The Day Before 9-11

[HalfLotus]

you seem to think that there is some mysterious world group out there with its own agenda and the ability to control large portions of government and the media.

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

Ben, you're late to the party, and we already danced to that song. I am referring to steel structure buildings.

[Darius871]

A quick Google turns up this:

CIA Plane Crashes in Yucatan Carrying 3.2 Tons of Cocaine

Did you even bother to read your own source? The only important phrase in it is "WMR has learned from knowledgeable European sources."

1) WMR = the Wayne Madsen Report, a conspiracy theorist circle-jerk if ever there was one.

2) "[K]nowledgeable European sources" = completely unidentified individuals somewhere in Europe, who are likely fellow conspiracy theorists

Really, you're going to have to do better than that. I don't even doubt that the CIA may have facilitated the occasional drug deal in exchange for useful intelligence information or favors over the years (and I don't even necessarily see anything wrong with that if true), but it may take substantial credible evidence to convince anyone that the CIA's engaged in a systematic drug distribution program of which Afghanistan is a major part. I also find it strange that "they" would bring in the drugs with one hand while another hand (DEA, FBI, locals, etc.) is wasting billions of dollars keeping them out, but I'm sure you can quickly rationalize in your mind that the latter are only going after the former's competitors, right? And around and around it goes.

[Darius871]

blablabla world government blablabla

Even supposing that quote's genuine, which the "elite and world bankers" hyperbole and your refusal to post a link (to a ridiculous Alex Jones webpage I'd wager) makes me doubt, so what?

[HalfLotus]

The term conspiracy theorist, while a fun derogatory statement to toss around, doesn't hold any intellectual value, so you're going to have to do better than that.

[Darius871]

The term conspiracy theorist, while a fun derogatory statement to toss around, doesn't hold any intellectual value, so you're going to have to do better than that.

Oh, I'm sorry to offend you, I meant "investigative journalist," just like Jones, Marrs, et al like to label themselves. The point being that Madsen is known to traffic in precisely this sort of claptrap and he cites no credible sources whatsoever to establish the veracity of that story. Perhaps interviews with local authorities who inspected the wreckage would have sufficed, or maybe even photographs and aircraft registration records in a perfect world, but no, all he can cite are unidentified "knowledgeable European sources" who for all we know could easily be the figment if his imagination or another's imagination. That better?

Sadly, to take an utterly unsubstantiated article like that at face value only makes you seem every bit as ensconced in brainwashed naivete as you accuse the other 99.99% of humanity of being.

[SlowwHand]

Don't leave out Geraldo Rivera.

[Darius871]

Don't leave out Geraldo Rivera.

No way man, he's "they" for sure. After all I hear he's a j00.

[HalfLotus]

I'm not offended, but it is a waste of people's time to wade through these threads when it's mostly, "you're stupid, you're crazy, you're a conspiracy theorist." Some people are funny about it, which is amusing, but you're not.

I come here to chat with people who disagree, because I learn the most that way, and I hope to find some viewpoints that will educate me.

If you're interested in the CIA plane incident, it has been reported in numerous publications, I just linked the first one Google popped up. OnlineJournal has a thoroughly sourced article.

[SlowwHand]

I know that I educate the heck out of you, HalfLotus. You don't have to say it.

[Darius871]

If you're interested in the CIA plane incident, it has been reported in numerous publications, I just linked the first one Google popped up. OnlineJournal has a thoroughly sourced article.

Now that's more like it - real detail gets us to the important facts: while you and Madsen gladly call it a "CIA Plane," we now see that in fact "[a]t the time of the crash, the Gulfstream II was registered to Donna Blue Aircraft Inc., owned by Joao Luiz Malago and Eduardo Dias Guimaraes, who had reportedly purchased the jet in July and then sold it to two Florida men on September 16, 2007," whereas its chartered use for CIA renditions was much earlier in 2003-2005. The author even concedes that it's "inconclusive" whether the buyer from Malago is the same Greg Smith that one witness says used to pilot some government-chartered flights, let alone whether he's even still an agent (if he ever was) or whether any of this was authorized. I know the CIA has a history of using shell corps, but the paper trail on this one is attenuated at best. Certainly not proof of anything systematic.

[SlowwHand]

Here's the real deal. Lee Harvey Oswald gained control of the plane. It wasn't radical Muslims. You found it out. Game is over. It was fun while it lasted.

[Zevico]

Here's the real deal. Lee Harvey Oswald gained control of the plane. It wasn't radical Muslims. You found it out. Game is over. It was fun while it lasted.

You forget to add that he has to go through a paddling while blindfolded in order to join the world government

[Patroklos]

And again guys, the term 'US government' is too broad and vague a term for serious discussions about nearly any topic.

Would you prefer SPECTRE? How about COBRA?

[rah]

Damn you Patroklos, now i'll be wasting time this morning cleaning up Dr. Pepper from my keyboard.

[Ming]

They wanted a 'catalyzing event' to mobilize US support military action in a post Cold-War world, and to create a casus belli for military action in Middle East war theaters.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their neocon buddies wrote that. Read the whole document Ming, it seems you know little about the desires and intentions of the men who were running the country on 9/11

They wanted maximum emotional shock effect, and an iconic building like the WTC was perfect for it.

There are many iconic buildings in the US... most of which would have provided many deaths and supply the maximum emotional shock without having the same effect on the economy. Plus, there would be no need to strike the Pentigon as well. I've read the whole document... long time ago... And like Berz, I saw it as a simple statement of fact and reality, not a confession. It seems you know little about reality and are more than willing to ignore it to dream up stuff to support your moronic beliefs.

The emotional shock mobilizes public support for military action and "forward basing presence", and makes it easier to manipulate the minds of citizens who have experienced a traumatic event. Please consider that fact when evaluating your own viewpoint on the subject. If you need to be educated on mass psychology, I'll help. Your viewpoint on mass media is rather naive, so you probably do.

You are one that should be considering FACTS when evaluating your own viewpoint... you are the one suppoerting the crazy conspiracy theory... And you are the one that needs to be reducated on mass psychology... I'll Help. Again, you are simply ignoring the fact that there are HUNDREDS of ICONS in the US that would have provided the IDENTICAL results... and NOT have the same effect on the finacial markets. In addition, why hit the Pentigon, and cripple the war machine that they were going to need to carry out their bold strategy in the Middle East. And why take the chance of destroying both towers... One would have been more then enough to provide the "traumatic event", and it would have only doubled the chances of getting caught. Plus, your viewpoint on mass media is rather naive... You had no clue that Hearst receives next to nothing in military and defense advertising spending, yet used it to support your crazy theory as PROOF. Talk about naive...

Maybe you're assuming they would want to limit casualties, or economic damage. Far from it. The more of each, the better.

Again... you are being rather naive or just plain stupid. One of the key factors in staying in power is the economy... Just ask George Bush senior... They would want to minimize economic damage not maximize it. Heck, if they wanted to maximize casulaties, they could have struck a full sports arena, and killed 10 to 20 times the number of people... and it would have been a traumatic event.

I don't recall saying that 'the government' pulled this off, and I think using that term is too broad and vague. It was likely rogue elements of intelligence agencies, with a few very high ranking Federal Officials in on it.

You keep throwing out names like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney... and even say high ranking Federal officials... but then say you don't recall saying the government pulled this off. Yeah, right

But what difference does it really make. It doesn't change the fact that it makes NO sense to hit the Pentigon and possibly cripple the war machine or to hit a target that has the possibility of having maximum negative effect on the economy.

You seem to be the one that is ignoring reality here. And so far, you have offered up nothing but bad opinions and insults to anybody that isn't as crazy as you are