The REAL Story of 9/11 That Most Truthers Miss

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: My two cents...

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:35 pm

Iroquois wrote:From 8bitagent...
A final point, one I've been wanting to get off my chest for ages. The use of the midnight oil lamp icon on one of the "serious" (ahem") troof sites makes me cringe. It is just so cheesy and utterly naff. No wonder we get laughed at.[\quote]

I've always been bothered by it too. I was certainly happier once Fetzer and his ilk finally got weird enough for Jones and Hoffman to take off.

My theory is that the Atta and at least some of the named hijackers were involved in the attacks, though their piloting skills were not critical. Their primary purpose, perhaps, was to install the hardware needed to remotely operate the planes.

See: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=11090

It seems quite possible* to me that they did not realize the true nature of the operation, that they even believed it to be a component in a drill.

As opposed to why they didn't hit a more strategic, rather than theatrical target, like a power plant, I question the placement of the impacts in the towers and the timing of the attacks. Why, for instance, didn't they hit them lower so that more people would be trapped above the fires and, as some of the pro progressive collapse theorists would argue, there would be far more weight above the impact points thus hastening and helping to further ensure the collapses? (I am not actually arguing that the last bit is a solid theory, just that it would better fit the OCT for that reason.) And, why not wait until a few hours later when there would be far more people inside the Towers and surrounding buildings?

* Possible, that is, only if many things did not happen as reported, like the assassination of Daniel Lewin as well as the cell/air phone calls. It is also possible that they knew the attacks were not merely drills but did not know they were doomed to die.



Well just look where the planes hit. WTC 1: ALL of Marsch and Mclenan, only business to be directly hit.

WTC 2: mere feet above the big sprinkler system/control room.

Remember that Muslim extremists found in Tennesse and Memphis had had sprinkler access and passes to such places days before 9/11. I suspect the sprinklers were sabotaged.

While electronic hijacking *is* plausible, I think its more likely Atta's handlers gave them all coordinates to punch in, corresponding with A-Y Asma beacons placed in the offices where the planes hit.

Also someone needs to question whoever called in that fake gas leak to the Naudet firefighter crew...just a little too convenient.

Flight 11 was to trigger, Flight 175 was the big hollywood fireball meant to be seen by millions on live tv.

The official story says not all the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission.

The kid who was always with Atta clearly had no clue what was going on, he had made plans for AFTER 9/11. MUCH like the 7/7 bombers did.

The all too convenient rosetta stone duffle bags/rented car of Atta was too much. As was Atta barely making his Logan flight from Portland Maine.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12249
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: well

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:40 pm

smiths wrote:the planes wouldnt need to be fitted with anything,
if you use the old switcheroo,
why did they all turn off the transponder and deviate,

i for one am very taken by the idea that two planes at different altitudes with no transponder signals appear as one plane on a radar screen

atta and his gang thought that the mission would end differently that day,
fuck, maybe they are all still alive and operational,

or maybe its like the gun maker in day of the jackel, you have to tie up the loose ends


A 2002 ABC documentary on the air traffic controllers revealed that the transponders were turned on and off, and back on right before impact.

The ATC lady was all "Its as if the hijackers knew when and where would be perfect to switch off the transponders"

NORAD:
The 30 hours of NORAD tapes and Vanity Fair article prove two things:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... orad200608

1. NORAD people thought it was a hijacker exercise. This is a fact

2. NORAD people thought the 20 hijackings showing up on their screens were phantom inject blips, and that fighter jets were being sent on wild goose chases to chase what they said were "phantom jets"

Even more spooky: Flight 11 still kept going on radar after Flight 11 crashed into WTC1.

And the FAA?

It was crippled by PTECH Promis software, as has long been suspect since they had their software on a lot of government computers including the FAA AND were a government/al Qaeda company which was proven
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12249
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Iroquois » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:43 pm

But, if you pull the old switheroo, the planners have to figure out how to dispose of the original planes. Plus, they have to produce the planes necessary to carry out the attacks. And, they'll have to be prepared to deal with the fact that none of the serial numbers, and everything in a commercial US airliner is serial numbered, of the plane parts at the crash sites would match up.

That seems like some big added complications that I don't believe would be necessary. See the thread I linked to above. My only reason for believing the R/C theory is that is allows the planners to put the control of the planes in the hands of people they trust, who are likely neither people they are willing to sacrifice nor willing to sacrifice themselves. In other words, it solves problems.

I should also say, I don't have a tremendous amount of confidence in any of the specific details of my theories. I'm not even that confident in my general ideas of how the attacks happened.
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Iroquois wrote:But, if you pull the old switheroo, the planners have to figure out how to dispose of the original planes. Plus, they have to produce the planes necessary to carry out the attacks. And, they'll have to be prepared to deal with the fact that none of the serial numbers, and everything in a commercial US airliner is serial numbered, of the plane parts at the crash sites would match up.

That seems like some big added complications that I don't believe would be necessary. See the thread I linked to above. My only reason for believing the R/C theory is that is allows the planners to put the control of the planes in the hands of people they trust, who are likely neither people they are willing to sacrifice nor willing to sacrifice themselves. In other words, it solves problems.

I should also say, I don't have a tremendous amount of confidence in any of the specific details of my theories. I'm not even that confident in my general ideas of how the attacks happened.


Thats why I dont believe the planes were switched, or "remote controlled in".

If they were guided in to where they hit, then it was done on board the planes by the hijackers and in conjunction with prepaced homing signals in the towers.

Remember, these hijackers were most likely brainwashed multiples, manchurian candidates mind controlled by MI6 operatives posing as clerics at the Hamburg mosques or elsewhere.

Besides, I have doubts that the personal items found of the hijackers and
passengers at pentagon, shanksville, and wtc was "planted".
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12249
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

but why

Postby smiths » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:54 am

but why switch off the transponders if you are not switching the planes,

you know the jets are not taking off if youve ordered it all,
you know the air traffic controllers are confused anyway,
and what if the pilots miss,

if it were me and i had 100% super technology that i could garauntee theres no way i'd trust a human with the same job

but you cant carry on in your hand luggage the gear necassary and install inflight,

it has to be fitted and tested prior,

and there are issues, i have read stories that suggest those very planes were spotted after the event flying commercial routes
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: but why

Postby 8bitagent » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:15 am

smiths wrote:but why switch off the transponders if you are not switching the planes,

you know the jets are not taking off if youve ordered it all,
you know the air traffic controllers are confused anyway,
and what if the pilots miss,

if it were me and i had 100% super technology that i could garauntee theres no way i'd trust a human with the same job

but you cant carry on in your hand luggage the gear necassary and install inflight,

it has to be fitted and tested prior,

and there are issues, i have read stories that suggest those very planes were spotted after the event flying commercial routes


Well, like the Vanity Fair article said, some of the flights kept on NORAD radar after they crashed. Thats kinda spooky.

But I cant get around the subject of the personal items found. Ive poured thru the Moussaoui trial photos. How could they have planted all that stuff? Im not buying it, and thats what the "no hijackers/fake plane" stuff implies.

So yeah, why switch off the transponders?

Well heres something I'd love debunkers to answer:

Who taught the hijackers about the "magic invisible button" that is the transponders?

When you get right down to it, the men who trained the hijackers
in their ninja karate cockpit takeover skills was none other than Ali Mohammed(CIA) and according to some mainstream articles, Omar Saeed(MI6/ISI)

Now Im willing to buy the hijackers did what was shown in the film United 93.

But I dont buy that "turning off the transponders" turns a plane into the wonder woman invisible jet.

Why switch off the transponders if NORAD is already handicapped?
Well see I think its a misnomer to say NORAD was "Stood Down". Norad wasnt stood down, they were intentionally confused.

Again, this is all assuming things from a Mihop standpoint, a "US Mihop" standpoint.

However I do believe the "Angel is Next" scared the pants off the white house. This is the white house according to truthers was "orchestrating" 9/11 like Lex Luthor or something.

Now you bring up two good points:

1. You cant bring the neccesary gear to punch in the coordinates. But,
if they got weapons on board, they could bring anything.

Remember its possible investigators say the weapons were preplanted(airport inside job), AND we have to look at the security firms running security on the airports.

