Friday, December 15, 2006

A More Honest Denier?

Over at 9-11 Blogger, Loverevolution writes:

Is it possible that 911truth is not the only way to achieve our goal (which i presume is the same for all of us, to restore our gov't of, by and for the people - 911 truth being just an avenue towards that goal.)


Well, hush ma mouth! And here I thought the goal was to expose the "truth" about the most important event of the 21st century.

84 Comments:

At 15 December, 2006 15:19, Blogger shawn said...

No way, it's just a means to an end!

Well, I never!

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,

What were your first thoughts (and do you have any second thoughts) about our Nation's excursion into Iraq, sometimes called the Iraq War?

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evidence of the Military-Industrial Complex over-ruling British Oversight.

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:54, Blogger Alex said...

Why can't twoofers ever stay on topic? They're like that guy from Anchorman.

"I love lamp"

 
At 15 December, 2006 16:01, Blogger shawn said...

Alex Jones reads too much into a movie, gee whoda thunk it?t

 
At 15 December, 2006 16:02, Blogger shawn said...

"A telling moment in the film serves as commentary for the foreknowledge and exploitation of astronomical occurrences throughout history, where elite guilds versed in the secret wisdom of astronomy would anticipate solar and lunar eclipses and use them to hoodwink their populations into believing they held divine power, thus enlisting their enslavement and obedience under the threat that sun and moon would not return unless the people displayed total submission."

Hey, Alex, the Mayans actually knew about eclipses, and Gibson making them scared of it is an historical innacuracy.

Jones seems to be ignorant in all spheres, not just politics.

 
At 15 December, 2006 16:09, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Why can't twoofers ever stay on topic? They're like that guy from Anchorman.

because they are all hopped up on psych meds.

 
At 15 December, 2006 17:00, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

BG, here is my opinion:


The Iraq War was a removal of a "thorn" regime that was causing trouble in an area of USA interest, followed by a nightmare bogged down war serving no purpose but to keep things from total chaos until a competent police force and govt could be established in that country.

It was fueled by revenge for daddy and oil interests. It was made easier to launch, through the horrible tragedy that was 9/11.

Does this mean, in any way, that i think the USG was part of an Inside Job wrt 9/11...not in the slightest.

Did they take advantage of it...probably.

TAM

 
At 15 December, 2006 17:46, Blogger Alex said...

Here's an alternate theory.

The thing is, me and Tam can disagree totally on the war, while agreeing absolutely on how stupid the CT idiots are.

 
At 15 December, 2006 17:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Tam and Alex.

 
At 15 December, 2006 18:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take me back to Shanksville

 
At 15 December, 2006 18:25, Blogger Alex said...

See what I mean? Anchorman!

Brick Tamland: I love... carpet.
[pause]
Brick Tamland: I love... desk.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, are you just looking at things in the office and saying that you love them?
Brick Tamland: I love lamp.
Ron Burgundy: Do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it?
Brick Tamland: I love lamp. I love lamp.

What worse, now he's linking to KILLTOWN! Yep, our friend BG has finally lost what little sanity he had left.

 
At 15 December, 2006 18:57, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

LOL!!!

BG linking to Killtown?

LMAO!!!

Maybe they can compare what different psych meds they have been on over the years OR how many restraining orders they each have.

 
At 15 December, 2006 18:58, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

our friend BG has finally lost what little sanity he had left.

You are being very generous!

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:05, Blogger S. King said...

Here's another interesting post on 911blogger.com.

Somebody posted a link to a poll here:
http://poll.pollcode.com/1oD

The question is:
"If 911 was an inside job how many people would have to be in on the plot?"

Seems reasonable to me.

Here is one of the responses by our CT friends there:

"There certainly is legitimacy to the argument if so many knew how was it not leaked."

True, but debunkers use it as part of a two part jab-punch:

1: for 911 to be an inside job HUNDREDS or thousands of people had to be involved--
2: but if so many people were involved it couldn't possibly be kept secret.

It's used as part of their frame. That's why I want to low ball them, because I do think this "poll" is fishing for material to validate that frame.

Remember, the lack of scientific validity has never stopped them from pulling shite. But I agree with your comment below-- that many parts of the operation were "outsourced", so to speak.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Fri, 12/15/2006 - 10:35pm.


Gosh. Do you think this CTer is afraid people might think rationally about their answer?

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:28, Blogger Alex said...

That poll shows the lack of thought that people put into this. So far a total of 18 respondents think less than 20 people had to be in on it. But even if you think the ONLY people in on it were the hijackers and the President, that's 20 right there. Never mind all the people needed to plant bombs, knock over lamp posts, fire missiles, order NATO to stand down, cover up the stand down order, shoot down flight 93, and fire the star wars laser.

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anybody want to weigh-in on this: The Flight 11 hijacker was not Atta. Listen to this distinct Israeli voice...

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you about Alex Jones' review of Apocalypto:

Milking the Mel Gibson Psyop for all it's Worth

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:50, Blogger Alex said...

Stop spamming you god-damn waste of skin.

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:50, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

There goes the psychotic changing the subject and not answering direct questions.
There go the voices in his head again.

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:52, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Stop spamming you god-damn waste of skin.

Very well put!
:)

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:56, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Alex:

I appreciate your candidness. My thoughts on the war, and the motives behind it are as I have stated, but they are simply that...thoughts. I have no proof, and will admit it, but then again, I am not trying to pass my opinion off as the "truth". This is where it differs, diametrically, with the truth movement and their views on 9/11.

TAM

 
At 15 December, 2006 19:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Relatively speaking it's difficult to pin Iraq as really a 'thorn" regime due to the fact that they were one of ours, not that Sadam was a great guy or anything of course.

As far as humanitarian issues go, Sadam doesn't hold a candle to certain dictators in Africa or even the Neo-con administrations who has killed hundreds of thousands or even millions, tens of thousands being their own people ( counting the coming deaths arising from the use of depleted Uranium, ect.. ).

Intentional miscommunication on the US's part led to Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, and the intentional starvation of it's people by the US afterwards already resulted in far more deaths than Sadam ever caused.

The point is, Sadam was set up to be destroyed because he's sitting on a lake of oil, and OPEC isn't going to stand for any competition..

Anyone who thinks the neo-cons wouldn't pull off 911 as an excuse to invade need to become informed about history and the big picture, and also the real evidence, not only trying to debunk "demolition theories."

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:09, Blogger Alex said...

I always find it amusing when people use "neo-cons" as a scare word, like "Zionists" or "The New World Order". Shows just how messed up their world-view truly is.

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

18 is way too low even if you consider the possibility of no CD.. A hundred maybe, with most of them not being fully informed on what was going on, but only willing to blindly follow orders which obviously went against common sense.

It's possible the hijackers didn't know they were going to die in the attacks, as they were getting lapdances the night before rather than praying to Allah as they were portrayed as doing in the Flight 93 movie. Also let's not forget some of them were trained at US millitary bases, ect..

It's completely reasonable to examine the theory that the hijackers were "hijacked" by remote control.. Sounds scifi-ish, but the air inside the plane is completely self-contained and it would be easy enough to add some knockout gas to it. And we know that piloting a plane by remote control is possible and has been officially done numerous times before.

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:19, Blogger Alex said...

Naw man. I mean you're obviously really smart and logical and not at all delusional or mentally unstable, but your theory totally omits the effects of the star wars lasers. And there's no way any of it could have been done without star wars lasers. After all we know that the laser operators were trained on US army bases, and the contractors who built them were intentionally starved by the Neo-Cons. So, yeah, I'd suggest you rethink your hypothesis. It's quite clear that the $2.3 trillion went to pay for the lasers to destroy the WTC.

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:29, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

LOL!!!!!

Nice setup and delivery Alex!!!!

You had me!!

Damn that was good!

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:38, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

A hundred maybe, with most of them not being fully informed on what was going on, but only willing to blindly follow orders which obviously went against common sense

LOL!!!!
Typical Douchebag logic.
Where there is not a shred evidence make shit up!!
Act as though 100 people would be willing to do this and after 5 years NOT A SINDLE BIT OF GUILT!!

Not a single "geez I shouldnt have done that"

After the infamous north Hollywood bank shoot out where 2 heavily armned scumbags shot up a neighborhood, 3 police officers committed suicide as a direct result of their involvement.

So 100 or 1000's of people potentially involved....FUCK YOU!

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, it's completely possible and even likely that Bush jr. was intentionally kept out of the loop on it.

Anyone who thinks he is actually "the decider" needs to become more aware of the situation.

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

About some of the hijackers being trained at US military bases, here is a link which cites a Newsweek article about it..

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010915newsweek

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:51, Blogger Alex said...

Anyone who thinks he is actually "the decider" needs to become more aware of the situation.

Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along. Everyone knows that it's really Col. Sanders and Queen Beatrix who called the shots on 9/11.

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:52, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:53, Blogger Alex said...

It sure is nice having you here Ed. You're like the ONLY guy who agrees with me on what happened. All these other bastards keep asking for silly things like "evidence" and "logic". Me and you, we're gonna show 'em, eh boyo?

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:53, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

LOL!!!
Colonel Sanders fired the Beam of Death!

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When did I say that it's not possible for people to have guilt?

Take a look at Sibel Edmonds the former FBI translator who is the "most gagged person in history," about what she knows about government corruption. She has specific evidence about the 9/11 attacks which she is legally not allowed to disclose due to "national security" issues...

A good summary article about her is here..

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911_blocked_investigations.html#sibel_edmonds



Also, check out the USS Liberty incident, where President Johnson conspired with Israel to attack a US ship to be blamed on Egypt in order to try to bring the US into a mid-east war in the 1970's.. They didn't succeed in sinking the ship and key people went public even though they were officially threatened with life imprisonment or death by the US government if they said anything. It's absolutely undebunkable.

Here is a summary of that issue with a great movie clip about it.

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911_past_terrorism.html#loss_of_liberty

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:08, Blogger ConsDemo said...

But I agree with your comment below-- that many parts of the operation were "outsourced", so to speak.

This gives you an insight into their keen logic. If they "outsourced" the job to 1,000 people then the number of people in the recepient group doesn't count. You can't only count the five people who outsourced it. Problem solved!

Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Fri, 12/15/2006

I've love it when these clowns invent a title for themselves. What military enjoys the "service" of "Col. Sparks". Is she an under the table appliance for some General who doesn't know of her nefarious activities for the twoofers?

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:13, Blogger Alex said...

LOL!!!
Colonel Sanders fired the Beam of Death!


Ofcourse! Think about it...

Kentucky FRIED Chicken...

The WTC got FRIED with a death beam...

Come on, it CAN'T be a coincidence...

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:15, Blogger Alex said...

Take a look at Sibel Edmonds the former FBI translator who is the "most gagged person in history," about what she knows about government corruption.

I'm pretty sure me girlfriend took that title this one time after I came back from a month long exercise....

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:16, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Hey Edward, you may want to tell the morons who spread the theory about the Liberty that the attack occurred in 1967. LBJ left office in January 1969, so I don't see how he could have been involved in a plan to "to bring the US into a mid-east war in the 1970's.."

Also,

The USS Liberty was attacked during the Six Day War on June 8 by air and sea forces off the Sinai coast. Israel said the ship was mistaken for an Egyptian one and U.S. President Lyndon Johnson then accepted the explanation.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/23/liberty.attack/

Looks like the crew wasn't gagged for very long.

It's absolutely undebunkable.

Yes, express such certianty in the hope it will stifle debate. I'm sorry, it is easily debunkable. Go back to your comic books.

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:20, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Come on Alex, don't you get it?

KFC, WTC, three letters and both have a "C". That proves it was an inside job!

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex the crew wan't gagged for long because they came out en mass. Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer are representatives of them.

Put your money were your mouth is, debunk it then.

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:38, Blogger Alex said...

Gotta love the USS Liberty conspiracies. It took Israel what, 6 hours to admit that they screwed up? Yeah, that's a GREAT way to act when you're trying to blame another country.

"Yeah. Sorry guys. Our bad. We didn't mean to blow up yo....uhh..shit...I mean...IT WASN'T US! EGYPT DID IT!"

Funny how there's no conspiracy theories surrounding the attack on the USS Stark. Guess it's no fun making shit up unless you can blame it on "neo-cons" or jews.

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:43, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Alex the crew wan't gagged for long because they came out en mass.

I am going to go and practice gagging my wife and I hope to "came out en mass".

I will give you an update.

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:47, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Put your money were your mouth is, debunk it then.

I already did. You claim is off by a decade. I also notice the source is "Alex Jones", nothing more needs to be said.

They may have wanted keep it hush-hush to avoid a diplomatic blow up, but that doesn't prove LBJ conspired with Israel to perpetrate the event.

 
At 15 December, 2006 21:56, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

lying_dylan wrote:
because they are all hopped up on psych meds.

Or, as Grandpa Simpson put it, "all hepped up on goofballs."

 
At 15 December, 2006 22:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I already did. You claim is off by a decade. I also notice the source is "Alex Jones", nothing more needs to be said."

"They may have wanted keep it hush-hush to avoid a diplomatic blow up, but that doesn't prove LBJ conspired with Israel to perpetrate the event. "

Sorry guy, the crew members came out themselves. If you don't want to take Alex's word for it check out the movie "Loss of Liberty" on that page, which has interviews with the people involved.

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911_past_terrorism.html#loss_of_liberty

Also, where are the links debunking it? Just saying that it's debunked doesn't make it so, now does it?

Also, screaming "anti-semite" every time someone criticizes Israel is just as crazy as anti-semitism itself.

 
At 15 December, 2006 22:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex, the reason they had to claim it was an accident is because they didn't succeed in sinking it. A gigantic oversize American flag was flying on the ship during the entire attack, and an Israeli pilot was reported to refuse to attack the ship against orders because it was an Ally.

Also, the "anti-semite" comment was meant for your comment not the previous one..

 
At 15 December, 2006 22:57, Blogger Alex said...

Sorry guy, the crew members came out themselves.

So what? How does that invalidate anything he said? Moreover, how would the crew know what the motivation of their attackers was? All they can tell us is "we were attacked by Iraeli aircraft and submarines". So? Tell me something I DON'T know. Are you suggesting that the crew members are psychic? Or maybe the President of Irsael called them ahead of time and said "yeah, listen, we're about to bomb you, so don't fight back ok? we need to do it do your country will come fight with us". Is that how it went down?

Also, screaming "anti-semite" every time someone criticizes Israel is just as crazy as anti-semitism itself.

You're not criticizing Israel, you're stating that the Israeli and American governments intentionally killed US servicemen in order to draw the US into a war. After which, for some reason, Israel immediately accepted responsibility, and the US stayed out of the war. Which is such a ridiculous theory that there's really only one reason why anyone would believe it: you heard "JOOOOS!" and immediately jumped on board.

Alex, the reason they had to claim it was an accident is because they didn't succeed in sinking it.

LOL

Yeah, that's good. I can imagine the conversation there:

"Dammit, they're not sinking! Should we hit them again?"

"Naw, the Rabbi says we can only use a couple bombs and 5 torpedoes. Any more than that, and God will get pissed off. Let's go home and tell everyone that we did it."

 
At 15 December, 2006 22:59, Blogger Murdervillage said...

"The most gagged person in history!"

Edward, promise you'll stick around. You slay me, dude.

 
At 15 December, 2006 23:06, Blogger Murdervillage said...

edward35 said...
Alex the crew wan't gagged for long because they came out en mass.


So you're saying they weren't the most gagged crew in history? You obviously never tasted the chow in the enlisted mess!

 
At 16 December, 2006 03:19, Blogger Democrat said...

Getting back to the original post of this thread, I can understand the remark in the quote.

911 sure forced an acceleration on awareness of ordinary citizens about the role and actual meaning of government.

If you think that 911 is the one and only part of government history that is questionable, you may at one time be surprised. Personally, I think 911 is just a small blip in a wide array of things, littered over history.

Let's start with money.

 
At 16 December, 2006 03:39, Blogger Alex said...

That has got to be the dumbest story I've ever read...

You must have had a truly twisted childhood, "Democrat".

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex, the dozens of people's testimony invalidates the official story because it was claimed that there was no flag flying when in fact there was, the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga was nearby and launched warplanes when they received a distress call and the fighters were immediately recalled by the White House - and after the attack there was no contact with another ship until the next day, and the Israeli ships were strafing people and lifeboats in the water which is an international war crime.

Also intercepted radio communications from the Israeli planes showed that they kept saying "But it's an American ship!!" And they were ordered to attack it anyway.

All of this testimony is in the film "Loss of Liberty," which can be watched full-screen on the page.

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911_past_terrorism.html#loss_of_liberty

"Dammit, they're not sinking! Should we hit them again?"

Thats apparently what happened. I'm making these claims and showing the proof, so if you want to show otherwise please do. Show us a link debunking what I said.

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:09, Blogger Richard said...

Do truthers even know about our government? 99% of truthers seem to be 18 and under, I don't imagine they have a comprehensive understanding of American government. Seriously, what can they suggest that hasn't already been thought of in the past 230 years.

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:37, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

edward35:

from your cited article....


But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.


and even if they did train there (which seems unlikely, I suspect identity theft), there is this little titbit:


It is not unusual for foreign nationals to train at U.S. military facilities. A former Navy pilot told NEWSWEEK that during his years on the base, “we always, always, always trained other countries’ pilots. When I was there two decades ago, it was Iranians. The shah was in power. Whoever the country du jour is, that’s whose pilots we train.”



Candidates begin with “an officer’s equivalent of boot camp,” he said. “Then they would put them through flight training.” The U.S. has a long-standing agreement with Saudi Arabia—a key ally in the 1990-91 gulf war—to train pilots for its National Guard. Candidates are trained in air combat on several Army and Navy bases. Training is paid for by Saudi Arabia.


TAM

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:46, Blogger ConsDemo said...

where are the links debunking it?

Yes, standard conspiracy tactic, throw out a baseless allegation and demand it be disproved. I don't need links, the claim isn't viable from the git-go. It doesn't gain credibility just because some looney-bin like Alex Jones claims it is. Give me credible news source, not something from a conspiratoid.

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a BBC documentary about USS Liberty..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/dead_in_the_water.shtml

From the page:

"For more than 30 years many people have disbelieved the official explanation but have been unable to rebut it convincingly. Now, Dead in the Water uses startling new evidence to reveal the truth behind the seemingly inexplicable attack. The film combines dramatic reconstruction of the events, with new access to former officers in the US and Israeli armed forces and intelligence services who have decided to give their own version of events."

"Interviews include President Lyndon Johnson's Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, former head of the Israeli navy Admiral Shlomo Errell and members of the USS Liberty crew."

The movie on google video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311&q=dead+in+the+water+liberty

If you download the Google video player you can watch the movie full-screen.

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cosdemo, there is nothing baseless about it, testimony of the people involved is testimony of the people involved.

You'll have more luck debunking the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west than debunking the fact than the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional.

;-)

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:55, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Let's start with money.

Well Dixiecrat, if you don't like money, you are free not have any.

As for your "story", the Social Credit Party was a minor Canadian party that preached goofy currency ideas and went out of existance decades ago. I guess their proposals were like 9/11 Denial, they just didn't catch on.

 
At 16 December, 2006 07:00, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Eddy, your BBC link doesn't say anything about Johnson conspiring with Israel to attack the Liberty.

 
At 16 December, 2006 07:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was a fast viewing Cosdemo!

The documentary is 1 hour 6 minutes long.

 
At 16 December, 2006 08:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Key 9-11 Facts And Assumptions Challenged By Prof. David Ray Griffin

 
At 16 December, 2006 08:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KSFR's Camp Lovewave Hosts Bill and Kathy Christison re: 9/11 and Israel/Palestine

 
At 16 December, 2006 08:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Global Dominance Group: 9/11 Pre-Warnings & Election Irregularities in Context

 
At 16 December, 2006 08:31, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Okay, Edward. I watched the BBC show. It was interesting and does air a number of theories, including the several you mentioned.

It raises serious doubts whether the attack was accidental and suggests that the Americans didn't want to embarrass Israel. However, the theory Johnson actively conspired with Israel to perpetrate the attack is perhaps implied briefly but hardly compelling.

 
At 16 December, 2006 08:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Consdemo, you have got to be kidding me..

What doubt does it raise about the attacks being accidental?

 
At 16 December, 2006 09:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whups.. I meant intentional.. ;-)

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:42, Blogger Alex said...

*sigh*

Just like the 9/11 CT, it's nothing but lies, lies, and more lies.

it was claimed that there was no flag flying when in fact there was

A lie. It was claimed that no flag was seen. Which it wasn't. The attacking fighters couldn't see a flag until one of them got suspicious and flew in closer.

the Israeli ships were strafing people and lifeboats in the water which is an international war crime.

Another lie. First, no Israeli ships were involved, you're thinking of Israeli subs. Second, they were (maybe) strafing the crews on the deck. There's very little evidence even for THAT, but there's absolutely ZERO evidence that they were "strafing lifeboats in the water". I don't know where you get this crap. Probably from the same source who claims Hitler was really a Jew, right?

Also intercepted radio communications from the Israeli planes showed that they kept saying "But it's an American ship!!" And they were ordered to attack it anyway.

Once again, a lie. One pilot noticed it, and they may have argued with eachother for a bit, but once they discovered the ship was American, the aircraft abandoned their attack. If these communications really showed what you say they do, you'd have no problem producing a transcript or an actual recording. Ofcourse, once again you have no actual evidence.

All of this testimony is in the film "Loss of Liberty," which can be watched full-screen on the page.

The Loose Change of the USS Liberty CT. I'm not impressed.

Show us a link debunking what I said.

As Cons said, I don't need a link. You've provided no viable evidence, and no reputable sources. The BBC documentary is mildly amusing, but seeing as how the BBC continues to refer to Israel as a rouge nation, I don't think I'll be buying any claims of their impartiality. Hell, even Wikipedia, which generally tends to have an anti-Israeli bias, actually has a fairly accurate article on the Liberty. I don't expect to change your mind - you're as dedicated to your little conspiracy theory as the 9/11 CTers are to theirs, and I can't fix the cruel joke that mother nature played on the bunch of you. I'm just going to sit here, point and laugh, and provide just enough of a refutation to keep otherwise promising individuals from jumping on your side. When Iran hits Israel with nukes, people like you will claim THAT to be a false flag attack too. I think people like you are despicable, but no matter. You go on believing whatever you want, it's really no concern of mine.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:21, Blogger Democrat said...

When Iran hits Israel with nukes, people like you will claim THAT to be a false flag attack too.

Perhaps it will be the case. How can you know upfront? It seems to be striking for your approach of things.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:48, Blogger Alex said...

Uh, you're really not very good with basic semantics, are you?

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:50, Blogger ConsDemo said...

The show raises a number of theories. However, there is plenty of back and forth regarding when the Israelis knew the ship was American. Another theory I had heard previously is the Israelis thought the Americans were spying on them. I suppose there will always be some ambiguity.

I watched it because it was a BBC production and while I don't automatically accept everything from the BBC, they have more credibility than IHateAmerica.com or KooksRus.net or those other fringe websites Deniers are always quoting.

Some parts of the production are a reach. The claim that the Americans were going to nuke Cairo sounds particularly far-fetched but some other parts are more peruasive. At a minimum there was an initial attempt to cover up the event. On the whole, I'm still inclined to believe the assertion of mistaken identity because I don't see what Israel's motivation was to attack the Liberty. I certainly don't buy the crap about Johnson conspiring with Israel to attack an American ship and the show does little to bolster that claim, in fact some of the interviewees dismissed it.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:50, Blogger Democrat said...

consdemo and alex, there are really a lot of leads coming from the monetary system as a source of the US's problems, more specifically, US citizens' problems.

In a proper view of the world, you will have to be able to grasp the inner details of this money scam.

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

The attack went on for hours while the United States flag was flying, you claim no Israeli ships where involved when of course they were, you claim no strafing happened when I've showed testimony that it did. Ive showed testimony that the intercepted communication shows the pilots being ordered to attack anyway even though they knew it was an American ship..

You claim you don't need information to debunk the claims even though you aren't even familiar with what you are commenting on in the first place.

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

consdemo,

Israel's motivation was to draw the US into a middle east war by blaming the attack on the Egyptians.. It was not a mistaken identity because the American Flag was flying during the entire attack, and Johnson intentionally ordered the rescue planes to stand down, and that cannot be refuted.

For you to make the assertion that the show does little to bolster the claim of Johnson conspiring with Israel reveals that you have an agenda of disinformation.

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:40, Blogger shawn said...

the Neo-con administrations who has killed hundreds of thousands or even millions, tens of thousands being their own people ( counting the coming deaths arising from the use of depleted Uranium, ect.. ).

You idiots and your DU. It'd be fun if you people weren't ignorant for once.

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:43, Blogger shawn said...

Oh, and Saddam killed about 1.2 million of his own people. Bush ain't even close (that's if you blame every single death in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in our military on him, which is a stupid thing to do but I'm just using it for comparison).

 
At 16 December, 2006 21:09, Blogger telescopemerc said...

It was not a mistaken identity because the American Flag was flying during the entire attack,

Wow. A flag. I'm sure that was super visible by high speed jets.

Ever heard of what happened to the HMS Shefflied during the hunt for the Bismark? It had a flag too, and the planes that attacked it were low speed torpedo biplanes...and familiar with its shape and shilloutte.

Yet..they attacked the Sheffield!

 
At 17 December, 2006 09:49, Blogger Alex said...

The attack went on for hours

No, it didn't. It might have taken course over several hours, but it certainly didn't go on for hours by any true meaning of that phrase.

you claim no Israeli ships where involved when of course they were

No, there weren't. Subs were, not ships.

you claim no strafing happened when I've showed testimony that it did.

No, you haven't, you made an unsubstantiated claim.

Ive showed testimony that the intercepted communication shows the pilots being ordered to attack anyway even though they knew it was an American ship..

No, you haven't, you made an unsubstantiated claim.

Jeezus man, did you make a single truthful statement so far? I haven't seen one yet.

You can't just say "I've provided evidence" when all you've done is make an unsupported claim. It doesn't work that way.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex, as I said before, the attack did go on for hours. There were Israeli ships involved. Of course you can call an claim unsubstantiated when you don't bother to look at the evidence I show.

Every single claim I've made has been backed up by testimony in this BBC documentary. You can claim I'm not supplying the information, and can claim the information is unsubstantiated, but just saying that doesn't make it true.

Here is the documentary on Google Video..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311&q=dead+in+the+water+liberty>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311&q=dead+in+the+water+liberty


If you download the google video player you can watch it full screen.

Here is the official BBC page for the documentary..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/dead_in_the_water.shtml

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:40, Blogger Alex said...

Your only source is a BBC documentary?

Well...gee...how can I argue against that.

Sorry buds, not good enough. I'm not wasting 2 hours out of my day to look at your nonsense, and anyway, you don't prove a claim by directing people to a documentary. Either post exerts of the documentary which document your individual claims, or provide links to reputable sources, or provide page and paragraph numbers in paper publications. THAT is how you document a claim.

You're right about one thing though, boats were involved. I read the phrase "torpedo boats" and interpreted it as submarines. My mistake. As for the rest, I await your evidence. I assume that you HAVE actually picked up a book at some point in your life, and as such should be able to back up your assertions using material other than videos.

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex, in one sense you are right that just because there is a documentary it does not necessarily mean credibility. However, this documentary consists of specific interviews with key people who were involved, so their testimony carries much weight, especially in light of the fact that they are putting themselves as risk by speaking out. Also, the fact that this documentary was created by the BBC adds a degree of credibility to the fact that the interviews are genuine.

I know saying "look at the hour long documentary" sounds like a cop-out, and it is an inconvenience to do so, but the key information is there and taking all factors into consideration it is legitimate information to prove the case. There is a lot of other sources with the same information though.. many books, other documentaries, websites, ect.. however this is the one of the best sources I have found. It's style is rather "60 Minutes" type, where it shows denials of wrongdoing and then the evidence proving otherwise.

Here are a few quotes typed in from the documentary.. There is an ocean of more evidence and key points in the documentary by the way.

Captain William McGonagle, USS Liberty - "In many years I had wanted to believe that the attack on the Liberty was pure error. It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity, I think that it's about time that the state of Isreal and the United States Goverment provide the crewmemebers of the Liberty and the rest of the American People the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was attacked 30 years ago today. "

Dave Lewis - USS Liberty - "We were told there was no need to worry. We had asked the commander of the sixth fleet for an armed guard to go along with us, a destroyer, he sent the message back saying we were in international waters, flying the American insig [ flag ] there was no need for an armed vessel."

Narrator: "Confident that the israelis knew who they were, the liberty men relaxed, a new flag was flying, visibility was perfect, and they've received no orders to leave the area. That sense of security was about to be brutally shattered."

Tony Hart - Naval Communication Supervisor - "The admiral was talking to macnimera, and asking for permission to re-launch the ready aircraft, relaunch any aircraft, and macnimear said no, that no aircraft were to be launched, Macnimera is the boss, he dosnt have to explain why he says what he says."

Narrator: "But the evidence points to Isreal knowing the ships identify, and wanting it sunk, fast."

Richrd Bloak, US air force - "The communications I had in my hands, originated from an isreali flight commander. Evidently, from his questioning from the ground controll, one could deduce that he had been given specific orders to attack that ship before he left the ground, and when he saw it was an american ship, he questioned those orders, and he questioned those orders to his ground controll. That same conversation that I had in my hands specifically noted that the gound controll said "proceed with the attack, and there was still doubt in the Israeli piolt's mind. And he said, "No this is an American, repeath those orders again?' and he was told flat out. - do attack this ship!"

Narrator: "Help was finally on it's way, ships form the sixth fleet were steaming towards the liberty, and would reach her the next morning."

John Hrancowski - "It was quite a site, to see so much of a flotilla there, carriers, we looked, and we said 'god, what a flotilla, where the hell were you!? why didn't you come?' everybody aboard the ship said the same thing."

Lloyd Painter - USS Liberty - "I had testified about three major items that I had witnessed. One was the captain's condition, I also testified about the armor piercing projectiles that were being sent through our ship, and I also testified about the machine gunning of the liferafts by the Israeli torpedo boats. I testified like I said for about two and half, three hours. I didn't know until months later that much of my testimony was never recorded. "



Here are the links again..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/dead_in_the_water.shtml

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311&q=dead+in+the+water+liberty

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, I would like to apologize for what I said to consdemo about "disinformation." I can see how if you aren't paying complete attention to the documentary that it's "bias" toward the Liberty being intentionally attacked may not be clear.. When you watch a movie in a little window like that it is easy for your attention to drift and miss things. That is why I like to use the google video player, which lets you watch the movie "full screen" just as if you are watching a DVD.

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:59, Blogger Alex said...

Captain William McGonagle, USS Liberty

His statement is pure opinion, and as such is basically irrelevant. In effect he's saying "I don't know why it happened, but I know someones lying". That's the same method used by the 9/11 denial movement. It's useless.

Dave Lewis and following "USS Liberty" quote, AND following Narrator quote:

Irrelevant. They SHOULD have been safe, sure. The actual response to the liberty was: "Liberty is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters, not a participant in the conflict and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation. Request denied". Of course, accidents happen. You may as well claim that it's a conspiracy that my car spun out last winter, even though I had winter tires. It's a nonsense argument. Accidents happen, get that through your head.

Tony Hart - Naval Communication Supervisor

The final recall was authorized by President Johnson, with the comment that "he did not care if every man drowned and the ship sank, but that he would not embarrass his allies". While I think that this was an utterly despicable course of action, and while I would personally have gladly punched Pres. Johnson in the face for it, it in no way supports your conspiracy theory. In fact, if the whole thing really WERE a conspiracy as you claim, it would have been in Johnson's best interest to SEND the aircraft, in order to cover his own ass.

"But the evidence points to Isreal knowing the ships identify, and wanting it sunk, fast."

Then why not sink it? You're telling me that multiple aircraft followed by several torpedo boats were unable to sink one friggin' ship, even with the element of surprise? Let's not be silly. In reality, they could easily have sunk it, and subsequently might even have been able to blame the incident on Egypt. They certainly had nothing to lose by trying . So if they wanted to sink it so bad, why didn't they?

Richrd Bloak, US air force

Yeah, well, his comment is interesting, but without actually seeing a transcript of that communication, I'm only willing to trust it so far. As it stands, it's just his word, with no supporting evidence. And hell, for all I know he may simply have been misquoted, or may have phrased his comment badly. He may even have misinterpreted the communication, or remembered it wrong. There's so many possible ways for his comment to be wrong that it's silly to place too much emphasis on it, especially with the dearth of any supporting evidence.

Lloyd Painter - USS Liberty

His comment about the lifeboats is a misrepresentation of the facts. We know very well that Israeli ships fired on the deck-crews, most of whom were doing damage control, and some of whom were trying to launch life-boats. So in this sense, yes they were "machine gunning of the liferafts", but thats a far cry from shooting at life-boats full of people while in the water. It's the equivalent of shooting at an enemy vehicle, and accidentally hitting the ambulance across the street. It sucks, but it's by no means a "war crime". Also, keep in mind that the Liberty fired on the Israeli boats first. The whole situation was so chaotic that the Captains order to "hold your fire" was misinterpreted by one of the gunners as "open fire". The Israeli boats were returning fire when they hit the deck crews and lifeboats.

 
At 18 December, 2006 08:50, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

it was claimed that there was no flag flying when in fact there was
A lie. It was claimed that no flag was seen. Which it wasn't.

Lie 1 by Alex 1- view the documentary and watch and listen to the sailors being attacked. Flag was flown. An Israeli pilot notified his superiors and they told him to continue the attack.

No, you haven't, you made an unsubstantiated claim.
Not unsubstantiated at all. It plays out exactly how he describes based upon the video and historical record.

You can be ignorant all you want, but the facts remain the same.
Perhaps if you study our history like you do, Canada's, you might be in a position to understand our government.

I understand that 2 hours is important, but ignoring the source doesn't prove your point at all.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home