National Geographic program called Inside 911

Leave it to you to find the most absurd and irrelevant reading of a post to avoid any real critical thought. A wonder anyone bothers responding to anything you write whatosever.

The fact that he hails from a major energy player in Canada is the point that was being made and one you might do well to consider as an angle in understanding the big money interests behind this perpetual after the fact collusion in a patently official lie which is the coverstory on 911.

The science, research and most basic logic has been previously submitted multiple times. Just keep hiding behind your lack of effort in even reading it or bothering to do any research yourself. Even the most substantive body of glaring discrepcies uncovered by numerous researchers is just conspiracy theory because you wish it to be.

Im through with you and your denials of the evidence.

 

What another thread on the 9/11 collapse?

Oh well since Lick is still doing this one and has run away from the one where I was asking him some questions may I just come in with the question that went unanswered?

**

Lick

You are presumably telling people these things because you wish to get a full and open inquiry.

That’s fine but I already wanted a full and open inquiry.

In fact is there anyone here on the forum that is violently opposed to there being a full and open inquiry?

My own opinion is that the wheat will be separated from the chaff. That a lot of the stuff pedalled by many in the 9/11 truth movement will be found not to stand up to scrutiny or will be found inconclusive at best or at worse based on nothing more than supposition, innuendo and opinion. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think it should have it’s day in court.

**

So the question then becomes one of what is to be done and into what context is this inquiry to be placed.

From what has been said so far you seem to see this as an exercise in lobbying just as in the same way that an industry might lobby for something they wanted.

It is not about politics as such, the political views of the people promoting the inquiry is not an issue only their wish for an inquiry is of importance? (Just as lobbyist’s court both left and right)

Now until the inquiry I cannot say but if you believe what you’re saying, isn’t the whole system at fault and so doesn’t the whole system need changing?

If so shouldn’t the 9/11 Truth Movement be a part of a wider political movement for change rather than trying to be separate from politics?

Or do you believe that the inquiry itself will bring political change.

And if so shouldn’t the members of the movement be open to a discussion of what the changes should be?

But if you don’t believe in changing things by voting and you think a revolution not possible and not worth working for, how exactly are you doing to make the US a better place?

The thing is that I would like to see change in the US system, I think the present system is just not working for the benefits of it’s own and the wider community.

So what is to be done, well I think the American people need to learn about politics and the choices open to them. They are not going to get that from what seems to be an apolitical movement or those who seem often reluctant to talk about their own views and ideas for fear they cannot stand up to scrutiny.

**

 

Ive not run away from anything Blabus. You begin to sound as pompously self absorbed in your own cherry picking and reinterpretations of what I and others have posted as is PB.

My positions on things have been well posted just as you claim yours were. Since that is the answer you seem to content yourself with when the question is thrown back at you, that is the answer I will content myself with.

911, like the Cold War paradigm which preceded it is merely a traumatic and as yet unfully, non-transparently investigated means to provide the mythology of some laughable shadowy enemy to set into motion the long awaited PNAC agenda of a war "which will not end in our lifetimes" (Cheney's own words) to bolster US global hegemony.

Such an event was required and indeed called for, and just such an event was delivered. Those endorsing the official hogwash either have directly vested interests in this new myth (and there are numerous: financial, energy, MIC, etc.) or simply refuse to fathom the truth that America is not immune to the evils of militant, unaccountable ideologues (as history has shown even in other liberal democratic societies).

This topic and the glaring implausibilities of the official line are sufficiently written of for those who care to practice some actual investigation. Further discussion here is pointless. Believe what you wish.

 

Let me remind you we are talking about whether the WTC towers fell to fast or two slow. Still no sign of you returning to the topic.

Like I said, did the WTC towers fall too fast or too slow? Whether or not Osama bin Laden was Dick Cheney's babysitter doesn't affect the speed of the towers' collapse.

But as for your moronic attempt to bring up the megabucks oil boogeyman, Greening was a researcher for a publicly owned electrical utility, which since 9/11 has reaped an astonishing minus $200 million dollars in profits. Oh dear, another Lick ghost story revealed.

But as soon any anyone questions this logic, you get very angry and try to change the topic to "Lick is right and everyone else is wrong, about everything", your favorite subject.

Through? You didn't even start. As soon as Shaggy asked questions (how dare he!) you had a hissy fit, threw around a bunch of innuendo and personal insults, suggested that the very idea of debating the conspiracy was unforgivable, and stormed out in a big snit. Are we supposed to be impressed?

 

Stop sucking his cock already. You're probably the same two people anyway.

 

Do not associate me with a nonthinking, unread dolt like PB thank you kindly Rat.

 

I don't think he did.. ?.

 

I think LICK misread what I wrote. I was referring to the blossoming relationship between PB and Shaggie. Bosom buddies.

Heck, LICK is one of the few people in these forums capable of exercising free thought. I would never think to insult his intelligence by comparing him to an establishment lapdog like Pointbreak.

 

My dear Lick

I just think you have lost your way and I’ll try and explain why.


"911, like the Cold War paradigm which preceded it is merely a traumatic and as yet unfully, non-transparently investigated means to provide the mythology of some laughable shadowy enemy to set into motion the long awaited PNAC agenda of a war "which will not end in our lifetimes" (Cheney's own words) to bolster US global hegemony."
But in the thread

The President lied to start war

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19321&page=8&pp=10

I’ve already expressed my own thought on the subject of manipulation by governing elite’s -

"I’m not trying to compare directly different events in US foreign policy, what interests me are the themes and currents in American thought that underlay the reason for taking actions. Two of these are the either/or mentality and the possible manipulation of that tendency by people of power.

The outlook often comes up in discussion here, to be critical of something is taken as meaning you are totally against it so being critical of the US is to be rabidly anti-American. In any dispute it is to be on one side or the other so if I am critical of the US’s policy toward Vietnam and think the war there a disaster, then it ‘must’ mean that I am a supporter of Ho and the Hanoi government. Alternatively it often seems that if someone doesn’t roundly condemn something they must be totally in favour of it. So if I think Vietnam was in need of social and economic reform and comment that the Vietnamese communists were perceived as being involved in such reforms I am accused of supporting the ‘communists’ collectivisation and enforced re-education.

I believe that this tendency of many Americans to think seemingly only in terms of black and white has been encouraged and manipulated by the American political and economic elite.

Aim are often given be it ‘Manifest Destiny’, the Cold War, or the Wars on Drugs or Terror, it must be know that for people with an either/or mentality, these ‘aims’ are hard to counter

Either you believe you country is destined for greatness because its ideas are good or mediocrity because they are bad.

Either you are anti-Communist and the champion of civilisation or you are in favour of Soviet Stalinist style communism?

Either you believe in just saying ‘NO’ or you want 12-year-old heroine addicts turning tricks to get another fix?

As for terror who can say they are in favour of it?

Once an aim has become established in the group consciousness of such people it becomes an unarguable ‘truth’ and becomes hard to dislodge. Re-enforced by politicians and sections of the media they become part of the American legend.

There is only the right thing expressed in the aim, so any dissent from it is by definition is wrong. To the point when even wanting to learn differently from the accepted view seems pointless even suspect, for example an American friend of mine from the mid west was spat on and ostracised by fellow pupils at her school because she was, out of curiosity, reading Marx’s Communist Manifesto and the recent attacks on dissenters.

**

My premise is that these aims can be used as a screen behind which the established authorities can do many actions that many seem dubious or counter productive.

Was the concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’ just an attempt to make imperialism and Indian clearance acceptable? How many actions taken in the name of fighting communism were taken to counter even moderate left wing ideas or to protect US financial interests? Vietnam, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua and all those other ‘hot spots’, the support for dictators, the dirty tricks, the torture, to me it seems people still defend these things because they place them in the overarching ‘good aim’ that had been given to them. They seem to think that the ends justified any ‘mistakes’ or ‘misdemeanours’ along the way.

The US now has a new aim ‘The War on Terror’ which was given to the American people and the world in the wake of an attack on the US by fundamentalist Islamic extremists.

Once more much of the argument is seen in terms of black or white, as President Bush put it "you’re either for us or against us" and this either/or outlook again is put in the context of the new aim.

Criticise the US’s Afghan policy and someone will ask if you would prefer the taliban and terrorists back in power.

Bring up Guantalimo bay, the Patriot act or the torture at Abu Ghrib and Bagrum, and some will argue that these are necessary even desirable in times of ‘war’ and to think otherwise is akin to supporting terrorism.

As to the Iraqi invasion it was also sold to the American people under the banner of the ‘war on terror’ and many Americans still believe Saddam had a direct connection with 9/11. Even those that admit the secular Saddam had nothing to do with the religious zealots of al qaeda often seem to believe that the move was in some way meant to bring the war on terror to the region and make it easier for US forces to seek out the fundamentalists. So to criticise the invasion or the occupation often brings accusations of being in favour of terrorism and of being pro-Saddam.

**

Is the US’s Iraq policy in the best interests of the Iraqi people and America, time will tell, but my view is that it is not, because I don’t think many Americans understand why they are there and I don’t think the intentions of the people that manipulated them into it were completely honourable. Americans are thinking in terms of the ‘war’ on terrorism and the neo-cons are thinking in terms of the US’s strategic and most probably commercial interests.

The US intervention in Vietnam was as far as I know actually based on the idea of halting the spread of ‘evil communism’, which might be seen as honourable in the light of their view of it. However the policy makers were blinked by this view and didn’t look at the historical and political framework they were stepping into. In Guatemala US interests were far less than honourable but they used the ‘communist’ threat as a means to win approval or acquiescence for action, but in that case they had allies there in the shape of the wealthy and right wing of the country.

Since I don’t think those that wanted an Iraqi invasion had the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind I don’t think the invasion was honourable, but it was sold to the American public as part of the ‘terrorist’ threat. However I also think the hawks became blinked by what they wanted and haven’t taken into account of the historical, political and religious framework into which they have stepped.

I think people should stop seeing in black and white and stop thinking of Iraq in terms of the War on Terror because just like the other arc’s like the ‘Cold War’ it can be more misleading than helpful"

 

Lick you have even publicly praise me for putting such ideas forward.

But the idea of popular manipulation by a governing elite is nothing new. You can read it in many histories and in fact the idea was ancient before Columbus even stumbled on the Americas.

The thing is that you seem to have got rapped up in trying to ‘prove’ this one incidence that you have forgotten what needs to change.

**

So as I said my problem is that I think you have lost your way for one you seem to have lost a sense of direction within an obsession about the 9/11conspiracy.

For you it seems to have become an either/or belief

Either people believe in it and are ‘good’ whatever their views.

Or they don’t believe in it and are ‘bad’ and must be attacked and ridiculed.

This is just the kind of mentality that I warn against because it can so easily can be used to manipulate people.

**

I believe that the US political system is not working and needs to change, I thought you did too.

I think amongst other things that - the influence of wealth needs to be curtailed – that Americans need to become involved in the international world and US actions should be limited by international agreements. I even think that many of the problems stem from the US constitution itself and that it should be re-written for the 21st century.

But this can only be done by political involvement

Yet you seem to be telling people that there is no point in getting politically involved. You tell people that there is no point voting, that change is virtually impossible to achieve, and that the only way it will very come is if a possible ‘collapse’ happens and that out of that just maybe there could arise a possible ‘progressive’ system.

You seem to have taken yourself out of the fight and are trying to drag others out with you.

It makes me wonder whose side you are on, I mean you are not unintelligent so you must realise that such apathy plays right into the hands of the rich elite, who if unopposed can change things to their own liking.

I think you should ask yourself if it just might be you who is being manipulated into doing what the wealthy elite want?

 

This conspiracy thing does have a way of turning almost into a psychological disorder. I don't say that to insult conspiracy advocates. But it does have a way of getting carried away to the point that it starts becoming a disorder.

.

 

Indeed it does. Look at the psychosis pervading our society as it subscribes to the real conspiracy theory put out by our repeatedly exposed lying administration and its unilateralist imperialist cabal. Significant portions of our society are now perfectly ready to relinquish their civil liberties for the rhetorical charade of greater security and are equally accepting (supportive even) of the administration's advocacy of torture-based confessions, notwithstanding the utter lack of proof of terrorist associations for any of the thousands of detainees.

Yes conspiracy advocates have lost their way indeed by endorsing the unacountable fraud which is the official coverstory.

Goebbels would be amazed.

 

Ignoring the topic - CHECK

Evading the question - CHECK

Using brackets to insert verbiage within verbiage - CHECK

Denouncing the world and ego preening - CHECK

Reference to the Nazis - CHECK

========

Another brilliant Lick post.

 

Another substanceless, pointless PB post: Check.

 

Lick

So do you think the best way of tackling these problems is to go on and on about every minor detail of the 9/11 event and insulting anyone that doesn’t agree with your viewpoint, in every detail, 100%?

You are coming across as some type of fanatic and the only people that you seem to accept are other fanatics.

I believe you want an inquiry I believe you want to change the system but wild eyed fanaticism has a habit of alienating even those that might have agreed with you.

You believe that 9/11 was orchestrated directly by the Bush admin, I disagree, but we both believe that a it was used as a means of manipulating the American public into an already agreed agenda of a political faction. And that that agenda had more to do with the strategic concerns of the US than the wishes of the Iraqi peoples.

I would like an inquiry and I would like to see the system changed

Shouldn’t those be our focus not animosity because I will not totally accept your viewpoint?

 

No Balbus, as I categorically stated above, the minutia arguments are a diversionary tool to divert scrutiny away from examinations of the entire event and the countless official implausibilities which all together fail to adequately explain what is empirically verifiable both in terms of the clear agenda being pursued and those profitting from it.

The 911 researchers rightfully place all the elements within the framework of the larger agenda at stake which specifically called for such a catalyzing event. To think some nebulous foreign organisation so kind to provide such an event just at the moment it was needed to permit the rollout of a unilateralist militant strategy by the Neocons is beyond the pale of basic logic.

That you should think me a fanatic says much about how hollow your own views on holding ones government accountable for lies and abuses of power truly are. Little wonder the mainstream sits idle whilst treasonous criminals undermine civil liberty after civil liberty in their march for greater concentrated wealth and power. If im a fanatic then i dare say you and PB and others who continually deride myself and others here must be absolute zombies.

As for the orchestration of the event, I have repeatedly said that there would need be only a select number of key senior officials well placed across a handful of agencies to ensure the facets needed were in place. All other incidental actors need only have followed orders without any knowledge of how they fit into the broader operation. As with all politics, plausible deniability is the key.

If you wish to see a change to the system then one has to come to grips with the depth and extent of the systemic rot to be addressed else your effort will be nothing more than a changing of the faces.

If that perturbs you then i suggest you are as much attempting to alienate others who might otherwise share some of your views as you accuse me of doing. Pot kettle black.

 

So Lick are you saying the 9/11 Truth Movement is part of a unified political programme not just a one issue lobby group?

If so what do you believe that programme is or should be?

For example you say that you wish to stop the “march for greater concentrated wealth and power”

But you tell people that there is no point voting, that change is virtually impossible to achieve, and that the only way it will ever come is if a possible ‘collapse’ happens and that out of that just maybe there could arise a possible ‘progressive’ system. You must realise that such apathy plays right into the hands of the rich elite, who if unopposed can accumulate more wealth and power.

Also a fellow member of the movement seems to have nationalistic libertarian views that would actively work toward making the rich and powerful even richer and more powerful.

Without any explanation of these seemingly large contradictions in your statements it would seem to me that they can only be seen as rhetoric and not any real commitment to change.

 

No I didnt say that at all. Creative reading skills you have indeed.

I said the Truth movement views the event of 911 in the fuller context of the ideological agenda (i.e a WoT smokescreen for unilateral petrodollar warfar in central asia) whose realisation it provided the very "catalyzing effect" called for in the PNAC's own seminal report on the preservation of America's economic/military empire.

The movement itself comprises people from a range of political convictions whose common interest is to uphold their Constitutional obligation to hold our government responsible for its abuses of power.

Why you continually seek to confuse a public effort pertaining to a particular event and the lies surrounding it with a comprehensive manifesto for social change (which would encompass a wider range of socio-economic and institutional issues) is beyond me.

As for my views on the implosion of this present order, again you have reinterepreted what I previously wrote to suit your own unfathomable abstractions.

My point was that whilst I, you and any number of individuals may strive in limited scope to realise some incremental changes in one's immediate environment, overall these changes cannot reform what is inherently, institutionally corrupt. You can't patch a rotten tooth and expect an infection not to spread beneath. Similarly this present order is rooted in elite mechanisms in place for generations to ensure the perpetuation of privilege and power to a select few. Until that system is overturned, no progressive solutions can take root and flourish.

This is distinctly contrary to your assertion that I have argued some magical progressive movement will arise should the present order be overturned or implode of its own accord. For their to be any true democratically viable future based on transparency and informed consent, people must NOT be apathetic but take seriously the principle of civic duty, else another socially unjust system will readily take hold in its wake.

If the mainstream public by and large cannot even be motivated sufficiently to join ranks in the face of such glaringly plausible complicity/orchestration in/of mass murder and treason because they dare not disturb their perceived status quo, then as I have suggested, perhaps only the suffering to come will force sufficient numbers to realise how essential constant vigilance and scrutiny of our system is if we are to have a government "Of, by and for the people".

I hope you can live with that explanation of my views.

 

I would imagine so..

I guess we do get to agree sometimes.. heck one day You Me and Lick' may become just as close as those two ... *holds breath*

Stop sucking his cock already ....

It's so suprises me.. you proclaim one person does something and then you go and do it yourself... twice as hard.. amazing.

 

I really dont understand why u keep discussing this subject.
You will never know what really happened, the North American Government
is too smart for that, they cover their asses with everything.. oh well
Bush is an asshole and maybe he will fuck things up someday by saying
something he shouldn't... (lack of brain) but until that day arrives we
will be trying to find another webpage with more photos and more studies
made by "scientists" and "architects" and "engineers" who say the same
old thing... what for?

Deep inside my heart and mind I know the US Government was responsible
for the 9/11 attack to the world trade center, we all know that. They
just needed a reason to get into Iraq and do what they know how to do
best.... KILL AND STEAL. So i dont think you should waste ur time in
searching for answers cause you will not find them.

There are lots and lots of bullshit on the internet and you know that, if
u stop to read every single piece of information u can find on the
subject you will go mad before you can make up ur mind on deciding what
the heck happened that day.

Stay alert, that's all i say, this will be cleared up someday and I hope
i'm alive to see it.