2. I havent heard of the same flights spotted elsewhere, to me it makes sense it was as it was: 11, 77, 93 and 175...now how did the hijackers
did a big u turn halfway across america come back and do three pinpoint strikes? Again, its like the towers...a magic trick we may never know.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12249
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

False radar blips still showed up so I believe

Postby slow_dazzle » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:43 am

AFTER the war games had been called off. That points, very strongly, to someone, somewhere over-riding all other systems. Otherwise, where did the fake radar blips come from?

If false radar blips WERE showing up AFTER the war games were called off that provides clear evidence of conspiracy. Terrorists would not have been able to interrupt US govt systems.

In order to understand the wider picture of 9/11 it is necessary to understand the role PROMIS software played and the financial interests behind a company called Ptech. That moves us away from pure technical discussions and into the murky world of overlapping financial interests, drugs and the existence of a cabal.
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
slow_dazzle
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: False radar blips still showed up so I believe

Postby 8bitagent » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:56 am

slow_dazzle wrote:In order to understand the wider picture of 9/11 it is necessary to understand the role PROMIS software played and the financial interests behind a company called Ptech. That moves us away from pure technical discussions and into the murky world of overlapping financial interests, drugs and the existence of a cabal..


And there we have it:

google up "Ptech 9/11 and FAA" and we may have a possible scenario.

Government cutout tech firm secretly funding al Qaeda, backdooring FAA computers on 9/11.

Comverse Infosys Israeli companies crippling our networks in 2000.

Marsh and Mclenan panacea type software detecting insider trading anomalies and other A.I. stuff as Richard Grove claims, when he worked in WTC1.

Again, 9/11 was bigger than "the US government", and murkier than saying this or that government did it.

As you say, the world where drugs, terror network funding, arms, and rogue intel converge is BCCI and Dubai.

Now consider this Dubai/9-11/WTC7 connection, and it starts to make sense:

WTC7 bank used to conduit most the 9/11 funds:
http://valis.gnn.tv/B16153
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12249
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby zuestorz » Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:24 am

I'm a bit behind in my reading and so I'm only now finishing James Bamford's Body of Secrets.

One of the revelations not known to the general public prior to the books release in mid 2001, concerns the US Joint Chiefs approved (my emphasis) pretextual False Flag op named Operation Northwoods. To suggest that there seem to be some striking parallels between it and what transpired a few scant months after the publication of Bamford's book, would be the Grand-Daddy of all understatements.

If one was to accept the possibility that knowledge of Northwoods had been dusted off and repackaged and recallibrated towards a different foe for September 11, one would also have to accept that only a very few individuals - a handful - would have been privvy to the detail of Northwoods. All of those individuals would have to have had access to the virtually inaccessible highly secret info comprising a classified US Joint Chiefs planning document that was so controversial that its own authors sought to expunge it from the records.

Bamford's publication must have come as a staggering shock to any of those individuals responsible who were still alive 40 years after the 1962 formulation of the Northwoods scenario. It appears possible that a case could be made that 8bitagent is wrong in saying :
. . . 9/11 was bigger than "the US government", and murkier than saying this or that government did it. . .

Likewise slow_dazzle, I think an orchestrating hand extends back before the Prosecutor's Management Information Systems (PROMIS) software affair surfaced.

http://www.attackonamerica.net/operationnorthwoods.htm

Interestingly the otherwise good review of Bamford's book (the second article in the link above by Scott Shane and Tom Bowman ) contains a flat out, misrepresentation. It is in reference to Bamford's sensational expose of the attack on USS Liberty.

. . .Bamford says the reason for the strike was Israel's desperate effort to cover up its attacks on the Egyptian town of El Arish in the Sinai. . .

Instead, Bamford makes it explicitly clear in Body of Secrets that Liberty was attacked in the hopes of destroying it and its evesdopping electronics for fear that Liberty had captured proof of the officially sanctioned murder of disarmed Arab prisoners.

The potential control of the means of discussion (print and visual media) and the requisite mechanisms for controlling the flow and restriction of information to individuals (that previously would have faciliatated scams like Operation Northwoods) are fast vanishing into the past. If anything, the widespread doubts surrounding the official version of 9/11 that have arisen largely in spite of the spin of mainstream media, prove it.

Even if it turns out that what transpired on 9/11 owes no connection to the insane rationale behind Operation Northwoods it has to be stated that the sort of free discussion of ideas that occurs in this and other forums was never envisioned or expected by those who seek to bury governmental criminality and parapolitical wrongdoing behind a facade of authority.
User avatar
zuestorz
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:25 am
Location: the shadow of that extra mural
Blog: View Blog (0)

FBI Refuses To Confirm Identities Of 4 Aircraft Used on 9/11

Postby Iroquois » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:45 pm

I like beating dead horses. It's gratifyingly useless activity like popping bubble wrap.

8bitagent wrote:
If they were guided in to where they hit, then it was done on board the planes by the hijackers and in conjunction with prepaced homing signals in the towers.


The guidance theory isn't bad. I like it better than having the amateurs guide the planes in by stick. But, it does not benefit from homing beacons in any way I understand.

Most importantly, though, I'm not convinced the Flight Director System (autopilot) on board would be accurate enough at 500+ mph to nail a tower reliably. Nor do I think it explains the last minute maneuvers of Flight 175 and 77 adequately. Also, if I were in charge, I'd be uncomfortable with the most critical component of the attacks being so completely out of my control through such a critical period.

I'd want the system being piloted by someone who I have direct contact with and could respond to contingencies like a sudden need to stand down. I have a theory that the attacks didn't cross the Rubicon until after the second plane hit. Until that point, the first hit could have even been downplayed to an accident, with some difficulty.

Even after that, however, R/C offers more options with each plane than using on board guidance without having to put much trust in the hijackers. In my mind, the kind of folks who would be behind these attacks would be all about control.

While I've thought the planes could have the R/C system hacked on in flight, the possibility that it was done prior to take-off also makes sense. Here, the airlines would need to be involved, but perhaps only believing they are alloying testing of Boeing's uninterruptible autopilot system as part of the exercises that day. I can think of a lot of reasons why those few airline and aircraft officials involved would want to keep very mum if that were the case.

Anyway, this is why I really dredged this thread back from the depths...

FBI Refuses To Confirm Identities Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks

Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Tue, 10/02/2007 - 8:03am.
Aidan Monaghan

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for documentation confirming the recovery and positive identification of debris from the commercial aircraft allegedly used in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (N334AA, N612UA, N644AA, N591UA), has been denied.

An appeal is pending.

According to the FBI, "the material requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A)."

This subsection reads: "could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

Concerns of compromising any related, unspecified and presumably pending "enforcement proceedings" did not prevent the release of government exhibits containing images of aircraft debris allegedly of United Airlines flight 93 and American Airlines flight 77, following the successful prosecution of alleged 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, on May 4, 2006:

Original FOIA request:
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee14 ... 1191324655

Relevant picture added by the original author:
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee14 ... 1191324888

URL: http://911blogger.com/node/11776

Ok, I'm giving up on the images. Just click on the links if you want to see them.
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:49 pm

Well true...I mean as much as Atta and company may have been manchurian mind controlled + fed coordinates by their intelligence handlers...
the tower/pentagon had to be precision.

I have no idea why flight 93 was the big f--- up. Was it spose to be sabotaged? I personally dont believe the shoot down stuff, because I dont see why they'd cover it up...its not like, in light of Pat Tilman that something like that would need to be covered up.
People would be angry, but they'd understand.

Maybe it was all luck...you know, like Princess di just happening to crash into the 13th pillar a little after midnight on the 31st right under a giant pentagram:)
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12249
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Good points Iroquois

Postby slow_dazzle » Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:04 pm

Underlying what might have happened on 9/11, or more precisely how, is the role of Promis software.

Apparently, the programme contains an "inference engine" that permits it to interact with, and modify, the source code of other programmes. Most importantly, it can do this without leaving the sort of anomalies that show up in data logs. Hackers can get into anything if they know how; the most difficult bit is not leaving evidence of the hack.

Perhaps the best evidence for Promis software as the grand master is the cutting up of the ATC tape and disposing of it in several bins shortly after the attacks. It is likely the tape contained the sort of evidence even the Promis software couldn't cover up, namely the evidence of false radar intercepts being discussed AFTER the war games were called off. It is reasonable to infer the evidence on that tape was so sensitive it HAD to be destroyed. Evidence of false radar intercepts AFTER the war games could not be explained away by the perps.

Remote control of the planes answers all sorts of puzzling questions such as accuracy of flight paths and the uncertainty factor arising out of human error on the part of the hijackers as they tried to guide the planes in. You are right about the crucial factor of total control which makes a strong case for ensuring such control through remote manipulation of the planes.

On edit: 8bitagent - A possible explanation for the apparent screw up with flight 93 is building the case for claiming it was a terrorist attack. Allowing one plane to "fail" strengthens the concept of a terrorist attack and not an inside job. What the failure of flight 93 did was make it look as if the terrorists failed in one of their attacks, thus strengthening the notion that it was the terrorists after all. It's a subtle point but if you really think about it doesn't it make sense to make it appear as if one plane failed if the perps wanted to strengthen the meme that it was terrorists after all?

I have a hunch flight 93 was never intended to hit the towers.
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
slow_dazzle
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:

Postby MinM » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:28 pm

Daniel Pearl and the Paymaster of 9/11: 9/11 and the Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker

9/11 and the Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker - Pt. 2

US intelligence ties to Mumbai 7/11

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 1

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 2

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 3

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 4

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 5

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 6

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 7

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 8

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 9

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 10

Robert Baer and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed: The operative bookends of the Official 9/11 Legend?

Chaim Kupferberg: Robert Baer and Daniel Pearl: On The Trail Of The 9/11 Mastermind? | 911Blogger.com
AlicetheKurious wrote:8bitagent, I can relate to how excited you feel, reading the Kupferberg articles for the first time. I felt the same back in 2004, when I first read them. I was seduced by the sheer number of fascinating facts, facts that he doesn't document or provide sources for, in most cases, but which I was generally able to corroborate.

Of course, my reaction, after meticulously reading the articles, was to ask, "who IS Chaim Kupferberg?".

The answer seems to be: nobody. There is no information on any other works by "Chaim Kupferberg", nor any biographical background at all, no affiliation to any academic or other institutions. The articles appeared out of nowhere sometime in 2004, and immediately spread like wildfire throughout the internet, reprinted on thousands of sites within days...

Don't really mean to beat this old story to death by dredging it back up, but I just discovered this thread while researching something else. AlicetheKurious' take on "Chaim Kupferberg" mirrors almost exactly my arc of reactions to "Chaim's" series of articles (posted above), which actually date back to, logically enough, 2002:

Chaim Kupferberg is a freelance researcher and writer. Copyright © Chaim Kupferberg 2002
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The REAL Story of 9/11 That Most Truthers Miss

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:21 pm

8bit in the OP years ago wrote:And finally, one of the key origins of Mohammed Atta...before he was doing drug running with CIA linked crime figures in Florida...
he was a protege of David Rockefeller's CDS program in Germany:
http://www.radiofreeamerika.com/Opinion ... TE%20U.htm
(Remember, the WTC Twin Towers came to be from the mind of David Rockefeller and the Bin Laden Group's star architect)


This old story is based in complete ignorance of what CDS (in German, CDG: Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft) actually was. The foundation was originally funded out of the fortune of Carl Duisberg, and if you don't know who that is, you shouldn't be talking about it. Many US and European foundations and above all the German state were involved in financing CDG activities, that doesn't make them "David Rockefeller's" program - a staggeringly ignorant assertion. There was nothing obscure about CDG, they were unbiquitous, they had schools in most big German cities. They ran third-world aid programs. Their biggest thing inside Germany was language and skills training programs. Every year hundreds of students were given scholarships to come from around the world, learn the language and take courses in design, sales, engineering and the like. The real idea is that German industry develops its own German-speaking partners in Third World businesses. Like most development aid programs, it was an extension of trade promotion - self-interested, but an economic program, not a spook coven.

While living in Cologne I met (and drank with) about a dozen students from various countries taking CDG courses. For a few years in the 1990s I also got translation assignments for their magazine (through a friend who had a translations agency). It was mostly unbearable blather about globalization and knowledge transfer from the Mecca of German industry to the needy Third World. It takes a special combination of ignorance and manipulation to turn Atta's getting a scholarship from them (like several thousand Egyptian students probably have since 1949) into working for "David Rockefeller's program"! In the meantime the CDG, which was always quasi-governmental, has merged with another aid group to create something called International Training and Development.

When I pointed this obvious shit out to Hopsicker (who originated this as supposedly canonical evidence of Atta having been a spook already in the early 1990s), he went into an Internet rage and insinuated I was a spook in his famous 29-part expose, "Fuck the 9/11 Truth Movement For Liking Ruppert Better Than Me," or whatever it was called.

The OP reminds me of 8bit's usual mish-mash of the smart with the ludicrous.

That being said, Kupferberg's articles (which don't talk about CDG) were very interesting and highly recommended. Much original research with attention to detail and thinking, though he is susceptible to being too certain about some of his more Byzantine speculations.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

9/11 from Chaim to Chin

Postby MinM » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:44 pm

Larry Chin v Chaim Kupferberg: it's interesting comparing and contrasting their respective pieces on 9/11. Especially when you consider that their pieces were distributed by the same sites (onlinejournal.com back in the day and globalresearch.ca). By the way, Larry Chin has another excellent piece today...
9/11: Eternal Pretext, Eternal War
By Larry Chin
Global Research, September 11, 2015


The false flag operation of 9/11 was not an “intelligence failure”. It was the greatest “intelligence success” and criminal operation in history.

The Bush/Cheney administration’s 9/11 atrocity set in motion the world war that continues to expand and metastasize to this day. This war—the “war on terrorism”, the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, the war on Libya, the “war on the Islamic State” etc. is the same single war, all rooted in the Big Lie of 9/11. No corner of the world has escaped the reach of this still-growing horror. No individual is untouched by its flames. Thousands upon thousands have been murdered. Entire societies have been wiped out and displaced.

Fourteen years and countless false flag terror operations later, the US government is on the verge of toppling Syria using Al-Qaeda military-intelligence assets. The US now openly supports and arms Al-Qaeda all over the world. The very same Al-Qaeda terrorists that were “responsible for 9/11” are the West’s finest foot soldiers and military-intelligence assets. Al-Qaeda effectively controls two-thirds of Syria for the Anglo-American empire. Libya was overthrown by the same forces.

All of this merely brings us back to the inescapable conspiracy fact that the empire no longer bothers to hide:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-eterna ... ar/5475419

***
MinM » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:28 pm wrote:Daniel Pearl and the Paymaster of 9/11: 9/11 and the Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker

9/11 and the Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker - Pt. 2

US intelligence ties to Mumbai 7/11

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 1

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 2

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 3

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 4

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 5

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 6

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 7

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 8

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 9

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11 - Pt. 10

Robert Baer and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed: The operative bookends of the Official 9/11 Legend?

Chaim Kupferberg: Robert Baer and Daniel Pearl: On The Trail Of The 9/11 Mastermind? | 911Blogger.com
AlicetheKurious wrote:8bitagent, I can relate to how excited you feel, reading the Kupferberg articles for the first time. I felt the same back in 2004, when I first read them. I was seduced by the sheer number of fascinating facts, facts that he doesn't document or provide sources for, in most cases, but which I was generally able to corroborate.

Of course, my reaction, after meticulously reading the articles, was to ask, "who IS Chaim Kupferberg?".

The answer seems to be: nobody. There is no information on any other works by "Chaim Kupferberg", nor any biographical background at all, no affiliation to any academic or other institutions. The articles appeared out of nowhere sometime in 2004, and immediately spread like wildfire throughout the internet, reprinted on thousands of sites within days...

Don't really mean to beat this old story to death by dredging it back up, but I just discovered this thread while researching something else. AlicetheKurious' take on "Chaim Kupferberg" mirrors almost exactly my arc of reactions to "Chaim's" series of articles (posted above), which actually date back to, logically enough, 2002:

Chaim Kupferberg is a freelance researcher and writer. Copyright © Chaim Kupferberg 2002

:backtotopic:
Image@BoingBoing: 9/11 truthers are still truthing. https://boingboing.net/2015/09/11/911-t ... -done.html
Image
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests