Flux, I applaud your efforts in talking about this topic on your blog, but I still feel you don't see the real truth to what is being forced down our throats as a public, and that is the establishing of martial law by small measures. I mentioned checking out Alex Jones and his websites, and that you should. As even Fox news carried his prediction this year that in the next coming months there will a real "terror" plot. He predicted that 9/11 would occur two months before it happened on his radio show, and asked his listeners to call the White House and tell them not strike WTC and blame the CIA "asset" Osama. Think about that more, and watch the 9/11 Truth Movement Information that is out on the net to see thru the false flag operations.

 

It does seem like something is going on, and I really have to wonder if all of these incidents are truly real and the media are simply over-reporting (for whatever reason), or if they're being set up (or spun out of thin air) by someone for some purpose.

I also have to wonder, in the case of the supposed liquid-bombers, how do the governments actually benefit by spewing all this FUD into the media? If the British police (and/or FBI) really did track down these people, and knew they didn't pose a serious threat, how come it ended up in the media, and so over-blown? It just seems either extremely sloppy and badly managed, or deliberate. But what do they have to gain from it? Crying wolf over and over doesn't help anyone, nor does causing significant delays in aviation travel.

Perhaps they feel that the population is starting to lose interest in the 'war on terror', so they have to engineer stunts to keep the people in a state of fear and backing their ill-advised and self-serving agendas. Just seems like you can't keep pushing the 'fear' button over and over forever, though, eventually it'll stop working and they'll need to do something else. Perhaps they'll blow up some big skyscrapers and blame it on trrrsts or something.

 

Hmmm. The current administration being mauled to death by vicious wolves...

There must be some down side to that that I am just failing to see.

 

More likely to be killed by lightning that killed by terrorism?

"Deaths from lightning injuries are infrequent, amounting to 0.2-0.8 per million people per year" In a country of about 300million, that
makes 150 people a year.

Terrorism? 3000 people (From 9/11) over 5 years makes 600 people a year. So you're not that much more likely to die electric death that terrorist death.

I an see it now! "We must continue this war on lightning! You're either with us, or with the static discharges."

# # #

"There must be some down side to that that I am just failing to see."

Such as the fact that they're doing a good job of slowly eroding your civil liberties? And it's going to be hard to get them back?

# # #

And just so you know, the 9/11 Truth Movement is a kooky conspiracy theory group.

 

those british terrorism plotters deserve to be arrested and tortured. cmon there's such a thing as thought crimes nowadays isn't there? ;)

 

Well, those figures about deaths from car crashes and heart attacks and lottery winnings were just pulled out of my ass or I'd have had links to some source. I was just using them to illustrate how misplaced our media's attention is, if you go by the bigger picture.

As for terrorism deaths, just going on the last 5 years is hardly fair, given what happened in Sept 2001. Imagine if there'd been some incredible freak of nature lightning storm 7 years ago that killed like 2000 people; it would rather skew the results. If we count terrorism deaths in the US for the last say 30-40 years (since terrorism started to become a modern problem with plane hijackings in Israel and bombings in Europe) we're up to what, 3300 or something in the US? Over 33 years that's 100 a year, which is a fair number, but dwarfed by almost any other form of death, accidental or intentional. More people than that get shot in Detroit every year, eh?

The definition of "terrorism" would obviously be an issue, but I'm counting the 200 or so Oklahoma City bombing. Others come from abortion clinic bombings and shootings, those ex-army sniper and his protegee sniping in Washington a few years ago, the anthrax mailings, etc. And tellingly enough, none of those were carried out by the Arabian types we've been conditioned to think of as "terrorists." Good old Christian white men did the deed in most cases, which is why it's essential that our military and resources are halfway around the world, squatting on an anthill in Iraq.

As for the 9/11 Truth Movement being a "kooky conspiracy group," isn't that the whole idea?

 

Yes, but terrorism has the potential to kill much more people. Although it would be somewhat difficult to detonate a nuclear device in a city, that would result in mass murder, the likes of which would make it of statistical significance.

However, another entire city-destroying tragedy happened that no one gave a shit about (katrina). What about the thousand some people who died there? New Orleans hasn't been rebuilt. Doesn't America care if one of its cities gets destroyed?

 

For the record, I happily do not live in the USA, so no one's eroding my liberties at all.

Also, how does that benefit the government? They end up spending heaps of money on their surveilence and control programs or whatever, but what actual benefit does it bring them? If you say "political power", given that 50% of people in USA don't vote for the president already anyway, I really don't see how things can get much worse.

As for the government being behind 9/11 - I don't seriously consider this to be the truth, but it is an example of the sort of thing they could do next, if keeping up their 'war against terror' really was their top priority, no matter the cost.

