[Closed] 9/11 documentary

Google can help there...

Said to be...may be...probably.

The salient point is that Jive is quoting a book published in 1993, that has very reviews, let alone sales, to help justify his 9/11 conspiracy.

Said to be...may be...probably

Also this, there's nothing like hearsay dressed up as facts is there?

Literally [i]any[/i] fact you can imagine is better than a fact that you can verify.

Strange you should focus on the book alone... though of course, non-fiction books are subject to legal constraints and there have been plenty of cases where people have been prevented from publishing by the intelligence services.

Same goes for Craig Unger's work regarding Bush and Bandar... Craig is quite well known and has served as deputy editor of the New York Observer and was editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine. He has written about George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for The New Yorker, Esquire Magazine and Vanity Fair.

No one has sued though... that tends to mean things are a fair representation of facts (and/or the parties involved would prefer the matters discussed aren't investigated further)

Beyond all that, you may have noticed the 'Brian Crozier' link is an obituary in the Guardian. You can find several similar articles throughout the mainstream press.

That's were it gets tricky though~ can you trust the press to give you the full picture; after all, Rupert Murdoch has been linked to Brian Crozier and Forum World Features...

that tends to mean things are a fair representation of facts (and/or the parties involved would prefer the matters discussed aren't investigated further)

Rubbish. It could equally means that the author is a swivel eyed loon who sold a book to 12 people.

You've a terrible habit of making stuff up to suit your internal narrative

The swivel eyed loon in question, with another swivel eyed loon...

[img] [/img]

Are you sure that’s not the plot for ‘Spectre’?

I'm crying tears of laughter, thank god I'm WFH today!

From a scientific point of view, the higher than Mach 1 terminal velocity of the planes at impact, would be perfectly reasonable in a FE scenario with directional air pressure*.

makes you think.

*combining a few threads here, thank me later mods

jivehoneyjive - Member

the CIA backed Forum World

[img] ?v=1459067159[/img]

😆 Good work Northwind, made me chuckle.

So anyway, back to Brian Crozier and 'the 61'... what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

Whittling a life sized model of Tom Selleck's penis from a piece of Douglas Fir that had washed up on the beach. Obviously.

Why not tell us what they really did then, oh master of the facts. Not what you think they did, or what they miht have done, or were said to have done. Facts.

Now, I must get back to my own whittling. Roger Moore's bum from a fallen oak, in case you were wondering.

what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

yes, let's join together in a big game of make stuff up, the most outlandish suggestion that retains a touch of credibility wins!

Are you saying that my suggestion lacked credibility?

maybe if you quote yourself that will add credibility CapF?

Are you saying that my suggestion lacked credibility?

Didn't see your previous post when I was typing mine

But yours have more credibility than most on this thread!

ETA: anyone who can grow such a luxuriant moustache and chest hair must be fantastically well hung.

anyone who can grow such a luxuriant moustache and chest hair must be fantastically well hung.

Just to clarify, are you talking about me or Tom Selleck there?

Reading this is like reading the most boring, badly written Tom Clancy fan fiction ever.

JHJ, it's ok that you don't understand, no ones going to judge.
It's far worse to make stuff up while pretending you do.

9/11 isn't made up, nor is Osama Bin Laden.

Nor for that matter is Brian Crozier and 'the 61'

Here's a pic to brigthen things up a bit and make it a bit less boring for you. (I don't have any squeaky toys or shiny things to hand)

[img] [/img]

Pulling together totally unconnected snippets of historical output, and trying to crowbar them into a single meaningful “storyline”
And failing miserably to come up with anything that even makes sense to anyone but a child.

Our jivebunny is basically exactly the same as the one from the 80’s

[img] ?itok=rSpaOFIt[/img]

But a little bit sadder.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

anyone who can grow such a luxuriant moustache and chest hair must be fantastically well hung.

Just to clarify, are you talking about me or Tom Selleck there?

you, obviously.

feel free to quote this in future debates

after all, Rupert Murdoch has been linked to Brian Crozier

OMG! A newspaper owner has been linked to a journalist!

9/11 isn't made up, nor is Osama Bin Laden.

Nor for that matter is Brian Crozier and 'the 61'

Well with that standard of proof I'm convinced.
Just not sure what of as the resident paranoid bullshitter hasn't the balls to say.
I had a mentally deranged fantasist in the pub yesterday. They were made to leave for the benefit of the other customers. 💡

Pulling together totally unconnected snippets of historical output

Patience my dear friend, soon enough you'll see they are entirely connected, both to one another and 9/11.

So anyway, back to Brian Crozier and 'the 61'... what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

1st up... what were all the other intelligence agencies up to back then?

John Rambo can help there...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Though Operation Cyclone was a covert operation, some folk at Rambo III must've been pretty in the loop. [url= http://rambo.wikia.com/wiki/Stinger_missiles ]They even mention supply of Stinger missiles.[/url]

A hero like Rambo is no doubt handy for cementing public support.

There again, what with the CIA, MI6, Mossad, ISI, Saudi intelligence and others involved, there must've been a fair few folk in the know, even if they didn't want the general population in on it.

No doubt such a co-ordinated effort would've required extensive planning... we'll come back to that

To put the pic of Mujahideen Afghan leaders visitng Reagan in context, it's worth bearing in mind that 1983 was when Donald Rumsfeld was made Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East.

[img] [/img]

Aside from his dealings helping arm Saddam, he must've cemented a pretty solid relationship with Saudi Arabia back then, because [url= http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/dod_brief16.asp ]this is what he had to say less than a month after the 9/11 attacks[/url]:

Rumsfeld: No. We're not going to be making requests of the Saudi Arabian government. We have a longstanding relationship with them. I've met with the leadership in that country any number of times. I served as Middle East envoy for President Reagan and spent time there. We are respectful of the circumstances of the countries in the region. We understand that.

That of course takes us back to Bandar's Riggs bank funds reaching the hijackers and his contact with Abu Zubaydah, not forgetting other members of the Saudi elite being implicated in funding and aiding Al-Qaeda.

[img] ?w=723[/img]

(On a side note, it's worth noting that Rumsfeld's Princeton roommate and lifelong friend, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Carlucci ]Frank Carlucci[/url] was deputy director of the CIA when Operation Cyclone began)

So Rumsfeld did it?

Though Operation Cyclone was a covert operation, some folk at Rambo III must've been pretty in the loop. They even mention supply of Stinger missiles.

What do you mean when you say “pretty in the loop”

Ronald Reagan talked publicly about Operation Cyclone and Stinger Missiles going to Afghanistan in 1980 when he was a Presidential Candidate.

It was totally public knowledge in the early 80’s.

Why would filmmakers in 1998 need to be “in the loop” to know about it ?

Are you trying to make it all sound “dodgy and conspiratorial” on purpose ?

Or do you maybe just not know as much about this stuff as you think you do. 🙄

Strange you should focus on the book alone...

So anyway, back to Brian Crozier and 'the 61'... what kind of things would a covert private intelligence agency that's a sworn enemy of Russia be up to in the 80s?

9/11 isn't made up, nor is Osama Bin Laden.

Nor for that matter is Brian Crozier and 'the 61'

And the invention of the Rubiks Cube. Makes you think...

Patience my dear friend, soon enough you'll see they are entirely connected, both to one another and 9/11.

Sweet baby jesus, you have plans to actually do the big reveal? Do give an idea of timescale, it means I'll know how much longer I can enjoy mocking your other works of fiction.

Though Operation Cyclone was a covert operation, some folk at Rambo III must've been pretty in the loop.

I check this thread every day to see whether it's getting any stupider. It is.

[img] [/img]
Makes you think

Sweet baby jesus, you have plans to actually do the big reveal?

Blimey, and there was I thinking you'd be praising me for my meticulous research, speaking of which...

Ronald Reagan talked publicly about Operation Cyclone and Stinger Missiles going to Afghanistan in 1980 when he was a Presidential Candidate.

Source please...

Seems a bit odd that a presidential candidate would blab about the early stages of a joint international CIA Operation in which they went through an intermediary (the ****stani ISI) and sourced and supplied AK47s to distance themselves from involvement.

Especially since supply of stingers to the Mujahideen wasn't approved until March 1986.

Factor in the time taken for development and pre-production of Rambo III, which would've been complete before filming began in mid 1987, and it's reasonable to deduce that someone on the production team of Rambo 3 was in the loop (bearing in mind this was long before the luxury of modern communication) or at the very least a damn good researcher.

Source please...

Seems a bit odd that a presidential candidate

Do your own research 🙄

You might want to start with “The Reagan Doctrine”
And his very public praise, and support of Anti Communist freedom fighters, in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

It was open Foriegn Policy of the Reagan Administration to offer support to Anti Communist fighters across the world.

How you don’t know this is baffling.

The Reagan Doctrine wasn't announced until 1985, which doesn't help your case...

Ronald Reagan talked publicly about Operation Cyclone and Stinger Missiles going to Afghanistan in 1980 when he was a Presidential Candidate.

However, considering how closely the Reagan Doctrine mirrors the sentiments of Brian Crozier, the 61 and the Pinay Circle (Le Cercle) it's worth noting that Brian Crozier 1st met Reagan on July 8th 1980 after an introduction by OSS and CIA agent [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Griffith,_Dowager_Countess_of_Romanones ]Aline Griffith, Dowager Countess of Romanones[/url].

