• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been [W:3]

Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

No, no it really isn't. Ever here of radiation, for instance?

Thoreau won't/hasn't addressed the issue. He accepts it was a mini neutron bomb (Jeff Prager's ebook theory).

A tactical neutron bomb is a nuclear weapon that maximizes killing of people and minimizes damage to buildings and equipment The neutron bomb produces a minimal blast but releases large amounts of lethal radiation.

I asked Thoreau before to explain how what is known about neutron bombs radiation output fits into the known facts regarding 9/11. Bottom line it doesn't fit.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Your calling George Marshall a communist traitor? Senator McCarthy, there's someone hear to see you.....

Seeing as communism fell, your "the Second World War was supposed to spread communism" rings false. There were Soviet agents but no one could have predicted Hitler very, very, very nearly knocking out the USSR, knocking out the Wallies(with the exception of England) in a remarkably short time and then honoring a not very close alliance with Japan and declaring war on America.

The smart money was that the Japanese were going to attack the Phillippines. Nobody figured that Hawaii was going to be the target.

For a communist world domination plot it certainly didn't work that well

I couldn't help but ask that if the smart money was on the Philippines, for the initial Japanese surprise attack, rather than Pearl Harbor, then why was it so poorly prepared when the Japanese attacked on December 8, 1941?
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

I couldn't help but ask that if the smart money was on the Philippines, for the initial Japanese surprise attack, rather than Pearl Harbor, then why was it so poorly prepared when the Japanese attacked on December 8, 1941?

The Philippines? Because nobody took the Japanese seriously. We were overconfident.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

No, no it really isn't. Ever here of radiation, for instance?

Ever here of radiation, or ever there of radiation?

Here, there, and everywhere. :lol:
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

The Philippines? Because nobody took the Japanese seriously. We were overconfident.

Tigerace, lol... I encourage you to do some reading - you keep regurgitating 8th grade textbook myth. There are a lot of good books on these subjects - do you just have no interest in learning anything about the subject?? Or do you think you know it all already??

Roosevelt was determined to maneuver us into the war - even most lefty historians don't discount that. He repeatedly lied to the American people, and withheld information from and deceived the commanders at Pearl Harbor. Of course Lefties make excuses for this and rationalize that it was necessary - but that only serves to underscore the fact that was the game being played by the Roosevelt administration.

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

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/bionic-mosquito/the-pearl-harbor-myth/

From this book review by George Victor, a Roosevelt apologist:

- Twelve days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt surprised his advisors by saying that war with Japan was about to begin. Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary:

"The question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

- General George Marshall, in testimony to various tribunals after Pearl Harbor was clear, however:

He testified to a congressional committee that withholding vital information from commanders was routine practice.

Roosevelt had warnings of the coming attack. It was fortunate for Roosevelt that his political enemies did not know

…that [intelligence officers] had been reading the most confidential Japanese ciphers even before the attack, and that the Japanese war plans were no secret to American intelligence.

- The U.S. commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, were not forwarded relevant and important intelligence about the situation. This is confirmed by the intelligence officers both in Washington and in Hawaii. For example,

"[I – [Bratton]] never received a definite prohibition on [sending warnings] but every time that I tried to send a message of this sort, and the Navy found out about it, the Chief of Naval operations would call up the Chief of Staff on the telephone and object most vociferously and emphatically. He in turn would call [Miles] and object strenuously, and by the time it got to me…it was disapproval expressed in no uncertain terms…And I in each case would be instructed not to do it again."

- Finally, Victor outlines the messages from Tokyo to its Ambassadors in Washington known as #901 and #902. These were sent on December 6. Message #901 is known as the pilot message, outlining the upcoming message #902 (in fourteen parts) and steps to be taken by the diplomats when received. Importantly, message #902 was to be sent in English to ensure there were no delays by Washington to translate the message.

Based on this, a member of the army’s Signal Intelligence Service later wrote, “Shortly after midday on Saturday, December 6, 1941… [we] knew that war was as certain as death” and “it was known in our agency that Japan would surely attack us in the early afternoon the following day…Not an iota of doubt.” Early afternoon in Washington was early morning in Hawaii.

