web analytics

9/11 – THE TRUTH FROM IRELAND?

By ATWadmin On May 30th, 2008

Well, who would have thunk it? 9/11 WAS an in-side and that’s a fact.

Or at least so says the lead guitarist of Irish rock band, The Corrs.

 "When you study 9/11 it becomes very apparent… it was a staged terrorist attack, what they call a false flag operation."

Corr said overwhelming evidence suggests 9/11 "was carried out by rogue elements in the Bush neo-con administration".

Rock stars – don’tcha just love them. Now I know the Corr girls are cute but really, brother Jim is the village idiot.

38 Responses to “9/11 – THE TRUTH FROM IRELAND?”

  1. When are the Corrs playing NYC again?

  2. "rock stars…is there anything they don’t know?"

    – the wit and wisdom of Homer J Simpson

    (although saying that I just watched Bono’s 2005 TED talk and I must admit it was excellent and even very funny…I normally can’t stand him.)

  3. Well, at least he’s against the EU even if his reasoning is slightly stupid.

  4. Hmmmmm…well, I will say this: I’ve always thought that the scale of planning and co-ordination which must have gone into the attacks, suggested the direct involvement of at least one government – though I’ve always suspected foreign govt’s (Pakistan? Iran?) rather than the US gov’t itself. I’m still surprised that no direct links have been firmly established with any such foreign power, as far as I’m aware.

  5. "I’m still surprised that no direct links have been firmly established with any such foreign power, as far as I’m aware."

    Tom, that’s because terrorists aren’t stupid, just retarded and evil in their train of reasoning.

  6. David,

    "Irish rock band, The Corrs."

    Rock band?!!

    Are we talking about the same bland MOR breathy diddley-dee quartet from (ffs whisper it softly) Dundalk?

    I don’t think Dave Grohl would agree with your classification.

  7. yeah fire can’t melt steel, and building 7 was a controlled demo…

    gotta love the truthers (Ron Pauls Base)

  8. Troll,

    Are those Corrs’ lyrics?

  9. At a stretch (and I still think it’s very unlikely) I’ll go so far as to say that it is not utterly outside the realms of the possible to reason that, perhaps, certain enemies of Pres. Bush within the US administration, withheld intelligence that could have prevented 9/11, in order to undermine his Presidency. Unlikely, but just about possible, I think.
    But as for the physical evidence, I have studied the videos from people who say the towers were brought down by controlled explosions, and I just don’t see their evidence for that.
    (The trouble is, of course, that there are no precedents or succedents to this event, on which to form an opinion: 9/11 is the ONLY example we have of what physically happens when large commercial airplanes crash into 100+ storey skyscrapers). I hope it remains the only example.

  10. Good God what a daft fool. I wonder if he is well mentally and I mean that seriously.

  11. Tom, please don’t follow of Richard Carey down the rabbit hole. I still miss him terribly.

  12. Can we call him Corrs Light for fun?

  13. Don’t worry Daphne, I’m not following anyone down anywhere. Note my phraseology, ("at a stretch", "unlikely", etc). I’m not about to flip out into wacko territory. Just trying to keep an open, detached mind on the subject, that’s all.

  14. Nearly every word this lummox says is a cliche of some kind. Its depressing to think that some people who otherwise appear intelligent can say things like this.

    Tom, you’re a good guy, but being "detached" on things like this is akin to being detached about whether the Holocaust actually happened. I loathe politicians and government functionaries as much as the next paranoid, but believing this hurtful nonsense –not saying that you do — is a sign of an unused, slothful mind.

  15. problem i have is that false flag terrorism has been a tool of the west for decades.

    and the other problem is that professionals and academics are reaching the stage of peer review on studies related to the subject. they can also assail the official reports very specifically, with academic rigour and without the need for rhetoric and hyperbole.

    Hmmmmm…well, I will say this: I’ve always thought that the scale of planning and co-ordination which must have gone into the attacks, suggested the direct involvement of at least one government – though I’ve always suspected foreign govt’s (Pakistan? Iran?) rather than the US gov’t itself. I’m still surprised that no direct links have been firmly established with any such foreign power, as far as I’m aware.

    an operation of this size could not have been done without state involvement. and its also a bum steer to think of it terms of an "inside job" its actually an outside job. i would very much doubt that bush was in anyway "in on it". though elements from within were likely involved. and also when it comes to smoking guns for state involvemnt the liast money transfer to mohammed atta was traced to the head of the ISI. where was he on 911? He’s a very interesting character indeed. That site is an incredible resource tool on 911, no matter what your opinions on the subject.

    The trouble is, of course, that there are no precedents or succedents to this event

    actually there are. Operation Gladio is a catalog of false flag terrorism across Europe during the cold war. Gladio also demonstrates that not even the contemporary governments need know of the operation, ie they can be as ignorant as anyone else and therefore their surprise is genuine and efforts to coverup or protect are not neccessarliy from a postition to protect the guilty but to protect the state. To read more buy NATOs Secret Armies by Dr Daniele Ganser.

    Also the coup d’etat is actually the Second World War. The invasion of Poland was justified after a false flag terrorist event. The SS staged an attack, by the Poles on a Silesian Radio station and began transmitting polish anti-german propaganda. They even went to lengths of murdering prisoners and leaving them at the scene dressed as poles.
    Hitler used this and other related incidents to declare the invasion of poland the next day as justified on defensive grounds.

    i have taken a reasonably skeptical position on this subject for 7 years. now im fairly sure it was false flag. when placed in context (and not viewed in isolation) it makes almost perfect sense. by the way the context is energy supply (the bedrock of our economic system). check your bank balance for confirmation.

    "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are protected by public incredulity." Marshall McLuhan

  16. Tom – I like your broad mind, search to your hearts content, but please don’t start riding the short bus to atw.

    I never minded Richard’s search or his conclusions really, to each his own, but I miss the man – he was big hearted sweet.

  17. Don’t forget crystal balls and tea leaves.

  18. Andthat will do it for me tonight, adios amigos.

  19. Daytripper

    ( I will regret this )

    If you are fairly sure that this was a "false flag" operation, then you must be fairly sure how it was done.

    Expliquez-moi? Controlled demolition, or what? You must speak with absolute certainty on this, otherwise you’re gonna sound like that guy from the soft rock band.

  20. Phantom, I’m glad that you said of me "not saying that you do [believe the 9/11 "truthers"]" – because I don’t believe their point of view, as it happens.
    Even so, it’s a good example here of how we need to guard against being blindly drawn in by media-inspired "mass-acceptance" of any idea – I only HINTED at a very small level of scepticism, all I said was that there just MIGHT be a very SMALL scope for SOME open-mindedness, that’s all. And even that was enough to warrant a certain degree of being "shouted down" by the masses, if you like.
    No, I suggest that to blindly accept at face value the propagation of events held forth by the media, not to question or to keep an open mind upon any subject, no matter how out-of-tune it might be with the immediate opinion of the masses – THAT is the mark of a lazy, slothful mind.

  21. yeah Tripper I want to hear this…lol

  22. If you are fairly sure that this was a "false flag" operation, then you must be fairly sure how it was done.

    why should i be "fairly sure how it was done"? its not up to me to convince you of anything.

    Expliquez-moi? Controlled demolition, or what? You must speak with absolute certainty on this, otherwise you’re gonna sound like that guy from the soft rock band.

    why the high standards? says more about you and the ramparts you are building than it does about me. watch the lecture, in the first link. you can then read the timeline (for free) at the second link. then get back to me.

    And on a personal note, the "how" of 9/11 was never the part that intrigued me (its only on recent months that i have revisited this side). it doesnt tell you much about the "who" or the "why" of the issue. for me the "who" is systemic and the "why" is economic grounded geo-strategy.

  23. Daytripper

    The lack of precedents referred to was not ‘false flag’ terrorist attacks, but of incidents of Jets crashing into 100 storey + scyscrapers.

    I don’t agree with the idea that the planning would have had to be so big it would have needed a govt. to assist. It was actually a small operation whaih involved no explosives or guns at all.Just a dozen men willing to die . It was the unique utilisation of big aircraft that made it the monster attack it became. It is perfectly conceivable that it was planned by a terrorist group alone.

  24. Tom,

    "I’ve always thought that the scale of planning and co-ordination which must have gone into the attacks, suggested the direct involvement of at least one government "

    The scale and planning? There was only a small number of attackers and they used box cutters.

    Also given the attitudes to government around here, if a government had been involved surely the date would have slipped indefinitely, the budget would have overrun, and they would have wound up attacking the WTC with hang-gliders.

  25. Frank

    They would also never have got round to the attack, due to all the pre launch bureacracy; Planning permission, employment regulations, diversity rules, grant applications, risk assesments…

  26. Colm, Frank,

    I didnt say government. i said state. and i actually gave you a clear example of government exclusion (for exactly the reasons you state).

  27. daytripper

    I am only arguing against the belief that 9/11 was so big it would have needed some sort of state/govt/official involvement. It wasn’t a big operation,only the outcome was big. It was perfectly possible that a small self contained group could organise it.

    I am not so naive as to think State operatives never carry out evil criminal acts, but that doesn;t mean we have to believe that there is a hidden state linked conspiracy behind every major terror atrocity.

  28. I am only arguing against the belief that 9/11 was so big it would have needed some sort of state/govt/official involvement.

    you specifically singled out governments, which was a straw man.

    It wasn’t a big operation,only the outcome was big. It was perfectly possible that a small self contained group could organise it.

    i beg to differ. 20 people, some already on watch lists, got into the US and trained to fly commercial airliners. neither cheap nor easy.

    I am not so naive as to think State operatives never carry out evil criminal acts, but that doesn;t mean we have to believe that there is a hidden state linked conspiracy behind every major terror atrocity

    im not asking you to believe anything, least of all that states control all major terrorism. i just presented you with examples of precedent. which you then try to narrow down to specifics. watch the lecture in my first link. even if you take a skeptical position on his samples and experiments, you can still take alot from his critiques of the official reports by NIST and the Government.

  29. Daytripper

    You disappoint. The first hard question, and you run from the field of debate, dropping marbles as you go.

    Oh, I so wish you had said "controlled demolition" as that would have been so much fun to demolish in a controlled way.

    So you say it was a false flag operation but you have no idea-er how they did it.

    You are my hero!

  30. DT,

    "i beg to differ. 20 people, some already on watch lists, got into the US and trained to fly commercial airliners. neither cheap nor easy."

    The KLF burned a million pounds and that wasn’t cheap either. There was only two of them.

    I don’t see any evidence at all that it required state involvement. The watch list system was also poor at that time I believe. Even the new fingerprint based system has had to be improved since it came out.

  31. Oh, I so wish you had said "controlled demolition" as that would have been so much fun to demolish in a controlled way.

    well as i said. im still skeptical of the controlled demolition position myself. but the lecture i linked to is the most convincing peice of work ive seen to date. scientific peer review should not be taken lightly.

    So you say it was a false flag operation but you have no idea-er how they did it.

    i know that the space shuttle gets launched into orbit by combustible rocket engines, but i have no idea how they do it. This lack of understanding does not prevent me from accepting that they can launch a shuttle into an Earth orbit. Nor do i have to believe that the mechanisms are somehow esoteric either. Also, an understanding of mechanism is not required for an understanding of possible actors or possible motives.

  32. My first attempt at this reply has been burnt. i have no idea what just happened. i even posted it. as i clicked revise to add another point.

    The KLF burned a million pounds and that wasn’t cheap either. There was only two of them.

