Heartland

I would like to know what people on HL think about

(1) the official "enquiry" into 911 not taking place
until 14 months after the event

(2) the suggestion that the towers could not have
fallen without additional premeditated assistance.
(nb. no burning buildings have ever clapsed in
this way, in history).

(3) Bin Ladens family connections with the Bush
family, and oil companies

(4) the idea that Bin Laden was behind the attacks

(5) the notion that the Bush Admin knew of the attacks

(6) that the military counter strike (to
shoot down the airlines) was "stepped down".

(7) the American government's members, personal
interests in commerical military hardware sales.

(8) the current Afgan presidents connections with a large
Oil campany

Last week I read something about that stuff.
I think it was called "Loose Change".

Pretty interesting stuff.

No wreckage of United 93. Strange crash site.
No wreckage in the Pentagon of the 757. No release of the films of the impact, just the last two frames. Where is the plane? A hole that is too small for a plane.
Strange kind of undercarriage on the second WTC plane (missile launcher?) No windows (millitary plane?).
Strange kind of flashes in the building before the planes
hit the twin towers (missile?).
Small explosions on several floors while the towers are collapsing.
A lot of the hijackers seem to be alive and living in the Middle East.

What to think about it? Don't know. A big part of the media as well as the government (ofcourse) are ignoring these sounds. I guess hell would break loose if this conspiracy theory is true.

But: What happened to the passengers of the hijacked (or not) planes????? A lot of people lost loved ones.

Bush is a cnut, his da is a cnut. Muslim Fanatic Suicide Bombers?-cnuts

I've heard all the theories, seen the documentaries, it's all too much for ma wee heed.......


The Truth is Out There.......................................

Ozpat wrote:I guess hell would break loose if this conspiracy theory is true.

Hi. That's an interesting comment.
I'd say that all hell has already broken loose, if you live in
Afganistan or Iraq. What's the civilian toll in Iraq ? 15000 ??

Who would run with the story, if it *were* true ?

The American news corps, who support bush?

If it were, how could it *ever* be shown
to be true, with unequivocal proof, given that so much
Information that we already know of
(Leave alone that which we don't know of)
Is being withheld, in the interests of
"National security" ?

The States are pretty good with national security cases.
Look at the Kennedys assassinatons. Oswalds role....

I guess nothing will happen now either. The theory won't be accepted and proven right because the majority of people don't wanna know and don't want hell to break loose.

You're right about the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan. But didn't hell break loose for a lot of people in those countries before. Lot's of deaths because of the Taliban and the Hoessein regime.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was something in those rumours. From what I've read, there's much that doesn't make sense.

Ozpat wrote: You're right about the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan. But didn't hell break loose for a lot of people in those countries before. Lot's of deaths because of the Taliban and the Hoessein regime.

too true, and not to forget that the taliban regime deprived half of the population (women) entirely of their human rights.

I wouldnt suggest for a second that the Taliban are an acceptable
regime.
Who armed them, to fight the Russians? Yep, the USA.

Ocean Moves wrote:I would like to know what people on HL think about

(1) the official "enquiry" into 911 not taking place
until 14 months after the event

Standard government incompetence. When's the inquiry into the 7/7 bombings going to happen?

Ocean Moves wrote:(2) the suggestion that the towers could not have
fallen without additional premeditated assistance.
(nb. no burning buildings have ever clapsed in
this way, in history).

I call bullsh!t on this claim, sorry. Firefighters hate fires in buildings with a similar structure to the WTC precisely because they do collapse.

Also are we supposed to assume that none of the tens of thousands of people that worked in the WTC noticed people running round planting bombs everywhere?

Ocean Moves wrote:(3) Bin Ladens family connections with the Bush
family, and oil companies

Well documented. They claim that Osama has had nothing to do with them for years and is the "black sheep" of the family.

Ocean Moves wrote:(4) the idea that Bin Laden was behind the attacks

Debatable. I don't know one way or the other. It's at least possible that the twelve hijackers were a small group acting alone without instruction (similar to the "cell" that did the 7/7 attack)

Ocean Moves wrote:(5) the notion that the Bush Admin knew of the attacks

Probable. The US government could well have known that attacks were coming. It has certainly helped the "hawkish" cause in the US. A similar argument has been shown to be largely true about Pearl Harbor; the US knew it was coming, did nothing to prevent it as they knew it would be a pretext to join WWII, but when the attack came it was far bigger than they'd been expecting.

Ocean Moves wrote:(6) that the military counter strike (to
shoot down the airlines) was "stepped down".

I don't know that it was ever "stepped up" -- see above

Ocean Moves wrote:(7) the American government's members, personal
interests in commerical military hardware sales.

Yeah, pretty bad isn't it?

Ocean Moves wrote:(8) the current Afgan presidents connections with a large
Oil campany

See (7)

What I saw on TV that day happened.

Handle it.

markfiend wrote: Standard government incompetence. When's the inquiry into the 7/7 bombings going to happen?

Yep.

markfiend wrote: I call bullsh!t on this claim, sorry. Firefighters hate fires in buildings with a similar structure to the WTC precisely because they do collapse.

This is correct (I have some friends who are firefighters and have mentioned similar concerns). Furthermore, my understanding is that the steel skeleton of the building warped under the heat of the flames, thus it could no longer support the weight of the upper tiers of the building; thus it began to collapse.

markfiend wrote: Well documented. They claim that Osama has had nothing to do with them for years and is the "black sheep" of the family.

Yes, according to all accounts he was disowned sometime between his return to Saudi Arabia and his taking up residence in Sudan. Pete Bergen (I think) has an excellent book on bin Laden, completed shortly before the 9/11 attacks.

markfiend wrote: Debatable. I don't know one way or the other. It's at least possible that the twelve hijackers were a small group acting alone without instruction (similar to the "cell" that did the 7/7 attack)

Bin Laden has admitted responsibility for the attacks on a tape recovered in Afghanistan shortly thereafter, and has again reiterated a connection to the plan at the end of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in the US, stating that Moussaoui was not, in fact, part of the 9/11 plot. The 9/11 plot itself is a scaled down version of a previous al-Qaeda airliners-as-cruise-missiles plan discovered in the Phillipines called 'Oplan Bojinka.'

markfiend wrote: Probable. The US government could well have known that attacks were coming. It has certainly helped the "hawkish" cause in the US. A similar argument has been shown to be largely true about Pearl Harbor; the US knew it was coming, did nothing to prevent it as they knew it would be a pretext to join WWII, but when the attack came it was far bigger than they'd been expecting.

The CIA had recently determined that al-Qaeda was planning something big based on various sources. Unfortunately, those sources did not offer what could be called 'actionable intelligence,' beyond a vague warning, and the impression that the CIA had was that the target would be somewhere in Europe (American embassies or military bases) rather than in the United States itself

markfiend wrote: I don't know that it was ever "stepped up" -- see above

The whole thing happened so quickly that by the time military aircraft had been scrambled it was over. There have been suggestions that the quick grounding of all civilian traffic may have prevented other attacks from occuring, but I have yet to see this confirmed. The suggestion that United airlines flight 93 was shot down seems unlikely to be true given the circumstances.

markfiend wrote: Yeah, pretty bad isn't it?

This seems paranoid, honestly. Bin Laden made public his desire to wage war on the United States a number of times (see, for example, his delaration of the formation of the World Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders), going back to the mid 90's.

markfiend wrote: See (7)

I think this is dangerously reductionistic. While energy security (and thus economic security for the West as a whole) is part of what is at stake in the current conflict, there is a much deeper dimension. Remember, bin Laden isn't fighting just over things that have happened in the last hundred years--he's fighting over, among other things, the reconquista of Spain, as well as the creeping secularism or Westenization of the Islamic world (why do they call America the Great Satan? Because it does what Satan does--it tempts the believer toward secularism and liberalism). There's a very specific theological foundation to what he is doing that we ignore at our peril. One can debate whether or not his theology is orthodox Islam; what one can't debate is that his chief motivation is religious rather than political. As long as we project Western categories of thought onto militant Islam, we will not be capable of understanding the jihadist mindset.

If anybody wants, I can try and compile a brief bibliography of books on the subject, although it wouldnt' be available until sometimes next week (I'll be out of town until then).

Consider the fact that aircraft are majorly made of aluminium and magnesium, which burn well (See Falkland war, HMS Antilope) and the fact that all aicraft crashed short time after take off, so there has been much fuel in their tanks to torch fires big enough to leave nothing of the wrecks.
The Pentagon is a massive building, while aircraft are rather soft and lightweight design. No chance for them to make big holes. Bombs make big holes by penetrating the buildings with their extremely hard shell, then blowing the supporting structure with a shockwave of pressure and the splinters sieving the walls and everything. After all it was the fire the fuel started that brought down WTC, not the impacts as such.
The effects of the attacks are well understanable, and results of what was seen to happen.

Wow, some people did their homework !
Mark had quite a comprehensive post on this subject a while ago. The conspiracy theory doesn't stand a chance.
BTW, the airplane did make quite a big hole in the Pentagon, but as it's a huge building it just wasn't particularly impressive on TV.

sultan2075 wrote:I think this is dangerously reductionistic. While energy security (and thus economic security for the West as a whole) is part of what is at stake in the current conflict, there is a much deeper dimension. Remember, bin Laden isn't fighting just over things that have happened in the last hundred years--he's fighting over, among other things, the reconquista of Spain, as well as the creeping secularism or Westenization of the Islamic world (why do they call America the Great Satan? Because it does what Satan does--it tempts the believer toward secularism and liberalism). There's a very specific theological foundation to what he is doing that we ignore at our peril. One can debate whether or not his theology is orthodox Islam; what one can't debate is that his chief motivation is religious rather than political. As long as we project Western categories of thought onto militant Islam, we will not be capable of understanding the jihadist mindset.

If anybody wants, I can try and compile a brief bibliography of books on the subject, although it wouldnt' be available until sometimes next week (I'll be out of town until then).

Of course you're right. My flippancy doesn't come across very well some times.

The religious angle can't be underestimated. The Islamists have their equivalent in the West: the neo-cons are (IMO largely cynically and without actually believing it themselves for the most part) preying on the fears of the "Christian Right".

There's also the fear that the True Believers in the neo-con camp are actively trying to bring about what they believe to be the fulfillment of the prophecies in Revelation.

I'll keep me council but this is interesting.....
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Hom_Corleone wrote:I'll keep me council but this is interesting.....
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

How in the world can you believe someone who tells you not to believe anybody ?

whatever happened whoever did it, fzct is that nobody deserves to die in such a way. High time to get rid of the bushes and osames and all other extremists (right or left) on this world. Why is it so difficult to live together without anger or envy. I can only say : make music, not war. It's the only circumstance where all people seem to able to make 1 fist

but hey, I'm only a belgium guy

stefanmoermans wrote:High time to get rid of the bushes and osames and all other extremists (right or left) on this world.

The so-called "War on terror" is no longer a right/left issue, even though some Pentagon "specialists" still look at the world through the same old glasses. It gets you the impression that you're still able to make sense of international relations.
BTW don't forget Von's anarchist tendencies, which could very well be considered extremism by some wanabe well-doers, well-thinkers.