Administration officials claimed message #901 was not delivered to key officers until the next day. Bratton, however, testified that the messages were delivered that evening to most people on their list.

To Victor, there is no doubt that the administration took steps to provoke Japan and knew when and where Japan would attack. As noted, he makes no judgment on this beyond noting that this is what political leaders do.

"Events are poorly explained by making assumptions that crucial acts by competent, conscientious leaders were capricious, careless, or negligent. And U.S. leaders who figured in the Pearl Harbor disaster were highly competent and conscientious.

After Roosevelt stationed the fleet at Pearl Harbor, Commander McCollum wrote a memo for him, recommending its use as a lure. Roosevelt implemented the recommendation. Admiral Richardson concluded the administration use of the fleet endangered it gravely, and he argued the point over and over with his superiors. When he took measures to protect his fleet, Roosevelt relieved him. Stark then kept Kimmel uninformed of Japan’s plans to attack it at Pearl Harbor. And Marshall kept Short uninformed."

To most Americans, manipulating one’s nation into war is something done by foreign tyrants – not our own leaders. Since 1942 U.S. history has been distorted by the idea that presidents simply do not do what Roosevelt’s enemies said he did.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Ever here of radiation, or ever there of radiation?

Here, there, and everywhere. :lol:

Indeed. Of course, there's also the fact that that's not an answer
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Indeed. Of course, there's also the fact that that's not an answer

You missed the point, SpellerAce. ;)
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

You missed the point, SpellerAce. ;)

It's entirely the point. With no radiation, there's no nuke. No nuke, no case.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

It's entirely the point. With no radiation, there's no nuke. No nuke, no case.

There was radiation there, most likely the type that cannot be detected by ordinary Geiger Counters.

Can you prove that any branch of the government took air samples or radiation samples that day?
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

There was radiation there, most likely the type that cannot be detected by ordinary Geiger Counters.

Can you prove that any branch of the government took air samples or radiation samples that day?

What, ghost radiation?

If no government agency tested for radiation how do you know there was any there at all? Your making a WAG and trying to say "well, if they didn't test for it it must be there".

No, that's not how radiation works.

Does this undectectable radiation only kill people of a certain genetic type? After all, none of the first responders had the symptoms consistent with radiation poisoning, and people well within the theoretical fallout radius weren't affected either.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

There was radiation there, most likely the type that cannot be detected by ordinary Geiger Counters.

Can you prove that any branch of the government took air samples or radiation samples that day?

strawman question. You know the answer. Even if none were taken 9/11/2001 does that prove or not prove anything other than no samples were taken.

A better question is did any of the nuclear event detection systems pick any thing up that day?
 
Last edited:
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Well come on then, don't hold back. Do tell.

Because it is blatant historical in-your-face evidence that government-related conspiracies do exist, and that government-related inside-jobs do exist. Countries' governments all around the world over do it, and the United States is no exception.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Because it is blatant historical in-your-face evidence that government-related conspiracies do exist, and that government-related inside-jobs do exist. Countries' governments all around the world over do it, and the United States is no exception.

Except all of the extant examples were rejected.

All that proves is the government, when given the opportunity to actually commit some false-flag inside-jobby job will say oh hell no.

A friend of mine used to work for many years in a D.C. think-tank that specialized in military policy and consulted with the Pentagon as well as foreign governments. His particular specialty at the time was thermonuclear war. He got commissioned all the time to write some really scary :censored. Thing is, all of that ended up in the round file too, just like Northwoods and the dozen+ other anti-Castro roundfile specials.

Why?

Because these things are written to explore why they are bad ideas, not why they are good ones. There is usually more to be learned from a bad idea than a good one. Its just spit-balling put on paper. Only conspiracy theorists, who tend to be black-and-white thinkers really take it literally.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Except all of the extant examples were rejected.

All that proves is the government, when given the opportunity to actually commit some false-flag inside-jobby job will say oh hell no.

A friend of mine used to work for many years in a D.C. think-tank that specialized in military policy and consulted with the Pentagon as well as foreign governments. His particular specialty at the time was thermonuclear war. He got commissioned all the time to write some really scary :censored. Thing is, all of that ended up in the round file too, just like Northwoods and the dozen+ other anti-Castro roundfile specials.

