Submit Response is a weblog by Jack Mottram, a Conspiracy Theories
Okay, so all manner of insane crazies have been at work, in dank and dark rooms, trying to formulate wild-eyed theories about who was behind the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, blaming Israel, America itself, or some confederation of 12 foot lizards. However, Michael Meacher (until a few months ago Secretary of State for the Environment) isn’t some crackpot with an axe to grind, though in some quarters, he’s being treated as such.
The reason for this? Meacher’s article in yesterday’s Guardian, positing that basically, the American government allowed Al-Qaeda to operate in order to provide a casus belli for their expansionist aims of world domination.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
Interestingly, do a Google news search on Michael Meacher, and you’ll find that the only news outlets in the states that have picked up on this have done so by running a single Reuters report that buries Meacher’s claims in the closing paragraphs of an article about how opinion polls think that Tony Blair should stand down.
Heh, I was thinking of posting this last night. Here’s what I found typically irritating, the US embassy’s spokesman:
His fantastic allegations - especially his assertion that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia - would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible.
Uh, the allegations aren’t fantastic, he’s just gathered together some undeniable facts, all of which have been reported previously in countless reputable sources. And, while being a member of cabinet obviously doesn’t automatically make you serious and credible, it’s not like he’s some raving loon who just popped up from the fringes. Still, easier to bluster than actually refute the allegations Meacher makes.
Oh, and I wonder when Meacher drew these conclusions. Presumably after he voted for the invasion and occupation of Iraq at every opportunity. Odd that he doesn’t mention that.
Posted by Jack at 12pm on 08.09.03
Oh, and see also this timeline of events surrounding the September 11th attacks. Some questionable tinfoil-hatisms, but mostly kosher and taken from reputable sources. (and I added the all important link to the Meacher article to your post Len!)
Posted by Jack at 12pm on 08.09.03
Oops, did I cock up the link to the Meacher article? Apologies. I think I’ve seen that timeline before; there’s another good one here which has some scary/interesting anomalies regarding what Bush was actually doing when it happened
Posted by Leon at 1pm on 08.09.03
Top Conspiracy Sites
Posted by Conspire at 10pm on 21.10.03
Brain Wash Techniques at work against someone are not less deceptive than the terroristsâ acts: Al-Qaeda and links, mastermind, mafia, selective club membership words we hear all the time. What happens even with educated people who have some type of device and/or link to learn a (x) personâs happenings and communication (all legal but personal which requires privacy) through wireless methods whom they want to harm personally regardless of where the person is. Those who know this x person very well and are friendly with x person; these type of people brain wash this x personâs friends and include them in their own group to make the x person weak, isolated and harm this x person by creating obstruction in promotion, salary, friendship by false and unfair means. They even contact the x personâs outside work friends, and customers/clients to speak against the x person (by making some deal with them). They try to bring as many complaints as possible. Initially, it does not harm the x person because other people knew that this x person is very good and efficient and is not like that way as described by this person or these people. But they create too many negatives against the x person through brainwashing techniques that this x person is finally harmed in different ways â work efficiency is attacked and chances of not losing promotion but also loosing job; frustration from negatives through false and unfair means; isolation; attack on fair and good friendship; losses and more. They have access to x personâs computer not because this x person is doing anything illegal at all but because they learn this x personâs work this way by seeing the processed information on computer, and also become aware of what is being done so that they can harm the x person. If the person applies for a job, they know from this x personâs computer or other means of communication; and take this personâs name off the list or put it in the bottom not to be promoted. Also, if this x person wants to complain against these people, these people know exactly what this x person is going to do, to whom and when. These are called defensive and brainwashing techniques. If they can defend themselves and know about others, donât you think Al-Quaeda and links can be aware of what is being done against them and how they can brain wash/mastermind someone to be in their group. How will you separate these two types. That is why the terrorists network cannot be measured in size (too large) as the devices are easily available to any and there are too many types of club (mafia, bad unions, links, network) memberships available to many.
Posted by xx at 12am on 28.08.04