UN official Richard Falk attacked by US gatekeepers for questioning 9/11 cover-up

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Prinnctopher's Belt, Jan 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/wa...cover+claims/4165149/story.html#ixzz1CZNeeeZW


    Despicable? Inflammatory rhetoric? A distasteful sideshow? Slanderous? Slurs?

    The aggressive stubbornness around deflecting away from the issue, that there is even a possibility that government officials could have been complicit in at least a cover-up following the attacks, is unbelievable and quite atrocious to me. There must be a lot to hide.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2011
  2. A1231988

    A1231988 Well-Known Member

    I have watched the documentaries that suggest a cover up, and I have thought about it a lot. I feel like there would have to be a huge amount of people involved in a cover up like that, and the fact that nobody has gotten a guilty conscience or anonymously leaked some information makes it seem unlikely. I feel like that would be such a huge risk for the government to take. What if they had gotten busted? The repercussions would have been incomprehensible.
     
  3. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    There are whistle blowers all over the place and have gone public. A 9/11 cover-up during the investigation, at the very least, is well substantiated, including the destructed information "Able Danger" had collected on Muhammad Atta prior to the attacks.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRAxnsay58
     
  4. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    There are no repercussions when no one is able to express a view about it that puts the 9/11 investigation's ultimate findings in doubt. That's why this story is so significant, because this is a prime example that no one is to ever question it and be taken seriously, even a diplomat. And no one cares. It was a massive cover-up and nobody is allowed to bring it up in this country without being lacerated. This is the most outrageous thing I've seen this year so far.

    If there's no cover-up, then why are people being killed and threatened and politically hanged when they express any amount of doubt about whether there was a cover-up? This is unbelievable to me in 2011 that people believe word for word whatever the government tells them to say when it comes to 9/11, and anyone that questions it is demonized or perceived as some kind of lunatic.

    Did anyone ever read Orwell?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2011
  5. feathers

    feathers Well-Known Member

    Well, TBH, by saying there is a cover-up, you're insinuating there is US involvement in terrorism. I imagine they're not gonna be best pleased with that.
     
  6. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    True, but it's not like the US has never engaged in terrorism. It's well known that the CIA likes to play 'topple the government of small nations then install US friendly dictators'. Bay of Pigs to name the most famous incident.
     
  7. 1izombie

    1izombie Well-Known Member

    I have yet to find any convincing evidence to suggest anything remotely like what is suggested. And to be clear here the majority of the stuff thats coming out is poking (or trying to poke) holes into the official story and offer nothing up in the way of evidence thats not pure speculation and conjecture. There is little to no substance or facts to support their argument and what is offered as "facts" can easily be debunked. But unfortunately people have a knack for believing in bull shit as truth. Im not saying this is bull shit but i am saying there is plenty of evidence thats coming from reputable sources that debunks most if not all of the theories and yet it seems to be easily dismissed as being part of the conspiracy. One could easily interpret this as a conspiracy to hide the evidence and truth...lol... but more likely it's that people have already made there minds up and won't change there mind no matter what evidence is presented.
     
  8. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    It's not that people naively trust everything the government says. It's merely that most people have yet to be convinced that any such conspiracy took place. Assuming that doubters are foolish only makes them less likely to want to listen, which is precisely what a lot of these conspiracy theorists tend to do, much to their own detriment.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2011
  9. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Nothing remotely? That's an uninformed presumption to make. And "people have already made their minds up"? But not including yourself though, right? Everything you said, the same can be said about those who lack the curiosity to even consider a possibility that a cover-up existed.

    What does that have to do with the fact that a cover-up did occur? This is not a theory, it's not speculation, this is a fact. Huge sums of evidence was covered up and much more was omitted from the 9/11 Report, particularly that about Atta and his activities prior to the attacks. Anyone who denies this knows absolutely nothing about what the investigation contained and concluded. It's very easy to sit at a computer and tell someone online "oh you're an idiot durrr," instead of, not giving the benefit of the doubt, but educating yourself on the topic being questioned in the first place.

    Most of the people who have gone through debunking911.com and 911myths.com and the Popular Mechanics contributions that debunk theories that are easily discredited and based on unsubstantiated claims in the first place (and regurgitate those lines verbatim), they pay no attention to the other information, and most of them have never even seen the cover of the 9/11 Commission Report, much less know anything about what's in it. If evidence of a cover-up was or is so supposedly unconvincing, then why is there so much resistance by families, friends and colleagues of those who are murdered on 9/11, who so tirelessly are still waiting for answers and getting told nothing but to "shut up"? Why are so many people doubting what the government has told us regarding what happened before, during, and after 9/11?

    Why is there so much doubt, that facts which incriminate officials within the government were covered up? Even members of the 9/11 Commission themselves have even raised huge doubts about whether the information being given to them was true, and already publicly stated that information is being and was covered up before, during, and after the investigation.

    Sure, it's easy to debunk things that are nonsense anyway, such as theories about controlled demolition taking down the towers and there having been no planes, and a missile at the Pentagon or a "flyover" at the Pentagon. Sure it's easy to debunk those types of beliefs, because they're speculative, and disinformation in the first place. Why give those the time of day, and simply dismiss and refuse to consider aspects that are backed with substantial evidence and surrounded by suspiciously implausible coincidences?

    Who actually believes that there was no intelligence whatsoever and that no one knew about the attacks before they happened? The actual "loony" theory is that we could be attacked four times in under 80 minutes by a publicly known group of terrorists that intelligence agencies had been following and collecting information on for years, and everyone claims to have not known about it, or those who did know about it supposedly were "confused," and took no action. Unbelievable. An airborne terror attack scenario which NORAD had rehearsed dozens of times in the years before the attacks, happened, and it was, all of a sudden, completely "unknown of" and uninterrupted, and all the people involved (with the exception of Zacarias Moussaoui) were progressing all throughout the country unfettered, all the while being tagged and followed by agents from the FBI, CIA, and the Mossad.

    The system wasn't blinking red because no one knew about it and the attacks were such a "surprise" from a group of people who supposedly no one knew about; it was blinking red because seemingly groups of people within the intelligence and defense apparatus knew about it, were hunting it down, and everything within the power of the government, and several foreign intelligence agencies as well, everything in their power was done to actively prevent known plans for the attacks from being stopped. Everything in their power to facilitate the attacks to happen as planned was done, then covered their trails afterward so that everyone would believe it was actually just a big surprise, for which the establishment was very "unprepared." Please.

    Yes, people believe this because they naively believe what is popular in the media and that what the government tells them is true. And you're a history student. You should know the atrocities, propaganda, and lies that powerful and persuasive governments have committed in the past and what they're possible of doing. Because a government which legalized slavery of people based on their ethnic descent, and institutionalized overt racism of an entire ethnic group for centuries, a government that funded tyrants and established dictators for decades, couldn't possibly had been a participant in the murder of a couple thousand people in order to establish a political empire in the Middle East and absorb an in-demand and plentiful natural resource. The attacks were a violent catalyst to further a broad agenda that would have otherwise lacked a moral advantage that public anger and outcry, proceeding a national tragedy, would garner.

    It has never been published all (or even most, for that matter) of what exactly the CIA knew, what the FBI knew, what the State Department knew, the DIA and Defense Department knew, lies and blatant contradictions told under oath, discovered to have been lies, and miraculously, no one was held accountable -- and yet, there is not, was not, and never has been, a cover-up related to the 9/11 attacks? That is typical "we have never been at war with Eurasia" bullshit.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2011
  10. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    But anyway, there's already been a 9/11 thread and that doesn't need to be repeated.

    This is about the absurdity that a diplomat is being publicaly suppressed from expressing an opinion that has merit and at least is worthy of being considered for further serious investigation. Being condemned for simply raising questions and expressing doubts surrounding a series of conspicuously suspicious findings of the 9/11 Commission, their report, and information that has arisen since its publishing, is the beginning of an end to intellectual integrity in this country.
     
  11. 1izombie

    1izombie Well-Known Member

    One more thing, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the extraordinary evidence?
     
  12. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Yes, and as a history student I am also well aware of the profound stupidity that human beings are capable of. Given the incompetence of the Bush administration, and the all-around historical precedent for political and governmental ineptitude throughout human history, there is just as much basis for believing 9/11 was the result of system failure and hubris as there is that it was the result of willful consent.

    Just because the government has a well-documented history of shady dealings doesn't mean that every single act associated with it is in turn likely to be sketchy as well. There's a possibility, but I would need more than to be convinced.

    And again, you're tendency to imply that conspiracy doubters are willfully ignorant is counterproductive. People don't like to be made to feel stupid just because they don't believe what you do. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and most folks don't feel as if they've been given enough convincing evidence. It's not the people are stupid sheep - it's that most have no reason to assume there was government culpability.

    I myself admit to being suspicious about a lot of things, such as the failure of the 9/11 Commission to gather all the details concerning prior warnings, and the failure of officials to heed those warnings. But again, most of that can be attributed to ignorance, miscommunication (or lack there of), arrogance, and other failings of human nature. Only when a prominent official or group of officials confesses to the act directly - and provides irrefutable evidence that is not merely circumstantial - will I and most people be completely convinced.

    In any case, I agree that the reactions to Mr. Falk were exaggerated. But considering that he is explicitly accusing the US government of murdering it's own citizens, it's not surprising that people would react so defensively and angrily.
     
  13. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    It's not that I think anyone is stupid or less intelligent (I don't even think that was even implied in any way) because they don't believe this whole thing was a sham, it's that the response people who often agree with me get on this issue is that we are the "nutjobs" and lunatics who are dumb enough to believe something without any evidence, when it isn't so. That's an insult pretty much saying we have no critical thinking skills, and all of these insults and outright dismissals become thrown without even having the original issue investigated to find out whether or not there is any truth to it.

    Such as 1izombie, for example, who saw one (maybe a couple) lame unsubstantiated conspiracy theory be debunked, and presumes that any and all other aspects and perspectives that are affiliated with the idea of there having been a government conspiracy or even cover-up around the attacks, are also all lame and unsubstantiated, without even having investigating them himself to find out what evidence does exist and the credibility of its sources; a fallacy of fallibility by mere fundamental association. So of course the reaction toward people who have this type of demeaning behavior, is one that implies that, what you call, "conspiracy doubters" are stubborn and simply unwilling to even consider that something these, what you call, conspiracy theorists have to say is actually true and does have strong evidentiary support.

    And there is no way the guilty will incriminate themselves. They would have to be hunted down, indicted, and prosecuted, because they do have rights, one of those being protection against self-incrimination. They're still withholding evidence from the public about circumstances surrounding Kennedy's assassination until 2038 (but no cover-up there either though, right?), and you think for the sake of public assurance, people who were involved at high levels will come forward on their own will and intent and say "yep, I did it, and this is how." That's just an unrealistic expectation. Who's to say there's nothing being hidden now about 9/11 until 2099? Look at all the damning information about the military interventions and operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran that, without Wikileaks, the public would never have known. And you think if the government had something incriminating to hide about something on such a large scale as the 9/11 attacks, that they would actually opt for full disclosure? I don't know whether you think that's a reasonable belief or not, considering the circumstances, but I don't think so.

    We already know there's a cover-up, so a lot of evidence is being hidden, which is why there has to be another investigation (where many of those investigating are not at conflict of interest, unlike some members of the 9/11 Commission), to bring out the incriminating facts that they don't want us to see. We're lucky to have the small glimpse of proof of a cover-up that we do have now, thanks to a couple of military officers who put their careers on the line to blow whistles. How completely convinced can you realistically believe most people will be when you're not even allowed an independent investigation because you're automatically condemned and ridiculed, by the mainstream media and the government, simply for expressing a dissenting opinion, or attempting to distribute credible information that casts the government in a guilty light?

    Hell, even then they would pour out that same tired old line that "this is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory, lol," and people will believe it just as they do today. Hitler managed to persuade a lot of people that the truth was false too, and suppressed dissent against his and his regime's crimes; that doesn't mean he was right.

    So no, there is no aggressively offensive tactic taken by what you call conspiracy theorists (probably with the exception of Luke Rudowski and some other obnoxious "truthers"). As a matter of fact from my observations, I'd say the most aggressive nasty behavior is from what you call "conspiracy doubters," who are so eager to ridicule and demean them -- not the other way around. I know that whenever I bring up the topic to a crowd, I'm the first one to hear "don't tell me you're one of them nutjobs hahahaha" without any substantive discussion even having been exchanged, because they already have had it drilled into their heads that anyone who even brings up the subject is automatically to be ridiculed and dismissed, entirely regardless of what their position, their credentials, or the credibility of evidentiary support is, which they may introduce.

    Thus, we have what has befallen Dr. Falk, as well as others who share the general ideal he tried to express, even if we disagree on certain specifics within it. No, I don't think that conspiracy theorists are the antagonizers here; I think people who cast reasonable doubt on the 9/11 Report are among the most generally antagonized group of individuals in this country today. So I will have to respectfully agree to disagree on that particular matter.
     
  14. Kendle

    Kendle Well-Known Member

    Prinnctopher's Belt, I have to say that that was one of the best refutations I have ever read. It was non-inflammatory, non-derisive, and yet you still managed to get your point across in a very decisive manner. Hats off to you.

    If I were dead-set against the idea of the 9/11 coverup, I would be rethinking my position at this point. As it is, with my mind as yet undecided either way, I think I'll check into it a bit further, just to see. Thank you for inspiring me to do so.
     
  15. 1izombie

    1izombie Well-Known Member

    ......
     
  16. 1izombie

    1izombie Well-Known Member

    lol i have to say what you say here is exactly my feelings on this subject and as usual you say it far better than i could ever articulate myself.
     
  17. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    In your previous posts you asserted that individuals unwilling to accept the conspiracy are just believing everything the government tells them. That seemed to clearly imply that you perceive conspiracy doubters as being uncritical and naive. That sort of assumption is why both sides of the debate have such visceral hostility towards one another.

    In any case, I do agree - and never disagreed - with the fact that it works both ways. It's certainly lamentable that conspiracy theorists are slandered, as it is unfortunate that any individual faces insults and harassment for their beliefs. But anecdotally, I've observed many conspiracy theorists perpetuate the sort of sketchy and abrasive behavior that only perpetuates the public's dismissal of them.

    This seemed to be directed at Zombie, so I won't retort. However, it seems that he wants you to provide evidence, and has yet to be presented with what he feels is sufficiently convincing. But that is between you and him, and I won't speak on anyone else's behalf.

    It's not about the government incriminating itself. A conspiracy on the scale you're describing would require a considerable amount of people to be involved, and there is indeed a good probability that some individual somewhere would expose the plot. This has happened before, and would not be unprecedented nor unrealistic. They could do so anonymously (such as with Watergate) or through their guiltless association (such as Daniel Elsberg, who wasn't involved with the atrocities behind Vietnam but worked for the government and had access to the documents exposing it)

    Once again, you seem to be assuming that I being naively generous of our esteemed government. Believe me, I am not, and perhaps I am at fault for not making that clearer. But while I don't have great trust in government, I certainly am not willing to jump to the other extreme and conclude that every secretive thing it engages in is necessarily evil. Confidentially applies to both benign and malicious acts alike. Barring any obvious evidence, I must withhold judgement and can only speculate.

    I agree that there should be another investigation. But I fail to see that there is an obvious and large-scale cover-up. In my research on the subject, I have found plenty of books and documents publicly available, and many of those who provided them have not been persecuted or suffered any negative repercussions. Were there really such a plot, I doubt we'd know so much about how incompetently the government conducted itself in response to the warnings, or have access to these documents, many of which were publicly available.

    Once again, I must add that evidence of a deliberate cover-up is circumstantial. You make it seem as if it is obvious, but all I see is what could very well be the system failure that I spoke of previously. A failure in communication, in hubris, and in priority, which is not unprecedented nor unlikely, given the bureaucratic nature of the government and the ineptitude of those involved. The only proof of a deliberate cover-up would have to be some sort of confession or something along the lines of the Nixon tapes.

    There are numerous interconnected and public organizations compromising the broad "9/11 Truth Movement." You act as if these people have been persecuted into obscurity, yet they maintain many forums, websites, and even conferences. Do many people ridicule and and condemn them? Of course, for that is what is expected in a free and open society. People are free to disagree and behave nastily, however unfortunately uncivil it may be.

    The only people that get condemned as badly as Falk did, are those serving in a official capacity. The reasons for this would be obvious: you don't want someone working in or with government making extraordinary claims that directly accuse said government of mass murdering it's own people. This sentiment isn't unique to 9/11 conspiracies either, as propagating any such belief would be deemed unsuitable for the job.

    What Hitler did is inconsequential to the context of this discussion. And who is claiming that suppressing dissent means someone is right? People are opposed to the conspiracy theories simply because they don't believe them.

    Again, I agree that this is unfortunate. But while anecdotal evidence supports your view, anecdotal evidence supports my own as well. The fact is, both perspectives broadly include all sorts of people, including the otherwise abrasive types.

    I never said they were the antagonizers in the sense that they directly harassed or persecuted people. I said that they tended to treat disbelievers as foolish sheep, and that such a sentiment is precisely what pushes people away. I did not say that all conspiracy theorists, yourself included, are like this, but that it is an observable tendency among many of them, whether concerning 9/11 or something else.
     
  18. Kendle

    Kendle Well-Known Member

    Maybe this thread has gotten a little off-topic? I know I'm interested in the debate, but I'd like to address something.

    This guy, Richard Falk, wrote something on his personal blog. Not in his professional capacity, but on his own, and now has people calling for him to not have his job anymore because of it. Is freedom of speech such a bygone thing?

    But maybe his comments were as horrible as his detractors say....that is a possibility. There are some things that people do in their personal lives that employers don't want to be associated with; I can understand that.

    So check out the blog in question http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/

    I see a man saying that conspiracy theories are fueled by secrecy and an unwillingness to acknowledge and address any doubts that have been raised concerning incidents like 9/11. I do not see him saying that the government killed it's own people. Nor that he thinks the government is evil, etc...he cites the lack of transparency as a contributing factor in the suspicions of the people, but is that enough to get him sacked from his job?

    I actually found his whole article to be insightful and well-written. The highlights that were quoted in the other article were only a small piece of the pie.
     
  19. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    You're right, this thread has digressed and I apologize to the OP and others for contributing to that.

    While his rhetoric was not conveyed within any official context, his public and administrative role leaves him limited as to what he can publicly say regardless of where and when he said it, especially if it can be interpreted as implicitly denigrating his own government. Expressing the belief that elements of his own government consented to the deaths of thousands and is trying to cover that up is essentially saying that the government was a willful accessory to mass murdering it's own citizens .

    In any case, however, I do not agree with the severe response he has received, and agree with PB that it is rather excessive. In any case, while people have been calling for him to step down or be removed, this has yet to happen, which may imply that other folks within the UN and US institutions disagree with the excessive charges.
     
  20. 1izombie

    1izombie Well-Known Member

    i think the reaction of the UN and others was overtly excessive in this case and the point i have failed to mention in any of my other posts is that Richard Falk is in a position where his opinion are intensely scrutinized as the UN is a multi nation organization and is a highly political environment so any miss step can be blown out of proportion, but to me, its not surprising that it was blown out of proportion considering what he stated/suggested (however benign it may have been) about 9/11. Look at this thread lol both sides are passionate about there convictions ...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.