Sorry to interrupt...this will only take a moment.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
Because you have viewed at least a few articles now...
Can you give a small donation to keep us online?
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
The cost of keeping it running are considerable.
If you can spare a few dollars it would help us enormously.
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
×
×
Experimental Feature

Select 'Atmospheric Audio' from the Audio menu to add subtle background audio to certain portions of the article.

The Man Who Started the War

Article #228 • Written by Alan Bellows

In August of 1939, German forces were amassing along the Polish border in preparation to invade. Europe was still haunted by memories of the brutality of the first World War, and consequently the governments in the region were loathe to challenge the aggressive Nazis with military force. Most of Europe had looked the other way as the Nazis annexed portions of neighboring countries, but the leaders of France and Britain knew that an outright invasion of Poland must not be ignored. They pledged to rise to Poland's defense if necessary, placing the world a breath away from its second World War.

On the evening of 31 August 1939, as tensions in Europe approached the breaking point, there was an unusual broadcast from a radio station in Gleiwitz, Germany. Its broadcasts were momentarily silenced, followed by a hate-filled diatribe by a Polish-speaking man. He urged all Poles to take up arms, and to strike down any Germans who resist. When Gestapo officers arrived at the transmitter to investigate, they found the bullet-riddled body one of the alleged Polish attackers. In the morning there were reports of numerous other incidents of Polish aggression along the border. In response, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler issued his "final directive" to attack Poland, compelling the United Kingdom and France to declare war on Germany. Thus began World War 2. But it turns out that this incident at Gleiwitz-- blamed as the final provocation for the terrible war that followed-- was not quite what it seemed.

Hitler had long held the untermensch ("inferior people") of Poland in contempt, and in the preceding months he had delivered ferocious speeches making claims that Germans living in Poland were the subjects of terrible persecution. The Nazis were also bitter regarding a slice of land known as the "Polish Corridor," a narrow parcel which physically divided Germany into two parts. The League of Nations had given the land to Poland following World War 1 in order to grant them access to the sea. Hitler intended to invade this area as well as the rest of Poland, but he knew that attacking without clear justification would upset the citizens of his country and amplify the repercussions from other nations.

In August 1939, Nazi forces were already concentrating their soldiers and war-making machines along the Polish border in preparation for an all-out attack. In order to establish a pretense for invasion, Hitler had enlisted the assistance of Commander Heinrich Himmler of the Nazi SS. The commander conceptualized and set in motion a collection of deceptions designed to make war appear inevitable, an undertaking code-named Operation Himmler. But the task of executing the initial subterfuge ultimately fell to another SS officer named Alfred Naujocks.

On 31 August, in the hours before the attack on Gleiwitz radio station, Alfred Naujocks lingered in the shadow of its 380-foot broadcasting tower with a group of Nazi storm troopers. The men were awaiting the arrival of canned goods-- a Nazi codeword for expendable convicts. When the "goods" were delivered by SS agents, the unconscious man was hastily changed into Polish clothing and dumped outside the entrance. A doctor had administered a lethal injection before the prisoner was transported to the site, but it had yet to take full effect when he was riddled with pistol rounds on the ground outside the radio station.

With the more gruesome portion of their task behind them, Naujocks and his operatives entered the Gleiwitz radio station at about 8:00pm outfitted in Polish uniforms. The gaggle of men seized control of the equipment, shut down the regular signal, and powered up the emergency transmitter. The microphone was given to a Polish-speaking operative, who read a prepared speech about three minutes long, urging Poles to rise up and help in the invasion of Germany. At the end of the transmission, the officers fired their pistols repeatedly for the benefit of anyone who might be listening, and departed.

Image from TIME magazine, 25 September 1939
Image from TIME magazine, 25 September 1939

During the night a handful of other such incidents were executed elsewhere along the border, using other "canned goods" from German prisons to create the illusion that Polish soldiers were attacking German troops. The following day the bodies of the dead prisoners were presented to the press and to police as evidence of the Poles' organized aggression against the Nazis. Hitler addressed the German Army with artificial outrage:

"The Polish State has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and driven from their houses. A series of violations of the frontier, intolerable to a great Power, prove that Poland is no longer willing to respect the frontier of the Reich."In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to meet force with force from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and the vital rights of reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier, mindful of the great traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that he is a representative of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and our Reich!"

The German military attacked on that very morning, marking the official start of World War 2. The Russians also attacked Poland from the east, playing their part in a secret joint plot to conquer and divide Poland between the two Axis powers countries. Within a week of the attack Germany claimed victory over the Polish Corridor, and the Polish capital of Warsaw was captured in just over a month.

In November 1944 Alfred Naujocks deserted his post and surrendered himself to Allied forces. He was held as a suspected war criminal, and he spent the remaining few months of the war in detention. Six years after playing his part in the deceit at Gleiwitz he testified at the Nuremberg trials, where he retold the events of that world-changing evening in 1939:

"On or about 10 August 1939 the Chief of the Sipo and SD, Heydrich, personally ordered me to simulate an attack on the radio station near Gleiwitz, near the Polish border, and to make it appear that the attacking force consisted of Poles. Heydrich said: 'Actual proof of these attacks of the Poles is needed for the foreign press, as well as for German propaganda purposes.'""Heydrich said, 'In order to carry out this attack, report to Muller for "Canned Goods."' I did this and gave Muller instructions to deliver the man near the radio station. I received this man and had him laid down at the entrance to the station. He was alive, but he was completely unconscious. I tried to open his eyes. I could not recognize by his eyes that he was alive, only by his breathing."

"We seized the radio station as ordered, broadcast a speech of 3 to 4 minutes over an emergency transmitter, fired some pistol shots, and left."

Alfred Naujocks testifying at Nuremberg
Alfred Naujocks testifying at Nuremberg

After the Nuremberg trials were closed, Alfred Naujocks sold his story to the media and became a businessman in Hamburg. He was later suspected of participating in ODESSA-- an organized effort to smuggle SS officers out of the country to avoid prosecution-- but his guilt was never determined. He died in the 1960s, though there is some debate regarding the exact year of his death.

The secret history that he exposed to the world was disquieting indeed; his testimony revealed that the attack on Gleiwitz-- long thought to have triggered the largest armed conflict in history-- was a complete fabrication. In hindsight the deception is not very surprising, but in 1939 Germany, it was unthinkable that one's government might be capable of such a massive and misguided conspiracy. Because it was by his own hand that this deception was ultimately carried out, Alfred Naujocks has received a particularly grim moniker amongst many historians: he was The Man Who Started the War.

Article written by Alan Bellows, published on 01 November 2006. Alan is the founder/designer/head writer/managing editor of Damn Interesting.

Article design by Alan Bellows.
SHARE

More Information
Related Articles


79 Comments
hamburgler
Posted 01 November 2006 at 03:29 am

Though this is interesting, it is not new news. So called "false flag" operations such as this are being preformed at an alarming rate. Nearly every country in the world is guilty of these acts of terrorism. More interesting however is the fact that The Pentagon has formally declared psychological warfare on the American people by announcing it will engage in propaganda and indoctrination by using the Internet and media to "set the record straight" on the war on terror. Recent history clearly indicates this is just the latest outreach of an insipid brainwashing agenda that is totally unlawful and anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

In the past, the military or the government did not announce that they were planting surreptitious propaganda to target U.S. audiences, they did it secretly and for a very good reason - because it was and still is illegal.

But since George W. Bush, backed by his renegade legal advisors, officially announced the end of the Republic and the birth of the "decidership," he can arbitrarily create out of thin air, ignore, or amend any law he likes and to all intents and purposes is above the Constitution and has ascribed to himself total dictator power. The only thing that remains is, in his own words, to " catapult the propaganda ," in an attempt to legitimize his absolute rule and assure the blind obedience of the American people to his junta's future desecrations of foreign lands and the bill of rights at home.


Prince
Posted 01 November 2006 at 03:29 am

It would be very hard to pinpoint the cause of the war, one could say that Hitler started it, or even that it started with the way WW1 ended. Despite Naujocks being an SS and deserving of the hatred towards him, it is unfair to say that specifically he started 'The War'


Prince
Posted 01 November 2006 at 03:30 am

Damn You, Hamburgler, Mere seconds ahead of me! Foiled again!


LL
Posted 01 November 2006 at 05:32 am

Damn interesting! Still people here in America think this couldn't happen, and hasn't happened, to them. I have no proof, but I sure think our current executive branch is capable of it. We know they lied to start a war with Iraq. Did they also engineer 9/11 as many seem to think? I tend to doubt it, but I bet many Germans didn't think Hitler engineered the war with Poland either.


js305
Posted 01 November 2006 at 06:10 am

I did not know this was considered a political forum. That in itself is most (and damn) interesting. These kinds of comparisons are somewhat of a stretch and do not have much substance to support them.


another viewpoint
Posted 01 November 2006 at 06:45 am

...the unfortunate matter in this entire affair, is that Poland was just geographically in the wrong place at the wrong time. With Germans to the West and Russians to the East, Poland was simply used as a driveway to move troops and machines one direction or the other depending on the location of "the war front". When you're stuck in the middle, you get beat on by both sides.


mtuschmitty
Posted 01 November 2006 at 07:09 am

I have to agree with js305. Take your politically fueled supposition elsewhere.


Bolens
Posted 01 November 2006 at 07:14 am

Sorry, coming up for air. People are indoctrinated by the Pentagon? Yessiree, they have four American TV broadcasting companies to combat CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC. They have thousands of newspapers companies all across the nation to combat those guys at the New York Times and the rest of the yellow journalistic rags. NOT. As I read the article and that first sad post I was reminded of John Kerry, his recent verbal slip (and cover up rant).

Hitler would have no trouble getting disinformants today. He only has to look to the left. Now THEY are well trained, showing their disdain for America's military men and women more and more (unless an election cycle nears). Our wonderful military men and women are only "canned goods" to the liberals in our government. Treason is an understatement.


