9/11 was NOT an inside job!

[cobbland]

You can condition people to believe anything.

[video=youtube;cpFz82lzcrg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpFz82lzcrg[/video]

[video=youtube;71s9uXw6DOY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71s9uXw6DOY&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;PnxQaxhfGe4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnxQaxhfGe4&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;yPywJmW9xnY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPywJmW9xnY&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;xIO7uqtDqaE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIO7uqtDqaE&feature=related[/video]

 

[VIBE]

what nationality is your father ?

Mexican...

 

[Idi Amin Dada]

I think there's a disconnect here. No one is saying it's beyond the government to TRY to pull off something like 9/11. We're not stupid. But a couple things.

1. You can't compare the 1950's and 60's CIA to today's CIA(and FBI too for both times) b/c back then there was absolutely ZERO oversight. Eisenhower, Truman, and Kennedy essentially wrote a blank check and told the various agencies to get the job done by any means necessary.

2. What exactly would they have to gain? The bigger the plot, the more people have to find out, and the greater chances for a leak. Why 4 planes and not just 1? The impact would have been the same. Shit, why not 2 planes and not just 1? And why the world trade center? I think the point would have been MUCH more clear had they flown planes into the white house. Or if they had to be in New York fly them into the Empire State Building. Much more iconic than the WTC towers.

3. And no one has managed to explain it to me. I honestly have to ask you. do you really think ANYONE is capable of pulling off something so big without ANYTHING leaking? Really? Nothing? Ten years later, no one has let anything slip? I find that VERY hard to believe. Cuz it wasn't one, or 10 people who orchestrated this.

I'm not saying it's beyond the mind of some of the people in power, I'm just saying that them having the motive isn't enough for me to convict.

 

[One Spliff]

Mexican...

how can u not consider urself mexican if ur father is mexican ?

maybe hes 1 of those european mexicans...what colour is he ?...was his father mexican.

maybe ur an edomite.

 

[EuropeanAndWhite]

GREAT DROP MAN!!!

if you watch this vid and dont have questions or want more research done.... i really dont know what to say to you.

http://edvan.fadeout.ch/v2/?customerId=30&channelId=189

you watched the whole thing?

 

[Jonas.dini]

but how compelling is the evidence provided by the government/the 9/11 commission?

and: who is serious and whos not? did you peep the video from daniele ganser @ university of basel? this was a lecture they had in cooperation with a US university. he's an expert on peace research, has his degree as a historican, wrote several books "for example about the secret armies the nato had during the cold war) etc... he's not serious?

http://www.danieleganser.ch/

Well, I already said I'm not going to go tit for tat on this since I and everyone else has already done that a billion times over the last ten years, but I will note (just to make the point that in fact the evidence does point decidedly toward al qaeda) that the US and other state intel agencies received and shared info in the months prior to 9/11 that al qaeda had plans to hijack passanger jets and fly them into buildings, that al qaeda had in the past had plans to conduct similar operations, that al qaeda and bin laden have claimed responsibility for the attacks, that mohammad atta received $100k in the days ahead of 9/11 from the qaeda linked ISI head... I could go on, but even if there was no evidence for the "official" 9/11 story, that lack of evidence would not constitute evidence for an alternative theory, so that whole line of reasoning is flawed to the point of worthlessness.

As for who is and isn't serious, a person who advocates a totally counterintuitive theory (like that the US gov destroyed its own financial and military headquarters to convince the moronic and disinterested American people to invade a country that even then clearly was not involved in 9/11) based on utterly worthless evidence is not serious in this regard. I can't watch the video you are talking about because at the moment I can only get online in public wifi spots, but I google searched this dude (including google scholar) and can't find any scholarly work he's done on 9/11, everything on this subject by this Ganser fellow is published on conspiracy websites.

In trying to asses whether he can be considered a serious scholar as pertains to this matter, I asked myself:
(1) what methodology did he use to come to the conclusion that the US false flagged 9/11?
(2) has he published his findings in peer reviewed academic journals?

The answer to these questions appears to be:
(1) none, except that nato lied in the past.
(2) no.

So once we move past the "he has a degree and wrote a book so must be credible" face value, I can certainly not conclude that he is a serious person as pertains to his assessment of this issue. Instead he can be added to the list of academics who have irreparably sullied their good names by advocating an utterly stupid conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence.

jonas are you a male or a female?

Male, nh

 

[Jonas.dini]

My biggest motivation for suspecting the Gov. for staging it... is 1984.

That book just foreshadowed the shit outta 9/11 and the events following

What happened to your newfound appreciation for logic?

 

[One Spliff]

the whiteman is the devil

what goes around comes around tho.

israel will rise.

 

[EuropeanAndWhite]

In trying to asses whether he can be considered a serious scholar as pertains to this matter, I asked myself:

(1) what methodology did he use to come to the conclusion that the US false flagged 9/11?

(2) has he published his findings in peer reviewed academic journals?

The answer to these questions appears to be:

(1) none, except that nato lied in the past.

(2) no.

So once we move past the "he has a degree and wrote a book so must be credible" face value, I can certainly not conclude that he is a serious person as pertains to his assessment of this issue. Instead he can be added to the list of academics who have irreparably sullied their good names by advocating an utterly stupid conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence.

Male, nh

hes not advocating any theory. watch the lecture, or not. either way.

 

[Idi Amin Dada]

If they'd kill their own president i'm pretty sure they'd attack their own buildings

kill their own president? What are you talking about?

 

[One Spliff]

kill their own president? What are you talking about?

jfk u dumb fuck

they murked him, because he was one of the few white leaders with a conscious

 

[Idi Amin Dada]

1984 was based on fact. It was about Russia.
Yet the similarities between that book and 21st century america are many.

America dedicated countless years to a smear campaign against the russians...
just to be depicted as exactly like them.

Of course the government is good and honest though.
They're killing our troops not out of self defense... its because they're part of Al Qaeda.

First, 1984 wasn't about Russia.

Second, the dysptopian society depicted in 1984 wasn't new. The Time Machine came out about 50 years before it.

Third, you seriously seriously SERIOUSLY need to broad your horizons man. Like not even on some condescending shit, but your critical thinking is very limited.

 

[Idi Amin Dada]

jfk u dumb fuck

they murked him, because he was one of the few white leaders with a conscious

YOu mean the same JFK that ordered MLK under surveillance by the FBI? That one?

Oh, you mean the JFK that supported the Civil Rights Act?

But Eisenhower supported civil rights publicly, why not kill him?

And of COURSE you know that had LBJ not been president the civil rights act probably wouldn't have passed for another decade. Surely you're aware of that.

JFK didn't have as much of a "conscious" as you give him credit for. Afterall, he did plan and failed to execute the Bay of Pigs.

but surely you knew that too.

 

[Idi Amin Dada]

Orwell modeled Oceania after Stalinist Russia.

I never claimed it was new. I just showed the patterns in that book , russia and Amerikkka. That's what a theory is.. it is not proof, just observations of patterns.

My critical thinking does need work. I admitted this already. You're Ad Homonem fallacy is a shameful low blow though.
Completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Don't be a pedant.

My 3rd point was completely separate of my argument. That was directed at you b/c it was advice.

 

[One Spliff]

YOu mean the same JFK that ordered MLK under surveillance by the FBI? That one?

Oh, you mean the JFK that supported the Civil Rights Act?

But Eisenhower supported civil rights publicly, why not kill him?

And of COURSE you know that had LBJ not been president the civil rights act probably wouldn't have passed for another decade. Surely you're aware of that.

JFK didn't have as much of a "conscious" as you give him credit for. Afterall, he did plan and failed to execute the Bay of Pigs.

but surely you knew that too.

lol, where did i say anything about the civil rights movement ?

i was talkin bout the federal reserve...n a whole lot of other shit he was'nt down with, faggotry probably being one of them.

we all know all american presidents are faggots.

 

[Jonas.dini]

hes not advocating any theory. watch the lecture, or not. either way.

Eh, its friday night b, I think I'd rather get drunk then try to solve the mysteries of 9/11, especially since I'm not particularly skeptical about it beyond my initial post like 15 pages ago noting that in recent central asian history there have been all kinds of intermingling state and nonstate actors and maybe somewhere along the line one or more of them provided al qaeda with financing and/or tactical support. But maybe in a few days when I get my internet connection up I'll give it a watch

 

[cobbland]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Hollywood films were NEVER used as propaganda. Right?

HOLLYWOOD PROPAGANDA AND WORLD WAR II

The use of motion pictures as propaganda tools during World War II presents a unique opportunity to study this powerful combination of propagandistic technique and the very powerful communications medium of the motion picture.[28] The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933.[29] According to Patricia Erens the " . . . first film to document the growing anti-Semitism in Germany was independently financed, and chronicled Cornelius Vanderbilt's visit to Germany and Austria in 1934." The film Hitler's Reign of Terror (1934--aka The Reign of Nazi Terror), used " . . . news clips and reconstructed dramatization to give a warning of what lay ahead."[30] Friedman calls the film an " . . . indictment of the Nazi's war on the Jews . . . " It depicts a " . . . bookburning ceremony in which Nazis destroy works by Jews and others considered enemies of the state." Other scenes show " . . . Nazi violence against Jews and of Jews suffering in concentration camps . . . " Again, Freidman states that " . . . these sequences represent just part of a whole panorama of negative images in . . . " what he terms an " . . . obviously propagandistic work . . . "[31] Michael Mindlin directed.

No one is suggesting here that such propagandistic films should not have been made. These examples of the particular World War II propaganda films are merely being used to illustrate that film can, and has been used for propaganda purposes.

That same year, according to Steven Scheuer, Little Man What Now? (1934) was

" . . . the earliest of all of Hollywood's anti-Nazi films . . . " Frank Borzage directed for Universal.[32] Keep in mind that this was 1934, some 7 years before the U.S. actively and openly entered World War II. It is also fair to conclude that any film that can be fairly labeled as "anti-Nazi" is also clearly propagandistic. Subsequently, Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, the satire on Hitler and Mussolini (with Paulette Goddard) was released in 1936 after

" . . . the Nazis became the second largest party in Germany, going from 12 to 107 seats in the Reichstag . . . " after the " . . . body of Charles Lindbergh's baby was found . . . " after

" . . . the first concentration camp opened in Germany . . . " after the Mussolini invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and after Franco started the civil war in Spain in 1936 (with Hitler's support).[33] Even if it is argued that Hollywood entered the fray late, there is probably no time in which the efforts of the Hollywood community to influence world and U.S. opinion and policy through movie propaganda are more clear than the late thirties.

In March 1936, " . . . German troops had entered the Rhineland after Hitler had denounced the Locarno Treaty demilitarizing the region. Four months later a rebellion of right-wing officers, led by General Francisco Franco, launched a civil war in Spain. Germany threw its support to the rebel side, supplying tanks and air power. Italy joined the fray . . . " forming the so-called "Rome-Berlin Axis".[34] That same year, (1936) I Was a Captive of Nazi Germany was released. As Patricia Erens reports, it also " . . . recounts the experiences of an American in Hitler's Germany: Isobel Lillian Steele, a young woman who had spent four months in a German prison on charges of espionage."[35]

In 1937, " . . . the war in Spain shrieked from the front pages of newspapers . . . and thousands of American progressives joined the Lincoln Brigade to fight fascism in Spain. Half never returned." While Hitler's " . . . troops and planes fought with Franco against the Loyalists aided by Stalin's troops and planes . . . solationists and pacifists campaigned against war . . . " however, according to Rosenberg " . . . everyone knew that war was inevitable . . . " That was the same year that Paramount released The Last Train from Madrid, a film that " . . . turns on separate and intermingled stories of people seeking passage on the train . . . " As Rosenberg points out, these were people who " . . . are surrounded by fear of imminent death . . . "[36] In light of the world circumstances during which The Last Train from Madrid was released, it too must be considered a propaganda piece.

