AUSTRALIANS AT WAR

AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

ISRAELI TERRORISTS STRIKE AGAIN; THE 9/11 PLOT THICKENS (OR IS THAT 'THINS'?); AND MORE GARBAGE FROM THE SPECIALISTS IN ISRAEL.

ISRAELI TERRORISTS KILL PALESTINIANS IN THE WEST BANK

It seems Israeli terrorists have been at it again. Dressed in plain clothes they have murdered three Palestinians in Jenin. One has to wonder about many of the other murders that have occurred in both the Gaza and the West Bank over the last few months, including many of those that were considered to be as a result of the factional in-fighting between elements of Hamas and the Fatah.


HOW ON EARTH ARE THE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS GOING TO TALK THEIR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE?

The BBC telling the world live on TV on 11 September 2001 that the World Trade Centre 7 Building had collapsed when in fact it was clearly being shown still standing right behind the reporter as she was claiming it had collapsed is a major, major boo-boo by the government conspiracy continuity directors that were part of the governments live performance of 9/11. Something was just bound to go wrong on the night as it were. I guess the government producers of the 9/11 blockbuster show were hoping the audience wouldn’t notice. And it’s not just the BBC that seems to have got their story out of line with actual events; CNN apparently had the same problem. One wonders how the relatives and friends of the victims are going to react when the truth finally is revealed.


MORE FEAR-MONGERING GARBAGE FROM THE GARBAGE DISPENSERS AT RIGHT-WING ZIONIST HQ.

This piece from the Israel News Agency demonstrates the extent to which the Israeli propaganda machine is willing to go in order to spread their lies and deceit. It looks like the Iranians are going to take on the world – with the nukes they haven’t got. Didn’t we hear all this stuff about Iraq a few years ago? They must think the entire world is stupid.

27 comments:

Iain Hall said...

Damian
Why is the military of a state taking out members of an armed “resistance group” while they are in active conflict either murder or terrorism?
You really do believe all of this 9 11 conspiracy stuff don’t you?

Damian Lataan said...

Iain Hall, I don’t believe any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, least of all the one the US government have come up with.

The government’s story is far too simplistic and leaves gapping holes. There are far too many unanswered questions. As a pilot with over 40 years experience I know what it takes to navigate a sophisticated airliner hundreds of miles of airspace to a certain pinpoint destination, bring it down from 30 odd thousand feet to under a thousand and then accurately line it up to impact a target at full pelt. It takes skills that were well beyond the levels of the pilots that the government claimed was operating the aircraft; pilots who we know could barely fly a Cessna 172 around the circuit to the satisfaction of a flight instructor. Then there is the question of how the two impacted buildings fell vertically in to their own footprint, not to mention WTC7 which also fell perfectly into its own footprint without even being hit. And there is also the small problem of two TV stations announcing the collapse of WTC7 well before it did actually collapse. Then there is the problem of the engines that were said to have been burned by the fuel at the Pentagon crash. One day people will wake up to the reality that jet fuel doesn’t burn jet engines but, rather, jet engines burn jet fuel – and at considerably higher temperatures than free-burning spontaneously combusting jet fuel.

As I said many times before, I don’t know what did happen, but I do know what didn’t happen.

Now, you say: “Why is the military of a state taking out members of an armed “resistance group” while they are in active conflict either murder or terrorism?” I think you have things the wrong way round. The people the Israeli terrorists murdered were Palestinian fighters defending their lands against the Israeli invaders. At the time of the incident, it was the Israeli terrorists that attacked the Palestinian fighters on Palestinian lands. The Palestinians didn’t attack the Israeli terrorists; they merely tried to defended themselves against the Israeli terrorists and in the process one of the Israeli terrorists was injured.

Iain Hall said...

There are far too many unanswered questions. As a pilot with over 40 years experience I know what it takes to navigate a sophisticated airliner hundreds of miles of airspace to a certain pinpoint destination, bring it down from 30 odd thousand feet to under a thousand and then accurately line it up to impact a target at full pelt
And just what sort of aircraft do YOU have experience on? Frankly I thing you over estimate the task of flying a modern aircraft into a building, especially one as big as the WTC. It's not as if the principles are any different to fly a 767 or a Cessna and lets face it if you know how to program the auto pilot you would not NEED to be that flash as a pilot to do it any way.
How do you explain away the flight 93 where passengers stormed the cockpit and foiled the hijackers plans to crash into the capitol building?
Likewise How do you explain Osama’s claim of responsibility for 9/ 11?

The people the Israeli terrorists murdered were Palestinian fighters defending their lands against the Israeli invaders. At the time of the incident, it was the Israeli terrorists that attacked the Palestinian fighters on Palestinian lands. The Palestinians didn’t attack the Israeli terrorists; they merely tried to defended themselves against the Israeli terrorists and in the process one of the Israeli terrorists was injured.

Hang on a minute Damian
The other day you were claiming that as the indigenous people of the area that we should leave the Afghani’s to it and that we should accept their inalienable right to their land. The Jews have the most longstanding claim to the land of Israel predating the claims of Palestinians by many thousands of years at what point does the claim of an invader take precedence over that of an area’s indigenous people? Or is it Ok to dismiss a people’s claim to their ancestral homeland if they are Jew’s?

By the way you are welcome to adres me by my first name :o)we are all friends here.

Damian Lataan said...

Iain Hall, unless you have experience as a commercial pilot you would have no idea of what I was saying to you if I began to explain the difference to you between flying a Cessna 172 and a modern jet airliner. You’ll just have to take my word for it – or not.

With regards to your other queries, I have made my position clear. You either accept it or you don’t. It makes no difference to me one way or the other.

With regards to being on first names basis, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in any personal inter-actions with anybody via the blog.

Damian Lataan said...

About that so-called bin Laden 'confession'; see here:

http://911blimp.net/vid_fakeOsamaVideo.shtml

Iain Hall said...

Damian
I asked you to tell me what sort of planes that you have experience flying and you come back with this? I may not be a commercial pilot but I do understand enough about the physics of flying to know that you are talking crap here the controls of a jet airliner are essentially the same as those that you find in your Cessna 172 with a few more bells and whistles that will actually make the jet easier to fly than the Cessna. The 9 11 hijackers did not have to perform a landing or a takeoff; the most difficult maneuvers in flying They only had to make sure that the planes were at the right altitude and that they were aimed at the right place I bet that it would not be that hard to program the Autopilot to do that. Hell I have done it on a flight simulator on a PC and I have had no flight training at all so why do you think that even minimally trained Jihadists would have so much trouble? As a pilot of 40 years standing (with how many hours in what sort of aircraft?) you should have no trouble explaining yourself here. I’m sorry but one of my pet hates is the “trust me I’m an expert” line of argument which I why I’m pressing you on this point.

And I note that you have not even touched upon my other questions in my previous comment.

Finally why do you write a blog if you don’t want dialogue with the people who read what you write? I make a point of being civil to everyone and that is why I offered you the option of a discussion on a first name basis; reject my offer if your please but your refusal only makes you look bad mate.

Damian Lataan said...

Iain Hall, I have neither the time nor the inclination to answer your obfuscating nonsense. You have absolutely no idea about what is involved in flying a modern airliner if you think all there is to it is shoving the control yoke forward and steering to a target.

I do not divulge personal information about myself in order to satisfy people’s curiosity. You have had my opinions. Take it or leave it. I couldn’t care a less either way. I have much better things to do than waste my time with you.

Iain Hall said...

I do not divulge personal information about myself in order to satisfy people’s curiosity. You have had my opinions. Take it or leave it. I couldn’t care a less either way. I have much better things to do than waste my time with you.
I do not ask you these questions out of idle curiosity but because you claim 40 years flying experience (how old does that make you then? at least sixty I suppose) Now I would think that you do not have to divulge Any personal information to answer my question on this point, it is a technical matter after all.

But putting the flying thing to one side I would appreciate an answer to my comment about Israel;
The other day you were claiming that as the indigenous people of the area that we should leave the Afghani’s to it and that we should accept their inalienable right to their land. The Jews have the most longstanding claim to the land of Israel predating the claims of Palestinians by many thousands of years at what point does the claim of an invader take precedence over that of an area’s indigenous people? Or is it Ok to dismiss a people’s claim to their ancestral homeland if they are Jew’s?
This is entirely pertinent to your post and It saddens me that a chap who is so dedicated to the truth, as you claim to be, won't give me an answer to this.
Best wishes
Iain

Anonymous said...

He's in his late 50's - see blogger profile.

Damian Lataan said...

Iain Hall, if I say I've been flying aircraft for over forty years it means I've been flying aircraft for over forty years. Super simple. I have no interest in whether or not you accept that.

As for your other query, I have already given you my opinion. Again, I couldn't care less whether you accept it or not. I certainly won't be wasting my time with any further debate with you, I have many better things to do with my time.

Anonymous said...

So if Islamic terrorists weren't the pilots in 9/11, who were?

Was it all a Zionist plot?

Frank said...

Anon, Damian's response will be the same as always. e doesn't know WHO was flying the planes he just knows who WASN'T.

This absolves him from having to support his claims with evidence.

Terrence Valter said...

Frank, Iain,
Come on guys quit monstering Damian and enter some real debate.

Damian has always said he doesn't know exactly what happened but there are many important unanswered questions.

Can you address the issue Damian raised in his article, ie of the recently released BBC footage re building 7?

Anonymous said...

Refer to here for refutation of many of the WTC7 conspiracy theories: http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Can it not also be assumed that the BBC made a mistake? There are at least seven buildings making up the WTC site and it seems possible that the reporter made a mistake. Unless everyone else was making the same mistake (which would imply that someone was feeding them bad information) why not assume that the BBC made a mistake and every other news organisation on site which didn't report as the BBC did got it right?

Anonymous said...

Anon,
OK you can accept it as a mistake.
You can also accept the BBC saying,
"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). "

I guess you also accept that the fact their was a drill of planes attacking the wtc buildings being held at the same time as the attacks.

And you also accept the fact that there was also a drill being held in London on the day of the London bombings, the same stations at the same time.

Maybe you could even calculate the odds of these events and drills coinciding.

You may also accept those odds, and accept the official explanations.
I'm sorry I find these and the many other "coincidences" unbelievable.

Were you also a global warming skeptic over the last 10 years? If so, can you see how your acceptance of "official" explanations can be simply wrong.

Anonymous said...

Anon:

I think you'll find that the drill on the morning of 9/11 was not of planes flying into the WTC.

Then again, I shouldn't really be surprised that 9/11 conspiracy theorists twist the truth to support their claims.

Damian Lataan said...

Anonymous, you say: "I shouldn't really be surprised that 9/11 conspiracy theorists twist the truth to support their claims." That's putting it mildly! The government are still insisting on the lies they originally told us despite the many inconsistancies that have since been exposed.

If you belive their fairy stories then more fool you. The US government and their supporters have lied just about everything from who the hijackers were to Saddam Hussein being an immediate threat to the world.

The only people that are a threat to the world are Bush and the lunatics that continue to believe his lies.

Anonymous said...

Was Saddam an immediate threat to the world? No.

Was Sadaam Hussein a terorrist and a supporter of terrorism? Yes.

On this is seems we agree.

Regarding 9/11, I accept that you can only say what did NOT happen and are unable to suggest what DID happen. What remains a problem, though, is that such a position only takes us back to the beginning again, asking the questions 'what happened?'. You have no answer to that and I have offered none, either. The extensive conpiracy theories offered by films like those of Jones and others in the truth movement are just as full of holes as you claim the 'official' report to be.

Thus, we get nowhere. Do you think we will have to admit that no one will ever know what happened that day?

Terrence Valter said...

Anon,
From my perspective people like you seem to be able to see the trees, but not the forest.

Whilst you are correct in saying that the WTC was not the subject of the drill. You have wholly missed another point that shakes the credibility of your official reports.

"On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building."

Condi Rice said "I don't think anybody could have predicted…that they would try to use an airplane as a missile. Had this president known a plane would be used as a missile, he would have acted on it."

Here is a blatant official lie by the US admin, unless you somehow believe Condi did not know about the drill when she spoke.

In previous emails you have indicated that you are prepared to believe, and condone anything that comes from the side that you see as wearing the white hats. Considering this we have also agreed to disagree on 911.

The only reason I joined this discussion was because I was disappointed that someone like yourself, who is at least prepared to state where they stand, and what they believe, was part of an orchestrated attack on Damian by the other two chaps who only pretended to debate, and when asked to comment fell back on personal abuse.

Anonymous said...

Terrence,

As a former pilot, Damian will be well aware that planes hitting buildings is something that happens. Indeed, in building the WTC the architects took into account the possibility of a plane hitting the structure.

I see a difference, however, between a plane hitting a building and precipitating an emergency (which can be drilled for, at least to some extent) and a plane being used as a missile in the way Rice refers to in the WTC attacks.

A 'plane' striking a building could be a plane of any size. A light single engine, perhaps?

An airliner used as a missile in an attack on a building as in the 9/11 attacks is something very different.

I don't think this is a blatant lie. The context here is what is important.

Damian Lataan said...

Anonymous, what is far more important than knowing what actually did happen, is knowing the real reason as to why it happened and who was really responsible, both directly and indirectly, and what were the motives. Accepting that it didn’t happen the way the government has us told it happened is only the start of it. Once it is accepted that the government has lied about any part of their story the entire house of cards comes tumbling down and the next important questions are not so much ‘what’ happened but ‘who’ and ‘why’.

Given unlimited resources, orchestrating the events of 9/11 would be a reasonably easy task. Reducing the problem down to its essentials, all one needs to do is ensure that an aircraft crashes into a building and then do it three or four times simultaneously. There are a whole range of scenarios that could achieve this. All it takes is unlimited resources and imagination – neither of which is accessible to bin Laden or al Qaeda.

What happened beyond that, as I have said countless times before, I don’t know. But in the light of subsequent events, it becomes easier to understand the question of ‘who’ and ‘why’.

Anonymous said...

The standard you hold the goverment to is much higher than that which the various conspiracy theorists seem to be held to. There are numerous instances of people making wild claims which are able to be debunked in part. Does debunking part of a conspiracy theory render the entire notion wrong? Or just that part, just that mistake?

You suggest that once the government has been found to lie once then the whole house of cards comes down. Is this also true for alternate theories?

Damian Lataan said...

Anonymous, you ask: "You suggest that once the government has been found to lie once then the whole house of cards comes down. Is this also true for alternate theories?"

How can it be true for alternate theories? The government is a single entity. Remove a piece of its credibility related to their theory and the entity is discredited. The alternate theories are a myriad of entities; discrediting one doesn't mean the others are discredited.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question, I think we can look at a film like 'In Plane Sight' or 'Loose Change' and - if there is one mistake - then we can throw away the entire argument they make.

Would this seem right to you?

Damian Lataan said...

The films you refer to are simply a collection of entities gathered to produce documentaries which represent several ideas from several sources. A 'mistake' in one of those gathered entities discredits only that source for that entity; not the entire argument that either film makes.

Anonymous said...

The films are a gathering of arguments and evidence from a variety of different 'entities' or sources and presented as a single entity purporting to be fact.

The government story is a collection of arguments and evidence from a variety of witnesses and agencies and presented as a single entity puproting to be fact.

Damian Lataan said...

This is where we differ, anonymous.

The films are a collection of disjointed entities from various sources and the films in themselves are not entities as you assert; they are merely like a filing cabinet where those various entities are kept.

The government story on the other hand is presented as a single entity with each progressive part of the entity relying on the credibility of the previous or related part. Discredit one part of the entity and the credibility of all the other parts fall down whereas if one of the entities in the disjointed series of entities as portrayed in the films is discredited it does not mean that the remainder are also discredited. Each entity stands all falls on its own mmerit - unlike the story the government has told us.