Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I just saw "Loose Change" and am somewhat impressed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 01:56 PM
Original message
I just saw "Loose Change" and am somewhat impressed
Edited on Tue Jul-18-06 02:05 PM by boolean
I'm not entirely convinced in the entire conspiracy theory, but Loose Change definitely has some very convincing arguments. There are a lot of holes, to be sure, but I'm actually starting to become somewhat skeptical about the attacks on 9/11.

I think the most convincing argument they made was the plane crashes in the pentagon and Pennsylvania. Where were the bodies? There are always bodies after a plane crash, no matter how bad it is. Bone doesn't just evaporate into thin air. (This, of course, assuming it's true they didn't find any remains at all) But still, that leaves me to ask this question: If there really was a massive conspiracy, what was the purpose of the specific targets?

For example: Flight 93. Why exactly, would they deliberately crash a plane into a field? What purpose does it serve?

Then there's the twin towers. Ok, say there were financial documents or whatnot that needed to be destroyed. They didn't have to bring the whole buildings down to do that. They could've put bombs to destroy the evidence and that would be that. WTF would be the reason for bringing the entire buildings down?

The pentagon: Now this makes zero sense. A conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack in order to destroy financial documents, start wars, make a lot of money, etc...But why hit the pentagon, of all places!

While there might be a lot of evidence that a conspiracy exists, it's the motives that don't seem to add up to me. I don't see why they just didn't plant a few bombs in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 to destroy the documents and then use that as an excuse to do whatever it is they had to do. OK, you can argue that that's not BIG enough, but the terrorist attack had to be HUGE for people to really buy it, but wouldn't the New York attack have been enough if that were the case? Why go all out to crash land a plane in a field and hit the Pentagon too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KJF Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not that keen on Loose Change
This is probably the best critique I've seen of it yet:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

It's not perfect, but 911research seems to be substantially more accurate than Loose Change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. When America...
saw the "planes" hit the towers, then watched as they crumbled to the ground, Cheney turned to the monkey and said, "They're all yours." :evilgrin:

I haven't seen it mentioned here, but being new, it may already have been discussed. I'm talking about "Confronting the Evidence: A Call to Reopen the 9-11 Investigation". I have dial-up and slow downloads, but recieved this DVD for free. First one I watched through, and quite frankly was more impressed with it than "Loose Change". I have it too. It has "September 11:Evidence to the Contrary", and "Painful Deceptions" with "Loose Change II" on one DVD. Any body seen these, and what is your opinion if you have? Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KJF Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. Haven't seen them
So I can't comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. I think "Confronting the Evidence" is pretty good,
though an entirely different format than Loose Change.

Another one more along the lines of "Confronting the Evidence" is

9-11 Citizens Commission headed by Cynthia McKinney
http://911busters.com/911-Commission.html (audio and video)
http://www.justicefor911.org/September-Hearings.doc (transcript)
The segments with Indira Singh are particularly interesting.


You might also want to check out

Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=344x4
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
36. "planes" ?
since you have plane in quotation marks it seems like you are saying no planes hit the towers.

what about the eyewitnesses that saw planes hit?


what do you think hit the towers if not planes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Loose Change has a few problems, as Kevin points out
but it's great that it's got you questioning.

A powerful digest of criticisms of the 9/11 Commission report is Dr.
Griffin's essay "A 571 Page Lie," which lists 115 critical omissions
and distortions in the report.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

what was the purpose of the specific targets?

9/11 has been described as a work of art.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,790058,00.html

Analyzing it as such I'd say the demolished towers were a symbol of the
fragility of civilization, the Pentagon was hit to deflect criticism of
NORAD's failure to protect the skies, and the Pennsylvania crash had the
function of demonstrating the alleged hijackers' suicidal fanaticism in
that they'd rather kill themselves and a planeload of innocents for nothing
than surrender.

Of course the other view of the Shanksville crash is that the plane was
shot down because the passengers were about to (or already had) taken control
of it and that something about the plane or the hijackers was too sensitive
to reveal to the world.

It was necessary to bring the towers down to create the urgency to justify
a millenial war. The illusion of bringing them down with aircraft was
necessary to creating the perception of threat everywhere airplanes are
seen.

