Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 167

Thread: Class Is Now In Session

  1. #71
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    1) al-Qaeda, from what I've seen in various documentaries, means "the base", or "base of Jihad", and was created by bin Laden and his mentor as a way to keep track of the fighters coming in and out of Afganistan-the CIA/ISI connections came later. As for the theory itself, I use to think that when you first explain shit to me, that after the neo-cons took power, they found out about the plot and made sure it was succesful. But the more I learned the less that made sense. Such as the fact that some of the hijackers are proven to be a live, some trained in U.S. military bases, some can't be accounted for in the U.S., ect...

    2) The planning in conjunction theory also seems viable since bin Laden & Zawahiri have CIA ties, it's possible that they worked with the CIA on this attack not knowing they were doing so at the behest of the Bush Admin. I mean, if I were the leader of Hamas and had Mossad ties from back in the day, and they approached me of an operation to stage a massive attack in Israel, kill thousands of Jews, and me and Hamas would get the credit, your damn right I'd take it. All's I'd have to do is supply the suicide attackers and I would be able to go from killing a few people at a time to thousands, and I'd get the credit. Makes sense.

    Also, been bin Laden has been quoted as saying "pray for your brothers" months before the attacks (possibly refrencing the Cole bombing) which shows he doesnt keep anything secret. Any one of the thousands who attend al-Qaeda trainning camps could have been a double agent.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,727
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
    1) al-Qaeda, from what I've seen in various documentaries, means "the base", or "base of Jihad", and was created by bin Laden and his mentor as a way to keep track of the fighters coming in and out of Afganistan-the CIA/ISI connections came later. As for the theory itself, I use to think that when you first explain shit to me, that after the neo-cons took power, they found out about the plot and made sure it was succesful. But the more I learned the less that made sense. Such as the fact that some of the hijackers are proven to be a live, some trained in U.S. military bases, some can't be accounted for in the U.S., ect...

    2) The planning in conjunction theory also seems viable since bin Laden & Zawahiri have CIA ties, it's possible that they worked with the CIA on this attack not knowing they were doing so at the behest of the Bush Admin. I mean, if I were the leader of Hamas and had Mossad ties from back in the day, and they approached me of an operation to stage a massive attack in Israel, kill thousands of Jews, and me and Hamas would get the credit, your damn right I'd take it. All's I'd have to do is supply the suicide attackers and I would be able to go from killing a few people at a time to thousands, and I'd get the credit. Makes sense.

    Also, been bin Laden has been quoted as saying "pray for your brothers" months before the attacks (possibly refrencing the Cole bombing) which shows he doesnt keep anything secret. Any one of the thousands who attend al-Qaeda trainning camps could have been a double agent.
    http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3099

    "Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

    Robin Cook, the former U.K. Foreign Secretary, now deceased, wrote that.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,727
    For review...

    American History And How It Relates To 9/11

    Welcome one and all to the first of hopefully many online 9/11 truth classes. Each and every one of you who questions that day is a patriot in your own right.

    Tonight's class is going to focus on "American History, and how it relates to 9/11".

    My name is Jon Gold, but you can call me Jon or Gold. Both are acceptable. My father's name is "Mr. Gold".

    Quite honestly, I don't know exactly how we're going to do this, but I do have a few ideas.

    I figured I would tell you why American History is important in order to be able to see the truth about 9/11.

    One of the biggest obstacles we face in the 9/11 Truth Movement is the idea that our Government would NEVER do such a thing. People have it embedded in their brains that no one in Government would ever kill their own people.

    As you'll see, that simply is not the case.

    Let's go back in time... to the 60's.... when drugs were acceptable, communism was on the rise, and rock and roll shaped a generation.

    The date was March 13th, 1962. The Joint Chiefs Of Staff for President John F. Kennedy had an idea. The idea was called Operation Northwoods.

    This idea, titled, “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.

    These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.

    In other words, they were going to kill Americans to justify war with Cuba. Or, to put it bluntly, our Government is MORE than capable of killing it's own.

    Luckily, President Kennedy refused this plan.

    Would it surprise you to hear that the majority of wars the United States has partaken in took place under false pretenses?

    Let this sink in. Read the document if you want. I'll give you 15 minutes or so if you want.

    When you're ready, I would be happy to take any questions you may have.

    Foreknowledge Of The Event

    "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

    Condoleezza Rice

    One of the things we have learned during this administration's reign is that whatever they say, the opposite is usually the truth. "We abide by the law of the United States, that we do not torture." "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

    How does this formula apply to 9/11? Well, if the Administration says that no one could have predicted what was going to happen, then chances are, they knew exactly what was going to happen.

    As it turns out, that is most definitely the case. There are several pieces of information out there that not only indicate the United States Government was aware of such an attack, but they were aware of the time, and place. I will mention a VERY small portion.

