Arcadia Discussion Zone

" "

" "

I've already said. Not to my horror at all. You see Jowenko is like most of you Boxcutter Conspiracy Theorists, if he took on the obvious and declared the collapse of towers WTC 1 and 2 as Controlled Demolition also he would then take on all the baggage that comes with holding this position. He would have to field the onslaught of frightened people who react in a well tried and tested way having been made to face something they cannot deal with. People holding this position of truth (as we see here) will be attacked for no reason other than you've made people have to accept something that they're too cowardly to accept and fear takes over their reasoning.

However the reason Jowenko declared WTC 7 a controlled demonlition is because at first he didn't realise that the building collapsed on September 11th and he thought it was safe to declare the blatantly obvious. The interviewer nailed him and you can see how uncomfortable he gets after the interviewer points out to him that the building collapses only seven hours after the other towers and therefore have nowhere near enough time to plant charges in order to bring down the building. At this point Jowenko gets decidedly uncomfortable at being made to see the obvious and, after his first answer, now has no get out route.

Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE TERRORISTS ON BOARD THOSE PLANES?

No come on we invaded two sovereign nations, spent $3 trillion dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of people and blew the arms and legs off kids, not on the strength of how the towers fell but on the strength of the words of a proven compulsive and habitual liar telling us that Al Qaida terrorists were on board those planes.

I'VE ANSWERED YOUR DRIVEL NOW I WANT YOUR EVIDENCE AND UNTIL YOU ANSWER YOUR TOWER CRAP WILL BE IGNORED AND THIS QUESTION WILL BE REPEATED.

I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER JUST PLAIN STUPID OR DELIBERATELY COMPLICIT IN SANCTIONING MASS MURDER AFTER THE FACT.

THIS IS MURDER



WHERE'S THIS MYSTERIOUS FIRE THAT MELTED STEEL?

“I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks … The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States.”


The words of Osama Bin Laden 21 st September 2001


A man who six and a half years on has yet to be indicted for the attacks on September 11th

Your cards are well and truly on the table now, Eric.

You believe that there were no terrorists aboard those planes (I assume you're referring to all four planes). And yet you try to saddle me with the burden of disproving *you* when you have not presented me with any compelling evidence in support of *your* case. I know you don't like me saying this, but the burden of proof is entirely on you. It's you that has to prove, or at least construct a sound argument with plenty of corroborating evidence, that there were no terrorists aboard those planes, and then it would be down to me to examine your argument, look at your evidence, and then blow your claim to white-hot smithereens. That's how it works, Roscoe. You see, your claim that there were no hijackers aboard those planes belongs in the "Extraordinary Claims" category (only a confirmed 9/11 loon could deny that -- and you're not denying that, are you?). Now, of course, just because it's an Extraordinary Claim doesn't automatically mean it's wrong. You could be right, but remember: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That's a very onerous requirement. I can only assume that you have sufficient compelling, verifiable evidence to support your claim that there were no hijackers aboard those planes. So let's see it. Please don't keep arguing by assertion: I want evidence. And don't flood me with a shedload of loosely-relevant Google links either.

What you're really getting at, Roscoe, is that you believe there was nobody aboard those planes. You believe that those planes were empty pilotless drones. You obviously haven't thought about what this view would necessarily entail. You are going to be reduced to asserting (without evidence, and in total desperation) that hundreds, thousands of documents of various kind, video footage, audio recordings, eyewitness tesimonies, funerals, death certificates, and countless other things are all fraudulent or were faked. It would be all down to you to prove it. But not just prove it, I mean prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Good luck in gathering your stacks of verifiable evidence and constructing your persuasive argument, Eric.




Where did you get that quote from?





Actually, without naming names, it's my naïve view that many politicians (and certainly many world leaders) are ruthless power-crazed sociopaths who are quite easily able to emotionally detach themselves from the dreadful and cruel consequences of their actions. They lie, deceive and manipulate, and when election time comes, we're dumb enough to vote for them. But no matter how malevolent or corrupt our political masters may be, they did not murder nearly 3,000 people on September 11th, 2001.


Regards,

David.

WHAT!!!!!

You sanction two wars, the spending of $3trillion dollars, the taking of hundreds of thousands of lives and are complicit with blowing the arms and legs off kids and then you expect ME to produce proof of a negative?

No Gungadin YOU produce the evidence that there were terrorists on board those planes Sonny.

If you continue to demand it from me I will answer by first demanding that the inquiry be reopened.

Do you have a problem with that? Ay? Ay?

The reason I asked you and will keep asking you is that fact that I KNOW you cannot answer this question.

Nice try but No Banana



I believe nothing except that YOU cannot produce the evidence required to back up the position you are taking.




The Pakistani Magazine Ummatt. Ask me another?





Obviously you've never heard of Operation Northwoods

Try Operation Gladio and the Bologna Bomb. 23 dead

Try the USS Liberty. 25 dead

Try USS Maddox and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. That one ended 55000 American Lives.

Understand this if you understand nothing else.

YOU are expendable to them.

The Iraq War Morphs
Into The Iran War
By Paul Craig Roberts
2nd May '08

It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.

The targeted victims are not Poland and France, but Iran, Syria, the remains of the Palestinian West Bank and southern Lebanon.

The American mass media is overjoyed. War coverage attracts viewers and sells advertising.

The neoconservatives are ecstatic. Hegemony uber alles is back on track.

The US Air Force can't wait "to show what it can do."

Defense contractors see no end of the profits.

Under cover of the mayhem and propaganda, Israel can grab the remains of the West Bank and have another go at grabbing the water resources of southern Lebanon.

Unlike the US and Israel, Iran is neither occupying any other country's territory nor threatening to invade another country.
Nevertheless, propaganda against Iran is spouting from US and Israeli mouths at an increasing rate. Lie after lie rolls off the tongues of leaders of the "two great democracies."

On April 27 Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, blamed Iran for "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq. Has Admiral Mullen forgot that it is the US, not Iran, that is responsible for as many as one million dead Iraqis and four million displaced Iraqis, the "collateral damage" of a "cakewalk war" now into its sixth year?

On April 26 the Washington Post reported that "the Pentagon is planning for potential military courses of action" against Iran.
The Bush Regime's national security advisor says Iran is a threat in Iraq, an accusation echoed endlessly by secretary of defense Robert Gates, secretary of state Rice, vice president Cheney, and president Bush. The US, which has 150,000 troops in Iraq, is not a threat. The US troops are protecting Iraq from Iran, al Qaeda, and the Taliban.
Just ask Fox "News."


?

Doing its part to egg on war with Iran, the US TV news program, "60 MInutes," gave air time to the commander of the Israeli Air Force, General Eliezer Shkedi, who declared in a special interview that Iranian president Ahmadinejad was the new Hitler and that we must not again make the mistake of disbelieving a Hitler.

There are better candidates for the role than Ahmadinejad.
Gen. Shkedi himself sounds like Hitler blaming Poland for the outbreak of the second world war. Ahmadinejad has attacked no country, whereas Israel repeatedly invades its neighbors and continues 40-year occupations of Syrian and Palestinian territory.

As Noam Chomsky has written, the US government thinks that it owns the world (Chomsky could have added that Israel thinks it owns the Middle East and America). Americans can wallow in indignation over China's occupation of Tibet, but be perfectly content with America's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel can wax eloquently about "Palestinian terrorism" while its military and Zionist settlers terrorize Palestinians.

Americans see no hypocrisy in "their" government's damning of Russia for opposing the incorporation of former Russian satellites and constituent parts in a US military alliance.

Americans see manifest destiny, not US aggression, when "their" government drops bombs on Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Pakistan. Americans do not think it is aggression for them to develop war plans to attack Iran or China or N. Korea or whomever, or to maintain hundreds of military bases all over the globe. The same Americans work themselves into hysterical frenzies over "Iranian influence in Iraq" and "al Qaeda plans to bring the war to America."

As Chomsky says, we own the world. No one else counts.
Except Israel.

Israel counts so much that every presidential candidate has declared his and her willingness to expend whatever American blood and treasure are necessary "to protect Israel." There are no limits on the promise "to defend Israel," no matter what Israel does, no matter if Israel initiates (yet again) war with its neighbors, no matter if it continues to force Palestinians out of their homes and villages in order to "create living room" for Israelis.

With this sort of promise, why should Israel ever settle for anything less than "greater Israel"?

Just as the US government launched its illegal invasion of Iraq on the back of lies about weapons of mass destruction and mushroom clouds, the US government claims it must attack Iran or Iran will build a nuclear weapon. The Bush Regime has learned never to discard a lie as long as it works.

The lie works for the US Congress, the US media and much of the US public, but it is breaking down abroad. On April 27 the British newspaper, the Independent, responded to the recent US government claim that the Syrian facility attacked last September by Israel in an act of naked aggression was a nuclear reactor built by N. Korea:

"There is no independent way to verify any of this, especially since the installation has now been destroyed. We must rely on the integrity of the Israeli and US intelligence. That is where we hit a problem. The former US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented similar evidence to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003 showing what we were told was strong evidence of Iraqi storage of weapons of mass destruction. As we all know, that intelligence turned out to be bogus."

A needless war, a country destroyed, all for bogus intelligence.

Why must we repeat our crime in Iran?

Why do we persist in our crime in Iraq? On April 27 McClatchy Newspapers reported that 50 Iraqi political leaders representing numerous political groups including Sunnis went to Sadr City to protest the siege by the US military. Why is al Sadr under seige?

He called for a halt to bloodshed between Iraqis, for a "liberation of ourselves and our lands from the occupier," for "a real government and real sovereignty." However, for the Bush Regime, rhetoric about "freedom and democracy" is but a mask behind which to impose a US puppet government. Real Iraqi leaders like al Sadr are "terrorists" who must be eliminated.

Why do the American people and "their" representatives in Congress continue to tolerate a criminal Bush Regime that uses lies and propaganda to mask its acts of naked aggression, war crimes under the Nuremberg standard?

Why does the rest of the world continue to receive political representatives from a war criminal government?

What if the rest of the world told the US to close its bases, its embassies, its CIA operations and to go home?

Self-righteous Americans would regard such demands as effrontery! We own the world.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Wow. You must really hate yourself.

Istead of using large fonts to stress your stupidity, why not answer my simple question?

If there were no islamic terrorists on the planes, why did the US Govt fake some terrorists with no connection to Iraq? Why would they do that?

The simple answer is that they didn't fake anything. Anyone with a more complicated and less plausible answer should provide evidence to support their theory rather than just shouting loudly.

People like you are doubly stupid because not only do you believe a load of obvious rubbish. But by promoting this rubbish you let the US Govt off the hook for its genuine wrong-doing. They didn't invade Iraq on a lie, it was several lies. One of those lies was suggesting that the WTC attack had anything to do with Saddam Hussain and Iraq. Indeed the blame lay far closer to home as it was the US that had trained and tooled up Osama and "Al Qaida" in the first place. But all your inane conspiracy rubbish detracts from the truth of the evil committed by the US regime. While you conspiracy nuts are looking for David Icke's shape changing reptiloids and David Shayler's holographic planes, the real attrocities just carry on right in front of us. And when the US invade Iran you'll just start wibbling about some new insane conspiracy and ignore the real issues in the real world once again.

Who are you trying to kid?

I believe nothing without evidence and you don't have any. Where's your evidence?

Tell you what Click here and explain that.

Right you three....Stop it right there for a moment.

You are wasting your own precious time here. You are all coming from different angles and are going to have to agree to disagree.

Since the opening of this thread we have all posted very valid points, but for the sake of your sanity and other's.....just give it a break for a while.

Thank you Roscoe for your last post but you are beating your head against a brick wall.

Please stop all this stupid name calling and let's keep it civil.

Hang on a minute.

Just re-read this from Mr N......quote

" But all your inane conspiracy rubbish detracts from the truth of the evil committed by the US regime. While you conspiracy nuts are looking for David Icke's shape changing reptiloids and David Shayler's holographic planes, the real attrocities just carry on right in front of us. And when the US invade Iran you'll just start wibbling about some new insane conspiracy and ignore the real issues in the real world once again."

Who mentioned any of this crazy stuff other than you? You seem to be obsessed with "reptiloids" and conspiracy stuff yourself....we are only questioning everything & anything, you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick....yet again.

It is you that has asserted there were no hijackers aboard those planes. It is you that believes those planes were empty, pilotless drones. I'm repeating myself here: the onus is not on me to disprove your unsupported claims. As I've already said, I know fully well where this will go: any evidence (and there's stacks of it) that I may present to support the case that there *were* hijackers and other people aboard those planes, will be dismissed by you (and your fellow 9/11 loons and deniers) out of hand. You will demand that I prove that any evidence I present isn't fraudulent or faked, and you know that that's practically impossible. I will not let you shift the burden of proof onto me.




I was against (and still am against) those wars as much as you are, and I must say that was a rather low blow, but not an unexpected one given the weasel-like nature of you and your ilk.




Even if the "inquiry was reopened", you would never in a month of sundays accept its verdict! In the same way that the Princess Di conspiracy loons were never going to accept the outcome of the recent inquiry. Never.




Yeah, for the perfectly valid reasons I've already stated.




I could but you'll demand that I prove my evidence to not be fraudulent or faked. That's why I'm not falling for it.



Regards,

David.

'scuse me.....you're at it again......

quote "the weasel-like nature of you and your ilk."

" "

Sorry, Sheila, but I think my reaction was quite restrained when you consider that Roscoe had accused me of being "complicit with blowing the arms and legs off kids..."



Regards,

David.

I've just watched the Allan Dodds Frank report on YouTube.

You sad deluded superlatively boring conspiracy nut. You believe that the perpetrators of this gargantuan chimera of yours would be so dumb as to inadvertently or deliberately inform CNN (and BBC) reporters of their intentions in advance. Just why would they do that, Jakeypoos? Didn't you know that journalists can't be trusted?




It takes a scumbag of your calibre to repeatedly misrepresent, distort and invent others' attitude and opinions.

Nasty piece of work.




Empty yer colostomy bag, sit back, relax, and watch this YouTube vid:

Generic Paranoid Conspiracy Nut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw6yyumhG_k


This is my last correspondence with you. I can't waste another joule of my energy or second of my time on a pathologically deluded imbecile I just can't take seriously.

Regards,

David.

" "

No Problem. You want answers? Then reopen the inquiry.

Ooooops!!! You wouldn't like that would you?

Sorry Sheila but they're being made to confront something they cannot deal with and the default reaction is for them to get angry and call people names. It's a well known psychological reflex.

I think a 'pre-wired for future controlled demolition' hypothesis faces a number of difficulties, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

1. Lack of evidence (probably the most important point against the hypothesis). It beggars belief that if any or all those buildings had been 'pre-wired' for a possible future demolition, it had gone entirely unnoticed by scores of structural maintenance crews, engineers, electricians, various fire and safety inspectors, and everyday WTC workers, and many others. Now, I'm just wondering what a typical 9/11 denier would say in response. He would say something along these lines: "Ah, well, actually, people did know about the demolition charges wrapped around the I-beams and hundreds of metres of suspicious-looking cable, but they were asked to keep schtum about it, and so they did." Or, "The maintenance crews were specially selected stooges who were all in on it and kept it all secret." Claims which are practically impossible to disprove, and so are inherently rather safe from refutation.

2. It's difficult to accept that all of the people who may have been involved in pre-wiring the building for demolition would remain totally silent about it to this day, or not have leaked any information at some point before or after 9/11 on an anonymous basis. Unless they all happen to be conscience-free psychopaths.

3. Such a practice would of course have been - and still is - totally illegal (unless you have evidence to the contrary?).

4. The possibility of lightning strikes must be of some concern. Lightning bolts don't always hit dedicated lightning conductors. RDX likes electricity.

5. The prospect of fire (like the one in 1975). I think a controlled demolition of an entire 110-storey building resulting from an out-of-control basement or kitchen fire would be a bit drastic.

I think it's a bit misleading to talk of the buildings (WTC1, 2 & 7) just conveniently falling into their own footprints. At least seven buildings got destroyed that day, or were so badly damaged they were demolished within a few days: WTCs 3, 4, 5 and 6. The Deutsche Bank Building and Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall, and even a house of God... St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. I did read somewhere a few days ago that damage to property on Vesey St. amounted to around US$1.3 Billion -- hardly lunch money(?).

Also, there seems to be an underlying assumption in your question that buildings like the two towers could actually somehow topple over. Personally, the only way I could see that happening is if a really huge chunk of the building near the base was blown out. It might topple then. I don't think it's any surprise those buildings fell the way they did (well, certainly in the case of the two towers). I gather (perhaps wrongly) that NIST are still not 100% sure why WTC7 collapsed the way it did, but the hypothesis they do have (which I read through in their preliminary report) is the one best supported by the available evidence. Naturally, it goes without saying, any 9/11 denier worth his salt would dismiss NIST's report out of hand.


Regards,

David.

I wonder why you Boxcutter Conspiracy Theorists never talk about This?

Have you considered the possibility that the two explosion sounds near the start of the video might have been faked? I'm not insisting that they were faked, but it's a possibility, right? I say this because aside from the fact that it sounds overdubbed and somewhat artificial to my ears, there is at least one instance in the video where the soundtrack was definately manipulated by a mischievous 9/11 denier (I've heard the original unmolested soundtrack). I'm not going to tell you where it is though -- you're going to tell me.

I was watching the news (mostly BBC & CNN) all day on 9/11, and I don't remember hearing or watching these reports about bombs. I don't claim to have an eidetic memory, but I'm pretty sure that I would have remembered such a thing.

I don't deny that there were explosions (and apparent explosions) from various sources including chemical oxygen generators, gas lines, snapping rivets, and many other possible sources.

I would treat that video with some suspicion, if I were you.


Regards,

David.

I'd like to thank Sheila for starting this thread.

For any casual surfer browsing this site it shows that the sort of people who think that there's a special mystery around RLC also believe insane 9/11 conspiracies.

I'll be sure to point friends at this thread to read the wibbling nonsense of roscoe, Roger and jakebf. It always helps to understand the mentality of believers and this gives some insights into the mental processes of people who hang out here.

Perhaps we should discuss Crop Circles next, do any of you loonies think that aliens make them? Or "the moon landings were faked"? Or how about that the Earth is really flat?

Mr N.

So far on this thread...you seem to be the only one that wants to talk about conspiracy rubbish....stop winding people up!

What are you afraid of?

You are the one that keeps trying to angle this discussion round to your favourite subjects like "reptiloids" & all that stuff.....

Explain your problem....on second thoughts....maybe not.

Yours respectfully,
Sheila