Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is Spike Lee the Oliver Stone of 9/11 Truth?


Recommended Posts

I can't resist making one off topic comment.  When discussing Trump and flipping, flopping or simply getting involved in ANYTHING there is a simple three word solution given to us by Deep Throat.  "FOLLOW THE MONEY".  If there is no money going into his pocket, there is NO Trump involvement.  The only exception to that if there is one at all, is if by his actions he can call himself "THE GREATEST (fill in the blank).  Not a single deep thought is necessary to define DJT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Richard Price said:

I can't resist making one off topic comment.  When discussing Trump and flipping, flopping or simply getting involved in ANYTHING there is a simple three word solution given to us by Deep Throat.  "FOLLOW THE MONEY".  If there is no money going into his pocket, there is NO Trump involvement.  The only exception to that if there is one at all, is if by his actions he can call himself "THE GREATEST (fill in the blank).  Not a single deep thought is necessary to define DJT!

And right on cue, Richard... 🤥

Trump to Spend 9/11 at a Casino Boxing Match 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

      Trump has now flip flopped 180 degrees on ending the war in Afghanistan-- blaming Biden for the war's end.

      But it's hardly the first time that we've watched watched Donald flip flop on issues involving the "Deep State."

      He flip flopped on releasing the JFK assassination records.

      Also, during his 2016 Republican primary debates with Jeb Bush, Trump declared, "When I'm President, the American people are going to find out who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11."

      But, as POTUS, Trump never uttered a word on that subject.

      And, for the past 20 years, the U.S. mainstream media has never uttered a word about the Project for a New American Century.

The Project For a New American Century

https://www.911review.com/motive/pnac.html

You misunderstand the point of what I am saying. 

Just as Nixon was loathsome, so was Trump. 

But, Axios reports that had the global security state supported and worked with Trump to get out of Afghanistan, the US would have been out under the Trump watch. And from Syria. 

But instead the global security state undermined Trump, and planted endless stories against him in the compliant media. And we have reached a point of institutionalized insanity that when a US president say he want to get troops out of Country X, he is painted as a lunatic or wildly irresponsible. See Biden at present. 

Here is the point: Hopefully, Trump is gone. The global security state persists. What the global security state did against Trump should be recognized---they will do the same thing against any President who crosses them. See Biden at present.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no individual known to Woodward & Bernstein as Deep Throat. He did not appear in the first

manuscript of the book, and its editor, Alice Mayhew,

suggested adding it. The character was a composite

of Woodward's intelligence sources. And that line 
"Follow the money" was written by screenwriter William Goldman.

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

https://www.axios.com/off-the-rails-trump-military-withdraw-afghanistan-5717012a-d55d-4819-a79f-805d5eb3c6e2.html

It is interesting what is attains gospel status both in the M$M, and then also in the political tribes and offshoots. And then what is ridiculed. 

The above link suggests Trump in fact tried to pull US troops out of several regions, and was simply overruled by the Pentagon-"Deep State," and no one in the media gave a hoot. This was not a story to gain traction. 

Really, the above link is not about whether you like Trump or not, or think he staged a coup attempt on Jan. 6, or how bad his hairdo was. Trump was mercurial, and not steady. 

What this is really about a US President giving a legal order, and the military wing of executive branch not carrying out the order.  

Decades ago, Nixon ordered the CIA to give him the Bay of Pigs files. They never did. I am not fan of Nixon, but do you prefer a government in which the military-intel services unilaterally decide what orders they will follow? 

But Trump is a no go in the M$M media and triggers loss of bowel control for self-styled social justice warriors. But---Trump was right on getting troops out of the Mideast, right on the Wuhan lab, right on the need for border security, right on the CCP-China trade issue.   

All of that was "wrong" in the lights of US elites-media, who want access to cheap labor at home and abroad and a global military. 

 

Coulda, shoulda, woulda!--- Ben what you neglect to mention in the article is that Trump tried to get us out of our military commitments on Nov. 9th, 2020, out of sheer desperacy after he lost the election. At that point he had no power at all and was a lame duck President who no  one would follow. The irrefutable facts are that Biden got out of Afghanistsan and did it  in the first 8 months of his Presidency and is facing the heat Trump do didn't have the courage to face .

From your article.

When it came down to it, Trump was indecisive. In the view of top officials, he did not seem to want to own the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal.

That's because he's never taken an action he had to be responsible for..

By the spring of 2017, two generals Trump had installed in top positions — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in an interagency process run by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster — had begun working on an option to send 4,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

What President whose really serious about withdrawing troops would put 2 generals as Defense Secretary and National Security Advisor? And he'd actually bragged  about it, that he had the 2 toughest guys in the toughest posts! Like he was going to be the tough guy President , and he actually bragged about  increasing  Defense spending. Obviously he was confused.

There are many stories about how Presidents select certain cabinet members. Some were just from articles that were previously published. Unfortunately Trump doesn't read. He just wasn't prepared to be President.

McMaster was replaced in March 2018 and Trump's third national security adviser, John Bolton, was a notorious advocate for U.S. military interventionism.

 Then he hires Bolton , the biggest hawk in Washington! You can't make this stuff up. Do you think subconsciously he just wanted this whole disarmament  thing to fail?

Just like people around Nixon ignoring his attempts at martial law. Is it  really just another stock "military deep state conspiracy". Sure they didn't want to hear his occasional disarmament rantings amongst his tough talk about things such as seizing the oil from Iraq?He appointed Generals for chrissake!. While in office, he could have truly made his peaceful intentions known to the American people and been consistent, but he didn't. .

Since you always seem to come back to Trump and the raw deal you think he got, It sounds like you had great hopes for him. I would have given him credit had he wound down the war state. If he wanted to reach across the aisle to the Dem doves, he was in a unique position to wind down the war state and also get credit for breaking the R&D  stalemate in Washington. I honestly believe that was possible.

Blame the Deep State for the umpteenth time for holding back Trump for something Biden in part accomplished in his first 8 months.But one's character and presence actually matters, and the fundaments just weren't there, and as an executive, the guy just couldn't string anything together.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Coulda, shoulda, woulda!--- Ben what you neglect to mention in the article is that Trump tried to get us out of our military commitments on Nov. 9th, 2020, out of sheer desperacy after he lost the election. At that point he had no power at all and was a lame duck President who no  one would follow. The irrefutable facts are that Biden got out of Afghanistsan and did it  in the first 8 months of his Presidency and is facing the heat Trump do didn't have the courage to face .

From your article.

When it came down to it, Trump was indecisive. In the view of top officials, he did not seem to want to own the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal.

That's because he's never taken an action he had to be responsible for..

By the spring of 2017, two generals Trump had installed in top positions — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in an interagency process run by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster — had begun working on an option to send 4,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

What President whose really serious about withdrawing troops would put 2 generals as Defense Secretary and National Security Advisor? And he'd actually bragged  about it, that he had the 2 toughest guys in the toughest posts! Like he was going to be the tough guy President , and he actually bragged about  increasing  Defense spending. Obviously he was confused.

There are many stories about how Presidents select certain cabinet members. Some were just from articles that were previously published. Unfortunately Trump doesn't read. He just wasn't prepared to be President.

McMaster was replaced in March 2018 and Trump's third national security adviser, John Bolton, was a notorious advocate for U.S. military interventionism.

 Then he hires Bolton , the biggest hawk in Washington! You can't make this stuff up. Do you think subconsciously he just wanted this whole disarmament  thing to fail?

Just like people around Nixon ignoring his attempts at martial law. Is it  really just another stock "military deep state conspiracy". Sure they didn't want to hear his occasional disarmament rantings amongst his tough talk about things such as seizing the oil from Iraq?He appointed Generals for chrissake!. While in office, he could have truly made his peaceful intentions known to the American people and been consistent, but he didn't. .

Since you always seem to come back to Trump and the raw deal you think he got, It sounds like you had great hopes for him. I would have given him credit had he wound down the war state. If he wanted to reach across the aisle to the Dem doves, he was in a unique position to wind down the war state and also get credit for breaking the R&D  stalemate in Washington. I honestly believe that was possible.

Blame the Deep State for the umpteenth time for holding back Trump for something Biden in part accomplished in his first 8 months.But one's character and presence actually matters, and the fundaments just weren't there, and as an executive, the guy just couldn't string anything together.

 

"But one's character and presence actually matters, and the fundaments just weren't there, and as an executive, the guy just couldn't string anything together."--Kirk 

This is largely true. 

It is also true the national security state went after him hammer & tong. 

Like I said, had the national security state coalesced around Trump early on to bring his anti-globalist views to fruition ( as was their legal obligation), and protect his flanks along the way, he might have succeeded. 

Instead we had the Russiagate farce, and lies to the Commander-in-Chief about how many troops were where. For starters.

Interesting parallel from cinema: Captain Quigg (Bogart). He was a terrible captain. But had the staff bolstered Quigg and worked with him, it would have improved outcomes. Instead Fred MacMurray operated to undermine Quigg, worsening matters. 

Anyway, the national security and the globalists are bigger than ever. Trump will soon retreat into a lugubrious section of history books. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Hard seeing some of the woke crowd making fun of truthers, as if the drama surrounding 9/11 truth is anything compared to the painful situation with qanon or the anti-vaxxers.

Or the science.

The 9/11 Truth research is, basically, Newtonian physics.

Hardly a "conspiracy theory."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Or the science.

The 9/11 Truth research is, basically, Newtonian physics.

Hardly a "conspiracy theory."

It would be cool if a video essayist made an actually unbiased video about the history of the truthers. It's not every day that a group of internet conspiracy theorists legitimately embarrass the U.S. Government's own scientists. For example, digital scans of the original blueprints of WTC 7 were acquired via FOIA, and those showed shear studs securing the girders and other structural elements which NIST themselves admit to taking out of their computer model. They just pretended like those parts of the building never existed, even though there is historical evidence that they did, and the only way to study WTC 7 is by starting with the historical evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Or the science.

The 9/11 Truth research is, basically, Newtonian physics.

Hardly a "conspiracy theory."

But remember, a far, far more serious danger to our nation...was the 1/6 scrum. 

If what you say is true, one of the authors of the 9/11 demolition, former President Bush Jr., is now likening that event to 1/6. The M$M accepts this analogy. 

Screen Shot 2564-09-12 at 07.16.31.jpg

Edited by Benjamin Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But remember, a far, far more serious danger to our nation...was the 1/6 scrum. 

If what you say is true, one of the authors of the 9/11 demolition, former President Bush Jr., is now likening that event to 1/6. The M$M accepts this analogy. 

Screen Shot 2564-09-12 at 07.16.31.jpg

Of course Bush is, as the only route to liberty for the masses seeking freedom and democracy is civil disobedience, rebellion or revolution. Marx (who I generally dislike) looks to have been right about the end days of Capitalism. You’d end up with oligarchs cannibalising government institutions. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

It would be cool if a video essayist made an actually unbiased video about the history of the truthers. It's not every day that a group of internet conspiracy theorists legitimately embarrass the U.S. Government's own scientists. For example, digital scans of the original blueprints of WTC 7 were acquired via FOIA, and those showed shear studs securing the girders and other structural elements which NIST themselves admit to taking out of their computer model. They just pretended like those parts of the building never existed, even though there is historical evidence that they did, and the only way to study WTC 7 is by starting with the historical evidence.

Micah,

     The NIST computer modelers didn't even attempt to explain the abrupt, entire free fall collapse of WTC7.  Their bogus computer "simulation" only pretended to describe the initiation of a partial upper story collapse.  That, by itself, would not have caused the observed free fall demolition of the entire lower level steel substructures of that 47 floor skyscraper.

     It was an obvious explosive demolition.

Two Congressmen Push For Release Of 28-Page Document Showing Saudi Involvement In 9/11 ...

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Micah,

     The NIST computer modelers didn't even attempt to explain the abrupt, entire free fall collapse of WTC7.  Their bogus computer "simulation" only pretended to describe the initiation of a partial upper story collapse.  That, by itself, would not have caused the observed free fall demolition of the entire lower level steel substructures of that 47 floor skyscraper.

     It was an obvious explosive demolition.

Two Congressmen Push For Release Of 28-Page Document Showing Saudi Involvement In 9/11 ...

 

Where were you W.  And others.  I was working for Honnewell/GE at near Alliance Airport N of Fort Worth.  Went in the break room and saw news of the first impact on the TV.  Kept coming back and saw the second one as it was reported.  The most stunning news I've ever seen.  I think the people jumping was the most horrific part for me.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Of course Bush is, as the only route to liberty for the masses seeking freedom and democracy is civil disobedience, rebellion or revolution. Marx (who I generally dislike) looks to have been right about the end days of Capitalism. You’d end up with oligarchs cannibalising government institutions. 

 

 

I always say vulgar Marxist diagnosis is right 90% of the time; unfortunately Marxist medicine is poison. 

Liz Cheney and George Bush Jr. are the new CNN heroes.

Who does CNN really work for? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Micah,

     The NIST computer modelers didn't even attempt to explain the abrupt, entire free fall collapse of WTC7.  Their bogus computer "simulation" only pretended to describe the initiation of a partial upper story collapse.  That, by itself, would not have caused the observed free fall demolition of the entire lower level steel substructures of that 47 floor skyscraper.

     It was an obvious explosive demolition.

Two Congressmen Push For Release Of 28-Page Document Showing Saudi Involvement In 9/11 ...

 

Where were you W, and others?  I was at work at Honeywell/GE near Alliance airport n of Fort Worth.  Went in the breakroom and saw the first tower on the news then watched the second one as they reported it.  The most incredible news I've ever watched live.  I think the people jumping was the most horrific part for me. 

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...