    Here is one of the MANY "warnings" that were not mentioned in the 9/11 Report. There is a massive list available at www.cooperativeresearch.org:

    In late July 2001, Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, "possibly from the intelligence services." Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of "warning fatigue" arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

    The San Francisco Chronicle reported on 9/12/2001 in an article entitled, "Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel" that:

    "he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel."

    For those of you who don't know, Willie Brown and Condoleezza Rice are good friends.

    In the September 13th issue of Newsweek, Michael Hirsh reported in an article entitled, "We've Hit The Targets":

    "Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill."

    Here's a good one. This is one of many reports about exercises our military conducts. On 9/18/2004, USA Today reported in an article entitled, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons", that:

    "In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

    One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say."


    There were also similar exercises like the ones mentioned in that article on 9/11. You can read about them here:

    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...50830185334880

    The importance of all of this information, and the COUNTLESS other pieces of information on this subject, to 9/11 Truth, is that it once again shows we were lied to.

    I will be happy to take your questions now.

    Also, do you think Condi is lying?

    For those who aren't on a high-speed connection, that's part of Condoleezza Rice's testimony during her public testimony at the 9/11 Commission Hearings.

    You can read a transcript of it here.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  4. #74
    Goatfish Guest

    It's also part of the plan..

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
    Shit, that was a great piece written on the other page.

    Anyways, since 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration, how do you figure that so many intelligence agencies from around the world found out about it to the point where they were warning the U.S. govnt about it? I mean, if I were the govnt, I'd try to keep this on the down low so that no nation would be like, "Hey Bush, al-Qaeda is planning big attacks on your country", through memos and then the Bush Admin would be taking serious heat for that afterwards. One possible explination would be that there are far more nations in the world that have achieved penetration of al-Qaeda than one could imagine...including the govnt of freakin Argentina!

    Your thoughts...
    Two basic reasons, I believe. Info was planted out there by the 9/11 sponsors. This was a way to 'condition' the world, so that when the attack happened people could say, "ya see, there ya go". It would have seemed FAR more unusual if there were no mention whatsoever and then BANG! Very cunningly, it also aids the overall conspiracy, as it makes people scratch their heads saying, "but how could so many governments, intelligence agencies, and political people catch wind of an ominous plot unfolding and try to warn the US, if the whole thing really was an inside job, and the real 9/11 sponsors would seemingly want to remain as low profile as possible?"
    Tada. Yet another monkeywrench thrown into the search for 9/11 truth, like the "pods" on the belly of the planes, and the whole vague ambiguity with what really happened at the Pentagon. It doesn't seem to make sense, but in another way, it does.
    Take what happened with Oswald. He saw to it that he made a public example of himself, supporting Communism and Cuba. This conditioned the public to get used to Oswald as a commie. So when he was blamed for the JFK killing, it all seemed to fit nicely. JFK was done in by a commie, communism is taking over, we need to stop it wherever it exists around the world!! Gee, it all sounds familiar: a vague ominous threat (communism, terrorism) which forces us to spend bajillions on "defense", intervene in the affairs of so many other nations under the guise of staving off this "threat", and tricking people into accepting totally different political and social systems because of it. The tag names for this threat merely change, but the Cold War is still alive and well, with the US leading its way.

    Another possibility about why so many foreigners were warning us is they also could be part of the conspiracy. They could possibly be additional Judith Millers, moles scattered around the world aiding the conspiracy by planting effective lies which help to buttress and corroborate the "official" version.
    And as for Bush and anyone in his administration being afraid about any blowback afterwards, they apparently were confident enough that once the coup was carried out that they'd be able to ramrod through any kind of legislation which would take away our rights while providing themselves with more insulation from the public..exactly like they did! In fact, many people who utterly failed to do their jobs that day were promoted, while the only person still to date to be fired over 9/11 is Bill Maher. If that doesn't say it all as to what a complete joke the whole thing has been treated as..

  5. #75
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    What you just said Goatfish makes a lot of sense. As do the other 2 theories posted on this page 7 and this one. I liked that Oswald analogie a lot, and I never knew he was set up to be a commie. Intersting stuff.

  6. #76
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gold9472
    http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3099

    "Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

    Robin Cook, the former U.K. Foreign Secretary, now deceased, wrote that.
    From my understanding, based on documentaries and things I've read, bin Laden and his mentor went to the Jihad to help fight the Soviets by bringing in supplies and money. The name "al-Qaeda" was either bin Laden or his mentors idea as to keep track of the flow of fighters. The CIA involvment didn't come until later, and there only role was to help with the finances and the supply of weapons, particularly SAM's which helped turn the tied of the war. Not to sure about the ISI but all I know is that the Pakistani govn't from the start allowed all the Jihadists to roam freely across the boarder.

