New interview with Andreas Von Bulow posted at Prison Planet.

[JohnyCanuck]

Link to audio at the bottom of the prisonplanet.com page:

Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack
Guide the planes in, then destroy the crime scene

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 21 2006

Former Helmut Schmidt cabinet member, 25-year German Parliamentarian and global intelligence expert Andreas Von Bülow says that the 9/11 attack was run by the highest levels of the US intelligence apparatus using WTC Building 7 as a command bunker which was later demolished in order to destroy the crime scene.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, Von Bülow said that "the official story is so wrong, it must be an inside job."

SNIP

"The Bush administration is in a deep defensive and probably they would like to come out with a new offensive," said Von Bülow as he considered whether a new staged false flag terror attack could be launched to further an interventionist agenda.

"I would hope that one 'new Pearl Harbor' is enough," said Von Bülow, "but I cannot be sure."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/210406runattack.htm

[file83]

1. That is a GREAT article - here's some more info on Von Bulow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_von_B%C3%BClow

This guy is the real deal.

[LARED]

2. Has Von Bulow changed his story?

His book claimed that Mossad was responsible for 9/11. Sold a lot of books to the "Global Jewish Conspiracy to Control the World" morons.

One can only assume revenue is drying up and he needs a new bogey man.

[LARED]

3. Late edit

I don't know if he claimed Mossad was responsible of 9/11 in his book, as I never read his fable. But he did claim Mossad was responsible.

[HamdenRice]

4. So now we can just stand back ...

and watch you discredit yourself rather than participate in discrediting you?

[LARED]

6. Put down the crack pipe

I reread my post after it was too late to edit it and realized I added the word book by accident.

[HamdenRice]

13. It's not the use of the word "book"

In your first post, you say that von Bulow claims that the "Mossad was responsible for 9/11. Sold a lot of books to the "Global Jewish Conspiracy to Control the World" morons."

In the second post you say "I don't know if he claimed Mossad was responsible of 9/11 in his book, as I never read his fable."

Whether it was a book, interview or article, people who flatly contradict themselves are not reliable.

And oh yeah, BTW, like most so called "debunkers" the main tool in your toolkit when illogic doesn't work is to throw in an insult.

All around, a pretty standard interaction with "Lard"

[LARED]

17. Come'on Hammie

You're a smart guy, you know lots of "Global Jewish Conspiracy to Control the World" morons bought his book. Blaming the Jew is a flourishing industry.

Also based on reviewing manifold 9/11 conspiracy sites Von Burlow is connected with advocating the idea that the CIA/Mossad had a hand in 9/11. Using the word responsible was a bit over the top on my part, but there is no question Van Burlow believes the there is a Jewish/CIA/Capitalist/Neocon cabal that schemed to kill nearly 3000 American citizens and used those poor Islamists as patsies.

[reorg]

23. lared makes slanderous false statements again

"blaming the Jew"?

I will tell you what is "a bit over the top" - it is your egregious slander in spite of the fact that you quite obviously have NOT THE SLIGHTEST IDEA who this person Andreas von Bülow is and what he says.

[LARED]

24. Hammie reads WAY too much into a statement

I said lot of morons that believe in a Jewish conspiracy likely brought his book. I did not say be blamed the Jews.

[Clark2008]

62. It's not a Jewish conspiracy,

It's an ISRAELI conspriacy - and my Jewish husband would remind you to separate the two. Not all Jews are in love with Israel.

Damn.

[oblivious]

22. "I never read his fable."...What a classic!

[reorg]

15. liared!

that has got to be the most egregious false statement I have read to date in this forum.

Von Buelow did not claim that "Mossad was responsible for 9/11".

Nor did he write anything that could be construed to support dubious claims of a "Jewish Conspiracy to Control the World". He does not buy into such shit and is a decent, clear-thinking fellow. Needless to mention that he has publicly and decisively disavowed any such intimation.

[LARED]

18. So you're telling me 9/11 conspiracy sites got it wrong

about him advocating Mossad was involved in 9/11?

I do agree using the word responsible was inappropriate, but that does not change the fact that many believe he thinks Mossad was highly involved.

[medienanalyse]

19. "the fact that many believe he thinks Mossad was highly involved"

What a sentence !

Lared, I will make a proposal to the Nobel committee for awarding you the price for literature.

And I will tell the 7 year old neighbours daughter that I have a formula for fairy tales. So about the wolfen and the fact that many believe he thinks that grandmas are a good meal.

Please stop this bullshit discussion - to all of you. And you, Lared, do not try to mix things which are not mixed. The CIA involvement is another category than the Mossad.

[LARED]

20. This is not bullshit

Many, many, many 9/11 conspiracy sites claim Van Burlow believes Mossad and the CIA was involved in the 9/11 attacks. If he does not believe this, that's great, but what about all those 9/11 sites that says he does believe this? Can they be wrong? Are they revisionist in nature? Did they just happen to get this one issue wrong?

BTW, don't get me wrong, I believe Von Burlow's elevator doesn't make it to the top floor

[reorg]

21. maybe you should read a good book every once in a while

instead of fishing for bullshit at right wing websites?

[Lithos]

26. A good book?

Maybe it would be better to suggest one which is not so good, but still relevent.

Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste. by von Andreas von Bülow

Here is the Amazon description:

Rezensionen

Aus der Amazon.de-Redaktion
Wer steckt hinter den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September? Der ehemalige SPD-Bundesforschungsminister Andreas von Bülow präsentiert in diesem Buch eine Aufsehen erregende These: Nicht die 19 muslimischen Selbstmord-Attentäter mit dem Al-Qaida-Paten Osama bin Laden im Hintergrund seien für die Angriffe auf das World Trade Center verantwortlich. Vielmehr gehe der 11. September auf das Konto von westlichen Geheimdiensten -- mutmaßlich der CIA und des israelischen Mossad.

Für sein stark von Verschwörungstheorien geprägtes Buch hat von Bülow mehr oder weniger plausible Zweifel an der offiziellen Version des Tathergangs zusammengetragen. Der Autor entwirft ein ganz eigenes Szenario: Die entführten Passagierflugzeuge seien von Geheimdienstagenten per Fernsteuerung unter Kontrolle gebracht und in die Türme des WTC gelenkt worden. Der Aufprall der Flugzeuge habe aber längst nicht ausgereicht, um die Gebäude tatsächlich einstürzen zu lassen. Daher seien die tragenden Elemente der Türme zeitgleich gezielt gesprengt worden. Sinn der Aktion laut von Bülow: Die USA und Israel wollten die Anschläge als Vorwand benutzen, um danach ungehindert ihre vor allem gegen muslimische Länder gerichtete Politik weltweit durchsetzen zu können.

Wer solch Ungeheuerliches behauptet, muss gute Argumente haben. Doch genau da liegen die gravierenden Schwächen des Buches. Von Bülow beruft sich auf teilweise hanebüchene Quellen, etwa auf vorgebliche Stellungnahmen anonymer Experten im Internet. Immer wenn es konkret werden sollte, weicht der Autor ins Ungefähre aus, formuliert im Konjunktiv oder bläst Nebensächlichkeiten zu schwerwiegenden "Beweisen" auf. Zwar hat er Recht, wenn er auf die vielen Ungereimtheiten hinweist, die es bei den Ermittlungen gab. Und zweifellos wurden die Terroranschläge von der US-Regierung nachträglich für politische Ziele instrumentalisiert. Doch daraus den Vorwurf abzuleiten, der Tod tausender Menschen sei von westlichen Geheimdiensten bewusst geplant und inszeniert worden, ist absurd. --Christoph Peerenboom

And google translation for those whose German is a bit sub-par.

Who is behind the terrorist attacks from 11 September? The former SPD Federal Secretary of Research Andreas von Buelow presents an exciting thesis to attention in this book: Not the 19 Muslim suicide assassins with the aluminium-Qaida-godfather Osama are shop in the background are responsible for the attacks on the World trade center. Rather go 11 September on the account from western secret services -- presumed the CIA and the Israeli Mossad.

For its book coined/shaped strongly by conspiracy theories from Buelow more or less plausible doubts about the official version of the act course of events gathered. The author sketches a completely own scenario: The kidnapped passagierflugzeuge were brought by secret service agents by remote control under control and steered into the towers of the WTC. The impact of the airplanes was not sufficient however long, in order to let the buildings actual collapse. Therefore the basic elements of the towers were at the same time purposefully blown up. Sense of the action loud of Buelow: The USA and Israel wanted to use the notices as pretext, in order to be able to intersperse thereafter their unhindered particularly against Muslim countries arranged policy world-wide.

Who maintains such enormous, must good arguments have. But the serious weaknesses of the book lie exactly there. From Buelow appoints itself to partial hanebuechene sources, approximately to vorgebliche statements of anonymous experts in the InterNet. Every time it should become concrete, the author evades in the approximate, formulated in the Konjunktiv or blows matters of minor importance up to serious "proofs". It is right, if it refers to the many inconsistencies, which there were with the determinations. And certainly the terrorist attacks were later instrumentalisiert by the US government for political goals. But one planned from it the reproach to derive, death rope that humans by western secret services consciously and produced, is absurd. -- Christoph Peerenboom

This is pretty much an auto-follow of his earlier work Im Namen des Staates where he accused the CIA and the Mossad of being behind quite a few dirty tricks world wide.