Also, in 1937, 20th Century-Fox's Love Under Fire, starred Loretta Young and Don Ameche. George Marshall directed. According to Steven Scheuer, the film was about " . . . spies . . . (and) set against the Spanish Civil War . . . "[37] The Halliwell's Film Guide description differs somewhat, however, saying the film was about a " . . . detective (who) catches up with a lady jewel thief in Madrid during the Spanish Civil War."[38] It strains credibility for anyone to assert that a Hollywood film community that strongly supported the Spanish Republican government in its struggle against the fascists could turn out a film about and during the Spanish Civil War that did not contain some propagandistic elements favoring the Loyalists in Spain or opposing Franco's takeover.

According to Koppes and Black, the first Hollywood film producer to attempt a serious film on events in Europe was an independent, Walter Wanger (born Walter Feuchtwanger). He released Blockade through United Artists in 1938. Koppes and Black report:

"UA had already closed its Spanish office and its European revenues had declined drastically since 1935. Neither Wanger nor UA had much to lose by making a film set in contemporary Spain. However, the national uproar that ensued over the film heightened the apprehension about political films in some major studios. The Spanish Civil War was one of the great divisive international issues of the 1930's. American liberals and the left generally supported the Loyalist government, three thousand of them joining the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight for Republican Spain. The right, including elements of the Catholic Church, generally supported Franco and the fascists. Germany and Italy poured huge amounts of arms and men into Franco's cause and were instrumental in his victory. The Soviet Union supported the Loyalists, but its aid could not match that from Berlin and Rome. Like Great Britain and France, the United States, bound by the Neutrality Acts, stood by. To some, the Spanish Civil War seemed a prelude to World War II."[39]

http://www.filmreform.org/study.htm#7

In addition to the above cited feature films, as the Katz Film Encyclopedia admits,

that " . . . anti-Nazi propaganda documentaries were being made . . . " in the U.S. even before America's entry into the war. "The March of Time led the way with such conscience-raising editions as Inside Nazi Germany (1938), Canada at War (1939), The Ramparts We Watch (1940), and America Speaks Her Mind (1941)."[48] In addition, Koppes and Black report that

" . . . most news coverage in 1940-41 . . . " was pro-interventionist. "Hollywood movies and newsreels that dealt with international subjects were almost wholly interventionist."[49] "Interventionist domination of the news media, attributable in part to the informational propaganda strategy (of the Roosevelt administration), undercut the presumed need for more forceful propaganda--and indeed raised questions about the even handedness of the media."[50]

Thus, when the analysis of propaganda films just prior to World War II is expanded to include documentaries, film shorts and newsreels, as well as features, it becomes quite clear that films were being used as propaganda prior to the U.S. entry into the war.

http://www.filmreform.org/study.htm#7

 

[cobbland]

But wait, there's more:

The sudden collapse of France in the spring of 1940, " . . . lent credence to hopes and fears about the possibilities of propaganda, for many observers attributed the republic's fall to a loss of will, induced in part by Nazi propaganda."[83] Also, during this period, "President Roosevelt, the consummate media politician of his day, tried to influence public opinion through his speeches and his manipulation of the news media. In part because of his efforts, the non-interventionist position never received equal time or space."[84] Roosevelt, however,

" . . . wanted to avoid anything that looked like preparation for American intervention in the war before he was re-elected in 1940."[85] Thus, it appears that Roosevelt used propaganda to mislead the American people.

In the summer of 1940 several factors contributed to the development of a cooperative spirit " . . . between the (film) industry and the Roosevelt administration. The outcome was an increasing number of rearmament shorts and sharper portrayals of Nazis in feature films

. . . The brothers Warner, avid Roosevelt backers, offered to make any short on preparedness without cost . . . In 1938 Thuman Arnold, the trust-busting assistant attorney general, had filed an antitrust suit against the five major production and distribution companies . . . In August 1940 the White House told the Justice Department to settle with a consent decree; signed in November, it allowed the companies to continue operations pretty much as they had before." Koppe suggests that " . . . the wily politicians around the Oval Office were already counting on the boost that favorable movie publicity would give the president's unprecedented bid for a third term."[86]

On August 17, 1940, " . . . Germany banned American films from areas under its control . . . An emboldened Metro (MGM) released the industry's first (film) essay on the Jewish question in Germany, The Mortal Storm, in 1940. Directed by Frank Borzage, the picture starred James Stewart, Margaret Sullivan, and Robert Young. The film depicts a prosperous university biology professor and his family who are persecuted because he refuses to teach that Aryan blood is superior to all other blood types . . . the conflict is set between good Germans and evil Nazis . . . the film . . . establishes that not all Germans support Nazi racism."[87] "After their families are split between Nazis and anti-Nazis after Hitler's takeover in '33, Stewart and Sullivan try to escape from Germany."[88]

Also, in August of 1940, " . . . FDR asked Nicholas Schenck, president of Loew's (parent of MGM), to make a film on defense and foreign policy. By mid-October Eyes of the Navy . . . " was released accompanied by the promise of " . . . a studio executive . . . " that it " . . . would win the president thousands of votes . . . Schenck's interest may have been personal as well as patriotic." As noted earlier, "[h]is brother Joseph, head of Twentieth Century-Fox, was convicted of income tax evasion. President Roosevelt asked Attorney General Robert Jackson to let the Studio chief off with a fine, and so did Roosevelt's son James, to whom Joseph Schenck had lent $50,000 . . . Jackson insisted on a jail sentence. Schenck served four months before being paroled to the studio lot."[90] Should such a chain of events occur today, a huge scandal would likely develop.

As the American defense buildup gathered steam in 1940 and 1941, " . . . Hollywood increasingly found subjects at home. Each arm of the military enjoyed its moment of silvered glory in such productions as I Wanted Wings (1941), Dive Bomber (1941), Flight Command (1940), Navy Blues (1941), Buck Privates (1941), and Tanks a Million (1941) . . . the application of movie glamour and its repetition probably helped create a favorable impression of the armed forces . . . The White House was pleased. In a message to the annual Academy Awards banquet in February 1941, Roosevelt thanked the industry for its 'splendid cooperation with all who are directing the expansion of our defense forces,' and appealed for continued support. The administration found Hollywood more cooperative than radio, or particularly, the press."[91] It is quite fair, however, to question whether the movie colony was motivated by patriotism or by its own self-interests which could be aided significantly by the power of the White House.

http://www.filmreform.org/study.htm#7

In 1974, Vienna-born Otto Preminger produced and directed UA's Rosebud, starring Peter O'Toole, Richard Attenborough, Cliff Gorman and John V. Lindsay. Scheuer says the film was " . . . about politics, espionage, the C.I.A., the Israel-Arab war and dozens of other subjects." In the film "[f]ive girls of wealthy families are kidnapped by the Palestine Liberation Army." Producer/director Preminger is identified by the Katz Film Encyclopedia as being "Jewish".

Twenty-One Hours at Munich (1976) starred William Holden, Shirley Knight and Franco Nero in a so-called made for TV movie about the " . . . slaughter of the Israeli athletes by Arab terrorists during the 1972 Olympics." William A. Graham directed. That same year, Marvin Chomsky directed Victory at Entebbe (1976), a made for TV movie starring Elizabeth Taylor, Kirk Douglas, Linda Blair, Burt Lancaster and Helen Hayes. The film was a " . . . re-creation of the dramatic Israeli rescue of the hostages at Uganda's Entebbe Airport . . . "

Again, the point here does not relate to whether such movies should or should not have been made, but whether in the long run they are balanced with movies portraying the Arab point of view. For example, from the Arab perspective, some would say that the only difference between Arab terrorism and Israeli terrorism is that the latter is state sponsored, which presumably provides more legitimacy in the eyes of many. On the other hand, if Israel and its powerful friends would allow the Palestinians to have a state, maybe their terrorism could also be more legitimate, at least in that same sense. Surely, the Arabs would love to have some of the deadly Israeli attacks on Arabs dramatized in a glossy American-made film with well-known American stars, but they simply do not have the opportunity, because the production and distribution apparatus in America is controlled by a small group of Jewish males of European heritage, who are politically liberal and not very religious, with loyalties quite naturally more aligned with Israel (see analysis in Who Really Controls Hollywood).

http://www.filmreform.org/race.htm

That same year, Israeli Menahem Golan produced and directed (for Cannon) The Delta Force (1985) The " . . . chief terrorist . . . " in the film is named Abdul. Ebert calls the film a thinly disguised dramatization of " . . . the June 1985 hijacking of the TWA airplane and the hostage crisis after the passengers were held captive in Beirut."

In the meantime, Hollywood historian George MacDonald Frazer reported in 1989 that based on his studies, Hollywood movies about ancient Egypt " . . . have helped to fix in the public mind the idea of old Egypt as a cult-ridden, curse-stricken land of mystery given over to embalming, necrolatry, interbreeding, and the worship of gods with animal heads." Based on the above study, it would appear that Arabs in general are, in more modern times, most commonly portrayed in Hollywood films as terrorists.

Finally, as the '90s decade opened, and Not Without My Daughter hit the screens, film critic Roger Ebert, noted what he referred to as ". . . moral and racial assertions (in the film) that are deeply troubling." The movie is about " . . . a mother deprived of her child and her freedom by the rigid rules of an unbending religion (Islamic fundamentalism) . . . " As Ebert reports, "[n]o Muslim character is painted in a favorable light . . . " Instead they are portrayed as " . . . harsh, cruel religious fanatics." Ebert states that the film " . . . does not play fair with its Muslim characters." He says that if " . . . a movie of such a vitriolic and spiteful nature were to be made in America about any other ethnic group, it would be denounced as racist and prejudiced." Ebert then suggests that " . . . movies fueled by hate are not part of the solution." Finally, after all the other anti-Arab movies included above, it took an extreme example of prejudice expressed through a movie released in 1990 for critic Roger Ebert to recognize how vicious Hollywood's prejudice and propaganda can be and has been (as directed toward the Arabs) throughout the history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry.

As 1995 got underway, and the tragic Oklahoma City bomb blast occurred, many news commentators and others were quick to point an accusatory finger at Middle East terrorists and Muslim Fundamentalists. One Arab-American spokesman, when asked why people in the U.S. were so quick to lay blame on Arabs, included in his response a short list of recent Hollywood movies that included negative portrayals of such persons. Much of our nation's population, including political leaders and the press, had been seduced by Hollywood propaganda.

In summary, Hollywood, throughout its history, has portrayed Arabs as evil, barbaric, oversexed, depraved, villainous, shifty, possessed, hostile, fanatical, criminal, mystical, wicked and crazed. Arabs have also been portrayed as thieves, shady, kidnappers, enemies, mysterious, murderers, assassins, terrorists, blood-thirsty, saboteurs, extremists, cult-ridden, curse-stricken, oily, shifty-eyed, violent and as idiots.

http://www.filmreform.org/race.htm

 

[VIBE]

Aladdin wasn't that bad, they never portrayed him as bad.

Stop with the "movie propaganda", proves nothing lol do you know how much shit can reflect movies to our daily lives? Almost to a T as well.

You guys act like coincidences can't happen, like they're some special rare gem that comes along every now and then. Wake the fuck up, it happens everyday, coincidence after coincidence. Coincidence? I think so.

 

[KLICHE]

Aladdin wasn't that bad, they never portrayed him as bad.

Stop with the "movie propaganda", proves nothing lol do you know how much shit can reflect movies to our daily lives? Almost to a T as well.

You guys act like coincidences can't happen, like they're some special rare gem that comes along every now and then. Wake the fuck up, it happens everyday, coincidence after coincidence. Coincidence? I think so.

I think it comes down to you being pretty set in your opinion/views on it all and whatever else comes along.. I really doubt you were looking for any one elses opinion, as I get the vibe that no matter what anyone brings forth you'll disagree with and support your own view. That is totally fine, but seems to be the ongoing thing throughout the thread. everything will probably be coincidental to you and of no real reason question and that the government is out to tell citizens the truth and life goes on.

Personally I remain unsure about it all.. some things seem shady, others right. I don't I'll ever lean one way or the other on it.