Guest David Guyatt Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Peter,No, I did not mean it in jest. There is a world of difference in claiming no aircraft hit the Pentagon, or that the WTC were brought down by demolition, and the claim that certain forces - other than Al Queda or Bin Laden - were responsible for organising the events of 9/11. I am yet to be convinced, but I acknowledge that it is certainly possible that a group - official or otherwise, rogue or otherwise, domestic or otherwise - organised the hijacking of the aircraft on 9/11. The hijackers may have been agents (unlikely) or have been genuine but recruited by a front organisation (possible) to carry out the attacks. I have seen no convincing evidence that any part of the US government actively aided the attacks. Now, I don't think this is correct. I think it was just a terrorist attack. I think the Bush administration took advantage of it to advance whatever political agenda they saw fit - but I don't think they organised, aided, or had credible foreknowledge of the attacks. Evan, If you've not already read it, I heartily reccomend Danny Hopsicker's book "WELCOME TO TERRORLAND - Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-Up in Florida". This book provides, in my view, an important insight into the activities of Mohamed Atta in Florida prior to 9/11. There is enough information in it to raise serious questions about who Atta was really working for -- and after reading it I found it hard to buy into the Al Queda/foreign terrorist official version of events. I also think it worth mentioning that Atta's connections to the so called "Hamburg cadre" from Hamburg, Germany are worth further pursuit in this regard. I say this in light of the fact that the principal individual involved in the Oklahoma bombing, Andre Strassmeir, was a German national working for German intelligence and the FBI. It seems to me that there is more involved than could be expected of an open and shut case. Just my thoughts, though. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 If you've not already read it, I heartily reccomend Danny Hopsicker's book "WELCOME TO TERRORLAND - Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-Up in Florida". This book provides, in my view, an important insight into the activities of Mohamed Atta in Florida prior to 9/11. There is enough information in it to raise serious questions about who Atta was really working for -- and after reading it I found it hard to buy into the Al Queda/foreign terrorist official version of events. A good deal of Hopsicker's material is on his site. Can you highlight what you think his most compelling points are? I also think it worth mentioning that Atta's connections to the so called "Hamburg cadre" from Hamburg, Germany are worth further pursuit in this regard. I say this in light of the fact that the principal individual involved in the Oklahoma bombing, Andre Strassmeir, was a German national working for German intelligence and the FBI. You've made this claim before, can you document it? Peter wrote: Bin Laden was CIA...fact... You've made this claim before, can you document it? Former head of Pakistani Intelligence was for all intents and purposes a CIA asset up to and through the events of 911 and had met with some of the 'terrorists' and passed them money Citation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 If you've not already read it, I heartily reccomend Danny Hopsicker's book "WELCOME TO TERRORLAND - Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-Up in Florida". This book provides, in my view, an important insight into the activities of Mohamed Atta in Florida prior to 9/11. There is enough information in it to raise serious questions about who Atta was really working for -- and after reading it I found it hard to buy into the Al Queda/foreign terrorist official version of events. A good deal of Hopsicker's material is on his site. Can you highlight what you think his most compelling points are? I also think it worth mentioning that Atta's connections to the so called "Hamburg cadre" from Hamburg, Germany are worth further pursuit in this regard. I say this in light of the fact that the principal individual involved in the Oklahoma bombing, Andre Strassmeir, was a German national working for German intelligence and the FBI. You've made this claim before, can you document it? Peter wrote: Bin Laden was CIA...fact... You've made this claim before, can you document it? Former head of Pakistani Intelligence was for all intents and purposes a CIA asset up to and through the events of 911 and had met with some of the 'terrorists' and passed them money Citation? I have questions about Hopsicker's veracity. I just completed reading "Barry and the Boys", and his style vacillates from being quite credible to innuendo based on comments with a guy named "Blackie" from Miami and many pages of extremely redacted text, which apparently result from threats of litigation by a lawyer. It is still worth reading, but he should have quit after he completed the first 75% of the text. Maybe his 9-11 book is more credible, but, the more I read of "Barry and the Boys", the less convninced I felt about his veracity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 (edited) I disagree. To me it is extremely apt. I have seen instances where a simple explanation exists, and when you try to tell people of it you are accused of either being "9/11 disinfo agent", a "sheeple", a "Bush lover", etc. The personality displayed by the "twoofer" in the cartoon is almost the same as displayed by some people who claim that 9/11 was a massive lie. I don't think you get my point. Political cartoons are satire. Satire only works if there is some truth in what it depicts. If it's also genuinely funny, it should make everyone laugh, even the people being satirized. That is good satire. Now tell me how McDonald's not putting a guy's french fries in the bag could possibly relate to a government conspiracy. Political cartoons are supposed to make people laugh, not make them scratch their heads. Plus there's the over-the-top depiction of the troofer as ugly and demonstratively obnoxious. Gee, which drawn character are we supposed to like and identify with, without even reading it? The cartoonist exhibits zero imagination and humor. That's all I'm saying. But if you see imagination and humor in it, if you call it satire, so be it. Edited September 17, 2007 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 (edited) Here's another paragraph from this article about the "Wag the Dog" type of documentary , that was allegedly being filmed by the Naudet brothers to show an uninteresting gas leak , but instead convienantly showed the first plane hitting the North tower of the World Trade Center . I do believe this part was written just for Len and Craig and all the rest of the sheep who swallowed and now defend the bogus official 9/11 story . " Every 50 years or so, the same con pulled on a US public that seems to learn nothing: you have to be totally brainless not to see the pattern, but that description would suit the millions of Americans, the shame and laughing stock of the civilized world, who all along have dutifully swallowed every word of the Evil Terrorist Mastermind story, straight from a Superman comic or a Hollywood schlock buster, because they are incapable of handling anything more complex, like the real world around them." Edited September 17, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 They weren't there to 'film an uninteresting gas leak', they were doing a documentary on the NYFD and following around some crews in their day to day activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 (edited) Any excuse for an unnecessary argument , right "phunk" ? The alleged "gas leak " convienantly put them at the exact location to film the North tower being hit . Edited September 17, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Out of curiosity, did the Naudet brothers really think that a documentary about a rookie firefighter in NYC, eating breakfast at the station and going to check out things like a reported gas leak, was something that a lot of people would want to watch? If 9/11 hadn't happened, who would have ever seen this work? Who were the financial backers and who was the intended audience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Out of curiosity, did the Naudet brothers really think that a documentary about a rookie firefighter in NYC, eating breakfast at the station and going to check out things like a reported gas leak, was something that a lot of people would want to watch? If 9/11 hadn't happened, who would have ever seen this work? Who were the financial backers and who was the intended audience? Interesting points Ron .... My guess would be no one would have been very interested , except for maybe a few kids who might want to grow up to be firemen . And it gets even more curious ... Here's a line from the article .... "And let's also forget those other little curiosities — like the word "Naudets" being an anagram of "Duane St." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I disagree. To me it is extremely apt. I have seen instances where a simple explanation exists, and when you try to tell people of it you are accused of either being "9/11 disinfo agent", a "sheeple", a "Bush lover", etc. The personality displayed by the "twoofer" in the cartoon is almost the same as displayed by some people who claim that 9/11 was a massive lie. I don't think you get my point. Political cartoons are satire. Satire only works if there is some truth in what it depicts. If it's also genuinely funny, it should make everyone laugh, even the people being satirized. That is good satire. Now tell me how McDonald's not putting a guy's french fries in the bag could possibly relate to a government conspiracy. Political cartoons are supposed to make people laugh, not make them scratch their heads. Plus there's the over-the-top depiction of the troofer as ugly and demonstratively obnoxious. Gee, which drawn character are we supposed to like and identify with, without even reading it? The cartoonist exhibits zero imagination and humor. That's all I'm saying. But if you see imagination and humor in it, if you call it satire, so be it. Ron, We'll have to agree to disagree. I see the cartoon as apt and quite funny... because I see a lot of truth in it. You don't see what I see, and have other views. Neither one of us can proclaim ourselves right, and neither of us can call the other person wrong. We simply have different views. Drop by the cartoonist's website and see if there are any other of the cartoon which you do find funny. I particularly like the drawing style; I have zero artistic talent but the 'artwork' appeals to me. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 (edited) If you've not already read it, I heartily reccomend Danny Hopsicker's book "WELCOME TO TERRORLAND - Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-Up in Florida". This book provides, in my view, an important insight into the activities of Mohamed Atta in Florida prior to 9/11. There is enough information in it to raise serious questions about who Atta was really working for -- and after reading it I found it hard to buy into the Al Queda/foreign terrorist official version of events. A good deal of Hopsicker's material is on his site. Can you highlight what you think his most compelling points are? I also think it worth mentioning that Atta's connections to the so called "Hamburg cadre" from Hamburg, Germany are worth further pursuit in this regard. I say this in light of the fact that the principal individual involved in the Oklahoma bombing, Andre Strassmeir, was a German national working for German intelligence and the FBI. You've made this claim before, can you document it? Do your own reading and research, Len. I'm not your Google goofer... Danny's writing style ticks some people off, I know. Personally, I enjoy it very much. It's a matter of taste. I've known Dan for many years and moreover, the person who acted as his main researcher is a close friend of mine, and I know, therefore, the depth of research and fact checking that was conducted for his book. There was a lot of original material in it. Ditto Barry & the Boys. David Edited September 18, 2007 by David Guyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 David, et al,On the "Political Conspiracies" Forum I started a thread titled "Gelatin -- The 'B' Thing." It focuses on published documentation of how a small group of "artists" may have penetrated WTC security in 2000. Granted we're not talking about a relatively large operation involving the planting of explosive devices. But as an indication of how one of the towers could have been compromised ... Another aspect of the story to keep in mind: It might be a hoax. Charles Charles, Very insightful and informative. Just goes to show how lax security was even after '93. Stunning really. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Out of curiosity, did the Naudet brothers really think that a documentary about a rookie firefighter in NYC, eating breakfast at the station and going to check out things like a reported gas leak, was something that a lot of people would want to watch? If 9/11 hadn't happened, who would have ever seen this work? Who were the financial backers and who was the intended audience? I must admit that the evil thought had crossed my mind about how convenient it was to have a film of the event like this. Prime time TV wouldn't have been the same without it. To some degree it reminds me of the movie of Israeli prime minister Rabin leaving the "Peace Rally" when he was shot in the back. Questions asked included, how did a tourist (Ronnie Kemplar) get on the roof of the building opposite the exit of the rally site without being tackled by security? Answer, he was Shabak (Israeli security). Very convenient. Good TV is an essentiual ingredient these days to control the message. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Out of curiosity, did the Naudet brothers really think that a documentary about a rookie firefighter in NYC, eating breakfast at the station and going to check out things like a reported gas leak, was something that a lot of people would want to watch? If 9/11 hadn't happened, who would have ever seen this work? Who were the financial backers and who was the intended audience? Have you ever gone to an independent film festival, especially a not very prestigious one? You'd be amazed at the kinds of films some expect others would want to see. But just about any subject if well made can be interesting. Who would have thought that anyone would have gone to see a movie about penguins migrating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 David, et al,On the "Political Conspiracies" Forum I started a thread titled "Gelatin -- The 'B' Thing." It focuses on published documentation of how a small group of "artists" may have penetrated WTC security in 2000. Granted we're not talking about a relatively large operation involving the planting of explosive devices. But as an indication of how one of the towers could have been compromised ... Another aspect of the story to keep in mind: It might be a hoax. Charles Charles, Very insightful and informative. Just goes to show how lax security was even after '93. Stunning really. David I not sure what this is supposed to prove even if true some tenants built a wooden platform in their space and spread selatin of the floor and...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now