Chris
Posted 01 November 2006 at 08:30 am

another viewpoint said: "…the unfortunate matter in this entire affair, is that Poland was just geographically in the wrong place at the wrong time. When you're stuck in the middle, you get beat on by both sides."

When one is ready to pick a fight, it doesn't take much provocation. And the end results was their justification. I am sure deception continues to fuel the fires. Find those hot buttons. Remember the "killing babies and unplugging incubators?"


Shandooga
Posted 01 November 2006 at 09:17 am

Faked provocation for WW2--just like what Bush did when he framed Osama. http://www.wtc7.net


JimFeet
Posted 01 November 2006 at 09:45 am

It is unfortunate that political commentary inevitably has to take sides. I think the important lesson taught by stories such as this is that governments have in the past managed to convince large percentages of their populations of the righteousness of a particular cause -- even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is neither a liberal nor a conservative issue but one we all need to bear in mind regardless who is in power.

Democracy requires tolerance of differing views. However, when one's views reach the level of vitriolic diatribe we need to become especially vigilant.


schall1
Posted 01 November 2006 at 10:30 am

I am going to have to agree with Prince. World War I ended badly for the Germans, and one could argue that WWII was just an inevitable result of the failed reconstruction of Germany. Then again, Hitler was a mad man. Or was he only able to gain his power by unifying a Germany that lacked a military and was economically and politically devastated? How ever you see it, it is safe to say that Naujocks was not the cause, just an excuse.

The article was good though.


banana989
Posted 01 November 2006 at 11:00 am

I agree with mtuschmitty agreeing with js305 - please refrain from the politically motivated comments. I seriously doubt you will sway any of the DI readership.


Drakvil
Posted 01 November 2006 at 11:01 am

Naujocks wasn't the cause itself, he was the tool used by the cause. DI article, Alan.

I could really do without the vitriolic frothing at the mouth in the above comments - not that I support president shrub these days, but I am sick of it filtering into every corner of the web. It's getting hard to find a place to go to try and get a break from that.


HarleyHetz
Posted 01 November 2006 at 11:51 am

Drakvil said: "Naujocks wasn't the cause itself, he was the tool used by the cause. DI article, Alan.


I could really do without the vitriolic frothing at the mouth in the above comments - not that I support president shrub these days, but I am sick of it filtering into every corner of the web. It's getting hard to find a place to go to try and get a break from that."

Dig that!!

Now then, about the article and those who would be quick to point out that Naujocks wasn't the "cause" for the war. The article didn't say that he was, it proclaimed him as "The Man Who Started The War". This is very different from the "cause of the war". He was simply the individual that carried out the last act before it started. Just like Osama Bin Laden was the "Man Who Started The War" in Iraq, but he wasn't the "cause", he was only the catalyst, fuel on the fire, the straw that broke the camel's back, etc...
DI article Alan, nice work!!


lostindustrial
Posted 01 November 2006 at 12:04 pm

WMD anyone?


teamjimmyy
Posted 01 November 2006 at 12:15 pm

Drakvil said: "Naujocks wasn't the cause itself, he was the tool used by the cause. "

He definitely wasn't the cause, but the claim is that he started it. This could mean either that he caused it, or merely fired the opening salvo. This was the final event that really whipped up the German people into supporting an attack against Poland, thus starting the war.

Drakvil said: " could really do without the vitriolic frothing at the mouth in the above comments - not that I support president shrub these days, but I am sick of it filtering into every corner of the web. It's getting hard to find a place to go to try and get a break from that. "

Holy crap yes! I don't care which side you take, just please take that hatred somewhere else.


David Massat
Posted 01 November 2006 at 01:55 pm

HarleyHetz said:

Just like Osama Bin Laden was the "Man Who Started The War" in Iraq, but he wasn't the "cause", he was only the catalyst, fuel on the fire, the straw that broke the camel's back, etc…

Don't you mean the war in Afghanistan?


Rush
Posted 01 November 2006 at 02:14 pm

Think about this... Maybe the current administration is honorable and is doing best hey can with the information they have. Why must everything be a conspiracy? Personally, I don't wish to read anyone's political garbage. Don't like it, vote them out of office. If you don't vote, keep your sewer shut.

Vote next Tuesday


schall1
Posted 01 November 2006 at 02:33 pm

HarleyHetz said: "Dig that!!


Now then, about the article and those who would be quick to point out that Naujocks wasn't the "cause" for the war. The article didn't say that he was, it proclaimed him as "The Man Who Started The War". This is very different from the "cause of the war". He was simply the individual that carried out the last act before it started. Just like Osama Bin Laden was the "Man Who Started The War" in Iraq, but he wasn't the "cause", he was only the catalyst, fuel on the fire, the straw that broke the camel's back, etc…
DI article Alan, nice work!!"

That was kind of my point, he was a catalyst, not the cause. I guess that it depends on how you define the word "started" in the title.


sierra_club_sux
Posted 01 November 2006 at 03:32 pm

Bolens, you forgot Fox on your network list.
Shandooga, that website far-fetched. Rigging occupied buildings of that size for demolition without anyone knowing? No way.


Number12
Posted 01 November 2006 at 06:52 pm

"The Russians also attacked Poland from the east, playing their part in a secret joint plot to conquer and divide Poland between the two Axis powers."

Ummm... better check that sentence out, unless there's some definition of "Axis" I've not encountered before.

Otherwise, Damn Interesting!


Alan Bellows
Posted 01 November 2006 at 09:04 pm

Number12 said: "Ummm… better check that sentence out, unless there's some definition of "Axis" I've not encountered before."

D'oh, you're right. Russia was never part of the formal "Axis", even though they were originally in cahoots with the Nazis. It's fixed now... thanks.


DInterested
Posted 01 November 2006 at 10:57 pm

another viewpoint said: "… Poland was just geographically in the wrong place at the wrong time. "

Poland was not in the wrong place at the wrong time. Founded in 966AD, it existed as a nation before both Germany and Russia. Although its borders have since moved and even disappeared between 1795 and 1918, the Poles were always there (now the Polish borders are nearly where they were about 800 years ago).

A little known bit of 20th Century history:

In 1920 the Polish Army defeated an advancing Russian Red Army. As a reprisal by Stalin, thousands Polish officers were executed by the Soviets during WWII. Also, the Red Army remained inactive just across the Vistula River during the heroic but failed Warsaw Uprising (August 1 - October 2, 1944) allowing in tens of thousands of German re-enforcements.


Kao_Valin
Posted 02 November 2006 at 11:54 am

One thing you learn about the government, is that they lie to you. Personally I look at the way the twin towers fell and i thought there are plenty of reasons to think it was a controled demo. To say that "oh I would've seen some anonymous people walking around" is someone talking with a pink elephant in the room. People see things, but they dont care. They go about their days without thinking to much anymore. Especially when they are working :P. It seems very possible to me.

Also first hand firefighter reports of multiple explosions taking place and MIT analysis of the event really make you at least question what happened on that day.

Its not really political leftism to want the truth about what happened. In truth I dont trust the left or the right. What ever happened to wanting to be decent to our fellow man? Also I dont see anything wrong with discussion about politics so long as people present an argument rather than simply an opinion. Opinions about politics get annoying. Facts are what make things DI.


noway
Posted 02 November 2006 at 12:09 pm

Shandooga said: "Faked provocation for WW2–just like what Bush did when he framed Osama. http://www.wtc7.net"

atrophy of the brain at its finest


drewd
Posted 02 November 2006 at 02:26 pm

DI article, Alan, but, alas, some very uninteresting replies. Maybe the next great Internet invention will be an irrational political statement filter...or at least an irrelevant filter!


HiEv
Posted 02 November 2006 at 02:44 pm

Who needs disinformation campaigns anymore? If the comments here are any indication, lots of people manage to misinform themselves just fine. For example, Osama and Iraq have nothing to do with each other, and Saddam and Osama actually actively disliked each other. And the 9/11 conspiracy nuts? Yeesh... It would take thousands of accomplices to pull off what they claim and not one has come forward? And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with that conspiracy. Get real.

As for the article, many thanks. I'd never heard about this before. One thing I am curious about is about how long it took before the Allies found out about the deception? The article says it was six years later that Naujocks testified about it, but when was it first revealed? And how long was it suspected?


C#4Me
Posted 03 November 2006 at 05:44 am

Rush said: "Think about this… Maybe the current administration is honorable and is doing best hey can with the information they have. Why must everything be a conspiracy? Personally, I don't wish to read anyone's political garbage. Don't like it, vote them out of office. If you don't vote, keep your sewer shut.

Vote next Tuesday"

Many of us would love to vote, only thing is, only Americans are allowed to vote in the American Election.

In most countries, that’s fine, but the problem with American elections is, you have Red Neck Americans, voting in Red Neck Politicians that want to rule the whole world!!!

Democracy at it's finest... A small, unworldly (no clue about anything other then the US ), group of people vote in the most powerful government (read... most and biggest, guns) in the world, that dictate what is right and wrong to everyone else, and most dangerously...are willing to enforce it...


SneezeWhiz
Posted 03 November 2006 at 01:04 pm

How about calling Naujocks the "Man Who Began WWII?"

Ok, here's the political part:
History, in the long run, will probably refer to WWI and WWII as a single war, because it's hard to say where or when WWII actually began.
Hostilities were fully under way well before 1939 in the Pacific area, where Japan annexed Manchuria in 1931 and invaded China in 1937.
In the West, Russia dropped out of the war with Germany and Austria in 1918 and dissolved in a civil war which by 1919 had involved the US, Britain, Czechoslovakia and several other nations. Italy came in against Germany and Austria late, in 1915, and after a change in government in 1922 embarked upon military adventures throughout the 1930s.
The 1914-1918 war ended with a treaty in 1919, which spawned numerous little wars between Greece and Turkey, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Poland and Lithuania and the unsuccessful Russian invasion of Poland in 1920. Russia also reconquered territory lost in WWI during the 1920s and embarked on border wars with China and Japan throughout the two decades between the wars.
The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 brought about the lineup that was to take part in WWII, with Germany and Italy on one side and Americans, French, British and the Soviet Union on the other side.
The Great War of the 20th Century, or whatever it will be called, started out as the Monarchies against the Democracies (and Russia) during the first part, with Japan picking up pieces in the Pacific Ocean that were being dropped by Germany, then a 20-year truce heavily punctuated by smaller wars between countries that were all smaller combatants in the first war, then major hostilities were resumed with the reactionaries against the Democracies (and Russia) with Italy and Japan switching sides.

The one clear outcome of the 30-year war was that Liberal Democracy triumphed. Having been established in modern history only in the late 18th century, by the late 19th century it was considered only one player in the various schemes of social governance, and not completely successful at that.

Autocracy and authoritarianism, militaristic nationalism and nascent communism were all considered legitimate philosophies upon which to found society and public endeavor.

A lot of people thought that Democracy was whipped after WWI, and that it was on the way out, especially after Mussolini and Hitler came along. France did not cave in 1940, like a "bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys," a lot of the French thought they were on the wrong side at the beginning of WWII, and a lot more French, and British, and Americans, too, thought that democracy just wasn't worth fighting for, especially after the economic collapse of the 1930s.

The fact that the United States of America, in a total war, fighting two gigantic wars on opposites sides of the planet, not only fought back against the combined might of some of the largest industrial powers and most advanced societies in the world, but actually bought, lock, stock and barrel the greatest war the human race had ever seen and ended triumphant, standing like a colossus upon the ruins of the old world and was able to conduct national and local elections and conduct civil life that looked pretty much like peacetime (books on fly-fishing were being published!), was proof of the superiority of Liberal Democracy as the most advanced way to lead society.

The twenty-five years from D-Day, in 1944 to the Apollo 11 Moon Landing, in 1969, will probably be considered the peak of the history of the United States for a long time to come.

Look back at the wars of the 1600s for many of the founding influences of modern history, and look back at the epochs of time and where historians consider the dividing lines. Those lines are a generation wide.
The world before 1914 was one place and the world after 1945 was a very different place and the time between those dates, was, in the words of the old Spanish curse, "an interesting time to live."


Dave Group
Posted 03 November 2006 at 02:53 pm

For anyone making comparisons to the U.S. government, perhaps the destruction of the USS Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin incidents would be more appropriate.


Shandooga
Posted 03 November 2006 at 03:20 pm

Rush said: "Think about this… Maybe the current administration is honorable and is doing best hey can with the information they have. Why must everything be a conspiracy? Personally, I don't wish to read anyone's political garbage. Don't like it, vote them out of office. If you don't vote, keep your sewer shut.


Vote next Tuesday"

No one who A) defrauds an entire nation's election (twice) and then B) proceeds to start 2 wars based on C) a terror attack which he and his daddy's military friends engineered and faked (www.wtc7.net), and who D) subsequently changes laws against illegal acts of E) torture and F) domestic spying could be characterized as "honorable" by any sane person. Bad means always lead to bad ends. Any who say otherwise know that the truth can always be cleaned-up, covered up or ignored later. The masses need only believe the lie for a little while in order to enable said means to proceed.


Shandooga
Posted 03 November 2006 at 03:44 pm

Dave Group said: "For anyone making comparisons to the U.S. government, perhaps the destruction of the USS Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin incidents would be more appropriate."

Let's not forget Pearl Harbor...and whatever evil is next wrought by the harbingers of the "New World Order".


Shandooga
Posted 03 November 2006 at 04:41 pm

HiEv said: "And the 9/11 conspiracy nuts? Yeesh… It would take thousands of accomplices to pull off what they claim and not one has come forward? And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with that conspiracy. Get real."

When first I heard talk of bombs in the buildings, I didn't believe it. I didn't think it would have been necessary. I assumed *they* knew "Osama, et al" were coming (Osama having been publicly at the top of the FBI watchlist during the Clinton administration) and decided to turn a blind eye (Pearl Harbor-style). I have always had what I believed to be the lowest possible opinion of the American Government yet after viewing the evidence for controlled-demolition I have found more room on the bottom. Since you're so quick to associate the terms "conspiracy theorist" and "nuts" I encourage you to take a look at the evidence for yourself. Since you have achieved an accredited degree in psychology which has enabled you to easily diagnose mental disorders without an examination, please humor me --and don't worry--you won't catch "crazy" from considering these undeniable, easily verifiable facts.

Let's tally the events, shall we?

1) George H.W. Bush led the United States in the Gulf War against Sadaam Hussein and Iraq during which Sadaam launches scud missiles at Israel.

2) Sadaam Hussein did not die and was not as a result of the Gulf war.

3) Iraq was subsequently inspected for weapons of mass-destruction for the entire 8 years that GHWB was not president.

4) Sadaam Hussein ultimately dismissed the inspectors from the Iraq citing that they were "spying."

5) The 2000 presidential election was "won" in mysterious closed-door sessions of the Supreme Court by a son of George HW Bush under highly suspect circumstances involving another son of the same George HW Bush who happened to be simultaneously acting as governor of the same state in which critical voting "irregularities" took place.

6) Two planes crashed in New York a year later.

7) *Three* of the largest buildings in the country became the first steel-framed buildings in the history of the world to collapse due to "fire." A gaggle of video taped, first-hand testimony from NYC firemen and others who were in (and around) the towers that day who specifically cited secondary explosions is readily available at http://www.youtube.com and google video. Watched in the slow-motion, squibs, used in controlled detonations are clearly visible as the towers collapse.

8) the "Patriot Act" magically appears and is immediately foisted upon an fearful public as the solution stripping everyone of basic rights in the process.

9) the Warren Commission--I mean the 9/11 Commission report makes NO MENTION of the 3rd building (a 47-story office building). None whatsoever. The official explanation for all three collapses is "fire." All material evidence from all 3 buildings was shipped out of the country and recycled.

10) The roving finger of responsibility was soon pointed at the same Sadaam Hussein who didn't die in the Gulf War

11) War ensued in Iraq.

12) Sadaam Hussein was found

13) Evidence of WMDs was not found.

13) The rationale for the war has was magically changed to the supposed gassing of Iraqis 20 years earlier; Sadaam is put on trial for his life. Why not say "Oops! Sorry we murdered your sons and destroyed your country for nothing" and give him back the keys?

Wow. That's a lot of coincidences--if you're stupid. If you're smart (or "crazy") you know better.


SparkyTWP
Posted 03 November 2006 at 06:26 pm

It's pretty easy to mistake incompetence for coincidence. The government can't even keep a city from being flooded. It would be giving them much more credit than they deserve to say that they can pull anything like that off.

I don't want to respond to your whole post, because I know I won't be changing your mind, but one point stood out to me: The "squibs". I watched the videos on it and, well, I'm not impressed. It looked to me just like the compressed air from the collapse was blowing out dust or some other material on a lower floor. I'm just an engineer though, so feel free to ignore me.

I have yet to see any theory about the collapse offer anything that cannot definitively be proven by some other method. All I've seen so far are some coincidences being tied together and someone saying "OMG LOOK THIS CAN'T HAPPEN" and offering nothing more than ambiguous data at best.

And to respond to SneezeWhiz's (Great name BTW) post: America's victory in WWII had little to do with democracy and more to do with the fact that we were able to far outproduce anything Germany and Japan could make, and we had more resources. Remember the Soviet Union? The ones who fought the Germans more than we did? They were winning for the same reason. They were far from a liberal democracy. I will also say that the wrong side won World War I. If the Germans had won it, everyone would've been much better off.


sierra_club_sux
Posted 03 November 2006 at 06:27 pm

YouTube video... Now there's a reliable source...


davida
Posted 04 November 2006 at 09:36 am

Wow..too many negative comments for me. Here's one positive. My grandfather was Polish during WWII (not Jewish) and was captured and sent to a concentration camp in Germany. Being non-Jewish, he was put to work on a German farm (all the farmers were fighting I guess) and my future grandmother (who was German on the farm) fell in love with him, helped him escape, were underground in France for years and they came to America through legal means waving to the Statue of Liberty, had three kids (my mom being one of them), they worked very hard and made a life for a future generation, that'd be me. I'm thankful to experience freedom, the good and the bad.


HiEv
Posted 04 November 2006 at 03:51 pm

Shandooga said: "Since you're so quick to associate the terms "conspiracy theorist" and "nuts" I encourage you to take a look at the evidence for yourself. Since you have achieved an accredited degree in psychology which has enabled you to easily diagnose mental disorders without an examination, please humor me –and don't worry–you won't catch "crazy" from considering these undeniable, easily verifiable facts. "

I have looked at the facts a number of times. I note though that many of your "facts" are utterly irrelevant to proving a the 9/11 conspiracy that you espouse. For brevity, I'm removing most of the irrelevant points.

Shandooga said: "4) Sadaam Hussein ultimately dismissed the inspectors from the Iraq citing that they were "spying.""

And rightly so, because some of the inspectors were spys, and the US eventually admitted it when the story leaked. See here:

FAIR: Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

Amazing how they couldn't keep that secret, but they can keep a massive 9/11 "cover-up" a secret, eh? Or was this all "part of the plan"? In other words, is there is no evidence we can show that the US government sucks at cover-ups and secrecy, thus could never pull off anything as big as what the conspiracy theorists are claiming happened on 9/11?

Shandooga said: "5) The 2000 presidential election was "won" in mysterious closed-door sessions of the Supreme Court by a son of George HW Bush under highly suspect circumstances involving another son of the same George HW Bush who happened to be simultaneously acting as governor of the same state in which critical voting "irregularities" took place.

6) Two planes crashed in New York a year later."

And what do these "facts" have to do with each other? Is this a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, where because A happened before B you assume that A caused B? No, if I snap my fingers and then a car later honks its horn outside, that doesn't mean that I made the car honk by snapping my fingers. They're just two different things that happened, that's all. I agree that the outcome of the election wasn't particularly fair, but it's not so "mysterious" as you pretend it to be.

Shandooga said: "7) *Three* of the largest buildings in the country became the first steel-framed buildings in the history of the world to collapse due to "fire.""

This is a misrepresentation of the truth. Two of them were the first to ever get hit by large airplanes loaded with jet fuel, and it is the structural damage in combination with the fire that really led to the collapse. The third building was damaged by the collapse of the other two buildings, caught on fire, and again, it appears to have been the combination of structural damage and fire that caused its collapse as well.

Shandooga said: "A gaggle of video taped, first-hand testimony from NYC firemen and others who were in (and around) the towers that day who specifically cited secondary explosions is readily available at http://www.youtube.com and google video. Watched in the slow-motion, squibs, used in controlled detonations are clearly visible as the towers collapse."

Those "secondary explosions," if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, occurred when the planes hit, are most likely explained by the force of the impact being transmitted through the building and the explosion of jet fuel which forced massive amounts of air pressure down the elevator shaft which had been breeched on impact. The so-called "squibs" are easily explained by the pressure of the floors inside the building collapsing, pancaking down inside the steel frame, which caused enough air pressure to blow out windows. The collapse is not consistent with standard demolition either, which begins at the base and causes the whole building to lower as the parts at the base are destroyed. The WTC collapse began near the top around where the plane hit and continued downward, the exact opposite way a controlled demolition occurs. See the main image at the site below showing 2 WTC starting to collapse near the top and then read on:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Frankly speaking, it's a testament to the engineers that worked on the Twin Towers that they managed to withstand the impacts at all. They were engineered to withstand a strike only a fraction of the size. Planes of the size of the ones that hit the WTC simply didn't exist when it was built. It's not actually that surprising that they collapsed when you look at the damage done.

Shandooga said: "9) the Warren Commission–I mean the 9/11 Commission report makes NO MENTION of the 3rd building (a 47-story office building). None whatsoever."

Well, that's blatantly untrue. First of all, its collapse wasn't particularly relevent to the job of the commission. They had no real reason to investigate it.

Second of all, you're just flat wrong. The 3rd building, 7WTC, is both mentioned and depicted on page 284 of the 9/11 Commission Report. It's also mentioned on pages 311, 320, 322, 323, and possibly others (I just did a simple word search on "7 WTC".) But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story? Moving on...

Shandooga said: "The official explanation for all three collapses is "fire." All material evidence from all 3 buildings was shipped out of the country and recycled."

That's just part of the official explanation, and the debris was disposed of after it had been searched and inspected, mainly for bodies and information about the hijackers. Not one person doing the inspections reported anything suspicious about the collapse. And since we just talked about 7 WTC you can find the actual far less simplistic explanation of that collapse in the FEMA report here:

Wikipedia: 7 World Trade Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_WTC

Perhaps it's not entirely satisfying, but not knowing for sure what happened is not the same as evidence for a conspiracy. Heck, if there was a conspiracy to demolish 7 WTC, what was the point? That's a problem that most who propose the "controlled demolition" claims prefer to ignore.

Shandooga said: "Wow. That's a lot of coincidences–if you're stupid. If you're smart (or "crazy") you know better."

None of those were "coincidences," all you did was list various events. You didn't provide any evidence connecting them or evidence for a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings that couldn't be easily explained away. The rest was just supposition and innuendo. As far as evidence goes, that some pretty thin soup you're drinking there.

P.S. The number after 13 is 14. ;-)


Bolens
Posted 04 November 2006 at 07:59 pm

Thank you HiEv for the clarifications. Truth prevails!

And thank you Alan for another great article.


yohan
Posted 05 November 2006 at 04:27 am

Never mind all the political banter, I'm just glad we were able to catch Saddam before he could use his SS agents to fly planes into Pearl Harbor again.

If you look at the facts, we should really be thanking President Carter for that.


Shandooga
Posted 06 November 2006 at 03:03 am

Well, HiEv, I like how you openly admit to the spying in Iraq while turning a blind eye to it's implications.

1) WHY were they spying in Iraq? What a "coincidece" that the Bush family was "forced" to kill 600,000 Iraqi people to "bring justice" to Sadaam on account of the 148 people that he alegedly killed 20 years ago. Meanwhile Osama one man with no army and no house has not been found although 2 entire armies have been "searching" for him for 5 years.

Z) The towers were specifically built to resist impacts from jet planes and they did, otherwise they would have collapsed upon impact.

Y) When Bush's aide walked into that classroom and said "America is under attack", GWB continued to sit there and read to children for 20 minutes. He didn't ask for any details...not one word. His lips don't even move. Why? Because he already knew. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU-XodfXTao) Does his face looks like the face of a shocked person who is just learning of a national terror attack? He was so guilty he *had* to do something to make himself look innocent. So he gives himself a alibi and a thin veil of innocence by being seen reading to children in public on the very day of the first "terror" attack to strike American soil. You ate it up like a sucker.

1) listen to Bush tell you not to even listen to the "outrageous conspiracy theories" of people who would expose him, his daddy and his brothers... people who have the MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY and MEANS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw7_ltNhIEY&mode=related&search=

R) the jet fuel largely burned off in the initial explosion. The remainder of the building's contents would have consisted entirely of fire resistant materials in accordance with the fire code. There is insufficient fuel to explain heat needed for the collapse the way the warren commission -- I mean the 9/11 commission claims.

8) The buildings stairways and elevator shafts and were designed to starve a fire of oxygen rather than feed it. Dark smoke in the minutes before the collapse of each tower indicates the fires were burning in an oxygen-poor environment proving that the building cores had not been penetrated.

4) What happened to the buildings core? There were 47 reinforced steel columns at the center of both buildings. Even if the floors had "pancaked" *some* (if not all) of the core should still have been standing. The notion that the

"force of the impact being transmitted through the building and the explosion of jet fuel which forced massive amounts of air pressure down the elevator shaft which had been breeched on impact."

is pure nonsense.

B) There was insufficient damage to building 7 to warrant it's collapse. Firemen on the scene described hearing multiple explosions traveling up the height of the building.

9) How could the collapse of a 47 story building be irrelevant to the 9/11 commission and, if so, why do you say that they reported on it anyway? You must work for the media because you're contradicting yourself in an effort to make all my points 'go away' on a single pass.

&) Since the media has blacked-out all the first-hand testimony of the day, youtube is the only uncensored source for the videos of firemen on the scene describing multiple bombs in all the buildings. Watch the *all* videos and explain how *all* the lobby windows got broken (80 stories down) while some of the windows on the floors that got hit didn't break. Some videos even show thermite reactions during the collapse.

6) If there were enough collateral damage to building 7 from the collapse of the towers (which fell into teir own footprints) to warrant it's collapse (exactly in the fashion of a controlled demolition) then why didn't
building 6 fall? It was closer to tower 2 than building 7 was and directly between them.

61) Listen to the fireman on the scene (long after media scrub job) say "bomb in the building" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDNQHlyTgwk. Deny this too.

T) Listen to the explosion in his video (which was captured long after the plane impacts) as dust-covered people were using a pay phone to report that they were ok. Tell me it was faked like I know you can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDNQHlyTgwk

9) Listen to all this testimony of "another explosion, more smoke, more dust...a third explosion..."heavy duty explosion"... "like gunfire, then 3 booms" ... deny what the firemen said, c'mon, you're an American; I know you can do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskM&mode=related&search=

Q) I stand corrected; the number after 13 is 14. That proves that Bush never lied about anything. Well played. You're an American sucker born, bred and conditioned to believe the lie. I will go back and review the 9-11 report again. I searched for "WTC 7" in the mean time, however, consider this: Pearl Harbor was a lie, Vietnam was a lie, the Kennedy assassination was a lie. looking at all that has been done in the wake of 9-11 is there not probable cause to presume (even with no video evidence) that is is just the lastest in the series? Rest assured, it won't be the last; next time, they will have to go nuclear...and there will be a next time. Now excuse me while I go take my meds and change the aluminum foil on my head.

The great conspiracy...all the stuff you've never seen on tv.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QL-C_r6Axo&mode=related&search=

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kartM23I7hk&mode=related&search=

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b9-lnzoirs&mode=related&search=

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as-5ZXMBrI0&mode=related&search=

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlBNHb2jdjA&mode=related&search=

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0WtiwI1M0U&mode=related&search=

Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cxXaLZpXAE&mode=related&search=


Bolens
Posted 06 November 2006 at 04:41 am

Shandooga said: " Now excuse me while I go take my meds and change the aluminum foil on my head."

Now THAT I believe, given the evidence provided.


Shandooga
Posted 06 November 2006 at 08:45 am

Bolens said: "Now THAT I believe, given the evidence provided."

You are a battery.


Shandooga
Posted 06 November 2006 at 12:35 pm

sierra_club_sux said: "YouTube video… Now there's a reliable source…"

Ridicule is not evidence--but it is effective in preventing people from looking at evidence. You took the blue pill, didn't you?


Shandooga
Posted 06 November 2006 at 01:49 pm

Second of all, you're just flat wrong. The 3rd building, 7WTC, is both mentioned and depicted on page 284 of the 9/11 Commission Report. It's also mentioned on pages 311, 320, 322, 323, and possibly others (I just did a simple word search on "7 WTC".) But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?"

I reviewed the 9-11 report and I did find references under 7WTC. Nine in all five of which were passing references to the building and the command bunker therein the rest were in footnotes and served only to identify certain interviewees. There is still no NO MENTION OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7. NONE WHATSOEVER! (yes, I'm shouting). The depiction you cited was meaningless to the point of the discussion since it was as drawing of the entire group of buildings--including those that did not collapse. In it's tiresome 500+ page tirade, the 9-11 commission made no attempt to deal with the building's destruction and failed to even mention it.

Nice try, but you're not going to fool me so easily--I took the red pill. Did you think The Matrix was a work of fiction? If you did, then you're in it and you're a battery because you can't grasp the principles of a metaphor and you can't see any truth as long as there is a lie directly in front of your face.

I'd better go now, before the Department of Homeland "security" comes to "secure" me from people who live in caves halfway around the world. Vote Bush--dummy.


HiEv
Posted 06 November 2006 at 03:25 pm

Shandooga, I personally think Bush was has been the worst president in my lifetime, and possibly the worst in the last 100 years. The fact that I don't agree with your nutball conspiracy doesn't mean I'm a Bush supporter. Frankly, the evidence you strung together to come to the conclusion that I'm a Bush supporter is just about as good as your evidence for a conspiracy. That is to say, no good at all.

Frankly, if you were right then Bush is a freaking genius because he would have had to had amazing powers of foresight, planning, and the ability to pull it off without one single leak! We're talking about a project that would require demolition experts, suicidal pilots, nearly complete control of the media and all of the crash scene investigators, etc... That devastating problem with the conspiracy theory is entertainingly dealt with here:

PWoT: Did the U.S. government plan and execute the 9/11 attacks?
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that Bush planned things, and as your proof you refer to how he sat like a lump when he heard that a second plane had hit the WTC. If he had planned this in advance wouldn't he have jumped into action at that point instead of sitting in stunned silence? Many point to that incident as a sign of his incompetence. And you think he intentionally decided to do that?!?

Shandooga said: "How could the collapse of a 47 story building be irrelevant to the 9/11 commission and, if so, why do you say that they reported on it anyway? You must work for the media because you're contradicting yourself in an effort to make all my points 'go away' on a single pass."

Actually, if you had done the research you did in your later response it would have made perfect sense. I was addressing your point that "the 9/11 Commission report makes NO MENTION of the 3rd building (a 47-story office building). None whatsoever." That was entirely wrong and if you had bothered to check your claims you would have known that. The reason why I said it was irrelevant to the point of the commission, which was to figure out how the terrorist attack had occurred and prevent another one, is because it was only mentioned there in passing, as you later discovered yourself.

Still, it looks like you've closed your mind, and no amount of evidence will convince you it wasn't a conspiracy. Where others see incompetence, a lack of foresight, and simple explanations, you see genius, conspiracy, and complex explanations supported by the flimsiest of evidence. Occam's razor seems to be a concept you have shunned.

This debate is off topic here to begin with, and you aren't interested in considering that you might be wrong, so rather than deal with the rest of your misinformation I'll try to end this with a counterpoint to some of the videos you posted:

Google Video: Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561

Google Video: 9/11 Deniers Speak - Exposing the 9/11 "Truth" Movement and Loose Change
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147

Screw Loose Change
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
(see the Videos and Sources/Links sections for more videos and other information)

I don't expect you to actually look through any of that, but hopefully some of the other people here will.

Have a nice day and enjoy your delusion that everything has to be part of some "master plan."


Shandooga
Posted 06 November 2006 at 04:51 pm

Well HiEv: Here we go again.

Of course I don't believe GWB did it. He's the dumbest human ever to "graduate" from a college. Clearly he's a pawn on in his father's well-connected chess board--and he didn't look "stunned" to me. Don't change the facts either. If we are to believe the official story, he shouldn't have known anything about the planes because all his aide said was "America is under attack." There would have had to be some sort of exchange of details before any kind of reaction could be justified. He said nothing and was told no more and we all saw it.

George Herbert Walker Bush is the only man in the WORLD well-connected and wealthy enough to have pulled it off. If you believe Osama could have done it with 20 plane tickets and a few plastic knives but GHWB couldn't have done it with billions of dollars, an army, a few government iniders and one greedy real estate magnate than you single-handedly threaten to supplant the very definition of gullible.

Did you actually LOOK at any of the evidence? You didn't view a single video, did you? You have no idea what the contents are but, somehow, you feel that you'll go "crazy" if you look? WHY CAN'T YOU DISAGREE WITHOUT PLAYING THE "CRAZY" CARD? You're conditioned by the media to spout whatever they said and they nevery say CONSPIRACY with out saying NUT. Will you so freely be taken by such a lame ploy? Aren't you capable of seeing the most rudimentary patterns in human behavior? Do I spell LiK e a CraZy peRson!? DOes I be RITing lIKe a CrazY perSoN?!? Well, I do here but, clearly, it's for effect -- :-) Please resist the urge to take it out of context.

Still, it looks like you've closed your mind, and no amount of evidence will convince you it wasn't a conspiracy. Where others see incompetence, a lack of foresight, and simple explanations, you see genius, conspiracy, and complex explanations supported by the flimsiest of evidence. Occam's razor seems to be a concept you have shunned.

I heard the official story and I even believed some of it ...for a while. Once evidence began to surface I had the grapes to make the break from the comfort of the herd choosing to believe what the facts supported. The evidence is hardly flimsy and you wouldn't say that if you had exposed yourself to *any* of it.

You need to step away from the comfortable blanket of official lies and expose yourself to the thoughts of MIT engineers and others who really know their physics who have done this work.

You have been so manipulated by the media machine that you cannot even concieve of its existence. Sorry to break it to you but the forest IS the trees! It's pointless to continue a discussion with you --although I've enjoyed it :-) -- if you're not going to view ANY of the growing mountain of evidence against the opinion you've been handed. Somehow, I suspect that your reluctance to threaten your point of view stems from the unpleasant feeling that would result from realizing that you, personally, have been duped by the machine.

I reviewed the 9-11 report and honestly reported back my findings to you. I will look at some of the videos to which you have posted links, why don't you do the same? I expect I will find a bunch of rhetoric, subterfuge and ridicule because that's the only way the other side can "prove" this huge lie.

I'm quite convinced by the facts uncovered since 9-11 and the glaring omission of any talk of WTC 7, a 47-story office building that collapsed for NO GOOD REASON from the "official" 9-11 report. That fact alone is damning in my eyes.

The phrase "why does everything have to be part of a master plan" does not disprove the fact that something smells mighty bad in here. If you cannot fathom how 2 questionable elections, 2 unjustified wars, secret prisions, torture, domestic spying (and on and on) amount (at the very least) to probable cause to question the character of the current "president" then you are in a bad way, my friend.


noway
Posted 07 November 2006 at 08:07 am

You're both morons, but Shandooga is the bigger moron.


Shandooga
Posted 07 November 2006 at 08:17 am

SparkyTWP said: "It's pretty easy to mistake incompetence for coincidence. The government can't even keep a city from being flooded. It would be giving them much more credit than they deserve to say that they can pull anything like that off.

You assume that the government tried to prevent a city from flooding. The government had no interest in preventing a city from being flooded. If they had, not only would it not have happened, but it would not have taken THREE DAYS to respond. Can you even theorize a halfway acceptable excuse for taking THREE DAYS to respond to thousands of people sitting in a sports arena after the whole city flooded? Bush is on video responding to the statement "disaster within a disaster" by dismissively saying "we have what we need...." (or words to that effect) and nothing more was done. He didn't "care" until his poll numbers started to plummet and then he called a 50B corporate buffet, went out to New Orleans and lied until his ratings crisis slowed and New Orleans is still trashed.

You want to believe that racism is over with because the Matrix--I mean--the "free" media told you that it is. All the official stories are lies, every last one of them. They only admit the truth when DNA, photographic or video evidence is introduced and then they always find ONE person who was responsible for everything and drag him (or her) through a trial by press. Need a few names? Oswald, Lyndie England, Brownie, the FEMA director (I don't remember his name), Oliver North and I'm sure you can think of a few on your own. Then the media makes the whole thing "go away." But don't think about any of this because then you'll become a paranoid conspiracy theorist too.

I don't want to respond to your whole post, because I know I won't be changing your mind, but one point stood out to me: The "squibs". I watched the videos on it and, well, I'm not impressed. It looked to me just like the compressed air from the collapse was blowing out dust or some other material on a lower floor. I'm just an engineer though, so feel free to ignore me.

If that's what you see then that's what's there. You clearly have not done your homework and you must be a crappy engineer. I hope I never find my way into any building that you designed. Sorry to resort to ridicule but if you really were an engineer you would know what procedures *should* have been taken to investigate the unprecedented collapse of THREE OF THE LARGEST BUILDINGS IN WHOLE WIDE WORLD because of fire. You really should know better.

I have yet to see any theory about the collapse offer anything that cannot definitively be proven by some other method. All I've seen so far are some coincidences being tied together and someone saying "OMG LOOK THIS CAN'T HAPPEN" and offering nothing more than ambiguous data at best."

Oh yeah? View this all the way to the end and tell me you don't see iron-clad, proof positive photographic evidence of a the use of a shape-charge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH811hANp5k


Shandooga
Posted 07 November 2006 at 08:31 am

noway said: "You're both morons, but Shandooga is the bigger moron."

You are a battery.


HiEv
Posted 07 November 2006 at 12:41 pm

Shandooga said: "Did you actually LOOK at any of the evidence? You didn't view a single video, did you? You have no idea what the contents are but, somehow, you feel that you'll go "crazy" if you look? WHY CAN'T YOU DISAGREE WITHOUT PLAYING THE "CRAZY" CARD?"

That's a question you should be asking yourself. Review the record, I've done plenty of disagreement without playing the "crazy" card. Also, you're playing it now yourself for unjustified sympathy instead of making a real argument.

I've looked at tons of evidence from both sides. I've watched numerous of videos, I've read various websites, and I've had variations on this conversation a dozen times before. Please, don't tell me what I have or haven't done, when you really have no clue.

Shandooga said: "I reviewed the 9-11 report and honestly reported back my findings to you. I will look at some of the videos to which you have posted links, why don't you do the same? I expect I will find a bunch of rhetoric, subterfuge and ridicule because that's the only way the other side can "prove" this huge lie. "

Well, it's nice to see that you're going in with an open mind. ;-)

Shandooga said: "I'm quite convinced by the facts uncovered since 9-11 and the glaring omission of any talk of WTC 7, a 47-story office building that collapsed for NO GOOD REASON from the "official" 9-11 report. That fact alone is damning in my eyes."

The building was top-heavy, loaded with diesel fuel on the 5th floor for the emergency generators, severely structurally damaged on ten stories (that's a little over 20% of the floors,) and burned for hours without any intervention by firefighters, and you say there's no good reason for it to collapse? One wonders what you might consider a good reason.

Really, go read the FEMA and the more recent National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reports on 7 WTC's collapse. They're the ones who were in charge of investigating it, not the 9/11 Commission as you implied earlier.

NIST: Interim Report on WTC7 (PDF)
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

or for short see the "Collapse of WTC 7 - Working Hypothesis" section here:

NIST: Key Findings of NIST's June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm

Note that without the need for sabotage that, "The working hypothesis is consistent with all evidence currently held by NIST, including photographs and videos, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records." This is the proper use of Occam's Razor.

Shandooga said: "The phrase "why does everything have to be part of a master plan" does not disprove the fact that something smells mighty bad in here. If you cannot fathom how 2 questionable elections, 2 unjustified wars, secret prisions, torture, domestic spying (and on and on) amount (at the very least) to probable cause to question the character of the current "president" then you are in a bad way, my friend."

Last time I checked "smells bad" was not damning evidence. Yeah, the government has done some really despicable things in the name of fighting terror, but by your argument that somehow makes them guilty of just about every evil on the planet. That makes no sense. Neither does claiming that it makes them responsible for any/some/all evils that benefit them because then you're just making arbitrary decisions about what to blame them for. Just because some guy kicks puppies that does not mean he is guilty of some recent murder. Real evidence is not simply blaming bad people for bad things, it's tying them to the crime using objective evidence that rules out other explanations.

I'm sorry, but "the Bush government does bad things" is not proof of "the Bush government caused or knowingly allowed 9/11 to happen." Yes, they exploited the tragedy, but that does not constitute proof that they knowingly caused it in some way.


Shandooga
Posted 07 November 2006 at 03:00 pm

HiEv said: "That's a question you should be asking yourself. Review the record, I've done plenty of disagreement without playing the "crazy" card. Also, you're playing it now yourself for unjustified sympathy instead of making a real argument.

Neither my position nor person is in need of any sympathy. You played the "crazy" card. Everyone who believes that there is a massive conspiracy behind 9-11 is not necessarily suffering from some mental disorder. There is much compelling evidence but if you voted for him you are implicated in the crime and therefore have reason to go on choosing not to believe. Did you vote for him?

The building was top-heavy, loaded with diesel fuel on the 5th floor for the emergency generators, severely structurally damaged on ten stories (that's a little over 20% of the floors,) and burned for hours without any intervention by firefighters, and you say there's no good reason for it to collapse? One wonders what you might consider a good reason.

The towers were "overengineered" and could probably have sustained multiple impacts. Even the Empire State Building survived a plane strike (a B25, were you aware of this?). There are photographs of more than one live person standing in the holes made by the aircraft in at least one tower. Had the apocryphal power of jet fuel turned the place into a steel-melting (or weakening) inferno, live, apparently uninjured persons would not be able to stand directly in the holes anytime after the impact.

Really, go read the FEMA and the more recent National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reports on 7 WTC's collapse. They're the ones who were in charge of investigating it, not the 9/11 Commission as you implied earlier.

FEMA is neither impartial nor independent; I will never trust anything that comes out if this "government".

I bet you believe that the government mandate that cell-phone carriers allow people to take their numbers to a new carrier was done to "foster competition" or some crap like that. Now that you can't deny that they're listening to *all* of our phone calls *all* of the time, is it not obvious that the benefit of transferring cell phone numbers is that it's easier for the NSA (or whatever agency that was) to link phone numbers to individuals? Never thought of that, did you? Oops, time to change the foil.

or for short see the "Collapse of WTC 7 - Working Hypothesis" section here:

Pardon me for saying so, but a "working hypothesis" has no value to me at this stage. WHY WAS THE EVIDENCE DESTROYED before a final conclusion based upon the evidence could be ascertained? Don't shrug it off; answer it...and make it good.

Whatever structrural damage to WTC7 resulted from "debris" could not possibly have gone directly to the ENTIRE foundation at once! NO WAY! Whatever fires resulted could not possibly have come from any jet fuel and should have been put out by the sprinkler systems. This building housed a command bunker with bullet and bomb-proof windows. Why didn't it have working sprinkler systems?

"The working hypothesis is consistent with all evidence currently held by NIST, including photographs and videos, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records." This is the proper use of Occam's Razor.

Well, of course I'm compelled to disagree. No matter which story you accept, it's still a conspiracy. On the one hand 20 guys with boxcutters somehow prevented the mightiest, best equipped military the world has EVER seen from scrambling *any* jet fighters or from using the anti-aircraft measures that are installed in and around the pentagon. The alternative is that, an unnumbered team of authorized, well-equipped, well-connected individuals set it up and pulled it off with military precision. There's a reason that term exists.

Either way you have to accept that there was a conspiracy with a ringleader who cares nothing about human life. Why don't you want to believe that said ringleader is the person who has subsequently sent (another) 3,000+ "Americans" to their deaths in Iraq while killing an estimated 600,000 more Iraqis (guess what, Iraqis are people too) in the process. This is beside those killed in Afganistan and the secret prisions. Oh, and there's bound to be stuff we haven't even found about yet.

By the way, where are the flight data recorders from 4 jet planes? Before you say they were all destroyed in the buildings, remember that one plane went down in a field.

I'm sorry, but "the Bush government does bad things" is not proof of "the Bush government caused or knowingly allowed 9/11 to happen." Yes, they exploited the tragedy, but that does not constitute proof that they knowingly caused it in some way."

Ask yourself this question: looking at all they *have* done by exploiting 9/11, what would this presidency have been like if 9-11 didn't happen? Do you really believe that after stealing the election they would leave to chance whether some national tragedy would occur that would give them both adequate time and rationale to finish George Herbert Walker Bush's work from the Gulf war? Why can't you even see the glaring conflict of interest furnished by all this gratuitous nepotism?

The elimination of evidence to the standard you're holding out for was covered in the plans for this most sinister act. All the hard evidence was disposed of (OUT OF THE COUNTRY!) before it could be examined by anyone who might have reported honest findings. There still remains enough photographic, video, circumstantial and testimonial evidence to convict, and I say GUILTY! None are more blind than those who will not see.


kilranian
Posted 07 November 2006 at 09:48 pm

Can they lock comment threads? If so, IBTL.

I'd just like to point out that Shandooga believes in the Matrix.


Silverhill
Posted 07 November 2006 at 11:17 pm

Shandooga, take a Chill Pill (red or blue, whichever will do the more good).

Then, since you have shown that you are willing to reply to posts here, please consider replying to some of mine. (You don't want me feeling all lonely, do you? :-D )


Shandooga
Posted 08 November 2006 at 08:54 am

kilranian said: "Can they lock comment threads? If so, IBTL.


I'd just like to point out that Shandooga believes in the Matrix."

The Matrix is a metaphor for something that is quite real and no one can be told what it is. I have seen it for myself and I have a pocked full of red pills that very few people want.


Shandooga
Posted 08 November 2006 at 08:57 am

Silverhill said: "Shandooga, take a Chill Pill (red or blue, whichever will do the more good).


Then, since you have shown that you are willing to reply to posts here, please consider replying to some of mine. (You don't want me feeling all lonely, do you? :-D )"

You haven't made any posts to which I might reply. However, if you would like reply from me, just express an erroneous opinion about anything and I will be happy to provide you with a correction, the implications of which you will not want to accept. :-)


CptPicard
Posted 08 November 2006 at 09:25 am

Looks like the same stunt uncle Joe pulled off at the start of the Winter War in 1939. The Soviets claimed Finns had been firing artillery across the border, thus giving a pretext for the war.

Of course it was just propaganda for their own population, and nobody in the outside world believed any of it, fortunately...


Shandooga
Posted 08 November 2006 at 09:40 am

sierra_club_sux said: "Bolens, you forgot Fox on your network list.

Shandooga, that website far-fetched. Rigging occupied buildings of that size for demolition without anyone knowing? No way."

There was an unprecedented power-down of the entire WTC in the weeks prior to the "attack." There was a massive "security sweep" complete with bomb sniffing dogs (which were mysteriously pulled out early). The company responsible for this was directly connected to Marvin Bush. They had plenty of time to plan and prepare because they started immediatedly after George Bush senior *didn't* get re-elected.

Watch Rumsfeld say that a plane was "shot down." This clip has disappeared from mainstream media. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84

Don't forget Silverstein, the man who would have been (financially) destroyed by the towers if he hadn't destroyed them first. The towers were a money-losing venture because of reduced tennancy due to the fact that they couldn't (cost-effectively) be wired for high-speed internet (which didn't exist when they were built). Silverstein leased the entire complex for 99 years only seven weeks before the "attack." He immediately filed a 7.7B insurance claim based on his policy that specifically covered an "attack" of this nature. He claimed that each plane constituted a separate attack and ultimately settled for just over 2B. Listen to his vague explanation for the collapse of the 3rd building (speculated to have contained the command center for the demo team). Notice his use of a controlled demolition industry terminology, "pull."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ

Do the math: learn the truth.


Shandooga
Posted 08 November 2006 at 10:16 am

CptPicard said: "Looks like the same stunt uncle Joe pulled off at the start of the Winter War in 1939. The Soviets claimed Finns had been firing artillery across the border, thus giving a pretext for the war.


Of course it was just propaganda for their own population, and nobody in the outside world believed any of it, fortunately…"

Good observation. Lies are, generally, easier than the truth in every way. Lies, therefore, will always achieve mass exposure quickly because they are pushed. A lie, if not not pushed, lacks substance, and simply ceases to exist. The truth, on the other hand, tends to be stationary, quiet and permanent. Anyone who wants the truth will have to do the work to find it and sometimes figure it out too. Then, after the work is done, the implications of truth are often undesireable and/or painful.

People who have first heard the lie are loath to let it go because the alternative of a comfortable, secure lie is it's opposite: a painful and undesirable truth. Red pill, blue pill...get it?


Silverhill
Posted 08 November 2006 at 04:53 pm

Shandooga said: "You haven't made any posts to which I might reply.

I beg to differ. There are (potentially) answerable commentary & questions at the How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Atomic Spaceship, the Prepare for Ludicrous Speed, and the Monster Rogue Waves articles.

"However, if you would like reply from me, just express an erroneous opinion about anything and I will be happy to provide you with a correction, the implications of which you will not want to accept. :-)"

When you suppose that your "corrections" might be unacceptable, keep in mind the story of the pot and the kettle. Or the proverb about stones and glass houses. ;-)
(BTW, opinions are never erroneous. The reasons for holding an opinion might be.)
Awaiting your carefully considered, logical (not emotional) response(s)....


Tink
Posted 16 November 2006 at 12:47 am

Alan Bellows said:

In hindsight the deception is not very surprising, but in 1939 Germany, it was unthinkable that one's government might be capable of such a massive and misguided conspiracy.

Yep, to many in 2006, it still is.

Shandooga said: "There was an unprecedented power-down of the entire WTC in the weeks prior to the "attack." There was a massive "security sweep" complete with bomb sniffing dogs (which were mysteriously pulled out early). The company responsible for this was directly connected to Marvin Bush. They had plenty of time to plan and prepare because they started immediatedly after George Bush senior *didn't* get re-elected.///
Shandooga said: "Good observation. Lies are, generally, easier than the truth in every way. Lies, therefore, will always achieve mass exposure quickly because they are pushed. A lie, if not not pushed, lacks substance, and simply ceases to exist. The truth, on the other hand, tends to be stationary, quiet and permanent. Anyone who wants the truth will have to do the work to find it and sometimes figure it out too. Then, after the work is done, the implications of truth are often undesireable and/or painful.
People who have first heard the lie are loath to let it go because the alternative of a comfortable, secure lie is it's opposite: a painful and undesirable truth. Red pill, blue pill…get it?"...Do the math: learn the truth."

Well, well ,well, who would of thunk it, I agree with you. Heehee.
(I do think that if you tempered your comments without adding insult, you may get a more positive response.)
Personaly I suspect The Bush is a reincarnation of Hitler.
Now I seem to remember that you know Bible. For sure better than I. Just out of curiosity, & not trying to open a debate about this I wonder what do you and any one else thinks about the books of Revelation in regard to this administration compared to (bad quote of scripture following): The beast shall die, and rise again. (Hitler/Bushs' ) .
The son of the beast will come as a peacemaker, but create wars and death.
He will declare himself Godly and who do not worship him will perish...without the mark of the beast ...no buying or selling will be possible with out it (read barcodes/Gps; implant chips) a loaf of bread shall cost a days labor... etc. Oh and I've never seen matrix but do prefer the little blue pills. LOL


Desaparecido
Posted 28 November 2006 at 02:14 pm

Say! Do you think this 911 and anthrax attacks, homeland security, PATRIOT Act, Afghanistan and Iraq war all could be the same kind of deal?


ksuwildcatfan
Posted 18 December 2006 at 07:53 am

Shandooga said: "You are a battery."

What does it mean when he says someone is a battery? I don't get it. I am reminded of the Billy Joel song Angry Young Man:
There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

And there's always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes,
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks.
But his honor is pure and his courage as well,
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell-
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man.


JoJo
Posted 06 January 2007 at 07:27 pm

I don't doubt a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, but as I watched them fall, I wondered if they weren't "pulled" down. They should have taken a little bit longer to fall. What I wonder about is the Pentagon, and especially Flight 93. I remember United Air Flight 429 in 1994 when it went down outside of Aliquippa, Pa. The massive wreckage and the body parts, not to mention the huge fissure and hole that was created on impact. The scene of the crash of Flight 93 should have bore some kind of resemblance. It didn't even come close.


Jeffrey93
Posted 16 March 2007 at 11:45 am

Article:"In hindsight the deception is not very surprising, but in 1939 Germany, it was unthinkable that one's government might be capable of such a massive and misguided conspiracy."

You Yanks should take note of this line. The bigger the lie the more believable it is. Quite a few "events" have gone on in the last, oh...about 8 years that might be in an article similar to this one sometime down the road.

The largest conspiracies and lies that have occured throughout history known or not, if questioned, the response would be "Pffft....it's too big. Could never happen. It would get out somehow."

They started a war people! And it never got out until years later. And if this one man kept his trap shut...it might never have gotten out. And this was Nazi Germany, I'd tend to believe that people consider the U.S. slightly more powerful and therefore more 'able' to carry out something like this.

Not to say they have...just that they could.

My point? Small conspiracies aren't believable. They're too easy to figure out. HUGE conspiracies are hidden in their size. If you can start a major war based on fabrication, and get away with it until the actual guy that did it, not somebody that knew about it...the guy that DID it, blabs about it. You can do anything and have people believe what you want them to.

Elvis, JFK, 9/11, Pearl Harbour, Roswell, etc. They are all big enough to give merit to. Because 99% of the population will dismiss it as "too big" to be a conspiracy, which makes it the perfect one. A government official could come out tomorrow and say the CIA shot Kennedy....and nobody would believe him. That man could be speaking the truth based on facts he has seen and witnessed, but nobody would believe him. Perfect lie! One you don't have to defend!


troyboy
Posted 11 August 2008 at 12:09 am

I'm new to Damn Interesting and really love the articles, but I must say I'm disturbed that the majority of readers and commenters appear to be patriotic american's who sound just like I'm sure the German public sounded early in WW2.

Surely you have to be blind as a bat to not see that the US government is no different now in its use of propaganda as that of Nazi germany (or US WW2 or British WW2 for that matter).

Governments always have and always will manipulate the masses (ie uneducated or even just apathetic) by keeping them in a state of fear. We are just lucky today that we have "fairly" decent societies where the "left" or other social thinking types can express their concern at what the government says without being eradicated (see we are better than that :) )

People above are only voicing their opinions on what they see as a connection between the events in the story and current events.

Osama Bin Laden is a modern day Emmanuel Goldstein.


stholas
Posted 14 August 2008 at 01:56 pm

Not true troyboy. The majority of people posting here are highly informed people. Take it from me, I'm not an American. Shandooga is a bit of a religious nutcase, though. Been reading too much George Orwell.


JonnyC
Posted 27 November 2008 at 08:23 am

I'm interested in what Shandooga had to say there. However, and find his manner of expression much more astute than most that express an affiliation with such theories. Is Shandooga still a member here? If so, I would rather like to hear his opinion of Dr Steven Jones' thermite claims.


JonnyC
Posted 27 November 2008 at 08:26 am

Can I just add that the idea that hundreds of people would have to be involved in a 9/11 conspiracy, and that one must come forward is actually refuted by this article itself.

Why? Because there must have literally been hundreds of conspirators involved with this incident of 1939, and yet not one came forward - except for the core conspirator himself! The others all held their tongues.


ShowerRockGod
Posted 21 January 2009 at 01:51 pm

Good Lord you people with your conspiracies. Shandooga, just because you swallow someone elses kool-aid instead of the governments doesn't mean you're right. Let me know where you got your engineering degree and what lab you used when you were testing your conclusions and just maybe I'll take you off the crazy list. For all of you who think Bush stole the election, please by all means point me to some organizations that didn't declare Bush the winner. By last count about 35 seperate news organizations PLUS several recounts by the State of Florida verified that Bush got more votes. Not a WHOLE lot more, but even 1 is enough. 2004 is irrelevant, it wasn't even close. The only reason anyone has sour grapes about that race is their panties were still in a wad over 2000. The damn levees in New Orleans were a mediocre government project to begin with. So when these government built POS's burst, somehow we suprised or paranoid when their is a mediocre federal response. By the way, the federal response may have been poor, but the state response was incompetent dangerous and all but non-existant. Not suprising in the Big Easy where corrupt politicions have been entrenched for 50+ years. (Not that it means much but both the mayor and the governer were and still are Democrats. Talk about your ignorant masses.) JonnyC, the incident this article talks about was tiny compared to the 9/11 conspiracy. I doubt more than a dozen or so people needed to know anything about it to pull it off. So the argument still stands. Sure governments participate in cover-ups and propaganda, but if things are so freakin' bad here then how come you guys aren't in a forced labor camp or got a bullet in your skull. You think guys that can pull this off can't find you by your username and ip address. Or take down those youtube videos. Hell you give me the time and a few good determined friends and I could do it. Lastly


jeremy04
Posted 24 March 2010 at 02:12 am

Peace no war....


Frank G
Posted 24 March 2010 at 08:11 am

The man who deserved a Nobel Price,
Unfortunately, Simon Wiesenthal died in 2005, in honor of him this article.
Odessa

As early as 1947, Simon Wiesenthal began to identify escape routes used by Nazis to escape from Germany. The main route he discovered was from the small Bavarian town of Memmingen to Innsbruck, Austria. From there, it was possible to cross into Italy over the Brenner pass. Wiesenthal later learned the Nazis referred to this as the "B-B" route, from Bremen in Germany to the Italian port of Bari. He also knew that the fugitives had little or no difficulty obtaining false papers and seemed to have enough money available in their new home to establish comfortable new lives. Wiesenthal concluded a secret organization with substantial resources had to be involved in helping fugitive Nazis. The seeds of that project were planted before World War II ended.

By 1944 it was clear that the fortunes of war had turned against Nazi Germany. Many Germans began to anticipate defeat and to plan for that eventuality. On August 10, 1944, a secret meeting of top German industrialists and bankers was held at the Maison Rouge hotel in Strasbourg to devise a means of insuring a secure future for Nazis. Among those attending were coal tycoon Emil Kirdorf, Georg von Schnitzler of IG Farben, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, steel magnate, Fritz Thyssen, and banker Kurt von Schroeder.

The Nazis recognized that Germany's assets would fall into the hands of the rapidly approaching enemy if they were not transferred and hidden. The nation's wealth, much of it acquired through the plunder of the nations it invaded and the people the Nazis murdered, had to be transferred so they would be out of judicial reach, but accessible to fund a future movement to resurrect the party and build a new Reich. Leading Nazi officials also feared retribution from the Allies and, rather than face likely punishment for their war crimes, they decided to seek safe havens outside Germany, and beyond the reach of justice. According to the protocol from the meeting:

The party leadership is aware that, following the defeat of Germany, some of her best-known leaders may have to face trial as war criminals. Steps have therefore been taken to lodge the less prominent party leaders as "technical experts" in various German enterprises. The party is prepared to lend large sums of money to industrialists to enable every one of them to set up a secret post-war organization abroad, but as collateral it demands that the industrialists make available to it exisitng resources abroad, so that a strong German Reich may re-emerge after the defeat.....

The outcome of the meeting in Strasbourg was the genesis of an organization; one well-financed and well-organised, with the express purpose of helping fleeing Nazis escape justice. This organization was called the "Organization Der Ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen" ( "The Organization of former SS members) — better known as Odessa.

Wiesenthal learned of Odessa accidentally during conversations with a former member of German counter-espionage who he met during the Nuremberg trials.The source said the organization was set up in 1946 after many Nazis already had been imprisoned. Those in jail contacted friends and aid committees that had been established to promote the welfare of prisoners. The assistance often went beyond humanitarian aid to abetting their escape.

In short order, Odessa, built a large and reliable network geared to achieve its ends, and began operations. Routes were mapped and contacts were established. Influential Nazis vanished as they were secretly ushered out of Germany and assisted in starting new lives under false names in foreign countries. At the end of the war, only a handful of high-ranking Nazi officials stood trial. Many who were guilty of war crimes escaped with the help of Odessa.

Some war criminals remained in Germany and took on new identities, managing to get themselves smuggled out of Germany and to freedom during the chaos at the end of hostilities. An underground network called "Die Spinne" (The Spider) supplied false papers and passports, safe houses, and contacts that could smuggle war criminals across the un-patrolled Swiss borders. Once into Switzerland, they moved on quickly to Italy, using what some called "The Monastery Route." Roman Catholic priests, especially Franciscans, helped Odessa move fugitives from one monastery to the next until they reached Rome. According to Wiesenthal, one Franciscan monastery, Via Sicilia in Rome, was virtually a transit station for Nazis, an arrangement made possible by a bishop from Graz named Alois Hudal. Wiesenthal speculates that the motive for most of the priests was what he viewed as a misguided notion of Christian charity. Once in Italy, the fugitives were out of danger, and many then dispersed around the globe.

Some countries may not have known about their new immigrants' pasts, but many did and chose to look the other way. Others, including the United States, looked to exploit the knowledge of Nazis. Fascist countries, such as Spain under Franco, as well as those in South America, became safe havens. The establishment of the state of Israel after World War II led some Arab nations to welcome Nazis who shared their hatred of the Jews in the hope they would use their experise in areas such as rocketry to tilt the balance in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Adolf Eichmann was one of the most notorious of the Nazis to escape Germany thanks to ODESSA, but he was eventually captured in South America by Israeli Intelligence agents and brought back to Israel to stand trial for his crimes against the Jewish people.

Sometimes you wonder the more criminal you are the more you get rewarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Wiesenthal

Frank G


Frank G
Posted 26 March 2010 at 09:40 am

I found an interesting article in the Dutch paper today and wanted to share it here with you.
We all know how the black Africans were highly discriminated for decades, and it seem now that the roles are turned around.
I wonder if in my life time we can achieve equal rights for all people whatever background or color they have.

Poor white community at Coronation Park recreation area in Johannesburg.

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa - The poor white community of Coronation Park in Johannesburg hit the headlines in South Africa recently when the community won a court case stopping their forced removal by the state. The state had claimed they where living in the park land without permission and where due to relocated them to state land however the communities lawyer argued that the land that had been set aside for them. Seventy poor white families live in the public park space with no running water or electricity. They receive no government support at all claiming that this is because they are white. The community relies on public food hand-outs, and NGO aid to survive. Many have been retrenched due to the affirmative action policies instigated by the post-apartheid South African government while others are disabled and can not find work. The controversial affirmative action policies was introduced after the end of white rule to allow black South African's equal opportunities in the work place. This led to thousands of whites loosing their jobs either directly or in-directly. Between 1997 and 2002 white unemployment had risen by 106 per cent and although an exact figure for the number of poor whites in South Africa is not available, there are over a million unemployed white South Africans.

Link to some pics, http://www.kimludbrook.com/photo-essays/coronation-park.html

We are not alone with a bad economy.

Frank G


Frank G
Posted 26 March 2010 at 02:07 pm

Mittymo
Posted 31 August 2013 at 01:36 pm

Stalin's worst fear was that he would become encircled by his fiercest enemies, Japan, Poland, & Germany. Therefore, he developed a Machiavellian plan to destabilize & weaken them for decades to come.

Russia was invited to join in the pact (instigated by Wm. Bullitt), wherein England & France pledged to protect Poland against German aggression, but Stalin feared that if the Soviets joined the coalition, it would probably discourage Hitler him from reclaiming the German territory ceded to Poland under the Treaty of Versailles.

A German-Soviet non-aggression pact, however, would give Hitler a free hand to reclaim those lands from Poland. Moreover, Stalin felt certain that England, as Poland's ally, would declare war on Germany, drag a reluctant France into the conflagration, and Italy would rush to Hitler's side.

“Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally in the interest of peace," to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents.”2 Josef Stalin, March 10, 1939, speech in Moscow.

Nikita Khrushchev said that Stalin considered war with Germany inevitable. But first, he wanted to see Germany debilitated by war with the West.

It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out.5 Josef Stalin, text of a speech Stalin delivered on August 19 to a closed session of the Political Bureau in Moscow, as published in the Swiss periodical Revue de droit international on August 25, 1939.

Even though FDR ordered our Navy to shoot at the Germans, they refused to fire back for fear of provoking war. Therefore, FDR turned his attention to progressively escalating provocations for Japan. Finally, FDR told Japan to get out of China, Indochina, & Manchuria, or else. And Japan knew what the "or else" meant. Japan was willing to do just about anything to stay out of war with America, including getting out of China & Indochina) but she had invested nearly a half-century of her blood & treasure in Manchuria (including a massive investment in the South Manchuria Railway). And the demand to abandon Manchuria (that the Soviets so dearly coveted) proved too great.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan

https://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=188

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930


Mittymo
Posted 31 August 2013 at 01:49 pm

Russia & Germany attacked Poland at nearly the same time. Hitler merely wanted Danzig & a tiny corridor linking Germany to Danzig, one of the territories forcibly taken from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. But to Russia, Poland was part of a worldwide plan for Communist domination.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScomintern.htm

However, Poland refused to negotiate with Germany because Britain & France had pledged to defend Poland. Britain's & France's foolish audacity may have been the result of FDR's secret promise to back them. (See Freedom Betrayed by Herbert Hoover.)

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005438

http://ww2memories.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/danzig-gdansk-and-the-start-of-ww2/

But Britain & France turned a blind eye to the Russian attack on Poland, and only declared war on Germany.

Later, Britain & France welcomed Russia as an ally in a supposed grand & just war to preserve freedom in Europe (see the Atlantic Charter). But Russia had forcibly taken over Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, & parts of Finland & Poland prior to the war and Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania & all of Poland after the war. (That's how economically backward Russia became the powerful Soviet Union.)

http://linnamuuseum.tartu.ee/?m=2&page=4&change_lang=en

"The experience of the last 20 years has shown that the Communist movement is not strong enough to seize power in peacetime. Sovietization can best be achieved through war." Josef Stalin, August 9, 1939. A few days later Germany & Russia signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact calling for the simultaneous invasion of Poland. (See Icebreaker," by Viktor Suvorov.)


Mittymo
Posted 31 August 2013 at 02:05 pm

The Soviets wanted to spread communism throughout the world, including Europe. Hitler saw England as a potential ally of Germany against the virulent & oftentimes violent spread of communism. See "Mein Kampf." Hitler was an avid fan of socialism, but he didn't want it to be dictated by, and directed from, the Kremlin.

Hitler had some misgivings about the French but did not view them as a potential threat to Germany, as the Soviets were.

Therefore, when England & France declared war on Germany, Hitler entreated them to reconsider. Moreover, Danzig was 90% German, & before France & England declared war on Germany, nearly 85% of the people of the world sympathized with Hitler with respect to the Danzig issue. But England & France refused to budge (as did Poland buoyed up by her new found supporters).

Therefore, France's & Britain's declaration of war on Germany appears to be a contrivance engineered by Stalin's secret agents of influence working within the governments of both Britain & the U.S.

See the Philby Group & "Stalin's Secret Agents," by Stan Evans & Herbert Romerstein.


Mittymo
Posted 31 August 2013 at 03:39 pm

Germany had a legitimate grievance against Poland over Danzig. So, it didn't need any pretense. When Poland refused to negotiate (as urged by both Britain & France & backed by their pledge of military backing), Hitler told the Poles what he intended to do.

As to the Soviets, perhaps they needed some sort of pretense, like the blowing up of the Battleship Maine or the sinking of the Lusitania. But the Soviets were so bold, aggressive, & in control of things, they didn't feel the need for any pretense.

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/worldwari/p/lusitania.htm


Mittymo
Posted 31 August 2013 at 03:48 pm

What if one day you peer into the mirror & see a censor staring back at you? Someone who's terrified of free & open debate & challenges to his own thinking.


END OF COMMENTS
Add Your Comment

Note: Your email address will not be published, shared, spammed, or otherwise mishandled. Anonymous comments are more likely to be held for moderation. You can optionally register or login.

You may use basic formatting HTML such as <i>, <b>, and <blockquote>.