 

I would have to say that you need to read the facts to determine if the conspiracy groups for truth are "kooky". I would have to one thing that makes 9/11 an inside job, tower 7 of WTC. Read about that and let me know how that building fell, when nothing hit it, and it fell like a staged demolition. Also, thing to note, the same crew that cleaned up Oklahoma City bombing, also cleaned up WTC. And by the way, they did find bombs in the building Oklahoma City building that did not fall, but the lovely news media decided to leave that info out in the rebroadcasts of the incident. Please read the facts people, not speculate on what the media tells you. Question Authority, Think for yourself.

 

"I would have to say that you need to read the facts to determine if the conspiracy groups for truth are "kooky"."

Just as well then, since I have.

"I would have to one thing that makes 9/11 an inside job, tower 7 of WTC. Read about that and let me know how that building fell, when nothing hit it, and it fell like a staged demolition."

Ooh! Words! Look how easy they are to use: 'WTC 7 fell as would be expected, there was no exposion.' Words are easy, evidence is harder. Look! I even have links!
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
How can you show that it was a controlled demolition?

"Also, thing to note, the same crew that cleaned up Oklahoma City bombing, also cleaned up WTC. And by the way, they did find bombs in the building Oklahoma City building that did not fall, but the lovely news media decided to leave that info out in the rebroadcasts of the incident."

Huh? What relevenace does this have? They founds bobms that didn't go off in another building, and didn't mention it, so when they didn't mention that they'd found bombs in WTC, there must be bombs there? This also shows that the media isn't the most blindinly honest of groups, but I hope we knew that already.

"Please read the facts people, not speculate on what the media tells you. Question Authority, Think for yourself."

Don't mindlessly believe whatever conspiracy theory theory that strikes your fancy, after all, there's an awful lot of them, and they can't all be true. Don't accuse thousands of people* (You'd need this many to pull it off) of being heartless mass-murders, _none_ of whom have been whistleblowers.

The goverment can't keep a president's blowjob secret, I'm not inclinded to believe that they could a massive conspiracy secret.

*Or some large number

 

mmm.. I think those who think the Sept 11 attacks were staged do a great injustice to the ingenuity of those who carried them out. Though the acts were horrific and morally bankrupt, there is an impressiveness to the plan carried out by the terrorists, using only minimal weapons but actingin a way completely unexpected. Noone ever expected plane to be used as a weapon, everyone on the first three planes sat there and just waited for the "hostage" situation to end. It was "brilliant" in an evil way.

 

Strabo,

If you remember, that Oklahoma was framed to a patsy, a one man truck bomb, so finding that bombs were in other parts of the building do tell you something. That someone else bombed the building, but our govt was nice enough to blame one man. Also, look at the building itself, the pillars closest to the truck still stood, and the ones that were further away were blown out. Yes out. The media even reported it on that day.

As for 9/11 you also probably believe the Discovery channel propaganda about the single column failing. Try watching the NYFD 9/11 movie out that was done by the NYFD, and them explaining about hearing bombs explosions in the buildings. Also, watch some real footage of the collapse, to see the explosion squibs that fire out many floors below, many times as the towers fell. Oh, and how bout the fact that NORAD stood down that day, when in all of its history, its orders are to shoot down jets that leave their flight plan, or lose their transponders, or lose communication. Oops, they did all three, and not a plane got shot down. Or the fact that the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world. Oh, maybe you just think the govt is stupid. Well, they happened to be running a terror drill for NORAD that day of flying airline jets into targets, listen to the released tapes. They say that the planes weren't supposed to be jacked for another hour. Final note, WTC 7, was pulled. Stated on PBS tv by Silversteen, the owner of the WTC complex. Meaning that it had charges in place before hand, since you are going to tell me that it was riged for demolition on 9/11 amid all the chaos. Look at some data from multiple source before you give me crap like Popular Mechanics. Stop being a drone for the govt.

 

I have seen various interviews with many of the firefighters who were on site for the collapse of the towers. The men who were in the north tower when the south tower collapsed do indeed say they heard "a series of explosions". I just have to wonder if the loud exploding noises that they heard could have been the sound of the 110 story building next to them collapsing, not a bomb in the building they were in. The "explosion squibs" that you cite as evidence of a contolled demolition are argued just as adamantly as nothing more than the compressed air from the higher floors' collapse being forced down the building through the ventilation system, elevator shafts, and stairwells. Neither can be proven though.

Now tell me of one specific case where NORAD has shot down a friendly passnger airliner, in American airspace, when it has deviated from it's flight course. Even when they know it has been hijacked. Come on, just one example of when they have actually shot down a passneger airliner with hundreds of innocent US citizens on it. The policy had always been to comply with the demands of hijackers while the plane was in the air, without exception. There were many cases where hijacked planes ended up with fighter planes escorting them after they had been in the air for a couple of hours. Never shot down though. Even if they planned to start shooting down passenger airliners, they wouldn't have done so prior to the first plane hitting the WTC, since it had always been policy to comply with hijackers while the plane was in the air, meaning that they would have had less than 17 minutes to get executive approval for such action, scramble the fighters into the air, intercept the airliners and shoot them down. And that is if we believe that they really would shoot down a passenger airliner that had lost radio contact (which is a huge stretch in a pre 9/11 world. Although by your arguement, every airline that loses its radio should be getting shot down willy-nilly every damn day; that is NORAD policy after all.).

If I were going to start believing in any of the myriad government conspiracy theories, I think I would base it on the collapse of the first tower. The video clearly shows that the top of it collapsed in one direction for several floors, leaving the top hanging well over the side of the rest of the building. It seems that the laws of physics would dictate that it continue to fall in the same manner, yet at some point it stops toppling over and collapses 100% vertically. Even watching the video I have a hard time believing that it really happened like that. The thing is, it seems to violoate laws of physics and motion, thus it is hard to believe that it was caused by the natural forces (those natural forces that were present after the man made impact and subsequent fire) but it is eaier to believe that it was a freak natural occurance than to believe that bombs were intentionally placed in the building to make it fall in a such a way that appeared to be physically impossible.

A note about the guy who said that the WTC 7 was "pulled". You are taking the quote from the owner of the complex horribly out of context. He made that statement after the first two buildings collapsed, and while rescue personnel were still in the WTC 7 building. What he said was, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' Which he says, and clearly seems to be, meaning to get the people out of the building; quit attempting to save it. Of course if you believe in such conspiracy theories, the only arguement you need is "that is what they want you to believe" to dispute any evidence. In this particular case, what they want me to believe is the facts and common sense. Like the fact that the term "pull it" has never been used, ever, in the history of building demolition. Now if this was skeet shooting...

There are many, many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Wikipedia has them all compiled on one page, with links to all the "evidence". Put on your tin-foil hat and dig in!

 

So I see that one can contest the thoughts of what happend on 9/11 as not a conspiracy theory, but just dumb luck by 19 guys who used to live in a cave, and could barely fly small airplanes in the their flight school programs in the US. Yet they could manage to take over 4 jets and manage to fly 3 of them precisely into buildings, one of which has its own anti-aircraft weaponary. And their was no plane debris to be found for the the supposed jet that hit that building, and with over 100 cameras of footage, they only show us 5 frames from some crappy parking garage camera. When it was noted that the FBI confiscated all the surrounding cameras footage.

Or maybe you believe that they did find two of the hijackers passports on the ground after the plane smacked into the buildings that day. That seems really likely.

Or the fact that there is no executive order for NORAD to shoot down planes, only in May that year did the VP take that control on. And he was asked if the order still stands, as the last jet flew towards DC. That was in a court case of an aide to VP.
Lt. Bob Bowman, an ex interceptor pilot said the interceptor jet pilots were told to fly slow that day, and were sent in the wrong direction to get to the planes. Except for the one in Penn, but you probably believe that nice propaganda movie out on F93. Of course, cell phones work above 2000 ft, wrong. They don't I have tested it.

Or we could talk about the put-options filed days before by members of the govt. on AA and United. Those options are for a failure of a stock. Over 1000 options filed, which never happens.

Or in our history, no steal structured building has ever fallen from fire. And we had 3 fall in one day.

Or that they did find thermite evidence in the steel of the building, which is used by demolition companies to bring down buildings, when they "pull it". See Stephen Jones work.

And then the nut Alex Jones, predicted this would happen in July 2001, by saying on the radio, call the WH and tell them not fly the planes into WTC, and blame OBL.

Look up Operation Northwoods.

 

Of course, cell phones work above 2000 ft, wrong. They don't I have tested it.


That is the most ridiculous statement I have seen in a very long time. You are aware that many major metropolitan areas in the US are above 2000 feet, right? Denver for instance. You are trying to say that you can't use a cell phone there because the altitude is above 2000 feet? If you have indeed "tested it" and can't get a signal above 2000 feet then it sounds to me like you need to get a new service provider.

I suppose you are going to make the claim that you are talking about being 2000 feet off of the ground, not at an altitude of 2000 feet, right? Because the cell phone would obviously know the difference, right?

Jackass

 

I just read in my New Scientist this morning that about the same number of Americans have been killed by terrorists since the late 1960s as have been killed by lightning.
That's some food for thought right there.

PS: I just refound your blog: used to be a daily reader in about 2001-3 and I discussed a few topics with you then: notably dildos, Conan and frames. I shall be back :)