Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Printable Version +- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora) +-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html) +--- Thread: Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... (/thread-6573.html) Pages:
1
2
|
Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Anthony Thorne - 02-06-2011 I've watched dozens of hours of documentaries on 9/11, and viewed an equal number of lectures and presentations by the usual suspects, but possibly none have had the same impact as this 10 minute piece by Tarpley (at his most convincing and affecting here) discussing various events that are detailed more thoroughly in his book. I could be wrong but I believe this is an excerpt from Gillian Norman's long teased / likely abandoned feature documentary SHADOWPLAY, which she first discussed over the phone with me from her Oz home some 4 or 5 years ago, maybe more. People who have seen Tarpley's other discussions should give this clip a try even if you're familiar with his other interviews, as there are details here that I've yet to see presented as clearly anywhere else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ja-W5LWVk Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Peter Lemkin - 02-06-2011 I hadn't seen that clip before, but have heard him address all that in others. It is a good short summary, I must admit...and shows just how frightening the whole even is and that the 'solution' must not end with [but only begin with] the details of what happened that day....for those that perpetrated it are certainly behind all of what we have seen since and see today. They, whoever they are are firmly in control and sucking the money and freedoms out of American and the world, day by day......:poketongue: Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Jan Klimkowski - 02-06-2011 Tarpley's analysis of Bush's body language during the notorious goat incident is plausible, even compelling. Bush as startled rabbit wondering whether he's next is certainly possible. The "Angel is next" story is also intriguing. However, its primary and secondary sources are highly problematic. Primary sources include Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney. Secondary sources include Mossad-run disinformation site, DEBKA, and the Original Mockingbird, Bob Woodward. I can hardly conceive of sources that I would consider more unreliable than that gaggle of psychopaths and propagandists. Here is some of that source material: Cheney: Quote:1.All times are Eastern Daylight Time. Sometime around 10:30, after the decision had already been made not to return to Washington, a reported threat to "Angel"-the code word for Air Force One-was widely disseminated in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) and aboard Air Force One. Notes from the morning indicate that Vice President Cheney informed President Bush in a phone conversation shortly after 10:30 that an anonymous threat had been phoned into the White House that was viewed as credible.At about the same time, news of the threat was conveyed on the air threat conference call. Rice: Quote:In an interview with Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday, National Security Advisor I found both these excerpts at: http://www.911myths.com/html/angel_is_next.html DEBKA: Here is DEBKA's hysterical article: Quote:Digital moles in White House? I interpret DEBKA's article as the crudest of propaganda, an especially stupid psyop claiming that Al Qaeda's cyber wizards had the capability to crack America's most secret codes. It is simply non-credible. WOODWARD: Quote:According to Bob Woodward's canonical mainstream account: "At about 10:30 AM' http://www.911myths.com/html/angel_is_next.html That last site also excerpts an article where Cheney later changes his account: Quote:Once airborne, Mr. Bush spoke again on a secure phone with Mr. Cheney, who relayed a new message that changed the president's mind, White House officials later said. The vice president urged Mr. Bush to postpone his return because, Mr. Cheney said, the government had received a specific threat that Air Force One itself had been targeted by terrorists. Mr. Cheney emphasized that the threat included a reference to what he called the secret code word for the presidential jet, "Angel," Mr. Bartlett said in an interview. So, my initial view is that: i) the original source material is tainted and untrustworthy; ii) however Cheney is on the record (fwiw) as telling Bush that Air Force One was in danger on 9/11 itself. DEBKA's hypothesis of Al Qaeda cyber hackers controlling American nuclear codes is a blatant false flag psyop. However, Tarpley's interpretation of the (tainted) evidence, namely that the true Sponsors of 9/11 were threatening the puppet POTUS personally, and Armageddon, is more plausible - if almost entirely speculative. I'd also like a source for Tarpley's claim in the interivew that, I paraphrase, "Tony Blair called Dubya Bush on 9/11 and told him to go on telly and blame Al Qaeda and Afghanistan". Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Peter Lemkin - 02-06-2011 Good digging Jan. Chaney is as likely in someways involved in some levels of the events of 911 than not IMHO. Rice would only be after the fact IMHO used by others who ran that op. I agree that the sources are all rather tainted, HOWEVER, some of the details spelled out in Tarpley [and others] writings of the movements and events of Bush's day on 911 are very strange, indeed. He apparently did not trust the 'Government' and ran like a frightened rabbit from one secure nuclear launch coordinating facility to another, before eventually returning to D.C. What he told the people and what he did there is not known, but he could well have been telling them [there is some shreds of evidence to this effect] to NOT launch any nukes without absolute proof the command came from him in person or by some other means of identifying it was him - and not others who had the codes for the day. It does seem that Bush was kept out of the loop and purposely frightened; at the school not given SS cover, as prescribed [and as Chaney got]. The 911 Commission, of course, didn't even touch this stuff - in fact they hardly touched what happened outside of the Government that day and only told the fairy tale version of events. It was an easy sell to Bush's single neuron that Al Quida had 'done it'. I'm sure he was convinced of it - despite its absurdity; not being supported by the available fact; and a Frankenstein creature of our own construction and funding. The COG events, the cover-up, the wargames, the stand-down and the Anthrax attacks [to name a few things] are key to understanding what really happened and that the official version and the truth only overlap in that they talk about the same day. Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Kyle Burnett - 02-06-2011 I've never been a fan of Tarpley because he throws around a lot of highly speculative arguments while phrasing them as fact, like his whole "the other thing this invisible government wanted Bush to do..." spiel starting about at about 6:45 in the video. That said, I've never bought into the notion that Bush was in on the conspiracy, and I'm always glad to see others looking past the bin Laden or Bush dichotomy. Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Lauren Johnson - 02-06-2011 FWIW, Tarpley repeats the story about Cheney being carried down to the war room. That "detail" only came out when glued on to the "fact" that he was in his office until just prior to the attack on the Pentagon. Two witnesses place him there much earlier tracking the plane and reiterating a standing order. Edit: one of the possibilities is that someone in the war room spread the rumor like someone in a CBOT trading pit. Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Tracy Riddle - 12-01-2014 I've watched several of Tarpley's recent videos on 9/11, and I think he does a better job than most in analyzing how an inside-job conspiracy would work. Here's an important section from his book Synthetic Terror: "Before we leave the moles, we must make one further important methodological point. Before the terrorist action occurs, the moles appear as embedded in a government bureaucracy which is resisting the new course which they wish to impose. After the fact, providing that the terrorist action has gone off successfully, the entire government seems to be made up exclusively of moles. Now the moles no longer appear isolated. In fact, the entire government is speaking the language which before the terror attack seemed to be the factional distinction of the moles, to the extent that they said anything. The government bureaucracy can be thought of as a gigantic freight train. With the successful terrorist act, a switch is turned, and the entire train goes rumbling in a new direction. The transformation achieved by a successful act of spectacular terrorism goes beyond what can be achieved by mere directives emanating from the office of the president or some cabinet secretary. Public opinion is shocked and stunned; the Congress is stampeded; the entire bureaucracy senses that the terrorist controllers have proven that it is they who are the strongest. After all, in Byzantine and neocon theory, law is an act of the will of the stronger over the weaker. The neocons regard a successful act of force as a valid act of legislation in that sense. The bureaucracy therefore inclines to the side of the plotters. Once the new policy has been institutionalized, every bureaucrat will attempt to defend it as a matter of self-preservation. Bureaucratic inertia will now adapt itself to the new party line. This is why, in retrospect, it looks as if the entire government is composed of nothing but moles. But this impression is misleading. It is not feasible for every high government official to be a witting party to the terrorist action. Some, of course, can be given a specific task on a need to know basis, and they may or may not be able to intuit the larger design in which they are a cog. Others need to know everything. But the fully witting participants will number in the hundreds, not the thousands. This is Machiavelli's most vehement advice in the chapter on conspiracies in The Discourses: keep the number of witting participants as low, limiting it if possible to oneself and at most one other person. In today's society that would be too few. Of course, after the fact, more officials figure out what is going on, and thus join the ranks of the witting. But it ought to be axiomatic that the entire command structure cannot be in on the secret; what if somebody objects to the planned operation, and has the courage to do something about it? This might become very embarrassing for the plotters. Those who persist in seeing the state apparatus as a whole, of the US command structure as a whole as being behind 9/11 face the problem of what to do about the Phoenix memorandum and the Minneapolis actions, followed by the Rowley whistleblower memo. Here were government officials who were subjectively opposed to the 9/11 operation, even if they were only able to express this opposition in regard to the patsy network with which they were dealing." Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Lauren Johnson - 13-01-2014 Quote:Once the new policy has been institutionalized, every bureaucrat will attempt to defend it as a matter of self-preservation. These two paragraphs beg the question just when the "new policy" was institutionalized. One could argue it came with WWII and that the policy has been defended under different guises ever since. 9/11 through this lens is seen as a new cold war reinvigorating old patterns of institutional and social behavior. Without 9/11 the US might have lost its way and had a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - Peter Lemkin - 13-01-2014 Lauren Johnson Wrote:Quote:Once the new policy has been institutionalized, every bureaucrat will attempt to defend it as a matter of self-preservation. To use the train switch analogy, I think there have been quite a number of switches made - all taking the 'train' in the same [and wrong] direction. To me, it is clear that secretly the American Military never stood-down following WWII. That is even pretty much on paper in a document I have somewhere, written to evaluate what the USA should do, after coming out of the War as the World's most powerful nation. Paraphrasing, it basically said that everything and anything should be done to assure that America maintains and controls that preeminent position. Which it has. Another 'switch' was thrown on 11/22/63; another with the assassination of Malcolm-X, MLK and then RFK; other switches thrown with many of the major and minor government overthrows, wars, assassinations, covert operations, etc. 911 was only the latest really big one....we're now on a siding that has one of those run-away train bumpers at the end...and we're hurtling full speed ahead..... Unless someone applies the brakes......disaster is sure to occur very soon. Peter Dale Scott has pointed out that COG was not just a part of 911, but also of Dallas...and, I believe, it is by these means that secret laws, secret changes of policy, and secret events keep occurring. The 'government' they are preserving with their 'continuity' is NOT the one described in the Constitution, nor the one taught in political science books....it is one controlled by a privileged [sic] few. [i.e. the 'American' 'train' has been hijacked - and secretly!] Tarpley on 9/11 - a key video... - David Guyatt - 13-01-2014 I also consider that it was, in fact, the huge militarisation of WWII that was the fundamental basis of all that has happened since. As I have said before, I think it likely, based on what little is publicly available, that the still confidential War & Peace Studies report of the CFR (1939-41 as I recall?) saw the chance for American business and military power to combine and become an unstoppable global force the the next century (or more). For me, 9/11 was an action largely designed to replace the by then finished cold war with another permanent war (on terror) which would reinforce and propagate this policy at a time when calls were being made to turn swords into ploughshares and the budget of the Pentagon was being heavily slashed. Yup, it was the War to Begin all Future Wars! The spymasters of WWII became the post WW2 spymasters and held themselves above the civilian controls [on paper]. They seem only to 'report' and 'take direction' from the Banksters, Giant Corporations, and other Oligarchy. Democracy this is NOT!....while there never was one, really, things have gotten worse, IMHO. Permanent War - wasn't that in 1984? :: or was that Brave New World....we seem to have both, so it gets confusing. |