Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
9/11 was an inside job, and related matters; just trying to liven things up
Topic Started: May 30 2007, 12:25 AM (1,786 Views)
toad

Dear Strawberry Fielders--

I'm new to this board, although very ancient on another board many of us love and remember fondly. In response to the moderator's recent call for a little life on the board, I though I would share some conclusions I've come to in my reading about the events of 9/11/01. The single inescapable conclusion I've come to is that the attacks on the Twin Towers could not have taken place without collusion from the US Air Force and the Bush administration. In fact we don't know exactly what happened that day, but we can be sure the Bush administration's official conspiracy theory is full of holes, lies, and deliberate misdirection.

When you put that conclusion together with the stolen election of 2000, the stolen election of 2004, the disappearance of the right to habeas corpus, the flagrant violation of the FISA law, the deliberate abandonment of the people of New Orleans in the afternath of hurricane Katrina, we find that Americans have every right to fear that they are in deep, deep doo doo.

Thoughts? comments?

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Thanks for your immediate response to my call. ;)

I've read some of those theories and have watched a couple of documentaries. A huge part of me can't accept that the US Government would have any part in such evil. Perhaps my faith in the administration, especially considering exactly what I think of their performance, is a little misplaced, but it would be just pure evil for any of the authorities to have played any active part in 9/11 - I can't bring myself to believe that it is true.

Are there any links to sites you'd like to share which may contain evidence or opinions which may inform us further?
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Andy, for the most part I agree with you. As much as I dislike Bush, I don't think he is smart enough to be in collusion with something this drastic. Cheney and Rumsfeld, now that is an entirely different story. I would hate to believe that Bush and his cronies would want to watch the killing of some 3000 world citizens, don't forget not all of the dead were Americans, knowing they were a part of this. Yes, something like flying planes into a building can go pretty much unnoticed until the very end. Don't forget the WTC has been flown into before and there have been near-accidents. I do feel that the gov't would've benefitted from such an act, and we are seeing that now with untold amounts of Iraqi citizens, 3467 US military, but hey we got Hussein.

Did I miss something? Did we get Bin Laden yet? I winked one day, maybe we got him then! :angry:
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LIPA
Member Avatar

JeffLynnesBeard
May 30 2007, 12:30 AM
Thanks for your immediate response to my call.  ;)

I've read some of those theories and have watched a couple of documentaries.  A huge part of me can't accept that the US Government would have any part in such evil.  Perhaps my faith in the administration, especially considering exactly what I think of their performance, is a little misplaced, but it would be just pure evil for any of the authorities to have played any active part in 9/11 - I can't bring myself to believe that it is true.

Are there any links to sites you'd like to share which may contain evidence or opinions which may inform us further?

Hi Andy Iv been looking through this site for awhile now.

Just scroll down till you come to 911
The hoax of the new millenium.


Click here


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

JeffLynnesBeard
May 30 2007, 12:30 AM
Thanks for your immediate response to my call. ;)

I've read some of those theories and have watched a couple of documentaries. A huge part of me can't accept that the US Government would have any part in such evil. Perhaps my faith in the administration, especially considering exactly what I think of their performance, is a little misplaced, but it would be just pure evil for any of the authorities to have played any active part in 9/11 - I can't bring myself to believe that it is true.

Are there any links to sites you'd like to share which may contain evidence or opinions which may inform us further?

I havd been thinking of posting some version of these thoughts for several weeks, but when I got your note, I decided to give it a try.

And if you find it hard to believe that an American administration could do such a thing, join the crowd. I, like most people, accepted the official version for at least two years, and for at least a year, so did one of the most thorough scholars and writers on the subject, Dr. David Ray Griffin. He has written two books on the subject, and edited two more, I think. I'll post the titles tomorrow, but if you want to take his name and google it tonight, go for it. What he has to say is so logical, so well-informed, and so free of political static, that he's pretty much unassailable.

On the internet, you can find several useful sites, and tomorrow, I'll try to round a few up and give you lome leads here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I said this when it came up as a sidetrack, so I'll say it again here. The conspiracy theories don't add up but neither does the official story and that constitutes reasonable doubt on both sides.

They say you should never attribute to malice what coul adequately be explained as stupidity.
I think history has shown that there's no way the Bush administration as a whole would be competent enough to pull this off. By my reckoning, that proves there's no way this could be an administration-wide conspiracy. I could, however, see how Cheney and Rumsfeld might have engineered it unbeknown to the rest of the administration.

The one thing we know for certain is that they were asleep at the wheel when it came to national security. For that alone, they are culpable.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~LovelyRita~

I'm an extremely opened minded person, but I do not be a second believe that 9/11 was some kind of US government conspiracy. Bush may not be a genius, but he sure as hell isn't cruel enough or stupid enough to want to pull such an act of unparalleled evil. Nixon wasn't able to get away with Watergate, and Watergate seems like nothing compared to something on the level of a 9/11 conspiracy. If it truly was a conspiracy, something would have come out by now. While I admit that there is an awful lot of evil in the world, I refuse to believe that it exists to the extent that the President of the United States would order the deaths of thousands of innocent people just to create justification for a war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
doris mendlovitz
Member Avatar

I have heard three different aspects of the things revolving around 911
If it was an attack it was basically a Retalitory strike. For the United States actually struck first. In other words the uS started this war.
If it is an inside job that it had the help of a payoff from an overseas Business college for money to boost sales in war machinery and oil revenues in the long run
Thirdly I thought the really weird thing about tryint to pin this one on one man, and this is just an observation from my self. If You are going to look for one Criminal suspect you send the police or law enforcement . You do not start World WAr III.
To me this was just an excuse for our current administration to boost a war time economy and it actually could be the Onset of WWIII

love doris.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

There are stacks of conspiracy theory videos, ranging from the somewhat convincing to the utterly outlandish here:
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

I'm not endorsing any of them, just posting the links in the interest of food for thought.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Without responding to each one of you individually, I want to suggest a couple of thoughts that some of you may find interesting, if not convincing in and of themselves.

The first is that while we are accustomed to thinking of the Bush administration as incompetent, it is possible that they are quite competent at achieving their aims, but the objectives they are pursuing are the opposite of the ones they announce. This implies that they spend a lot of time lying and misleading the public.

The second is that if any of us had been shown film footage of the twin towers collapsing, and of WTC 7 collapsing, without being told that two airplanes had just crashed into two of the buildings (not 3), we might well have said that these buildings had been deliberately imploded, that charges had been set to destroy them. In fact, Griffin reports that exactly this experiment was tried on a man who was the head of a controlled demolition company in Europe--he was shown footage of the collapse of WTC 7, without being told where the building was and when it had collapsed. He was asked for for his opinion, and said without hesitation that it was the work of very good, professional demolition experts. When told which building it was, it took several minutes to convince him that it was the third of the three WTC buildings that had collapsed. There is general agreement that you cannot wire a building for controlled demolition in a few hours--weeks or months are needed to get the desired result.

And finally, all three of the buildings collapsed at near free fall speed. That is, an object falling from the height of the top of the twin towers would have taken about 8 seconds to fall to the ground without any impedance but the air. WTC 1,2, and 7 all fell in about 10-11 seconds. If you accept the "pancake" theory of the collapses, the speed of collapse is a very serious problem, with 110 stories to both of the taller buildings, and 47 stories in WTC 7. If you imagine the fall of each floor taking half a second, you must posit a minimum of 55 seconds for the top stories of the taller buildings to reach the ground. The buildings fell way too fast for their collapses to have resulted from pancaking.

I'll return later with some titles for the Griffin books.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Past The Point Of No Return
Member Avatar

Right on ! Radical dude ! :lol:
Whilst on the Internet, question the validity of ALL friendships, information and opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blondie10
Member Avatar

toad
May 30 2007, 12:25 AM
Dear Strawberry Fielders--

I'm new to this board, although very ancient on another board many of us love and remember fondly. In response to the moderator's recent call for a little life on the board, I though I would share some conclusions I've come to in my reading about the events of 9/11/01. The single inescapable conclusion I've come to is that the attacks on the Twin Towers could not have taken place without collusion from the US Air Force and the Bush administration. In fact we don't know exactly what happened that day, but we can be sure the Bush administration's official conspiracy theory is full of holes, lies, and deliberate misdirection.

When you put that conclusion together with the stolen election of 2000, the stolen election of 2004, the disappearance of the right to habeas corpus, the flagrant violation of the FISA law, the deliberate abandonment of the people of New Orleans in the afternath of hurricane Katrina, we find that Americans have every right to fear that they are in deep, deep doo doo.

Thoughts? comments?

Cheers,
Carol

WHAT???? :nono:

Maybe I better re-read this post whilst DRUNK !!! :o Or better yet while asleep... :o

Sooooooooo.....I"m guessing your not a fan of the Bush administration... :P


I disagree 100 percent on your entire post.... ;) But hey...to each his/her own... :D
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

And why would that be Val? ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blondie10
Member Avatar

Bill
May 30 2007, 02:14 PM
And why would that be Val? ;)

OH NO... NOT YOU!! :P :D ;)

The whole conspiracy theory just DOES NOT WASH(I know governments are corrupt but that is just TOO much to even take in)... even the biggest bleeding liberal could not agree with this... :o or COULD they??? :P Or where you asking me why I would prefer to read this post drunk or asleep.... :P
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

No, you answered what I was asking. :lol:

I don't think it's a lib/con thing. It's a question of what makes sense. And I agree that many of the conspiracy theories don't add up. But neither does the official story. And I do agree with Toad about building 7. I can accept the towers collapsing in the way they did after such damage. However, for building 7 to collapse so neatly due to a fire just doesn't make sense. It would make it only the third steel construction in history to collapse because of fire.
It's been suggested that the angle from which the collapse was filmed belies the catastrophic damage that had been done to the building. Yet, on a day when every available camera was trained on one block in New York, it was only filmed from one angle?? I have difficulty with that.

I'm keeping an open mind on both sides. :)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I've seen some interesting 'evidence' but nothing which has wholly convinced me. There was obviously negligence ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=cYbWaMqWy7s ) but I believe it was a well-planned attack from the outside on the United States.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blondie10
Member Avatar

Bill
May 30 2007, 02:49 PM
No, you answered what I was asking. :lol:

I don't think it's a lib/con thing. It's a question of what makes sense. And I agree that many of the conspiracy theories don't add up. But neither does the official story. And I do agree with Toad about building 7. I can accept the towers collapsing in the way they did after such damage. However, for building 7 to collapse so neatly due to a fire just doesn't make sense. It would make it only the third steel construction in history to collapse because of fire.
It's been suggested that the angle from which the collapse was filmed belies the catastrophic damage that had been done to the building. Yet, on a day when every available camera was trained on one block in New York, it was only filmed from one angle?? I have difficulty with that.

I'm keeping an open mind on both sides. :)

I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11..... :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet.... :hmm:
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BlueMolly2009
Member Avatar
LOLcat Freak
I'm not a Bush fan, but I think that this 9/11 conspiracy theory is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Molly
Myspace
My Twitter
My FriendFeed
My Facebook
Posted Image
Boston Chihuahuas (I took this while at a Starbucks)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Blondie10
May 30 2007, 10:39 AM
Bill
May 30 2007, 02:49 PM
No, you answered what I was asking.  :lol:

I don't think it's a lib/con thing. It's a question of what makes sense. And I agree that many of the conspiracy theories don't add up. But neither does the official story. And I do agree with Toad about building 7. I can accept the towers collapsing in the way they did after such damage. However, for building 7 to collapse so neatly due to a fire just doesn't make sense. It would make it only the third steel construction in history to collapse because of fire.
It's been suggested that the angle from which the collapse was filmed belies the catastrophic damage that had been done to the building. Yet, on a day when every available camera was trained on one block in New York, it was only filmed from one angle?? I have difficulty with that.

I'm keeping an open mind on both sides.  :)

I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11..... :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet.... :hmm:

It just knew his name was going to make history some how or another. :P :D :lol:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Blondie10
May 30 2007, 06:39 PM
I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11..... :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet.... :hmm:

Bush isn't a killer but Kennedy was... Typical. :P

I'm just kidding, Val. I've already made my feelings about the theory clear. ;)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Bellamy

MaccaByrd
May 30 2007, 02:05 PM
Blondie10
May 30 2007, 06:39 PM
I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.....  :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet....  :hmm:

Bush isn't a killer but Kennedy was... Typical. :P

I'm just kidding, Val. I've already made my feelings about the theory clear. ;)

All leaders are killers by default really. As soon as they despatch men to war, the die is cast.
Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blondie10
Member Avatar

MaccaByrd
May 30 2007, 06:05 PM
Blondie10
May 30 2007, 06:39 PM
I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.....  :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet....  :hmm:

Bush isn't a killer but Kennedy was... Typical. :P

I'm just kidding, Val. I've already made my feelings about the theory clear. ;)

I know...I read your posts!!! ;) :D
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blondie10
Member Avatar

Mr Bellamy
May 30 2007, 06:06 PM
MaccaByrd
May 30 2007, 02:05 PM
Blondie10
May 30 2007, 06:39 PM
I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.....  :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet....   :hmm:

Bush isn't a killer but Kennedy was... Typical. :P

I'm just kidding, Val. I've already made my feelings about the theory clear. ;)

All leaders are killers by default really. As soon as they despatch men to war, the die is cast.

Unfortunate...and very true.... The die is cast and the cast die!! :(
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mr Bellamy
May 30 2007, 07:06 PM
All leaders are killers by default really. As soon as they despatch men to war, the die is cast.

Ain't that the truth!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blondie10
Member Avatar

Blondie10
May 30 2007, 06:08 PM
MaccaByrd
May 30 2007, 06:05 PM
Blondie10
May 30 2007, 06:39 PM
I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.....  :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet....   :hmm:

Bush isn't a killer but Kennedy was... Typical. :P

I'm just kidding, Val. I've already made my feelings about the theory clear. ;)

I know...I read your posts!!! ;) :D

And I just realized YOUR Fiona....LMAO... :P

I need a list of NAMES and Pseudonyms!!! ;)
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Mr Bellamy
May 30 2007, 11:06 AM
MaccaByrd
May 30 2007, 02:05 PM
Blondie10
May 30 2007, 06:39 PM
I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.....  :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet....   :hmm:

Bush isn't a killer but Kennedy was... Typical. :P

I'm just kidding, Val. I've already made my feelings about the theory clear. ;)

All leaders are killers by default really. As soon as they despatch men to war, the die is cast.

That is the most truthful post I have ever read.
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlespud
Member Avatar

I don't believe that the Bush administration was behind what happened on 9/11. I do however do believe that they have used that event to pursue their own agenda... The last time I checked Bin Laden was in Afgahistan... and there has been no evidence of him being in Iraq recently.





Dean
Save the whales, collect the entire set!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DCBeatle64
Member Avatar
Wings nutter
Yeah we discussed this theory in Politics last year.Pretty much the foundations of the argument was that the US secretly combined forces with people like Bin Laden in order for them to both get what they want.The US make them do the work and appear to be the good guys and just make it better and mass support from the US citizens and the rest of the world. I dont think there is good enough reason for them to join forces
I'm a BIGGER Beatles fan than you and I'm an even BIGGER Wings fan than that...
'You're a Paul McCartney fan? No you're a Wings fan'. 'Thankyou Scotland' Ho Hey Ho...
Posted Image
I am the buttplug goo goo goo joob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

What I'm primarily talking about here is not the motives of whoever was responsible for 9/11, or their identities, but the facts of what happened. Facts. They can be spun, certainly, but if they are facts, it the truth is in them, then the spin will spin off into space eventually, and the facts will remain.

So, the question is: what actually happened on 9/11? Did the collapse of the three buildings resut from the damage inflicted by the airliners crashing into them? Or did something else happen?

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

This links to an article by a Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University, and the next,

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

links to an article on the physical forces needed to bring the towers down in the time they took to fall. This article is by "Jane Doe," clearly someone who didn't feel comfortable revealing her name, but if you read the article, someone who's quite confident of the physics of her analysis.

And we should remember that there are several serious conspiracy theories that contradict the official theory, certainly. I haven't read all of the theories, and don't intend to look up the ones that involve Masonic rituals.

But the official theory is also just that--a theory, and a conspiracy theory. It differs from the alternative theories in that it has been announced in the papers, and on the broadcast media. Its proponents say that it is backed by lots of evidence. The official theory holds that a group of 19 suicide pilots, 14 of them from Saudi Arabia, hijacked four airliners, and flew three of them into three American buildings. This theory holds that Osama bin Laden was the man responsible for the operation. This theory holds that the damage inflicted by the planes caused the twin towers to collapse. The official theory doesn't have much to say about WTC 7, since the 9/11 Commission Report doesn't even mention it. But that the towers collapsed as a direct result of the airliner damage is a key part of the official conspiracy theory. After all, if the buildings collapsed because they were wired to collapse, that calls for weeks of preparation on the part of Al Qaeda. According to the official theory, the buildings had to collapse from airliner damage.

I'm convinced that the only theory that fits all the facts of those collapses is controlled demolition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Blondie10
May 31 2007, 03:39 AM

I try and keep an open mind too Bill...and I DO buy into many conspiracy theories....IE: Princess Diana being murdered, Marilyn Monroes death and the Kennedys involvement?? .. All interesting... but it's almost impossible for me to believe the Bush administration had ANYTHING to do with 9/11..... :o Hey...for all you Bush Bashers...is that not giving President Bush an AWFUL lot of credit for being one of the most EVIL, CLEVER politicians on the planet.... :hmm:

Indeed it is, and that's one of the strongest arguments against the conspiracy theories.

Cheney, on the other hand...... :whistle:

But it is a valid argument. If they're so incompetent that they can't even do the most basic political purge of attorneys without bringing down a shitstorm on themselves, how could they ever hope to pull Sept. 11 off?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Mr Bellamy
May 31 2007, 04:06 AM

All leaders are killers by default really. As soon as they despatch men to war, the die is cast.

Wow!
That was good!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Well, on the whole, that was better than I expected.

But I didn't expect much.

After all, I doesn't really matter much what actually happened on 9/11. It makes so little difference in our lives. It's true another inmate at Guantanomo Bay killed himself. That's unfortunate, but acceptable, because Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. More American troops died in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but that's just the price of war, which is justified because Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. An undetermined number of citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq have died, and that's unfortunate, but acceptable, because Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11.

We know that because the newspapers and the television told us so. We know that, and we know that the conspiracy theorists are all crackpots, because the newspapers and the television told us so. We trust our news sources absolutely, and so we know that Osama bin Laden attacked us, and thus we are justified in invading two small countries than none of us has ever been to, and the casualties are unfortunate, but justified, because Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11.

Right. Got it.

Oh, by the way, the FBI doesn't know that Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. That's an experiment you can perform yourselves. Go to the FBI home page, www.FBI.gov, and check its most wanted list of terrorists. Osama bin Laden is wanted for bombing the USS Cole, and for bombing our two embassies in Africa. But there's no mention of 9/11. You can then call the FBI, as I did, and ask why there is no mention of 9/11 on the list of charges bin Laden is wanted for. The nice young man will tell you that they don't have evidence to connect him with those attacks. He will refer you to his superior, whose email address he will give you. I wrote to the superior seeking further clarification, and after at least two weeks, have had no response.

But we all know it was Osama bin Laden.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
What do you mean it really doesn't matter much? Of course it does. But my country is going about it the wrong way. Iraq was a war that was doomed to happen as soon as another Bush got into office. That was my firm belief the night the Supreme Court said "okay, you can invade this country as their President then go ahead and finish the job your daddy started for you and invade Iraq. We know you want to do so we are now giving you the greenlight to do so."

We need to find out why 9/11 happened. I don't buy the theory of they did it because they hate our freedom. That doesn't wash with me. My theory is that it happened because we had invaded their holiest of countries, Saudia Arabia. They wanted to keep western civilization from invading it but we did. I think it is imperative that we find out the whys and wherefores or it will happen again and in a bigger way. May not be on such a grand scale at first but the end result will probably be more catastrophic than 9/11.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

beatlechick
Jun 1 2007, 01:27 AM
What do you mean it really doesn't matter much? Of course it does. But my country is going about it the wrong way. Iraq was a war that was doomed to happen as soon as another Bush got into office. That was my firm belief the night the Supreme Court said "okay, you can invade this country as their President then go ahead and finish the job your daddy started for you and invade Iraq. We know you want to do so we are now giving you the greenlight to do so."