    Forward to the mid 90's, when bin Laden opened up new camps in Afganistan, they didn't call themselves anything. After 9/11 the govnt refered to them as al-Qaeda because that was there old name- and obviously they just stuck with it. That's accroding to bin Laden in an interview with al-Jazeera.

  7. #77
    Goatfish Guest

    kewl

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
    What you just said Goatfish makes a lot of sense. As do the other 2 theories posted on this page 7 and this one. I liked that Oswald analogie a lot, and I never knew he was set up to be a commie. Intersting stuff.
    Thanks once again! I'm glad if I'm providing any insight which is opening your mind to more possibilities. Yeah, Oswald was made to expose himself to an extreme degree, deliberately causing public scenes in order to gain exposure for himself. This allowed him to easily be publicly branded; the public had made up its mind about his image (or at least so they thought). This conditioned, or acclimated the public to accept a certain mentality, a way of thinking.
    The same thing happened with recent terrorism. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been blamed for the African embassy bombings and for the USS Cole bombing, and yet no hard evidence has been put forth to conclusively prove the claim. Yet because of those incidents, the public became used to some dude named bin Laden and his band of thugs, Al-Qaeda, running rampant all over the earth, hotheaded, fanatical, and out of control.
    So when 9/11 rolled around (tada!) the federal government can simply point to bin Laden and the public says to itself, "of course". Wanna hear something funny? My girlfriend at the time told me that day, "it's fuckin bin Laden, I know it". Can you imagine if I said no it was the US government?! Bwahahahaha!!! Anyhow, where did she get that name from? From the "free" press which dictated to her that a certain dude named bin Laden bombed the USS Cole.
    It appears that before a patsy can be brought into a false flag terror operation, a profile of him needs to be put out on the street. He or she can't just emerge from the shadows. A long trail of propaganda and staged incidents seems to be a requisite prelude.

  8. #78
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Goatfish
    Thanks once again! I'm glad if I'm providing any insight which is opening your mind to more possibilities. Yeah, Oswald was made to expose himself to an extreme degree, deliberately causing public scenes in order to gain exposure for himself. This allowed him to easily be publicly branded; the public had made up its mind about his image (or at least so they thought). This conditioned, or acclimated the public to accept a certain mentality, a way of thinking.
    The same thing happened with recent terrorism. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been blamed for the African embassy bombings and for the USS Cole bombing, and yet no hard evidence has been put forth to conclusively prove the claim. Yet because of those incidents, the public became used to some dude named bin Laden and his band of thugs, Al-Qaeda, running rampant all over the earth, hotheaded, fanatical, and out of control.
    So when 9/11 rolled around (tada!) the federal government can simply point to bin Laden and the public says to itself, "of course". Wanna hear something funny? My girlfriend at the time told me that day, "it's fuckin bin Laden, I know it". Can you imagine if I said no it was the US government?! Bwahahahaha!!! Anyhow, where did she get that name from? From the "free" press which dictated to her that a certain dude named bin Laden bombed the USS Cole.
    It appears that before a patsy can be brought into a false flag terror operation, a profile of him needs to be put out on the street. He or she can't just emerge from the shadows. A long trail of propaganda and staged incidents seems to be a requisite prelude.
    Actually it's been proven without a doubt that al-Qaeda was behind the embassy bombings. One of the attackeres messed up and didn't die as he planned, and was later arrested (providing a link). Bin Laden also claimed responisbiliy.

  9. #79
    Goatfish Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
    Actually it's been proven without a doubt that al-Qaeda was behind the embassy bombings. One of the attackeres messed up and didn't die as he planned, and was later arrested (providing a link). Bin Laden also claimed responisbiliy.
    Can you point me to the evidence? And do you mean that bin Laden "claimed" responsibility through audio or video provided by western governments (that is, those that stand to profit the most from a false flag attack)?
    Bin Laden also "claimed" responsibility for 9/11..or at least his double did!

  10. #80
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Goatfish
    Can you point me to the evidence? And do you mean that bin Laden "claimed" responsibility through audio or video provided by western governments (that is, those that stand to profit the most from a false flag attack)?
    Bin Laden also "claimed" responsibility for 9/11..or at least his double did!
    The evidence is all over the net. A guy captured that day who was suppose to die in the attacks is also part of that evidence. And yeah I realize that bin Laden denied being behind 9/11 at first and many of the later videos are fake as hell.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2006, 08:45 AM
  2. Class Is Now In Session - A Review
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2006, 12:55 PM
  3. Class Project -- Need help
    By Prime in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-11-2005, 04:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2005, 07:56 PM
  5. Bush Holds Rare Unscripted Session
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-09-2005, 09:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •