9/11 - The Third Tower

[JTrader]

The Raw Story | Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks

North Vietnamese made hoax calls to get the US military to bomb its own units during the Vietnam War, according to declassified information that also confirmed US officials faked an incident to escalate the war.

The report was released by the National Security Agency, responsible for much of the United States' codebreaking and eavesdropping work, in response to a "mandatory declassification" request, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said Monday.

From the first intercepted cable -- a 1945 message from Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh to his Russian counterpart Joseph Stalin -- to the final evacuation of US spies from Saigon, the 500-page report retold Vietnam War history from the perspective of "signals intelligence," the group said in a statement.

During the war, North Vietnamese intelligence units sometimes succeeded in penetrating US communications systems, and they could monitor American message traffic from within, according to the report "Spartans in Darkness."

On several occasions "the communists were able, by communicating on Allied radio nets, to call in Allied artillery or air strikes on American units," it said.

"That's something I have never heard before," Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS project on government secrecy, told AFP.

But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.

The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.

"What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said.

"There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study," he said.

911truth.org ::::: Iran showdown has echoes of faked Tonkin attack / Declassified study puts Vietnam events in new light

 

[dick_dastardly]

Why do sensible people sometimes believe the most unlikely conspiracy theories?

The columnist Jonathan Kay, author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground, has been investigating the phenomena for two and a half years.

In all that time, he told Evan Davis, "I can confess that I did not win a single argument with a conspiracy theorist".

The quality that binds conspiracy theorists together, he explained, was distrust - of government, media and organised religion.

"There is an impulse to align ideology with facts. They want to make the world as they imagine it appear as the world as it is."

Down 'the rabbit hole of conspiracism'



dd

 

[Atilla]

I thought this was all water under the bridge but just wondered why this piece of news hit the headlines this weekend again...

I'm also not sure why we've started hearing from Mr Blair again either??? What's he after now. Trying to put a spin on his legacy I'd expect...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ex-mi5-boss-iraq-posed-no-threat-uk-075017946.html


Why this news now and what is the point? Either some are having a public feud or something is afoot...

 

[Atilla]

Interesting stuff...

I wonder who gets to determine or call it a conspiracy?

Like the police calling unsolved crimes a conspiracy...

Lots of unanswered questions with no investigation and it is labelled a conspiracy. :-0

Documentary examining why some people still question the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, nearly a decade after they took place. Theories focus on the damage to the Pentagon, the way the World Trade Centre buildings collapsed, and why military forces were seemingly unprepared. The death of Osama bin Laden and subsequent refusal to provide images of the body has also fuelled speculation.

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/mmd42/the-conspiracy-files-the-conspiracy-files-911-ten-years-on


One to watch...

 

[BeginnerJoe]

I'm also not sure why we've started hearing from Mr Blair again either??? What's he after now. Trying to put a spin on his legacy I'd expect...

He just wanna gloat his generational war is going strong and well, and that you should thank him for all the libya's oil.

 

[dc2000]

I'm also not sure why we've started hearing from Mr Blair again either??? What's he after now. Trying to put a spin on his legacy I'd expect...

yeah life was much better lets bring him back:clap::whistling

 

[dc2000]

Da youff is miss undastood init

 

[Atilla]

Da youff is miss undastood init

Haha you mean just like Bliar is...

Poor geezer that he is being Middle East uniter of all ye faiths...

 

[Phantom666]

I'm also not sure why we've started hearing from Mr Blair again either??? What's he after now. Trying to put a spin on his legacy I'd expect...

The man cannot open his mouth or pick up a pen without creating a lie of some sort. It isn't even his fault any more, his dishonesty has grown so powerful that it has consumed his physical being and he no longer has control over his own body. He has become an elemental force of dissembling.

 

[squall321]

The quality that binds conspiracy theorists together, he explained, was distrust - of government, media and organised religion.

no way, they are so trustworthy

 

[Atilla]

The man cannot open his mouth or pick up a pen without creating a lie of some sort. It isn't even his fault any more, his dishonesty has grown so powerful that it has consumed his physical being and he no longer has control over his own body. He has become an elemental force of dissembling.

This is so true - he is virtually demented.

Comes on screen flashes his cuff links, smiles and says he did what he believed to be right.

On the other hand Dame Eliza Manningham Buller, Former MI5 Boss, Says Iraq Did Not Pose A Threat When Britain Went To War

He still has no shame in repeating his utter bull without an apology as if he is still right.


Oh alright then Tony all is forgiven? Erm what was the food like at the white house by the way. Does it match our cornish pasties... :cheesy:




The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo",[1] is the note of a secret 23 July 2002, meeting of senior British Labour government, defence and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. The name refers to 10 Downing Street, the residence of the British prime minister.

The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult. However, the meeting took place several months before the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the resolution eventually used as the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq.

The contents of the memo were leaked to the UK press in 2005. Though its authenticity has never been seriously challenged, the British and American governments have stated that the contents do not accurately reflect their official policy positions at the time.

The minutes were meant to be kept confidential and were headed "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." It deals with the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, and comes at a point at which it becomes clear to those attending, that US President George W. Bush intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power by force.

The minutes run through the military options and then consider the political strategy in which an appeal for support from the international community and from domestic opinion would be most likely to be positively received. It suggests that an ultimatum for Saddam to allow back United Nations weapons inspectors be issued, and that this would help to make the use of force legal. Tony Blair is quoted as saying that the British public would support regime change in the right political context.

The most controversial paragraph is a report of a recent visit to Washington by head of the Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as 'C'):

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
The British analysis of US policy is also stated elsewhere in the minutes:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The main sections covering the ultimatum are:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
...John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
The minutes also outlines potential risks of an invasion of Iraq:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

 

[BeginnerJoe]

Oh alright then Tony all his forgiven?

Well he became religious after he started the wars. So all his crimes are now absolved and he's clean as new. This is why he has no need to apologize because god had forgave him.

 

[Atilla]

Well he became religious after he started the wars. So all his crimes are now absolved and he's clean as new. This is why he has no need to apologize because god had forgave him.

Not so... Pope forgave him. Not God!

Judgement day remains an open chapter... :innocent:

 

[Atilla]

Just been watching Newsnight report increase in health problems and cancer with those people who were at 9/11 and subsequently worked their clearing up.

Just a point to make - the two towers were coated with asbestos to make them fire resistant and they were designed to withstand an airliner flying into them.

Also - the buildings were facing health and safety costs of up to a billion to remove asbestos from the two structures.

Also - the floors could not be rented out because they were not suitable for new IT kit and cabling etc because of all the additional costs in protecting one against asbestos.

Some people came up with the idea of taking the building down and rebuilding it?

So what could be the quickest and least costly way of doing it whilst making a mint out of it?

6 months before 9/11 buildings were insured with high court judicial backing (Bush's cronies and plants) - againts insurance companies resistance with cover against a terrorist strike and aeroplanes flying in to them?

Not to mention a simulation exercise on the same day by your Haliburton chairman Dick Cheney... Who would have guessed???

I'm still amazed there are so many factors that are inexplicable that no one bothers asking questions about why or investigating factors that led to this.


As a consequence literally millions of people in NY will now suffer whilst all the war mongers and military spending and private security firms - Blackwater and likes of Haliburton etc etc will have become very rich indeed from the billions and trillions spent on stupid daft wars.

All these programs on TV are stupid cover ups.

In the history of the World no sky scraper ever burnt down and came down perfectly in demolition style yet on one day we have had 3 - one of which wasn't even hit by anything. IN ONE HOUR!

Not to mention two aircraft disintegrated - one at the Pentagon and one in the middle of a forest with no trace ever to be found of these aircraft.

It has been 10 years - amazing... I wonder what the perspective be in 20 years?


The mind boggles.

 

[Shakone]

Atilla, if the skyscrapers were burning and would eventually collapse, but not in a nice demolition style, and given their size would cause huge amounts of damage, then wouldn't it be sensible to demolish the buildings and take them down? Also, given that there might still be people inside alive, it would also be sensible not to admit that you demolished them. It would also be logical to shoot down a hijacked plane full of passengers approaching the pentagon, and also not tell the families of the passengers that you shot it down, because it would just cause distress. Far easier to say it crashed.

IF they did these things, then they seem justified to me in that emergency. And I don't think the public, and the families could handle that kind of truth, nor would it be beneficial.

I also think that people like to believe in conspiracies, because it gives them comfort. It is far more comfortable to believe that it was an inside job by some billionaires and bush. Because then they could be found out, and punished. And they're not going to do it too often.

It's far less appealing to face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are happy to die to kill others including you, and that you or someone close to you could leave for work one day, and never come back through no fault of your own. On any day. That's what people don't want to face, so they look for inconsistencies and conspiracies to keep the illusion going.

I suppose if it gets a large number of people to distrust their government and their allies, then it the terrorist attack achieved its goals.

 

[BeginnerJoe]

It's far less appealing to face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are happy to die to kill others including you

So who are these people ? Do you have contact with them to know in details what they are doing ? Or did all that info come out of the ar*e ?

As you are so well connected, explain why they were fire bombing that Scottish airport gate ? I could never work out why a gate was so important to them, when they were supposed to like killing people ?

 

[YouAreNotFree]

If you believe the official story of 9/11 please send me a private message because I have some magic beans to sell you.

Probably need to get my vendor status first though.

 

[Atilla]

Atilla, if the skyscrapers were burning and would eventually collapse, but not in a nice demolition style, and given their size would cause huge amounts of damage, then wouldn't it be sensible to demolish the buildings and take them down? Also, given that there might still be people inside alive, it would also be sensible not to admit that you demolished them. It would also be logical to shoot down a hijacked plane full of passengers approaching the pentagon, and also not tell the families of the passengers that you shot it down, because it would just cause distress. Far easier to say it crashed.
Not sure what your point is here??? Are you being sarcastic?
IF they did these things, then they seem justified to me in that emergency. And I don't think the public, and the families could handle that kind of truth, nor would it be beneficial.

I also think that people like to believe in conspiracies, because it gives them comfort. It is far more comfortable to believe that it was an inside job by some billionaires and bush. Because then they could be found out, and punished. And they're not going to do it too often.

It's far less appealing to face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are happy to die to kill others including you, and that you or someone close to you could leave for work one day, and never come back through no fault of your own. On any day. That's what people don't want to face, so they look for inconsistencies and conspiracies to keep the illusion going.

I suppose if it gets a large number of people to distrust their government and their allies, then it the terrorist attack achieved its goals.

Sorry dude - not sure I understand your point??? There are no ifs or buts just facts and observations with questions to be answered which have not?


The third tower wasn't built the same as the twin towers and had different structure. Also wasn't hit by an aircraft? Did see some smouldering smoke but that means fire was put out...

I'm not sure what conspiracy you talking about? These are real events we are still living with today. Quite a few dying for as a consequence too.

There was very little mention of asbestos but much about concrete dust and computer and metal pulverisation. Metal PULVERISATION!!! Really!!! Thought the stuff melted and bent not pulverised? Builders all over the world would suffer from same concrete & dust over their lifetime...


If anybody wants to remember the dead and the dying start asking some questions and challenging what we are fed? They have a right for justice too...

 

[Shakone]

The point is that the facts are that the towers were hit by planes, and they collapsed. Even if they were taken down by detonation, then it was because it was thought they would collapse and cause even more damage. What difference does it make? Is anyone going to benefit from being told they demolished it because they thought it would collapse? I doubt it. Not now anyway. There would just be legal cases against those who had to make a tough decision. Investigations going for decades about whether people were still alive and could they have waited and on and on. The families of victims would be even more distraught. It wouldn't prevent the conspiracists from still asking other questions, and it wouldn't change the tragic result. Seriously, what difference would it make? Unless you think the plane crashes were all done by the government. And if that's the case, people who believe that should be out trying to form a rebellion or something, rather than debate tower 7 online. But there's no rebellion. Few people really feel that strong about it. There's just talk about 'unanswered questions' and government hiding things. It's pointless.

There really aren't that many unanswered questions. They've been answered, it's just people don't want to believe the answer. The answer to tower 7 is that it collapsed because of several fires. All of these questions have been investigated by various panels of experts and corroborated with eyewitness reports and/or evidence from on site. They've mostly been challenged by non-experts, and people who weren't there and didn't get to see any evidence at all except video footage. Some heartless conspiracists have even made careers out of challenging the official report.

Now you could say all the experts and investigators are part of a giant conpiracy. But there is more evidence of UFO's, and more eyewitnesses, AND more whistle blowers, than there are that 9/11 was an inside job or a cover up. Do you consider alien UFO's to be more likely than a 9/11 cover-up? Probably not.

Some people still believe in a Kennedy assassination conspiracy almost 50 years after, that man never went to the moon, that we have alien ufos, and on and on. People like to believe in hidden things. But it's not often that helpful.

 

[BeginnerJoe]

There was very little mention of asbestos but much about concrete dust and computer and metal pulverisation. Metal PULVERISATION!!! Really!!! Thought the stuff melted and bent not pulverised? Builders all over the world would suffer from same concrete & dust over their lifetime...

He was saying the towers were deliberately brought down by the government after they ascertained that the towers were no longer safe to be left standing after being hit by aircraft (there were some suggestions elsewhere only one aircraft was involved with the second one being a CGI). So in this scenario, the government was legit in pulverizing the buildings and all their contents. Futher, they were legit to bring down building 7 in order to illustrate severeness of the damage to the twin towers that had to be legitly brought down.

In the same vein, the government was legit in shooting a missile into the pentagon so as to cover up their legit shooting down of a passenger aircraft that was threatening to ram the pentagon.

Lastly, the government was legit in standing down the air defence in order to legitly shoot down using a missile the aircraft heading to the pentagon. If people saw the passenger jet was shot down by a fighter jet they would begin to suspect the government was not legit. It was essential to maintain the legitness of the government at all times.

If you refuse to accept any of that, then you must be an alien who illegally came to earth in a UFO.

If anybody wants to remember the dead and the dying start asking some questions and challenging what we are fed? They have a right for justice too...

The dead brought home all the oil of iraq and libya, and all the minerals and opium of Afghanistan. They were silent heroes who sacrificed themselves for our benefit.