We need to find out why 9/11 happened. I don't buy the theory of they did it because they hate our freedom. That doesn't wash with me. My theory is that it happened because we had invaded their holiest of countries, Saudia Arabia. They wanted to keep western civilization from invading it but we did. I think it is imperative that we find out the whys and wherefores or it will happen again and in a bigger way. May not be on such a grand scale at first but the end result will probably be more catastrophic than 9/11.



My apologies--when I said it didn't matter much, I was being ironic.

As for your second paragraph, let me suggest that America has been paying for the finest military forces in the world for 60 years, including a superb military radar system, and state-of-the-art planning, very fast fighter planes theoretically on alert round the clock, and excellent armor and weapons. All of this was paid for to defend Americans from harm. On the morning of 9/11, two planes were seen to fly into the WTC towers, and another one was reported to have hit the Pentagon. All of this took about an hour and a half to happen. Not one of the planes was intercepted, not even the one that [we were told] crashed into the Pentagon. We are asked to believe that this was the fault of bad luck, miscommunication, and slow work on the part of the FAA. I don't buy that story any more. I think the US Air Force is quite effective as long as they haven't been ordered to stand down.

And the trade towers themselves. I imagine you've seen the footage of the towers falling. They fell at quite close to free fall speed in a vacuum. After you've read enough physicists and engineers and builders talk about what's on that film, you see just what you saw the first time you saw it--two buildings being blown up--pulverized from the top down. Clouds of concrete dust, beams being blown out the sides of the buildings 300 to 500'. You see buildings being blown up. Just like the public housing development in St. Louis that was deliberately leveled by controlled demolition. The official story was believable for awhile if you weren't an expert, but after you've read some experts, you wonder why you ever believed it.

Osama bin Laden and his minions got into the buildings 2 or 3 or 4 weeks in advance, and planted explosives that would drop the buildings neatly into their own footprints after they crashed the planes into them? Nah. I just don't buy it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
toad
Jun 1 2007, 05:16 PM
beatlechick
Jun 1 2007, 01:27 AM
What do you mean it really doesn't matter much?  Of course it does.  But my country is going about it the wrong way.  Iraq was a war that was doomed to happen as soon as another Bush got into office.  That was my firm belief the night the Supreme Court said "okay, you can invade this country as their President then go ahead and finish the job your daddy started for you and invade Iraq.  We know you want to do so we are now giving you the greenlight to do so." 

We need to find out why 9/11 happened.  I don't buy the theory of they did it because they hate our freedom.  That doesn't wash with me.  My theory is that it happened because we had invaded their holiest of countries, Saudia Arabia.  They wanted to keep western civilization from invading it but we did.  I think it is imperative that we find out the whys and wherefores or it will happen again and in a bigger way.  May not be on such a grand scale at first but the end result will probably be more catastrophic than 9/11.



My apologies--when I said it didn't matter much, I was being ironic.

As for your second paragraph, let me suggest that America has been paying for the finest military forces in the world for 60 years, including a superb military radar system, and state-of-the-art planning, very fast fighter planes theoretically on alert round the clock, and excellent armor and weapons. All of this was paid for to defend Americans from harm. On the morning of 9/11, two planes were seen to fly into the WTC towers, and another one was reported to have hit the Pentagon. All of this took about an hour and a half to happen. Not one of the planes was intercepted, not even the one that [we were told] crashed into the Pentagon. We are asked to believe that this was the fault of bad luck, miscommunication, and slow work on the part of the FAA. I don't buy that story any more. I think the US Air Force is quite effective as long as they haven't been ordered to stand down.

And the trade towers themselves. I imagine you've seen the footage of the towers falling. They fell at quite close to free fall speed in a vacuum. After you've read enough physicists and engineers and builders talk about what's on that film, you see just what you saw the first time you saw it--two buildings being blown up--pulverized from the top down. Clouds of concrete dust, beams being blown out the sides of the buildings 300 to 500'. You see buildings being blown up. Just like the public housing development in St. Louis that was deliberately leveled by controlled demolition. The official story was believable for awhile if you weren't an expert, but after you've read some experts, you wonder why you ever believed it.

Osama bin Laden and his minions got into the buildings 2 or 3 or 4 weeks in advance, and planted explosives that would drop the buildings neatly into their own footprints after they crashed the planes into them? Nah. I just don't buy it.

I have seen "experts" talk about the buildings falling. Most of them said there is two things that play into this; 1) the way the buildings were built and the material used could not withstand the pressure of all of the debris that was cast upon them from the first 2 collapsing (which were also problems with the way they were built). 2) Jet fuel burns extremely hot and very fast, add that to carpetting, wood, and other flammable stuff that make up an office and you have a disaster. The men that flew into the buildings were well schooled on the stress points and they knew exactly where to hit them. The way those buildings were built would not last in Los Angeles as the stress points in them would not withstand a 6 point earthquake, they had no give. Regardless of the give, they could not withstand the pressure of a full-blown jet filled to capacity in both passengers and jetfuel being flown into a building.

And yes, the Pentagon was flown into. There were some very narrow escapes and some that died there.

Look, I do believe in a lot of conspiracy theories and don't buy what the gov't is shoving down our throats. There are a lot of questions to be answered here, more than meets the eye. We are only scratching the surface. We need to dig more and get out of Iraq. We were caught with our pants down and need more vigilance and knowing the 'fine' military we have, we may have the equipment but word has to get out quicker than they did then. This took way less than an hour, for it to go down. Way less. I believe all totalled it was less than an hour for all 4 planes to go down. Military jets did see the 4th plane right before it crashed in the field.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, one way to shut the conspiracists up would be to catch bin Laden. :rolleyes:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adilah
Member Avatar

Is it possible that the American government created the conspiracy theory to shift the focus away from bin Laden? No offense, but why can't you catch that guy? He's in Pakistan (that's the one next to India).

beatlechick
Jun 1 2007, 04:27 AM
My theory is that it happened because we had invaded their holiest of countries, Saudia Arabia.

When did the U.S.A. invade Saudi Arabia and to whom is it the holiest of countries?
"We call 10 American deaths a catastrophe. One hundred European deaths are a tragedy. One thousand Asian deaths are a shame. And 10,000 African deaths we call a Monday." - Lissa (1981-2007) ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã æÑÍãÉ Çááå æÈÑßÇÊå
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlespud
Member Avatar

Bill
Jun 2 2007, 04:47 AM
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, one way to shut the conspiracists up would be to catch bin Laden. :rolleyes:

Hard to do that, Bill, when most of the troops are where he isn't...









Dean
Save the whales, collect the entire set!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 2 2007, 04:47 AM
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, one way to shut the conspiracists up would be to catch bin Laden. :rolleyes:

Bill, I do wish you'd consider my theory that the Bush administration is competent, or that the people who are running them are competent. If they are competent, the last thing in the world they'd want to do is catch bin Laden. There's even some doubt as to whether he's still alive.


The reason we invaded Afghanistan is probably to protect Western interests in the Unocal oil pipeline which had been negotiated in the region for years. With the American people believing that bin Laden was alive, and a force for evil so powerful that he could strike inside the United States, the invasion could begin. We wanted to install a government in Afghanistan friendly to the Unocal oil interests. But they would not actually want to catch him, because then he could, if he survived imprisonment, tell his story. I think we wouldn't like that at all. So, while the American public was still boiling with anger at bin Laden, we could associate bin Laden with Hussein, and invade Iraq, where we would also like to install a government friendly to Western oil interests. Of course, there was no real connection between bin Laden and Hussein, but since the majority of the American public is woefully ignorant of world affairs, not to mention American history and just what the Constitution does for us, lots of people still believed what their government seemed to be telling them.

No, the last thing we want to do is catch bin Laden.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Quote:
 
I have seen "experts" talk about the buildings falling. Most of them said there is two things that play into this; 1) the way the buildings were built and the material used could not withstand the pressure of all of the debris that was cast upon them from the first 2 collapsing (which were also problems with the way they were built). 2) Jet fuel burns extremely hot and very fast, add that to carpetting, wood, and other flammable stuff that make up an office and you have a disaster. The men that flew into the buildings were well schooled on the stress points and they knew exactly where to hit them. The way those buildings were built would not last in Los Angeles as the stress points in them would not withstand a 6 point earthquake, they had no give. Regardless of the give, they could not withstand the pressure of a full-blown jet filled to capacity in both passengers and jetfuel being flown into a building.

And yes, the Pentagon was flown into. There were some very narrow escapes and some that died there.


beatlechick--

I snipped part of our post for the sake of brevity and because it's these paragraphs I wanted to reply to.

The second one first: Something certainly flew into one wedge of the Pentagon, and about 125 people working there were killed or injured. But the single photograph released of the scene shows no plane wreckage, no bodies of the plane passengers.

On your first paragraph's "expert" opinions (I'm glad you put the word in quotes)--everyone connected with the design and construction of the two world trade towers says that far from having weak spots, both the towers were build with a good deal of redundant strength--that is, they were planned to easily withstand a plane of the approximate size of a 767 flying into it. One construction expert gave it as his opinion that several planes could have flown into the twin towers, and they would still have remained standing, unless some other force or forces had come into play.

And of course the twin towers weren't hit with falling debris themselves, being the biggest kids on the block, although debris from the two towers did fall on shorter buildings near them. No debris fell on Bldg. 7, which simply "collapsed" around 5 that afternoon. And the shorter buildings that sustained damage from the twin towers did not collapse.

And lastly, jet fuel is essentially kerosene, and can burn very hot for short periods of time in a fire of that type. But those fires would have had to burn at their maximum possible temperature for many hours before they would even have weakened some of the steel in those very well constructed buildings. And as you recall, the South Tower collapsed first, 56 minutes after being struck, although it had been hit second. One reason that (about) 343 fire fighters and rescue personnel died in the towers that day is that their captains did NOT expect the towers to collapse, as no other modern steel frame high rise had ever collapsed from fire. And those three buildings remain the only three that have ever collapsed from fire.

The "experts" you saw appearing on television are probably not the alternative sources I've been reading, since they cannot get arrested, publicity wise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bungalow Willie
Member Avatar

OK...next topic.....how many people here believe that the earth is really flat? ^_^
Let's Rap and Tap in Crackerbox Palace!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Bungalow Willie
Jun 2 2007, 07:59 PM
OK...next topic.....how many people here believe that the earth is really flat? ^_^

Dorothy rise her hand and say's woo woo, I do. also, say's was this suppose to be a trick question. and what prize do I get. :P :D :lol:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Adilah
Jun 2 2007, 05:33 AM
Is it possible that the American government created the conspiracy theory to shift the focus away from bin Laden? No offense, but why can't you catch that guy? He's in Pakistan (that's the one next to India).

beatlechick
Jun 1 2007, 04:27 AM
My theory is that it happened because we had invaded their holiest of countries, Saudia Arabia.

When did the U.S.A. invade Saudi Arabia and to whom is it the holiest of countries?

Saudi Arabia is the holiest of countries for the Muslims. They consider it sacred grounds. The US planted its' military forces there during the first Persian Gulf War. Bin Laden sited this intrusion many times as the reason why he attacked the US. Islam did not want Western influence in Saudi Arabia.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Toad, the 'experts' that I have seen (on the history channel, military channel, and discovery) have all stated that there were weak points in the tower. When they were built in the early 70's, they were built to withstand the jets of the time. 30 years later those jets have grown quite a bit. If memory serves me right, the largest plane was either the newly built (or was in the planning stages) 747 or DC 8. Big difference to the planes of today which are faster. Also any building has a weak point, the higher buildings go the more chance of multiple weak points.

As for jet fuel, my boyfriend is in the airplane industry, and I know how fast and hot the fuel burns but place that with gas lines, carpetting (which smolders), wood, and plastics and you have a disaster waiting. All 14 buildings at the world trade center were damaged by flying debris. There was even debris that spread out several miles away.

So why is it you want to believe the conspiracy theories? I know there are a lot of questions but unfortunately all of the participants in the attack are either dead or in hiding. I don't want to believe in the conspiracy theories, I want to know the truth.

Since your 'experts' are not citing facts, they would have no grounds for being arrested based on theory.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 3 2007, 06:14 AM
Bill
Jun 2 2007, 04:47 AM
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, one way to shut the conspiracists up would be to catch bin Laden.  :rolleyes:

Bill, I do wish you'd consider my theory that the Bush administration is competent, or that the people who are running them are competent. If they are competent, the last thing in the world they'd want to do is catch bin Laden. There's even some doubt as to whether he's still alive.


The reason we invaded Afghanistan is probably to protect Western interests in the Unocal oil pipeline which had been negotiated in the region for years. With the American people believing that bin Laden was alive, and a force for evil so powerful that he could strike inside the United States, the invasion could begin. We wanted to install a government in Afghanistan friendly to the Unocal oil interests. But they would not actually want to catch him, because then he could, if he survived imprisonment, tell his story. I think we wouldn't like that at all. So, while the American public was still boiling with anger at bin Laden, we could associate bin Laden with Hussein, and invade Iraq, where we would also like to install a government friendly to Western oil interests. Of course, there was no real connection between bin Laden and Hussein, but since the majority of the American public is woefully ignorant of world affairs, not to mention American history and just what the Constitution does for us, lots of people still believed what their government seemed to be telling them.

No, the last thing we want to do is catch bin Laden.

Erm.... Toad..... that was kind of my point!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 3 2007, 07:42 AM
toad
Jun 3 2007, 06:14 AM
Bill
Jun 2 2007, 04:47 AM
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, one way to shut the conspiracists up would be to catch bin Laden.  :rolleyes:

Bill, I do wish you'd consider my theory that the Bush administration is competent, or that the people who are running them are competent. If they are competent, the last thing in the world they'd want to do is catch bin Laden. There's even some doubt as to whether he's still alive.


The reason we invaded Afghanistan is probably to protect Western interests in the Unocal oil pipeline which had been negotiated in the region for years. With the American people believing that bin Laden was alive, and a force for evil so powerful that he could strike inside the United States, the invasion could begin. We wanted to install a government in Afghanistan friendly to the Unocal oil interests. But they would not actually want to catch him, because then he could, if he survived imprisonment, tell his story. I think we wouldn't like that at all. So, while the American public was still boiling with anger at bin Laden, we could associate bin Laden with Hussein, and invade Iraq, where we would also like to install a government friendly to Western oil interests. Of course, there was no real connection between bin Laden and Hussein, but since the majority of the American public is woefully ignorant of world affairs, not to mention American history and just what the Constitution does for us, lots of people still believed what their government seemed to be telling them.

No, the last thing we want to do is catch bin Laden.

Erm.... Toad..... that was kind of my point!

Oh. Sorry I missed that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Toad, maybe you don't realize it, but 9/11 has nothing to do with why the US invaded Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified, but the invasion of Iraq has never been justified except for the fact that Daddy Bush didn't finish the job during the first Gulf War, so Sonny Bush thought he had to do it. I also knew that when the Supreme Court said Sonny boy was our next president, Iraq would be invaded. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
I could never think of Dumbass, oops, Bush being competent enough to do something like 9/11, let alone an intelligent way of handling the "War on Terrorism."
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DCBeatle64
Member Avatar
Wings nutter
beatlechick
Jun 4 2007, 01:44 AM
I could never think of Dumbass, oops, Bush being competent enough to do something like 9/11, let alone an intelligent way of handling the "War on Terrorism."

It doesnt need to be him.It could be the other authority type people (CIA etc) in the US.
I'm a BIGGER Beatles fan than you and I'm an even BIGGER Wings fan than that...
'You're a Paul McCartney fan? No you're a Wings fan'. 'Thankyou Scotland' Ho Hey Ho...
Posted Image
I am the buttplug goo goo goo joob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
beatlechick
Jun 3 2007, 06:44 PM
I could never think of Dumbass, oops, Bush being competent enough to do something like 9/11, let alone an intelligent way of handling the "War on Terrorism."

He hasn't handled one bit of it intelligently, has he? CIA hasn't shown itself to be much more competent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
DCBeatle64
Jun 3 2007, 06:46 PM
beatlechick
Jun 4 2007, 01:44 AM
I could never think of Dumbass, oops, Bush being competent enough to do something like 9/11, let alone an intelligent way of handling the "War on Terrorism."

It doesnt need to be him.It could be the other authority type people (CIA etc) in the US.

It could be but the same can be said about England since this war was being fought based on the, now the highly disregardable, 10 Downing St. report. Neither gov'ts have been intelligent enough to admit Iraq was a mistake.

Sure there are a lot of suspects on who did the 9/11 job, just like there are a lot of suspects on who killed JFK. In neither case will we ever learn what actually happened to satisfy everybody's views on the cases.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DCBeatle64
Member Avatar
Wings nutter
beatlechick
Jun 4 2007, 01:57 AM
DCBeatle64
Jun 3 2007, 06:46 PM
beatlechick
Jun 4 2007, 01:44 AM
I could never think of Dumbass, oops, Bush being competent enough to do something like 9/11, let alone an intelligent way of handling the "War on Terrorism."

It doesnt need to be him.It could be the other authority type people (CIA etc) in the US.

It could be but the same can be said about England since this war was being fought based on the, now the highly disregardable, 10 Downing St. report. Neither gov'ts have been intelligent enough to admit Iraq was a mistake.

Sure there are a lot of suspects on who did the 9/11 job, just like there are a lot of suspects on who killed JFK. In neither case will we ever learn what actually happened to satisfy everybody's views on the cases.

Nope we wont which is always a big shame in these circumstances. The British Govt have been a bit more regretful about the war but not enough obviously. I do genuinely believe that Tony Blair went into the war for better reasons than Bush (a decision I must admit I was for at the time) and believed it was the right thing to do at the time but obviously now when we look at it there was absolutly no need for it.Iraq did nothing wrong.Yes Hussain needed to be sorted out but it just seems like Iraq was a quick fix and they havent even managed to track down the real culprits
I'm a BIGGER Beatles fan than you and I'm an even BIGGER Wings fan than that...
'You're a Paul McCartney fan? No you're a Wings fan'. 'Thankyou Scotland' Ho Hey Ho...
Posted Image
I am the buttplug goo goo goo joob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
DCBeatle64
Jun 3 2007, 07:58 PM
beatlechick
Jun 4 2007, 01:57 AM
DCBeatle64
Jun 3 2007, 06:46 PM
beatlechick
Jun 4 2007, 01:44 AM
I could never think of Dumbass, oops, Bush being competent enough to do something like 9/11, let alone an intelligent way of handling the "War on Terrorism."

It doesnt need to be him.It could be the other authority type people (CIA etc) in the US.

It could be but the same can be said about England since this war was being fought based on the, now the highly disregardable, 10 Downing St. report. Neither gov'ts have been intelligent enough to admit Iraq was a mistake.

Sure there are a lot of suspects on who did the 9/11 job, just like there are a lot of suspects on who killed JFK. In neither case will we ever learn what actually happened to satisfy everybody's views on the cases.

Nope we wont which is always a big shame in these circumstances. The British Govt have been a bit more regretful about the war but not enough obviously. I do genuinely believe that Tony Blair went into the war for better reasons than Bush (a decision I must admit I was for at the time) and believed it was the right thing to do at the time but obviously now when we look at it there was absolutly no need for it.Iraq did nothing wrong.Yes Hussain needed to be sorted out but it just seems like Iraq was a quick fix and they havent even managed to track down the real culprits

You are so right. Blair did sort of apologize and has pulled out more troops whilst my country wants to put in more. At this point I don't think they want to find the real culprits.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adilah
Member Avatar

beatlechick
Jun 3 2007, 07:53 AM
Saudi Arabia is the holiest of countries for the Muslims.  They consider it sacred grounds.  The US planted its' military forces there during the first Persian Gulf War.  Bin Laden sited this intrusion many times as the reason why he attacked the US.  Islam did not want Western influence in Saudi Arabia.

I have to disagree with all of this.