Crozier states he was in regular covert unofficial contact with Reagan throughout his presidency mainly via Edward V Hickey and Nancy Reagan.

For more, see Brian Crozier's book, [url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Agent-1941-1991-Autobiography-International/dp/0060171170?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 ]Free Agent[/url]

especially Chapter 14:

'Reagan meets 'The 61''

I remember it as well, the US handing over stingers was all over the telly on the news, Panorama programmes like that ...fer Christ's sake I remember a boring car journey to an air cadet camp in the early eighties (83-4) when we discussed it, and I'm pretty sure none of us were part of a CIA operation.

Who were they handing Stingers over to in 83-84?

It certainly wasn't the Mujahideen at that stage...

The Reagan Doctrine wasn't announced until 1985, which doesn't help your case

I also said “you might want to [b]Start with[/b] the Reagan Doctrine.

Just because you don’t want to do any further research that will disprove your “theory” that the makers of Rambo 3 were inside the “conspiracy”
Don’t blame me.

There was no conspiracy here. It was public knowledge.
Reagan was very open about it.

Just because you haven’t researched it well enough, that doesn’t make it a conspiracy.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/jis-online.org/2017/10/27/the-soviet-vietnam/amp/

The covert assistance program was not as covert as originally envisioned: by 1980, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan had publicized the U.S. role in arming the Mujahideen, in addition to initiating a discussion of whether to provide Stinger missiles to the insurgents.

.

Well I'll be... last time I use Rambo to try and lighten the mood.

It's a reasonable misunderstanding though, since:

[b]Until the mid-1980s, the CIA avoided transferring American-made weapons to the Afghans, preferring instead to use Warsaw Pact weapons to match what was captured by the Mujahideen on the battlefield from Soviet troops.[/b] In addition, weapons were procured from Egypt, China, Poland, and on the international black market. The global operation to acquire weapons was so extensive that “by late 1986 there were so many agencies spending and distributing so many hundreds of millions dollars for so many countries that no agency could keep track of it all.”

(On a side note, can't help but wonder how many of those weapons went on to contribute to the efforts of Al-Qaeda, in much the same way that many of the stingers ended up in the hands of the Taliban)

Couple that with the fact that as I've already stated, [url= http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/18/world/arming-afghan-guerrillas-a-huge-effort-led-by-us.html?pagewanted=all ]authorisation for provision of Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen wasn't provided until March 1986[/url]:

For several months, conservative groups had harshly criticized John N. McMahon, who was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, on the ground that he was blocking efforts to send Stingers to the guerrillas. In early March 1986, Mr. Reagan approved delivery of such missiles.

Overall though, on this small point I concede, though I'm still baffled why Reagan would blow the cover when they'd gone to such trouble:

For five years, American officials provided the guerrillas with weapons designed and manufactured by the Soviet Union or other East Bloc countries so they could deny that the United States was supplying such assistance.

Regardless, [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/lost-at-tora-bora.html ]CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling[/url]...

[img] [/img]

Well I'll be... last time I use Rambo to try and lighten the mood.

Edinburgh ?

Bin Laden drove a bulldozer, who does that implicate? John Charles Bamford or Bob the Builder?

Because if someone remotely political had owned a bulldozer factory you would have tried to create a link there.

Regardless, CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling...

Why ?

Seriously, why is it troubling.

35 years ago, during the Cold War, assistance was given by the CIA to people fighting against America’s Cold War enemy.
That seems entirely logical wouldn’t you say.

The fact that a, just out of university, bin laden happened to be there at the time, also fighting against America’s enemy, is an irrelevance.

Is the fact that Political loyalties change over time totally lost in you ?

Overall though, on this small point I concede,

It’s always a “small point” when you are caught out talking shite though isn’t it.
Or just ignored and move on to the next one.

Regardless, CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling...

Why ?

Seriously, why is it troubling.

Well, in much the same way that [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#NORAD_testimony ]NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission is troubling[/url]...

John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission [b]"discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."[/b] Farmer continues: [b]"At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."[/b][23]

Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: [b]"We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."[/b]

Well, in much the same way that NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission is troubling...

Nope. Totally different.

Not even close to being the same. Pathetic deflection.

Answer the question please.

Why is the situation in the 1980’s, involving a young Bin laden (which YOU described as troubling) such an issue ?

This is a thread on 9/11, hence CIA funding of endeavours involving Osama Bin Laden is troubling, as is NORAD failing to tell the truth to the 9/11 commission.

Hope that clears things up for you 😉

Norad not telling the truth to the commission is not really that troubling,"The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93." All perfectly understandable particularly if you bother to follow the facts rather than whisk up a conspiracy. The facts are out there for all https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608 .

Sure, there's no fun if the cover up only hides incompetence. You need a conspiracy!

anyway, back to 1961 and something completely unrelated that happened in south east asia