Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Len,

Thanks for the quick response...You must type fast!

Yeah, as I said. It is possible to debunk/provide alternative explainations for every aspect of the CT theory, but the fact that you have to when on the surface the obvious information paints a different picture is more than enough to raise (my) doubts.

Yes, I agree there are plausable explainations for everything and you are correct, most people have neither the expertise nor the time to devote to the subject to change that.

When you take all the evidence as a whole - considerable doubts remain. I mentioned just a few points. You could add Bush's reaction at the school, plus claiming to have seen the 1st WTC hit, warnings to high-profile people not to fly, prior warnings to the US(all denied), Mineta's testimony to the commision, Silverstein's taped interview to 'pull' building 7, the WTC lease and insurance just months before 911, low passenger occupancy on the planes, Bush family involvement in the security company, seismic data, audio recordings of an explosion 9 seconds after impact, FBI agents being obstructed, FBI warnings being ignored, 'put' options, the classified 28 page section of the commission report, retaliation against Iraq for what was basically a Saudi operation (most of the hijackers), visa anomalies, magic passports and incriminating evidence, "No-one could have envisaged terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into the WTC" - except the military planners who carried out an exercise for just that...

The whole things smells fishy and it shouldn't. The evidence to support the government version of events should be overwhelming and it is not. It relies (at best) on vaporizing planes, pancaking towers, air defence failures, myopic risk assessments, incompetence on a massive scale and 101 other things which made it all go very well for the hijackers.

The government should have been beyond suspicion, but they acted like they had something to hide. They skulked and obstructed and obviscated and blocked and censored and eventually ignored the concerns of the US people. Most Americans and, indeed, Europeans remain unconvinced.

Thanks for the head's up on your remote viewing abilities...I will add an extra layer of foil to my hat. :blink:

Steve...thanks for your excellent analysis. Are you familiar with the

little publicized EXPLOSION OF BUILDING SIX?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Steve...thanks for your excellent analysis. Are you familiar with the little publicized EXPLOSION OF BUILDING SIX? Jack

There is a very good reason why the explosion of 6 WTC was little publicized, except on April Fools Day the media generally doesn't report events that never happened!

There are as far as I know NO eyewitness accounts of that building being exploded nor any reliable accounts that I've seen of explosions their. There is no photographic or video evidence to support the notion that that the building exploded.

Jack and other people who back this silly theory would have you believe that the building "exploded" like some sort of double volcano expelling the roof, floors and inner walls but leaving the outer walls and a section in the middle more or less intact. The two craters are believed to have been caused by perimeter columns weighing several tons possibly falling from as high as 1200 feet above 6 WTC's roof (at which point they would have been traveling at about 280 feet per second / 190 mph).

6 WTC was very close to 1 WTC (the North Tower) and the location of the "crater corresponds to where the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) determined much of the debris fell.

fig-1-7.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fig-1-7.jpg

The ASCE/SEAoNY/FEMA and NIST reports discussed the damage to 6 from falling debris. Note the large perimeter "column trees" atop what remains of the building in Jack's photo. The NIST report went into details about the massive fire there.

The explosion theory has been rejected by many "Inside Job" sites http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion.html

The reason for the lack of debris is because, in the words of a PhD professor of civil engineering at MIT "a typical building is 90% air, and only 10% solid material"*, presumably the percentage of air would be higher if you don't consider the outer walls.

* http://web.mit.edu/civenv/html/people/alum...etters/sept_11/

For an example of the damaged caused by falling perimeter columns one need look no further than the photo below from the Bankers Trust building which was much further from the South Tower than 6 was from the North Tower (see site map above).

Bankers.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/Bankers.jpg

Len

post-667-1153160044.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be an interesting discussion, so I'm going to get the ball rolling with some (edited and rewritten) excerpts from another notorious thread on why I don't believe the "Israel Lobby" controls America and why I don't believe "Israel" is behind the Iraq war.

I've also said the influence of the much ballyhooed Israel Lobby is overrated. The "Israel Lobby" is the excuse that right wingers use because they feel uncomfortable blaming the United States' foreign policy on the United States power elite. Mearsheimer and Walt, if you haven't noticed, are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Sorry Sid, I really don't feel comfortable aligning with power.

This isn't to say I don't think the Lobby has power or influences U.S. policy, I just don't believe it controls it. I agree with Norman Finkelstein's take. See here.

This vast political, economic and military assault on the Arab and Moslem world – on several fronts - is not inherently a popular agenda in the west. It is not even a mainstream oil industry agenda. The head of Britain's only oil mega corporation, BP, spoke against the Iraq invasion in the run-up to March 2003 – but his words seemed to carry little weight with Tony Blair.

If we are going to go by public statements, Martin van Creveld, the man you have identified elsewhere as "Israel's contemporary Dr Stangelove," has also vehemently denounced the Iraq invasion, calling it a "foolish war." See here. You don't pay much attention to that.

Or read this article that shows that the "neo-cons" such as Richard Perle, were trying to sell the Iraq war to Israel, not the other way around.

An adviser to INC [iraqi National Congress] chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar-Illan.

Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein. In international terms, pro-Israel, pro-INC policy analysts envision a Middle East where Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the liberated portion of Iraq confront the dictatorial, anti-Western nations of Iran and Syria.

(...)

"I went to speak to [Ambassador Gold] just to say that I think it's in Israel's best interest to help the Iraqi people get this thing done," Mr. Brooke said. "The basic case I made was that we need help here in the U.S. to get this thing going."

For his part, Mr. Gold said Israel had no current plans to ally itself with the INC. "We're always interested in hearing impressions from people around the region, and Middle Easterners from many countries are always willing to share their perspective with us," Mr. Gold said.

A resident fellow at the AEI, Richard Perle, is calling upon both Israel and the American Jewish community to support the INC. "Israel has not devoted the political or rhetorical time or energy to Saddam that they have to the Iranians. The case for the Iraqi opposition in Congress would be a lot more favorable with Israeli support," said Mr. Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

With regard to the American Jewish community, Mr. Perle said: "There's no question that the Jewish community's been at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein."

Former Ambassador Dore Gold, who was the one approached in 1998, has written an article on the subject of the Iraq war. He makes it quite clear that Israel wanted to attack Iran, and did not regard Iraq as much of a threat, just like Mr. Perle says above. In his article, Gold makes some telling observations about the "Neocons." He points out, for instance, that Perle has endorsed the division of Jerusalem, a position that is anathema to the Israeli right wing.

I agree with what Norman Finkelstein has to say about these people:

The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel ­ in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the U.S.A.' s strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism. As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. "Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar," a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. "There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow." Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto? (source)

Norman Finkelstein, btw, is the one who exposed Alan Dershowitz's plagiarisms and wrote the book "The Holocaust Industry." He is a vehement opponent of Israel's policies, as you are undoubtedly aware.

I've also pointed out in the past that the Neocons, Perle most prominently among them, pursue a policy that is strongly supportive of Islamic extremism and terrorism in Chechnya, Bosnia, and Kosovo. While this is not detrimental to Israel, it is not something that really agrees with a Zionist ideology and is very much opposite the stated position of, oh, say, Ariel Sharon. This is all very suggestive of working in the U.S. interest. I do think the Neocons have a geo-strategic vision in which Israel plays a big part, sure. But they are attempting to be the puppet masters of Israel; Israel does not control them.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody ever done any research into building 6 to see if it indeed had floors in the center? Could it have had and open courtyard area inthe center of the building with offices on the outside like many other buildings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody ever done any research into building 6 to see if it indeed had floors in the center? Could it have had and open courtyard area inthe center of the building with offices on the outside like many other buildings?

Good question but I don't think so.

As to Jack's self vaunted photo analytic skills he says the photo was taken before the North Tower collapsed but lots of debris can be seen on and around the wreckage of 6.

As this and other photos show the was relatively little dammage to the outer walls

155925.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=155925

There are a couple of good photos on pages 8 & 9 of the ASCE/FEMA report.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody ever done any research into building 6 to see if it indeed had floors in the center? Could it have had and open courtyard area inthe center of the building with offices on the outside like many other buildings?

Good question but I don't think so.

As to Jack's self vaunted photo analytic skills he says the photo was taken before the North Tower collapsed but lots of debris can be seen on and around the wreckage of 6.

As this and other photos show the was relatively little dammage to the outer walls

155925.jpg

There are a couple of good photos on pages 8 & 9 of the ASCE/FEMA report.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf

Len

Colby is unaware that the second plane strike and the explosion

of Building Six occurred at the same instant, as if TIMED.

See attachment.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack seems to be very confused, either that or he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the visitors to his site and members of this forum. He presents 3 separate images all taken by different people at separate times and locations. The first a still from CBS, it shows the Trade Center at the time of the impact of flight 175 into the South Tower (thus at 9:03). It was shot looking South, WTC 6 was between WTC 7 and the North Tower, there is no sign of any smoke or dust anywhere at or near ground level. The second is a clip from CNN shot looking west, it appears to from just after the collapse of the South Tower (9:59), hence all the dust and lack of a second tower, and yes there is some smoke or dust rising from close to where 6 was (between 7 and the North Tower). The third appears to have been take with a good still camera (hence the quality) also short looking west but at a different angle, it shows both towers it was short sometime between the first two, as with the first image there’s no sign of smoke or dust at or near ground level.

If Jack could show us an image of a “cratered” 6 WTC with the North Tower still standing OR an image of smoke dust rising from the area of that building from BEFORE the South Tower collapsed OR a clear image (esp. video) of the building ‘erupting’ he would have a case. Strange that he can’t cite any witnesses either.

C'mon Jack, come up with one witness who says there was an explosion at ¨WTC 6

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to disappoint, Owen, but I think I'll give this topic a miss. More accurately, I'll lob a quick reply, then bow out.

I've decided to try not to debate "Israel Lobby Deniers" any more. It's too emotionally upsetting and lends credibility to their self-evidently fallacious position.

I see the 'conflict' in Gaza is hotting up again - another 24 Palestinains murdered, including two toddlers. Israel makes the former South African racist regime look like boy scouts when it comes to cruelty and contempt for their neighbours.

In the 1956, Eisenhower forced a cessation of hostilities by placing Israel under fierce pressure and refusing to back its western imperialist allies.

LBJ was the leader of support for Israel in Congress at the time.

These days, the USA daren't even call for a ceasefire after hundreds of civilian deaths and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

So what changed? Why, from the Johnson era onwards, did US policy tilt so strongly towards Israel?

Perhaps the US Establishment finally found the true Christian God? (the theology theory) Perhaps they came to believe that most middle eastern oil did not in fact lie under anti-Zionist soil or sand? (the oil-illusion theory) Perhaps the military industrial complex has been able to persuade successive US Governments since JFK just to stir up trouble in the middle east - and to hell with the consequences for oil supplies and other US interests in the region (the MID theory).

Today I thought of another possibility. Perhaps foreign policy is made in Washinton by tossing a coin? (the pure chance theory).

It seems as plausible to me as Israel Lobby Denial.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

You know I couldn't resist having a go...

http://www.concordesst.com/autopilot.html

Concorde has an Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) installed, that for the 1970s was state of the art. The system is designed to allow "hands off" control of the aircraft from climb out to landing
The Autoland system on Concorde is very sophisticated and can land the aircraft better than the pilot on many occasions!
As the throttles are not mechanically, but electrically connected...
INS - This mode causes the aircraft to track between two waypoints that are being fed to it from the external Inertial Navigation System (INS)
or another source?
TRK HDG - Track or Heading. The selector dial on the bottom row is either pulled for Heading mode or pushed for Track mode, and the aircraft will follows the Track or Heading selected on the dial. A heading will follow a compass direction, where as a Track will follow a direct route to the selected position taking into account wind speeds etc..
VOR LOC - When this is pressed it causes the aircraft to turn and track the selected VOR beacon or localiser that has been selected. The is a Prime mode and a small triangle under the button will light up when the capturing is in progress. Once the beacon or localiser has been acquired the button will light

So we have an electronically connected mini-computer which can perform all tasks from climb out to landing (excludes taking off), including alterations to heading and altitude. It is also capable of following switching locator/VOR beacons (and presumeably multiple beacons in series?).

Sounds exactly like remote control to me. Most modern aircraft have fly-by-wire autopilots. Probably considerably more sophisticated than this 1970 model.

On the software issue: if software can be written to never override the pilot - it can be re-written to always override the pilot.

It also would not take much to add an additional reciever for radio waypoint/heading/intruction information.

or

Any computer with software is capable of following a series of instructions to reach an end result

or

follow a series of preprogrammed VOR hops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack seems to be very confused, either that or he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the visitors to his site and members of this forum. He presents 3 separate images all taken by different people at separate times and locations. The first a still from CBS, it shows the Trade Center at the time of the impact of flight 175 into the South Tower (thus at 9:03). It was shot looking South, WTC 6 was between WTC 7 and the North Tower, there is no sign of any smoke or dust anywhere at or near ground level. The second is a clip from CNN shot looking west, it appears to from just after the collapse of the South Tower (9:59), hence all the dust and lack of a second tower, and yes there is some smoke or dust rising from close to where 6 was (between 7 and the North Tower). The third appears to have been take with a good still camera (hence the quality) also short looking west but at a different angle, it shows both towers it was short sometime between the first two, as with the first image there’s no sign of smoke or dust at or near ground level.

If Jack could show us an image of a “cratered” 6 WTC with the North Tower still standing OR an image of smoke dust rising from the area of that building from BEFORE the South Tower collapsed OR a clear image (esp. video) of the building ‘erupting’ he would have a case. Strange that he can’t cite any witnesses either.

C'mon Jack, come up with one witness who says there was an explosion at ¨WTC 6

Len

Colby hasn't the slightest idea what he is saying. Photos and videos show

Building Six exploding while BOTH TOWERS are STILL STANDING!

One should know the facts before spouting out disinformation!

See below. There are lots more such photos.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

You know I couldn't resist having a go...

http://www.concordesst.com/autopilot.html

Concorde has an Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) installed, that for the 1970s was state of the art. The system is designed to allow "hands off" control of the aircraft from climb out to landing
The Autoland system on Concorde is very sophisticated and can land the aircraft better than the pilot on many occasions!
As the throttles are not mechanically, but electrically connected...
INS - This mode causes the aircraft to track between two waypoints that are being fed to it from the external Inertial Navigation System (INS)
or another source?
TRK HDG - Track or Heading. The selector dial on the bottom row is either pulled for Heading mode or pushed for Track mode, and the aircraft will follows the Track or Heading selected on the dial. A heading will follow a compass direction, where as a Track will follow a direct route to the selected position taking into account wind speeds etc..
VOR LOC - When this is pressed it causes the aircraft to turn and track the selected VOR beacon or localiser that has been selected. The is a Prime mode and a small triangle under the button will light up when the capturing is in progress. Once the beacon or localiser has been acquired the button will light

So we have an electronically connected mini-computer which can perform all tasks from climb out to landing (excludes taking off), including alterations to heading and altitude. It is also capable of following switching locator/VOR beacons (and presumeably multiple beacons in series?).

Sounds exactly like remote control to me. Most modern aircraft have fly-by-wire autopilots. Probably considerably more sophisticated than this 1970 model.

On the software issue: if software can be written to never override the pilot - it can be re-written to always override the pilot.

It also would not take much to add an additional reciever for radio waypoint/heading/intruction information.

or

Any computer with software is capable of following a series of instructions to reach an end result

or

follow a series of preprogrammed VOR hops.

Thanks, Steve. Excellent research and posting.

I recommend the following from a website on remote technology:

First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID).

Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft

Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html

Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated

Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver

Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System

Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."

757-200 Background - Flight Deck

As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to disappoint, Owen, but I think I'll give this topic a miss. More accurately, I'll lob a quick reply, then bow out.

Fine with me, as I did not make this topic with you in mind specifically, although I did reuse material from a previous reply to you because it was relevant. Not much point in replying, but here goes anyway.

I've decided to try not to debate "Israel Lobby Deniers" any more. It's too emotionally upsetting and lends credibility to their self-evidently fallacious position.

Cute, Sid. I will adress this one last time: I had a bad feeling about the way our prospective "debate" would be heading when you posted an already discredited IHR article and then misleadingly juxtaposed it with the Lipstadt letter. I don't enjoy wasting valuable time and energy getting into arguments with people who are exceptionally intellectually dishonest and hard-headed, and you have given every indication that this is the case with yourself. Daniel's quote that "If it's not clear by now what Sid is 'on about,' it never will be," drove this point home for me.

I see the 'conflict' in Gaza is hotting up again - another 24 Palestinains murdered, including two toddlers. Israel makes the former South African racist regime look like boy scouts when it comes to cruelty and contempt for their neighbours.

Yes, its horrible, but Israel's actions are not a unique case of evil, as you seem to imagine. An example that comes readily to mind would be NATO's bombing of an Albanian refugee column returning to Kosovo. You may see the pictures here.

In the 1956, Eisenhower forced a cessation of hostilities by placing Israel under fierce pressure and refusing to back its western imperialist allies.

LBJ was the leader of support for Israel in Congress at the time.

These days, the USA daren't even call for a ceasefire after hundreds of civilian deaths and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

The U.S. makes all sorts of dishonest exceptions for all sorts of thuggish governments. You make it sound like Israel is the only nation ever that has brutalized and subjagated a minority population while the U.S. either turns the other way or tacitly encourages it (hmm... what about Turkey and its Kurdish population, as just one example? What about East Timor?). In fact, the U.S. and its European allies engage in this sort of behavior themselves, as the example above shows.

Israel wasn't worth really anything to the U.S. pre-1967, as it was still a marginal, left-wing, "socialist" nation. Israel "proved" its usefulness in smashing inconvenient Arab governments in the Six Day War and thus earned for itself U.S patronage. This was also the time when the American Jewish elite class found it advantageous to support Israel and politically convenient to remember the Holocaust (see above, or go read Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry) This only increased (and how) during the Yom Kippur war, as Israel was a good counter to all the Soviet influence in the region.

But of course, a global Jewish cabal makes things so much more simple. :D

So what changed? Why, from the Johnson era onwards, did US policy tilt so strongly towards Israel?

Perhaps the US Establishment finally found the true Christian God? (the theology theory) Perhaps they came to believe that most middle eastern oil did not in fact lie under anti-Zionist soil or sand? (the oil-illusion theory) Perhaps the military industrial complex has been able to persuade successive US Governments since JFK just to stir up trouble in the middle east - and to hell with the consequences for oil supplies and other US interests in the region (the MID theory).

Perhaps you should have read the Finkelstein article I linked to above. I'll just quote some relevant portions for you and leave it at that:

Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby. For different reasons, both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate. However, once the U.S. solidified its alliance with Israel after June 1967, it began to look at Israelis ­ and Israelis projected themselve ­ as experts on the "Arab mind." Accordingly, the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies, Israelis believing that "Arabs only understand the language of force" and every few years this or that Arab country needs to be smashed up. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow, but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.

The claim that Israel has become a liability for U.S. "national" interests in the Middle East misses the bigger picture. Sometimes what's most obvious escapes the eye. Israel is the only stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region. Every other country the U.S. relies on might, for all anyone knows, fall out of U.S. control tomorrow. The U.S.A. discovered this to its horror in 1979, after immense investment in the Shah. On the other hand, Israel was a creation of the West; it's in every respect culturally, politically, economically ­ in thrall to the West, notably the U.S. This is true not just at the level of a corrupt leadership, as elsewhere in the Middle East but ­ what's most important ­ at the popular level. Israel's pro-American orientation exists not just among Israeli elites but also among the whole population. Come what may in Israel, it's inconceivable that this fundamental orientation will change. Combined with its overwhelming military power, this makes Israel a unique and irreplaceable American asset in the Middle East.

In this regard, it's useful to recall the rationale behind British support for Zionism. Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann once asked a British official why the British continued to support Zionism despite Arab opposition. Didn't it make more sense for them to keep Palestine but drop support for Zionism? "Although such an attitude may afford a temporary relief and may quiet Arabs for a short time," the official replied, "it will certainly not settle the question as the Arabs don't want the British in Palestine, and after having their way with the Jews, they would attack the British position, as the Moslems are doing in Mesopotamia, Egypt and India." Another British official judged retrospectively that, however much Arab resentment it provoked, British support for Zionism was prudent policy, for it established in the midst of an "uncertain Arab world a well-to-do educated, modern community, ultimately bound to be dependent on the British Empire." Were it even possible, the British had little interest in promoting real Jewish-Arab cooperation because it would inevitably lessen this dependence. Similarly, the U.S. doesn't want an Israel truly at peace with the Arabs, for such an Israel could loosen its bonds of dependence on the U.S. , making it a less reliable proxy. This is one reason why the claim that Jewish elites are "pro"-Israel makes little sense. They are "pro" an Israel that is useful to the U.S. and, therefore, useful to them. What use would a Paul Wolfowitz have of an Israel living peacefully with its Arab neighbors and less willing to do the U.S.'s bidding?

[...]

Unlike elsewhere in the Middle East, U.S. elite policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict would almost certainly not be the same without the Lobby. What does the U.S.A. gain from the Israeli settlements and occupation? In terms of alienating the Arab world, it's had something to lose. The Lobby probably can't muster sufficient power to jeopardize a fundamental American interest, but it can significantly raise the threshold before U.S. elites are prepared to act ­ i.e., order Israel out of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as the U.S. finally pressured the Indonesians out of Occupied East Timor. Whereas Israel doesn't have many options if the U.S. does finally give the order to pack up, the U.S. won't do so until and unless the Israeli occupation becomes a major liability for it: on account of the Lobby the point at which "until and unless" is reached significantly differs. Without the Lobby and in the face of widespread Arab resentment, the U.S. would perhaps have ordered Israel to end the occupation by now, sparing Palestinians much suffering[.]

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colby hasn't the slightest idea what he is saying. Photos and videos show Building Six exploding while BOTH TOWERS are STILL STANDING!

If such photos and videos exist I suggest that Jack post them here, something he has thus far failed to do. Odd to that he can't find a single witness to back his claim that 6 exploded or was cratered before 1 collapsed.

One should know the facts before spouting out disinformation! See below. There are lots more such photos.

Jack's 1st photo of course proves nothing and the 2nd proves little there is no reason to doubt that the dust cloud is coming from the collapse of the South Tower which was 1362 feet/ 415 meters / 110 stories high and weighed about 450 – 510,000 tons. We’ve all seen the videos of the dust clouds expanding blocks away. Also note that the cloud seems to be expanding horizontally and according to Jack 6 WTC exploded straight up like an erupting volcano. If the building exploded the way Jack thinks the dust should have been shooting upwards. If this cloud had been from 6 I would expect that building’s outer walls to have been blown out, something which largely didn’t happen. Also note the lack of any evidence of any evidence of debris.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...