“September Clues” and 9/11 TV Fakery claims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6jS2Ah22us

that's the dumbest shit i've ever seen in my life

xpost

this is gonna be fun

Or just get locked when the usual suspects start rolling in.
We've had this conversation only about 79 times before.

I only watched part one but I see zero diff between this and loose change so far and it was about as plausible as Santa living on Pluto.

Oh and Ethan's link does its job also, heh.

Someone start a Punch a Truther movement. If each of us would punch just one truther, think of the good we could do together.

I get irrationally pissed off about this. I mean, what do I care? People believe all kinds of crazy shit and spend a lot of time telling each other their own special versions of the crazy shit they believe. What's the big deal? Honestly, who cares? There's all kinds of quotidian stuff that people believe that's more immediately damaging I think (about how politics work, say, or about history). The best I can think why this shit pisses me off so bad is that it's disrespectful to the dead, but I don't normally care about that much, either, so I dunno.

Anyhow this shit pisses me the fuck off.

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, okay.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world, and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

--Matt Taibbi

xpost Because instead of just fantasizing about a small cabal of powerful and anonymous white dudes, theories like this accuse thousands of your friends and neighbors of willful and vicious deception and murder.

People who don't believe we landed on the moon piss me off in a similar way, due to the number of people "implicated."

The degree of cynicism and paranoia (not to mention gullibility) required to perpetuate this garbage is just extraordinary.

there's only one main road that goes around half of the island here and there's a 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB sticker on every single stop sign along it.

the 21st century just keeps makes it easier to not date the crazy ones, though, so you gotta see the glass as half-full

Part of what's so frustrating about these theories is that they're so maddeningly, impossibly complex! You don't need conspiracies on this magnitude to explain most of the wrong shit the U.S. government has done.

Occam's Razor Was An Inside Job

otm

9/11 truthers were the "ron paul revolution" types of 2006

Who says they're not still?

Anyhow this shit pisses me the fuck off.

yes. it turns a mass murder into a parlor game. it's really a kind of narcissism, making 9/11 a platform to enact personal fantasies.

(in other words everything that is also objectionable about giuliani's presidential campaign.)

9/11 a platform to enact personal fantasies.

some article on the psychology of conspiracy theories made basically this point, that all of them are essentially a self-centered attempt to make some personal sense out of things that are huge and well-publicized yet have (almost) nothing to do with the conspiracist

also dovetails, I think, with the more general-purpose motives of fabulists everywhere, see munchausen (and its proxy version), etc.

Either way, though, 9/11 was a conspiracy.

But yeah, cobbled together often exceptionally lucky Al Qaida attack still more believable than holograms "hitting" the WTC or missiles hitting the Pentagon, ffs.

I think "Chomsky receives U.S. government money you know" is the one that's going to send my fists a-flying if I ever hear it again.

some extreme left-wingers don't want to think about how they're part of the problem so they try to shift the blame to extreme right-wingers.

plus a lot of bored assholes want to make life more exciting.

All evil emanates from a single source that I just can't quite reach from behind my Ikea computer desk.

Now they're touting this video interview of Bhutto claims that Osama is dead.

In the viral bboard post going around, it's stated:

What I do want to make you aware of is an interview with Benazir Bhutto that was conducted by Sir David Frost on 11/02/07. -- you MUST listen to the video from the 3:45 mark to about the 7:00 minute mark. Please Pay Close Attention to Her Comment Starting at 6:10 mark!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

Oh lord.

So somehow Benazir Bhutto and David Frost both knew that Bin Laden had been murdered and yet were apparently unaware that the rest of the entire world did not know this.

a friend of mine taught his three year old daughter to say 9/11 was an inside job - only when he tried to get her to say it to me she said 9/11 was a side job - so now whenever he starts talking that bullshit i just say 9/11 was a side job

anyway i feel pretty much the same way john does abt this - it pisses me off more than i really think it should - im working w/that

I’m seriously not ready to get into debates about this right now.

These guys have done some pretty good digging on the people that fund/support the whole "9/11 Was An Inside Job"(tm) movement: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

it's really a kind of narcissism, making 9/11 a platform to enact personal fantasies.

not to mention attempting to launch a music career, apparently.

What irks me is that, loonies like these filmmakers aside, literally dozens of co-workers and acquaintances have casually said something to me along the lines of "I think it was an inside job" or "I think Bush had something to do with it," seemingly not realizing that I'm thinking: "You are the 21st century equivalent of a Holocaust denier."

Is thinking that the Bush administration allowed it to happen the same as saying it was an inside job?

Yes.

Unless by "allowing it to happen" you really mean too incompetent to be able have done anything even if they had magically been able to put the pieces together somehow.

Well, "allowing it to happen" is at least a more plausible, if still ridiculous explanation. Fuck, even positing that the Bush admin actually paid the terrorists to carry out the operation is more plausible than most of the shit flying around the net these days.

So, does this mean that the "War on Terrorism" is a legitimate effort to save American Lives?

I think the main infuriating thing about the "truth" movement is all the wasted energy put into it that could go into actual political action dealing with real issues instead. Didn't Chomsky basically say that it almost wouldn't matter if 9/11 had been an inside job, because the outcome either way is the same?

Allowing it to happen sounds plausible, because it's not hard to believe that the upper echelons of this White House would let thousands of people die for their policy goals.

But like every other conspiracy theory, for it to actually work hundreds or thousands of people would have to know and have kept quiet. Not like intel on al-Qaeda activities would have been handed directly from an interpreter to Dick Cheney.

Our war on Communism was 85% horseshit too. That doesn't mean Communism didn't exist.

xpost Also it's hard to believe the Bush administration would allow an attack on the, ahem, World Financial Center.

I like "85%" as a quantifier of the hs.

95% is overused

A couple of thousand people, maybe, BUT the Ted Olson's wife! NO WAY JOSE!

THE TED OLSON!

Also it's hard to believe the Bush administration would allow an attack on the, ahem, World Financial Center.

As a symbol, or as a center of world finance? Becuase world finance didn't pause for more than the requisite moment.

Because of the people who worked there - finance industry execs and whatnot

But the important ones got a warning.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YOU MEAN THE CHOSEN PEOPLE, DON'T YOU!

pfffffff

lol @ saying that the plane was CG and completely ignoring the thousands of on-the-scene eyewitnesses

b/c vice presidents, partners and CFOs are not important. Expendable, really.

Bobbi, the Nude Spock routine doesn't suit you.

when i try to seriously talk about any of this, which isn't often, i always try to use the idea of a conspiracy of interests. (as long as you keep the word conspiracy in there, conspiracy buffs might pay attention.) many events, most events under any kind of human control, are conspiracies of one kind or another. but that doesn't mean they're all planned out or controlled. it means people create opportunities for each other -- often while competing at the same time. which can look a lot like collusion. but it's just people pursuing what they perceive as their interests, simulataneously or sequentially.

(which sometimes does mean collusion, obviously. but often does not.)

lol @ "bobbi peru" having big fucking insights about world finance

while you're at it, tell me which hedge fund is the most fucked as of the new year

NARCISSITIC PERSONALITY DISORDERS!!!!

HELLO CONSEQUENCES OF VAST OVERWHELMING POPULATION GROWTH

DIDN'T EXPECT YOU SO SOON AFTER THE A-BOMB

I'm going to turn into some kind of postwar disorder version of fucking Geir aren't I

whatever. a human without self-awareness isn't really a human to begin with

truthies: get a job

i like how 9/11 truth requires us to assume that bush is the cleverest person ever

Is the original poster really RS?

shut the fuck up and let the troll dig his own fucking hole

just this once

I don't know why I watch these things, I just get annoyed by them. I watched a bit of part 2 of "911 flatline", they had some guy claiming to be a retired aeronautics engineer, claiming that the de havilland comet airliner I quote "back in the late seventies" if you can believe that he said that, fell apart in mid air because "these planes developed resonant frequencies and just exploded in the air". The comet was an aircraft from the early 1950's. A bunch of them broke up in mid air because metal fatigue developed around the corners of the (square) windows. This is why all pressureised airliners have round windows now. Every time I watch one of these things there's some ridiculously WRONG statement, that could be easily checked just by looking at shitipedia, made to support the argument presented, and said wrong statement usuall appears in a couple of minutes or less! WTF.

NARCISSITIC PERSONALITY DISORDERS!!!!

HELLO CONSEQUENCES OF VAST OVERWHELMING POPULATION GROWTH

DIDN'T EXPECT YOU SO SOON AFTER THE A-BOMB

Tom you missed your calling as America's foremost practitioner of next-level haiku

I’m seriously not ready to get into debates about this right now.
how convenient.

Look, I am planning a move in the next few months. I have a job interview at the of this week, which I’m spending a lot of time preparing for. I keep getting distracted and returning to these videos, so I thought I would at least say: this is something I find interesting and persuasive in parts. I don’t have the time or energy right now to get into any of this as in-depth as I would like. It’s not because that’s how I want it, it’s just where my life is right now.

We've had this conversation only about 79 times before.

I would have participated more in some of those previous threads, but Nude Spock’s involvement meant that a lot of people just became even more irate and intolerant of any conspiracy theory, so I gave up, and haven’t checked out all the threads that have appeared about it (but I did notice at least one where he re-appeared).

Part of what's so frustrating about these theories is that they're so maddeningly, impossibly complex!

The events themselves are maddeningly complex, however.

yes. it turns a mass murder into a parlor game. it's really a kind of narcissism, making 9/11 a platform to enact personal fantasies.

People start out with genuine questions about what happened and keep investigating, however flawed you might find their attempt to figure things out.

Demands for complete purity of motivation aren’t going to go very far with human beings. Ego-driven behavior is all over, just look at this board.

I think the main infuriating thing about the "truth" movement is all the wasted energy put into it that could go into actual political action dealing with real issues instead. Didn't Chomsky basically say that it almost wouldn't matter if 9/11 had been an inside job, because the outcome either way is the same?

That’s a very limited view of what’s at stake. Of course it matters if elements of the US government launched an attack on its own people. Imagine what would happen if a majority of the public became convinced that this took place? Inasmuch as 9/11 was the justification of so much else that has come since, demonstrating it. Proving an inside job would have plenty of practical implications. It could break open issues of power and democracy on a grand scale. And lack of discovery could only embolden the government to commit similar false flag acts of terror.

i like how 9/11 truth requires us to assume that bush is the cleverest person ever

Where are people getting the idea that everyone in 9/11 truth thinks “Bush planned it?”

Is the original poster really RS?

Yes. Actually, I’ve expressed similar ideas about 9/11 here before.

shut the fuck up and let the troll dig his own fucking hole
just this once

It’s trolling to start a thread about a new take (and it is relatively new) on some unconventional ideas? So you think I am being stupid, is that a crime?

claiming that the de havilland comet airliner I quote "back in the late seventies" if you can believe that he said that, fell apart in mid air because "these planes developed resonant frequencies and just exploded in the air". The comet was an aircraft from the early 1950's. A bunch of them broke up in mid air because metal fatigue developed around the corners of the (square) windows. This is why all pressureised airliners have round windows now.

This is actually useful. However, there is some corroboration of what Jospeh Keith said about what air speeds are possible for large airplanes in the video linked to below (at around 6:25), but I have to admit it’s not entirely satisfying. (The first person spoken to doesn’t sound like a real expert in the area, and the second person just wants to get rid of the call.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

And I’m conveniently leaving the thread and will stay away from ILE which I obviously don’t post to very much these days anyway.

but it's just people pursuing what they perceive as their interests, simulataneously or sequentially.

C. Wright Mills to thread!

the government commits plenty of false flag acts of terror already without resorting to blowing up/allowing someone else to blow up American buildings

Didn't Chomsky basically say that it almost wouldn't matter if 9/11 had been an inside job, because the outcome either way is the same?

not that i think there's any truth whatever in 9/11 conspiracy talk, but this is chomsky's line on everything. he also said (roughly) that the dispute over the 2000 election wasn't a big deal because gore was essentially the same as bush. all it really means is that he enjoys feeling superior to whatever or whoever he's talking about.

all it really means is that he enjoys feeling superior to whatever or whoever he's talking about.

I understand the sentiment here, and there may be some of that in it, but I hardly think that's all it really means.

yeah no i think it gets into the conspiracy of interests thing. that systems will operate certain ways in certain circumstances, regardless of whether they're planned or coordinated or not. it's like complex adaptive conspiracy theory.

I think he more means that there isn't much difference for, say, the activist's purpose, between a government that creates a false flag terror act and that just uses a real terror act as an excuse for the same ultimately terrible result. Of course he's being somewhat rhetorical, because he doesn't believe the U.S. govt. planned it. And yeah, a government that deliberately blew up thousands of its own citizens would still be a notch more disturbing than a government that just uses 9/11 as an excuse to blow up other people.