Jump to content
The Education Forum

FBI, the mob, and 9/11


Recommended Posts

EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama’s choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity’s operation centered on Chicago.

<

<

The extent to which anyone fell for this imposture - by attending rallies, by blogging, by posting, by sloganeering - is the extent to which we can be duped again. Is it also the extent to which we are good, optimistic, law-abiding? What must change in us? What will be permitted to change, now that we have conceded so much with each cycle of hope?

See post #7 here - a bit hurried and general, but --

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry172549

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Stephen Turner

Psychiatrists to blame for 911.

Yes, forget all your notions about bombs, missiles hitting the Pentagon, ghost planes and all, the answer was right under our noses all along, evil shrinks pre-programmed Bin Laden, actually a nice regular freedom fighter, to do the deed. Posted mainly for jolly, but I would like to get into just what Scientology beef with Mental health is really all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More from John Lear:

Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon for the simple reason that April Gallop was sitting at her desk about 40 feet from the hole. She saw no airplane, missile or drone and smelled no jet fuel, kerosene or any kind of gas. She reached beside her desk and grabbed her 6 month old son an climbed out the alleged hole made by an alleged airplane. She has been harassed by Army Intelligence and recently

filed a suit against the U.S, Government.

BS from the Washington Post

But no drug wards off her flashbacks, when she sees herself at her Pentagon desk three years ago…

When Elisha cries these days the same way he did when he was trapped under the debris, it all comes back. If she drives past an airport and smells jet fuel, it all comes back. She hears her injured co-workers calling for help. She sees the shards of metal, the broken furniture and shattered lights jutting dangerously every which way. It feels . . . so real.

"You live with it, almost every day," Gallop said. "You carry it with you."

So why would the smell of jet fuel make “it all come back” if she hadn’t smelt it after the attack? Lear exemplifies typical idiot truther logic, dozens of people saw the plane hit but one person inside the building didn’t see it therefore it “could not have hit the Pentagon” It hit the wall at about 800 ft (4x its length)/sec and projected debris on top of her.

In addition I am an expert in reading Flight digital Data Recorders and it is my opinion that Flight 77 was flown by professionals and overflew the Pentagon by about 200 feet.

He claims such expertise but unless I’m mistaken this is not a skill pilots would be expected to know, it is the realm of crash investigators. Dozens of witnesses saw the plane hit none saw flyover the building.

As to Shankvilles based on the debris there is no possibility that a large commercial airliner crashed into the alleged mining pit. I am a certified Federal Mine Safety and Health Instructor and based on that and my aviation background there is not possibility that an airplane crashed at that reclamation site.

As to Flight 93 getting shot down it would have been impossible to hide the wreckage of such a crash from the public or the media because of the size of the debris field.

I doubt he was there. Numerous crash investigators disagree and several witnesses saw the crash.

As to the WTC crashes it would be impossible for an airplane to hit the WTC and not have at least half of it fall back into the street. At least the tail section should have broken off and fallen into the street.

This shows he is ignorant about basic physics momentum projected the debris forward

Remaining in the wreckage of the tower should have been at least 3 P&W 4062 engines, weighing 4 tons each which simply could not have burned completely up. There were large forgings including the wing fuselage forgings, wheel bogeys, struts and vertical horizontal tail assembly which simply could not have disappeared.

IIRC two engine cores were found. But in any case

100+ ton Boeings crashed into steel framed buildings at 450 – 550 mph. The parts then a) fell about 1000 and were later crushed by the rubble of two 500,000 ton buildings or ;) were lodged in those buildings and were crushed when the collapsed

And Einstein is surprised the other two (or three) cores and other parts he mentions weren’t found amongst the million or so tons of debris?

2 commercial airliners could not have totally disappeared inside the wreckage of both WTC towers.

They didn’t

The fact that there has not been one single piece of 4 airliners with over 9 million stamped, engraved or painted with serial and production numbers along with 300 miles of wire is proof that no airplanes crashed anywhere on 911.

Repeat of his previous BS see my 1st reply

In the history of flight there has never been an airplane crash, the known site of which contained no parts of the airplanes.

He's correct and there were lots of parts collected from all 9/11 crash siotes

I have investigated 3 Learjet crashes as part of the NTSB team, all three of which went straight in from altitude and there were plenty of parts left and in all three cases large parts of the tail remained. Both the 757 and the 767 are much larger and should have left much larger parts than the smaller Learjet.

Once again he demonstrates his ignorance of basic physics, the greater the mass the greater the energy of the crash. A loaded Learjet 60 weighs about 20,000 lbs (9000 kilos), a loaded 757 about 10 times that and a 767 about 20 times that. Kinetic energy is based on the square of velocity, double the speed quadruple the KE, I doubt any of the crashes he investigated hit the ground at 580 mph like flight 93 or flew into buildings at 450 – 530 pph like flight 11, 175 and 77. Apparently he was not involved in the investigation of the most famous Learjet crash, Payne Stewart’s plane left very little recognizable wreckage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Whilst the hyperbole in the title used on this post and the article do, at first blush, seem rather 'far out' - the actual content of the link posted, in summary, equates to the opinion a great deal of people, respected and sane (as far as I can tell), on this forum, in that many major catastrophic world events have had a person, suspected of being programmed, a la MK-Ultra, at the helm.

This is not a new, jolly and/or ridiculous notion.

Using Scientology as a medium for refuting the wholisitc possibility that many murderers are programmed by doctors, specialising in the mind and drug effects thereon, by using one specifc example and linking this to the conspiracy breeding ground of 911 is no more than a crude attempt to influence weak minded people - 2 birds one stone.

Bin Laden, the bogey-man construct created and programmed by a foreign intelligence agency is not really that hard to digest...it is, in fact, more likely to be true.

I hope you don't post that Freddie Starr didn't also eat your hamster. ;)

Edited by Gary Loughran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Whilst the hyperbole in the title used on this post and the article do, at first blush, seem rather 'far out' - the actual content of the link posted, in summary, equates to the opinion a great deal of people, respected and sane (as far as I can tell), on this forum, in that many major catastrophic world events have had a person, suspected of being programmed, a la MK-Ultra, at the helm.

This is not a new, jolly and/or ridiculous notion.

Using Scientology as a medium for refuting the wholisitc possibility that many murderers are programmed by doctors, specialising in the mind and drug effects thereon, by using one specifc example and linking this to the conspiracy breeding ground of 911 is no more than a crude attempt to influence weak minded people - 2 birds one stone.

Bin Laden, the bogey-man construct created and programmed by a foreign intelligence agency is not really that hard to digest...it is, in fact, more likely to be true.

I hope you don't post that Freddie Starr didn't also eat your hamster. :)

Gary, Firstly I didn't link this to 911, leading scientologists did, unless you belive I have some mind control over them. Seconly, although an attempt at humour, crude I'll admit, but I do have form here, as the last line indicated I would like to use it to look more deeply into the cult of Scientology, and, more specifically, their crusade against mainstream Psychiatry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is it again that would need to program a very rich man whose family has had long ties with the Saudi government and with various US administrations; whose anti-Russian jihad in Afghanistan was US-backed; and whose rejection of the Saudi royals is a transparent sham? Is that accomplished with psychiatry, or capitalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a new, jolly and/or ridiculous notion.

No Gary it is a mad notion. Doctors or psychiatrists do not ‘programme’ anyone. (I can only assume that West Ham's run of recent form has unhinged the balance of your mind).

It is also a notion that conveniently absolves other members of society from blame for the monsters they help to create.

However if you want something more tangible to 'point the finger' at I suggest Religion. Bin Laden is dripping with it. This will give you temporary respite on the journey to David Andrews' conclusion.

Scientology's opposition to psychiatry is interesting and probably warrants a separate thread(?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran
This is not a new, jolly and/or ridiculous notion.

No Gary it is a mad notion. Doctors or psychiatrists do not ‘programme’ anyone. (I can only assume that West Ham's run of recent form has unhinged the balance of your mind).

It is also a notion that conveniently absolves other members of society from blame for the monsters they help to create.

However if you want something more tangible to 'point the finger' at I suggest Religion. Bin Laden is dripping with it. This will give you temporary respite on the journey to David Andrews' conclusion.

Scientology's opposition to psychiatry is interesting and probably warrants a separate thread(?)

It is most assuredly not a mad notion, and whilst I didn't exhibit my typical good humour in response to Stephen, it certainly wasn't meant as a reproach to him, especially given I share much of his world view sensibilities. For the lack of this being obvious, I apologise. West Ham, though, I can't apologise for, nor should you assume the balance of my mind was ever hinged. I would be most disappointed if the results came back and said it once was.

Similarly, Andy, I accept with good humour and grace your reproach of my views and I mean this sincerely. With equal sincerity I think you have spent too long with your head down in the sand (bad golfing advice there :) ). I agree though that, routinely, doctors do not programme anyone. Who, though, are these 'other members of society'?

I don't believe in psychiatry at all - but aren't they the crowd that can prescribe drugs (one solution fits all programming) as opposed to psychologists (genuinely not sure which is which (don't believe in either, actually, anyway - I think it's all in their heads)). However, I cannot accept that you do not believe, in non-routine, very specific, circumstances, doctors have been involved in programmes which have been established to programme human minds for murder...it has already been admitted as fact by the bastion of all righteousness the CIA.

As for religion, by any non-conspiracy theorist measure this is the greatest conspiracy ever, given there is no proof whatsoever. Len, Craig and yourself could never believe in this lunacy. Not even Jack White could produce a photo of God and if he did you'd all call him a fraud anyway, and no Government agency has produced a report (to the best of my knowledge) confirming God's existence, and if it existed Jack et. al. would call it a fraud anyway...therefore he definitely does/doesn't exist - much like yer man's cat. The bible, in my opinion, is possibly the first Warren report, Widgery report, Lowe report, ad infintitum (if that means everything I've forgotten - never did Latin at our school).

There is much in your suspicion of 'big pharma' posts which would, reading between the lines (I admit I haven't re-read them prior to posting, but it would seem from memory your suspiscions of 'Big Pharma' actually prove a lot of what you're attempting to disprove) be the broad base for an Ashton Gray style book...and he, of course, is suspected of being an arch Scientologist.

As for Scientology, I may not agree with it wholesale or at all (full disclosure- I don't really know what it's about!!), but there is enough in the 'disappearence' of its founder and consequent events which lead me to believe all is not what it seems in that sphere. Interestingly the Free Presbyterian Church in NI, have less than 1% of the unionist populace (much less than Scientology, if both are considered religions) in NI, making them a smaller 'cult' than Scientology and yet your government has pandered to them without exception since their formation. Do you know why?

Finally and the greatest insult I can bring myself to bear on you...at least we don't have Lucas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a new, jolly and/or ridiculous notion.

No Gary it is a mad notion. Doctors or psychiatrists do not ‘programme’ anyone. (I can only assume that West Ham's run of recent form has unhinged the balance of your mind).

It is also a notion that conveniently absolves other members of society from blame for the monsters they help to create.

However if you want something more tangible to 'point the finger' at I suggest Religion. Bin Laden is dripping with it. This will give you temporary respite on the journey to David Andrews' conclusion.

Scientology's opposition to psychiatry is interesting and probably warrants a separate thread(?)

It is most assuredly not a mad notion, and whilst I didn't exhibit my typical good humour in response to Stephen, it certainly wasn't meant as a reproach to him, especially given I share much of his world view sensibilities. For the lack of this being obvious, I apologise. West Ham, though, I can't apologise for, nor should you assume the balance of my mind was ever hinged. I would be most disappointed if the results came back and said it once was.

Similarly, Andy, I accept with good humour and grace your reproach of my views and I mean this sincerely. With equal sincerity I think you have spent too long with your head down in the sand (bad golfing advice there :) ). I agree though that, routinely, doctors do not programme anyone. Who, though, are these 'other members of society'?

I don't believe in psychiatry at all - but aren't they the crowd that can prescribe drugs (one solution fits all programming) as opposed to psychologists (genuinely not sure which is which (don't believe in either, actually, anyway - I think it's all in their heads)). However, I cannot accept that you do not believe, in non-routine, very specific, circumstances, doctors have been involved in programmes which have been established to programme human minds for murder...it has already been admitted as fact by the bastion of all righteousness the CIA.

As for religion, by any non-conspiracy theorist measure this is the greatest conspiracy ever, given there is no proof whatsoever. Len, Craig and yourself could never believe in this lunacy. Not even Jack White could produce a photo of God and if he did you'd all call him a fraud anyway, and no Government agency has produced a report (to the best of my knowledge) confirming God's existence, and if it existed Jack et. al. would call it a fraud anyway...therefore he definitely does/doesn't exist - much like yer man's cat. The bible, in my opinion, is possibly the first Warren report, Widgery report, Lowe report, ad infintitum (if that means everything I've forgotten - never did Latin at our school).

There is much in your suspicion of 'big pharma' posts which would, reading between the lines (I admit I haven't re-read them prior to posting, but it would seem from memory your suspiscions of 'Big Pharma' actually prove a lot of what you're attempting to disprove) be the broad base for an Ashton Gray style book...and he, of course, is suspected of being an arch Scientologist.

As for Scientology, I may not agree with it wholesale or at all (full disclosure- I don't really know what it's about!!), but there is enough in the 'disappearence' of its founder and consequent events which lead me to believe all is not what it seems in that sphere. Interestingly the Free Presbyterian Church in NI, have less than 1% of the unionist populace (much less than Scientology, if both are considered religions) in NI, making them a smaller 'cult' than Scientology and yet your government has pandered to them without exception since their formation. Do you know why?

Finally and the greatest insult I can bring myself to bear on you...at least we don't have Lucas!

I have long been working on producing an image of God. I see him as an artist, a designer, a builder, a creator,

an inventor, an architect, if you will. I am an admirer of God, but I do not see him as a religious figure, but as

a painter of beautiful sunsets and sculptor of the Grand Canyon, the planter of giant sequoia trees as well as

fields of flowers. I believe God takes little notice of the charlatans who promote cults claiming to work in the

name of God. God is too busy making the ever-changing universe and the air we breath to bother with frauds.

I became an artist, photographer and a creator of beautiful things, using God's handiwork as a role model.

If I ever produce an image of God, I will post it here. It is a hard assignment. Few have ever seen Him.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a new, jolly and/or ridiculous notion.

No Gary it is a mad notion. Doctors or psychiatrists do not ‘programme’ anyone. (I can only assume that West Ham's run of recent form has unhinged the balance of your mind).

It is also a notion that conveniently absolves other members of society from blame for the monsters they help to create.

However if you want something more tangible to 'point the finger' at I suggest Religion. Bin Laden is dripping with it. This will give you temporary respite on the journey to David Andrews' conclusion.

Scientology's opposition to psychiatry is interesting and probably warrants a separate thread(?)

It is most assuredly not a mad notion, and whilst I didn't exhibit my typical good humour in response to Stephen, it certainly wasn't meant as a reproach to him, especially given I share much of his world view sensibilities. For the lack of this being obvious, I apologise. West Ham, though, I can't apologise for, nor should you assume the balance of my mind was ever hinged. I would be most disappointed if the results came back and said it once was.

Similarly, Andy, I accept with good humour and grace your reproach of my views and I mean this sincerely. With equal sincerity I think you have spent too long with your head down in the sand (bad golfing advice there :) ). I agree though that, routinely, doctors do not programme anyone. Who, though, are these 'other members of society'?

I don't believe in psychiatry at all - but aren't they the crowd that can prescribe drugs (one solution fits all programming) as opposed to psychologists (genuinely not sure which is which (don't believe in either, actually, anyway - I think it's all in their heads)). However, I cannot accept that you do not believe, in non-routine, very specific, circumstances, doctors have been involved in programmes which have been established to programme human minds for murder...it has already been admitted as fact by the bastion of all righteousness the CIA.

As for religion, by any non-conspiracy theorist measure this is the greatest conspiracy ever, given there is no proof whatsoever. Len, Craig and yourself could never believe in this lunacy. Not even Jack White could produce a photo of God and if he did you'd all call him a fraud anyway, and no Government agency has produced a report (to the best of my knowledge) confirming God's existence, and if it existed Jack et. al. would call it a fraud anyway...therefore he definitely does/doesn't exist - much like yer man's cat. The bible, in my opinion, is possibly the first Warren report, Widgery report, Lowe report, ad infintitum (if that means everything I've forgotten - never did Latin at our school).

There is much in your suspicion of 'big pharma' posts which would, reading between the lines (I admit I haven't re-read them prior to posting, but it would seem from memory your suspiscions of 'Big Pharma' actually prove a lot of what you're attempting to disprove) be the broad base for an Ashton Gray style book...and he, of course, is suspected of being an arch Scientologist.

As for Scientology, I may not agree with it wholesale or at all (full disclosure- I don't really know what it's about!!), but there is enough in the 'disappearence' of its founder and consequent events which lead me to believe all is not what it seems in that sphere. Interestingly the Free Presbyterian Church in NI, have less than 1% of the unionist populace (much less than Scientology, if both are considered religions) in NI, making them a smaller 'cult' than Scientology and yet your government has pandered to them without exception since their formation. Do you know why?

Finally and the greatest insult I can bring myself to bear on you...at least we don't have Lucas!

Can't speak for Len or Andy but God does exist.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally and the greatest insult I can bring myself to bear on you...at least we don't have Lucas!

Not yet you don't but roll on the January window :)

on the other points - done quickly because I have a class to teach :o

1.Big Pharma acts as all capitalist enterprises do, they seek to make maximum profits - when one understands the anti social consequences of this one understands the need for regulation.

2. The 'other members of society' are us.

3. God is 'unwell'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have long been working on producing an image of God. I see him as an artist, a designer, a builder, a creator,

an inventor, an architect, if you will.

Jack

It may indeed look like 'design' Jack but the reality is a great deal more complex and a great deal more beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is it again that would need to program a very rich man whose family has had long ties with the Saudi government and with various US administrations...

Bin-Laden’s family of course is huge, he had by most accounts about 55 siblings. According to biographers like Peter Bergen and Lawrence Wright he was largely an outsider even within his extended family, his Syrian mother was more erudite than Mohammed bin-Laden’s other wives and she didn’t get along with them. She and his father were divorced shortly after his birth and he was their only child together. He spent much more time in his mother’s than his father’s household but having been raised apart even when he was with his brothers he didn’t fit in especially after their father died when he was 10. They went to fancy boarding schools in Lebanon he went to an elite but free one in Jeddah.

AFAIK other than some limited business dealings with the Bushes the bin-Laden’s didn’t have any “ties with… US administrations”.

whose anti-Russian jihad in Afghanistan was US-backed;

OBL was not a major player in the “anti-Russian jihad in Afghanistan” and his role was mostly as a money man and recruiter. I’ve never seen any evidence that there were ties between him or his group and the US at the time, can you produce any?

Even If true it would not prove anything there are numerous examples of formers allies falling out for example the US collaborated with the USSR during WWII but then became bitter enemies, the Israelis backed groups in Lebanon that turned against them etc etc.

and whose rejection of the Saudi royals is a transparent sham?

What is your basis for that conclusion? I don’t know of any serious researcher who says this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted mainly for jolly, but I would like to get into just what Scientology beef with Mental health is really all about.

The genus of any antithesis is always in the genus. That is how we recognise it.

For this reason I for one would be most unhappy if any of my loved ones fell into the hands of either a scientologist or a psychiatrist

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

×
×
  • Create New...