Palestine is considered far holier than Saudi Arabia, hence the problems with Israel. Mecca & Medina are housed in Saudi Arabia, but the rest of the nation holds no special significance.

The American military had no overt involvement in the first gulf war, but they were actively invited by the Saudi government to enter troops to Saudi soil during the second gulf war. The American troops were asked to come by the United Nations, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & Israel.

bin Laden has sited American troops on Saudi soil as a reason to hate America, but he's also mentioned far more often the American alliance with Saddam Hussein, which angered a great many people. By the time the U.S.A. admitted Hussein was a bad person, the damage had already been done. bin Laden's also said that American cars are equipped with tracking devices so the American government can monitor people's activities, so he's not the best source for rational explanations.

Islam is as Western as Judaism & Christianity and there is nothing in the Qur'an about American influences in Saudi Arabia being good or bad.
"We call 10 American deaths a catastrophe. One hundred European deaths are a tragedy. One thousand Asian deaths are a shame. And 10,000 African deaths we call a Monday." - Lissa (1981-2007) ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã æÑÍãÉ Çááå æÈÑßÇÊå
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

maccascruff
Jun 4 2007, 01:34 AM
Toad, maybe you don't realize it, but 9/11 has nothing to do with why the US invaded Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified, but the invasion of Iraq has never been justified except for the fact that Daddy Bush didn't finish the job during the first Gulf War, so Sonny Bush thought he had to do it. I also knew that when the Supreme Court said Sonny boy was our next president, Iraq would be invaded. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Hi, Linda--

(It's only me, Carol.) And yes, I realize 9/11 did not constitute a sane reason to invade Iraq. My question for you is, if you knew that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11 either, would you still feel that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Because I wouldn't.

And I think that anyone who assumes George W. Bush is in charge of the American government is living in a fool's paradise. He is clearly not capable of doing the job, or even of understanding adquately what the job is.

So, someone else is actually running the government. Dick Cheney is far more competent than Mr. Bush is, and it's common knowledge that he runs Mr. Bush, and through him, the American government. And I'm confident that Mr. Cheney answers to other less visible interests, whose names and identities we don't know.

So, in Mr. Bush's mind, he might have wanted to "finish the job" his father started, but the people actually running the ocuntry would never allow American force to be applied in the world for such a small, personal reason. If America invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, there were quite specific reasons, having nothing to do with George W. Bush's psychological needs.

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blondie10
Member Avatar

Bungalow Willie
Jun 3 2007, 02:59 AM
OK...next topic.....how many people here believe that the earth is really flat? ^_^

it's NOT??? :o :o
































:hyper: :P
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

beatlechick
Jun 3 2007, 05:06 AM
Toad, the 'experts' that I have seen (on the history channel, military channel, and discovery) have all stated that there were weak points in the tower.  When they were built in the early 70's, they were built to withstand the jets of the time.  30 years later those jets have grown quite a bit.  If memory serves me right, the largest plane was either the newly built (or was in the planning stages) 747 or DC 8.  Big difference to the planes of today which are faster.  Also any building has a weak point, the higher buildings go the more chance of multiple weak points.

As for jet fuel, my boyfriend is in the airplane industry, and I know how fast and hot the fuel burns but place that with gas lines, carpetting (which smolders), wood, and plastics and you have a disaster waiting.  All 14 buildings at the world trade center were damaged by flying debris.  There was even debris that spread out several miles away. 

So why is it you want to believe the conspiracy theories?  I know there are a lot of questions but unfortunately all of the participants in the attack are either dead or in hiding.  I don't want to believe in the conspiracy theories, I want to know the truth.

Since your 'experts' are not citing facts, they would have no grounds for being arrested based on theory.

Beatlechick--

I want to propose to you that there are other experts than the ones who have appeared on television, and these people helped design those buildings, and one worked on its construction, and another organization called the Underwriter's Laboratory tested the steel constructions used in those buildings, and they all say the buildings were exceptionally, redundantly strong, and none of them has mentioned weak spots. Both of the twin towers were build around a core of 47 heavy supporting beams, that stood the full 110-story height of the building. In addition, both buildings had 240 supporting columns in the outer walls. I believe that if the core support columns had been removed magically, the outer support columns could have held the building up, and vice versa.

There is a news blackout right now on the substance of the objections to the official conspiracy theory. There are engineers, professors, military officers, and other scientists who have just as much claim to expertise as the people who *have* appeared on TV (perhaps more), but you cannot expect to see the results of their analyses on TV.

And jet fuel can burn very hot--under the right conditions, it can get to temperatures of close to 1000 C, *but* it can't maintain those temperatures long, because you have to have a precise mixture of oxygen and gas to attain the highest temperatures. Conditions inside the burning towers were uncontrolled and uncontrollable. Did you know that the official studies of the WTC collapses admit that they have no evidence that any steel in the towers got any hotter that 600 F? We can all get 500 F out of our ovens at home to broil meat, and the official "investigators" cannot prove that steel in the towers go tmore than 100 F hotter than our ovens.

You ask why I want to believe in conspiracy theories. First I'll point out again that you believe, or accept, a conspiracy theory, if you accept the official explanation. Second, I'll point out that I don't believe in theories at all--you don't have to believe in them, because you can judge the worth of the evidence that supports them. You can believe in a religion or a cause, but not a solid theory. A theory you accept or reject on the strength of the evidence.

What I'm saying is that the mass of evidence available supports the theory that the twin towers, and WTC 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. The official theory, as defended by NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission report, is supported by terribly weak evidence. You should check some of it out sometime.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
I have also heard from people that worked on the building, I also know architects that will tell you that ALL buildings over 7 stories have a weak point. There is no perfect building. Even one of the architects of the twin towers has stated that over a period of time, face it - these buildings were over 30 years old, a building will show stress and weak points. Steel can only hold up to so much pressure before it starts to bend. It was also pointed out a number of times that these buildings were not tested for planes the size that went into them with the speed, the weight, and the fuel. These buildings were built for the much smaller and slower 747's.

A burning building normally starts at 500 degrees, all it takes is the right mixture of fuel (i.e. wood, paper, carpetting, gas, etc), before it goes up. From I have been reading, jetfuel can burn up to 600 degrees, again it would not take much for a fire to reach a full burn especially if it gets into the air conditioning ducts and gaslines.

No matter who says what, we will never fully learn the truth that will make everyone happy.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I agree that Dubya is not smart enough to run the government. I do think he wanted to finish what daddy didn't. I think Cheney and Rove are running this country and both of them scare me to death.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
maccascruff
Jun 4 2007, 06:57 PM
I agree that Dubya is not smart enough to run the government. I do think he wanted to finish what daddy didn't. I think Cheney and Rove are running this country and both of them scare me to death.

Posted Image Rove and Cheney!!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

beatlechick
Jun 5 2007, 12:10 PM

Posted Image Rove and Cheney!!

Look! They even make a rat run away!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they never answer the question of why. Why would the US government purposely kill thousands of Americans on US soil and cause billions of dollars in damage to American infrastructure?

The half-assed answer is usually to invade Iraq/Afghanistan, but this ignores the fact that the United States has a long history of deposing sovereign leaders and replacing them with more US-friendly regimes. With little or no regard for the consequences we have replaced many democratically and not so democratically elected leaders for our own personal short term gain, and all without blowing up our own cities.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

mozart8mytoe
Jun 5 2007, 02:44 AM
The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they never answer the question of why. Why would the US government purposely kill thousands of Americans on US soil and cause billions of dollars in damage to American infrastructure?

The half-assed answer is usually to invade Iraq/Afghanistan, but this ignores the fact that the United States has a long history of deposing sovereign leaders and replacing them with more US-friendly regimes. With little or no regard for the consequences we have replaced many democratically and not so democratically elected leaders for our own personal short term gain, and all without blowing up our own cities.

I have to disagree with you that the (alternate) conspiracy theorists never supply a motive. All the ones I've read do, and the motive is to justify invading one or more foreign countries with the American public, who are notoriously reluctant to go to war. The PNAC document, produced by the Neo-conservatives who include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the movers and shakers in the Bush administration, makes the point that without a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe, the public would never support the kind of military buildup needed to enforce an American hegemony on the rest of the world.

As for America's "long history of deposing sovereign leaders and replacing them," doesn't this make the invasion motive whole-assed, rather than half?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 6 2007, 12:11 AM
The PNAC document, produced by the Neo-conservatives who include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the movers and shakers in the Bush administration, makes the point that without a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe, the public would never support the kind of military buildup needed to enforce an American hegemony on the rest of the world.

No argument there. And it wouldn't be the first time the US government manufactured an incident as a pretext for war. There was Johnson's first escalation of Vietnam, and the Spanish/American war.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
toad
Jun 5 2007, 07:11 AM
mozart8mytoe
Jun 5 2007, 02:44 AM
The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they never answer the question of why.  Why would the US government purposely kill thousands of Americans on US soil and cause billions of dollars in damage to American infrastructure?

The half-assed answer is usually to invade Iraq/Afghanistan, but this ignores the fact that the United States has a long history of deposing sovereign leaders and replacing them with more US-friendly regimes.  With little or no regard for the consequences we have replaced many democratically and not so democratically elected leaders for our own personal short term gain, and all without blowing up our own cities.

I have to disagree with you that the (alternate) conspiracy theorists never supply a motive. All the ones I've read do, and the motive is to justify invading one or more foreign countries with the American public, who are notoriously reluctant to go to war. The PNAC document, produced by the Neo-conservatives who include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the movers and shakers in the Bush administration, makes the point that without a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe, the public would never support the kind of military buildup needed to enforce an American hegemony on the rest of the world.

As for America's "long history of deposing sovereign leaders and replacing them," doesn't this make the invasion motive whole-assed, rather than half?

And even with a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe people will not support a huge military build-up, with the exception of a few months but in the long run-------NO!, as just about everybody is tired of America (including Americans) being the 'police' of the world.

Conspiracy theories whether true or not, have never fully answered the whys and wherefores. Nor has there ever been a majority of the people happy with the theories, again true or not.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Jun 4 2007, 07:35 PM
beatlechick
Jun 5 2007, 12:10 PM

Posted Image Rove and Cheney!!

Look! They even make a rat run away!

Love you, Bill!!! :hyper: sorry to much coffee today!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

beatlechick
Jun 6 2007, 01:22 AM
toad
Jun 5 2007, 07:11 AM
mozart8mytoe
Jun 5 2007, 02:44 AM
The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they never answer the question of why.  Why would the US government purposely kill thousands of Americans on US soil and cause billions of dollars in damage to American infrastructure?

The half-assed answer is usually to invade Iraq/Afghanistan, but this ignores the fact that the United States has a long history of deposing sovereign leaders and replacing them with more US-friendly regimes.  With little or no regard for the consequences we have replaced many democratically and not so democratically elected leaders for our own personal short term gain, and all without blowing up our own cities.

I have to disagree with you that the (alternate) conspiracy theorists never supply a motive. All the ones I've read do, and the motive is to justify invading one or more foreign countries with the American public, who are notoriously reluctant to go to war. The PNAC document, produced by the Neo-conservatives who include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the movers and shakers in the Bush administration, makes the point that without a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe, the public would never support the kind of military buildup needed to enforce an American hegemony on the rest of the world.

As for America's "long history of deposing sovereign leaders and replacing them," doesn't this make the invasion motive whole-assed, rather than half?

And even with a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe people will not support a huge military build-up, with the exception of a few months but in the long run-------NO!, as just about everybody is tired of America (including Americans) being the 'police' of the world.

Conspiracy theories whether true or not, have never fully answered the whys and wherefores. Nor has there ever been a majority of the people happy with the theories, again true or not.

I fear you may be overestimating the ability of the American people to control what their government does. This country spent 40 years "fighting" the cold war, spending enormous sums of money on enough armament to kill every man, woman, and child in the soviet Union 90 times over--at least that's the estimate that I read somewhere years ago. And at this moment the majority of Americans want our troops out of Iraq. But the voice of the people is not being heard by either major party. It appears that large corporations tell both Congress and the President what to do, and they follow orders.

And it's not the job of alternative conspiracy theorists to answer all the questions: it's their job to ask the questions that a court of law should be answering. Unless you don't believe in the rule of law? Perhaps you don't. But right now there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who have some first hand knowledge of the events of 9/11. If we accepted their testimony, and subpoenaed it if necessary, we wouldn't need any more theories on this point--we'd know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
toad
Jun 6 2007, 01:29 PM
beatlechick
Jun 6 2007, 01:22 AM

And even with a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe people will not support a huge military build-up, with the exception of a few months but in the long run-------NO!, as just about everybody is tired of America (including Americans) being the 'police' of the world. 

Conspiracy theories whether true or not, have never fully answered the whys and wherefores.  Nor has there ever been a majority of the people happy with the theories, again true or not.

I fear you may be overestimating the ability of the American people to control what their government does. This country spent 40 years "fighting" the cold war, spending enormous sums of money on enough armament to kill every man, woman, and child in the soviet Union 90 times over--at least that's the estimate that I read somewhere years ago. And at this moment the majority of Americans want our troops out of Iraq. But the voice of the people is not being heard by either major party. It appears that large corporations tell both Congress and the President what to do, and they follow orders.

And it's not the job of alternative conspiracy theorists to answer all the questions: it's their job to ask the questions that a court of law should be answering. Unless you don't believe in the rule of law? Perhaps you don't. But right now there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who have some first hand knowledge of the events of 9/11. If we accepted their testimony, and subpoenaed it if necessary, we wouldn't need any more theories on this point--we'd know.

I'm afraid that you are wrong. The 9/11 Commission did subpoena people, okay recordings, of the firsthand reports and records of Mohammad Attar (sp?) and his band of merry men. The movie United 93 had some of those first hand recordings both from the cockpit and phone conversations. Yet no one is completely satisfied with the explanations. We will never know everything that transpired before 9/11 occurred just the fact that Clinton's people knew that an attack was imminent and warned Dumbass's people that Bin Laden was threatening. What did Condi Rice do when the memo came across her desk that Bin Laden was considering an attack? Nothing, absolutely nothing. And why? Her response was something to the effect that she didn't know what the memo was about even though the title said something about Bin Laden to attack the US. I don't trust what anyone says. I'm a Democrat but I knew that the Democrats would not end our involvement in the war right away and cautioned people that it would happen like it has. Now people are surprised that we are still in the war.

I still maintain that the American people will not support a huge military build-up anywhere. Corporations have always told the gov't what to do, that's why they're called lobbyists. An illegal trade but one that still thrives in the underbelly of all govt's. However you get enough people questioning motives and legalities, power can get taken away. Just ask Wolfowitz and Enron about how well their lobbying went.

Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

To be brutally frank though, what does it matter whether the people support it or not?

Now more than ever the United States is not so much a democracy but an elective dictatorship. And they have ten people on a stage all trying to outdo each other for how much they would torture prisoners and name-checking fictional characters in the hope the same people who would not stand for 9/11 vote for them to be the next dictator. And whichever TV star they do end up electing is going to be able to do exactly as they please. All these hearings have achieved very little. All the appearances before committees have amounted to little more than a very polite way of saying "f*ck you, whatcha gonna do about it?" Just look at Gonzales. He may smile and be very respectful, but there's no doubt that he's showing contempt. And he gets away with it. They all do. Are there riots in the streets over this? Of course not. It's for places like Hungary to take their democracy that seriously.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Gonzales didn't do anything illegal.

Sandy Berger stole documents from the National Archives and did not spend time in jail.

Scooter Libby effectively did the same thing as Clinton (see, its not about sex) and gets sentenced to 30 months in jail. Mr. Clinton - nada!

Then we have William Jefferson who had $90,000.00 in his freezer. Do we really need to have a trial here? Seriously. Why waste the money on a trial? Quick, show of hands, who here has legitimate money in their freezer?
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Clinton didn't do anything wrong until he lied about it. Same goes for Gonzales. This will be the Bush adminbistration's Monica moment.. We are constantly reminded that the US-As served at the pleasure of the president. That means that if they said, "We fired them because we felt like it," then no-one could have said any more. But they didn't say that. They cooked up a story about performance issues. They lied. And that's why they're in the sh*t. Regardless of any other wrongdoing, Gonzales' testimoney proves him unfit for his job. How can the US Attorney General be that dumb? "I don't recall remembering?" It's the age-old Bush administration defence: "We're not evil, just stupid." Sadly, stupidity and incompetence are not crimes either. But that doesn't mean they can't be sacked for it anyway!

Clinton cut a deal at the very end of his administration to avoid further proceedings. Libby's jailing is neither here nor there though. He was a pawn who was sacrificed. The administration continues unfettered.

As for Berger, you've proved my point. Whatcha gonna do about it? What can you do about it? What was done about it? Nothing. That's what I mean about an elective dictatorship. You can vote in your elections but you can't do a damn thing about anything that happens in between, so the idea of a popular uprising against a corrupt and traitorous government is pretty far-fetched.

I've no doubt that Jefferson is as dodgy as they come, but if you're willing to judge a man purely on some eccentric cash management arrangements, then I wouldn't want you on my jury - or yours! The question is what he did that was illegal or makes him unfit for office. And that brings us back to Gonzales. You don't knwo he didn't do anything illegal - he just can't remember (how convenient!) if he did! When high-ranking officials in the justice department start invoking the fifth amendment, (even after being granted immunity!) you know something really stinks.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

A further thought:

Not all perjury is created equal.

Notwithstanding the fact that Clinton was impeached by congress, not indicted by a prosecutor, what are the similarities between his crime and Libby's?
Clinton's perjury was a case on entrapment, pure and simple. That doesn't excuse it. Perjury is a crime and it's right that he be punished for it.

Once a jury of one's peers agrees that a crime has been committed, it's up to the judge to determine what is just punishment according to the magnitude of the crime. Clinton's crime involved a childish argument over the meaning of sex which effected no-one other than himself, Monica, Hillary and at a stretch, Chelsea.
Libby's crime involved a childish argument over whether Plame really was an active covert agent (by the way, she was) that effected National security.

And that is why Clinton lost his law license and Libby is going to jail.

Theft is theft, but is anyone suggesting that someone who steals a dirty magazine should get the same penalty as someone who steals national secrets?

Here's the other factor to consider:
Libby received glowing character references from, among others, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger!
Could it be that having people with such a record of corruption and incompetence say what a stand-up guy you are, it doesn't necessarily help your case? With friends like these, eh?
Unless they were seeking to ensure he goes away where he can't tell his story until after the next election...... over to you Toad......
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 8 2007, 01:51 AM
A further thought:
snip snip snip

Clinton's perjury was a case on entrapment, pure and simple. That doesn't excuse it. Perjury is a crime and it's right that he be punished for it.

Clinton's crime involved a childish argument over the meaning of sex which effected no-one other than himself, Monica, Hillary and at a stretch, Chelsea.

Libby's crime involved a childish argument over whether Plame really was an active covert agent (by the way, she was) that effected National security.

over to you Toad......

A few further thoughts--

Perjury is a crime, but Clinton didn't commit it. What was described as perjury was a difference between the way he reported his relationship with Ms Lewinsky and the way she did in two affidivits which were part of the preliminaries to a court case which was thrown out before trial. The judge in the Paula Jones case sent a document out with the request for affidavits in that case, and since the subject was the exact nature of intimate relationships, the judge specified what was meant by certain terms, including "sexual relations." Clinton, being a lawyer, read the instructions, and being a man ashamed of what he had gotten up to with Ms Lewinsky, followed the instructions to the letter, while Ms Lewinsky reported the spirit of the relationship.

The case accused Clinton of sexual harassment, and the judge ruled--before trial-- that even if all her accusations were to be proved, it wouldn't constitute sexual harassment. The case itself was DOA.

The president was certainly entrapped, but so was Ms Lewinsky, by two separate people, but nobody much cares about Monica Lewinsky the real person. Not as long as they can enjoy laughing at the cartoon figure of her, and the cartoon president.

So Clinton's "argument" was never argued in any court of law. He filed an affidavit which conflicted with Ms Lewinsky's, but no one in his or her right mind would ever have prosecuted him for this.

And I assume you're being ironic when you call the outing of Valerie Plame a "childish argument." I hope you're being ironic.

Cheers,
toad
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

And, now that we have dealt, for the moment, with the inevitable and undending red herring of Bill Clinton and his sins, I feel the need to return briefly to the topic I proposed, which is what exactly did happen to the WTC twin towers and bldg. 7. I have found a link to an article which is not too long, not too technical, and which will introduce you to some background on one of the "experts" you saw describing how the twin towers fell, on TV. This is the link:

http://physics911.net/kevinryan

Kevin Ryan, the author, used to work for Underwriters Laboratories, which tested the fire resistance of the original construction of the twin towers, and also did some tests for the official (government) report on why they actually fell down. At near free fall speed, into their own footprints, in less than two and less than one hour after they had been hit by two 767 airliners.

I doubt that anyone here will read this article, but I offer it to anyone who thinks it possible that the official conspiracy theory may not be the most believable conspiracy theory.

Cheers,
toad
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 9 2007, 09:41 AM

And I assume you're being ironic when you call the outing of Valerie Plame a "childish argument." I hope you're being ironic.

Cheers,
toad

What I was describing as childish was the right-wing talking point that still gets trotted out that Plame had not been an active covert agent within the last five years, as if (a:) they would know and (b:) that makes it less of a crime. There mere fact that they would even try to rationalise a crime that George Bush Snr described as treasonous (not to mention the law) in this way, I think is pretty childish. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 9 2007, 06:31 AM
toad
Jun 9 2007, 09:41 AM

And I assume you're being ironic when you call the outing of Valerie Plame a "childish argument."  I hope  you're being ironic.

Cheers,
toad

What I was describing as childish was the right-wing talking point that still gets trotted out that Plame had not been an active covert agent within the last five years, as if (a:) they would know and (b:) that makes it less of a crime. There mere fact that they would even try to rationalise a crime that George Bush Snr described as treasonous (not to mention the law) in this way, I think is pretty childish. ;)

Oh. Whew.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Bill
Jun 8 2007, 11:31 PM
toad
Jun 9 2007, 09:41 AM

And I assume you're being ironic when you call the outing of Valerie Plame a "childish argument."  I hope  you're being ironic.

Cheers,
toad

What I was describing as childish was the right-wing talking point that still gets trotted out that Plame had not been an active covert agent within the last five years, as if (a:) they would know and (b:) that makes it less of a crime. There mere fact that they would even try to rationalise a crime that George Bush Snr described as treasonous (not to mention the law) in this way, I think is pretty childish. ;)

Valerie Plame's life and that of her family is now at risk. Her career was taken from her. Libby will no doubt be pardoned by Dubya, which isn't right. He will never spend a day in jail for what he did. The CIA is still running Plame's life. They won't let her right a book about her career.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

maccascruff
Jun 9 2007, 11:32 PM
Bill
Jun 8 2007, 11:31 PM
toad
Jun 9 2007, 09:41 AM

And I assume you're being ironic when you call the outing of Valerie Plame a "childish argument."   I hope  you're being ironic.

Cheers,
toad

What I was describing as childish was the right-wing talking point that still gets trotted out that Plame had not been an active covert agent within the last five years, as if (a:) they would know and (b:) that makes it less of a crime. There mere fact that they would even try to rationalise a crime that George Bush Snr described as treasonous (not to mention the law) in this way, I think is pretty childish. ;)


œValerie Plame's life and that of her family is now at risk. Her career was taken from her. Libby will no doubt be pardoned by Dubya, which isn't right. He will never spend a day in jail for what he did. The CIA is still running Plame's life. They won't let her right a book about her career.



And she's suing them for the right to publish. Since she and her family have suffered seriously because they exercised their right to free speech, I hope she wins.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
We agree on something. She should get to publish the book as she and her family did suffer financially when she lost her job.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Okay, so let me take an informal poll.

Did anybody who has posted in this thread read any of the articles I linked?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 5 2007, 09:11 AM
I have to disagree with you that the (alternate) conspiracy theorists never supply a motive.  All the ones I've read do, and the motive is to justify invading one or more foreign countries with the American public, who are notoriously reluctant to go to war.

As I said, (see above).

The United States has invaded many countries, deposed many leaders, and had its fair share of wars, all without attacking itself on US soil. Getting the American public to support an invasion does not require bombing the Pentagon. Americans supported our first invasion of Iraq based on their invasion of Kuwait, and most Americans have no idea where Kuwait even is (sorry Adilah). We escalated Vietnam based on the Gulf of Tonkin. How many Americans know where that is? Americans have at least initially supported many invasions without our government having to resort to treason and mass murder of Americans.

As Cathy said, even with another Pearl Harbor, most Americans will tire of war very quickly. Forcing our version of democracy on the world does not require a Wehrmacht military escalation. We can, and do and have, replaced unfriendly leaders with those who favor us relatively easily. The days of controlling the world with a giant army are over. Today you need money, misinformation and the occasional poisoned cigar.

toad
Jun 6 2007, 03:29 PM
I fear you may be overestimating the ability of the American people to control what their government does.

Are you not overestimating the ability of the American government to conduct such a massive covert undertaking without any loose lips ever sinking the ship? As Grace has said here and I have said before, if Nixon's people could not keep a third rate burglary a secret, how could Bush's people possibly keep the single greatest case of treason against the United States secret? Six years later and none of the thousands of people who had to have been involved have talked.

toad
Jun 6 2007, 03:29 PM
And it's not the job of alternative conspiracy theorists to answer all the questions:  it's their job to ask the questions that a court of law should be answering.  Unless you don't believe in the rule of law?  Perhaps you don't.

The problem with such specious logic is that there is no possible way for anyone who holds an alternate view to criticize. Reading over this thread, I think that is probably the goal anyway.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Very nicely said Mozart!!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Lissa, you never cease to amaze me with your posts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

mozart8mytoe
Jun 5 2007, 02:44 AM
The problem with the conspiracy theories is that they never answer the question of why. Why would the US government purposely kill thousands of Americans on US soil and cause billions of dollars in damage to American infrastructure?

The half-assed answer is usually to invade Iraq/Afghanistan, but this ignores the fact that the United States has a long history of deposing sovereign leaders and replacing them with more US-friendly regimes. With little or no regard for the consequences we have replaced many democratically and not so democratically elected leaders for our own personal short term gain, and all without blowing up our own cities.

So, the althernative conspiracy theorists never supply a motive, you say. And I say they do. They say it is to frighten the American public into to war.

And you say that because the American government has done this on a number of previous occasions, this answer is half-assed. And I ask, why is the answer half-assed if it you admit it has worked on a number of occasions in the past?

David Ray Griffin and others have supplied a motive, and I have outlined it. But you say that is half-assed, which means what, exactly, in this context?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

mozart8mytoe
Jun 11 2007, 05:11 AM
[QUOTE



toad
Jun 6 2007, 03:29 PM
I fear you may be overestimating the ability of the American people to control what their government does.

Are you not overestimating the ability of the American government to conduct such a massive covert undertaking without any loose lips ever sinking the ship? As Grace has said here and I have said before, if Nixon's people could not keep a third rate burglary a secret, how could Bush's people possibly keep the single greatest case of treason against the United States secret? Six years later and none of the thousands of people who had to have been involved have talked.


A great many of the people involved innocently in the events of that day have talked. They are on record, and the government has taken legal action to silence some of them. Several have lost their jobs or been pressured to shut up.

Even with a total mainstream media blackout on all questions of what actually happened that day, about half the population believes that the goverment is complicit in something to do with 9/11. That's pretty good work for the internet and word of mouth.

As for those who are guiltily involved, they would hardly volunteer to be prosecuted for mass murder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

mozart8mytoe
Jun 11 2007, 05:11 AM
[QUOTE
toad
Jun 6 2007, 03:29 PM
And it's not the job of alternative conspiracy theorists to answer all the questions:  it's their job to ask the questions that a court of law should be answering.  Unless you don't believe in the rule of law?  Perhaps you don't.


The problem with such specious logic is that there is no possible way for anyone who holds an alternate view to criticize. Reading over this thread, I think that is probably the goal anyway.

And I must also disagree with your use of the term "specious logic" here, because I don't see there's any logic involved in what I said at all.

All I have said is that the alternative conspiracy theorists don't have the means to get to the bottom of the actual conspiracy. They can't call a congressional inquiry, and they don't have subpoena power. Working on their own time, with their own money, sometimes at the risk of their own jobs, they have come up with a credible alternative conspiracy theory.

This is the way David Ray Griffen summarizes the official theory:

"Here's what the government's conspiracists believe: 19 hijackers with box-cutters defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history. Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on earth. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, caused three of them to collapse straight down, totally, and at virtually free-fall speed. "

(p.9,"Debunking 9/11 Debunking," Olive Branch Press, Northhampton, MA, 2007)

On the evidence collected by the people I am reading, the alternative conspiracy theory makes a whole lot more sense than the official conspiracy theory, believe me. You are probably not aware of the evidence that's been collected by the alternative conspiracy theorists because 1) the mainstream press has completely shut out any serious voices and serious arguments made by the alternative theorists, and with most people, the mainstreat media still carry tremendous credibility. And 2) of course, the evidence is on the web and in books. Many people don't read books any more, and they're not willing to read a long article either. They expect their information to come in 30-second bits.

You haven't read any of the articles I've linked here yet, have you?

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 13 2007, 10:12 AM

And I must also disagree with your use of the term "specious logic" here, because I don't see there's any logic involved in what I said at all.

Would you like to rephrase that mate? ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 12 2007, 07:12 PM
I don't see there's any logic involved in what I said at all.

Too easy. I will assume this is a parapraxis.

toad
Jun 11 2007, 06:32 PM
So, the althernative conspiracy theorists never supply a motive, you say.  And I say they do.  They say it is to frighten the American public into to war.

And you say that because the American government has done this on a number of previous occasions, this answer is half-assed.  And I ask, why is the answer half-assed if it you admit it has worked on a number of occasions in the past?

David Ray Griffin and others have supplied a motive, and I have outlined it.  But you say that is half-assed, which means what, exactly, in this context?

See above.

Has a single person who was involved in this massive conspiracy and cover up ever come forward? If so, who? If not, why not? There need not be someone as melodramatic as Deep Throat, but there would be some whistleblower somewhere.

If there is a total mainstream media blackout on all questions, why have CNN and the New York Times asked questions? CNN blows, I will give you that, but the Times is fairly mainstream.

More than half of the population believes that a woman who never had sex gave birth to a convicted criminal who was executed and came back to life. Millions of people believe that extraterrestrials are secretly invading Earth and probing its farmers rectally. Even more people believe that Bill Gates will give you his money if you buy enough M&Ms. The internet and word of mouth are not always top drawer.

How do you define innocently involved and guiltily involved? People who have been involved in crimes and conspiracies have come forward and talked once or twice before. Why not now?

maccascruff
Jun 11 2007, 07:50 AM
Lissa, you never cease to amaze me with your posts.

You should see what I do with two slices of bread and a toaster.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I don't usually like to invoke Michael Moore, but he had a friend on one of the planes and whatever you may think of him, he's not the type to turn a blind eye to a government conspiracy. Unless they've gotten to HIM too. :o :lol:

As I've said, no-one's version of the story adds up properly.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

mozart8mytoe
Jun 13 2007, 04:44 AM
toad
Jun 12 2007, 07:12 PM
I don't see there's any logic involved in what I said at all.

Too easy. I will assume this is a parapraxis.

toad
Jun 11 2007, 06:32 PM
So, the althernative conspiracy theorists never supply a motive, you say.  And I say they do.  They say it is to frighten the American public into to war.

And you say that because the American government has done this on a number of previous occasions, this answer is half-assed.  And I ask, why is the answer half-assed if it you admit it has worked on a number of occasions in the past?

David Ray Griffin and others have supplied a motive, and I have outlined it.  But you say that is half-assed, which means what, exactly, in this context?

See above.

Has a single person who was involved in this massive conspiracy and cover up ever come forward? If so, who? If not, why not? There need not be someone as melodramatic as Deep Throat, but there would be some whistleblower somewhere.

If there is a total mainstream media blackout on all questions, why have CNN and the New York Times asked questions? CNN blows, I will give you that, but the Times is fairly mainstream.

More than half of the population believes that a woman who never had sex gave birth to a convicted criminal who was executed and came back to life. Millions of people believe that extraterrestrials are secretly invading Earth and probing its farmers rectally. Even more people believe that Bill Gates will give you his money if you buy enough M&Ms. The internet and word of mouth are not always top drawer.

How do you define innocently involved and guiltily involved? People who have been involved in crimes and conspiracies have come forward and talked once or twice before. Why not now?

maccascruff
Jun 11 2007, 07:50 AM
Lissa, you never cease to amaze me with your posts.

You should see what I do with two slices of bread and a toaster.

You're right, Mozart. The official theory is all we need to know.

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I don't think there's any need to go passive-aggressive here. I don't see anywhere where M8 has actually defended the official story or the government in general. Pointing out holes in one theory does not equal a defence of another theory. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
9091
Member Avatar

Question?
With the administrations current approval ratings in the toilet, if the US government did orchestrate the 9/11 attacks why don't they stage another to keep people "for 'em"? Nothing too big that might lead people to believe the war on terror wasn't going well, but something just scary enough to get us to an orangish shade of alert.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

What makes you think they're not doing just that?

The whole point of terrorism is not, as the administration would have us believe, to kill people, but to scare people into submission. That's what terror means. The premise is "kill one person, scare 1000."

Now check out all the terror alerts that have turned out to be a bit iffy after everyone has calmed down and taken a more critical look at them a few weeks later.

Now I'm not calling the Bush administration terrorists.... but what do you call it when an organisation methodically scares the hell out of people on a regular basis in order to achieve a political objective?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/04/o...s-and-terror-2/
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
9091
Member Avatar

I know they were doing that, seemed other week a different color of the "alert" rainbow was in force. But lately, with the polls sinking ever lower, I'm surprised there hasn't been even tobacco stained tooth yellow alert to rally the faithful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 14 2007, 03:39 AM
I don't think there's any need to go passive-aggressive here. I don't see anywhere where M8 has actually defended the official story or the government in general. Pointing out holes in one theory does not equal a defence of another theory. ;)

Passive aggressive? Gosh--is that against the forum rules? If it is, and if you think I have behaved passively-agressively, I apologize. (If you don't think so, then I don't apologize.)

Actually, Bill, I'm not sure who you're accusing of this ...faux pas...because you haven't quoted who you're talking about.

In case it is me, however, I will say that I didn't think I was producing any light at all in this thread, and that the heat was increasing, and so I decided to nip over to the sidelines and let the thread slither quietly into oblivion.

But I do think I'll take a minute to look up "paraphraxis". Okay, I've done that, and I'm not sure I've found it, unless it's "paraphrase." - ing.

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

No, posts regarding board rules are made in red or blue depending on rank. :) I was speaking merely as Bill and I was observing that misrepresenting another's point of view is not really a good defence of one's own.

I welcome this whole discussion because, as I've said, I'm not convinced by any version of the story. The reasonable doubt makes for some very interesting discussions. But it's shakey ground to ask others to keep an open mind without being willing to do the same. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 14 2007, 03:17 PM
No, posts regarding board rules are made in red or blue depending on rank. :) I was speaking merely as Bill and I was observing that misrepresenting another's point of view is not really a good defence of one's own.

I welcome this whole discussion because, as I've said, I'm not convinced by any version of the story. The reasonable doubt makes for some very interesting discussions. But it's shakey ground to ask others to keep an open mind without being willing to do the same. ;)

Ah! Someone misrepresented someone else's point of view. Okay--who did that, and what did they say?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Well, I think I set a land speed record for alienating everyone on a board, including a moderator. It always happens, but usually it takes longer.

So, it occurs to me, I can just keep on posting and nobody will reply, and that this might be a good idea. I can set my thoughts in order, and perhaps later on take them on the road, so to speak.

Because this is an important subject--upon the official explanation of the events of 9/11, America's entire foreign policy has been based for the last six years. The invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the threatened invasion of Iran, the slow bleeding to death of America's army and National Guard, the open resort to torture, the existence of the execrable Guantanamo prison. And that's the short list. The War on Terror is wholely based on the assumption that foreigh suicide bombers could so effectively penetrate America's defenses that they could make tall buildings go smash in 10 seconds, and kill thousands of Americans on our own soil. If this was genuinely an attack by Arab suicide bombers, it certainly called for an immediate and vigorous response.

If, on the other hand, it was a false flag operation (that's the term used for an operation designed to blame a group of people who had nothing to do with the operation, for the purpose of rousing public opinion against them), --if it was a false flag operation, then America has been fighting the wrong enemy for six years now.

It matters, and it matters enormously, who exactly attacked the twin towers on 9/11, and what created a hole in the Pentagon, and what exactly happened to Flight 93.

So, I want to reiterate one point that I have already made: I don't want to believe in alternative explanations of what happened on 9/11. I haven't come across anybody who wants to believe what they now believe--although I'm sure there are a few out there. I don't want to believe that the twin towers were brought down by explosives, or that a missile was fired into the Pentagon, or that Flight 93 was shot down by the American Air Force, and another missile shot into the ground at Shanksville, PA. But the fact is that there are holes big enough to drive a truck through in the official story, or as one reviewer put it, big enough to drive a 767 through. The official conspiracy theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to keep the official story intact, and to marginalize anyone who wants better answers.

The alternative conspiracy theorists I have been reading are all retired or still practicing professors, professional engineers, retired military people, New York City firemen and emergency workers, airline pilots and air traffic controllers, ordinary Americans who happened to be living near Shaksville, PA the day Flight 93 was lost, and the like. I have never read the Masonic Temple theory, and don't intend to. And I'm convinced that the earth is round. But I'm also convinced that the official conspiracy theory isn't worth the paper it's writ on. It's trash.

Cheers for now,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Hi Carol,

I don't think you've put anyone offside - certainly not me. And the fact that I'm a mod is neither here nor there in this discussion. :)

I agree with you that there are gaping holes in the official story and they need to be addressed. However, there are also gaping holes in the conspiracy theories that should not be glossed over. For instance, much of what you saying focuses on motive, which is all well and good, and the opportunism of the administration following the attacks is undeniable, but motive isn't everything. Don't forget that until that day, the only thing the Bush administration was actively doing was trying to provoke a war with China.

I think this is a really important discussion to have but I think you need to decide whether you want it to be a discussion or a lecture. There are many flaws in the conspiracy theories put forward and pointing out that the theorists don't have the resources of the federal government at their disposal doesn't make them any less flawed.

And it seems to me (just speaking as Bill here) that when such flaws are pointed out in the discussion, you seem to react but assuming that the people pointing out the flaws are overly credulous of the government's explanation. That doesn't necessarily follow. If you actually had a rebuttal to those points, we could have a lot more fun. :)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Jun 17 2007, 07:06 AM
I think this is a really important discussion to have but I think you need to decide whether you want it to be a discussion or a lecture. There are many flaws in the conspiracy theories put forward and pointing out that the theorists don't have the resources of the federal government at their disposal doesn't make them any less flawed.

And it seems to me (just speaking as Bill here) that when such flaws are pointed out in the discussion, you seem to react but assuming that the people pointing out the flaws are overly credulous of the government's explanation. That doesn't necessarily follow. If you actually had a rebuttal to those points, we could have a lot more fun.  :)

Absolutely right, Bill. I don't think that anyone of us has blindly taken what load the US and British gov'ts have been feeding us as the complete truth. The 9/11 Commission Report shows the load we have been fed is not the total truth. The only thing that we do know is that 3000 people died, most at the WTC, some at the Pentagon, and yes some on United 93. That's all we really know. The rest is pretty much speculation. If it weren't speculation, don't you think that Bin Laden would have been caught by now or we would at least still be doing an active search? I do not believe that Bin Laden was killed, though I have entertained that idea over the years, as it would benefit the US gov't to no end by showing his head on a stick just as the US gov't pretty much did when Hussein was hung and the various Al Qaeda leaders were killed.

Reports from the ground by the farmers in the area of Shanksville stated that there appeared to be only one plane that was gliding for the ground, not nosediving. A missile shot, depending on where it hit, would have had the plane either spiralling to a nosedive or completely shattered with pieces being found miles away. This did not happen.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"