Jonesing on conspiracy theories (another Prof Jones article)

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Was that the video that wasn't actually him, though?<hr></blockquote> All the videos are actually him, I think. The only ones who claim they aren't are people like Mike Rivero. To my knowledge, nobody who actually knows what they're talking about doubt it's really Bin Laden. (Yes, I've seen those pictures where one frame from one video is compared to one frame from another) Proldic, I'll see if I can find the quote.

by **Qutb** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:09 pm

<a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm" target="top">Here's</a> Al-Jazeera's transcript of the pre-election tape of last year. First of all, would a fake CIA Bin Laden have said the following? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results. Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them. No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours. No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again. But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. <hr></blockquote> Or the punchline: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.<hr></blockquote> and...<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.<hr></blockquote> Well, perhaps he would. The intended audience here is not the American people, however much this was the assumption of every American analyst of the tape. He's really speaking to potential followers in the Muslim world. Webster Tarpley is a man I'm skeptical of, but he's got a point that I think has been overlooked: there's something of a Bin Laden fan club in the CIA. CIA agents like Michael Scheuer (aka "anonymous") and Buzzy Krongard like to tout Bin Laden as a great leader, a Muslim Napoleon, a "worthy opponent". More neutral observers have pointed out that he's basically a dim-witted rich man's son who's being told what to say by others, who's been chosen for the job because of his family connections, and whose real role is more that of a symbolic figurehead than an evil genius (uncannily like the current president of the US, incidentally). So this lavish praise heaped on him by CIA agents is certainly curious. It seems like they want him to be the leader of the "world-wide Muslim insurrection" (Scheuer's words). Anyway. Here's the part where he talks about the air defense issue: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him. But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah.<hr></blockquote> Another curious thing is Bin Laden's emphasis on the role of Bush Sr: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief among them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents. Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr to the region. At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting. So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty. All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. <hr></blockquote> The quote about the collapse of the towers is from another tape.

by **NewKid** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:40 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sure, the collapse of the towers may have been the "psy-op of 9/11" - I'm sure, considering the design of the towers, clever people would have been able to figure out that the towers would collapse if you crashed airliners into them filled with jet fuel.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, I'm sure the 19 figured out building 7's weakness with the diesel fuel well in advance. My guess is Hani Hanjour for that one. That's the simplest explanation. Occam's razor and all.

by **Qutb** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:24 pm

NewKid said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yeah, I'm sure the 19 figured out building 7's weakness with the diesel fuel well in advance. My guess is Hani Hanjour for that one. That's the simplest explanation. Occam's razor and all.<hr></blockquote> Now you're just pretending to be stupid. It's unbecoming. It's not like the hijackers came up with the idea of flying planes into skyscrapers all on their own. They were, obviously, just the expendable foot-soldiers. As for building 7, no, no one had anticipated that one. But #7 was not a part of "the psy-op of 9/11" either. It's hardly even been shown on TV, has it? So what's your point, exactly?

by **proldic** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm

Actually, I remember the controversy over the installation of the diesel tanks in the command center when it was built being covered in the NY press at the time.

by **proldic** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:33 pm

also Qutb I'm pretty busy so I was wondering if you could refer me to an on-line transcript of that Bin Laden quote about the lack of air defense that you mentioned? And an analysis of the tape itself?

by **Qutb** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:50 pm

It's above, proldic, the one I could find when I looked for it. It's not really a "smoking gun", his spin is that Bush's inaction gave them more time than they had anticipated. So it's kind of ambiguous. Now I remember reading another transcript of another tape where he talks about the attack having succeeded beyond what they had hoped for. I'll see if I can find it if I have the time. One interesting thing: he says they had anticipated they would have 20 minutes to "execute the operation". And it did take almost exactly 20 minutes from the first to the second tower was hit. So this may be what he meant: the two towers would have to be hit within no more than 20 minutes in order to avoid being intercepted. So... the two other planes then? Were they "backup"? Didn't they expect them to reach their targets (and one of them didn't, but only because it was delayed)?

by **proldic** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:53 pm

thanks, I'll get back on this 9/11 thang soon hopefully

by **orz** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>First of all, would a fake CIA Bin Laden have said the following?<hr></blockquote> Of course he would! What better way to discredit these ideas than having Bin Laden parrot Michael Moore-esque rhetoric!... so if you're some ordinary left/right-believing democrat who buys into Farenheight 911 or similar acceptably mainstream 'leftist' stuff, you're suddenly agreeing with Bin Laden! OOps!

by **nomo** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:33 pm

You know, maybe, just maybe, Bin Laden and his followers have a legitimate beef with the USA... There's no denying the USA and other Western nations have been messing with the Middle East for decades, and we can all clearly see that the current situation in Iraq is just another example of that fact. We disapprove of their tactics, of course, but on the other hand, youknow, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

by **Qutb** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:27 pm

I can see the argument of making Bin Laden sound like Michael Moore, but if you could make him say whatever you wanted, wouldn't it be just a tad too embarrassing to have him make a lot more sense than the president of the United States? Because he does. He's telling the truth about Bush Sr. for instance.

