| 0 |
Subject: History Channel's 9/11 Conspiracy Show
Posted by: ukula
- [46713227] Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 12:36
Did anyone happen to see History Channel's show the other night on 9/11 Conspiracies?
It was actually pretty sad - they would state "conspiracy theories" from the producers of Loose Change, Alex Jones, or some other high-level 9/11 Truthers. Those theories would then be debunked under the title "Expert's Response". Who were the experts you ask? Oh, the editor of Popular Mechanics magazine and his 25 year old assistant - both of whom apparently are "experts" on 9/11. They couldn't get anyone better than these clowns? They're editors of a magazine!! The young guy probably was working on his college newspaper two years ago! OMG.
Much of the program went like this:
Conspracy Theory: A controlled demolition brought down the twin towers.
Expert's Response: Hahahahaha - I can't believe anyone would think that - it's absurd!
Conspiracy Theory: Bombs went off in the basement of the towers.
Expert's Response: The guy in the clip never said "bombs", he said "explosions".
My favorite part was when they were talking about the Pentagon's hole being smaller than the plane and the perfectly round hole in the C-ring. They rationalized that by saying that the wings had come off prior to hitting the building, and then the plane vaporized and entered the building in a liquid form (the wings of course followed the plane into the hole despite coming off before the impact), the plane broke apart (that's why you can't see any remains of the plane) and the mass of flaming debris concentrated together like a laser beam and thus put a perfectly round hole in the C-ring.
After hearing that from the "experts" I was convinced that 98% of the public are idiots and will believe whatever they are told. Unbelievable. |
| 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 7723229
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 12:42
|
This is news to you?
|
| 2 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 12:56
|
calling Building 7... calling Building 7...
|
| 3 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 12:58
|
After hearing that from the "experts" I was convinced that 98% of the public are idiots and will believe whatever they are told. Unbelievable.
As opposed to? (The conspiracy theorists who believe 98% of the crap they are spoon fed?)
|
| 4 | Myboyjack
ID: 17262011
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 12:58
|
After hearing that from the "experts" I was convinced that 98% of the public are idiots and will believe whatever they are told. Unbelievable.
At least you can take some solace at being in a strong majority?
|
| 5 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 13:12
|
I DVR'd it. Haven't seen it yet. Don't ruin the ending. ;)
Ukula: What would the supporters of the conventional theory have to say in order to sway you? Or are you so convinced that a conspiracy is the case that you are biased?
|
| 6 | nerveclinic proxy
ID: 117332212
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 13:33
|
What did you expect from a show on national TV...
Oh we figured it out, it wasn't really terrorists, it was the CIA doing it to start the war against Iraq and make lots of money for Bush and Cheney's masters?
|
| 7 | ukula
ID: 227422215
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 17:11
|
Re 3: (Sarge)
"As opposed to? (The conspiracy theorists who believe 98% of the crap they are spoon fed?)"
Sarge, if a child questions his math teacher on how the teacher solved a particular problem does that make the child a conspiracy theorist? Since when is the act of questioning the facts a bad thing and just believing what you're told without question a good thing?
Boxman - Anyone who investigates the events of 9/11 will no doubt have some questions about things that don't quite make sense. Also, I am not convinced there was a conspiracy, but am 100% convinced that things don't quite add up. Should I just look the other way and accept what I've been told? That's the easy way out, to ridicule anyone who doesn't believe the conventional theory. If we no longer question things and just accept what people tell us, we're in big trouble.
I'm pretty sure that most people on these boards have never seen Loose Change or did any kind of research into 9/11. I've told quite a few people about films to watch, but 95% don't because they're afraid, afraid of what they might discover. People don't want it to be true so they just pretend that it doesn't exist and make fun of the "conspiracy theorists". I really can't blame them, it is quite disturbing and will make you feel very uneasy.
It's quite amazing how strongly people believe what they've been told. I can show video clips of witnesses/firemen/policemen talking about explosions/bombs going off on 9/11 yet most people will disregard these witnesses and believe what they've been told - that no bombs went off. It's actually quite amazing. I think Hitler was right about the BIG LIE.
|
| 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 17:17
|
questioning the facts isnt a bad thing Ukula. Ignoring the replies, insisting that the answers given are "part and parcel" of a coverup even absent evidence of such, is the "bad thing".
|
| 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 17:20
|
"explosions going off"...does not equal "bombs going off".
Any natural gas lines in those buildings? ANY at all? Electrical relay boxes? Ever heard one "explode"? Sounds like a bomb...BUT..it isnt a bomb. I dont doubt, that a building collapsing would cause those relay boxes and gas lines to explode. That however, the statement "it sounded like a bomb", does not equate to there having BEEN a bomb.
|
| 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 17:35
|
speculative questions:
Having never been in the vicinity of any sort of hi-rise as it came down...
The trapped air as the building pancakes? What happens to it? How much "compression" is there? What would be the sound of this compressed air, blasting through doors/windows of floors below the impending collapse?
The air in HVAC ductwork? What does it sound like, as that ductwork ruptures and the contained air gets suddenly released under the pressure of the building falling in on itself?
Would the word "explosion" be an apt descriptor?
|
| 11 | ukula
ID: 309521021
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 18:04
|
Sarge - William Rodriguez testified before the 9/11 Commission that explosions went off BEFORE the first plane hit the building. How do you explain that? Or do you just ignore it like the 9/11 Commission did and hope it goes away...
Maybe it just a coincidence....the first in a long line of them on that fateful day. I know you're afraid to look into what may have happened that day, it's ok, it's hard for some people to accept the possibility. I think Hitler was right when he talked about the BIG LIE - most people would refuse to believe it no matter what.
|
| 12 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 18:18
|
Ever been at the WTC around 9am? There were literally 10s of thousands of people in the vicinity just before the attack. That one or a handful of people out of thousands of witnesses present are willing to testify that explosions occurred before the first plane hit isn't very convincing.
|
| 13 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 18:29
|
I wonder if some of the conspiracy theorist movement (insofar as it relates to 9/11) isn't driven by some psychological belief that it simply isn't possible for this country to get hurt like that by an external threat; unless of course we did it ourselves.
Are there any shrinks on the forum?
I'm open to the idea of conspiracies, but I just don't believe the "evidence" as presented by the CTs for 9/11 for a lot of the reasons already mentioned in this thread.
|
| 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 7723229
Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 19:10
|
#11: William Rodriguez also testified (in 2002) that he saw one of the hijackers (Mohand Alshehri) in the WTC two months before the attacks. This was when Alshehri's photo and name were being sent around by the FBI as one of the hijackers that were killed in the planes.
Now, the fact that Mohand Alshehri wasn't actually one of the hijackers, and did not die on 9/11, seems almost anticlimatic. As was the fact that Mr. Rodriguez was not in the US in June 2001 when he claimed to have seen the guy.
William Rodriguez is, at best, a self-promoter with serious reality issues. A good spokesman for some of these consipracy theories.
pd
|
| 15 | Doug
ID: 113132214
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 12:52
|
LOL at 14. The thing is, in my experience, someone who is dedicated to believing in a conspiracy theory will take a refutation like that and either ignore it, or say "OK, that point's false... but what about this OTHER point!" and as long as you can't refute every single little last piece of minutiae to their satisfaction, they hold firm to their overall belief. I'd think most reasonable people would instead say "Hmm... 5 of the 10 of the claims I've thrown out there have been refuted... maybe I ought to double-check those other 5 and dig a little deeper to see if there isn't an explanation for them as well"... instead of just throwing out a litany of "unanswered questions" as "evidence" that the official story is false.
> I'm pretty sure that most people on these boards have never seen Loose Change or did any kind of research into 9/11.
I would venture to guess the opposite is true, but can only speak for myself. I've seen "Loose Change" (LC) beginning to end, several times. As I was watching it the first time (years ago), I found myself intrigued, but also painfully aware of some very obvious logical fallacies, false implications, and so forth... more and moreso on subsequent viewings. IMO, LC is sort of like the Bush administration linking 9/11 and Saddam... they make a number of claims that are very obviously supposed to infer connections to 9/11 (Northwoods, etc.) but never explicitly state them.
I've also watched "Screw Loose Change"... it echoes that feeling I had on initial viewing of LC. It's not perfect, it certainly has a bit of a sense of humor/frustration at times (emotional vs. objective), and in some spots uses the very same approach against LC that it criticizes (making inferences or asking leading questions without answers). If it was an attempt at irony, it was lost on me... but regardless of it's own comparatively minor flaws, I feel it more than adequately points out the LC major and glaring flaws. I have a hard time seeing how, after viewing this, anyone could take LC very seriously. Unless you think the producers of SLC were members of the conspiracy, sowing disinformation and what not... as opposed to private citizens who are frustrated / annoyed with people buying into the LC stuff.
|
| 16 | ukula
ID: 497272313
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 14:55
|
Exactly my point - 95% of the population refuse to believe that something like this is even possible, hence the Northwoods "link" to prove that it is possible.
Please tell me the difference between a government conspiracy theorist believing that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition and an Al Queda conspiracy theorist that believes that the towers fell when the fireproofing was ripped off.
Why is it "ok" to believe the 2nd version but "not ok" to believe the first? An engineer told us the first scenario and another engineer told us the second scenario. What makes the 2nd engineer more credible?
What people believe comes down to the belief in the source and not the actual scenarios. 95% of the people out there can't fathom that the government could have been involved, so they just disregard it in their minds and attack the people who believe that the government could have been involved.
For every "expert" on the government's side I can show you another "expert" on the side of 9/11 Truth. Like I said, it all comes down to who you believe and not necessarily what you believe. Since 95% of the people will side with the "official story" no matter what, it is very easy, as Hitler said, to pull off the Big Lie.
How powerful is this belief that the government would never do something like this? About 67% of the public still believe without a doubt that Oswald was the lone gunman. After all the movies and documentaries, deatbed confessions, video analysis, acoustic analysis, etc, 67% of the public still believe that Oswald was the lone gunman. Despite Kennedy's head jerking back and to the left, 67% of the public still believe that Oswald was the lone gunman. The only reason is because that is what they were told. Belief is a very powerful thing - it supercedes what the brain actually sees (Back and to the left). At the very least, after all of the analysis of the past 40 years should have left a little doubt in their minds, but no, 67% still believe the "official story" from the Warren Commission back in 1963 with no doubt in their minds.
Fear is very powerful and so is belief. Perm Dude has even admitted that he is afraid to think about the possibility of government involvement. In the grip of fear you lose the ability to think rationally and take action.
|
| 17 | ukula
ID: 497272313
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:03
|
From Wikipedia:
Big Lie is a propaganda technique in which the lie is so complex that the public will either dismiss it as impossible or choose not to believe it out of willful ignorance. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". A theoretical example would be if the United States Government was, in some capacity, responsible for orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attacks: if exposed, the public would find the concept so farfetched and distasteful that they would likely dismiss it as folly, even if there was supporting evidence.
|
| 18 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:03
|
Why is it "ok" to believe the 2nd version but "not ok"
Its just fine to believe whatever you want.
Its when you repeatedly insist on illogical conclusions to support your beliefs that most people will get on you. The testimony of 1 person out of many thousands of witnesses is not convincing evidence. But you demand that William Rodriguez' claims cannot be explained away and that we non-believers take the easy way out by choosing ignorance on the matter.
|
| 19 | ukula
ID: 497272313
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:12
|
"Its when you repeatedly insist on illogical conclusions to support your beliefs that most people will get on you. The testimony of 1 person out of many thousands of witnesses is not convincing evidence. But you demand that William Rodriguez' claims cannot be explained away and that we non-believers take the easy way out by choosing ignorance on the matter."
Read what you just wrote - That's exactly how easy it is to pull off the "Big Lie". There should be doubt in your mind, nothing more, nothing less. Most people take the stance of "Prove me wrong!!". When one witness or conclusion proves illogical or false, you throw the whole theory into the garbage. Conspiracy theorists have to be perfect 100% of the time it seems.
Any detective or investigator will tell you that they don't reach the correct conclusions 100% of the time, why should this be any different?
|
| 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:26
|
the conspiracy theorists biggest argument...
'
the lack of evidence, is evidence itself as to how sucessful the conspiracy was/is.
The "Big Lie"..."so how easy it is...".
Uke...your trumpeting is getting old.
|
| 21 | ukula
ID: 497272313
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:31
|
Sarge - I'm just trying to help you get through your fear. As usual when you, and people like you, start to hear what disturbs them they tune it out. The whole possibility of the "Big Lie" is disturbing to you, but that's ok, the first thing you have to do is admit you're afraid - right now you're still in the denial stage. I'll try to help you through if you want.
|
| 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 15728239
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:37
|
sarge, one of the appeals of conspiracy theorists is that they have "overcome fear" and they are getting at the "truth" by using the baseline of government lies to reflect a standard of anything less than 100% accurate and provable to actually demonstrate the opposite.
That is, if you get 1 engineer to say something and 100 other engineers to say something else, believing the 1% is a demonstration of an "open mind."
As you know, of course, this is merely a symptom of a process problem. CTs aren't intrested in the truth, because that represents closure. They are only interested in identifying, then trashing, the "government's theories" and do so in a condescending way so as to make up for the lack of truth with bluster.
|
| 23 | ukula
ID: 497272313
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:43
|
Pd - you're 100% sure Oswald was the lone gunman?
|
| 24 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:45
|
There should be doubt in your mind, nothing more, nothing less... When one witness or conclusion proves illogical or false, you throw the whole theory into the garbage.
Ukula, I've been involved in numerous discussions with you in which I have expressed that doubt. But that flies way over your head because it's not what you want to hear. You want to hear that I believe firmly that 9/11 was an inside job. You don't criticize Building 7 for his belief in that. You side with him in these discussions. That isn't doubt.
YOU'RE the one who lacks objectivity. You're the one who calls the rest of us sheep for not loading our pants every time you trot out William Rodriguez or the melting point of steel or some other claptrap waste of time. While you get on the rest of us for eating the "spoon-fed" official version of things, you don't don't bother to look at what's on the spoon in your own mouth. You're so intellectually invested in the inside job theory that you don't even realize that you're every bit as much of a sheep as you regard anyone who doesn't subscribe to your version.
I'll stick to judging every question raised and each piece of evidence presented on it's own merits. You're the one who's beliefs "supercedes what the brain actually sees". Otherwise it would occur to you to ask why on a weekday morning in one of the worlds largest business centers where many, many thousands of people were present, the testimony of 1 man that explosions occurred before the first plane hit is relevent.
|
| 25 | ukula
ID: 497272313
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 15:59
|
MITH - my you're a wee bit crabby today.
And what exactly is my version that you talk about? As far as I know, I don't have a "version" because I don't know exactly what happened and I probably never will. You have admitted that you have some doubts - that, by definition, makes you a conspiracy theorist.
True, the testimony of one man is almost meaningless, however, there were numerous TV interviews of people talking about explosions and other things they saw/heard. Unfortunately, Bush put a gag order on the cops and firemen so they can no longer tell what they heard or witnessed. That, my friend, is what happened to your witnesses. Just because you don't see or hear them doesn't mean they don't exist. The testimony of the everyday average Joes were thrown into the garbage if they didn't fit with the "official story".
I'm glad you have admitted your doubt - welcome to the club!!
|
| 26 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 16:03
|
lol PD..about the only thing I "fear" these days, are the attys me ex-s have hired.
:(
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 15728239
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 16:06
|
Well, she's a fearful one, sarge. But let's face it: You wouldn't have married her if she wasn't so tough.
|
| 28 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 16:10
|
quite true, entirely so.
|
| 29 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 16:32
|
my you're a wee bit crabby today
Perhaps. I don't respond well to hypocrits who tell me that my dismissal of the obvious nonsense they present exposes me as incapable of objective observation.
And what exactly is my version that you talk about? As far as I know, I don't have a "version" because I don't know exactly what happened and I probably never will.
If that's the case, then so be it, I'll stand corrected. But what I have observed is that when I challenge William Rodriguez, you tell me that I'm a spoon-fed sheep and that I'm afraid. When Building 7 expresses a firm belief that 9/11 was an inside job, you stand in defense of him.
You have admitted that you have some doubts - that, by definition, makes you a conspiracy theorist.
You need to get you definition straight. I've alrady taken the time to provid it to the forum when Building 7, of all people, denied that the term suits him.
|
| 30 | RedDelPaPa
ID: 187132319
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 20:13
|
I've got an idea, how about you 9/11 "official" story believers stop being so damn naive, and for once trust what you saw with your own eyes. Do you really believe that a natural pancake collapse of an over engineered, 110 story structure, aided only by gravity, would peel like a banana into powder within 1 second of free fall speed? If so, splash some cold water on your faces and ask yourselves why you believe that. Let alone the classic, perfect demolition look of WTC7. The media talking heads that actually had to speak from their brains on that morning for a few minutes, instead of a script, got it right. "Looked like one of those planned implosions that we've all seen." Yes, it sure did. As far as how the "black op demolition ninjas" did their work without anyone noticing, well, maybe the same way they did it in the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City 95'. The local Oklahoma news media unknowingly revealed the whole thing by showing the BATF removing unexploded charges from the building. Yes, that's right. The Ryder truck bomb did not take down the front face of that building. It was merely a diversionary blast.
There are "experts" on both sides of this 9/11 coverup. Show me an "official story expert", and I'll show you a guy/gal who will say whatever he's/she's asked/told as long as he/she receives their paycheck. Show me a 9/11 conspiracy expert, and I'll show you a guy/gal that is risking his/her life, family, and career to speak his/her beliefs. Based just on that alone, who would you tend to trust more? As far as Mr. Rodriguez goes, he turned down potential fame and fortune to ask the tough questions. Like why he and his colleges heard and felt a substantial explosion in the basement levels below them, several seconds before either tower was struck by aircraft? Mr. Rodriguez is single handedly responsible for saving potentially hundreds of lives on that day. He IS a sure HERO.
Not to mention, "all" the facts are falling on the side of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The "9/11 truthers" have the "truth" in their corner. The official story backers can't do anything but attempt to raise doubt, by debating such things as what the meaning of the word "is" is. When Popular Mechanics goes on a national radio(Charles Goyette Show) show debate in Arizona, and says that they got to see pictures of damage to WTC7 that us “little people” are not allowed to see, along with their outrageous claim of collected hijacker DNA with no original DNA samples to match with, their goose is cooked They are finished. Their credibility is completely destroyed. Along with any and every other spin off organization that uses their talking points and tactics. The “truth” will shine through. The “truth” will win out.
|
| 31 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 20:30
|
trying real hard not to simply puke all over my monitor.
what a load of BS.
Not to mention, "all" the facts are falling on the side of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The "9/11 truthers" have the "truth" in their corner.
No they are not, and no...they dont.
|
| 32 | Doug
ID: 113132214
Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 23:17
|
> hence the Northwoods "link" to prove that it is possible.
Ummm... was there ever any doubt? Of course it's "possible". But uh... so what?
Do we convict people of crimes when it's "possible" there was another explanation? All the time. Every day. It's a matter of "reasonable" doubt (as far as criminal convictions are concerned)... if there's a very obvious explanation (when we found the guy he was holding the gun that killed the woman and had blood on his shirt) then in the absence of contradictory evidence, we decided "he did it".
I take a similar stance towards 9/11. I'm not 100% convinced and never can be, but I'm convinced "well beyond a reasonable doubt". Just because someone can readily imagine a different scenario that's possible doesn't mean we throw away the far more obvious answer as being "unproven". In that sense, nothing is ever provable. And just as nobody will ever be able to prove it happened according to the official theory, nobody will ever be able to "disprove that any other possibility could have happened".
It seems to me you are starting from the assumption that until/unless every possible "other" explanation is disproved, you won't believe the official story. But that will never happen... in essence, you've predetermined your own outcome. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Please tell me the difference between a government conspiracy theorist believing that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition and an Al Queda conspiracy theorist that believes that the towers fell when the fireproofing was ripped off.
There is evidence for the fireproofing being inadequate in the towers... photographs showing the fireproofing in the towers, at least in some ares, was in a deteriorated and inadequate state prior to 9/11. This was PRIOR to the planes hitting them, thus any effect the physical impact and fires may have had would have exacerbated the issue.
What evidence is there that there was a controlled demolition of the towers? Some people heard explosions? That's evidence of "some" sort of major event... such as gas/electric/kinetic explosions, forced air, controlled demolition, a hard impact of something falling (like, a body) and hitting a overhang or car roof or any other myriad things. Basically, we know some people heard some loud sounds. Duh. But someone hearing something go "boom" isn't evidence of a controlled demolition specifically. Is there ANY direct evidence of a controlled (or uncontrolled) demolition? I'm genuinely curious, because I've heard none. And to me that's a pretty big difference compared to the fireproofing.
> What people believe comes down to the belief in the source and not the actual scenarios. 95% of the people out there can't fathom that the government could have been involved, so they just disregard it in their minds and attack the people who believe that the government could have been involved.
I think this is just flat out wrong. I think there are plenty of people (FAR more than 5%), like myself, who can fathom or conceive of the government doing something like this. But just because we don't think it happened in this particular case doesn't mean we don't think it's not "possible". There's just no evidence we've seen that supports it.
If the counter-argument is that "those behind it have the ability to hide the evidence"... well then, you're pretty much adopting a position which by definition can't be refuted. In fact, if there WAS any evidence suggesting 9/11 was a govt. conspiracy, then there must NOT have been a govt. conspiracy, because IF it were a govt. conspiracy, there would NOT be any evidence. >.< But no wait, they're cleverer than that... so they WOULD intentionally leave SOME evidence after all, just not "enough".
(And feel free to insert "illuminati" or "Free Masons" or "Keebler Elves" in place of "govt.")
> Fear is very powerful and so is belief.
Well, we finally agree on something. ;)
|
| 33 | holt
ID: 41512278
Fri, Aug 24, 2007, 05:12
|
The local Oklahoma news media unknowingly revealed the whole thing by showing the BATF removing unexploded charges from the building.
hilarious. and let me guess, you can't show us the footage because the atf ninjas (apparently incompetent ninjas) destroyed all the tapes.
|
| 34 | ukula
ID: 41730247
Fri, Aug 24, 2007, 09:27
|
I'm curious what you think of PNAC's manifesto written in September, 2000 (prior to Bush taking office):
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing eventlike a new Pearl Harbor"
Hmmmmmm......
PNAC Members included:
Dick Cheney
Scooter Libby
Paul Wolfowitz
Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Armitage
and a host of others who were/are in Bush's administration
In Summary, all these PNAC members came up with a plan in September 2000 to rebuild America's military, invade Iraq, and oust Sadaam Hussein. The only problem was that it probably wouldn't happen unless there was a "New Pearl Harbor"
Bush gets elected, and many of these PNAC members are given high positions in the administration.
September 11, 2001 rolls around and lo and behold we have a "New Pearl Harbor"!!! We eventually invade Iraq and oust Hussein.
Does this prove anything? No. Is this suspicious? Yes. Who should be the prime suspects? Who benefited the most from 9/11?
If I wrote an editorial in the paper stating that my property values would double if Doug's house burned down and then a year later Doug's house mysteriously burns down, who do you think would be the prime suspect? Who benefited the most from Doug's house burning down?
If a guy takes out a $5 million dollar insurance policy on his stay at home wife and she mysteriously is killed a year later, who do you think would be the prime suspect? Who benefited the most from her death?
Don't you guys think 9/11 is a little bit shady?
|
| 35 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Aug 24, 2007, 10:16
|
I find their assesment to be honest frankly. Its a true statement that change, in politics, in society, in general, is a slow and tedious process absent some external catalyst which forces the change.
That statement, is no more evidance of a conspiracy, than is a sports announcers saying "Favre is going to need the game of his life if GB is to win next week", followed by Brett going 30 of 33 for 412 yds and 5 TDs...evidance of the games having been "predetermined" and 'thrown'.
Neither statement proves anything, but both are honest assesments. So what?
|
| 36 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Aug 24, 2007, 10:21
|
I'm curious what you think of PNAC's manifesto
Manifesto? LOL. That's the first time I've heard that term used to refer to that report. What I think is that you are taking that quote out of context. I responded to that same quote in post 3 of this thread.
I love how you guys put people in a position to defend that neocon thinktank. I can think of plenty of reasons for why I think PNAC and like-minded people and organizations are a terrible detriment, but I'm not willing to take quotes out of context to add to the list.
|
| 37 | Doug
ID: 113132214
Fri, Aug 24, 2007, 12:40
|
Ditto what Sarge said.
Also, if you were going to benefit from my house burning down, and had any inkling that you might actually go about doing it someday (but framing someone else), then you certainly wouldn't write a public editorial about it.
And the analogy is completely false anyway. Now, if you were talking about a technological transformation of my house, then we might be on to something. I've been wanting one of those automagic light/heat/music/etc. systems installed. But such change is likely to be slow, absent some catalyzing event, like me winning the lottery.
If I win the lottery next week, we've got a conspiracy on our hands.
|
| 38 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, Aug 24, 2007, 12:52
|
If I wrote an editorial in the paper stating that my property values would double if Doug's house burned down and then a year later Doug's house mysteriously burns down, who do you think would be the prime suspect? Who benefited the most from Doug's house burning down?
Doug's house didn't "mysteriously" burn down, two crazy guys flew planes into the house. After watching the planes approach the house, I heard two distinct explosions RIGHT before the planes hit. Hey, I watch a lot of television, I know what explosions sound like. Thinking back to the recent editorial someone wrote, there was an obvious motive for Doug's house to vanish...
George Steinbrener did it!
|
| 39 | Doug
ID: 113132214
Sat, Aug 25, 2007, 14:13
|
But doesn't it raise a lot suspicion that I was somehow complicit in this by recently taking out a large homeowner's insurance policy? I mean really, just disregard the fact that it's a completely normal and expected thing to do here in the land of wildfires and earthquakes... or, say, if you were someone who owned a worldwide landmark high-rise office complex.
|
| 40 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Aug 26, 2007, 12:12
|
I got around to watching the conspiracy show that I DVR'd. It really stunk up the joint. They showed both sides of the coin but they didn't go into details other than what they claimed happened. Big deal. We already knew that. I was expecting a little more of an analytical take. What I got was he said / she said.
It did nothing to make me further believe the government side or the CT side of things.
|
| 41 | weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Sun, Aug 26, 2007, 13:31
|
I just think it is so comical that when something "big" happens you have a group of people who want to think they are "smarter" than everyone else and hatch these consiracy theories.
Too funny.
Anyone close enough to the buildings who would have been able to accuratly identify an "explosion" would have been buried under tons of rubble.
I took a cruise to Alaska and watched as huge chuncks of ice fell from a glaicer....it sounded just like an "explosion".
Maybe we should have all the CT dolts look onto wheather someone is planting explosive charges in glaciers.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|