    I understand that, but the KLF were not trying to conceal their actions. you also have the added complexity in cover up that not only would guilty parties conceal their actions but state institutions may also add a further layer of concealment to protect that institution. while direct evidence of state involvement may not exist (which i think it does, eg pakistani ISI funds to Mohammed Atta), evidence of a cover up does. cooperativeresearch.org is an excellent resource for all of this, and its referenced database is an incredible powerful instrument for studying related characters and events.

    EDIT: And by state i should make it clear that i am talking any state. not just the US.

  33. DT, You have to bring the same scepticism to the ‘non-offical’ theories if you want to be serious or at least if you want to put forward some other theory. It’s all very well to ask questions but ask them of these ‘false flag’ theories too.

    I watched the video you linked and to be honest that is an hour of my life I would like back. It doesn’t take very long to find debunkings of that stuff…even the ‘peer reviewed’ claim seems to be untrue.

    Also even saying he was right, so what? Let’s say they used thermite to bring down the building. So what is he saying, there were no planes? Or if the ‘state actors’ brought down the building with explosives then why bother with the planes? Also if some rogue state forces could get thermite into the building then why couldn’t some terrorists? Even according to Jones you can get that stuff on ebay. (Although, as one debunking points out, it seems difficult to explain it containing silicon unless Jones conducted his experiments in a sand pit).

    Anyway, I think you would enjoy the blog ‘famous for 15 megapixels’ (google for it). The guy who writes it is uber-sceptical about almost everything (9/11, global warming, 7/7, evolution, and I’m sure I’ve missed a few). But he just about manages to refrain from putting forward a theory of his own and is exceptionally funny…quality stuff even though I disagree with it on a regular basis.

  34. Daytripper – All this time I’ve known you and you never mentioned you were in a band with your three hot sisters!

  35. Tripper is smoking crack….

    every point in this nonsense has been proven to be just that nonsense. Your worse than Frank and Peter with thier global warming

  36. Daytripper

    Give it up on this one.

    9/11 happened because terrorists planned and executed it. That is the most likely ,sensible and believable truth about this event.

  37. Actually Troll, YOU are the conspiracy theorist when it comes to global warming.

    In the news just now I see that 1700 US scientists (with relevant expertise) and economists have so far signed up to this.

    Besides McCarthy, the statement authors include Mario Molina, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry; Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author; Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University climatologist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS); and Geoff Heal, an economist at Columbia University’s Business School. The signatories, compiled by UCS, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 NAS members, and more than 100 IPCC authors and editors, who all shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/top-us-scientists-and-0120.html

    You can read what they have to say here:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/quotes-scientists-economists.html

    Go check out their qualifications and expertise and see how they stack up against the ‘31,000’ nobodies you were on about before.

  38. You have to bring the same scepticism to the ‘non-offical’ theories if you want to be serious or at least if you want to put forward some other theory. It’s all very well to ask questions but ask them of these ‘false flag’ theories too.

    i do. ive never been a naked advocate of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and i have only very recently come across this work by jones. i have generally considered it a bum steer, although what generally keeps me looking at it now and again is the patently obvious fact that 3 buildings collapsed at almost freefall speed. the entire lower structure offered no resistance to the upper portion. now i can instantly concede WTC 1 and 2 based on the fact that they were struck by a large external force. but the same cannot be said for wtc 7 yet it collapsed entirely on its own footprint. a feat that requires all structural columns to fail at exactly the same time. none of that takes expertise to surmise. its self evident. that said, i was always willing to leave the "how" to the side, as it doesnt provide anything and youre left with pure theory and little or no evidence to support it. it was this void that jones may have filled, and thus my interest in his work.

    i dont really have a personal theory, other than it was false flag, and by default therefore consider the official theory to be bunk.

    either way i dont lie awake at night fearful of this scenario suddenly becoming a publicly accepted truth. i just consider it as part of the way things work and as ancient as beer. even you can accept that its got precedent at the grand level. and it still goes on, with many people accepting that WMD was an elaborate public hoax. i just see this as the pre-cursor charade that got them there in first place.