Conspiracy Theories

#61
Bolded part ^^ exactly. There's quite a few out there. Many Christians believe they will rule and judge the world with Christ in a literal physical kingdom on Earth for a thousand years. "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess." "If any nation does not go down and make sacrifices they will have no rain." There are many passages about this future holy global government in the OT and NT and interpretations vary on a spectrum from allegorical to literal and past to future fulfillment. All I'm saying is that some sects of each religion interpret these passages literally and believe they have a mandate and justification for infiltrating power centers to exert influence in that direction. In Judaism the Talmud has become as or more important than the Torah, and I'm only beginning to get into learning about that.

I first began to question the official 9/11 story back around 2005 and stayed away from looking into the Zionist aspects of it until recently. I guess it took me that long to overcome my programming.

And I'm not anti-Jewish and don't have an anti-Jewish agenda. Like I said above, my own father has become Jewish and it seems to have been a positive thing for him.

Many would point to the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian form of global government, and many Christians would respond that there's nothing Christian about the RCC as it is a total corruption of the teachings of Christ. The same might be said of Zionism, the Talmud, and Judaism - that it is a total corruption of the Torah and true Orthodox Judaism. As Jesus said, "you are not the children of Abraham; you're sons of your father the devil!" And "you travel over land and sea to win a single convert then make him twice as much a son of hell as you are!"

In every religion there is a constant struggle between opposing forces of corruption and stagnation and entrenched orthodoxy and forces of renewal, reformation, and true seeking. That exists in Judaism like every other religion and the corrupt elements are just as bad as the corrupt elements of the other religions.

I will attempt to point out the errors in religions or ideologies wherever I see them whether in Christianity or Judaism or Islam or others.
In my opinion, one formed from looking at conspiracy theories as a whole, many of them are based in a millennial, apocalyptic reading of the future grounded in biblical prophecy. It's join the dots Revelation without any mediating scholarship, history or context. Scapegoating of Jews has a long history, going back to the medieval myths of the wandering Jew, through blood libel riots, the expulsion of Jews by monarchs who owned them money, to the horrors of the holocaust. Speaking as a non-Jew, it's clear that many if not most of the current crop of conspiracies lead back to the same impulse that began those acts, a mistrust of the other, and the belief that if bad things happen they must have an identifiable cause.

As I've said before, CTs provide the perfect comfort blanket for people disposed to believe them. Everything you know is wrong, is the ultimate certainty.
 
Last edited:
#62
Hm, I try not to get involved in these kind of discussions online, very rarely do......I know how quickly these can spiral into negativity & unpleasantness.....but I just can't resist unburdening today ;)"Conspiracy theories/ist" is SUCH an unfortunate term and does injustice to all sides....but it's the term we've got so I'll use it.

I find that, generally, the more popular "conspiracy theories" are a product of the art of connecting the dots (of selective data points in an ocean of data) to create a narrative that tends to be reflective in some ways of the believer's "inner" psychological/emotional/paradigmatic worldview etc. Those dots or points of data which do not conform to the over-arching narrative are ignored/misunderstood/dismissed. And the gaps between the dots or data points, ie. what we do not know, are filled with plenty of imaginative & self-convincing speculation in support of the over-arching narrative (don't understand this anomaly of physics = aliens nuked the ancient civilisation on mars).

The problem is, we KNOW there are & have been "conspiracy theories" throughout history that are indeed true. We know our own governments (US, UK et al), from the last 50 years alone, have colluded in outrageous & despicable "conspiracies" of the most sinister sort that no decent citizen/human being would agree to/with. These are just the documented & admitted ones! Personally, I never cease to be amazed at how little credible coverage is given to the conspiracies which are conducted in plain sight.....usually it is these openly known, news item conspiracies in plain sight which are overlaid with more credulous, unlikely, speculative, mixed in with deeply questionable agendas, absurd sounding (etc etc) conspiracy theories which become, for some odd reason, far more popular a "cause" than the actual, real conspiracy.......

For me "9/11" is a weird one. Because in August 1998 I made a prediction to my mother saying that Osama bin Laden would commit a terrorist attack on US soil within 5 years that would be beyond anything we've seen before in the West and that would change the world we live in (she had no comprehension what I was blabbering on about!). When I've mentioned this to friends during 9/11 conspiracy debates years later (around 80% of all the people I know outside of work believe it WAS a conspiracy, which I think tends to reflect the type of people I associate with, rather than intelligence or objectivity, which I think in itself tells a story), they've said on more than one occassion "oh, you had a psychic vision did you". I always laugh and say "no, not at all. I was just deeply political at that time and was OBSERVING what was going on in the world". In August 1998 Clinton killed civilians at a factory in Sudan under the pretense of attacking al qaeda. It just so happened it made for an excellent diversion from his upcoming trial or whatever to do with Lewinsky. That was the day I made that prediction.

On the day of September 11th 2001, I was already aware of much of what would later become part of the 9/11 "conspiracy theories", such as Osama's association with the CIA, family business relations between the Bush & Laden families, oil politics etc This was all openly available knowledge & news after all! I was actually immediately suspicious - on the same day and before ANY kind of exposure or even knowledge of "conspiracy theories" - of what I was witnessing.

I guess my suspicion of official narratives in regards to war and politics goes back to 1990/1 when I was 12/13 years old. My dad used to read several UK broadsheet papers every day, and I used to pick them up afterwards and read....The Times was his favourite. IIRC just during the buildup to the first Iraq war, or perhaps during or just after, there was a small article in the Times which basically said the then US ambassador to Iraq (I forget her name) was proven to have given explicit approval to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the USA to invade Kuwait, and for doing so (after the war) she had been quietly removed from her position and given a lot of money/very expensive property to stay out of the limelight. This was a respected newspaper providing what seemed to be facts and it blew my mind completely......that I never heard about this ever again ANYWHERE, something which completely shifted, put into question the official mainstream narrative, and all it's simplistic, jingoistic notions, about the Iraq war. This one experience created a cognitive dissonance in my young mind which I think effects me to this day.....

Annnyways, despite all this, I really don't understand the general form of arguments "9/11 truthers" take up. There ARE plenty of "plain sight" conspiracies here, and nobody seems to care. Literally the same people (Rumsfeld, Bush et al) who train them, then go to war with them (Saddam and Laden). I don't believe this necessarily means they've trained them to attack the US. But I think it OBVIOUSLY implies these guys are completely & utterly incompetent when it comes to foreign policy & imperialistic designs and clearly shouldn't be making further decisions, let alone running the entire country & war.

The guys making decisions to go to war or not (and by implication the lives of untold people & potential catastrophic global backlash lasting......well, let's see how long daesh last....) also happen to work on the board of corporations which which will get awarded multi-billion dollar contracts, from THEMSELVES, taken from the natural resources of the country they've invaded, thousands of miles from their own country?

The guys sell all kinds of weapons of "mass destruction" to a guy, then go back there a few years later using that as a pretext for war/rape of natural resource?

The guys say this terrible atrocity, 9/11, is why we should go to war with Saddam. Never mind Saddam and Laden hate each, and Laden must have been rubbing his hands in glee when the US invaded (and he was right to, daesh is the Jungian dark-shadow child of this right wing imperialistic ideology, imo). This was no secret prior to that war, everyone with an interest knew it! Which, kind of disproves some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ity really was SUCH a non-sequitur to invade Iraq because of Bin Laden that it simply could not have been planned that way (irregardless of think tank manifestos from the 80s from many of Bush's staff)!! They just USED it as an opportunity, relying on the gullibility of the general public. It worked!

Tony Blair interrupts several main TV channels at 9pm in the UK the day prior to launching war with Iraq for a second time, and makes several very nice sounding promises to the sceptical British public, including that money raised from the natural resources of Iraq will go into an independent NATO or UN controlled fund, NOT the US or UK, and that there would be full transparency and fairness in any trade/contracts. He also said the Israel Palestine issued would be resolved, more or less. Neither of these things transpired, and neither of these claims or indeed any of that SPECIAL nationwide, multi channel broadcast from Blair ever mentioned again anywhere, by anyone, that I've ever noticed. Indeed, I seem to be the only person I know who even remembers it!

Plain sight conspiracies!!

But there were no passenger planes that flew into the towers, there was a controlled demolition, loose change & all that? I find all this kind of irrelevant and very poorly supported.

I've sat through several documentaries of these with friends like devout religious believers trying to convince me (with information they had learnt very recently from these poorly made docs that I knew years prior, but never mind!), and was surprised to notice that one segment would directly and mutually contradict & invalidate the segment immediately prior to it (within a minute or two!) but nobody noticed it because they kind of stopped thinking and just accepting what they were being told.......even if it was factually contradictory one minute to the next. It seemed as if the creators would take any position to contradict the official narrative, even if those positions contradicted each other (connect the dots, ignore the rest).

The absolute best documentary I've seen on the destruction of the towers was one made by either Discovery or History channel which was released within a month of the attack. It had dozens of highly respectable, leading scientists of many disciplines, including at least one of the actual blueprint designers of the towers I believe, from many different institutes and all over the world. This wasn't a doc to contradict any "conspiracy theories" because they were pretty much unknown then, just a "straight up" doc. However, many of the arguments I still hear to this day were covered, in extremely convincing depth, with diagrams & graphics & blueprints etc, in that doc from Sep/Oct 2001!

It's one thing to say there are many engineers who agree, without doubt or argument, it WAS a controlled demolition. But for a "neutral" this is hard to square with the many, many, many, including those who designed the towers themselves, who disagree? A simple google search brings this up. A quick read shows fairly convincing rebuttals to many arguments?:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

I believe there are many, many conspiracies right in plain, documented sight. I believe there is another type of "conspiracy" which only serves as a deflection from that, something to take all the "heat" and let the majority of people just scoff and scorn at them & by implication the whole idea of dishonest, manipulative governments and military not really concerned about the welfare of the majority of it's so called "democratic" citizens.

I heartily recommend going through all of Adam Curtis's documentaries, one by one in chronological order (well, at least from 1989), and perhaps throw in a bit of Noam Chomsky to get a taste of the conspiracies in plain sight. Absolutely magnificent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis#Filmography

Rant over!!
 
#63
In my opinion, one formed from looking at conspiracy theories as a whole, many of them are based in a millennial, apocalyptic reading of the future grounded in biblical prophecy. It's join the dots Revelation without any mediating scholarship, history or context.
I wouldn't say most CT's are based in apocalyptic Christian prophecy, but I would agree that apocalyptic prophecy is one rabbit hole that provides an entrance into the "alternative realm". Once a person begins to question authority and official narratives, they often begin to re-evaluate everything they've ever been told.... They become skeptics.

As I've said before, CTs provide the perfect comfort blanket for people disposed to believe them. Everything you know is wrong, is the ultimate certainty.
I hear what you're saying here as I've been battling Flat Earthers elsewhere on the Internet ....they become skeptics, but many don't have the knowledge or critical thinking skills to fill the voids left by the doubts and rebuild the edifice of knowledge. And for them, yes, doubt becomes the only certainty. The same could be said of the materialistic skeptics we encounter in the consciousness science realm.

People are reactionary. Those who grow up in religious homes blindly accepting the veracity of religious authorities and later get a dose of materialistic science minus philosophy react against their formerly believed myths and hold them in disdain as they do Santa Clause. With pride wounded at having believed a "childish" myth to be literally true, they decide they'll never be fools again and so they doubt anything that deviates from materialistic science confirmed and validated by official sources. They are almost immutably biased against notions that resemble their formerly held "errant" beliefs.

Similarly, those who grow up blindly accepting political or scientific authorities and later discover those they trusted to be untrustworthy tend to react in the same way, but are biased towards anything appearing to be "alternative" and against anything "official".

Scapegoating of Jews has a long history, going back to the medieval myths of the wandering Jew, through blood libel riots, the expulsion of Jews by monarchs who owned them money, to the horrors of the holocaust. Speaking as a non-Jew, it's clear that many if not most of the current crop of conspiracies lead back to the same impulse that began those acts, a mistrust of the other, and the belief that if bad things happen they must have an identifiable cause.
Hatred and racism begets hatred and racism. We all know what happens when a group of people views others as subhuman and deserving of bondage. I am not attempting to scapegoat Jews. I'm merely trying to understand the underlying ideologies and motivations that drive the world's power players. It would be foolish to avoid a study of Judaism when it obviously plays a role here.

I don't think we should ignore the role of Islam in Muslim nation that oppresses women or stones gays or when a terrorist mows down people shouting "Allahu Akbar."

I don't think we should ignore the role of Christianity in the crusades or inquisition or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

And I don't think we should ignore the role of Judaism in banking, finance, media, and global government.

If any group of people believes they are racially superior to others and has a divine right or an earned right to rule over other groups of people and make them subservient, don't we need to know about that?
 
Last edited:
#64
The absolute best documentary I've seen on the destruction of the towers was one made by either Discovery or History channel which was released within a month of the attack.
I agree with a good portion of your rant :) , but Hah... Those docs were the absolute worst completely lacking critical engineering analysis.

However, many of the arguments I still hear to this day were covered, in extremely convincing depth, with diagrams & graphics & blueprints etc, in that doc from Sep/Oct 2001!
Use fancy graphics and have authority figures state something to lay people, and yes it sounds convincing.

One of these docs did a whitewash attempting to disprove the idea that thermite could be used to cut steel when there are patents on devices for this and an ordinary engineer has developed simple and effective thermite cutter charges in his own garage:


A simple google search brings this up. A quick read shows fairly convincing rebuttals to many arguments?:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
These are more whitewashed totally inadequate to address the many detailed points brought up by AE911Truth.org
 
#66
people with known allegiances hijacked the planes - the list goes on . . .
If you remember, there were first two hijackers named who were supposedly the two who took the short flight from Boston to New York. Then those guys showed up alive and in the U.S. They - the admin - retracted the accusations (without explanation as usual). Fine, kind of. Except, weren't those guys names on the flight manifest? No. They weren't. Then they went to the next 19 guys. Were any of their names on the manifest? No. None were. After being questioned about this for a long time - years, if I recall correctly - there was a rereleased manifest that now included their names. Being unauthorized means nothing though. Why weren't they on the first manifest? Why aren't they on any official, authorized manifest to this day? Then, to make matters worse, almost half the hijackers showed up alive in various parts of the world. The debunkers attempted to scuttle the issue by arguing that their names were like John Smith, common, and so those showing up weren't the ones truly accused of being the hijackers. Except the problem with this is that we have pictures and histories - locations on the planet where they're from and lived - that are associated with the hijackers. The ones who showed up were indeed the ones accused. There were families (of the living accused) who were involved in some cases . . . When the family members of several men who died in the twin towers questioned Muller on this, he gave a non-answer: "We think we know who they are." What kind of an answer was that?! They think they know . . . Especially at that point, long after one would've thought we truly knew who they were . . . I mean, all one would have to do to know would be look on the manifest then narrow down, right? Also, this wasn't the stone age; this was 2001. There were cameras everywhere. But not one picture was shown of these guys in the airport - not boarding, not buying a last meal, not checking luggage, not going through security. (There was a single picture supposedly shown of the connecting flight, then later there was a single picture released without time stamp. But that took years). No one was interviewed who saw them board. No boarding passes or ticket stubs were produced. (In fact, speaking of video footage, the only real mention we have of video footage concerning the entire day was the confiscation of all local video footage from whatever happened at the pentagon.) So how, if they weren't on the manifests, were identified? One hijacker's passport blew out of the plane that flew into the WTC and was found on the sidewalk by a person passing by and turned in to a cop before the collapse. In Pennsylvania, after absolute obliteration of the plane, there was a completely intact red turbine with passport found. At the Pentagon where the entire plane inside the building was equally decimated, a passport was found. How convenient!

What about Osama? He was never listed on the FBI's most wanted list for 9/11 . . . though he was wanted and held responsible for other terrorist attacks (and listed on there as being wanted for those crimes). When someone called the FBI and asked about this thing, what on the surface appears absurd, they simply said there was no hard evidence linking him to it. Osama denied involvement in the videos that came out in September. Perhaps a person would reasonably argue at first that, well, of course he denied it. But he was notorious for claiming terrorist attacks that he was in fact not responsible for. Operatives for both the CIA and FBI said that the single confession video (which was luckily found in a random apartment in Afghanistan (at the critical moment)), was fake. The leading expert scholar at UCLA said that the "confession" Osama was not Osama. But forget all that: in a mere 10 minutes one can watch the September videos of the man that is clearly Osama and compare those to the confession video, where Osama looks like a completely different, chubby little person . . . except, that is, that he's middle eastern.

Basically, all the issues concerning 9/11 are riddled with extreme problems: problems that don't point towards confusion or incompetency, rather towards complicity and engineering and cover-up.

This thread basically reminds me of the thread about the latest skeptiko interview. Before I learned the details of NDEs, I dismissed them all completely . . . laughably, even. I thought they were all from fundamentalist Christians. Then, as I learned more, I realized there was more to it than I first realized. Then, as I learned more, I realized there was much more to them and began understanding the in-fighting that took place . . . and started to take a stance. The same is true of 9/11 conspiracy, or any other. If one wanted to take a negative stance, fine. But there's a lot of info out there, and most people don't even seem to know what they're taking a negative stance against. As Ethan said, the 9/11 Consensus compiles a lot. All David Ray Griffin books are chock full of useful and compelling information.

Concerning Zionist responsibility: if one will put aside belief or disbelief in the conspiracy for a moment and simply look at who was where they will see that a Zionist, normally with dual citizenship, was at the very top of the chain in every key position required to pull the thing off. Period. It's not vague, and it's not unreasonable to ask questions about this. This is aside from the fact that several dancing Israelis with Mossad ties were found . . . who later admitted on live television in Israel that they were there to "document" the event . . . What happened with these guys? Don't we, as members of the U.S. deserve to know what they knew and how they knew it? Apparently not. When people think Muslims were responsible, it's no problem at all to call out extremist Islam (and if that were the case, it rightly shouldn't be). Why does this change so radically when questioning extremist Judaism? . . . I also find it telling that the attacks only caused infinite suffering to muslims in muslim countries, but has worked to help primarily one group: those for a The Greater Israel project. The Palestinians were, in fact, the very first group blamed . . . I believe this was even before 10 am. How was this supposedly known? Why was this accusation not pursued? Perhaps because the dancing Palestinians were later found to be dancing Israeli operatives . . . who still, nevertheless, said, "we aren't your problem. Your problem is our problem: the problem is the Palestinians." What a strange thing to say that morn after you've been caught dancing in front of an atrocity in a van with a plane and two towers on it . . .
 
Last edited:
#68
The model for comparison is not just fires in high rise buildings, but skyscrapers used as targets for airliners full of aviation fuel. The buildings fell in a way that looked like controlled demolition, but that doesn't mean they were.
The two towers hit by planes, buildings 1 and 2, were not the main reason most became suspicious of conspiracy. It was building 7, which I assume you're aware of. In case you're not, here's it's collapse:


And here, even stranger, is the BBC saying it collapsed before it did:


And really, that's only the beginning of the strangeness. Reading 'The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7,' by David Ray Griffin is like reading about someone telling a whopper of a lie then having to tell 100 more to cover up the first . . . almost humorous. An example of NIST's behavior would include their removal of a comment by a high school physics teacher stating the building fell at absolute free fall speed for several seconds. Wonder why they'd do that?
 
#72
I read through this... A lot of good info, but didn't see anything regarding the key point Reece mentioned above: that they said on the TV interview that they were there in Manhattan that day to document the event?
Here it’s suggested that saying “our purpose was to document the event” is in itself somehow suspicious, that it indicates foreknowledge. Why? We’ve no idea. Every single person who pointed a camera at the WTC on 9/11 did so because they wanted to “document the event”. The phrase indicates precisely nothing at all.
 
#73
Here it’s suggested that saying “our purpose was to document the event” is in itself somehow suspicious, that it indicates foreknowledge. Why? We’ve no idea. Every single person who pointed a camera at the WTC on 9/11 did so because they wanted to “document the event”. The phrase indicates precisely nothing at all.
What?

We can only assume (without other information) that "every single person who pointed a camera at the WTC on 911 did so" spontaneously . . . Does this truly need explanation? For someone to be there to document it unspontaneously can only mean foreknowledge. The New York Times said the cameras were set up before hand. The Jewish Daily reported that the U.S. determined that at least two of those kiddos were with the Mossad.
 
#74
What?

We can only assume (without other information) that "every single person who pointed a camera at the WTC on 911 did so" spontaneously . . . Does this truly need explanation? For someone to be there to document it unspontaneously can only mean foreknowledge. The New York Times said the cameras were set up before hand. The Jewish Daily reported that the U.S. determined that at least two of those kiddos were with the Mossad.
The eye witness Maria, who reported them, says different.

MARIA: She was sitting when she heard a noise, at the same time she felt like it--it shook--like the building shook, she said. She called me immediately. She said, 'You know, there's--there's something wrong, look at your window by the twin towers.' So I grab my binoculars and I could see the towers from my window.
And this is where I, you know, I'm looking. I saw the smoke from the top, just from the top of the towers.

MILLER: (VO) After watching for a little while, something caught Maria's at-tention in the parking lot below her window.

MARIA: Like a few minutes must have gone on, and all of a sudden down there I see this van park. And I see three guys on top of the van, and I'm trying, you know, to look at the building but what caught my attention, they seemed to be taking a movie.
 
#75
The eye witness Maria, who reported them, says different.

MARIA: She was sitting when she heard a noise, at the same time she felt like it--it shook--like the building shook, she said. She called me immediately. She said, 'You know, there's--there's something wrong, look at your window by the twin towers.' So I grab my binoculars and I could see the towers from my window.
And this is where I, you know, I'm looking. I saw the smoke from the top, just from the top of the towers.

MILLER: (VO) After watching for a little while, something caught Maria's at-tention in the parking lot below her window.

MARIA: Like a few minutes must have gone on, and all of a sudden down there I see this van park. And I see three guys on top of the van, and I'm trying, you know, to look at the building but what caught my attention, they seemed to be taking a movie.
But the guys admittedly changed locations and this was their second location. They were first seen dancing and laughing and filming in another location (their lawyer denies the antics). No one saw what they were doing the moment the planes hit.
 
#76
The eye witness Maria, who reported them, says different.

MARIA: She was sitting when she heard a noise, at the same time she felt like it--it shook--like the building shook, she said. She called me immediately. She said, 'You know, there's--there's something wrong, look at your window by the twin towers.' So I grab my binoculars and I could see the towers from my window.
And this is where I, you know, I'm looking. I saw the smoke from the top, just from the top of the towers.

MILLER: (VO) After watching for a little while, something caught Maria's at-tention in the parking lot below her window.

MARIA: Like a few minutes must have gone on, and all of a sudden down there I see this van park. And I see three guys on top of the van, and I'm trying, you know, to look at the building but what caught my attention, they seemed to be taking a movie.
Did they mean something other than exactly what they said, which is that they were there to document it?
 
#77
Scapegoating of Jews has a long history, going back to the medieval myths of the wandering Jew, through blood libel riots, the expulsion of Jews by monarchs who owned them money, to the horrors of the holocaust
When people think Muslims were responsible, it's no problem at all to call out extremist Islam (and if that were the case, it rightly shouldn't be). Why does this change so radically when questioning extremist Judaism? . . . I also find it telling that the attacks only caused infinite suffering to muslims in muslim countries, but has worked to help primarily one group: those for a The Greater Israel project.
What you say here is undoubtably true Gabriel, but in the last few decades the (Zionist?) Jews have done themselves no favours in this regard. I wonder why I start to feel uneasy whenever I broach this subject? Am I 'anti-Semitic'? Am I being taken in by those that are? Will I lose friends on Facebook (real friends) if I post anti Israel stuff? All these questions sort of stop my true feelings from being expressed. It is complicated.

I get very uneasy when something becomes 'too difficult to discuss'. That is how I feel about this topic. Why do people shy away from it? Why do I get the strong intuition that there is indeed something to the control aspect that the Zionist Jews have over many important things in our lives. Is it because I don't like the idea of them having such a lot of influence/control when they're primary concern is for one of the many groups of people on this earth. Many others, it seems, can easily be disposed of.

I'm pissed off with anti-semitism being a major theme in the uk when obviously anti-muslim is the real problem.

Getting back to 9/11. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were a conspiracy involving a few different groups all interested in either power/money or both.
 
#78
Here it’s suggested that saying “our purpose was to document the event” is in itself somehow suspicious, that it indicates foreknowledge. Why? We’ve no idea. Every single person who pointed a camera at the WTC on 9/11 did so because they wanted to “document the event”. The phrase indicates precisely nothing at all.
It's a good point I think: It is unclear what purpose they are referring to. Is it the overall purpose of them being there or is just the purpose of them filming? The quote is a translation from Hebrew of a short segment from an interview they gave in an Isreali talkshow after they had been deported from the US. It can be seen in this video at the 1:20 mark (please ignore the rest of the video. It seems to be distastefully anti-semitic for which I apologize, but it was the only video I was able to find):
The precise meaning is of course in danger of being lost in the translation. But they seem to be speaking in general terms about the matter and not referring to their specific act of pointing the camera. Still, it's imposiible to tell for sure, especially without an accurate translation of what was actually said.
 
#79
It's a good point I think: It is unclear what purpose they are referring to. Is it the overall purpose of them being there or is just the purpose of them filming? The quote is a translation from Hebrew of a short segment from an interview they gave in an Isreali talkshow after they had been deported from the US. It can be seen in this video at the 1:20 mark (please ignore the rest of the video. It seems to be distastefully anti-semitic for which I apologize, but it was the only video I was able to find):
The precise meaning is of course in danger of being lost in the translation. But they seem to be speaking in general terms about the matter and not referring to their specific act of pointing the camera. Still, it's imposiible to tell for sure, especially without an accurate translation of what was actually said.
There are many things said, some of which are indisputable in my opinion, regarding Israeli involvement, and I think the dancing Israelis need to be seen in that overall context. As I mention above, I've read that The New York Times reported Thursday following 911 that the cameras were set up prior to the attacks. Perhaps I can locate the article once home at a real computer. At any rate, if the statements about them dancing, cheering, high-fiving, and laughing are accurate - which I don't think anyone doubts - then I'd say they too are a bit distasteful . . .
 
#80
Why do you think that it's anti-Semitic?
I didn't watch it closely, I could be wrong. But there is a certain segment of (the very heterogenous) 9/11 movement that is anti-Semitic and with which I don't agree. From the few tidbits I saw of the video I got the impression it was another example of that. I don't think discussing Isreali involvement in 9/11 is in and of itself anti-Semitic, but it is unfortunately sometimes done in that way. And of course if someone is of an anti-Semitic bent that someone is more likely to be attracted to the question of Israeli involvement in 9/11. So I have gotten used to being on the lookout against anti-Semitic sentiments when it comes to videos discussing Israeli involvement in 9/11. Perhaps I was prejudiced in my judgement of this particular video. Reflecting on my statement I guess that what I was really trying to say was: "Isreali involvement in 9/11, watch out for possible anti-semitic content".
 
Top