Hillary Clinton's CRF farewell address - Remarks on American Leadership

[SR1419]

^ Probably not considering the ship in question sailed before he even arrived.

 

[Grieves]

How could the media have done a better job investigating? As far as I know the only ones qualified to do such an investigation were UN weapons inspectors. IIRC they were the ones saying no serious weapon caches had been found, during the run up to the invasion and afterwards...

Perhaps the media could have ran with/given more voice to the opinions of the only ones qualified to have one, rather than treating it like a months-long scavenger hunt with the mantra of 'we'll find them tomorrow, for-definite..!'?

 

[jvnk08]

Perhaps the media could have ran with/given more voice to the opinions of the only ones qualified to have one, rather than treating it like a months-long scavenger hunt with the mantra of 'we'll find them tomorrow, for-definite..!'?

It could have gone both ways though. At the time the popular belief was that we were likely to find WMD, was it not? The question then becomes, if the media had given more attention to the fact that the UN inspectors weren't finding anything substantial, would that have widely changed public sentiment enough to divert from the path of invasion...? I'm not sure myself.

 

[Joe]

​

^ Probably not considering the ship in question sailed before he even arrived.

 

[SR1419]

^ but what does that ship have to do with the attack? Why did running guns to Syria via Turkey result in the attack on the consulate? Neither you nor Rand Paul addressed that.


TC- sure would be nice if you could step up and use your own words to participate rather than just spamming videos with no comment from you.

 

[Joe]

^ but what does that ship have to do with the attack? Why did running guns to Syria via Turkey result in the attack on the consulate? Neither you nor Rand Paul addressed that.


TC- sure would be nice if you could step up and use your own words to participate rather than just spamming videos with no comment from you.

thats not spamming videos . its Hillary who has to answer the questions yet its Feb almost 6 months after the fact . They lied and people died . Obama and hillary wrere no where to found during the night of the attack . Just like fast And Furiuos we have no answers because like all lawyers they lie and stall . Or use a Video as a diversion . Dont knbow if you watch the cspan Videos on the benghazi but it looks like our Comander and cheif and hillary didnt give a rats &^% about anyone . I guess the Las Vegas trip was too important for the fraud and Cheif ? Why a hour after meeting with the Turkish Ambassodor in Benghazi did the atttack happen . Why else would he have been there ? He was trying to recover weapons used in the overthrow of Kaddafi . Was there a large cache of weapons being stored there and that was the reason for the attack ? or was the Turkish ambassoador trying to get Stevens to turn over the weapons to him and when he refused they attacked ? Hillary knows . http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

 

[Cairenn]

Oh my, lots of IFS and MAYBES and NO PROOF.

You will believe what YOU want to believe and you will continue to ignore the FACTS.

 

[Joe]

Oh my, lots of IFS and MAYBES and NO PROOF.

You will believe what YOU want to believe and you will continue to ignore the FACTS.

Where are the facts ???? Just lies and diversions . ​ Do you have any facts ? Can you Debunk My Opinion ? A lot of what I see here is not all facts a lot is opinion backed with data . How can you say I ignore facts when there are NONE ? are you just here to argue or debunk ? or prove me wrong ? or Insult ? Telling me I want to believe Our President and our Secretary of State not only lied and stalled till after the election. That they were absent the night of sept 11th while people were being attacked . I dont want to belive they are that incompetent, but they are !

 

[Cairenn]

First, I can't watch the You Tube, the sound on my computer is not working at this time.

The President was in the situation room. It took about 25 min for the word of the attack to get to the White house. The attack then stopped. I started again in about an hour or an hour and a half. He was NOT ABSENT. There just wasn't the TIME to do things.

 

[Joe]

First, I can't watch the You Tube, the sound on my computer is not working at this time.

The President was in the situation room. It took about 25 min for the word of the attack to get to the White house. The attack then stopped. I started again in about an hour or an hour and a half. He was NOT ABSENT. There just wasn't the TIME to do things.

No he was not in the situation room , He spoke on the PHONE with Panneta at 5pm and spoke with Panetta . after that there was NO communication with Obama at all . Guess he figured they could handle it on their own and Hillary according to satatements was AWOL . During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said they spoke with Obama at 5 p.m. ET on Sept. 11 last year. They were both on the same call, and said it lasted about 30 minutes.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...h-obama-during-benghazi-strike/#ixzz2KVo9P4PF

 

[Oxymoron]

The web IS an unstoppable force of disclosure until someone actually tries to stop it. And when they do try to stop it, people will notice.

Look at Wikileaks. The US tried incredibly hard to put that Genie back in the bottle, but once it's out, it's out.

All these conspiracy theorists who go on about how everything is censored, they never seem to notice that THEY are not censored.

I have to disagree with that Mick. They cannot undo what has been done, i.e. Wikileaks, Bradley Manning etc but they can certainly 'take these whistle blowers out' and they have to a large extent. This serves two functions, cutting off further chances of whistle blowing by those concerned and sending a clear message to others who may be thinking about it.

Make no mistake... the NET is under attack.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/30/ex_cia_agent_whistleblower_john_kiriakou

John Kiriakou is a good example, he goes to prison whilst the torturers he exposed go scot free.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...z-washington-memorial-20130205,0,483788.story

Aaron Swartz may change the Internet yet again, even in death, with the help of lawmakers who have expressed a fondness for breaking the law.

At a Washington, D.C., memorial Monday night, members of Congress and loved ones gathered to remember Swartz, who committed suicide on Jan. 11 while facing years in prison for mass-downloading scholarly articles.
Swartz had already reshaped the Web experiences of millions by co-creating Reddit and the information-distribution service RSS. By turns, speakers at the Cannon House Office Building compared Swartz to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Apple founder Steve Jobs, and 20th century British programmer Alan Turing -- with Swartz as yet another cybergenius whose ambitions carried him to the law's edge.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

I have to disagree with that Mick. They cannot undo what has been done, i.e. Wikileaks, Bradley Manning etc but they can certainly 'take these whistle blowers out' and they have to a large extent. This serves two functions, cutting off further chances of whistle blowing by those concerned and sending a clear message to others who may be thinking about it.

Make no mistake... the NET is under attack.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/30/ex_cia_agent_whistleblower_john_kiriakou

John Kiriakou is a good example, he goes to prison whilst the torturers he exposed go scot free.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...z-washington-memorial-20130205,0,483788.story

Aaron Swartz may change the Internet yet again, even in death, with the help of lawmakers who have expressed a fondness for breaking the law.

At a Washington, D.C., memorial Monday night, members of Congress and loved ones gathered to remember Swartz, who committed suicide on Jan. 11 while facing years in prison for mass-downloading scholarly articles.
Swartz had already reshaped the Web experiences of millions by co-creating Reddit and the information-distribution service RSS. By turns, speakers at the Cannon House Office Building compared Swartz to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Apple founder Steve Jobs, and 20th century British programmer Alan Turing -- with Swartz as yet another cybergenius whose ambitions carried him to the law's edge.

Content from External Source

But that's nothing to do with the net. If someone has to expose themselves in whistle blowing, then there's always going to be a the risk of retribution (usually legal) regardless of the medium.

My point is that if something can be released anonymously - i.e. leaked, then the net is an ideal way of doing it. It's easy to release documents or photos in such a way that they cannot be censored.

So the question with many conspiracies is: why have there basically be zero documents, photo, or videos leaked from within the operation of the conspiracy? Sure you can say people are intimidated, or their families threatened. But that does not explain a 100% perfect record in conspiracies that must have involved thousands of people. What about deathbed confessions? What about simply anonymous (matching) descriptions of what actually happened?

This silence, I think, is actually evidence of absence for the larger scale conspiracies.

 

[SR1419]

Why a hour after meeting with the Turkish Ambassodor in Benghazi did the atttack happen . Why else would he have been there ? He was trying to recover weapons used in the overthrow of Kaddafi . Was there a large cache of weapons being stored there and that was the reason for the attack ? or was the Turkish ambassoador trying to get Stevens to turn over the weapons to him and when he refused they attacked ? Hillary knows . http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

Why would the a Turkish diplomat meet with the US ambassador?? really? The only possible reason is arms shipments? He is a diplomat. It is his job to meet with other diplomats.

...and then this Turkish diplomat had Libyans attack? that makes sense.

I highly doubt they store weapons at the US consulate.

 

[Oxymoron]

But that's nothing to do with the net. If someone has to expose themselves in whistle blowing, then there's always going to be a the risk of retribution (usually legal) regardless of the medium.

Agreed.

My point is that if something can be released anonymously - i.e. leaked, then the net is an ideal way of doing it. It's easy to release documents or photos in such a way that they cannot be censored.

You are likely to know much better than I, but I am not so sure about that. I thought it is quite complex to actually release something anonymously as it can be easily tracked back to source. Also, if it is anonymous then credibility goes out the window.thus defeating the object.

So the question with many conspiracies is: why have there basically be zero documents, photo, or videos leaked from within the operation of the conspiracy?

Content from External Source

Taking the case of Dr Kelly as an e.g, I think when you consider the effects that an 'unattributable' discussion invokes, it is not nearly as surprising as you suggest.

Be honest, as a self styled debunker, would you consider whistle blowing if you found out 9/11 was an inside job??????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

Gilligan broadcast his report on 29 May 2003 on the Today programme, in which he said that the 45-minute claim had been placed in the dossier by the government, even though it knew the claim was dubious. In a subsequent article in The Mail on Sunday newspaper, Gilligan directly identified Alastair Campbell as the person responsible. The story caused a political storm, with the government denying any involvement in the intelligence content of the dossier. The government pressed the BBC to reveal the name of the source because it knew that any source who was not a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee would not have known who had a role in the preparation of the dossier.

As the political fight ensued, Kelly knew he had talked to the journalist involved but felt that he had not said exactly what was reported. He also told his friend and work colleague Olivia Bosch that his meeting with Andrew Gilligan had been "unauthorised" and therefore outside his terms of employment. On 30 June 2003, he wrote to his line manager at the Ministry of Defence to report his contact with Gilligan, though he added "I am convinced that I am not his primary source of information."
Kelly was interviewed twice by his employers, who concluded that they could not be sure he was Gilligan's only source. Eventually they took the decision to publicly acknowledge the fact that an employee had come forward who might be the source. The announcement contained sufficient clues for alert journalists to guess Kelly's identity and the Ministry of Defence confirmed the name when it was put to them. This was not an everyday procedure (it usually refuses to comment on such matters), and it was alleged by some critics of the government that the Ministry of Defence was implementing a government decision to reveal Kelly's name as part of a strategy to discredit Gilligan. Andrew Rawnsley has claimed that Blair on 8 July sanctioned a strategy designed to reveal Kelly's identity;[12]​ Lord Hutton found that the decision was only to confirm that a civil servant had come forward, without giving a name, because there was uncertainty that Kelly was in fact Gilligan's source.[13]​
Kelly was extremely disturbed that the media had identified his role in the matter and arranged with a family friend to leave his home and visit Cornwall with his wife. He was asked to appear as a witness before two committees of the House of Commons that were investigating the situation in Iraq, and was further upset by the news that one of the appearances would be in public. He had been given a formal warning by the Ministry of Defence for an unauthorised meeting with a journalist, and had been made to understand that they might take more action if it turned out he had been lying to them.

Content from External Source

Sure you can say people are intimidated, or their families threatened. But that does not explain a 100% perfect record in conspiracies that must have involved thousands of people. What about deathbed confessions? What about simply anonymous (matching) descriptions of what actually happened?

This silence, I think, is actually evidence of absence for the larger scale conspiracies.

What about the Manhattan Project... Thousands knew but there were no leaks.

Lets be honest here... there are thousands of successful cover ups that no one knew about for decades... then some come out when it is deemed ok... so long as they reflect well? Look at some of the WW2 operations that were carefully guarded secrets.

 

[Cairenn]

No leaks from the Manhatten project? That is not true, there were leaks in spite of everything that was done.

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch1_f.htm

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Spies-Who-Spilled-Atomic-Bomb-Secrets.html

Maybe you have heard of the Rosenburgs? Or do you feel that they were framed?.

It was a LOT easier then to control information, than it is now. No computers, no cell phones, no cameras on cell phones, no flash drives, emails, and such.

One thing that was used a lot during WW II was the segregation of the folks 'in the know' away from others, Los Alamos and Benchly Park are good examples of that. Benchly Park did seem to be free of leaks, but it didn't require 1000s of folks either.

 

[lee h oswald]

Hillary Clinton's farewell address was given at the Council of Foreign Relations - an organization that features prominently in the "New World Order" conspiracy theory mythos. So it seems very likely that parts of her speech will end up as out-of-context excerpts used to support this theory. This is especially likely as her speech essentially IS about a new world order, one she describes as "a just, rules-based international order" and how we "need a new architecture for this new world".

It's an interesting, comprehensive, and intelligent speech, and worth reading or listening to in full, regardless of your opinion of Clinton's motives.

Words cannot do justice to describe the venal nature of this politician. All politicians are liars, it's their job. But this one appears to take great delight in threatening to obliterate whole countries from the map. Which is what she said about Iran. That alone should be sufficient to arrest and charge Clinton for making threats with menaces.
The sooner the foul Clinton shuffles off this mortal coil, the sooner the world will be a brighter place.




Next up:

Content from external source:

You can't be a 21st-century leader without 21st-century tools, not when people organize pro-democracy protests with Twitter and while terrorists spread their hateful ideology online. That's why I have championed what we call 21st-century statecraft. We've launched an interagency Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications at State. Expert, tech-savvy specialists from across our government fluent in Urdu, Arabic, Punjabi, Somali use social media to expose al- Qaida's contradictions and abuses, including its continuing brutal attacks on Muslim civilians. We're leading the effort also to defend Internet freedom so it remains a free, open and reliable platform for everyone. We're helping human rights activists in oppressive Internet environments get online and communicate more safely, because the country that built the Internet ought to be leading the fight to protect it from those who would censor it or use it as a tool of control.

Content from External Source

while terrorists spread their hateful ideology

On the lips of Clinton, it's like a turd falling out of someone's mouth

Basically that's what the theorists would call "government shills". I myself have been accused of being a government shill many times. Pretty much every debunker will at one time or another get that accusation. Conspiracy theorists use the open discussion of this type of (arguably) wartime propoganda as evidence that a broader network of "shills" must exist.

They often point to Cass Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theories" paper (well worth reading), which suggests the government should take action to counter conspiracy theories.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-c.../Susstein1.pdf

Content from external source:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).




Content from external source:

An obvious answer is to maintain an open society, in which those who aretempted to subscribe to conspiracy theories do not distrust all knowledge-creating
institutions, and are exposed to corrections. But we have seen that even in open societies,
conspiracy theories have some traction; and open societies have a strong interest in
debunking such theories when they arise, and threaten to cause harm, in closed societies.
Here we suggest two concrete ideas for government officials attempting to fashion a
response to such theories. First, responding to more rather than fewer conspiracy theories
has a kind of synergy benefit: it reduces the legitimating effect of responding to any one
of them, because it dilutes the contrast with unrebutted theories. Second, we suggest a
distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy
theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their
allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will
undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so
by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups,
thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.




As with the Clinton speech though, this is part of a much larger discussion. Key to that discussion is that in both cases the focus is upon genuine debunking - upon exposing falsehoods (the "crippled epistemology"). It's very unfortunate though that this type of thing, which is almost entirely directed towards foreign potential terrorists, has become an excuse for domestic conspiracy theorists to ignore any debunker.

I debunk because I find it interesting and I think it will do some good. Nobody pays me. I don't work for anyone. I am not affiliated with any government or government agency, or any other entity.

Just a load more excuses for 'government' to harass people trying to get on with their lives the way they see fit. Like Clinton, the best thing any government can do is wither and die, and the sooner the better. We might actually make some progress as a species when that happens, who knows?

I debunk because I find it interesting and I think it will do some good. Nobody pays me. I don't work for anyone. I am not affiliated with any government or government agency, or any other entity

That you Ophelia? Methinks thou dost protest too much - Get thee to a nunnery!

All these conspiracy theorists who go on about how everything is censored, they never seem to notice that THEY are not censored.

Eh? How many times have you censored me in one form or another? Fifty? More probably. Ofcourse, the trusty old 'conspiracy theorists' as perjorative gets wheeled out for an airing - yet again. Still, won't be long before they've all committed suicide - seeing as 'that describes a lot of them' (suicidal tendencies), according to you.

What would you do with yourself then?

 

[lee h oswald]

I am not so sure about that. I thought it is quite complex to actually release something anonymously as it can be easily tracked back to source. Also, if it is anonymous then credibility goes out the window.thus defeating the object.

So the question with many conspiracies is: why have there basically be zero documents, photo, or videos leaked from within the operation of the conspiracy?

Content from External Source

Taking the case of Dr Kelly as an e.g, I think when you consider the effects that an 'unattributable' discussion invokes, it is not nearly as surprising as you suggest.

Be honest, as a self styled debunker, would you consider whistle blowing if you found out 9/11 was an inside job??????


What about the Manhattan Project... Thousands knew but there were no leaks.

Lets be honest here... there are thousands of successful cover ups that no one knew about for decades... then some come out when it is deemed ok... so long as they reflect well? Look at some of the WW2 operations that were carefully guarded secrets.

Be honest, as a self styled debunker, would you consider whistle blowing if you found out 9/11 was an inside job??????

Have a nervous breakdown, more like.

It's an oft repeated falsehood - so many people, someone's gonna talk. Kelly's a good example - with another 'suicide' to follow it up. Don't forget former foreign secretary Robin Cook's 'heart attack', rather inconveniently while he was out hill walking, and one month after revealing in The Guardian that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda.

A good example of a cover-up is the Hillsborough football stadium disaster in 89 (I think). 96 Liverpool supporters, most of them young people, were crushed to death due to the mismanagement of the south Yorkshire police. The cover-up went into motion - even though the event was live on TV and people could see clearly what was happening - the police altered times, statements of witnesses en masse, spread false stories to lay the blame on the behaviour of Liverpool supporters and to smear them - the media chipped in with The Sun newspaper printing a headline - The Truth. And the 'truth' was the lies that had been spread by the police that supporters had stolen money and valuables from the bodies of the victims - even that some had urinated on victim's bodies. All lies. The Sun newspaper doesn't sell in Liverpool to this day. The 'Inquiry' was a whitewash and a cover up.
After 23 years of tenacious campaigning by families of the victims (sound familiar?), it was finally 'officially' announced last year, what everyone already knew. That there was a cover-up, that the police orchestrated it to cover their arses and lay the blame elsewhere. Not one police officer 'blew the whistle' - not one with a bad conscience spoke up. They kept silent because it was in their interest to do just that. That's how it works.
By the time the processes are gone through again, with all the time already passed, what are the chances of seeing some prosecutions? And when?
If, in that case, what was essentially an accident (just bad management, nothing intentional done by the police to delibrately kill 96) can be covered up and re-written by the authorities to hide evidence of negligence, then it shows just how easily it can be done. I expect that the more there is at stake to those involved, the easier it gets to keep quiet.

 

[Mick West]

That you Ophelia? Methinks thou dost protest too much - Get thee to a nunnery!

You think I'm lying? I'm perfectly open about my attempt to cognitively infiltrate YOU. It's not working very well though

Eh? How many times have you censored me in one form or another? Fifty? More probably.

I censor your rudeness, your snarkiness, and your mockery. It's a policy I have to improve overall communication. I also "censor" other people, all all sides of the arguments. It's like beeping out swear words. It's not censoring facts or allegations. You have plenty of opportunity to make your case.

 

[Mick West]

Have a nervous breakdown, more like.

It's an oft repeated falsehood - so many people, someone's gonna talk. Kelly's a good example - with another 'suicide' to follow it up. Don't forget former foreign secretary Robin Cook's 'heart attack', rather inconveniently while he was out hill walking, and one month after revealing in The Guardian that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda.

A good example of a cover-up is the Hillsborough football stadium disaster in 89 (I think). 96 Liverpool supporters, most of them young people, were crushed to death due to the mismanagement of the south Yorkshire police. The cover-up went into motion - even though the event was live on TV and people could see clearly what was happening - the police altered times, statements of witnesses en masse, spread false stories to lay the blame on the behaviour of Liverpool supporters and to smear them - the media chipped in with The Sun newspaper printing a headline - The Truth. And the 'truth' was the lies that had been spread by the police that supporters had stolen money and valuables from the bodies of the victims - even that some had urinated on victim's bodies. All lies. The Sun newspaper doesn't sell in Liverpool to this day. The 'Inquiry' was a whitewash and a cover up.
After 23 years of tenacious campaigning by families of the victims (sound familiar?), it was finally 'officially' announced last year, what everyone already knew. That there was a cover-up, that the police orchestrated it to cover their arses and lay the blame elsewhere. Not one police officer 'blew the whistle' - not one with a bad conscience spoke up. They kept silent because it was in their interest to do just that. That's how it works.
By the time the processes are gone through again, with all the time already passed, what are the chances of seeing some prosecutions? And when?
If, in that case, what was essentially an accident (just bad management, nothing intentional done by the police to delibrately kill 96) can be covered up and re-written by the authorities to hide evidence of negligence, then it shows just how easily it can be done. I expect that the more there is at stake to those involved, the easier it gets to keep quiet.

A cover-up of a few colluding policemen getting their story straight after the events is vastly different from a plan to plant explosives in three buildings and then hijack and fly planes into them with pin point precision, wait an hour, then blow up the buildings, not to mention the Pentagon, and flight 93.

What's your bess guess as to what actually happened lee? We know you believe there were explosives involved, what explosives do you think they were, and how did they get there, and how did that work with the planes and all?

 

[Mick West]

Be honest, as a self styled debunker, would you consider whistle blowing if you found out 9/11 was an inside job??????

I would. I'd do everything in my power to do so.

Now if I knew that I, and my family, would be tortured and killed if I did so, then I would certainly reconsider. However that presumes that there is nothing that can be done without it immediately identifying who did it. There are plenty of ways in which you can give an account of what happened without revealing who you are.

I don't think this is a very productive avenue for debunking unless we can agree on the scale of things though. If "inside job" simply refers to about ten people encouraging the Hijackers, then sure, it's plausible nobody would leak. But if it involves coordinating planes crashes with explosions, then that's another matter entirely.

 

[jvnk08]

Just a load more excuses for 'government' to harass people trying to get on with their lives the way they see fit. Like Clinton, the best thing any government can do is wither and die, and the sooner the better. We might actually make some progress as a species when that happens, who knows?

Not really. The vast, vast majority of people are not going to be "cognitively infiltrated", because they are not promoting rhetoric that calls for violence. If your way of "living your life as you see fit" involves calling for the harm of others, then I think you shouldn't expect to do so unhindered.

I'm all for smaller government, provided we establish safeguards to prevent things like monopolies where the private sector would take over what were previously gov't responsibilities. That's a pretty hard thing to do in some cases, though(even harder to prevent abuse). Personally I'd like to look into using technology to replace some facets of governance.

 

[Oxymoron]

I would. I'd do everything in my power to do so.

Very commendable Mick... I wonder how many would... on something as big as that.

Now if I knew that I, and my family, would be tortured and killed if I did so, then I would certainly reconsider. However that presumes that there is nothing that can be done without it immediately identifying who did it. There are plenty of ways in which you can give an account of what happened without revealing who you are.

Families don't seem to come into it... So apparently the Mafia has nothing to do with it.

Are there ways without identification? Without provenance documents etc could be said to be fake.

I don't think this is a very productive avenue for debunking unless we can agree on the scale of things though. If "inside job" simply refers to about ten people encouraging the Hijackers, then sure, it's plausible nobody would leak. But if it involves coordinating planes crashes with explosions, then that's another matter entirely.

I don't think there would need to be that many people 'in the know' if it came from the top. If you accept all the PNAC contributors would not wish to blow any whistles and there would be plenty of others who have the skills and strong enough sympathy for the cause. Let's face it... 'this is in the best interests of America and therefore patriotic'... ends justifying means etc and there are plenty of people who have advocated nuclear first strike as viable and casualties of millions as acceptable. I do not think it very far fetched... but then you already know that

Numbers... 30? 40?... the rest is down to confusion, mishaps, coincidences, following orders... What do you think?

 

[Mick West]

Are there ways without identification? Without provenance documents etc could be said to be fake.

Sure, but there are not even any "fake" documents.

I don't think there would need to be that many people 'in the know' if it came from the top. If you accept all the PNAC contributors would not wish to blow any whistles and there would be plenty of others who have the skills and strong enough sympathy for the cause. Let's face it... 'this is in the best interests of America and therefore patriotic'... ends justifying means etc and there are plenty of people who have advocated nuclear first strike as viable and casualties of millions as acceptable. I do not think it very far fetched... but then you already know that

Numbers... 30? 40?... the rest is down to confusion, mishaps, coincidences, following orders... What do you think?

Do you actually think that a conspiracy involving rigging the WTC and the Pentagon with explosives, remote control flying fake planes into them at just the right point, could be done with the knowledge of only 40 people? And without trace? Without any high-rise structural engineers or demolition experts noticing?

40 people? You're talking an operation similar in difficulty to flying to the moon.

 

[Joe]

Why would the a Turkish diplomat meet with the US ambassador?? really? The only possible reason is arms shipments? He is a diplomat. It is his job to meet with other diplomats.

...and then this Turkish diplomat had Libyans attack? that makes sense.

I highly doubt they store weapons at the US consulate.

Who ever said they were Libyans that attacked ? THEY ARE STONEWALLING AND HAVE BEEN COVERING UP EVERYTHING . Do you not care to know the truth ? Does it only matter when Bush does things wrong ? Hillary and Obama are to blame because of their failed leadership .

 

[Oxymoron]

Sure, but there are not even any "fake" documents.

If there were, they would prove nothing... as does their absence.

Do you actually think that a conspiracy involving rigging the WTC and the Pentagon with explosives, remote control flying fake planes into them at just the right point, could be done with the knowledge of only 40 people? And without trace? Without any high-rise structural engineers or demolition experts noticing?

But demolition experts and many others have noticed, they have just been unable to prove it to the authorities... who have done everything possible to destroy the evidence and cover themselves.

40 people? You're talking an operation similar in difficulty to flying to the moon.

I am only referring to the 'core' members of the conspiracy... major players like Bush, Cheyne, Rice Rumsfeld etc.. PNAC people... some chiefs of staff, special ops, with extreme Neocon views. Maybe 100 then? What do you think would be the minimum number of conspirators... accepting real planes being used but maybe remotely?

I mean, this remote flying is routine now and from thousands of miles away... this capability could easily have been in existence in 2001 and let's not forget, Raytheon execs were on every flight.

There are many who point to the strange goings on in the WTC's prior to 9/11... power downs, security down, strange noises and dust... here is an account of some of the anomalies.

How much in the way of explosives would it need to ensure the collapse of an already damaged building?

http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/rwtcpdf.pdf

Victor Thorn of Wing TV has reported the WTC 9-11 security concerns of Scott Forbes, a senior
database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., with offices in the former WTC. Forbes reported that
his company was notified three weeks in advance that New York's Port Authority would take out
power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up on the weekend prior to 9-11, ostensibly to implement
a computer cabling upgrade. Forbes noted that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC's first occupants
after it was erected, and that a "power-down" had never been initiated prior to this occasion. Forbes
recalled the power was out approximately 36 hours between early Saturday morning (September 8th)
and mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) As a result of the power outage, the WTC's security
cameras, ID systems, and elevators to the upper floors were rendered inoperative. Forbes noted that
many "engineers" going in- and-out of the WTC had free access throughout the building due to its
inoperative security system. Forbes also noted other security related anomalies: Video cameras
positioned atop the World Trade Center which were used to feed daily images to local television stations
were inexplicably inoperative that morning. Also, a Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower
floors and escaped immediately after the first (North) tower was struck, reported that he was amazed by
the large number of FBI agents that were already on the streets surrounding the WTC complex only
minutes after the initial strike. Forbes said that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his
current employment, he has stepped forward because, "I have mailed this information to many people,
including the 9/11 Commission, but no one seems to be registering these facts." [105] Soon after Forbes’
appearance on Wing TV, he was marginalized by 9/11 truth debunkers because he seemed to vanish.
Between 2005 and 2006 he has been remotely interviewed at least three times from his home in
England. In a Killtown interview, Forbes observed that both main stream and progressive media of other
countries have been much more interested in his story than in America. He also noted that, being British,
he was eventually interviewed by London police, “but none of my American colleagues were contacted
by police or FBI or any agency. Kind of weird.” [106]. Most recently, Forbes’ statements, which are
reasoned and dispassionate, have been used by 9/11 truth debunkers against Ben Fountain [107].
Forbes also stated in an interview that 4-6 weeks before 9/11, there was lots of noise coming from floor
98, above his office. Aeon was moved out, and the floor was vacant. He heard what sounded like heavy
machinery work going on; drilling and hammering; like something very heavy being moved and
dumped, the force of which was enough to cause his office to shake. On one occasion Forbes said he
opened the door to the 98th floor to see what was going on, but the entire office space was empty.
This correlates with the experience of William Rodriguez in the North Tower, who, as he was climbing
stairs to unlock doors on 9/11, “heard strange noises on the 34th floor.” Rodriguez noted that there was
“nothing on this floor”. No one was supposed to be there, and you can’t even get there without a special
key. Rodriguez heard heavy equipment being moved around, it sounded to him like dumpsters with
metal wheels. Rodriguez was afraid to open the door to floor 34 with his master key. The week before
9/11, Forbes noticed lots of dust in the building “The dust was incredible; it was filthy; dirty gray dust.
[108]
Christopher Bollyn states that "The two airplanes that struck the twin towers of the World Trade Center
on 9/11 flew directly into secure computer rooms in both buildings." While there may have been a
number of secure computer rooms distributed in the towers, Bollyn goes on to describe a construction
operation where the 81st floor of the South Tower, in the range of floors impacted by flight 175, was
reinforced to hold very heavy Uninterupted Power Supply batteries, which interestingly, were apparently
never turned on. Bollyn contacted a number of companies involved in this construction and installation,
all of whom refused to comment. [109]
A photo ID pass for Sept. 5 found on one of the men charged with fraudulently obtaining a Tennessee
driver's license from a Memphis woman gave him access to the six underground levels of WTC1. But
which tenant hired Sakher 'Rocky' Hammad, 24, to work on its sprinklers is lost, said Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey spokesman Alan Hicks. Hammad told federal authorities that he was
working on the sprinklers six days before the twin towers were brought down by terrorists, court
testimony revealed. But Hicks said the Port Authority, which owned the building, did its own sprinkler
work, and that any other work involving sprinklers would have been arranged by an individual tenant.
[110]

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

But demolition experts and many others have noticed, they have just been unable to prove it to the authorities... who have done everything possible to destroy the evidence and cover themselves.

Demolition experts or structural engineers with experience of 20+ story buildings?

 

[lee h oswald]

A cover-up of a few colluding policemen getting their story straight after the events is vastly different from a plan to plant explosives in three buildings and then hijack and fly planes into them with pin point precision, wait an hour, then blow up the buildings, not to mention the Pentagon, and flight 93.

What's your bess guess as to what actually happened lee? We know you believe there were explosives involved, what explosives do you think they were, and how did they get there, and how did that work with the planes and all?

A cover-up of a few colluding policemen getting their story straight after the events is vastly different from a plan to plant explosives in three buildings and then hijack and fly planes into them with pin point precision, wait an hour, then blow up the buildings, not to mention the Pentagon, and flight 93.

It wasn't 'a few colluding policemen' - it went right to the top and involved scores if not hundreds of officers. I'm surprised you can't see the point - or am I? The point was the systemic and systematic nature of the cover-up, right through to the 'inquiry'. It's not about comparing the events, obviously, it's about looking at the mechanisms for State lies. The system is in place, and it has been for a long time.

What's your bess guess as to what actually happened lee? We know you believe there were explosives involved, what explosives do you think they were, and how did they get there, and how did that work with the planes and all?

I don't make guesses about such things. My position is very simple and it is - and has been - reflected in what I write.

We know you believe there were explosives involved

How do you know that? Please show me the decisive text.

 

[Mick West]

If there were, they would prove nothing... as does their absence.



But demolition experts and many others have noticed, they have just been unable to prove it to the authorities... who have done everything possible to destroy the evidence and cover themselves.

I am only referring to the 'core' members of the conspiracy... major players like Bush, Cheyne, Rice Rumsfeld etc.. PNAC people... some chiefs of staff, special ops, with extreme Neocon views. Maybe 100 then? What do you think would be the minimum number of conspirators... accepting real planes being used but maybe remotely?

I think you'd pretty much have to include everyone in the FBI and the CIA, since they were charged with investigating the events. There were over 10,000 FBI special agents working on it. Why have no FBI agents at least leaked an account of how they were encouraged to ignore certain aspects? Not one of those 10,000 agents was in the least bit suspicious?

And where would they get the planes from? Who fitted them for remote control? Who or what remotely piloted them? How did they practice? How did they ensure they hit the right floor?

And biggest of all - what if they were caught? The scale of the supposed conspiracy is miraculous. The probability of it actually working seems incredibly small. The probability of keeping it secret seems just as small.

Step back and look at it. Yes you can see a rationale for a false flag operation. And yet you could get the exact same result - in fact a much better result - simply by exploding a vx gas device at the superbowl. Something that actually could be carried out by five people, and with total secrecy, thousands dead, horrible imagery, blame Saddam.

But instead they go with this insane plane with almost no hope of working, and every possibility of being detected.

And I'm not saying you should reject the idea simply because it's ridiculous. The ridiculousness is ON TOP of the lack of evidence for controlled demolition, and ON TOP of the the very strong evidence of hijacking, and ON TOP of the evidence for fire causing progressive collapse.

But it is nonetheless ridiculous.

 

[Mick West]

How do you know that? Please show me the decisive text.

Why don't you just tell us what you think?

Please don't continue this "show me where I said that" game lee. People make very reasonable inferences of what you think from what you say. If they are wrong, then tell them what you actually think.

Repeating this type of thing will result in a one month ban.

Just tell people what you think. You either think there were, or that there were not, or that there might have been, or that there probably was, or that you don't really know but there as so many unanswered questions.

Explain yourself. Don't play games.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think you'd pretty much have to include everyone in the FBI and the CIA, since they were charged with investigating the events. There were over 10,000 FBI special agents working on it. Why have no FBI agents at least leaked an account of how they were encouraged to ignore certain aspects? Not one of those 10,000 agents was in the least bit suspicious?

But it is nonetheless ridiculous.

Many things have been labelled ridiculous, (and true some have turned out to be so), but many have not... sailing around the world without falling off... Earth not being the centre of the solar system, (let alone the universe), flight, submarines, invisble life forms that make you ill....

The thing is with visionaries... they do not see the world as most people do. Napoleon, was not most people, nor Hitler, Lenin, Genghis Khan... all must have had people saying 'don't do it, it cannot be done, the risk is too great'.

 

[lee h oswald]

Why don't you just tell us what you think?

Please don't continue this "show me where I said that" game lee. People make very reasonable inferences of what you think from what you say. If they are wrong, then tell them what you actually think.

Repeating this type of thing will result in a one month ban.

Just tell people what you think. You either think there were, or that there were not, or that there might have been, or that there probably was, or that you don't really know but there as so many unanswered questions.

Explain yourself. Don't play games.

Why don't you just tell us what you think?

What do you think I do in every post I make?

Please don't continue this "show me where I said that" game lee. People make very reasonable inferences of what you think from what you say. If they are wrong, then tell them what you actually think.

It is not a reasonable inference to say 'We know you think explosives were used'. I've never said anything of the sort. I've been very clear on that - I don't see why I should need to explain it.

Repeating this type of thing will result in a one month ban.

You'll find a reason to ban me if you want to.

Just tell people what you think. You either think there were, or that there were not, or that there might have been, or that there probably was, or that you don't really know but there as so many unanswered questions.

Explain yourself. Don't play games

You think I don't say what I think?! As you know very well, like you, I don't know. The difference is that you think you know.
I think I express myself ok, if you think that's 'a game', then what can I do?

 

[Oxymoron]

Demolition experts or structural engineers with experience of 20+ story buildings?

That's what they say but I haven't verified their credentials... but I am equally sure some debunker out there has.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out/

High-rise architects and structural engineers layout the evidence in the features of the destruction of these three high-rises that point inevitably to explosive controlled demolition

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

lee, please briefly explain what your opinion is on the likelihood of explosives (or some energetic substance or device) being used in the WTC destruction.

It's quite a simple request. If you don't respond (with your evaluation of the likelyhood) within your next three posts then I'm just going to ban you for a month.

This is not censorship. You've got three posts to say whatever you like. You are also free to come back in a month, should you choose not to answer.

 

[Cairenn]

And what happened to the folks that were killed on those planes? Where they taken off the planes at the airport and executed somewhere? Remember that they were at airports that morning.

To do what you seem to thing would need to be done would take keeping tens of thousands of folks from telling. Not reasonable

 

[Mick West]

That's what they say but I haven't verified their credentials... but I am equally sure some debunker out there has.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out/

High-rise architects and structural engineers layout the evidence in the features of the destruction of these three high-rises that point inevitably to explosive controlled demolition

Content from External Source

I've looked through the AE911 bios, and I can't find many structural engineers with high-rise experience, and no demolition experts.

Looking through the engineers page:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ENGSONLY_

The mentions of high-rise experience are (based ona search for the word "high") in the above page:

J. Marz Ayres - HVAC, plumbing and sprinklers
L. Alan Pyeatt - Sprinkler contractor.
Robert F. Marceau - "high rise office commercial buildings", but retired.
Steven Merritt - "Practicing Structural Engineer and tax payer. I have designed steel high rise buildings for the past 8 years."
Robert Charles Moyer " I participated in the design and construction of a 26 story high rise building."
Gunther Travis Detches - "carpenter, contractor and project manager for residential and commercial high rise buildings"
Allen H. Saye - "47 years in Heavy Civil Construction throughout the United Sates building nuclear power plants, geothermal plants, highways, bridges, high-rise buildings, co-generation plants ...,"

That's it. Essentially zero, and if you read their statements, they don't really point out anything in particular.

 

[Grieves]

So the right hand always knows what the left hand is doing then, does it?

 

[Mick West]

It wasn't 'a few colluding policemen' - it went right to the top and involved scores if not hundreds of officers. I'm surprised you can't see the point - or am I? The point was the systemic and systematic nature of the cover-up, right through to the 'inquiry'. It's not about comparing the events, obviously, it's about looking at the mechanisms for State lies. The system is in place, and it has been for a long time.

State lies? Hillsborough? I really don't feel the cover-up of efforts of the police to shift blame onto the fans is in any way comparable to the cover up of the deliberate planning and execution of a insanely complex and expensive plan to plan explosives in a building, then fly remote control planes into it, and then let off the explosives so it would look exactly like the buildings just collapses, and fly a missile into the pentagon, and then have the entire CIA and FBI investigate it, but not notice anything ​wrong.

I think we are talking about a supposed cover-up many orders of magnitude greater in scope. Almost god-like in its totality.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think you'd pretty much have to include everyone in the FBI and the CIA, since they were charged with investigating the events. There were over 10,000 FBI special agents working on it. Why have no FBI agents at least leaked an account of how they were encouraged to ignore certain aspects? Not one of those 10,000 agents was in the least bit suspicious?

Not true. There are a number of whistle blowers who came out with the same same story that the CIA, FBI, Bush admin were told in some detail about the attack well in advance.

Yet another added to the list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission, but her testimony was excluded from the official 567 page 9/11 Commission Report.[5]​

On 1 February 2011, Edmonds published a story on her own website, adding details of events she described as taking place in April 2001. The account centered around her post-9/11 role as translator of a pre-9/11 interview during which an informant had told the FBI agents:
Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this. The agents, along with Edmonds, reported this information internally at the FBI but, according to Edmonds, no one at the bureau ever asked for follow-ups or further information prior to 9/11.[10]​

Content from External Source

Don't know why they haven't all come out and queried stuff... raised concerns etc... Perhaps I can think of some reasons after all

And another "documenting how FBI HQ personnel (NB Note plural) in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Rowley wrote a paper for FBI Director Robert Mueller documenting how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui had been suspected of being involved in preparations for a suicide-hijacking similar to the December 1994 "Eiffel Tower" hijacking of Air France 8969. Failures identified by Rowley may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rowley was one of many agents frustrated by the events that led up to the attacks, writing:

During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre–September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like (Robert Hanssen), who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis's effort.) [2]​[3]​

​

Rowley testified in front of the Senate and for the 9/11 Commission about the FBI's internal organization and mishandling of information related to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Mueller and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) pushed for and got a major reorganization, focused on creation of the new Office of Intelligence at the FBI. This reorganization was supported with a significant expansion of FBI personnel with counterterrorism and language skills.[citation needed]​

Content from External Source

There are more... these are from a quick google and look at wikipedia... CIA or FBI may have a little bit more info on this type of thing in their databases... What do ya think?

 

[lee h oswald]

lee, please briefly explain what your opinion is on the likelihood of explosives (or some energetic substance or device) being used in the WTC destruction.

I thought I'd been as clear as I could be.

I've never once directly speculated on the possible causes of the collapses outside of 'aircraft strikes, 2 buildings hit, 3 buildings fall down'. Like I've said a great many times> I don't know what did that. I don't speculate because I don't know what did that. So my position is that I'm not going to speculate about that.
I've discussed the eyewitness accounts of explosions/bombs going off - what they described, and that's never been properly addressed; and the eyewitness accounts were only made public after court action - there goes an alarm bell - Why was it hidden in the first place - and who hid it? I've described the collapsing towers as 'explosive event', which it clearly was.

You don't need to be Hercules Poirot, it's obvious what my position is, isn't it? - but you've taken that, ie discussing it (and other things), as my belief in the use of explosives. I say that given the testimonies of so many people, and the context of a 'terrorist attack', they should have made tests to see if explosives were used. That's another alarm bell to me - it's just wrong not to carry out tests.....Anyway, I'm just saying the things I always say. And that list I just started is a bloody long one.

 

[Mick West]

Thanks lee. I think though it would be very hard for people NOT to get the impression that you think explosives were probably used. You seem very clearly to believe that the building could not have collapsed simply as a result of the collision and fire. Is there anything else you can think of that could possibly explain it besides explosives (and I'm including thermite and nano-thermite as explosives here).