by **Iroquois** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:01 pm

Those who thought well of Bush before the video was released got the message they were intended to receive, Bin Laden is alive and, therefore, this is no time to turn the military over to some New England blue-blood. The rest was tailored to those who would bother to find and read the whole transcript, members of the US Left and those in the Muslim community worldwide who believe in and support Bin Laden. Also from the transcript cached here by Google: <a href="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:d8acjx1VgnMJ:english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm+transcript+%22bin+laden%22+video+2004&hl=en&lr=lang_en">64.233.167.104/search?q=c...lr=lang_en</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known...<hr></blockquote> He places the blame for the civilian deaths during the Iraqi embargo on Bush Sr. while conveniently failing to mention the continuation of that policy during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Even Moore can be more even-handed at times. And, where have we heard this theme of 9/11 as blowback before? Oh yeah, from "ex" CIA analyst, Chalmers Johnson. The blowback argument maintains the myth of Al Qaeda by giving them a legitimate motive in the minds of the Left while placing the blame for its existence on the policies of the Right. The Right, on the other hand, gets the "blame the weak foreign policy of the Left" propaganda. Then, the Left and Right pundits can duke it out in Hegelian debates that lead nowhere while never daring to look behind the curtain. Outside the US, Muslims who believe in Al Qaeda may be moved slightly more toward militantism by the message (which sounds a little like "they hate us for our freedoms" in parts). It may sound contrary to US goals, but without opposition such bellicose foreign policies would be a harder sell. And, no doubt many of the militant groups those who feel so motivated by their belief in what Bin Laden is selling seek out and join are still operated by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies. And, let's not forget, the promotion of the blowback theme is not the only similarity between Chalmers Johnson and Bin Laden.

by **NewKid** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:06 am

Qutb said <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As for building 7, no, no one had anticipated that one. But #7 was not a part of "the psy-op of 9/11" either. It's hardly even been shown on TV, has it? So what's your point, exactly?<hr></blockquote> Well, actually I think you're wrong there. Building 7 was in my opinion very much part of the psyop. The 'psyop' here could be at least two-fold. One is the image of buildings 1 and 2 coming down for all the sheeple to see. 'Gee, isn't that really demoralizing that those darn terrorists took down our great skyscrapers.' The second has more to do with 7. While I have seen footage of 7 falling several times on MSM, you are right that it isn't shown that much. But it's also all over the internet and it is shown some on tv. It's out there just enough to have people think, you know, 'isn't that strange that building 7 fell like that without being hit by a plane' and wonder why the hell the mainstream media isn't talking about it. Just enough to fuck with your head and make you suspect something weird. And for conspiracy theorists, a ready-made argument that it was CD with Griffin et al making the rounds. Just enough to make you think you have a smoking gun, and if only people would listen . . . . So close, but no cigar. Regardless, I doubt the psyop played a large role in the reasons for destroying building 7. Qutb, my problems with your analysis are not so much your ultimate conclusions are as how you can be satisfied that you know what you know. The NIST report has barely been out and the 7 report is not out yet. You seem to think the NIST report is the end of the inquiry, whereas I think it's just the beginning. And while I'm sure the NIST report looks very convincing to you (as it does to me), how can you expect to know where the flaws are, if as you have said earlier, you have no professional expertise in this area at all? Indeed, it appears much of your education on the subject has come from the NIST report itself. That said, it may be all correct. But like I've also said, at this stage of the game, it's too early to know. If you're counting on members of the expert community to react and speak out publicly if they find flaws in the report, then you'll have to wait a little longer. It's just too early, even assuming the expert community would actually speak out publicly. As Sally Regenhard said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The relative secrecy of the investigation, and the withholding of all materials and documents used by NIST to arrive at the study's conclusions is very disturbing. These materials should be made available to professionals for further study and analysis, to question and/or duplicate the findings, according to the scientific method, and should not be locked away in the National Archives or anywhere else. I hope I can call on the Science Committee to unlock this information for the American public<hr></blockquote> I hope so too. As for the planners/hijackers knowing that buildings 1 and 2 would fall down when hit with planes, let's just say that I find that extremely unlikely. As Chomsky said in another context: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>[S]uccess was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.<hr></blockquote> Maybe not "hopelessly implausible," but call me a skeptic. But hey, maybe the hijackers/planners just got lucky. If LIHOP is correct, they weren't the only ones. P.S. Qutb, I don't need to pretend to be stupid . . . Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 11/28/05 4:14 am

by **NewKid** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:15 am

I don't really have a firm position on the Bin Laden tapes, but it's certainly possible to make him say whatever you want him to. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm">www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm</a> Apologies if this has already been posted. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 11/28/05 2:56 am

by **orz** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>wouldn't it be just a tad too embarrassing to have him make a lot more sense than the president of the United States? Because he does. He's telling the truth about Bush Sr. for instance.<hr></blockquote> Possibly, but then again it seems pretty obvious to me that for whatever reasons they don't care in the slightest how embarrasing the president is or what nonsense he comes out with!

Jonesing on conspiracy theories (another Prof Jones article)

Re: Psy-op

Re: Psy-op

Re: Psy-op

Re: Psy-op

Re: Psy-op

Qutb

Re: Qutb

Re: Qutb

Re: Qutb

Agreeing with Bin Laden

Re: Agreeing with Bin Laden

Re: Agreeing with Bin Laden

psyop

Bin Laden

Re: Bin Laden

Who is online