Some say the Pentagon hit achieved the purpose of eliminating people in Naval
Intelligence and the financial auditing department who were in a position
to know about the embarassing fact that the Pentagon could not account
for $2.3 trillion in expenditures (as announced by Rummy 9-10-01). I haven't
checked these reports out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. The bodies were charred, but some were photographed.
That is part of the Moussaoui trial exhibit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-23-06 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
46. The only charred bodies that I saw
were Pentagon employees.

No bodies of any passenger from any of the four flights was ever recovered as far as I know, only human 'remains', which means small bits and pieces, not bodies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmb597 Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. well...
First, the twin tower was already bombed in 1993, no way would it be believable for that to happen again, along with it being such an impact for the entire country. The towers were wasted space, had a lot of health risks (aspestos)and lot's of money could be made from them coming down. They needed something to happen that would be an opener for the entire world to see so we could get support for war and anything else that may suit their agenda.

If you weren't saving someone you were running for your life. If you weren't a victim, you knew someone who was. If you were traveling you were stranded somewhere other than home. If you were at home, you were worried for another attack. EVERYONE was affected in someway. Everyone remembers where they were that day and still to this day talks about it. It couldn't be simple, it had to be HUGE and it had to be deadly.

I think the Pentagon was used so it would look like an attack not on just the citizens, but the government too. The Pentagon was used because it was being renovated already for this kind of attack. That is why it hit so perfectly on that side of the building instead of doing a nosedive or something way easier for a cessna pilot. Plus, the Pentagon is one of the most well protected building in the world...it should not have been hit at all that day.

Motives...yes, they are hard to put a finger on, however, just remember that NONE of us did this. All we know is that there are unanswered questions that we would like answered.

to be perfectly honest, this isn't Bush, this is beyond him...I believe it's about money and power...basically world domination. Hello World War III. This is just something I have been reading about, nothing proven...Rogue Network.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
37. no health risk
there actually wasnt any health risk from asbestos in the towers.
1) they stopped using asbestos during construction after it was banned
2) the asbestos was sealed and not crumbling. SOP with asbestos is that if it is intact and not crumbling to leave it alone. that removing it would cause more problems than just leaving it alone.

why do you think the pentagon could not have been attacked? missile batteries? the pentagon is too close to an airport to use missiles against passenger planes. too much of a chance of error in case one got off course and flew over restricted airspace.

not to mention that the plane flew very low, possibly below the range of the missiles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Eventually, the WTC towers would need to be removed.
Not sure when that would be...but the cost of removing the abestos as per current risk abatement procedures would be astronaumical. One thing I wonder about, when Silverstein purchased the WTC complex a few months earlier, did his purchase price include decommissioning costs? I would think that the WTC would have been a poor investment when the decommissioning costs were factored in. How would he be able to sell those towers in say 15 years? The next investor gets no upside, all downside costs. Turns out, Silverstein won't have that problem to worry about.

I keep hearing that we shouldn't be surprised that the Pentagon wasn't protected. That its safety was compromised by Ronald Reagan Airport. I'm very surprised. We spend $400BB a year and the Pentagon can't afford sophisticated weapons that can protect itself? How much does it cost to have a few soldiers on guard 24/hrs a day, wired in to the control tower and visually watching the planes take off and land with a missle battery on sentry? We can spend trillions developing an umbrella to protect this country from ballistic missles, but we can't protect the Pentagon from a potential rogue plane taking off from an airport? Are you saying that the 5000 people running the most important C&C center in the world aren't worth even the attempt at basic protection?

Since a few cave dwelling Arabs who couldn't fly Cessna's were able to hit the Pentagon, what would this administration do if a really technically capable enemy decided to take out the Pentagon? Why hasn't Ronald Reagan Airport been shut down if it constitutes a security risk? As our Maximum Leader explained, "fool me once...won't get fooled again." Or will we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-23-06 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. Some interesting info about Silverstein's Deal of the Year
Edited on Sun Jul-23-06 05:41 AM by DoYouEverWonder
Deal of the Year: World Trade Center, New York, NY

SELLER: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

BUYER: Silverstein Properties and Westfield America

ARRANGER: Sonnenblick-Goldman

Weighing in at $3.2 billion, the acquisition of the 99-year leasehold of the World Trade Center was the largest of the year. "Notwithstanding the emotional difficulty of celebrating anything related to the World Trade Center is the fact that upon completion of its acquisition by Larry Silverstein, it was clearly the deal of the year for the industry, and now more that ever, a deal of lifetime for Silverstein," said Ken Zakin, managing director at Insignia/ESG.

Gotham's real estate elite--Vornado Realty Trust, Brookfield Properties and Boston Properties--fought for the right to buy the towers. The sale was even more complicated because it involved the transfer from public sellers, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to private owners--a process that has traditionally been very difficult in Manhattan. Law firm Strook, Strook & Lavin helped to structure the deal.

Although the sale of the World Trade Center was the clear winner, many office players also pointed to Dai Ichi Life Insurance Co.'s sale of Citigroup Center in New York to Eric Hadar's Allied Partners as a major transaction. The sale, which was completed without a broker, was complex and it was difficult to arrange financing. And similar to the World Trade Center, there was a lot of competition for the property.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021024163701/http://www.iirealestate.com/Top+News/deal+of+the+year+world+trade+center+new+york+ny.asp

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushwick Bill Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. Here are more videos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DianaForRussFeingold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
38. Thank You !
:hi: :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Loose Change has more than a "few" problems. It's a "piece of garbage"...
Edited on Tue Jul-18-06 10:41 PM by Jazz2006
For the most part, it's unadultated bullshit. That is not just the view of those of us who don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories but it is also the view of most self-proclaimed "9/11 truth seekers".

But don't take my word for it.... one of its proponents on this very thread had this to say last month:



petgoat Tue Jun-13-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. Loose Change is a piece of garbage, agreed. I watched about

half of it. Good production, lousy research.

Nobody here is promoting Loose Change. It's a straw man.


(end quote)

That said, asking questions is always a good thing. Asking the right questions is even better.


Edit: trying to do the graybox thing to make the post show up in its entirety but I can't remember the code ~ oh well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuddyYoung Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. 911 Scholars for Truth is a much better resource.
All the best CT'ers agree and I don't know of anyone in the "911Truth Seekers" category that disagrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It can hardly be any worse than Loose Change.
Edited on Tue Jul-18-06 11:32 PM by Jazz2006
Not that that's saying much for the "scholars" site, of course.

And to reiterate, in keeping with the subject of the thread, lots of self-proclaimed "truthseekers" have absolutely distanced themselves from Loose Change ~ for very good reason. The reason being that it is absolute crap.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. So Loose Change is garbage?
Maybe to you it is. Just your minority opinion I'd say from all the posters here.
Most can agree though that the official story IS garbage for sure.
Funny to me how that Anthrax turned out to be from our own army's lab in Fort Dietrick, MD though.
What's your opinion on that one, Jazz?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-18-06 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yes. According to petgoat and other CTers, it's "a piece of garbage"
Edited on Wed Jul-19-06 12:14 AM by Jazz2006
Of course, that's what I and other skeptics have been saying all along ~ it took some time for many CTers to realize it but they've come around since then.

Call that a "minority" all you like, but it seems that even the majority of tinhatters agree, never mind the vast majority of posters here in the dungeon, and never mind the majority of posters at DU who obviously think it's a good thing to confine this kind of crap in the dungeon.

By the way, did you actually read my post above quoting CTers from these very threads? As far as I can tell, nobody who has done any serious research at all into the events of September 11/01 lends any credence whatsoever to the pathetic Loose Change video.

Can you not search it on your own or do you need links to CTers (belatedly) trashing Loose Change?

As for your latter query, if you want to talk about anthrax, that is best done in an anthrax thread, don't you agree? This thread is about the ridiculous Loose Change video.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. There's garbage and there's garbage.
I said Loose Change was garbage because it had some rotten parts.

I've been known to shop in supermarket dumpsters. Loose Change has
some good parts if you avoid the rotten parts.

I have hopes that Loose Change 3 will be much better.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Unlike you, I don't shop in dumpsters... but the following are your words
Edited on Wed Jul-19-06 01:55 AM by Jazz2006
of a mere month ago.

petgoat: "Loose Change is a piece of garbage, agreed. I watched about half of it. Good production, lousy research. Nobody here is promoting Loose Change. It's a straw man."

It's no surprise that you're trying to spin your prior posts now.... any reasonable reader who has read more than, say, a dozen or two of your most recent posts gets the spin factor pretty quickly. Any reasonable reader who reads the archives over the past year can easily see how long you've been spinning and weaving.

Edit to add the quotation marks and move the bold tags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Right, you fill them instead.
Edited on Wed Jul-19-06 02:02 AM by petgoat
I agreed it was garbage, focussing on its flaws.

Focussing on its good points, I say it's got some. It's like half-rotten vegetables--
if you want to sell it, it's garbage. But if you're hungry enough, the unrotten part
is food.

I'm sorry you're too proud to eat out of dumpsters.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Talk about spin. You're totally off base, goat.
I guess it's tough for you to have to eat your own words when it's pointed out how inconsistent you've been on these threads, but it's pretty silly to try to make this be about anyone but yourself as you're lamely attempting to do currently. Why not just bite the bullet and say, "oops" instead of digging a deeper hole? There is an old saying to the effect that when you're in a hole, stop digging.... you might want to look it up.

But since you haven't figured that out yet...

"Too proud to eat out of dumpsters?" Yes, I probably am too proud to eat out of dumpsters and I've never been in a position to have to find out how deep that pride runs, but that has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous posts above, as any reasonable reader will readily ascertain, and your question is just another lame attempt to deflect from your own words which were cited above.

I feel sorry for you if you are eating out of dumpsters and judging by your post, it seems you are, but even if that's where you get your food, you should not accept your "facts" from dumpsters. I do not accept garbage facts any more than I accept garbage food, and that's all you've offered thusfar. I prefer facts to come from reliable sources. You, and other CTers, seem to be content with garbage input, though.

You know the old saying, "garbage in, garbage out". That pretty much encapsulates the Loose Change crap and most all of the other CT theories as well.

Your skating is most hilarious though, so I'll simply repeat your words before I hit the sheets as it is well past my bedtime:

petgoat:

"Loose Change is a piece of garbage, agreed. I watched about half of it. Good production, lousy research. Nobody here is promoting Loose Change. It's a straw man."


Hee hee ~ ~ ~ try spinning that again.... your last attempt didn't work and I can't imagine that anyone was fooled by your lame attempt to divert from your own inconsistencies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Too proud to eat out of dumpsters. Such pride lasts 3 days. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. IOW, you can't spin your "Loose Change is a piece of garbage" post so
you deflect with an irrelevant one liner totally off topic.

How transparent.

Keep eating those garbage facts from that dumpster that you've been gorging in, then. Just don't act surprised when rational people - those who do not accept garbage facts - turn down your invitations to dinner.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuddyYoung Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. Neither can jazz be any worse than loose change
Not that that's saying much for jazz or the legal profession, of course.
Personally, I happen to like Maynard Ferguson, Paul Desmnond, Keith Jarrett, Dinah Washington, Gloria Lynne, and the Great Darlene Love, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Do you really have nothing better to do than follow me around
posting inane crap and thinly veiled insults at every opportunity?

Shouldn't you be out there conducting research and seeking "truth" or something?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brainster Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. Did You Hear Fetzer on Colmes' Show?
He endorsed the entire Loose Change conspiracy theory:

1. Drones into the WTC.
2. Missile into the Pentagon.
3. Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville.
4. Controlled demolition at the WTC (including WTC 7).
5. Cellphone calls could not have been made.

Indeed, he goes beyond Loose Change, saying that Barbara Olson is alive and well in Europe, apparently relying on Tom Flocco's absurd report that she was arrested on the Austria-Poland border, which doesn't even exist, with counterfeit Italian lira (ditto--Italy's been on the Euro for a couple years now).

Fetzer's also not above throwing the bull; on several occasions he's claimed that the cockpit voice recorder for Flight 93 caught the passengers talking about using a drink cart as a battering ram. This is the sort of stuff that's easy to check (and Fetzer's wrong).

So, at least to the extent that Fetzer speaks for the Scholars, there's no real difference between them and the Loose Change kids.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. No difference between Fetzer and the loose change kids is right...
they are equally ridiculous.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
15. then you'll probably be even more impressed by this:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KJF Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Agree
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is not perfect itself, but it's certainly a class or two above Loose Change in terms of the information it contains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. Yes, much better than Loose Change.
Edited on Thu Jul-20-06 12:48 AM by Jazz2006
Nothing new, not at all convincing re: the conspiracy theories viz a viz September 11/01, nothing at all of substance that supports the conspiracy theories, but even that is much better than Loose Change.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
21. If you have an open mind, you might read this article ...
Congratulations on having an open mind. That's the most important thing, even if the film that opened your mind has some serious flaws. No one has the answer, just questions. If you find some of the assertions of Loose Change are wrong, don't conclude the entire quest for truth is wrong.

As for why these targets and these events, the best article I've read about this is this:

http://www.mujca.com/apocalypse.htm

Apocalypse of Coercion: Why We Listen to What “They” Say About 9/11

<snip>

They say suicidal Muslim fanatics did it. They say those radical Muslims hate our freedoms. They say the country is full of sleeper agents who could wake up and kill us at any moment, as soon as their little red-white-and-blue “I hate the USA” wristwatch alarms go off.

They say that Saddam Hussein had something to do with it—he’s Muslim, isn’t he? They say invading Afghanistan and Iraq was the appropriate response; we had to do something, right? They say if you’re not with us, you’re against us—and if you’re against us, you’re on the side of the evildoers. They say those cunning, devious suicide hijackers defeated America’s defenses using flying lessons and box cutters. They say it was ordered by a tall, dark, handsome, sinister, hooknosed kidney patient in a cave in Afghanistan—a ringer for the evil vizier Jaffar in the Disney film Aladdin, but with a thicker beard to signify “Islamist.” They say it was masterminded by a real bad dude named KSM. They say they finally caught KSM, and that the whole story, enshrined in the official 9/11 Commission Report, is based on what KSM said under interrogation—so it’s all right from the horse’s mouth.

<snip>

This is a very good description of what was done to the American people on and after September 11th, 2001. The images of the planes crashing into landmark buildings, and those buildings exploding into powder and shards, created a state of extreme confusion, “a kind of psychological shock or paralysis.” The bombs that brought down the Twin Towers and WTC-7 literally exploded the world that was familiar to us, and our images of ourselves in that world. We experienced a moment of dissociation, which is why we can still recall where we were and what we were doing when we learned of the attack. As the psychological warfare experts who designed the operation knew very well, this left us radically open to suggestion—to mass hypnosis. Our old world had been annihilated, and we were ready to be hypnotized, and to have a new world created for us. We desperately needed a parent figure to tell us how to make sense of the madness.

The government, of course, became that transferred parent figure. The presidency, instituted by George “father of his country” Washington, is a paternal institution. Even an illegitimate son-of-a-Bush could briefly become our idealized national daddy. We believed what “they” told us about 9/11, with little or no effort to discern the actual facts, because we had been coerced and infantilized. When Susan Sontag spoke out against the absurd infantilization of the American people post-9/11, she was subjected to vicious attacks by intelligence-asset pseudo-journalists. Why? Not because what she said wasn’t true—it obviously was. The reason Sontag had to be ripped to shreds by the CIA rag National Review and its epigones was that she was getting too close to understanding that 9/11 was a psychological warfare operation by US and allied intelligence agencies, not a “terrorist attack” by anti-American foreigners. Sontag understood that the American public had been subjected to induced regression. By calling attention to this fact, she was indirectly calling attention to the psy-op man behind the curtain.

The choice of September 11th as the date of the attacks was obviously made by a psychological warfare expert who wanted to make the American people suffer induced regression and put childlike faith in their government. The number 911 has overwhelming emotional associations in the mind of every American. From early childhood, we are taught that this is the magic number we can call in the event of an emergency. If anything terrible or deeply threatening happens to us, all we have to do is push those three buttons on the nearest telephone, and a benevolent parent figure—the government—will come rushing to help us. With the ongoing breakdown of the family and its authority, and the widespread consciousness of abuse between family members, the number 911 represents the government that has become our real daddy. The planners of 9/11 took advantage of this fact, enshrining their false-flag attack with a number that evokes our desperate, childlike need for the government to be the daddy who comes racing to help us in an emergency. Every time we hear “9/11” we are enveloped in subconscious emotional associations of a benevolent, fatherly government that can be counted on to save us from catastrophe. Unless we have learned how to defend ourselves against coercion, it is these emotional associations, not facts, that condition how we think.

Once our old world had been exploded, our minds regressed to a childlike emotional level, and our faith placed in the transferred parent figure of our government and its paternal figurehead, we were ready to be bombarded by hypnotic words and images. The hypnotic inculcation of thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes is a simple matter. The key is repetition: Repetition, repetition, repetition. In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the so-called war on terror, “what I tell you three times is true.” They tell us over and over that 9/11 was like Pearl Harbor; we accept the paradigm and prepare for a righteous world war. They tell us over and over that Bin Laden did it, and we internalize that belief, without reference to evidence. They tell us over and over that Bin Laden is America’s enemy, and we accept the story, even though many of the world’s most prestigious journalistic outlets have told us that Bin Laden spent the first two weeks of July, 2001 getting treated at the American Hospital in Dubai and meeting with CIA Station Chief Larry Mitchell. They tell us over and over that the guy in the grainy video confessing to 9/11 is Bin Laden, even though there is very little resemblance between this overweight impostor and the Osama Bin Laden of other photos and videos. They tell us over and over about the 19 suicide hijackers, and we believe them, even when we find out that many of these alleged hijackers are still alive, that these individuals were/are not Muslims at all but intelligence agents, and that the “flight schools” they trained at were actually CIA drug import airstrips. They tell us over and over that (whore-chasing, boozing cokehead) Mohammad Atta put a bizarre parody of an “Islamic terrorist’s last will and testament” into a suitcase and checked that suitcase on board his suicide flight—say what?!—and that the suitcase was mistakenly put onboard a different flight so it could be quickly discovered and offered as “evidence.” They tell us that other “suicide hijackers” conveniently left a car full of evidence at the airport. They tell us that a hijacker’s passport miraculously floated down from the inferno in the Towers to be discovered as more “evidence.” They tell us that the fact that the “hijackers” spent the night of 9/10/2001 in a motel right across the street from the gates of the National Security Agency headquarters is just a weird coincidence. They tell us that a good Samaritan burglar happened to “steal” the briefcase containing the “evidence” of the “hijackers” concocting their plot in Hamburg, Germany, and felt compelled to deliver the briefcase to the German police. (What they don’t tell us is that the German police are rolling on the ground laughing at the absurd pretext, and have publicly stated that the “burglar” was an intelligence agent.) They tell us over and over that the World Trade Center collapsed from diesel-fuel-induced fires, despite the fact that no high rise steel frame skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, including much worse ones than those on 9/11. They tell us over and over that Hani Hanjour, who could not fly a Cessna training aircraft, somehow executed an amazing stunt maneuver in a hijacked 757 in order to hit the empty, newly-reinforced wing of the Pentagon and cause minimal damage—instead of just diving into the roof and killing thousands.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-19-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Wow. What an excellent article
What strikes me is that, when so many of the absurdities of the official story are encapsulated in one article such as this, it becomes more than obvious that we were not only lied to, but we were also grossly manipulated to believe anything "Big Daddy" told us.

It also strikes me that, while each absurdity can be argued pro-and-con ad nauseum, it is the overall picture that is much, much more difficult to defend.

Thank goodness not everyone has been taken in by this massive attempt at brainwashing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. What's wrong ?
Did something "hit a nerve"? heh heh heh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. No, didn't hit a nerve. Just hit the funny bone.
obviously.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Do you have the word "tinhat" or "tinhatter" done up in crosstitch and
framed? You certainly seem to relish using it. Ad hominem arguments are so convincing, and indicative of keen reasoning and persuasiveness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-21-06 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. Take it up with the DU admins ... that's where the term comes from.
Complete with a smiley icon thing...


:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-23-06 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
48. Take what up with the Admins??
And the icon isn't necessarily meant solely to ridicule others. It could be construed as to "own" the label, to diminish it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #32
42. That is so funny...
I can totally visualize "tinhatters" crosstitched on a pillow on the vinyl chair of a double wide trailer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-23-06 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. That couch will need another pillow for the other arm with the term
"moonbat." It baffles me when I see someone at DU use that epithet which is popular elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. Another sterling post
from a poster that no one takes seriously.

Haven't you noticed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. "Haven't you noticed?" I've noticed that there's a tagteam who
follows me around from thread to thread, tosses around gratuitous and silly insults at every opportunity; searches on my username religiously; sends private messages to each other with pats on the back about said insults; all of which is rather strange behaviour toward someone whom "no one (sic) takes seriously".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-23-06 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. suspicious behavior
warrants investigation. (and "no one" is two words).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuddyYoung Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-23-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #44
50. Did a "LAWYER" hack this site?
jazz said there's a "tagteam (sic) that sends private messages to each other".

Are private messages sent between DUers made available to certain posters? If not, what evidence does jazz have for making such a provocative claim, and why would it be "strange behavior" for people to exchange private messages?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
33. mujca.com
Edited on Thu Jul-20-06 03:35 AM by salvorhardin
mujca.com is the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

MUJCA-NET was founded by Dr. Kevin Barrett of Madison, Wisconsin, a scholar of Islam and literature, and Imam Faiz Khan M.D. of New York City, a 9/11 first responder who teaches at Long Island Jewish Hospital. Both have been appalled by 9/11 and the ever-increasing violence it has brought us, and both are particularly unhappy with the silence of their fellow Muslims on 9/11 truth.
http://www.mujca.com/who_we_are.htm


This is the same guy who has been in the news lately when a Wisconsin State Rep. called on UW-Madison to terminate Kevin Barrett's contract to teach an Islamic studies course due to his conspiracist views.
State Representative Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) called on Chancellor John Wiley to immediately fire UW-Madison Lecturer Kevin Barrett. Mr. Barrett is using his position at UW-Madison to advance his personal views that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. Government and that al-Qaida is a CIA creation to divert public attention from the truth.

“The fact that Mr. Barrett uses his position at UW-Madison to add credibility to his outlandish claims is an unacceptable embarrassment to the people of Wisconsin and the UW System. Chancellor Wiley must act immediately to end any professional relationship between Barrett and the UW. He needs to be fired,” Nass said.

Mr. Barrett is scheduled to teach an Introduction to Islam class at UW-Madison this fall. In a radio interview last night, Mr. Barrett stated he has a part time, limited term contract with UW-Madison. Mr. Barrett isn’t covered by tenure rights.

“This case isn’t about academic freedom. I firmly believe this is a case of protecting students from the academic garbage that Mr. Barrett spews,” Nass said.
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=65699


You can watch a video of him on Hannity and Colmes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzIzoD-MhIE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Yes, and the university reviewed his course and approved it
Edited on Thu Jul-20-06 06:00 AM by HamdenRice
So the controversy was over the fact that some politicians did not want a critique of the official conspiracy theory taught in a public university. The course was approved, found to be acceptable and will be taught. So the closed minded "deciders" lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-20-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. You might remember
That my position on this was that although I very much disagreed with Barrett, he should be allowed to teach his course because universities and colleges should be places where controversial opinions are allowed to exist. If his opinions are bunk then they will be shown to be so in the marketplace of ideas. As long as his opinions do not cause him to misrepresent or distort facts as a part of his course then I think the students will do just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-22-06 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Yes indeed Salvor...
You're so right. He should be able to teach his ideas.
This may only be the beginning of a wider group of professors and teachers who'll teach and discuss this issue. Let's hope so anyway huh!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC