About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 100

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If someone put them up to it, don't these guys almost always give that up for a break in their sentence?  It almost never, ever stands up once the chips are down.

Post 101

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Response to Post 98:

At the same time -- since there were also ample examples of arguments from intimidation by the supporters of the official conspiracy theory -- re-read my original commentary throughout this thread) to assess the rationality and benevolence (or lack thereof) of those supporters.

Post 102

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Post 103

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

That eerie picture really disturbs my peace of mind. Was it meant as some kind of a Rorschach Test or something?

Ed



Post 104

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - 8:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This eerie string disturbs mine. I think the symbolism, pure malevolence and epistemological destruction in the guise of a childish diversion is apt.

In the meantime, how many more people has Putin Killed?

Post 105

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's Tim Currey as the clown in the movie Stephen King's "IT"  - or rather it was a mini-series I think.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 106

Monday, May 21, 2007 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Update:

A shortened (and more polite) version of my original commentary on Bidinotto's non-objective, intimidationary approach to the 9/11 controversy was printed in this March's New Individualist (in the editor's entitled section "Argument from Intimidation?") at http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1880-Letters_march.aspx

Bidinotto wrote a brief response, to which I have this to say for now:

In his reply, Bidinotto continues his methodology of avoiding the issue, which is: the truth or falsity of the official government explanation of the events and causes of the 9/11 massacre.

This account is as stated by the government’s 9/11 Commission Report and endorsed by the mainstream media and institutions; therefore, an informed and honorable judgment should rest on the objective examination of that account (unless the aim is something other than the truth).

Bidinotto hasn’t shown that he has studied the Commission Report or any of the widely published scholarly criticisms, and, instead, continues to assume, without further questioning, that the government and its supporters have told the truth about 9/11 (just as the Roosevelt government had told the truth about Pearl Harbor).

That’s why Bidinotto still doesn’t have any answer to the critics’ arguments for government complicity, except the dismissive “incomprehensible” and “ridiculous” — which is neither informed nor honorable, not when the readily available evidence, for anyone who examines it, is overwhelming against the official accounts of government ignorance, incompetence, and accident.

Far from the truth, the mainstream account excludes the multiple evidences of government foreknowledge and support of, and government tampering with and obstruction of preventative measures for, the 9/11 massacre. The evidence points directly to government complicity and deception — evidence which, strangely, is being dismissed prejudicially even by usually objective objectivists, who should be familiar with government complicity and deception in other nefarious schemes.

For those who care to investigate: I recently wrote, in a reply to another uninformed believer in the official version of 9/11:

“It might be challenging for some to read this article, "9/11: The Myth and the Reality" by David Ray Griffin, especially for those atheists who would offhand dismiss what the article says just because it's written by a philosopher of theology.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Myth-Reality-Griffin30mar06.htm
As Ayn Rand said: Check your premises. As you all know: Think for yourself.”



-Monart Pon

Originally posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Owl_objectivists/message/250

Post 107

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 11:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a Pilots for 911 Truth, a Scholars for 911 Truth, now there there is a new organization: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 108

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So?

Post 109

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"So?"

So...Face the facts:


America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC News, 5/1/01, Pentagon Documents]




1996–2001: Federal authorities are aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden are receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confesses that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, CBS, 5/30/02, more]
 
1996–2001: On multiple occasions spies give detailed reports on bin Laden’s location. Each time, the CIA director or top White House officials prevent bin Laden’s elimination. [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04, New York Times, 12/30/01, more]
 
2000–2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more]
 
2000–2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they’re shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04, Military District of Washington, 11/3/00, New York Times, 10/3/01, more]
 
Jan 2001: After the Nov 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01, more]
 
Spring 2001: A series of military and governmental policy documents is released that seek to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. One advocates presidential subterfuge and hiding the reasons for warfare “as a necessity for mobilizing public support.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more]
 
May 2001: For the third time, US security chiefs reject Sudan’s offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it “the worst single intelligence failure in the business.” [Guardian, 9/30/01, more]
 
June-Aug 2001:  German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02, Independent, 9/7/02, CNN, 9/12/02, more]
 
July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Dr. Callaway declines to comment. During his stay, bin Laden is allegedly visited by one or two CIA agents. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, London Times 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more]
 
July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] In May 2002, Ashcroft walks out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [Fox News/AP, 5/16/02, more]
 
Aug 6, 2001: President Bush receives an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the briefing specifically mentions the WTC. Yet Bush later claims it “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, Briefing, 8/6/01, more]
 
Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor says he’s trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the WTC.” [Senate Report (Hill #2), 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02, more]
 
Sept 10, 2001: A number of top Pentagon brass suddenly cancel travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. Why isn’t this news spread widely? [Newsweek, 9/13/01, Newsweek, 9/24/01, more]
 
Sept 11, 2001: Data recovery experts extract data from 32 damaged WTC computer drives. The data reveals a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through WTC computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more]
 
Sept 11, 2001: Described as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency was set for an exercise on Sept 11 at 9 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [USA Today/AP, 8/22/02, more]
 
Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a “shadow government” is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know this government-in-waiting had been established. [CBS, 3/2/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02, more]
 
Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events within hours of the attacks. The tape is never turned over to the FBI. It is later illegally destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it. [Washington Post, 5/6/04, New York Times, 5/6/04]
 
Sept 13-19, 2001: Bin Laden’s family is taken under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point. They leave the country by private plane when airports reopen days after the attacks. [New York Times, 9/30/01, Boston Globe, 9/20/01, more]
 
Sept 15-16, 2001: Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations. [Newsweek, 9/15/01, Washington Post, 9/16/01, New York Times, 9/15/01, more]
 
Sept 20, 2001: Several 9/11 hijackers later mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report turn up alive. “Five of the alleged hijackers have emerged, alive, innocent and astonished to see their names and photographs appearing on satellite television…The hijackers were using stolen identities.” [quote in London Times, 9/20/01, see also BBC, 9/23/01, more]
 
Dec 2001-Feb 2002: The US engineers the rise to power of two former Unocal Oil employees: Hamid Karzai, the interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the US envoy. The big American bases created in the Afghan war are identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline. [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02, more]
 
May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven’t been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform that built up after the attacks. [Guardian, 5/17/02, more]
 
May 23, 2002: President Bush says he is opposed to establishing an independent commission to probe 9/11. [CBS, 5/23/02] Vice President Cheney earlier opposed any public hearings on 9/11. [Newsweek, 2/4/02, more]
 
May 30, 2002: FBI Agent Wright formally accuses the FBI of deliberately curtailing investigations that might have prevented 9/11. He is threatened with retribution if he talks to Congress about this. [Fox News, 5/30/02, more]

July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission Report is published. It fails to mention that a year before the attacks a secret Pentagon project had identified four 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta. The Commission spokesperson initially states members were not informed of this, but later acknowledges they were. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more]
 
2004 - 2005: A growing number of top government officials and public leaders express disbelief in the official story of 9/11. 100 prominent leaders and 40 9/11 family members sign a statement calling for an unbiased inquiry into evidence suggesting high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the attacks to occur. [Various Publications]
 
Aug 9, 2006: A book by 9/11 Commission chairmen Kean and Hamilton outlines repeated deceptions by the Pentagon and FAA, including the timelines of Flights 77 and 93. CNN News: “The fact that the government would…perpetuate the lie suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on.” [CNN, 8/9/06 , MSNBC/AP, 8/4/06, more]

----------

Longer summary at http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg


Post 110

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You DO know that the immigration department quite incompetent and hardly spends any time looking at Visas whatsoever, so the fact that they were approved is no surprise to me.

So who did it, according to your theory?  You don't think that airplanes flew into the buildings, despite the footage we have?  What do you gain by this belief and what does it mean to you?  Are we not, as Objectivists, already aware of the vast ways in which government is ignorant, stupid, and incompetent and aren't these obvious mistakes an indication of just how right we are?  Instead, they were vastly crafty?

Dan Rather as a good source of news? 

Bin Laden's so-called "family" were innocent 2nd and 3rd cousins in college - and yes, they may have been attacked by being members of his family despite having nothing to do with him.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 111

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 7:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
More evidence that a cruise missile, not a Boeing jetliner, hit the Pentagon on 9/11:

"In April, 2007, Leuren Moret [Expert Witness at the 2004 Tokyo International Tribunal for War Crimes in Afghanistan] exposed the U.S. military’s illegal use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons in target practice in Hawaii, in violation of U.S. military regulations. The elevated radiation readings she recorded were carried by ABC-TV news in Hawaii on April 29 & 30, 2007.

"Leuren Moret reported similar elevated radiation readings downwind from the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Two days after 9/11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed that the crash site rubble was radioactive and that it was probably Depleted Uranium (DU) contaminating the Pentagon crash site rubble. The entry and exit holes through the Pentagon crash site were the signature of a kinetic energy penetrator, such as a Cruise missile, and the term “punch-out hole” was written by crash site investigators over the exit hole. This is a military term used for kinetic energy penetrators. Major Doug Rokke, former Director of the Gulf War I DU Cleanup Team, reported that an email from the Pentagon 30 minutes after impact confirmed a Cruise missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11."

http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/nuclear_free_zone/2007/06/du_expert_leure.html


Post 112

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 7:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah......We saw the planes hit the WTC, but the conspirators decided to use a cruise missle on the pentagon. Why? Well having the WTC hit wasn't enough, and besides, getting another plane would be too hard. It all fits!


or maybe not.

Ethan


Post 113

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 2:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Monart: I haven't been following this thread and don't really want to read all the previous 111 postings, so could you please tell me what your theories are about the plane that went down in the field in Pennsylvania? Was this somehow a hoax or conspiracy that happened in a different manner than we have been lead to believe? Did not the passengers attempt to overpower the hijackers and in so doing cause the plane to crash at a site other than the intended one, allegedly the White House?

Thanks

Sam


Post 114

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 2:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Where is Barbara Olson? Is she being held in an undisclosed location? Is she off having an affair with Vince Foster? Is she in a cave in Tora Bora?



Or has she been banished to dissent?




Post 115

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
More evidence that a cruise missile, not a Boeing jetliner, hit the Pentagon on 9/11
I really wish 9-11 investigators would drop this one. If it was a missile, then where did the plane and the passengers go?


Post 116

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They are being held in the old hanger where the moon landings were faked!

Post 117

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 12:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I do find it odd that there are no pictures of clearly showing a plane hitting the Pentagon, the missile theory has always seemed nonsensical.  If they hypothetically had the ability to rig airliners to hit the WTC, surely they could have done the same with two other planes.  Why would they risk sending a missile in broad daylight over one of the most densely populated areas of the country - espeically an area loaded with thousands of tourists daily armed with all sorts of camera and video gear??  

Post 118

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's more disgusting?



This body from 9/11 at the corner of Albany and West streets, or the continuation of this thread?

Ted

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 119

Monday, June 18, 2007 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam Erica asked about the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

There is multiple evidence (just google it) that the plane was shot down by the air force, whatever the truth of the story that the passengers had been planning to take back the plane.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.