9/11

[Moxie]

I'm heartened by the fact that this subject wasn't posted on for a few months. I'm disheartened by the fact that this thread is almost a year old. I posted on it on December 10th.

Thankfully, the general public has largely remained apathetic to this non-issue. Hopefully, future generations will be able to filter out this conspiracy nonsense better, as these allegations come up far too often.

PLEASE I BEG YOU GIVE ME A BETTER GRADE OF TIN FOIL, I ONLY READ YOUR POST THE REST I FOUND THE INNER STRENGTH TO NOT READ I AM WEAKING more tin foil please Michael. Bush is dumber than a hedge fence and twice as dense but he and the JOOs managed to crumple the Twin Towers. Yea, and I have some lovely "Ocean front" property for sale in Manitoba real cheap.

[Topaz]

For those who don't believe this, your minds have already are closed and even if Bush came out a admitted it, you still wouldn't believe ..at least the possibility could be there. I do have several websites that can read IF you open your mind. This is an American website whose has connection to former govt agents. The website is www.tomflocco.com Click his archives and you'll be reading for 48 hours. You can also read the TIMELINES of 9/11.

[Topaz]

For those who don't believe this, your minds have already are closed and even if Bush came out a admitted it, you still wouldn't believe ..at least the possibility could be there. I do have several websites that can read IF you open your mind. This is an American website whose has connection to former govt agents. The website is www.tomflocco.com Click his archives and you'll be reading for 48 hours. You can also read the TIMELINES of 9/11.

[Topaz]

For those who don't believe this, your minds have already are closed and even if Bush came out a admitted it, you still wouldn't believe ..at least the possibility could be there. I do have several websites that can read IF you open your mind. This is an American website whose has connection to former govt agents. The website is www.tomflocco.com Click his archives and you'll be reading for 48 hours. You can also read the TIMELINES of 9/11.

[Topaz]

For those who don't believe this, your minds have already are closed and even if Bush came out a admitted it, you still wouldn't believe ..at least the possibility could be there. I do have several websites that can read IF you open your mind. This is an American website whose has connection to former govt agents. The website is www.tomflocco.com Click his archives and you'll be reading for 48 hours. You can also read the TIMELINES of 9/11.

[Topaz]

Sorry about the triple views, I was having trouble with the website. Reminds me of when Yahoo.com had their forum and when you said something they didn't want you to put on they would make hard to place your comments.

[Riverwind]

For those who don't believe this, your minds have already are closed and even if Bush came out a admitted it, you still wouldn't believe ..at least the possibility could be there.

The conspiracy argument goes basically like this: 'we have found some technical inconsistencies with the official explanation therefore whatever bizarre plot we imagine must be true'. Most people understand that such an argument is ridiculous and any technical inconsistencies likely have mundane explanations that are still consistent with the widely accepted view about what happened that day. More importantly, no conspiracy flack has been able to produce a coherent and plausible story arc that explains how the government could have carried out such hoax without getting caught.

I actually feel that it is the conspiracy flacks who have a problem with closed mindedness because they refused to accept the overwhelming weight of evidence that supports the widely accepted explaination. If they had an open mind they would realize how flimsy their case is.

Edited November 24, 2007 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

Sorry about the triple views, I was having trouble with the website. Reminds me of when Yahoo.com had their forum and when you said something they didn't want you to put on they would make hard to place your comments.

After 151 pages of this nonsense you think someone might be conspiring to stop you from expressing your views?

[M.Dancer]

DIE THREAD DIE!!!!

[GostHacked]

More importantly, no conspiracy flack has been able to produce a coherent and plausible story arc that explains how the government could have carried out such hoax without getting caught.

I gave a reason some pages back, go look for it.

[Riverwind]

I gave a reason some pages back, go look for it.

A plausible story arc is much more than speculation about why the government would do it. It has to address key pieces evidence that support the widely accepted view on what happened that day. For example, the airphone calls reporting arab terrorists on the planes are well documented as are the voice cockpit recordings with prayers to allah. A story that claims that this evidence was faked is not credible because faking it would require the collaboration of 100s people - including the relatives of people who died in the event. Edited November 30, 2007 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

I think that's the best type of discussion:

Talk about the story arc, and stay away from specifics.

Speak about the main protagonists, their motivations and their goals.

I have never understood why this supposed shadowy inner circle would find it advantageous to destroy their own symbols of power, in order to generate support for the type of war they initiate all the time with no such rationale...

[Guest American Woman]

I have never understood why this supposed shadowy inner circle would find it advantageous to destroy their own symbols of power, in order to generate support for the type of war they initiate all the time with no such rationale...

The U.S. initiates wars like Iraq "all the time" and with no rationale? That's news to me.

[Michael Hardner]

No such rationale...

i.e. - Bombing of Libya - no reason, Attack on Grenada - they were bad, Invasion of Panama - Noriega needed to be stopped,Iraq I - Invasion of Kuwait

Never has the US needed to destroy its own symbols of power in order to facilitate an invasion.

[Guest American Woman]

No such rationale...

i.e. - Bombing of Libya - no reason, Attack on Grenada - they were bad, Invasion of Panama - Noriega needed to be stopped,Iraq I - Invasion of Kuwait

Never has the US needed to destroy its own symbols of power in order to facilitate an invasion.

The U.S. didn't declare war against Libya, Grenada, or Panama and in the first gulf war Iraq had invaded Kuwait, as you yourself pointed out, so the U.S. wasn't the one to initiate war.

[Michael Hardner]

The U.S. didn't declare war against Libya, Grenada, or Panama and in the first gulf war Iraq had invaded Kuwait, as you yourself pointed out, so the U.S. wasn't the one to initiate war.

What is your point ?

I was showing that the US doesn't need to destroy it's own symbols of power as a pre-requisite to armed conflict.

Whether or not war is declared is immaterial. The US hasn't made a declaration of war since WW2 to my knowledge.

[Guest American Woman]

What is your point ?

My point is that the United States doesn't "initiate war all the time." You make it sound as if the war in Iraq is a common thing. Something we do "all the time." Something Americans are supporting "all the time" with no rationale.

Edited December 1, 2007 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

I think that's the best type of discussion:

Talk about the story arc, and stay away from specifics.

Speak about the main protagonists, their motivations and their goals.

I have never understood why this supposed shadowy inner circle would find it advantageous to destroy their own symbols of power, in order to generate support for the type of war they initiate all the time with no such rationale...

This is the stuff I keep trying to get Polynewbie to get on. The reasons and story arc that allowed the event to happen. There would not have been the support for the Invasion of Iraq if it were not for the attacks on the WTC in 2001. Now you ask, why does that need to happen? Then we need to go back about 20 - 30 years to follow the crumbs.

I still think it is a huge consolidation of power. It has been happeneing since the large companies where broken up by the government to promote competition and the result was better items for the customer. This happened in the 80s,

Large companies exist now again, larger than ever. Walmart for example Countries are geographicaly combined for superstates .. AU, NAU, EU... watch out for the asian unions soon.

IN the guise of security and freedom, your security and freedoms are being ripped away since the Patriot Act was enacted. How long before was that document worked on. Would it have been accepted before 9-11 ?

We can now see how much security has increased in certain key areas. Is this for our protection? Notice how the media is shifting away from Iraq/Afghanistan to more focuses on labeling ordinary people as terrorists?

Whatever is happening now has been planned for decades. Presidents change, but the same people behind the sceenes are still calling the shots.

[Michael Hardner]

My point is that the United States doesn't "initiate war all the time." You make it sound as if the war in Iraq is a common thing. Something we do "all the time." Something Americans are supporting "all the time" with no rationale.

By 'all the time', I mean that all of the times that the US initiates military action.

I would say that almost all of the times that the US has initiated military action, it has used a different rationale than a pending military threat against the US itself.

Surely, there are no others examples of actual attacks on US soil that were used to provide rationale for military action.

So why was it necessary with 9/11, not only to do so but to do so on such a scale that the security of the US itself was cast into doubt ?

That answer is, that it wasn't. The attacks were perpetrated by terrorists who exploited security holes to maximum effect.

[Michael Hardner]

This is the stuff I keep trying to get Polynewbie to get on. The reasons and story arc that allowed the event to happen. There would not have been the support for the Invasion of Iraq if it were not for the attacks on the WTC in 2001.

Grenada. Panama. Gulf War I.

Now you ask, why does that need to happen? Then we need to go back about 20 - 30 years to follow the crumbs.

I still think it is a huge consolidation of power. It has been happeneing since the large companies where broken up by the government to promote competition and the result was better items for the customer. This happened in the 80s,

Large companies exist now again, larger than ever. Walmart for example Countries are geographicaly combined for superstates .. AU, NAU, EU... watch out for the asian unions soon.

IN the guise of security and freedom, your security and freedoms are being ripped away since the Patriot Act was enacted. How long before was that document worked on. Would it have been accepted before 9-11 ?

We can now see how much security has increased in certain key areas. Is this for our protection? Notice how the media is shifting away from Iraq/Afghanistan to more focuses on labeling ordinary people as terrorists?

Whatever is happening now has been planned for decades. Presidents change, but the same people behind the sceenes are still calling the shots.

This is a new one to me. The whole thing was planned as a way to remove personal rights of individuals now ?

But, if they already have the power... why do they to make themselves look so defenseless... in order to... uh.... keep power ... ?

It doesn't follow.

[Guest American Woman]

By 'all the time', I mean that all of the times that the US initiates military action.

I would say that almost all of the times that the US has initiated military action, it has used a different rationale than a pending military threat against the US itself.

Surely, there are no others examples of actual attacks on US soil that were used to provide rationale for military action.

So why was it necessary with 9/11, not only to do so but to do so on such a scale that the security of the US itself was cast into doubt ?

That answer is, that it wasn't. The attacks were perpetrated by terrorists who exploited security holes to maximum effect.

Initiating military action and starting an all out war are two different things. That's why the world is responding differently to Iraq than they have other military actions. Bush realized this, which is why he had to push fear at the American people in order to get the support he needed to go to war against Iraq. To think the American public would have supported it otherwise, had we not been attacked to the degree that we were, is just plain wrong. Had it not been for what happened on 9-11, we would not be at war in Iraq-- yet Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks even though the attacks were used as 'justification.' But without the attacks, there would have been no justification-- and no support by the American public for the war.

[Michael Hardner]

To think the American public would have supported it otherwise, had we not been attacked to the degree that we were, is just plain wrong. Had it not been for what happened on 9-11, we would not be at war in Iraq-- yet Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks even though the attacks were used as 'justification.' But without the attacks, there would have been no justification-- and no support by the American public for the war.

Well, ok. But how hard would it have been otherwise to generate support for it, in the way that was used in those other examples ? Surely, it wouldn't be necessary to kill 3000 of one's own citizens to make it happen.

Keep in mind what this thread, and sub-topic are about: The shadowy conspiracy of 9/11 is supposed to involve the shadowy hand of power attacking ITSELF, to generate this support.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, ok. But how hard would it have been otherwise to generate support for it, in the way that was used in those other examples ? Surely, it wouldn't be necessary to kill 3000 of one's own citizens to make it happen.

Keep in mind what this thread, and sub-topic are about: The shadowy conspiracy of 9/11 is supposed to involve the shadowy hand of power attacking ITSELF, to generate this support.

I don't believe anyone thought the towers would come down. I don't think anyone thought there would be 3000 deaths. But I was watching a show on C-span on Veteran's day that had vets from different wars talking about their views, their experiences. The Vietnam vet said, correctly I believe, that the Vietnam war went on as long as it did so the powers that be could save face. He said that was done at the expense of thousands of troops' lives.

So whether one believes the conspiracy theory or not, in light of past actions, the lack of concern over lives lost isn't so difficult to fathom.

As for how difficult it would have been to generate support for starting war in Iraq without 9-11, it would have been impossible.

Edited December 2, 2007 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

So whether one believes the conspiracy theory or not, in light of past actions, the lack of concern over lives lost isn't so difficult to fathom.

But, you're talking about planned mass slaughter of your own people, not neglect.

If I felt that my government truly murdered its own citizens in that way, I think I would have to leave my country.

As for how difficult it would have been to generate support for starting war in Iraq without 9-11, it would have been impossible.

Then why wasn't it necessary the first time ?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Then why wasn't it necessary the first time ?

Because Iraq had attacked and invaded a sovereign (Kuwait) and economic interest of the US. But even without serious UNSC opposition from China or Russia, a mighty human rights sales job complete with baby incubators was still manufactured. Saddam was demonized as Darth Vader. The vote was very close, with far less Congressional support than in 2002 (in the wake of 9/11).

Iraq had been in a strangle hold for many years after Gulf War I. The 2003 invasion was only the final action in political and military escalation that preceded the Bush administration. For instance, Iraq was attacked by the US/UK in December 1998 for the same WMD inspection excuses presented in 2002. But I agree that the invasion of 2003 would not have been possible (politically) without 9/11's war footing.

Edited December 3, 2007 by bush_cheney2004