L-

[reorg]

28. not sure what you are saying

yes, von Bülow earlier wrote a 700 pages tome which is mostly about the CIA and all the alleged and/or proven white collar crime activities they were involved in up until the late eighties (drug trade, weapons trade, contacts to organised crime and what have you).


You cite a person called "Peerenboom" at Amazon - I have no idea who this person is, do you? He seems to think that "without a doubt did the US exploit the terror attacks for political goals" ("zweifellos wurden die Terroranschläge von der US-Regierung nachträglich für politische Ziele instrumentalisiert").

He also criticizes von Bülow for not having better arguments at his disposal in support of what he labels "enormous claims" (Wer solch Ungeheuerliches behauptet, muss gute Argumente haben. Doch genau da liegen die gravierenden Schwächen des Buches.)

"Enormous" are the claims because thousands of people died, if we follow von Bülow's arguments, in an attack possibly orchestrated by some or other faction within intelligence services, in some kind of domestic terrorism, if you will. But I am not sure why such a claim would be more "enormous" than, say, the claim that the US invaded Iraq in order to reappropriate energy resources and build military bases while killing thousands and thousands of people in the process, with no end in sight?

Are you denying that intelligence agencies or some parts within them are capable of doing "quite a few dirty tricks world wide"?

[Lithos]

51. I guess you don't buy books at Amazon

The citation above is a synopsis of the book by the professional reviewer (Peerenboom) and goes above any specific reviews by users. In other words, this is what Bulow wrote about 9/11 which was that it was done by the CIA and the Mossad.

"Quite a few dirty tricks"? Yes, but not the scale nor the conspiracy level that this book is implying. The same things people are accusing these agencies of are the same things the Communists and the Anarchists were accused of as well. At this time, I would think Bulow has it about as together as General Jack Ripper and his delusions over being infertile/impotent (fluoride in the water).

L-

[reorg]

54. I guess you don't know what a synopsis is

This "professional reviewer" - can you point me to a publication of this "professional reviewer, or is he unpublished to date, merely a young journalist paid to write three paragraph reviews at Amazon?

A "synopsis" of 271 pages? Yeah, right. It is some sort of an Amazon disclaimer is what it is.

Anyway, even this short comment by the semi-anonymous Amazon reviewer nowhere says what you falsely claim it does, namely that "Bulow wrote (...) 9/11 (...) was done by the CIA and the Mossad".

You are simplifying things. What's more, you seem to be much less interested in what von Bülow actually says (e.g. in the interview referenced in the OP) than in perpetuating certain talking points here. Why is that?


--------
Finally, and largely unrelated to the above: what are you talking about when you say "The same things people are accusing these agencies of are the same things the Communists and the Anarchists were accused of as well."

What would be the 9/11 of the KGB, pray tell? What false flag terrorism atrocity were "the Anarchists" ever accused of? I'm puzzled by this comment, really. Sounds completely ridiculous to me, but maybe it's just me.

[Lithos]

60. You can google him yourself

He is a free lance writer/book reviewer who has appeared in several German papers and writes for Amazon.de. One example is here:

http://www.rhein-berg-online.ksta.de/html/artikel/1117221523993.shtml

What would be the 9/11 of the KGB, pray tell? What false flag terrorism atrocity were "the Anarchists" ever accused of? I'm puzzled by this comment, really. Sounds completely ridiculous to me, but maybe it's just me.

Pardon? First, Communism and the KGB are totally different subjects, especially when you are talking about Conspiracy Theories. The 9/11 of the Communist era was the 1917 revolution where they overthru the Tsarist monarchy. This is the great "Red Conspiracy" that people such as Senator McCarthy spent his time pushing around. The Communists at various times were accused of corrupting our water supplies (fluoride, etc.), domino theory, world domination, etc. They were behind every thing and many conspiracy theories of the 30's up thru the 60's had them as the bad guys. The Anarchists are just older forms of that and popular up thru the 1920's. I assume you know about Sacho-Vanzetti?

Catholics, Irish, Atheists, Jews and others have been accused at various times of plotting against things.

Read:

http://www.economist.com/diversions/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1489200

Such fables are nothing new. American pamphleteers in the 1790s warned of a plot by atheist, libertine Illuminati and Freemasons to concoct an abortion-inducing tea and “a method for filling a bedchamber with pestilential vapours”. The bestselling book of the 1830s was a racy confession by a repentant nun detailing a scheme by Catholics to undermine Protestant morals. At around the same time, Samuel Morse, better known as the inventor of Morse Code, exposed an Austrian plan to install a Hapsburg prince as emperor of the United States. In the 20th century, Americans feared reds more than royals; hence Joe McCarthy's witch-hunts, and the popularity of Father Charles Coughlin, who told radio audiences that “Masons and Marxists rule the world”.

L-

[Name removed]

61. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reorg]

65. Do you find inspiration in The Economist?

I read this magazine for some ten, fifteen years but with regard to opinion or comment never found anything useful in it. Neoliberals, right wingers, and worse. Particularly notable: the extreme lack of humor. Very unsympathetic crowd there.

I still don't understand where you're getting at with your claim that covertly operating government agencies are being accused of similar or the same things as revolutionary movements (like Communism and Anarchism).

Insofar as government agencies may be covertly supporting political movements, especially in foreign countries, there may be a connection, but they are still way different and uncomparable.

Von Bülow knows what he is talking about. He has detailed knowledge of "real-socialist" intelligence agencies, since it was his job to investigate them. He has detailed knowledge also of a Western agency, since it was his job to oversee and control it. As a former leading SPD politician, he has, of course, also detailed knowledge of the history of socialism and communism, as well as of the Bush I. and Reagan years with their political scandals, since he was politically active during this period.

There is probably not a single writer for the Economist who has such solid expertise on intelligence matters as von Bülow has. And contrary to most hacks writing for the Economist, he is economically independent, has no need to kiss up to one or another economic / political establishment.

[Lithos]

66. Inspiration?

I tend to view sources based on their gravitas and I'm afraid the Economist, though it is conservative in a business sense, tends to do a fair job of emphasizing facts over politics and has quite a bit more gravitas than von Bulow who has shown himself time and time again to be operating on the fringes with a fair amount of repetition of hateful and bigoted memes. Coupled with what appears to be an opportunistic publication about 9/11 which followed on the heels of the monetarily successful works of Thierry Meyssan, and competed in the then commercially popular 9/11 conspiracy theory craze in Germany against books by Mathias Brockers and Gerhard Wisnewski, his motivation certainly appears suspect.

As for the quality of what he's published, he has been strongly criticized for the lack of details and proof in his books. One famous piece being that his alleged proof of Israeli involvement was his statement that there was only one Israeli death in 9/11. The bigoted implications in this statement are staggering. Other factual errors which have been pointed out include his use of "MSS Cole" instead of the correct nomenclature of USS Cole, a basal error an expert from German intelligence would never have made. Being a career politician with access to Intelligence does not make one an intelligence expert anymore than a member of a school board becoming an expert in education. He may have seen classified intelligence, but that doesn't mean he understands it.

Lest you dis the Economist too much, they were amoung the first to publicly announce that Gore was the true winner in Florida.

[reorg]

67. "bigoted memes"?

You claim:

"von Bulow who has shown himself time and time again to be operating on the fringes with a fair amount of repetition of hateful and bigoted memes."

You did not support this claim with factual evidence. (Earlier you cited a three-paragraph "review" at Amazon, again not factual evidence, but interpretation and opinion). Since the above is a serious allegation, and since one might have the impression from your messages that you actually have read von Bülow's book and not just rely on a three-paragraph "review" and maybe on the Wikipedia article on the book:

Please cite your factual evidence for the allegation that von Bülow "repeats" "hateful and bigoted memes".

As long as you do not quote directly from his books (or maybe from interviews such as the one referred to in the OP, or other verbatim and accurately referenced quotes), your claim will obviously be sorely lacking, both in gravitas and in the power of persuasion.


"One famous piece being that his alleged proof of Israeli involvement was his statement that there was only one Israeli death in 9/11. The bigoted implications in this statement are staggering."

The remark about the "one Israeli" (a claim from a NYT article) being a "statistically low number" has been interpreted to death. There are completely un-"bigoted" explanations for this remark. OTOH, many claims have been made - here in this forum and elsewhere - that intelligence services have warned the US authorities and therefore must have "known" something about the attacks beforehand.

How do such claims have "bigoted implications" and how are they "staggering"?

Such claims that von Bülow is "bigoted" have no roots in reality. Often repeated and never substantiated, this attempt to impeach his credibility and reputation will fail. Von Bülow is a perfectly neutral observer who has no "bigoted" agenda whatsoever.

His expertise and knowledge in the fields of politics and intelligence agencies is well established, both in its character and its extent. Any anonymous message board commentator with no particular claim of expertise in anything can, of course, always pretend to know better. It only rings a little hollow.

[medienanalyse]

5. von Bülow Audio is much better

You will find it in the end of the article. As a former politician he knows how to place his words. That includes that an allegation uttered here claiming he had indicted the Mossad is wrong. It is also wrong to say that von Bülow claims WTC was the command centre to stage 9/11. He is cautious enough to say it is an option.

In effect there is much speculation, much opinion in the interview.

He openly laughs about the U.S. administration. He says they are lying. That is the important message.

The last caller in the show makes a good point: about RADAR. For sure the radar systems cover the whole of the U.S.A. - there is no "RADAR hole" at all, and so for sure all flights were tracked all the way.

[LARED]

7. If that's the case then he has changed his story

That includes that an allegation uttered here claiming he had indicted the Mossad is wrong.

Here he state quite clearly that Mossad was involved

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/20/wbulo20.xml

Mr von Bulow also argues that the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, was involved in the attacks, warning Israelis to avoid the Twin Towers in the preceding days. His "proof" is that only one Israeli died in the attacks.

[medienanalyse]

8. As a politician he insinuates things.

When i talked with him I noticed some points in his beliefs which I cannot follow. So we did not get close friends. But to say it again: we must count with what somebody openly says and not with what we believe is his opinion.

I do not know if he was ever confronted with the New York Rabbis statement how many jews died in the WTC attacks (hundreds, as many in percentage as it is likely in New York). I do not know if he changed a story - in fact the story must get cleared up to say such a thing. But is it that much important to talk anybodys opinions? I prefer to learn about facts and not about opinions. And one fact is clear: there is a lot of antisemitism around including the Silverstein allegations ("pull it", high insurance rate), a lot of racism against Arabs too.

Only facts count. That is: there is no evidence at all concerning any Israeli or Arab involvement.
And von Bülow says. it was an inside job. That is what I take.

[Tobias]

9. It´s more than insinuation ...

Bülow: “Am Ende stellte sich heraus, daß ein Israeli unter die Opfer zu rechnen ist, der als Besucher einen der Türme betreten hatte, statistisch gesehen auffallend wenig.” ("At the end we find that only one Israeli is under the victims, statistically remarkably few").

But Bülow doesn´t know much about statistics:
http://www.werboom.de/vt/html/statistik_oder_chuzpe__.html
(Unfortunately german!)

Bülow also said in TV: "Der Mossad muß hervorragend informiert gewesen sein." ("Mossad must have been informed excelently".)

Medienanalyse, Bülow is just another crazy man (deutsch: Dumpfbacke!), he mixes up facts with phantasies...

(And I do not comment your statement, "there is no evidence for arab involvment" ... Think about that once again ...!)

Tobias

[medienanalyse]

10. No. It is insinuation.

The sentence about the Israeli may be fact. I cannot exclude the possibility that there was an Iaraeli visitor. Really - I do not know it. It insinuates that the number of people with a certain passport is inclined with the possibility of being involved. The lower the number, the higher the rate of perpetratorship.

Let us take the other sentence which you quote: ("Mossad must have been informed excelently".)

I can agree to this sentence. As much as I know Mossad WARNED the U.S. about upcoming terror. Robert Fisk reported about two Mossad agents who flew into the states directly to WARN. The sentence in another surrounding insinuates involvement. in itself it only says that the Mossad guys are good. I cannot deny that.

You do not want to comment my statement about Arab involvement ? See it in the light of the sentences above. I am very much aware about the ISI money for Atta, about Mujaheddin being used for this and that, about the Jeddah passport and visa center and so on. But I differ between perpetratorship and being patsy, scapegoat, crashtest dummy, Dumpfbackigkeit.

You PROVE involvement (which makes you tell us who the perpetrators were and how) and I will cheer and change my mind. Listen to Alex Jones. He states that no Arabs are in the position to make the airforce stand down. That is the key.

[reorg]

14. again with the slander

your German quote in context:

„Es bleibt festzuhalten, daß in den Türmen des World Trade Centers rund 45 000 Menschen Beschäftigung fanden. Knapp 3000 wurden Opfer der Anschläge, darunter zahlreiche Feuerwehrleute, die anderen konnten sich rechtzeitig in Sicherheit bringen oder erschienen nicht, noch nicht oder nicht mehr zur Arbeit. Unter den 3000 wurden aufgrund der Suchanfrage zunächst 300, dann 30 Israelis vermutet. Am Ende stellte sich heraus, daß ein Israeli unter die Opfer zu rechnen ist, der als Besucher einen der Türme betreten hatte, statistisch gesehen auffallend wenig.“

It is dealt with sufficiently here (also in German):

http://www.steinbergrecherche.com/asbuelow.htm
http://www.ralph-kutza.de/11__September_/4_000_Israelis_/body_4_000_israelis_.html


If I was von Buelow, I would sue every Dumpfbacke who attempts to put that anti-Semite label on him. Oh well, he might have more productive things to do.

[medienanalyse]

16. Thank you for that quote

The "also" is really convincing. I did not know that he was not only very reasonible in his thoughts but also so - I do not take the word (btw: it is formally still insinuating, but now very close at the edge to be open). What I do not understand is your comment. I would not be able to predict the outcome of a trial, thre is freedom of opinion, racism, misunderstanding, in dubio pro reo and so on fighting with another.

But my opinion concerning leftwing antisemitism got another column. And I might add when I see some postings in this thread here: about naivity too.

Anyway, we are not dealing with opinions or should not do it. So it is a good example to discuss: what to do with sources which are in a percentage good and clear and helpfull and in another part ugly ? I.e. I noticed that lots of Libertarians and weapons freaks in the U.S.A. most of their time say very usefull things about Bush and 9/11. In my view Alex Jones seems to fit into that drawer. More or less. Like everybody including von Bülow. People are not made for drawers, and whoever touches the issue Israel can easily burn his fingers. Von Bülow got burnt more than only his finger tips. Maybe he has learned.

[reorg]

25. the anti-semite slander

is used as a) cheap strategy to get rid of unwanted comments and b) cheapens any reasonable discussion and comment on REAL anti-Semitism.

So von Bülow mentions a few news items with Israelis and the Mossad, big deal. He probably has read Ostrovsky. While you wait for the jury that you think is still out on this case I prefer to study what is available online from and about Horst Mahler. What is up with this one? He has got to be the most bizarre "leftist", or political chameleon, rather, I have ever heard about. Here he is a RAF founder, together with Ulrike Meinhof, one of the most radical, situationist leftists, turning violent, and then, while represented by the anthroposophical Schily, later by the middle-of-the-road leftie Schröder, turning ever more to the right to finally (?) become something of a role model for neonazis. I gather he also turned up at some or other convention of 9/11 skeptics?

The most intriguing portrait of Alex Jones I have seen is in Richard Linklaters animated movie "Waking Life", see e.g. the quote here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243017/quotes

I think he is for real, a used-car salesman who really likes to sell cars. I'm not so sure about "Libertarianism" in general, though. I could never make head or tails of this weird political, I don't know, is it even a "movement"? Since some of this ultra-libertarian gun-loving and -toting seems to be funded by Richard Mellon-Scaife, it may well be that there is an ongoing attempt to dominate the political discourse on every plane with right-wing rhetoric, with the emphasis on "freedom" as opposed to the "social question".

Such dominance may come in handy not only with respect to the competitions "Who is the most radical government opponent in the entire country" and "What is the most influential political philosophy ever", it may be of use in other ways, too, like e. g. whenever someone on the left makes a claim, you get the right wing counterpart to make the same claim, and whoops, the leftist is thoroughly discredited. Substitute "on the left" with "investigating intelligence agencies" and "right wing counterpart" with "self-declared and clearly established anti-Semite" - see what I mean? Works all the time.

[Lithos]

27. You are being a bit short here

One of the reasons why is that a fair amount of 9/11 conspiracy theory originated from bigoted authors and bigoted sites who have been pushing the idea of a Jewish cabal being behind things and who saw 9/11 as a way to take advantage of people who were confused and confronted with a topic which forced them to look outward into the world. People were naive and they were there to provide an easy answer to promote their bigoted agenda. Strip away the 9/11 specific language and you will see that this is the same memes being pushed for so many other events.

L-

[seatnineb]

29. So what is your opinion on incidents like these then?

Incidents like these do not get the exposure and media amplification that they deserve...........


Thursday, December 11, 2003


JERUSALEM — At least two people were dead and 12 injured Thursday following an explosion at a Tel Aviv (search) money changer's shop, Israeli police reported, rocking a nation already on edge over daily warnings about planned attacks by Palestinian militants.

"We're treating it less as a terrorist attack and more as a criminal attack," said Israeli police spokesman Gil Kleiman. "It means that instead of looking for Palestinians, we'll be looking for Israelis."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105440,00.html

But that is not all.......

And here is what FOX news decided to excise from that same report.....

Israel has seen similar criminal attacks in recent years. On Aug. 6, a car bomb killed a man and injured eight people.

http://www.1510.com/storyReader.asp?article=4681&string=noSearch

[reorg]

31. Not sure about that

I followed this story from day one. The most prolific 9/11 skeptic I noticed, one who loudly articulated what he was thinking was Jared Israel. I dare you to suggest that he is an anti-Semite. Others include the researchers at Globalresearch.ca (where Chaim Kuperberg BTW suggested that all the "Jewish" leads were false trails, distractions from the real perps that were often brought to the attention of a wider audience through so-called paleo-conservative websites), and Mathias Bröckers in Germany who collected what he found on the web, I presume, and distributed it via his column (e.g. news from around flight schools in Florida). Not one of these authors is remotely "bigoted" or neonazi-compatible.

Much later I noticed a certain dubious conspiracy industry in the US (mostly) - with little relevance and relation to the above mentioned persons and websites.

What you seem to suggest is that ("a fair amount of") 9/11 skepticism was introduced or invented by Neonazis. My impression was quite different. I thought the Nazis were fellow travelers on this, didn't want to be outdone by more "daring" or "radical" hypotheses and claims. Or maybe they were ordered to get in the "movement" and make their voices heard, who knows.

[Lithos]

52. You've left out quite a bit

And we can cherry pick this all you want.

Thierry Meyssan's book which was a good seller in Europe and preceeded von Bulow's book (which I think was written to capitalize on the market of Meyssan's book. Meyssan's book as I recall does do the Holocaust denial movement quite a bit of good in the analogies.

No, what happened is multiple ideas came up implying a government conspiracy to either coverup their incompetence or mask their direct involvement (I'm going to be generous here) which attracted those groups who make their living off of preaching one CT or another decided to jump on board. When the idea of a governmental conspiracy w/r to 9/11 was broached, there was a waiting group of people willing to provide an answer as to "why". Quite a few of these groups are associated with anti-Semitism as they tend to preach towards those who are disaffected with government and thus are open to "the Jews" either standalone or as some part of an illuminati style cabal are part of it. The 9/11 truth movement has done a fairly poor job of identifying and distancing themselves from these groups.

As for Jared Israel, he is associated to a bigoted group, but the bigotry is towards Muslims. Their denial of the crimes in Kossovo and the former Yugoslavia are, IMHO, almost on par with Holocaust revisionism at its worst. Their motivation seems to have started back around Clinton and assumes a Governmental conspiracy aimed towards Empire building (at the expense of honest nationalists like Milosevic) which is their answer as to "why". I would not look towards this group for any credible response.

L-

On Edit: Grammar.

[reorg]

56. Jared Israel

is associated to "a bigoted group"? What are your sources for this claim?

You are correct in one point: He says - and is in agreement with any leftist of well repute on this - that the Empire building started after the fall of the Soviet union in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe.

That you would mention Holocaust revisionism in the same breath with what Jared Israel has been doing for years is disgusting, though. I know that most Americans, particularly those who had to struggle to support Clinton, are less than well informed about Eastern Europe and the Balkans in particular. Maybe you should read a little of what Jared Israel has written. You might learn something.

[Dancing_Dave]

58. I don't like the Anti-Zionism of Peter Meyer

Yet I admire the intelligence and courage of Meyer to so quickly after 9/11 figure out key aspects of the WTC demolition and it's real motives.

Andreas Von Bulow should not be falsely accused of any such prejudice. He is interested in and knowlegable about what covert operations organizations like the CIA, the Mossad and the Stassi secretly do. No particular prejudice is involved. He's investigated abuses by German intelligence agencies too.

[Woody Box]

11. To enhance "involved" into "responsible" is pure propaganda

There is a huge difference, and you know it. You try to create the impression that von Buelow does belong to the anti-zionist "grand jewish conspiracy" faction, which he does not.

Many people, however, believe that the Mossad played an observer role, watching his American counterparts how they would do with their synthetic terrorism. So does von Buelow.

[reorg]

12. your claim is clearly false

la red: "here he states quite clearly that Mossad was involved"

Where did you find that? The article (of the right wing wind bags of "The Telegraph") does not contain such a quote from Mr. von Buelow. Assuming you are not deliberately lying, you must have the quote elsewhere. Care to provide the link?

Nor does Mr. von Buelow "argue that ... Mossad was involved in the attacks ...". That is the interpretation of some of those ring wing wind bags at The Telegraph. Mr. von Buelow argues that the Mossad probably knew something about the attacks. If you want to know what he "argues", read his books. No secrets here. And no anti-(whatever).

[greyl]

30. "Von Bulow told AFP he believes that Mossad is behind the 9/11 attacks"

Shortened from this statement:

"Von Bulow told AFP that he believes that the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, is behind the September 11 terror attacks. These attacks, he said, were carried out to turn public opinion against the Arabs, and boost military and security spending."

Four sites where this statement can be found:

http://christianparty.net/israeliterrorism.htm
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=400&page=2
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/10/lieberman-flashback/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOL403A.html

[reorg]

33. You seem to mistake me for someone else

all your links end up with the same article, written by someone going by the name of "Bollyn". Perhaps you should ask this person which AFP report he is referring to? I note that this same person refers elsewhere to von Bülow as a "top German spook". Maybe this Bollyn dude has a screw loose, ever thought of that?

[greyl]

42. No, it wasn't personal.

I know my links were redundant. That was the point.
Afaik, AFP links aren't allowed at DU.

[reorg]

44. you provided links to articles that aren't allowed at DU?

Why would you do that?

I thought the whole point of disallowing certain links was to keep DU free from Nazis and bigots. Why is it that some people here seem more interested in pointing to Nazi sites than keeping DU clean? Seems illogical to me.

[greyl]

48. NO! Good Grief, read my post again. nt

[reorg]

49. read it again - and yes, I think that's what you did

For some reason you seem to believe that several links to one particular article of this Bollyin person are required. Although this Bollyn dude makes statements in this article that are obviously false. And didn't somebody say he is a Nazi or something?

[greyl]

50. Then hit "alert" to alert the mods. nt

[oblivious]

59. "AFP links are not allowed at DU?" That would be rather astounding.

They're all over the DU boards.

[greyl]

63. I hope you enjoy being astonished.

I checked to be sure, and AFP links aren't welcome here although a few threads slipped through the cracks.
I'm just glad Houston wasn't nuked on Easter! :)

[oblivious]

64. Oh, I thought you meant Agence France Press. AFP is their acronym.

[Jazz2006]

32. You can't have it both ways, reorg....

While I agree that the "Torygraph" is a rag, that article you describe as a "right wing wind bag" article is the same one cited in the link by file83 in post #1 above in his/her support of von Buelow as "the real deal".

[reorg]

34. you are in error

file83 in post #1 cites a Wikipedia article, not the sorry excuse for journalism called The Telegraph.

[Jazz2006]

35. I don't think so, reorg.

If you read the wikipedia article, it appears to cite the very same Torygraph article.

Edit: see and read the links in both #1 and #7 - looks like the same story to me.

[reorg]

37. so? n/t

[Jazz2006]

38. What do you mean, "so?"

You forgot your point?

Or you've changed it now?

Sheesh.

[reorg]

39. so a Wiki article quotes a line from a newspaper article, so what?

[Jazz2006]

40. The point was rather clear, wasn't it?

file83 was relying upon the wiki article to say that von Bulow was credible and the wiki article relied upon selected quotes from a particular Telegraph story to make whatever point it was making.

Someone else posted a link to other quotes from the very same telegraph story to suggest that von Bulow was not credible at all.

You suggested that anything reported by the Telegraph is not credible.

Do you really and truly not see the obvious contradiction that I pointed out?

[reorg]

41. you seem to be confused

I suggest that the Telegraph article makes inaccurate, sweeping statements.

You seem to be very much interested in a Wikipedia article, where, as it happens, someone unbeknownst to me has quoted a line from this very Wiki article I find so unreliable.

Now you want to discuss something? With me? Why on earth? What is your problem? What's your point?

Please answer, but only if you find out what your problem is, thank you.

[Jazz2006]

43. Not confused at all...

Just making the observation that there seems to be a strange disconnect between your post saying that the Torygraph article is unreliable while someone else who seems to agree with your perspective that von Bulow is "the real deal" thinks that the very same Torygraph article supports the opposite conclusion (i.e that it is believable).

Reading comprehension 101. I recommend it.

[reorg]

45. you are making assumptions

namely that file83 bases his evaluation of von Bülow as "the real deal" on a certain line quoted in a Wiki article.

This Wiki article contains quite a few additional lines which would be more to the point as to whether von Bülow is "the real deal".

So what - apart from inconsequential quibbles - is your interest in this discussion?

[Jazz2006]

46. No, I was simply pointing out

the obvious discrepancy.

Why do you find that so contentious?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

53. Sub-thread Removed

As it was dipping into personal commentary. Please keep any discussion focused to the topic.

Lithos
9/11 Forum Moderator

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reorg]

36. self delete - wrong address

[Dancing_Dave]

57. Andreas Von Bulow is a REAL MAN!

He doesn't seem to be from the same species as the bogus creatures we've got in the White House now!

Von Bulow seems to be making some real progress in his 9/11 investigations. He just neeeds to spend more time in New York. The WTC demolition was in part a local NYC crime with common financial motives. The WTC buildings were losing money standing up, but demolishing them legally would have been even more expensive. The only way out of the multi-billion dollar trap was to demolish them covertly, then pocket the insurance money in billions of dollars. A very typical and traditional New York City style insurance crime, just on a much larger and more murderous scale.

So the Bush Adminstration, with it's own propaganda motive strikes a deal with these NYC real estate gangsters (Silverstein, Gargano, etc.) The guys in New York can do a demolition. They control the buildings and can install whatever they like. They don't need a whole lot of help with that from CIA rogues or some guys from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

CIA operatives in WTC 7 could have been involved in coreographing the destruction of the Towers. Sure. The strange thing is that someone decided to let the South Tower stand just long enough to kill the maximum number of firefighters. Fireman had just made it all the way up to the impact area, and the whole building is blown to smithereens. Perfectly cold blooded propaganda. You have to be as evil as Dick Cheney to do something like that.