Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
TheTool

The Truth Behind 9/11

Recommended Posts

Is that true? Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just selection bias?

No graph or anything, but there is certainly enough anecdotal evidence for inference IMO. Just keep your eye on these sort of announcements in the future - and their timings.

 

e.g. From the USA

"The pattern continues. A terrorist plot is uncovered just as the masses start to question national security strategy. The day after Senate Democrats brought a vote to pull out of Iraq, we catch a few idiots in Miami who were supposedly trying to blow up the Sears Tower, despite the fact that they lacked the means and ability to do so. Then there were the guys busted for supposedly plotting to blow up a New York subway exactly a year after the London bus bombings. And don't forget the release of new Osama bin Laden tapes just before the 2004 election as well as the very day after the Supreme Court decision striking down the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals. And now today, a few men in England were arrested for a plan to blow up planes flying to America, just a day after Connecticut voters flatly rejected Joe Lieberman and the war in Iraq. We certainly can't deny that there may have indeed been plans to commit these acts. But the timings of the arrest announcements are awfully suspicious. All three were still in the works and had been monitored for several months by very capable intelligence agencies. While the exact nature of today's arrests is still unclear, none of the plans seemed to have been immediate or imminent threats. The decision of when to intervene has been arbitrary, making the coincidental timings pretty convenient. (And the question of whether some of them are "real threats," such as the Liberty City "Insane Clown Posse" remain to be seen.)"

 

e.g. From Australia

The Prime Minister has rejected suggestions his announcement that Australia is facing a possible terrorist threat has been timed to avoid scrutiny of the industrial relations and counter-terrorism laws. John Howard says he has intelligence now he did not have at the weekend, and the information concerns him. However, Mr Howard has refused to outline the details of the threat. He says the Government is doing everything it can to protect the community.

 

e.g. from UK

The news that Israel is bombing/invading the Lebanon, six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and an RAF Nimrod came down killing 14 - all relegated in the news by an 'alleged terror plot' to blow up UK airliners.

 

Maybe not scientific examples, but I bet there's a graph somewhere showing that it is. I shall do some research when I get the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the usual political spin. It's just that they now have a ready-made device for 'burying bad news' whenever they feel the need to. Unfortunately, they don't appear to have ever read Aesop's fables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that true? Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just selection bias?

No graph or anything, but there is certainly enough anecdotal evidence for inference IMO. Just keep your eye on these sort of announcements in the future - and their timings.

 

e.g. From the USA

"The pattern continues. A terrorist plot is uncovered just as the masses start to question national security strategy. The day after Senate Democrats brought a vote to pull out of Iraq, we catch a few idiots in Miami who were supposedly trying to blow up the Sears Tower, despite the fact that they lacked the means and ability to do so. Then there were the guys busted for supposedly plotting to blow up a New York subway exactly a year after the London bus bombings. And don't forget the release of new Osama bin Laden tapes just before the 2004 election as well as the very day after the Supreme Court decision striking down the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals. And now today, a few men in England were arrested for a plan to blow up planes flying to America, just a day after Connecticut voters flatly rejected Joe Lieberman and the war in Iraq. We certainly can't deny that there may have indeed been plans to commit these acts. But the timings of the arrest announcements are awfully suspicious. All three were still in the works and had been monitored for several months by very capable intelligence agencies. While the exact nature of today's arrests is still unclear, none of the plans seemed to have been immediate or imminent threats. The decision of when to intervene has been arbitrary, making the coincidental timings pretty convenient. (And the question of whether some of them are "real threats," such as the Liberty City "Insane Clown Posse" remain to be seen.)"

e.g. From Australia

The Prime Minister has rejected suggestions his announcement that Australia is facing a possible terrorist threat has been timed to avoid scrutiny of the industrial relations and counter-terrorism laws. John Howard says he has intelligence now he did not have at the weekend, and the information concerns him. However, Mr Howard has refused to outline the details of the threat. He says the Government is doing everything it can to protect the community.

 

e.g. from UK

The news that Israel is bombing/invading the Lebanon, six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and an RAF Nimrod came down killing 14 - all relegated in the news by an 'alleged terror plot' to blow up UK airliners.

Maybe not scientific examples, but I bet there's a graph somewhere showing that it is. I shall do some research when I get the time.

Ahem!

 

 

_

Edited by Albert Tatlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who believes the US govt organized 9/11 really is a Tool.

 

Just use your common sense. And a razor. Occam's is a good brand.

 

 

nutters + poor security = 9/11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who believes the US govt organized 9/11 really is a Tool.

 

Just use your common sense. And a razor. Occam's is a good brand.

 

 

nutters + poor security = 9/11

A frightingly detailed analysis (slaps forehead, shouting 'of course'). And it's 'organised' - you damn yankee.

 

 

_

Edited by Albert Tatlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who believes the US govt organized 9/11 really is a Tool.

 

Just use your common sense. And a razor. Occam's is a good brand.

 

 

nutters + poor security = 9/11

A frightingly detailed analysis (slaps forehead, shouting 'of course'). And it's 'organised' - you damn yankee.

 

 

_

 

Yes, my analysis was frighteningly detailed, however I kept it internal as I can't be arsed typing to you poor blind fools. Basic rule: conspiracies don't work. The bigger the supposed conspiracy, the less likely it is to remain secret. People always talk, and guess what? Not a single person has come forward from the US govt saying they were involved. Not one. Out of the hundreds or thousands who would know about such a conspiracy. Not a SINGLE deathbed confession from someone worrying that they were going to burn in hell for killing 3000 people. No anonymous letters containing genuine evidence from guilt-ridden neocons or special-ops cyber-ninjas. In fact, no evidence of any kind that would stand up in court, or in fact stand up to a few minutes of logical scrutiny. What a shock.

 

Instead we have half a dozen websites devoted to discussing the 'scientific theory' that the planes entering the WTC were holographic projections around cruise missiles. hologram theory

 

 

People want to believe that it was their own government because it's more comforting than believing a bunch of brainwashed nutjobs could outwit that same govt.

 

It's down to simple psychology, not complex conspiracy.

 

Now stop worrying about it all and read a good book. Not THE Good Book, obviously. Something sensible.

 

 

Oh, and NASA did actually go to the moon, and NO they didn't see any aliens there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basic rule: conspiracies don't work. The bigger the supposed conspiracy, the less likely it is to remain secret.

 

One of the greatest liars of the last century – Adolph Hitler – taught that the bigger the lie, the more believable it was.

 

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."(emphasis added)

Edited by bollocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.'

 

 

Hence the popularity of conspiracy theories. Thank you for proving my point.

 

 

And if you're going to quote a mass-murdering fuckhead, at least quote one with some folksy psychological insight. Like Charles Manson, perhaps... 'Look down on me, you will see a fool. Look up at me, you will see your Lord. Look straight at me, you will see yourself.'

 

Anyone who sees the likes of Alex Jones as their Lord has got some serious issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.'

 

 

Hence the popularity of conspiracy theories. Thank you for proving my point.

 

 

And if you're going to quote a mass-murdering fuckhead, at least quote one with some folksy psychological insight. Like Charles Manson, perhaps... 'Look down on me, you will see a fool. Look up at me, you will see your Lord. Look straight at me, you will see yourself.'

 

Anyone who sees the likes of Alex Jones as their Lord has got some serious issues.

 

My point was that your 'basic rule of conspiracy theories' works both for and against your argument.

 

And what's with this 'Alex Jones as their Lord' bollocks? Some people like to hear all sides of an argument. Doesn't necessarily mean that they take everything he says as gospel.

Edited by bollocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

 

Just remind me. Is that Hitler or Tony Bliar and the whole of New Labour you're talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...