Why?

Because these things are written to explore why they are bad ideas, not why they are good ones. There is usually more to be learned from a bad idea than a good one. Its just spit-balling put on paper. Only conspiracy theorists, who tend to be black-and-white thinkers really take it literally.

Reminds me of WarGames (movie 1983)

Global Thermal Nuclear War "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? "

You are correct that many militaries include the USA, play "what if" games and simulations. One way to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Except all of the extant examples were rejected.

All that proves is the government, when given the opportunity to actually commit some false-flag inside-jobby job will say oh hell no.

A friend of mine used to work for many years in a D.C. think-tank that specialized in military policy and consulted with the Pentagon as well as foreign governments. His particular specialty at the time was thermonuclear war. He got commissioned all the time to write some really scary :censored. Thing is, all of that ended up in the round file too, just like Northwoods and the dozen+ other anti-Castro roundfile specials.

Why?

Because these things are written to explore why they are bad ideas, not why they are good ones. There is usually more to be learned from a bad idea than a good one. Its just spit-balling put on paper. Only conspiracy theorists, who tend to be black-and-white thinkers really take it literally.

All you are doing in this entire post is appealing to authority, which itself does not exist.
"Your friend" is not an argument, either. My uncle works for the CIA. Does that make mine any more than your own? Nope.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

All you are doing in this entire post is appealing to authority, which itself does not exist.
"Your friend" is not an argument, either. My uncle works for the CIA. Does that make mine any more than your own? Nope.

Wow, really?

I can't appeal to authority if I don't even identify the individual or describe him as an authority now can I?

I was merely illustrating a point, which happens to be correct and which you can't refute. So now we get to this.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Wow, really?

I can't appeal to authority if I don't even identify the individual or describe him as an authority now can I?

I was merely illustrating a point, which happens to be correct and which you can't refute. So now we get to this.

And the fact of false-flags and conspiracies being a major unseen geopolitical element cannot be refuted either. :p
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Wow, really?

I can't appeal to authority if I don't even identify the individual or describe him as an authority now can I?

I was merely illustrating a point, which happens to be correct and which you can't refute. So now we get to this.

Your point appears to be that: because of the proof that conspiracies exist, this proves they do not.

How in the **** am I supposed to take you seriously?
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Your point appears to be that: because of the proof that conspiracies exist, this proves they do not.

How in the **** am I supposed to take you seriously?

Conspiracies do exist,... but that isn't the topic of discussion here.

The topic here is does Operation Northwoods provide proof the U.S. government engages in false-flag attacks?

Conspiracy theorists frequently claim that the existence of the Operation Northwoods document is "proof that the U.S. government commits false-flag / inside jobs, always ignoring completely the fact that Operation Northwoods was rejected.

It never happened.

I can not state it any more clearly than that. The only thing Operation Northwoods proves is that when given the option of a false flag / insude jobby-job the government comes to its senses and says thanks but no :censored way. To further drive home the obvious, just a few months after signing off on Northwoods, SecDef Lemnitzer lost his job.

Coincidence?

Now, unless you can explain with reasoned argument how an example of the U.S. federal government rejecting a false flag is proof that the U.S. conducts false flags I think this has gone about as far as it is going to go.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Conspiracies do exist,... but that isn't the topic of discussion here.

The topic here is does Operation Northwoods provide proof the U.S. government engages in false-flag attacks?

Conspiracy theorists frequently claim that the existence of the Operation Northwoods document is "proof that the U.S. government commits false-flag / inside jobs, always ignoring completely the fact that Operation Northwoods was rejected.

It never happened.

I can not state it any more clearly than that. The only thing Operation Northwoods proves is that when given the option of a false flag / insude jobby-job the government comes to its senses and says thanks but no :censored way. To further drive home the obvious, just a few months after signing off on Northwoods, SecDef Lemnitzer lost his job.

Coincidence?

Now, unless you can explain with reasoned argument how an example of the U.S. federal government rejecting a false flag is proof that the U.S. conducts false flags I think this has gone about as far as it is going to go.

But your whole argument collapses in on itself because, "Operation Northwoods provide proof the U.S. government engages in false-flag attacks"

Your words, not mine.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

But your whole argument collapses in on itself because, "Operation Northwoods provide proof the U.S. government engages in false-flag attacks"

Your words, not mine.

Then answer the challenge you ignored above - without cherry-picking:

Explain with reasoned argument how an example of the U.S. federal government rejecting a false flag is proof that the U.S. conducts false flags.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Northwoods proves that our military hierarchy have themselves considered using planes in such a way as a false flag. They didn't follow thru with it then, but it was sure brought up as a serious possibility.

Gladio and the '93 WTC Bombing are the best real world, tangible examples of the U.S. Government engaging in false flag activities that led to the deaths of innocent civilians. The '93 WTC Bombing was a one-off event, but Emad Salem's audio and video recordings are irrefutable proof. The government was also fully informed leading up to the Oklahoma City Bombing, as was proven during the Carol Howe trial.

Gladio on the other hand has a decades long record of supporting terrorism, and committing terrorist acts themselves. This is not in dispute as there has been enough irrefutable proof uncovered and court testimony to support it. At least 2 potential Gladio terrorists who agreed to testify against the apparatus they were part of were found hung in their jail cells, but Vincenzo Vinciguerra's case made it to trial as well as a few other public officials within the Italian government - all were found guilty, but only Vinciguerra ended up doing the time, as the NATO allies behind the terrorism whisked them off to safety and cheated their comeuppance.

Apologists for the government can't refute any of this, so they predictably resort to trying to drag the discussion into the mud.
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Northwoods proves that our military hierarchy have themselves considered using planes in such a way as a false flag. They didn't follow thru with it then, but it was sure brought up as a serious possibility.

Gladio and the '93 WTC Bombing are the best real world, tangible examples of the U.S. Government engaging in false flag activities that led to the deaths of innocent civilians. The '93 WTC Bombing was a one-off event, but Emad Salem's audio and video recordings are irrefutable proof. The government was also fully informed leading up to the Oklahoma City Bombing, as was proven during the Carol Howe trial.

Gladio on the other hand has a decades long record of supporting terrorism, and committing terrorist acts themselves. This is not in dispute as there has been enough irrefutable proof uncovered and court testimony to support it. At least 2 potential Gladio terrorists who agreed to testify against the apparatus they were part of were found hung in their jail cells, but Vincenzo Vinciguerra's case made it to trial as well as a few other public officials within the Italian government - all were found guilty, but only Vinciguerra ended up doing the time, as the NATO allies behind the terrorism whisked them off to safety and cheated their comeuppance.

Apologists for the government can't refute any of this, so they predictably resort to trying to drag the discussion into the mud.

So what does Operation Bojinka prove?
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

Northwoods proves that our military hierarchy have themselves considered using planes in such a way as a false flag. They didn't follow thru with it then, but it was sure brought up as a serious possibility.

Gladio and the '93 WTC Bombing are the best real world, tangible examples of the U.S. Government engaging in false flag activities that led to the deaths of innocent civilians. The '93 WTC Bombing was a one-off event, but Emad Salem's audio and video recordings are irrefutable proof. The government was also fully informed leading up to the Oklahoma City Bombing, as was proven during the Carol Howe trial.

Gladio on the other hand has a decades long record of supporting terrorism, and committing terrorist acts themselves. This is not in dispute as there has been enough irrefutable proof uncovered and court testimony to support it. At least 2 potential Gladio terrorists who agreed to testify against the apparatus they were part of were found hung in their jail cells, but Vincenzo Vinciguerra's case made it to trial as well as a few other public officials within the Italian government - all were found guilty, but only Vinciguerra ended up doing the time, as the NATO allies behind the terrorism whisked them off to safety and cheated their comeuppance.

Apologists for the government can't refute any of this, so they predictably resort to trying to drag the discussion into the mud.

So what does Operation Bojinka prove?

That you can't acknowledge the facts of Gladio and WTC '93 ;)
 
Re: How would the US foreign policy change, had US elites' complicity in 9/11 been pr

That you can't acknowledge the facts of Gladio and WTC '93 ;)

Your evading. I asked a simple question.

So what does Operation Bojinka prove?
 
Back
Top Bottom