminium coming from the remains of a large airliner you would still say its not enough evidence. The steel softened thats why the top section dropped in a wunner and caused a domino effect.
This is much more to do with individual beliefs and the comfort they give to their believers than the American governemnt killing thousands of its citizens.
Its very similar to debating whether God exists or spirits talk to us.
Waste of time to be honest.
"min"? What does that mean?
The 47 central steel columns would have acted as a huge heat sink and the jet fuel would have been burnt up fairly quickly.
There are no pancaked floors, yet there were something like 110 - 120 of them in each tower.
What about WTC7?
There is no need to bring God into the discussion, whether you believe such contemplation to be a waste of time or not. Fred, for example, believes in evolution, but this is nothing to do with the current thread topic.
Finally, you are right, I do not accept that molten steel is the same as molten aluminium.
Guess you will find it all on here
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
Did a search on that site for "molten steel" - got no results. Did get the following - "it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." Is this your answer to the question, Yoda?
"min"? What does that mean?
The 47 central steel columns would have acted as a huge heat sink and the jet fuel would have been burnt up fairly quickly.
There are no pancaked floors, yet there were something like 110 - 120 of them in each tower.
What about WTC7?
There is no need to bring God into the discussion, whether you believe such contemplation to be a waste of time or not. Fred, for example, believes in evolution, but this is nothing to do with the current thread topic.
Finally, you are right, I do not accept that molten steel is the same as molten aluminium.
Well stavro I think belief has everything to do with this and if you insist on Blaming the American Governmet on killing thousands of it's own citizens then the nature of belief is a fundamental consideration on this thread.
Fred started this thread about media manipulation. Thats a psychological effect on idividuals if you didnt know it so it cannot be excluded from the debate on the grounds that you dont see the point.
Yoda the flump
02-Mar-10, 00:40
Did a search on that site for "molten steel" - got no results. Did get the following - "it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." Is this your answer to the question, Yoda?
TBH could not be bothered searching.
Sorry to spoil your fun guys, but I really can't be bothered with this any more, its getting sillier and sillier. Will read the thread for a laugh, but nothing else.
TBH could not be bothered searching.
Sorry to spoil your fun guys, but I really can't be bothered with this any more, its getting sillier and sillier. Will read the thread for a laugh, but nothing else.
So your "Guess you will find it all on here" was wrong then. No surprises there.
If you were well-read on this topic, then your claim that the discussion is "getting sillier and sillier" might have some weight to it, but as it stands it is just hollow. Well, silly really.
Have a nice holiday.
Now, anyone from the official conspiracy theory (ie government) camp like to explain the molten steel?
...and said with such authority as well. The fact that no WMD were found speaks volumes to me. If the UK & US Governments are as corrupt as you allege, then don't you think they would have been conveniently "found"?
It would have been impossible to plant that amount of evidence.
Believe me, you do not go to war citing a reason that you know you'll have to retract at a later date. That would be plain stupid. You simply do not put that much store in something - your reputation hinges on it at the very least (and politicians value reputation very highly in case you hadn't noticed).
Why not? When you control the media you control the people. When a footballer having an affair is big letters on the front page and the lack of WMD a column on page six people just assume it isn't important.
I don't know if they existed or not (and neither do you), but I do believe that they were thought to exist at the time. Too much hinged on their existance for them to be a convenient "excuse".
See, no need to plant evidence of WMD. Once the people are brainwashed, once they have had "Saddam WMD", "Iraq chemical weapons" hammered into their brains on page one enough times they aren't going to believe the facts printed on page six.
To quote the documentary, gleeber, "Of course it didn't melt."
What have I missed? What is the official reason for the melted steel, if you don't mind just answering this to save me watching more drivel and false claims?
Go on then I'll bite (and I promise not to say nutter).
Its obvious from the above that you are selective about the information you take any notice of BTW.
I don't know if there was or wasn't molten steel in the wreckage. If there was I can possibly explain it. The temperature needed to melt steel is much higher than achieved in a fuel fire. I think we agree that.
You need something like a blast furnace, which is fire and wind. (can you see where I am going), The top of a very tall building would be windy. The buildings were penetrated all the way through. (open the front and back windows in your abode on a windy day and you will experience the effect).
Are we talking about pools of molten steel or some beams with melting locally? The heat generated by the steel failing very rapidly (we all saw the buildings collapse) could explain melting around failure points.
Not the official explanation (I haven't seen one) but it makes sense to me.
What is your explanation?
Go on then I'll bite (and I promise not to say nutter).
Its obvious from the above that you are selective about the information you take any notice of BTW.
I don't know if there was or wasn't molten steel in the wreckage. If there was I can possibly explain it. The temperature needed to melt steel is much higher than achieved in a fuel fire. I think we agree that.
You need something like a blast furnace, which is fire and wind. (can you see where I am going), The top of a very tall building would be windy. The buildings were penetrated all the way through. (open the front and back windows in your abode on a windy day and you will experience the effect).
Are we talking about pools of molten steel or some beams with melting locally? The heat generated by the steel failing very rapidly (we all saw the buildings collapse) could explain melting around failure points.
Not the official explanation (I haven't seen one) but it makes sense to me.
What is your explanation?
Isn't this why we need a full and independent investigation to find these things out? We could argue about it forever on the internet and never get anywhere. There is real evidence of molten steel at the site, it was never investigated, it should be. We owe it to the families of those who died.
Isn't this why we need a full and independent investigation to find these things out? We could argue about it forever on the internet and never get anywhere. There is real evidence of molten steel at the site, it was never investigated, it should be. We owe it to the families of those who died.
I don't have a problem with another investigation.
I suspect the reason there hasn't been one (although there has, just not to your satisfaction).
Is that the crime is solved.
It is known who did it
Why they did it
How they did it
And to whom it was done
We could argue about it forever on the internet and never get anywhere.
This the only statement you have posted that I agree with wholeheartedly. Now that must be a first.[lol]
Talking about terrorist, it's good to see that 'Muslim scholar condemns terrorism' on todays BBC news, have posted full text as (heaven forbid) don't want to be accused of cherry-picking..
An influential Muslim scholar is to issue in London a global ruling against terrorism and suicide bombing. Dr Tahir ul-Qadri, from Pakistan, says his 600-page judgement, known as a fatwa, completely dismantles al-Qaeda's violent ideology.
The scholar describes al-Qaeda as an "old evil with a new name" which has not been sufficiently challenged.
The scholar's movement is growing in the UK and has attracted the interest of policymakers and security chiefs.
In his religious ruling, Dr Qadri says that Islam forbids the massacre of innocent citizens and suicide bombings. Although many scholars have made similar rulings in the past, Dr Qadri's followers argue that the massive document being launched in London goes much further.
“ Extremist groups based in Britain recruit the youth by brainwashing them that they will be rewarded in the next life ”
They say it sets out point-by-point theological arguments against the rhetoric used by al-Qaeda inspired recruiters.
The fatwa also challenges the religious motivations of would-be suicide bombers who are inspired by promises of an afterlife.
The populist scholar developed his document last year as a response to the increase in bombings across Pakistan by militants.
The basic text has been extended to 600 pages to cover global issues, in an attempt to get its theological arguments taken up by Muslims in western nations. It will be promoted in the UK by Dr Qadri's organisation, Minhaj ul-Quran International.
Shahid Mursaleen, spokesman for Minhaj-ul-Quran in the UK, said the fatwa was hard-hitting.
"This fatwa injects doubt into the minds of potential suicide bombers," he said.
"Extremist groups based in Britain recruit the youth by brainwashing them that they will 'with certainty' be rewarded in the next life.
"Dr Qadri's fatwa has removed this key intellectual factor from their minds."
The document is not the first to condemn terrorism and suicide bombing to be launched in the UK.
Scholars from across the UK came together in the wake of the 7 July London attacks to denounce the bombers and urge communities to root out extremists.
But some scholarly rulings in the Middle East have argued that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is an exceptional situation where "martyrdom" attacks can be justified.
Although Dr Qadri has a large following in Pakistan, Minhaj ul-Quran International remained largely unknown in the UK until relatively recently.
It now has 10 mosques in the British cities with significant Muslim communities and says it is targeting younger generations it believes have been let down by traditional leaders.
The organisation is attracting the attention of policymakers and security chiefs who are continuing to look for allies in the fight against extremists.
The Department for Communities, which runs most of the government's "Preventing Violent Extremism" strategy, has tried building bridges with a variety of liberal-minded groups, but often found that they have limited actual influence at the grassroots.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8544531.stm
Published: 2010/03/02 03:43:46 GMT
Come along now. What caused the molten steel?
The US government has had years to "explain" it, so what is the official explanation?
I shall put in my tuppence worth.....
These buildings were constructed way back when, and were not up to scratch as far as being hit by modern airplanes and the huge amounts of fuel they carry. And then there were two planes, not one they had anticipated and whatever is said, this is not an exact science....as you can see from the huge differences in analysis...
So, two large planes with huge amounts of fuel hit the building and the incredible heat started things off that were not supposed to occur....Practically vaporization...plus the fuel seeped down the building over a period of time and also ignited lower, thus the collapse over the said period of time...
And guess what..no one can replicate this awful thing....info from a person who has tower cranes and does this for a living....
There are many theories and each one gives ....someone a job....consulting work, getting their names in the papers etc etc...ad nauseum.... for want of a better way to put it. To be honest, there was complete and utter confusion...no one knew what was going on....the emergency services were paralyzed altho' many stories later emerged. Perhaps these were built up to state that, very simply ...We will not be moved by terrorists!
Talking about terrorist, it's good to see that 'Muslim scholar condemns terrorism' on todays BBC news, have posted full text as (heaven forbid) don't want to be accused of cherry-picking..
He says Muslims bomb people because they have been brainwashed and you believe him.
Yet when I say we drop bombs on people because we have been brainwashed...
Isn't this why we need a full and independent investigation to find these things out? We could argue about it forever on the internet and never get anywhere. There is real evidence of molten steel at the site, it was never investigated, it should be. We owe it to the families of those who died.
You started this thread off about belief and mind manipulation Fred and I agree. Theres lots of it about but you have it too.
There's no evidence to support your belief that the American government was complicit in the death of over 3000 of its own citizens and the following carnage in Afghanastan and Iraq but there's evidence to support my belief that you have a tendancy to be anti-establishment.
Even if there was the kind of investigation your calling for you still wouldnt accept it unless it agreed with your belief.
There's also plenty evidence that belief itself is a necessary mechanism of human beings.
Truthism has become a new religion. Its comforting to know that there are things happening below the surface of reality that very few people know about unless they accept it by faith and a long held view of society formed from an early age. Ring any bells? It's evangelical in it's nature and for that reason it needs to be challenged. I think it's too late for Stavro though. :lol:
Its up to others to decide whether arguing on the internet will ever get us anywhere. Its good fun though and exposes people to challenging ideas that otherwise would be relegated to less respectable web pages than caithness.org.
He says Muslims bomb people because they have been brainwashed and you believe him.
Yet when I say we drop bombs on people because we have been brainwashed...
A. Did I say I believed him?
B. Did I say I was brainwashed?
luskentyre
02-Mar-10, 18:51
The fact that no WMD were found speaks volumes to me. If the UK & US Governments are as corrupt as you allege, then don't you think they would have been conveniently "found"?
It would have been impossible to plant that amount of evidence.
You actually believe that? Come now Fred, these are the nasty evil people whom you accuse of secretly destroying the Twin Towers. Surely planting a few WMDs is childs play for them?
Believe me, you do not go to war citing a reason that you know you'll have to retract at a later date. That would be plain stupid. You simply do not put that much store in something - your reputation hinges on it at the very least (and politicians value reputation very highly in case you hadn't noticed).
I don't know if they existed or not (and neither do you), but I do believe that they were thought to exist at the time. Too much hinged on their existance for them to be a convenient "excuse".
See, no need to plant evidence of WMD. Once the people are brainwashed, once they have had "Saddam WMD", "Iraq chemical weapons" hammered into their brains on page one enough times they aren't going to believe the facts printed on page six.
Oh, come now - surely it would shut the conspiracy theorists up? On second thoughts, they're going to think the worst regardless...
So, firstly it was "impossible", now "no need" - you're not addressing the question.
Oh, come now - surely it would shut the conspiracy theorists up? On second thoughts, they're going to think the worst regardless...
So, firstly it was "impossible", now "no need" - you're not addressing the question.
But I did explain exactly why it would not be possible to plant WMDs, you just didn't quote that part.
I see you managed to get the obligatory "conspiracy theorists" into your reply. But you see I was saying there were no WMDs even before we invaded and I was right, I've been right about a lot of other things since. Yet people still say "conspiracy theorist" he must be wrong. Over eight years we've been in Afghanistan and people are still saying "we'll find that Bin Laden any day now", America is still occupying Iraq after seven years and have built those permanent bases just as I said they would all that time ago and people just said "conspiracy theorist", western corporations have taken over the oil fields just as I said they would.
For a "conspiracy theorist" I have a damn good record for getting it right, watch the Chilcot Inquiry, see the people testifying to things I told this forum about years ago just to be called a "conspiracy theorist". Look back on this forum and see just what I was called when I said the Iraq war was illegal but now every lawyer in the FO is saying they said the same but it was ignored.
I don't get it right all the time, nobody gets it right all the time but I kinda take exception to people who aint been right yet still labelling me "conspiracy theorist".
Boozeburglar
02-Mar-10, 23:53
impossible to plant that amount of evidence
Why????
They were in charge of the whole place, with restricted view from anyone independent.
My goodness, the same people are expected to have achieved massive deceptions in New York, a place where investigative journalism is legendary.
Why????
If they could have they would have.
luskentyre
03-Mar-10, 00:38
But I did explain exactly why it would not be possible to plant WMDs, you just didn't quote that part.
I see you managed to get the obligatory "conspiracy theorists" into your reply. But you see I was saying there were no WMDs even before we invaded and I was right, I've been right about a lot of other things since. Yet people still say "conspiracy theorist" he must be wrong. Over eight years we've been in Afghanistan and people are still saying "we'll find that Bin Laden any day now", America is still occupying Iraq after seven years and have built those permanent bases just as I said they would all that time ago and people just said "conspiracy theorist", western corporations have taken over the oil fields just as I said they would.
For a "conspiracy theorist" I have a damn good record for getting it right, watch the Chilcot Inquiry, see the people testifying to things I told this forum about years ago just to be called a "conspiracy theorist". Look back on this forum and see just what I was called when I said the Iraq war was illegal but now every lawyer in the FO is saying they said the same but it was ignored.
I don't get it right all the time, nobody gets it right all the time but I kinda take exception to people who aint been right yet still labelling me "conspiracy theorist".
Yes I did - you said it was impossible to plant that amount of evidence, which is a lame excuse by anyone's standards.
The term "conspiracy theorist" sums you up so very well though. Everything is a conspiracy and your evidence is theoretical to say the least.
I really don't know where to begin with you. No, of course the war wasn't illegal. The very concept of the illegality of war is laughable. Your suspicion that WMD's didn't exist was just that - suspicion. You didn't know - UNLESS you actually hunted for them. Did you? Really?
I really don't know where to begin with you. No, of course the war wasn't illegal. The very concept of the illegality of war is laughable. Your suspicion that WMD's didn't exist was just that - suspicion. You didn't know - UNLESS you actually hunted for them. Did you? Really?
There is little point in discussing anything with someone who has no concept of international law.
It was obvious there were no weapons of mass destruction, if we had thought he had weapons of mass destruction we wouldn't have invaded.
This is a good one.
No structural engineer (I can find) asserts that steel would have to melt to bring down the buildings. The course was loss of structural strength due to the heat. Perfectly good demo of this on the documentory.
So are we saying there was melted steel that can't be explained?
I don't get the significance.
The big one that keeps getting trotted out is no steel building other than that at ground zero ever fell down due to a fire.
Well no building like this ever suffered the same attack (or had another big building fall down next to it).
This is a good one.
No structural engineer (I can find) asserts that steel would have to melt to bring down the buildings. The course was loss of structural strength due to the heat. Perfectly good demo of this on the documentory.
So are we saying there was melted steel that can't be explained?
We are saying there is a lot of evidence of molten steel which wasn't explained.
If you read the transcripts of the Commission hearing you will find numerous examples of people testifying to there being molten steel at the site.
Yet if you read the Commission report you will find molten steel isn't even mentioned in it. It couldn't be discounted, it couldn't be explained so it was ignored.
This is why we need a full and independent investigation, to ascertain the facts.
luskentyre
03-Mar-10, 18:39
There is little point in discussing anything with someone who has no concept of international law.
Ah well, that's me told. All I'm saying is that, by its very definition, war can rarely be deemed legitimate. It's akin to having a legal assault, or an approved bout of road rage.
It was obvious there were no weapons of mass destruction, if we had thought he had weapons of mass destruction we wouldn't have invaded.
Oh, you're on a roll now. What utter nonsense... There are so many things wrong with that last sentence I'm not sure where to begin.
Tune in tomorrow when Fred proves black is white, the world is flat (which is obvious apparently) and tries to make us believe that "The Clangers" was just an attempt to brainwash us into believing that man actually landed on the Moon (which he never).
Tubthumper
04-Mar-10, 18:36
Go Fred, Go!! Another 6 posts and you will have lost the interest of everyone on the org.
Does it never occur to the conspiracy brigade to change the record, in order that they might get taken a bit more seriously?
Go Fred, Go!! Another 6 posts and you will have lost the interest of everyone on the org.
Does it never occur to the conspiracy brigade to change the record, in order that they might get taken a bit more seriously?
What was your purpose for this post, other than an excuse to use the word "conspiracy" again?
You have added nothing to the debate whatsoever.
There are so many things wrong with that last sentence I'm not sure where to begin.
Begin anywhere you like. Let's hear some reasons instead of your usual hot air.
luskentyre
04-Mar-10, 23:09
It was obvious there were no weapons of mass destruction, if we had thought he had weapons of mass destruction we wouldn't have invaded.
What utter nonsense... There are so many things wrong with that last sentence I'm not sure where to begin.
Begin anywhere you like. Let's hear some reasons instead of your usual hot air.
My usual hot air? How cruel...
Well.... considering the raison d'etre for the war was the existence of WMDs, for someone to claim we wouldn't have gone to war if they were believed to exist is just a bizarre statement.
Secondly, that belief is not something they would keep to themselves (especially as it supported their desire to remove Saddam Hussein). It would also be hard to deny the existence, therefore putting pressure on this country (from the public and the international community) to participate in armed intervention.
Thirdly, the respective Governments would look a little foolish had they been blown to pieces by weapons they believed existed and did nothing about. They certainly wouldn't get re-elected.
My usual hot air? How cruel...
Well.... considering the raison d'etre for the war was the existence of WMDs, for someone to claim we wouldn't have gone to war if they were believed to exist is just a bizarre statement.
Don't be silly, the invasion had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. If we went round invading countries because they had weapons of mass destruction we'd have to invade half the world. Hasn't it sunk in yet that we invaded Iraq because they have a lot of oil and water and things?
Secondly, that belief is not something they would keep to themselves (especially as it supported their desire to remove Saddam Hussein). It would also be hard to deny the existence, therefore putting pressure on this country (from the public and the international community) to participate in armed intervention.
Thirdly, the respective Governments would look a little foolish had they been blown to pieces by weapons they believed existed and did nothing about. They certainly wouldn't get re-elected.
That's precisely my point, it was an unpopular war to start with, imagine if the casualties in the first few days had been tens of thousands wiped out with weapons of mass destruction, what if Saddam had fired off a few scuds filled with anthrax or sarin into Israel.
We would never have dared invade if we'd thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Just ask North Korea, we aren't invading them are we?
luskentyre
04-Mar-10, 23:59
Well.... considering the raison d'etre for the war was the existence of WMDs, for someone to claim we wouldn't have gone to war if they were believed to exist is just a bizarre statement.
Don't be silly, the invasion had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. If we went round invading countries because they had weapons of mass destruction we'd have to invade half the world. Hasn't it sunk in yet that we invaded Iraq because they have a lot of oil and water and things?
No it hasn't sunk in yet, because it's merely your opinion - an extremely cynical one at that. I guess that's where we differ.
Thirdly, the respective Governments would look a little foolish had they been blown to pieces by weapons they believed existed and did nothing about. They certainly wouldn't get re-elected.
That's precisely my point, it was an unpopular war to start with, imagine if the casualties in the first few days had been tens of thousands wiped out with weapons of mass destruction, what if Saddam had fired off a few scuds filled with anthrax or sarin into Israel.
Which would have likely have happened anyway had he been left in power. We would have looked pretty stupid had that happened and we'd taken no action at all (at least declared the suspicion). As I stated previously, politicians have a penchance for self-preservation.
Anyway, considering how "evil" and "corrupt" the UK / US administrations are, why care about a few fatalities in Israel? Such action would just reinforce their desire to take action.
We would never have dared invade if we'd thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Just ask North Korea, we aren't invading them are we?
No, but I'm not convinced that it's quite as unstable (and sadistic) a regime as Iraq was. There's also the small matter of China.
northener
05-Mar-10, 00:01
......
We would never have dared invade if we'd thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Just ask North Korea, we aren't invading them are we?
Certainly Gulf War 1 was conducted with the very real threat of Biological and Chemical attack, regardless of anyone's opinon of GW2. Never stopped the troops going in, though.
North Korea are being kept in check by the Chinese.
Certainly Gulf War 1 was conducted with the very real threat of Biological and Chemical attack, regardless of anyone's opinon of GW2. Never stopped the troops going in, though.
North Korea are being kept in check by the Chinese.
GWI was somewhat different circumstances don't you think? I mean there was a genuine reason for it and a degree of urgency, neither of which were present for GWII.
northener
05-Mar-10, 00:59
GWI was somewhat different circumstances don't you think? I mean there was a genuine reason for it and a degree of urgency, neither of which were present for GWII.
Well, regardless of whether it was a genuine reason or not, Fred, the point is made in response to your saying that we wouldn't have gone in if their was a real threat of WMD. My point is that we went into GW1 with full Biological and Chemical Warfare expectations.
You've got to bear in mind that NATO troops have practised NBCD routines right from the early days of the Iron Curtain - and have developed the kit to fight effectively (as possible, anyway) in a hostile environment. So I don't think the threat of WMD held up any military action by a discernable amount, really.
Anyway, "boing" said Zebedee.:)
Well.... considering the raison d'etre for the war was the existence of WMDs, for someone to claim we wouldn't have gone to war if they were believed to exist is just a bizarre statement.
Supposed existence. Weapons inspectors were saying that these weapons did not exist. Dr Kelly was saying that they did not exist. Only Bush and Blair were saying that they did, but then they had already decided to invade the place.
It was never a "war." There was and is no other side to fight. So the statement you refer to is not bizarre in the least.
Secondly, that belief is not something they would keep to themselves (especially as it supported their desire to remove Saddam Hussein). It would also be hard to deny the existence, therefore putting pressure on this country (from the public and the international community) to participate in armed intervention.
Here you admit "their desire to remove Saddam Hussein." Regime change is against international law. As for "putting pressure ... from the public and the international community," the public was against this invasion. The "international community" was very much against it, too; France and Germany in particular.
Thirdly, the respective Governments would look a little foolish had they been blown to pieces by weapons they believed existed and did nothing about. They certainly wouldn't get re-elected.
Can you explain to me, please, how Iraq would/could have harmed either Britain or the United States? Their air force had not been allowed to fly since 1991. They had no missiles. They had no submarines. Did they even have a navy? I don't know, but they were certainly helpless and weak after years and years of sanctions. What a sad distortion of reality to call that slaughter a "war."
Aaldtimer
05-Mar-10, 04:14
Erm Fred,..."Hasn't it sunk in yet that we invaded Iraq because they have a lot of oil and water and things?"...
Water and things? Are we a bit short of water?
What "things" are we short of that Iraq possessed?:confused
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.