Cork 9-11 truth conference

by Morgan - Irish 9/11 Truth Movement Sat Aug 20, 2005 04:08 info at 911truth dot ie Suite 212, 2A crawford Hall, Western Road, Cork. 0860505864

The New Pearl Harbour
Exploring Conflicting Interpretations of 9/11

Date: Saturday 12th November 2005
Venue: Boole IV UCC Cork Ireland.
Time: 10.00am-5.00pm (6 speakers see below)
Post Conference Panel: 6.30pm-8.00pm (6 foreign affairs spokespersons of six Irish political parties (subject to acceptance).

Ticket Price: €25 (Free admittance to ‘Truth Jamboree’ at Cork Opera House (Value €15) if ticket purchased before Sept 1st.)

Tickets available from:

1) the email address listed here by cheque payable to 'Morgan Stack' Suite 212, 2A Crawford Hall, Western Road, Cork or
2) by credit card from Syntethic Records (021) 4278282 2 Washington St Cork.
3) by cash transaction from PlugD records Washington St Cork.

---------------------------------------------------------

Daniel Hopsicker
Author, Journalist, TV producer.
Mad Cow Morning News www.madcowprod.com
Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 Cover Up in Florida
Florida, US.

Nafeez Mosadeq Ahmed
Director Institute of Policy Research & Development
www.globalresearch.org
The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked 9/11
Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq
London, England.

Phil Berg
Attorney for victims widow Ellen Mariani & fire-fighter Phil Rodriguez
MARIANI vs. BUSH, RODRIGUEZ vs. BUSH
www.911forthetruth.com
Philidelphia, US.

Webster Tarpley
Terrorism Historian
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography
www.tarpley.net
Washington D.C.

Mathias Brocker
Author: Facts, Forgeries and the Suppressed Evidence of 9/11
www.broeckers.com
Germany.

by Info 4 You Thu Sep 01, 2005 17:14

There is a lot of problems with what happened on 911. Don't be fooled, even if someone talks about how bad it was.
Some points I would like to make is:

Three (3) Buildings Fell on 911 in NYC.

WTC1 - Officially fell by fire.
WTC2 - Officially fell by fire.
WTC7 - Officially fell by fire.

Fire has not cause the complete collapsed of a steel frame building before or after 911.
Steel buildings DO NOT just fall.

911 was a Controlled Demolition.

The owner of the WTC complex admits in relating to WTC7 - "We made the decision to pull it, Then we watch the building fall"

BOMBS were planted in the building.
______

The highjackes are Patsy's.
Bin Laden is a Boogyman.
______

If anyone is talking about 911 you need to ask them 1)How many buildings fell? 2)how did they fall? and if the don't answer or ignore you question , Then Don't Trust Them.
_____

There is a Lot of question that need to be asked about 911.
The Internet has a lot of infomation and a lot of dis-information.
I just needed to post this cause some of those speakers at the Cork event are possibly DISINFO Gatekeepers.
Talking about how America had prior warnings, or how Islam fundamentals ate pork and other stuff like that.
==============
And incase your wonding, Yes i'm a Conspiracy Nut.
We never went to the Moon.
Oswald was a Patsy.
The Sun is Hot.
===========


Goodbye everybody - I’ve got to go
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth

by 911 Info Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:11

Secert Evil Of 911

http://www.archive.org/download/SecretEvilOf911/SecretEvilOf911-80kb.wmv

by truth? Mon Sep 05, 2005 15:29

hey nfo 4 You,
just wondering which of the guests you think are speading DisInfo
?

I just needed to post this cause some of those speakers at the Cork event are possibly DISINFO Gatekeepers.
Talking about how America had prior warnings, or how Islam fundamentals ate pork and other stuff like that.

by Info on Disinfo Wed Sep 07, 2005 16:12

Fintan Dunne from Breakfornews.com has this list on his website.

http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm

I don't agree with all the list but some i would say "Yes they are Fakes"

The way i see 911 is:

1) Bombs were planted in the 3 building before 911
2) The planes were remote controlled
3) Something that hit the petagon was not a Jumbo
4) The same people that cover-up'ed the JFK murder also cover-up'ed 911

As for the Cork event the only one i would go for is Phil Berg cause he's talking about William Rodriguez - The only person that has not changed their story since being Live on TV on 911.

I don't care to much about Mohammed Atta cause he's a Patsy. Or how American forien policy is Why America was Attacked.

The Illuminati 'MIHOP' (Made It Happen On Purpose) in another step towards their 'NWO' (New World Order)

by Info on Disinfo Tue Sep 13, 2005 15:36

Phil Berg is talking about Phil Rodriguez - a Fire-fighter NOT William Rodriguez - The only person that has not changed their story since being Live on TV on 911.

by Badman Tue Sep 13, 2005 15:55

The above posters are fake 'truth seekers' the whole illuminati story is just a cover up designed to conceal the REAL truth of the New world order. The Lizards did it. If they didn't I challenge anybody to prove that they didn't (they can change their shape and have special powers by the way)

Boing, bonk, wibble.

by Shipsea Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:23

The person claiming to believe the 'illuminati' are responsible for 9/11 is most likely a troll. I have read through the information pack being circulated 911Truth and nowhere do they mention anything so silly.

by Camroc Wed Sep 14, 2005 18:30

Hello All.

Poster : Badman.
I can't make any sense of your post because the previous poster says
"The Illuminati 'MIHOP' (Made It Happen On Purpose) in another step towards their 'NWO' (New World Order)"
So that means the group creating a NEW WORLD ORDER is called the ILLUMINATI. If the ILLUMINATI are controlled by shape-shifting reptiles or Space aliens or shape-shifting reptiles from outer space or even Elite Blue-blooded families or the global bankers, I don't know, but what I accept is the ILLUMINATI are the one's creating the NEW WORLD ORDER.

Poster : Shipsea
Of course you can't read about the ILLUMINATI in the information pack being circulated about the 911Truth, because the disinfo agents control it. Just because you don’t see stars in the daylight does not mean they are not there.

I would defo recommend watching the video
Secert Evil Of 911 cause it opened my eyes.

http://www.archive.org/download/SecretEvilOf911/SecretEvilOf911-80kb.wmv

by Scale eile Wed Sep 14, 2005 18:39

If you look at the end of Badman's comment you will see "Boing, bonk, wibble." This should alert you to the fact that he is just being sarcastic.
Now you will have to excuse me, I have to go and shed my old skin.

by Badman Thu Sep 15, 2005 01:04

Consider the following facts.

The leaders of the most powerful nations on earth are openly invading poor countries and killing uncounted thousands of poor folk in order to exploit the resources of the world.

Rather than concentrating on this well known and very public atrocity, the 9-11 disinfo agents are trying to shift the focus of criticism onto highly tenous and preposterously unlikely conspiracy theories, involving disappearing planes, buildings being demolished in controlled explosions for no apparent reason in full view of every single person in the world without anybody noticing (bar themselves).

For a decent examination of how unsubstantiated the conspiracy stories are see popular mechanics examination of some of the more credible ones: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

(*note: the idea that popular mechanics and the various academics who they used in the study are 'in on the conspiracy' is fantastically implausible)

So, based on these observations, I think that any reasonable person would have to conclude that the 911 truth movement is actually a CIA disinformation campaign.

(* Note: I don't actually think this, nor have I any positive evidence to support it, however, it is a far superior theory and far more plausible than any of the theories put forward by the 911 conspiracy people and hence they should be happy to accept that I have proved them to be CIA disinfo agents)

by Camroc Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:44

1 ) Popular Mechanics Cites Hoaxes To Discredit 911 Truth
http://www.rense.com/general62/popp.htm

2) Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

3) Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

4) Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm

And from Popular Mechanics own website:
5) 9/11 Conspiracy Feedback
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/1249302.html

by Badman Fri Sep 16, 2005 14:07

1 ) false flag operation run by Mossad

2) this guy is a well known lizard.

3) Illuminati disinformation agent (run by cia naturally).

4) this guy's uncle has mossad connections.

5) the spelling patterns of these responses show that they must have been beamed from a spaceship.

by Shipsea Fri Sep 16, 2005 14:49

We now have three theories variously alleged to be conspiracies:

Conspiracy Theory 1.
That the 'conspiracy theorists' are really a CIA disinformation campaign aimed at distracting our attention from the realities of what the US and its allies are doing in Iraq etc etc. This is not working very well. Calling attention to US responsibility for 911 is calling more, not less, attention on what is happening as a consequence of 911. The 'War on Terror' would be completely undermined, if ths were proven.

Conspiracy Theory 2.
That 911 was a US organised event to create justification and international approval for what the US and its allies are now doing in Iraq etc etc. That their motives for doing so were access to oil, building the Afghani pipeline, establishing a regional presence etc etc. This, if true, has worked very well.

Conspiracy Theory 3.
That 19 hijackers of Saudi origin, orchestrated by the son of one Bush Senior's Saudi friends, hi-jacked 4 planes inside US territory and crashed them into various buildings including the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre - without let or hindrance, as my dear old Dad used to say - to teach us a lesson and punish us for our infidel ways. If this is true, this has not worked very well.

Pick your choose!

by Badman Fri Sep 16, 2005 15:46

We can add some flesh to the 3 conspiracy theories mentioned above.

1. By concentrating on the tenuous and the speculative and attempting to link these far-fetched with the political critique of US imperialism, the 9-11 conspiracy people are actively working to muddy the waters, discredit political opposition and present a confusing mishmash of conflicting accounts which encompass the most obviously barmy stuff imaginable. I refer you to the new world order / illuminati delusions above.

The association of political critiques with all manner of tenuous speculation damages the political critiques and distracts people from dealing with the very open, well known and time-honoured political tradition of imperialism in favour of a trip into the lands of paranoia and delusion.

Thus the CIA disinformation agents theory is plausible. Of course the disinformation is not entirely successful, but it doesn't have to be, all it is trying to do is to make opposition to the war appear to be a collection of lunatics to the casual observer. It has had some level of success in this.

2. This theory makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. The fact that the US government used the event to advance their agenda (correlation) does not mean they were responsible for it (causation). All governments always use all events to further their agenda if they can do so, we can not conclude that all events are the outcome of governmental conspiracies.

Furthermore, this theory suffers from the fact that it is utterly implausible when you look at the assumptions that are behind it.

* In order to explain the events of the day, all of the theories require hundreds of thousands of people to be in on it, from emergency personnel, to police, to doctors, to investigators, insurers, financiers, secret service, military, engineers, politicians and so on. Theories which rely on this many people keeping a secret are less plausible than the flying spaghetti monster.

* The 'conspirators' while apparently being capable of organising a plot of almost impossible complexity and sophistication (carrying out a controlled demolition live before the entire population of the world without anybody noticing) were incapable of planting a single bit of evidence of WMD in Iraq and were incapable of creating an 'official explanation' for the story that had anything to do with Iraq at all. surely if they were capable of such impossible feats, they would have put an effing Iraqi on the plane and spared themselves months of embarrassing failure to convince anybody of the link?

In short, theory 2 is delusional. To give it any weight in the absence of positive evidence is to part company with the reality based community.

3. The fact that an operation does not have its intended effects is hardly evidence that it couldn't have happened. In any case, the theory that the hijackers were motivated by islamic fundamentalism is actually given weight by the results of the atrocity. Islamic fundamentalism has been given a new lease of life by the Iraqi war and there is plenty of evidence that Bin Laden and co were consciously trying to entice the US into a war in the middle east for some time. The outcome of the bombings appears to have played into their hands quite nicely.

However, beyond the circumstancial evidence, the thing that separates this theory from the rest is that it has a vast quantity of positive evidence to support it.

* 4 planes were hijacked
* 3 were flown into high-profile buildings, 1 of which was a long-term target of islamic fundamentalists.
* There is no evidence to suggest that the identification of the hijackers as islamic fundamentalists (for which there is lots of evidence) is flawed.

by Shipsea Fri Sep 16, 2005 17:42

'If that was all we had to go on'

Each of the three propositons has good and 'bad' evidence to support/contradict it. The post above was meant to summarise the basic positions of each.

The 'illuminatii' thing is doubtless bonkers. But if there is any CIA disinformation plot, I'd suggest that this was one - to discredit the so-called conspiracy theorists. (Thus we have a 4th theory!) I saw someone trolling the 911 thread here the other day with rubbish like that - it was so clearly designed to discredit its own proposition it was laughable.

''The association of political critiques with all manner of tenuous speculation damages the political critiques and distracts people from dealing with the very open, well known and time-honoured political tradition of imperialism in favour of a trip into the lands of paranoia and delusion. ''

This perfectly describes the approach of the current Bush administration to the Muslim world. It's exactly the logic that has been used to create widespread support for the war on terror: a trip into the lands of paranoia and delusion about the Muslim threat. And dumb America is still on its knees before it.

'Thus the CIA disinformation agents theory is plausible. [See above] Of course the disinformation is not entirely successful, but it doesn't have to be, all it is trying to do is to make opposition to the war appear to be a collection of lunatics to the casual observer. It has had some level of success in this.'

I find this barmy. The 911 truth thing is doing more to expose the motives of the Bush adminsitration than anything else has done so far. As a CIA strategy, doesnt it strike you as implausible that they would use a strategy that draws such close attention to the very thing they are trying to divert your attention from? The CIA have much better ways and means of discrediting people. This is all a far cry from saying 911 truth theorists have proved their case. But there is definately a substantial dose of logic in the thrust of what they have to say. As for pods under planes etc, Christ! Who knows? As for Mohammad Atta was an experienced pilot capable of doing what he is accused of - equally, who knows? Also given that by their (US)own admission the alleged hijackers were all Saudi, why was Saudi Arabia exempted from 'axis of evil' status?

2.' This theory makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. The fact that the US government used the event to advance their agenda (correlation) does not mean they were responsible for it (causation). All governments always use all events to further their agenda if they can do so, we can not conclude that all events are the outcome of governmental conspiracies.'

Sure but there is hard evidence to show that this SAME group of people now prosecuting this war were openly saying that they needed an event like 911 to do exactly as they are doing - several years beforehand. In the meantime, you had the stolen presidential election to put them all in power so that they could do it. And from everything you have seen, do you think there is any doubt they would have a moral qualm about doing it? They are happily spending American lives in Iraq right now. Weve just seen them kill 100s of thousands of people in front of our eyes - Almost all of them entirely innocent . Surely you can agree that the claimed justification for doing this is the most idiotic conspiracy theory of all?

* In order to explain the events of the day, all of the theories require hundreds of thousands of people to be in on it, from emergency personnel, to police, to doctors, to investigators, insurers, financiers, secret service, military, engineers, politicians and so on. Theories which rely on this many people keeping a secret are less plausible than the flying spaghetti monster.'

I dont actually see why it would require so many people. How many did it take to fix the first (and probably second) US presidential election?

* The 'conspirators' while apparently being capable of organising a plot of almost impossible complexity and sophistication (carrying out a controlled demolition live before the entire population of the world without anybody noticing)

[but they didnotice - it's exactly what many people all over the world thought it looked like at the time]

were incapable of planting a single bit of evidence of WMD in Iraq and were incapable of creating an 'official explanation' for the story that had anything to do with Iraq at all.

Three things there: firstly, the US had no control over what they could and could not do in Iraq at the time. The situation was being very closely monitored by the UN and by a number of other major powers very hostile to the idea of war. They would have found it very difficult. Even their own weapons inspectors were coming out against it. Also, if they had found something, it would have had to have been presented for close scrutiny. Saddam was still in power - he could verify exactly where any WMD had come from. Thirdly, the WMD thing was always Blair's idea. The Americans were sucked into this foolish piece of subterfuge, originally wanting to go in there on the sole basis that Iraq was an evil regime. In other words to openly invade without any justification. The US got mired down in Blair's lie, because Blair knew he couldnt swing it past the British electorate any other way.

'surely if they were capable of such impossible feats, they would have put an effing Iraqi on the plane and spared themselves months of embarrassing failure to convince anybody of the link?'

The first order of the day after 911 was not Iraq, it was Afghanistan (and the urgently needed pipeline). And they did, immediately locate Bin Laden there. They were also talking generally about the 'axis of evil' and warning us that Afghanistan would not be their only target - just as they are saying now that Iran and Syria may well be next - not because those countries had anyone on the 911 hijacked planes (or are implicated directly in any other way in 911) but because they are part of the alleged axis of (oil owning/strategically important) evil. So it was with Iraq: 'We've dealt with those who are immediately 'responsible', the story goes, now we are moving on to those who might do something similar'. They blieved they had given the world enough reason to do anything they liked.

'Islamic fundamentalism has been given a new lease of life by the Iraqi war'

Exactly so - so when you say that the fact that the intended effect of any action doesnt occur, doesnt meant that it wasnt what was intended - this is surely an example of that pheonomeonon which the US had not factored in. They really thought theyd scare people into submission. What else could they mean with their idiotic 'shock and awe' campaign. Victims of their own gung ho rhetoric. The plan was to invade, frighten people into submission, secure the oil, and get out.

'there is plenty of evidence that Bin Laden and co were consciously trying to entice the US into a war in the middle east for some time. '

And who would benefit from a war in the region, exactly? The same people as are waging war now. There are a lot of unanswered questions about bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Not least of which was the trouble he gave the CLINTON adminstration. George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden have a lot in common: two feckless rich kids, whose Daddies, both oil barons, were best of buddies. We also know that the Bin Laden family were escorted calmly out of US territory after 911. Where is Osama Bin Laden? There is no question that if the US wanted to find him, they would have done so.

'The outcome of the bombings appears to have played into their hands quite nicely.'

Exactly - American hands.

'However, beyond the circumstancial evidence, the thing that separates this theory from the rest is that it has a vast quantity of positive evidence to support it. '

* 4 planes were hijacked
* 3 were flown into high-profile buildings, 1 of which was a long-term target of islamic fundamentalists.'

All of the theories have these hard facts in common.

The critical question is hijacked by whom?

The Afghnaisatn pipeline and Iraqi oil have been long-term targets of US and other oil interests.

* There is no evidence to suggest that the identification of the hijackers as islamic fundamentalists (for which there is lots of evidence) is flawed.'

There is no hard evidence to show who they were or what the were doing, either way. We should keep an open mind until comprehensive, verifiable evidence is given to us either way. For the moment though, the balance of evidence quite reasonably inclines many people to think the Bush administration's role in all of this is looking increasingly dodgy. You may incline the other way but it doesnt advance the cause of discovering the truth to be so confidently dismissive of a very plausible possibility.

by o as if Sat Sep 17, 2005 02:36

why would you do it?
Search around in your mind and find the macro-psychotic-meta-narrative bit that suggests things, and ask it to tell you....
"why would I organise 911?"

(((I am not responsible for any eejit hijacking planes or attempting to influence world history by any macro-psychotic-meta-narrative act. I'm just a writer)))

by Camroc Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:11

Sunday Tribune in Ireland, Sun Sept 4th 2005
http://www.rinf.com/news/sep-2005/61.html


Operation Pearl
http://news.phaseiii.org/article1115.html

by james - anti-work, socialise. party! Fri Oct 14, 2005 08:15

I still think its the lizard aliens.Although that said i've thought everything was the lizard aliens ever since my psylocibin fuelled V marathon in "91.

by kvm Wed Oct 19, 2005 17:50

There are a number of strange things that happened around 9/11. I got in a discussion with one theorist, and we got to talking aobut the role of nutters, who are planted to put forward looney ideas. In the course of this, I mentioned the idea that the moon landings never happened, it was all a film made in the Nevada desert. His eyes rolled over and it became clear that he believed in that one too.

This kind of nonsense does not help the important task of exposing what the intelligence agencies are really up to. From time to time I suspect the intelligence agencies dabble in this stuff to disseminate disinformation, but unfortunately, there are so many natural conspiracy freaks out there, they don't really need to. So when the agencies come out with real porkies, like that the mafia were behind the uranium smuggling to Iraq story, in order to cover up their own role, hardly anybody notices.

by Camroc Thu Oct 20, 2005 17:08

November 10, 2001 - President Bush Speaks to United Nations

G.W. Bush:
"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance
the cause of terror."

______

See the truth and the truth shall set you free
______

The collapse of WTC7 is the smoking gun.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

WTC7

by sean Sun Oct 23, 2005 02:06

have just heard that UCC have said they wont be letting the Conference happen in the college on the grounds of ''security' issues.

all sounds fishey to me.

by Camroc Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:11

Had a feeling that it would be cancelled the moment it was said that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives.