Operation Northwoods

[mhgaffney]

The following will be a revelation for those whose mental wiring will not allow them to think certain thoughts.

This is an extract from James Bamford's 2001 book BODY OF SECRETS. It details how in 1962 the US military planned a phony terrorist attack on America to create a pretext to invade Cuba. The conspiracy was hatched by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and had a number of alternate scenarios. In one US planes would be hijacked and flown into prominent American landmarks. In another a US Navy ship would be attacked. And there were other variants.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

The article includes photocopies of the actual gov. documents on which Bamford based his book. For example,

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/northwoods1.gif

This will no doubt cause knee jerks to fly into a fit of hysterical denial -- but there is no getting around the evidence. It happened. Similar conspiratorial plots happened, for example, in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin at the start of the Viet Nam war that killed 58,000 US soldiers.

A similar event occurred in the Mediterranean in 1967 when Israel attacked and nearly sunk the USS Liberty. Radio host and investigator Alex Jones claims to have interviewed US Naval Admirals who overheard the phone conversation with Robert McNamara in which LBJ canceled the US 6th fleet's attempts to rescue the Liberty. Johnson recalled the fighters because, as he stated (according to Jones), he wanted the Liberty sunk. And why? To create a pretext to invade Egypt. If true, this would explain why our ally Israel attacked the Liberty -- and also the coverup. Until now, the attack has never been explained. I wouldn't be surprised if Jones is correct.

The relevance of Operation Northwoods in light of 911 goes without saying.

[W*GS]

You got it all wrong - it wasn't in 1962 that the idea of using planes to crash into things got invented...

It was the kamikazes during WWII that really got it going.

Have you looked into the threads connecting Japan to 9/11, MG? You'll find that line of research most fruitful, I do believe.

[bendog]

And, I think LBJ wanted the Liberty sunk, or at least rendered ineffective for snooping, because it would have detected the IDF's radio traffic and build up prior to the attack on Syria.

[alkemical]

MHG,

there is a thread on here called "amesj523's news" or something like that - it died when he died - but there's lots of stuff there.

[GonzoLays]

The following will be a revelation for those whose mental wiring will not allow them to think certain thoughts.

This is an extract from James Bamford's 2001 book BODY OF SECRETS. It details how in 1962 the US military planned a phony terrorist attack on America to create a pretext to invade Cuba. The conspiracy was hatched by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and had a number of alternate scenarios. In one US planes would be hijacked and flown into prominent American landmarks. In another a US Navy ship would be attacked. And there were other variants.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

The article includes photocopies of the actual gov. documents on which Bamford based his book. For example,

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/northwoods1.gif

This will no doubt cause knee jerks to fly into a fit of hysterical denial -- but there is no getting around the evidence. It happened. Similar conspiratorial plots happened, for example, in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin at the start of the Viet Nam war that killed 58,000 US soldiers.

A similar event occurred in the Mediterranean in 1967 when Israel attacked and nearly sunk the USS Liberty. Radio host and investigator Alex Jones claims to have interviewed US Naval Admirals who overheard the phone conversation with Robert McNamara in which LBJ canceled the US 6th fleet's attempts to rescue the Liberty. Johnson recalled the fighters because, as he stated (according to Jones), he wanted the Liberty sunk. And why? To create a pretext to invade Egypt. If true, this would explain why our ally Israel attacked the Liberty -- and also the coverup. Until now, the attack has never been explained. I wouldn't be surprised if Jones is correct.

The relevance of Operation Northwoods in light of 911 goes without saying.

Don't you know that nobody cares whether our very own government plotted to kill the citizens it is sworn to protect. The Operation Northwoods document was like a fart in the wind. Everybody sort of shrugged their shoulders and went about their business like it never existed.

[enjolras]

How funny, I take it you didn't take the time to actually READ this thing did you? It's only 15 pages...

I don't see one place in this document where they wanted to fly a plane into any American landmarks. There was a planned incident involving shooting down a civilian airliner, but hardly anything resembling 9/11.

Furthermore, in each of these incidents they where taking great care not to actually KILL any Americans. They where using fake groups of Cubans or made up aliases. The civilian airliner was to be a replica of a real airliner, with no actual passengers on board.

If the goal is to establish that a certain radical in 1962 brainstormed various ways to provoke a war with Cuba, then you've succeeded. To attempt to tie this to 9/11 is laughable, dishonest, and really just plain stupid. It fails to prove anything, it fails to establish any kind of blueprint for 9/11, and it shows nothing more than the fact that Kennedy had a few nutjobs surrounding him.

Keep digging, cause this certainly isn't gold.

[alkemical]

see my whole opinion of this "operation" wasn't as a 'blueprint' for 9/11...

it was the gov't planned to attack americans to provoke support for a war.

now granted you add in PNAC's notion for a new pearl harbor. Not to mention it wouldn't be the first time a gov't has staged an attack to drum up support for a war.

[bendog]

see my whole opinion of this "operation" wasn't as a 'blueprint' for 9/11...

it was the gov't planned to attack americans to provoke support for a war.

now granted you add in PNAC's notion for a new pearl harbor. Not to mention it wouldn't be the first time a gov't has staged an attack to drum up support for a war.

Except bin laden is in all likelihood, real. Now did bushii lie about womd and any plausible connection to Iraq? You betcha.

[alkemical]

Except bin laden is in all likelihood, real. Now did bushii lie about womd and any plausible connection to Iraq? You betcha.

So is/was castro.

[bendog]

You really think the bushii admin could pull off 9-11 and not get caught? The fact that it occurred should prove incompetence evne if we did not have the evidence of womd and Iraq. They couldn't even fabricate that convincingly.

[alkemical]

Actually bendog, i don't think the Bush Admin conspired and pulled it off.


Here's what I do believe though:

I believe that there was more than just a 'soft' rumor that something was going to happen. Russians have gone on record before 9/11 saying they got wind of this. I have to believe the mossad had good intel on this (they got dirt on everyone - and no this isn't some "jews did it" thing either) - chinese had to hear about this somehow too.

I think bin laden was a hired gun. I think that some veeeeery infulential people that have ties to the bush admin (through wolfowitz types mostly) had some idea something was going to happen. I think that capitol interestest over-rode capital interests - as well as doing a power grab for the executive branch during the 'vacumn' after 9/11.

[bendog]

OH, I think bin laden was a hired gun by some high ranking Saudi guys tied to wahabiism or whatever. The "establishment" wants us to think that Saudi dissatisfaction with the status quo of they sell us the spice "cheap" in exchange for letting them buy US equities and t-bills is limited to the Saudi proletariat. That seems irrational. Rather, the status quo is maintained by terror. Better to take the millions than to go to prison without trial. But, why wouldn't very rich saudis, who see the status quo as a sellout to the West, seek to change the house of Saud via their own terror?

We've never really had any hard explanation to allegations of equity sell offs, other than "oh, it didn't really happen." If it didn't happen, post the sales.

http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/stocks-trades/9-11-trades.txt

I think we prolly did have harder evidence that 9-11 was "special." But did Bushii and cheney know exactly? No, becuase bushii's look of deer in the headlights in the elemetary school wasn't faked. And if Dick "dugout" Cheney had any clue a missle was heading for the whitehouse, he'd have been elsewhere. A chickenhawk never changes stripes.

[alkemical]

good pts and link dog

[mhgaffney]

But did Bushii and cheney know exactly? No.

We know that on Sept 10 - 01 several of the Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled travel plans. I'll discuss this with other evidence of prior knowledge in a separate thread soon.

[alkemical]

no more seperate threads!

we have 40000000 9/11 threads already.

[bendog]

We know that on Sept 10 - 01 several of the Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled travel plans. I'll discuss this with other evidence of prior knowledge in a separate thread soon.

Why is that inconsistent with the US govt having some inkling 9-11 was a "special" day? Bushii is conveniently out of town, but Cheney and the Jt Chiefs are at battle stations. Cheney's got a bunker at the WH (though whether it'd withstand hundreds of pounds of fuel?) and presumbably the Jt. Chiefs have a bunker(s) somewhere too.

Moreover, your notion that somehow bin laden and the PNAC have to be somehow connected has a logical fallicy. The PNAC could use bin laden without bin laden's consent. And bin laden, and more accurately the indigenous muslim nationalism that resents Western interference, may feed off of PNAC's actions.

It may be akin to the Japan/West confrontation. Japan's militarism was made necessary by it's overpopulation. It proposed a greater co-prosperity sphere. Indian nationalism that supported Japan was not necessarily pro-Japan so much as anti-western imperialsim.

[W*GS]

We've never really had any hard explanation to allegations of equity sell offs, other than "oh, it didn't really happen." If it didn't happen, post the sales.

http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/stocks-trades/9-11-trades.txt

On the other hand:

http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/stocks-trades/911-attacks-not-linked-to-stock-gains.txt

[bendog]

hmm, interesting. But I still suspect bin laden's sponsors go deep into the House of Saud ... and the house of bushii. Not a conspiracy in the making, but a conspiracy in deceiving.

But that's really just a flip side of the ludicrious notion that PNAC offers solutions to muslim nationalism, or that Iraq was tied to 9-11.

[alkemical]

Everything is true, even false things.

[bendog]

I never really bought the stock sale thing, but merely as an example of what is still, imo, suspiciously not said.

Overall, however, history teaches that societies never truly explain "why." Why for example did the british fall for nationalism to fight Napolean? The proletariate cut it's own throat. But, why did the french prostitute their revolution to try for world domination.

The cold warriors and neocons tell us nationalism is good. But so does bin laden. It's push and pull with the elites always trying to keep the gold, and "lie" about issues.

WWII in the pacific ended with Japan getting their greater co-prosperity sphere. Germany dominated Nato.

The US civil war. Both sides were manned by lower class guys who feared competition by free blacks.

[alkemical]

So bendog, what you are saying is that what we are told is the bull**** that covers the real reasons?

So both idelogies being sold to the opposition are fundamentally the same, just a 'cultural' difference?

[bendog]

It seems to me that leaders of socities take a truism and twist it for the purpose of retaining power. The neocons twisting of 9-11 is obvious. The guy who gets screwed is us, and esp the guys in the military.

Occassionally, someone pops up like Ali and says something like "Ali ain't got nothin against no vietcong." That really pisses off the leaders.

Occassionally, some leader will lose power in some twist that pisses them off, like katami (whatever the guy from Iraq is called) or Jimmy Carter, and they'll start calling attention to "stuff." North Korea, for example. NK making nukes is damn dangerous. WJC was not a particularly war-like potus, yet he was really set to invade the North. He didn't want to seem soft on Kim BongII. Starting negotiations to actually give NK food and oil would've been politically suicidal. Carter found the common interest in survival. But the gop congress didn't appropriate the money. Now the Iranian uttering hersey about Palestine needing justice and suicide bombings are not really the way of Iranian shiaa ideology.

I don't know that I'd call John Toland and Barbara Tuchman "liberals." Some of course would. But the subject of history in the 20th Century was that war is always the result of two societies not understanding one another's bottom line of what they THINK they must have to survive. For example, the pales haven't really reached a consenus on what they can live with. No way, Israel lets the refugees back in Israel. At some pt, if there's to be a peace, the pales have to accept that and move on.

But what happens when altering the view on what society can accept will be politically unsellable? Arafat and the right to return. FDR was really about defeating nazism, but could he have sold ceeding the european colonies, including India, and giving Japan the economic lead in the pacific. I doubt it. I doubt the thought would've even occured to him. In the end we kept Japan's emporer Hirohito to tell his people "we must endure the unendurable." The guy was a war criminal from the get go, but he got off scot free. Meanwhile Japan gets their economic miracle.

Are there coverups and conspiracies? sure. But not really about the big picture. Bushii is covering for his Saud buds who prolly know who is behind bin laden, and they'll get off scot free. But the WOT really involves getting to a compromise between two societies. How many millions of the proletariat get killed in reaching that compromise is open to "chance." What were the odds of wolfowitz and rummy getting jobs again. Christ, I'd have voted for Gore TWICE if someone told me those two would define our response to 9-11.

[alkemical]

interesting take bendog.

[mhgaffney]

I never really bought the stock sale thing,
.

There's plenty of evidence of prior knowledge. The spike in put options was openly reported in the US press -- but then, notice, how it kind of went away. They put a lid on the story and it died. We never did get an explanation.

Attorney Gen Ashcroft stopped flying commercial planes in July 2001 -- and thereafter used only private jets. SF Mayor Willie Brown was warned not to fly on Sept 11. We also know the employees of an Israeli company based in the WTC were warned not to go to work on 911. THis was reported in Israel in Ha'aretz -- that great conspiracy rag. You don't believe me? Check it out.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C


Nor was this the only case of prior knowledge. A similar thing happened before the London bombings. Netanyahu was warned by the Mossad not to go to a scheduled meeting that morning -- which was in a building 100 yards away from one of the blasts. Does this mean Israel did the attack? No -- it means the knowledge of the attack was widespread in the intel community. People leak to save their friends -- or to make a windfall.

More and more evidence indicates that the US intel community had detailed knowledge that the 911 terror attack was coming -- and Bush -- at the very least -- let it happen.

We will probably never know the full extent of his complicity.

But at the very least our president was complicit in a horrible crime. The last time I checked -- compliciity in a crime was a crime.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More and more evidence indicates that the US intel community had detailed knowledge that the 911 terror attack was coming -- and Bush -- at the very least -- let it happen.

We will probably never know the full extent of his complicity.

But at the very least our president was complicit in a horrible crime. The last time I checked -- compliciity in a crime was a crime.

You are correct, sir.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/monkey_with_a_gun.jpg

[W*GS]

Well, so far, mhgaffney, you're batting .000 on just about everything you've written about 9/11, since you insist on believing the Bush-did-it conspiracy theory, and continue to relate "facts" that have been amply disproven.

Do you ever give up believing falsehoods?

There's plenty of evidence of prior knowledge. The spike in put options was openly reported in the US press -- but then, notice, how it kind of went away. They put a lid on the story and it died. We never did get an explanation.

Wrong:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options- investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price-surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10-highly suspicious trading on its face.Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation.The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

Attorney Gen Ashcroft stopped flying commercial planes in July 2001 -- and thereafter used only private jets.

Wrong. Even Michael Moore cut the bit in F9/11 relating to this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/ashcroft_commercial_flights.html

SF Mayor Willie Brown was warned not to fly on Sept 11.

http://www.911myths.com/html/willie_brown.html

As usual, nothing of substance nor any proof of foreknowledge.

We also know the employees of an Israeli company based in the WTC were warned not to go to work on 911. THis was reported in Israel in Ha'aretz -- that great conspiracy rag. You don't believe me? Check it out.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C

Wrong. Again:

http://www.911myths.com/html/odigo.html

Nor was this the only case of prior knowledge. A similar thing happened before the London bombings. Netanyahu was warned by the Mossad not to go to a scheduled meeting that morning -- which was in a building 100 yards away from one of the blasts. Does this mean Israel did the attack? No -- it means the knowledge of the attack was widespread in the intel community. People leak to save their friends -- or to make a windfall.

Since none of the above evidence you presented make the case that associates were saved via a warning, or that profits were made based on foreknowledge, you're wrong. Again.

More and more evidence indicates that the US intel community had detailed knowledge that the 911 terror attack was coming -- and Bush -- at the very least -- let it happen.

Wrong.

But at the very least our president was complicit in a horrible crime. The last time I checked -- compliciity in a crime was a crime.

Wrong.

Yep, still batting .000 - down to the minor leagues with you!

[W*GS]

You are correct, sir.

Nope, MG is wrong.

But that won't prevent you from adoring him.

[mhgaffney]

W*gs never does his own research. He invariably quotes (glibly) from 911 web sites. Nor does he check out his sources.

Well I did. I went up to the 911 myths site and looked it over. It's been my experience that bona fide web sites that present legitimate research ALWAYS announce in a visible way who they are, what they stand for, how to contact them etc

Not so with this site. No one takes responsibility for the information presented on this site. There is no statement of philosophy, no way to contact the people behind it. In short, it stinks. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a shell or dummy site set up by our own NSA to confound and confuse.

Here's the link again if anyone wants to have a look -- go to the home page and look around
http://www.911myths.comI'd like to know who is behind that 911 myths siite

One important source about the put options was Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD narcotics investigator. This is still posted on Ruppert's site From the Wilderness. When Ruppert traced the put options he found a connection to CIA Executive Director Buzz Krongard.

Here's a link to his story.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html

BTW, Ruppert recently had to flee the US out of concerns that his 911 research put his life in danger.

The story about Ashcroft switching to private flights was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (that great conspiracy rag) on June 3, 2002.

Willie Brown received the warning from someone on his own security staff. This was reported the day after 911 also by the SF Chronicle.

Make up your own minds. Be aware that when web sites refuse to identify themselves they are likely spreading DIS information.

Anonymous 911 web sites have a high probability of being phony as a 3 dollar bill.

[W*GS]

W*gs never does his own research. He invariably quotes (glibly) from 911 web sites. Nor does he check out his sources.

Puhleeze.

Well I did. I went up to the 911 myths site and looked it over. It's been my experience that bona fide web sites that present legitimate research ALWAYS announce in a visible way who they are, what they stand for, how to contact them etc

Not so with this site. No one takes responsibility for the information presented on this site. There is no statement of philosophy, no way to contact the people behind it. In short, it stinks. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a shell or dummy site set up by our own NSA to confound and confuse.

:bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs:

You didn't look very hard at all:

http://911myths.com/html/site_faq.html

Indeed:

Pah! Plainly you're just a shill/ Government stooge/ neo-con/ psyops site.

Yawn. Yes, I've heard that before, usually because it's much easier to smear people than dealing with the points they're making. But hey, if you believe that, then run along now, it's fine with me. There are plenty of other 9/11 sites that will tell you what you want to hear, and never even think of challenging any of your views..

The above comment is for ol' MG himself...

I'd like to know who is behind that 911 myths siite

Read the FAQ - write the guy if you like.

Not that you would change your mind at all...

The story about Ashcroft switching to private flights was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (that great conspiracy rag) on June 3, 2002.

Re-read the 911myths.com evidence.

Willie Brown received the warning from someone on his own security staff. This was reported the day after 911 also by the SF Chronicle.

Re-read the 911myths.com evidence.

Make up your own minds. Be aware that when web sites refuse to identify themselves they are likely spreading DIS information.
Anonymous 911 web sites have a high probability of being phony as a 3 dollar bill.

Since 911myths.com is quite well-identified, your take is, well, a mis-take. As usual.

[Rohirrim]

How do you feel about the Popular Mechanics site?

[alkemical]

http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=911myths.com&type=domain

Domain Name: 911MYTHS.COM
Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.wildwestdomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.wildwestdomains.com
Name Server: NS01.DH2.NET
Name Server: NS02.DH2.NET
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 18-jul-2006
Creation Date: 13-jan-2005
Expiration Date: 13-jan-2007



Wild West Domains, Inc.
14455 North Hayden Rd
Suite 226
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
United States
1-480-505-8857
support@wildwestdomains.com

[alkemical]

Puhleeze.



:bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs:

You didn't look very hard at all:

http://911myths.com/html/site_faq.html

Indeed:

Pah! Plainly you're just a shill/ Government stooge/ neo-con/ psyops site.

Yawn. Yes, I've heard that before, usually because it's much easier to smear people than dealing with the points they're making. But hey, if you believe that, then run along now, it's fine with me. There are plenty of other 9/11 sites that will tell you what you want to hear, and never even think of challenging any of your views..

The above comment is for ol' MG himself...



Read the FAQ - write the guy if you like.

Not that you would change your mind at all...



Re-read the 911myths.com evidence.



Re-read the 911myths.com evidence.



Since 911myths.com is quite well-identified, your take is, well, a mis-take. As usual.


So basiclly you are telling MHG it's not ok to select his reality, when it's AOK for you to select your reality on which authority you "want" to believe....?

Basically that's the crux i get out of it anyway.

[W*GS]

So basiclly you are telling MHG it's not ok to select his reality, when it's AOK for you to select your reality on which authority you "want" to believe....?

Reality is what it is - whether or not we choose to accept it.

MG is choosing to believe in things for which there is little evidence - data points that are contradicted by data points with much stronger evidence. He's free to do so, most certainly - but why?

[bendog]

Wags on insider trading, priceless (-:

Yes, it's selecting a reality.

[W*GS]

Wags on insider trading, priceless (-:

What's your evidence?

Yes, it's selecting a reality.

All of us are free to choose whatever we want to believe, apart from what is, is.

One's lifespan will be lessened if one chooses poorly.

[alkemical]

Reality is what it is - whether or not we choose to accept it.

MG is choosing to believe in things for which there is little evidence - data points that are contradicted by data points with much stronger evidence. He's free to do so, most certainly - but why?


Why do you choose to take authority at face value without questioning it?

Your definition of reality is interesting, IMO it's half right. It's not just whether you choose to or not, but which one.......

[W*GS]

Why do you choose to take authority at face value without questioning it?

Why do you?

Your definition of reality is interesting, IMO it's half right. It's not just whether you choose to or not, but which one.......

Believing is not a choice - what we choose to believe is, and that has a significant impact on (among other things) whether we live or die.

You're free to choose the belief that stepping off a 500m cliff won't do you any harm, but that faulty belief will be corrected very quickly if you decide to test it.

[alkemical]

Why do you?



Believing is not a choice - what we choose to believe is, and that has a significant impact on (among other things) whether we live or die.

You're free to choose the belief that stepping off a 500m cliff won't do you any harm, but that faulty belief will be corrected very quickly if you decide to test it.



now wagsy - how can you hypocrite yourself in one sentance already:

"Believing is not a choice - what we choose to believe is"

You choose to accept the reality that corporations and gov't don't harm anyone. Unless of course it's that evil pat bowlen and his stadium tax that he blackmailed to get through, right? (of course i'm being a bit ridiculous to prove a point, just as you are).

Why do you choose to believe the economist as a source, and not say mises?

Why is it you still haven't been able to find any expert that can refute any expert i find on WTC7 & Flight 93?

Why is it some people believe in Jesus and not Krishna?

Why is it some people are so scared of terrorism and not their commute to work?


Sorry wags, you can't win this one. Wanna know why.... Individual reality and beliefs are created and selected by the individual.

Just because YOU reject something, doesn't make it "not true", of course it also means it's "not false" either......

[W*GS]

now wagsy - how can you hypocrite yourself in one sentance already:

"Believing is not a choice - what we choose to believe is"

You choose to accept the reality that corporations and gov't don't harm anyone.

Hasty generalization, i.e., a logical fallacy.

Just because the government wasn't behind 9/11 (in some way or another) doesn't mean it never did anything bad or wrong. Sheesh.

Why do you choose to believe the economist as a source, and not say mises?

What about mises?

Why is it you still haven't been able to find any expert that can refute any expert i find on WTC7 & Flight 93?

You're misremembering. I've provided evidence against your views on both - more for your WTC7 theory.

Sorry wags, you can't win this one. Wanna know why.... Individual reality and beliefs are created and selected by the individual.

Beliefs are created by each of us, reality is not. If you believe you create your own reality, then feel free to step onto a freeway populated by vehicles going 60 mph+ - after all, if your reality is that they pose no threat of harm to you, then you'll be safe.

[alkemical]

Hasty generalization, i.e., a logical fallacy.

Just because the government wasn't behind 9/11 (in some way or another) doesn't mean it never did anything bad or wrong. Sheesh.



What about mises?



You're misremembering. I've provided evidence against your views on both - more for your WTC7 theory.



Beliefs are created by each of us, reality is not. If you believe you create your own reality, then feel free to step onto a freeway populated by vehicles going 60 mph+ - after all, if your reality is that they pose no threat of harm to you, then you'll be safe.


Hmm seems you fall into those hasty generalizations a bit yourself - How are you doing today Kettle?

You "choose" the economist as your source of authority for your information, why don't you "choose" mises instead?

Oh you've provided evidence, but nothing that isn't any more refuatable by anything i've found. which means it's nil for both, got it wagsy. Nothing you've provided has been any 'more' true in that it made anything i've posted 'less' true. You selected to believe the sources of information because they FIT your reality map.

Oh reality is very much created by the individual. There are 'rules' to the world we live in. But reality is very much in the eye of the beholder. Don't believe me wags? Why is your reality completely different than say... BenDog's reality.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So basiclly you are telling MHG it's not ok to select his reality, when it's AOK for you to select your reality on which authority you "want" to believe....?

That would be W*GS' S.O.P., alright.

[alkemical]

That would be W*GS' S.O.P., alright.



but it's not just wags, it's all of us.....

[mhgaffney]

You didn't look very hard at all:

http://911myths.com/html/site_faq.html

.

Yeah, he identifies himself on a sub page that the average viewer would never find. The info should have been posted on the masthead.

As for Netanyahu being warned before the London bombings -- despite the efforts of Israel to back away from this story -- the early report was actually confirmed by the chief of the Mossad in an interview published in Germany. This is covered in depth in Alex Jones new video TERROR STORM which is highly recommended.

There is a pattern here. We know that Israeli citizens were also warned to vacate a hotel in Amman Jordan before another terrorist attack -- when a bomb ripped through the hotel, killing many people, including a number of Palestinians.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051113&articleId=1238

[alkemical]

I like alex jones, but i think his....zeal sometimes can lead him astray....

[W*GS]

Hmm seems you fall into those hasty generalizations a bit yourself - How are you doing today Kettle?

I try not to assume that because you believe element x of set X, you believe all elements of set X. You, on the other hand, jumped in with both feet, and made yourself look foolish thereby.

You "choose" the economist as your source of authority for your information, why don't you "choose" mises instead?

"The Economist" is hardly my sole source for information.

Oh you've provided evidence, but nothing that isn't any more refuatable by anything i've found.

Wrong.

You selected to believe the sources of information because they FIT your reality map.

No. One can indeed provide evidence that consists of facts, as opposed to evidence that does not. I prefer the former, you do not.

Oh reality is very much created by the individual. There are 'rules' to the world we live in. But reality is very much in the eye of the beholder. Don't believe me wags? Why is your reality completely different than say... BenDog's reality.

You're conflating perceptions of what is with what is. Perceptions can certainly be faulty, but what is cannot be, as it simply is. You choose to believe that Indian Lake is 6 miles or so from the Flight 93 crash site. Your perceptions do not correspond to the reality that it's about 1 1/2 miles. You are certainly free to choose whatever you want to believe, but I've found that the closer my beliefs are to reality, the better off I am.

Suffice to say that concerning matters of fact, not everyone's beliefs are equally valid. Not all epistemologies are correct.

[alkemical]

I try not to assume that because you believe element x of set X, you believe all elements of set X. You, on the other hand, jumped in with both feet, and made yourself look foolish thereby.



"The Economist" is hardly my sole source for information.



Wrong.



No. One can indeed provide evidence that consists of facts, as opposed to evidence that does not. I prefer the former, you do not.



You're conflating perceptions of what is with what is. Perceptions can certainly be faulty, but what is cannot be, as it simply is. You choose to believe that Indian Lake is 6 miles or so from the Flight 93 crash site. Your perceptions do not correspond to the reality that it's about 1 1/2 miles. You are certainly free to choose whatever you want to believe, but I've found that the closer my beliefs are to reality, the better off I am.

Suffice to say that concerning matters of fact, not everyone's beliefs are equally valid. Not all epistemologies are correct.




Wags, then why discount witness that saw a 'fighter jet' and an ex vietnam vet of hearing a fighter jet right around the time flight 93 went down? I guess "their reality" isn't really real then.

Those witnesses would then DEBUNK any information from 911 commish & Popular mechanics (WRT to flight 93)... unless of course you say that two forms of authority cancel out a witness to something that neither of your sources of authority have seen...... So then lets see - that would make YOU WRONG.


I may jump from time to time - but i always question the jump - sometimes when i'm free falling - but i'm at least open to lots of different arenas instead of going with a closed eyed view of the world discounting everything that isn't verifiable by an 'authority' to give me the answers.

Wags, have you been to flight 93 crash site? I have and let me tell ya - it's not 1.5 miles to the lake.

[bendog]

Why do you choose to take authority at face value without questioning it?

Your definition of reality is interesting, IMO it's half right. It's not just whether you choose to or not, but which one.......

Precisely. Bush's reality is that God talks to him. The palestinians think they should get their farms inside Israel's 67 borders. The israelies think they can keep Israel a maj Jewish state forever without resorting to more ethnic cleansing, even though Israeli palestinians will be a maj if current birth rates continue.

I've heard on npr that the only real way of telling when insider trading occurs is by volume of trades by those classed as insiders, and even then it can't really be tracked because "outsiders" can gain the information. Martha Stewart's real crime was celebrity.

There are "facts." Like some 60 bodies were found yesterday in Iraq, some bearing signs of being tortured with power drills. The effect of that fact on any individual with knowledge of it depends on the reality they choose.

[W*GS]

Yeah, he identifies himself on a sub page that the average viewer would never find. The info should have been posted on the masthead.

That you couldn't find it merely shows you're a below average viewer, and making you feel better by putting his info on the masthead is probably not his biggest concern.

And yeah, we know you think the Jews are behind it all.

[W*GS]

Wags, then why discount witness that saw a 'fighter jet' and an ex vietnam vet of hearing a fighter jet right around the time flight 93 went down? I guess "their reality" isn't really real then.

There was a private jet in the vicinity of Flight 93 at the time, and that is well-known:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y

CLAIM:At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

Wags, have you been to flight 93 crash site? I have and let me tell ya - it's not 1.5 miles to the lake.

I haven't been to the crash site.

What is the distance from the crash site to the lake? Google Earth (unless they're in on it too) would provide an answer.

[alkemical]

There was a private jet in the vicinity of Flight 93 at the time, and that is well-known:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y

CLAIM:At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.



I haven't been to the crash site.

What is the distance from the crash site to the lake? Google Earth (unless they're in on it too) would provide an answer.



Wags,

it's been documented by several news sources the crash wreckage covered at least 4mi with some reports up to 6mi. (I live in the state)

I've been the crash site and the lake is NOT 1.5 miles from the 'crater'.

but of course, since i refute popular mechanics - i guess it's just not real then.

PS i like how those who want to be the authority want to do it anon - just like the people paid to serve us won't go under oath.

[W*GS]

it's been documented by several news sources the crash wreckage covered at least 4mi with some reports up to 6mi. (I live in the state)

So provide those news sources.

I've been the crash site and the lake is NOT 1.5 miles from the 'crater'.

Using Google Earth, I measure anywhere from 1.5 to about 2.2 miles from the vicinity of the crash to the closest and farthest areas from Indian Lake.

What do you measure, and how?