these are the anthrax attacks that came like a month after 9/11. the anthrax attacks that mccain said "may be from iraq". the anthrax that went to select democrats who opposed going to war in the middle east.
oh and guess what, now that they have traced it back to who made it, in our own defense department, it turns out that guy "committed suicide" a while ago. what a COINCIDENCE.
I can't wait until it all comes out, it's going to happen soon now. I can't wait for all the people who said the government being involved in 9/11 was impossible. I can't wait for those people to get slapped the fuck back into reality.
I can't help but keep making posts about this stuff. It blows my mind how people can just shut theirselves off to new possibility. WAAAAAAAKE UUUUP
and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
On August 04 2008 06:29 Chill wrote: The government can't keep the president getting his cock sucked a secret; you think they could keep genocide a secret?
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
dont bother try reaching people on TL. we're too starcrafted up.
i'm kind of tired of the "the government can't cover up something big" argument. Hitler attacked his country's own parliament buliding, there is such a thing as top secret classification for our "national security". the federal reserve discloses nothing about their meetings, how it comes to its decisions, etc etc. is the 50 year secrecy thing just all bullshit? are they keeping secrets about bush having teaparties with his action figures? if you were a powerful criminal organization on the national and international level, what would be a prime choice to keep secrets?
we have all this tlak about domestic spying, and people telling off those against it, "why, what have you got to hide?" as if if they don't agree to it, they're guilty already. i don't agree with that line of thinking because the right to privacy belongs to the people, not to government. but when we apply that same logic to government, somehow it's taboo. why is this?
if you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one. - hitler.
oh btw, the reason people come off as "douches about this stuff" is because it's quite important, and even more dangerously so, seeing that there is a darn good chance backed with traced evidence that the govenrment is guilty.
ergo, the way to ensure freedom is to keep the government to it's absolute minimum like the founding fathers recommended. if it's small, it becomes quite hard to pull off shit like this or even smaller shit.
for those that haven't already heard, jfk's speech abuot secrecy and government coverups
more like a cauldron/pot imo, kettle is too small i mean ,seriously, i would've been in 100% total agreement with the OP ; if he had not come off with the "fuck you, close minded people" as an obvious attention grabber/ "although" it properly showcases how BM the general post was( if thats even a plus or anything )
Anyways, obviously, Travis is going to be on everyone that posts any negative aspects about the OP so with reclined hesitation and trepidation i hit ye' dreadful "Post" button
JFK's administration created some of the poorest kept secrets, though, it is hard to pay any attention to that. Situation with Hitler was completely different from the modern situation, far from any intelligent comparison. Were we able to mobilize the National Guard to use in that fashion we can get away with a lot more lying than just 9/11, I am sure, but we aren't.
Hm... I get annoyed when people criticize you for not agreeing with them. If I don't believe that the government was behind 9/11, then I should wake up? Maybe I haven't been exposed to the same compelling evidence as someone else. The same goes the other way. If someone says to me it's obvious there was no conspiracy, I don't feel obligated to immediately agree or take a stance 100%.
I'm pretty sure the OP was targeting people who are much more polarized than me though.
Hi Travis. I really like most of your posts but this disappoints . Normally I'd go totally flame warrior on you but like I said you have my respect.
In my mind there are two ways 9/11 could have been "rigged".
1.) US soldiers hijacked the planes themselves.
To accomplish this you'd have to secure some 15 or so American patriots who're willing to kill themselves in order to kill five-thousand Americans. We've seen that Al qaeda maniacs are willing to do this, but Americans? Killing their own? I'll be generous and say these were the only 15 men involved besides whoever it was up high in the administration that came up with this idea. Where do you find these men? How do you guarantee the loyalty of these men? I mean to blackmail these men you'd need more men to do the blackmailing, and how do you guarantee their loyalty? And so on.
2.) There were no planes, and the buildings were rigged with explosives.
Ok seriously, logistics aside (and by god this would take a lot of logistics), how do you rig a building with explosives that is occupied nearly 24 hours a day?! And how do you explain the thousands of people who saw the planes on 9/11? And what happened to the planes? And the family members?
The reichstag was a fire. Anyone can set fire to a building. It's another thing to wire two heavily occupied buildings with enough explosives to bring them down.
As for the Anthrax case: As far as we know, it was the work of one rogue dude who had some serious ego issues, according to his brother. I don't see any evidence it was concocted by the administration.
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
If that's how you want to interpret my statement when the intentions behind the post is obviously pointing to your forceful and abrasive language, then so be it.
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
And yet no one forced you to make this post, please stop with the childish slander and let's get back on topic
Putting the way the OP was presented aside,
You are still basing your facts on a case that is still in process and allegations by nitpicking every "single leads or assumptions about evidence on the chance that inadequate attention had been paid, beforehand ..." "...we have yet to see exactly the breakthroughs" that are , so far, unsupported ... ( by the videos you have portrayed as your leading points ) All unsupported coincidences, sure they are fishy, anything can be fishy when you point it out IMO, but the fact that they go without backing and without "thorough totality of evidence " , IMO, you have no right to criticize other peoples beliefs, right or wrong as they may be.
Don't get me wrong . . if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and acts like a duck, generally it is, ( regarding the conspiracy ) and i am a pretty open- minded to conspiracy theories ; but that's what they are, theories until proven otherwise.
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
I think what he was trying to say is that you're a hypocrite for accusing other people of being close minded and condescending when you're doing the same thing.
I don't really think this has to do with closed-mindedness, I just don't see anything EVER in all those theories that add up even in the slightest bit.
Besides it doesn't even make it more likely in my eyes. Who says that they didn't just use 9/11 as an excuse and sent out the anthrax and blamed it on the terrorists? Doesn't mean they had anything to do with 9/11. No real leader sacrifies 50000 innocent people like that just to fund some half asssed assassinations.
I really hope this is some kind of parody thread because you come across as pretty insane Travis. Wake up to what? I don't think you're any smarter than me and I doubt I overlooked any facts about this whole thing. It's just way more likely that this anthrax stuff was a reaction to 9/11 instead of a part of 1 big plan.
Even if it was connected to 9/11, it makes the whole conspiracy more unlikely to me because the whole plan is extremely flawed. And you don't make a flawed plan on purpose just so people will think it couldn't have been the government, that's too risky.
Why do you want to believe this so badly lol, most people just look at what's there and come to conclusions instead of looking at things that aren't there, you're just fooling yourself.
I don't buy the "terrorists hate our freedom so they attack us" argument. It's far too simple. However just adding one level of complexity makes little sense. The Government carried out 9/11 to create support for the war in Iraq to earn them money? Way too simple. I think Muslim extremists carried out the attacks in order to create support for the war in Iraq in order to make America intensely unpopular in the middle east and therefore create huge amounts of support for Muslim extremism in the region. You have to ask yourself who the real benefitors of 9/11 to find out who was behind it and the answer is Osama. Need any more proof? Osama hated Saddam. By committing 9/11 he caused the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent death of Saddam.
Easy proof.
Of course we could add another level of complexity. You see the Jews used Osama to use the Government of America to start a global ideological conflict in which the state of Israel is an important ally and therefore richly rewarded. Furthermore the conflict benefits Jewish financiers and by being on the side of America they get regional supremacy without actually having to pay for it, nor even have to fight for it. The destruction of the enemies of Israel, paid for by the American taxpayer with the profits going to the Jews. It's so simple.
Whereas being completely condescending, i don't think he ever criticized anyone for doing that( being condescending that is )
His apparent bias , isn't being ....completely close- minded, I'm sure if we discuss the matter in a somewhat civilized way ; he can give a little credence and we can come up with a agreement or compromise.
He seems like an intelligent person , perhaps some very heated arguments ( he's done before ) not experienced before by us , have created a strong tension in this thread , we can't judge him off the bat , (not being in his shoes , per se ).
Although the comments / replys he's posted in this thread are generally in agreement to the allegations against him ...
We can only see :O ; in other words i await this discussion/debate and hope it's in a more conservative manner of speaking; however liberal this topic may be.
On August 04 2008 06:50 HeavOnEarth wrote: more like a cauldron/pot imo, kettle is too small i mean ,seriously, i would've been in 100% total agreement with the OP ; if he had not come off with the "fuck you, close minded people" as an obvious attention grabber/ "although" it properly showcases how BM the general post was( if thats even a plus or anything )
Anyways, obviously, Travis is going to be on everyone that posts any negative aspects about the OP so with reclined hesitation and trepidation i hit ye' dreadful "Post" button
people don't actually read. they just come in, state their ignorant bullshit opinions, don't educate theirselves at all. I am trying a different approach.
I have had people who disagree with me about this and I come out respecting them. But let me tell you, there is no way I will come out respecting you if you deny that it is even possible
On August 04 2008 07:00 micronesia wrote: Hm... I get annoyed when people criticize you for not agreeing with them. If I don't believe that the government was behind 9/11, then I should wake up? Maybe I haven't been exposed to the same compelling evidence as someone else. The same goes the other way. If someone says to me it's obvious there was no conspiracy, I don't feel obligated to immediately agree or take a stance 100%.
I'm pretty sure the OP was targeting people who are much more polarized than me though.
yes, I was.
I never meant "wake up, agree with me".
I mean "wake up, open your eyes to possibility and stop being an ignorant pussy"
On August 04 2008 06:50 HeavOnEarth wrote: more like a cauldron/pot imo, kettle is too small i mean ,seriously, i would've been in 100% total agreement with the OP ; if he had not come off with the "fuck you, close minded people" as an obvious attention grabber/ "although" it properly showcases how BM the general post was( if thats even a plus or anything )
Anyways, obviously, Travis is going to be on everyone that posts any negative aspects about the OP so with reclined hesitation and trepidation i hit ye' dreadful "Post" button
people don't actually read. they just come in, state their ignorant bullshit opinions, don't educate theirselves at all. I am trying a different approach.
I have had people who disagree with me about this and I come out respecting them. But let me tell you, there is no way I will come out respecting you if you deny that it is even possible
Oh , i'm sorry for the mis understanding, of course it's possible, hell, the "coincidences" and all the "unlikely timings" merely just point out how true it is, but still it's still .. "up in the air" with no completely proof so i wouldn't go as far to " put my foot down" as you have , rather hard.. i must say.
" people don't actually read. they just come in, state their ignorant bullshit opinions, don't educate theirselves at all. I am trying a different approach. "
I must admit, if you hadn't done... all the gimmicks in your OP i wouldn't have watched the videos and/or even replied with anything other than , "wow that post was rather annoying to read" as people are basically doing ( don't blame them )
Was that your main incentive for posting like that? O_o
Or, alternatively, had Travis not worded the OP in a way that didn't marginalize his point, then he would've received what looks to be general agreement, rather than skepticism and annoyance. I don't think anyone in the thread has yet to say that "There is absolutely zero possibility that the government was involved in 9/11", but rather, the overall view seems to be arching in the direction of "logically, the evidences and the perception of how the government works and acts speak against the possibility".
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
If that's how you want to interpret my statement when the intentions behind the post is obviously pointing to your forceful and abrasive language, then so be it.
my bad. I really didn't understand what you meant.
anyways, the point is presenting the case in a different way. I figured maybe the "forceful" language could convince some people to actually read some of the damn links
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
And yet no one forced you to make this post, please stop with the childish slander and let's get back on topic
there was no childish slander.
Putting the way the OP was presented aside,
You are still basing your facts on a case that is still in process and allegations by nitpicking every "single leads or assumptions about evidence on the chance that inadequate attention had been paid, beforehand ..." "...we have yet to see exactly the breakthroughs" that are , so far, unsupported ... ( by the videos you have portrayed as your leading points ) All unsupported coincidences, sure they are fishy, anything can be fishy when you point it out IMO, but the fact that they go without backing and without "thorough totality of evidence " , IMO, you have no right to criticize other peoples beliefs, right or wrong as they may be.
Don't get me wrong . . if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and acts like a duck, generally it is, ( regarding the conspiracy ) and i am a pretty open- minded to conspiracy theories ; but that's what they are, theories until proven otherwise.
I didn't say otherwise! But they will never be proven without people actively pushing for a real investigation. There is no reason any of this information should be hidden!
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
I think what he was trying to say is that you're a hypocrite for accusing other people of being close minded and condescending when you're doing the same thing.
hardly. I am perfectly willing to admit I could be wrong (though there would still be so many unanswered questions!)
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
And yet no one forced you to make this post, please stop with the childish slander and let's get back on topic
You are still basing your facts on a case that is still in process and allegations by nitpicking every "single leads or assumptions about evidence on the chance that inadequate attention had been paid, beforehand ..." "...we have yet to see exactly the breakthroughs" that are , so far, unsupported ... ( by the videos you have portrayed as your leading points ) All unsupported coincidences, sure they are fishy, anything can be fishy when you point it out IMO, but the fact that they go without backing and without "thorough totality of evidence " , IMO, you have no right to criticize other peoples beliefs, right or wrong as they may be.
Don't get me wrong . . if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and acts like a duck, generally it is, ( regarding the conspiracy ) and i am a pretty open- minded to conspiracy theories ; but that's what they are, theories until proven otherwise.
I didn't say otherwise! But they will never be proven without people actively pushing for a real investigation. There is no reason any of this information should be hidden!
Well i sincerely doubt TL is going to make much of a difference in politics and especially how government run things
On August 04 2008 07:00 micronesia wrote: Hm... I get annoyed when people criticize you for not agreeing with them. If I don't believe that the government was behind 9/11, then I should wake up? Maybe I haven't been exposed to the same compelling evidence as someone else. The same goes the other way. If someone says to me it's obvious there was no conspiracy, I don't feel obligated to immediately agree or take a stance 100%.
I'm pretty sure the OP was targeting people who are much more polarized than me though.
yes, I was.
I never meant "wake up, agree with me".
I mean "wake up, open your eyes to possibility and stop being an ignorant pussy"
You haven't shown that there's a possibility. The coverage of the scientist and court testimony have pointed to him being a crazy person. Of course you're going to respond that it's a government cover up, but again there's no proof. You've got leaky motives, by which could be used to construe nearly any group as complicit to 9/11 or any other event in history.
Look at the link you posted. I'm not going to bother checking the sources for all of their quotes, but I did check the first two and they point out problems with the commission, but nothing implying conspiracy within the Pentagon, CIA or FBI. Their first blurb from Senator Cleland is mostly bullshit propagandizing. The Commission had an agreement to access the daily White House briefings, dating back to Clinton's administration, and as part of the deal to gain access they were not allowed to share that information.
Another problem of yours is that the websites and videos you keep linking us do as much twisting of information as a regular Fox News broadcast.
Im sorry if this seems blunt but isn't your view just as close minded as those you are giving the bird too?
You have no more access to confidential information than those people do so how can you know this with such certainty? Maybe you did not mean to come across so closed minded but you did, and i kinda seems like you just want everyone to believe you and your ideals
On August 04 2008 07:15 Frits wrote: I don't really think this has to do with closed-mindedness, I just don't see anything EVER in all those theories that add up even in the slightest bit.
what does that even mean.
world trade center 7 collapsed. there was no reason for it to collapse. that has never been explained. so how does that "not add up".
Besides it doesn't even make it more likely in my eyes. Who says that they didn't just use 9/11 as an excuse and sent out the anthrax and blamed it on the terrorists?
no one! but if that was the case, would it make it more or less likely that they are deceiving us about 9/11?
Doesn't mean they had anything to do with 9/11. No real leader sacrifies 50000 innocent people like that just to fund some half asssed assassinations.
....... think. THINK. who is our president.
I really hope this is some kind of parody thread because you come across as pretty insane Travis. Wake up to what?
I come off as insane? What did I say that does not make sense.
I don't think you're any smarter than me and I doubt I overlooked any facts about this whole thing.
I don't think I give a shit about which one of us is smarter and I doubt either of us could educate ourselves on this topic without overlooking some facts.
It's just way more likely that this anthrax stuff was a reaction to 9/11 instead of a part of 1 big plan.
That is your opinion. I don't see how it's relevant whether or not the 2 events were initially part of the same plan.
Even if it was connected to 9/11, it makes the whole conspiracy more unlikely to me because the whole plan is extremely flawed.
then why the fuck are we in iraq right now
And you don't make a flawed plan on purpose just so people will think it couldn't have been the government, that's too risky.
Why do you want to believe this so badly lol, most people just look at what's there and come to conclusions instead of looking at things that aren't there, you're just fooling yourself.
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
And yet no one forced you to make this post, please stop with the childish slander and let's get back on topic
there was no childish slander.
Putting the way the OP was presented aside,
You are still basing your facts on a case that is still in process and allegations by nitpicking every "single leads or assumptions about evidence on the chance that inadequate attention had been paid, beforehand ..." "...we have yet to see exactly the breakthroughs" that are , so far, unsupported ... ( by the videos you have portrayed as your leading points ) All unsupported coincidences, sure they are fishy, anything can be fishy when you point it out IMO, but the fact that they go without backing and without "thorough totality of evidence " , IMO, you have no right to criticize other peoples beliefs, right or wrong as they may be.
Don't get me wrong . . if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and acts like a duck, generally it is, ( regarding the conspiracy ) and i am a pretty open- minded to conspiracy theories ; but that's what they are, theories until proven otherwise.
I didn't say otherwise! But they will never be proven without people actively pushing for a real investigation. There is no reason any of this information should be hidden!
Well i sincerely doubt TL is going to make much of a difference in politics and especially how government run things
well, i've offered my side of the story; i could refute a couple more things but that would just lead to travis humiliating me as i don't have much experience in the whole "conspiracy" thing good luck with your blog sir
i think the guy leading the crusade to impeach bush is hilarious though , of first degree murder directly linked to Iraq ; hope he wins ~ 90 more days !
On August 04 2008 07:41 Jibba wrote: You haven't shown that there's a possibility.
it boggles my mind that I should even have to.
The coverage of the scientist and court testimony have pointed to him being a crazy person. Of course you're going to respond that it's a government cover up, but again there's no proof. You've got leaky motives, by which could be used to construe nearly any group as complicit to 9/11 or any other event in history.
ok I will humor you and say all of that is correct. he was looney. and he was looney 7 years ago back when he did it. why the hell was a crazy guy working with anthrax for the department of defense.
Look at the link you posted. I'm not going to bother checking the sources for all of their quotes, but I did check the first two and they point out problems with the commission, but nothing implying conspiracy within the Pentagon, CIA or FBI.
you clearly didn't even read the testimonies, this is exactly what I am talking about
please do not make me show each and every example of where they do say they believe that the government is covering something up, there are a ton of them
Their first blurb from Senator Cleland is mostly bullshit propagandizing. The Commission had an agreement to access the daily White House briefings, dating back to Clinton's administration, and as part of the deal to gain access they were not allowed to share that information.
you have successfully proven that one out of the dozens of examples could possibly be biased.
Another problem of yours is that the websites and videos you keep linking us do as much twisting of information as a regular Fox News broadcast.
On August 04 2008 08:03 Jibba wrote: I said I read the first two. I don't have time to waste with that whole web page.
THEN WHY DID YOU ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK IT?
without even reading it???
LOL
lol i clicked your links. the first one elaborates:
The compromise will allow the 10-member commission to create a four-person subcommittee that will have varying degrees of access to the documents known as Presidential Daily Briefs from the Bush and Clinton administrations, according to a commission statement and sources familiar with the agreement.
But the accord includes numerous restrictions limiting what parts of briefings can be seen and what parts can later be shared with the rest of the bipartisan panel and includes White House review of much of that information, according to sources familiar with the agreement. Those with direct access will take notes, and those notes are subject to review by the White House before being shared with others, sources said.
how does this not HELP my argument??
i started reading the 2nd one but I really can't tell what it's about and I don't want to waste too much time on it without first being told why it's relevant. especially not when the link is for "opinionjournal", which I would have to assume is exactly what it sounds like.
On August 04 2008 06:33 intrigue wrote: and yet there are an astounding number of intelligent people who feel as confident about their differing viewpoint as you do. hell, a lot of them post here too with caps, italics and bolded letters, everyone thinking they're the only enlightened ones in the whole fucking world.
why is everyone such a huge douchebag about this stuff
because I don't deny possibility.
I don't tell people that there is no way im wrong.
I don't choose purposeful ignorance. That causes way more suffering in the world than being a douchebag to people who refuse to even look at things from a different viewpoint.
Kettle, pot.
I don't see how trying to force them to see your light, however right it might be, is better than people refusing to see reality. You might not have choose ignorance, but in shoving that decision of yours onto others you are no different from them. If you presented the case with a less abrasive manner perhaps you would've convinced some people, in trying to shove it into others' faces you simply ruined your own point.
WRONG
I forced no one to click and read this blog post.
I think what he was trying to say is that you're a hypocrite for accusing other people of being close minded and condescending when you're doing the same thing.
hardly. I am perfectly willing to admit I could be wrong (though there would still be so many unanswered questions!)
I don't think you even realize how much your behavior contradicts what you're saying. Jibba has been trying to argue with you respectfully and you just laugh at his face and respond with one liners like he was a piece of shit :|. You also demand that we read your evidence (I did) but then you ignore his.
What do you have to say in response to that? I'm not saying that as if "ha my trump card i win you lose" but I really want to see how you respond to sound evidence from the other side.
dude, you are totally reaching here. You are saying because there might be a conspiracy with the anthrax case that there is a conspiracy behind 9/11. That conclusion just does not folow from what you have presented.
For anyone else not as "open minded" as me who won't go to the website, here are some of their other sections.
Mind Control Information Summaries: For the best, most concise introduction to the mind control information, we highly recommend our mind control summaries. These fact-filled summaries provide revealing mind control information from both landmark books and declassified government mind control documents.
...
There are dozens of other systems. Many are viable and well tested. But this short list is sufficient to make the point: new energy technology is here. It offers the world pollution-free energy abundance for everyone, everywhere. It is now possible to stop the production of "greenhouse gases" and shut down the nuclear power plants. Transportation and production costs for just about everything can drop dramatically. Yet all these wonderful benefits that can make life on this planet so much easier and better for everyone have been postponed for decades. Why? Whose purposes are served by this postponement?
...
UFO Information Summaries: For the best, most concise introduction to UFO information, we highly recommend our UFO summaries. These fact-filled summaries provide revealing UFO information from dozens of government, military, and intelligence witnesses with impeccable credentials. An M.D. and former ER director, Dr. Steven M. Greer, has compiled videotaped testimony of astronauts, generals, professors, and highly respected government officials who reveal their direct experiences in the UFO cover-up. These testimonies were transcribed and published in the highly revealing book Disclosure. You can order the videotaped testimony to verify the statements of each witness. Read our fascinating summaries of this book below. Etc.
Some of the covered up new energy sources include Cold Fusion and electrolysis that will make your car drive "for the cost of water". Now these other parts don't affect the credibility of the 9/11 portion, but I wonder why all these people with nice looking credentials are getting mixed up with this site.
EDIT: To me, the presidential thing is like this. The president gets briefed on thousands of topics per year, I'm sure much of it is classified. It's also THEIRS to give out, like it or not. I can think of quite a few reasons why they wouldn't want to expose Presidential briefings.
Travis, I'm not going to pretend I have the resources or capability to debunk every testimony on that page. The best I can offer is contradictory evidence from people with equal credibility. If nothing else, this goes to show that you can't "win" this argument for sure, because none of us have the real expertise or access to "find out the truth".
Which I guess is my way of copping out of this debate. Matter of fact is, you can't "win" on something like this. We'll always find "evidence" and counter evidence supporting our views. My only problem is the obnoxious "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" way you talk down to anyone who disagrees.
Mind Control Information Summaries: For the best, most concise introduction to the mind control information, we highly recommend our mind control summaries. These fact-filled summaries provide revealing mind control information from both landmark books and declassified government mind control documents.
...
There are dozens of other systems. Many are viable and well tested. But this short list is sufficient to make the point: new energy technology is here. It offers the world pollution-free energy abundance for everyone, everywhere. It is now possible to stop the production of "greenhouse gases" and shut down the nuclear power plants. Transportation and production costs for just about everything can drop dramatically. Yet all these wonderful benefits that can make life on this planet so much easier and better for everyone have been postponed for decades. Why? Whose purposes are served by this postponement?
...
UFO Information Summaries: For the best, most concise introduction to UFO information, we highly recommend our UFO summaries. These fact-filled summaries provide revealing UFO information from dozens of government, military, and intelligence witnesses with impeccable credentials. An M.D. and former ER director, Dr. Steven M. Greer, has compiled videotaped testimony of astronauts, generals, professors, and highly respected government officials who reveal their direct experiences in the UFO cover-up. These testimonies were transcribed and published in the highly revealing book Disclosure. You can order the videotaped testimony to verify the statements of each witness. Read our fascinating summaries of this book below. Etc.
Some of the covered up new energy sources include Cold Fusion and electrolysis that will make your car drive "for the cost of water". Now these other parts don't affect the credibility of the 9/11 portion, but I wonder why all these people with nice looking credentials are getting mixed up with this site.
EDIT: To me, the presidential thing is like this. The president gets briefed on thousands of topics per year, I'm sure much of it is classified. It's also THEIRS to give out, like it or not. I can think of quite a few reasons why they wouldn't want to expose Presidential briefings.
it always cracks me up when people insist that something which violates the laws of thermodynamics is true. i mean ya i can see how you could doubt 9/11. but PHYSICS? the only way you could get that wrong is blatant ignorance. A high school senior in Honors Physics could explain why that's bunk.
On August 04 2008 08:14 Mastermind wrote: dude, you are totally reaching here. You are saying because there might be a conspiracy with the anthrax case that there is a conspiracy behind 9/11. That conclusion just does not folow from what you have presented.
I have never said that. What I will say is:
1.) I believe the government, at bare minimum, allowed 9/11 to happen on purpose.
2.) I think there are people with huge amounts of influence over the government of the U.S. and they don't give a shit about anyone but theirselves.
3.) It is incredibly easy to cover things up when you control the media. How many of you already knew the information in the videos I posted? Why have we not been informed that the anthrax came from our own DoD, why has this information been hidden for the last several years?
4.) For all of this to be legit, there has to be some of the greatest coincidences ever. So this "crazy" guy, who works for the DoD as a top bio-engineer(WHICH MAKES NO SENSE), takes his anthrax, and sends it to some media offices and 2 democrat senators.
he includes 2 notes (1 sent to media and 1 to the senators)
#1
09-11-01 THIS IS NEXT TAKE PENACILIN NOW DEATH TO AMERICA DEATH TO ISRAEL ALLAH IS GREAT
#2
09-11-01 YOU CAN NOT STOP US. WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX. YOU DIE NOW. ARE YOU AFRAID? DEATH TO AMERICA. DEATH TO ISRAEL. ALLAH IS GREAT.
well geeze I guess this guy was so crazy, and so in love with the war in the middle east, that he took it upon himself to risk everything to pretend he is some terrorists.
he then waits 7 years, and then right before he is about to be formally prosecuted and investigated, he commits suicide. cuz he's so crazy.
It just strikes me that all of these things are done in such an unprofessional manner.
Cover ups do happen. One of the creators is that site is Kristina Borjesson who has done great work going after media institutions and the fucked up things they do, but she did it while publishing an award winning book and doing Emmy/Murrow winning work on CBS and PBS. That's how you present this kind of stuff, not with a .info page that covers every conspiracy theory known to man.
I don't think you even realize how much your behavior contradicts what you're saying. Jibba has been trying to argue with you respectfully and you just laugh at his face and respond with one liners like he was a piece of shit :|. You also demand that we read your evidence (I did) but then you ignore his.
stop saying untrue things. I have demanded nothing. I do ask that you read the page IF YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO REFUTE IT.
What do you have to say in response to that? I'm not saying that as if "ha my trump card i win you lose" but I really want to see how you respond to sound evidence from the other side.
this site replies directly to each "theory" that popular mechanics "debunks"
There are SERIOUS holes in what's going on with the Anthrax thing, you're absolutely right about that. I suspect in the next year we will be knowing a great deal more. But that doesn't immediately justify all the other theories that have been popping up over the last 7 years. If you jump on enough bandwagons, eventually you're going to pick the right one.
Well anyways travis, it seems you'll have to wait for the whole thing to go "watergate" ; If it does ~, in order to pull out the "I told you so's " ; for the whole "seeing is believing" deal D: ( which i'm guilty of , but is that really being close-minded ? )
eh I will just stop I don't want to say the wrong things
I will say that I do not actually believe the majority of people who even click and read the links actually THINK about them.
I think alot of you must click the links, and then skim the article while in your head saying "no that couldn't happen" or "that doesn't make sense", without giving any real thought to any of it.
both of the words could work there, but the one I chose has the definition I intended.
If you say so... it sounded like you were going for "everyone has an effect on everything", which calls for "affects" . "Effects" is used with sentences like "She effected great change" or something. It means "to bring about", basically, and that doesn't really work in the sentence you had there.
ON TOPIC
(whatever the current topic is)
my opinion:
of course there's SOME chance that the government was behind 9/11, anthrax, whatever. I'm not among the people you're railing at who deny that such a chance exists. I do happen to assess the probability of these events as so minuscule however that there's essentially no use in actively considering them. This is based on my own assessment of the evidence (and I've read/watched most of the 9/11wasaninsidejob stuff).
sorry mods, u can smother views you don't like, but u can't stop them from popping up again and again.
and travis, i feel for u, it takes a lot of energy to respond to every accusation of being dogmatic etc etc. once you go down that path, u'll realize the best thing to do is to provide more facts and evidence and references. cause in the end, both sides on issues like these just want the truth, am i right?
so ideally, i would like to see both sides dropping the side issues, and having an open debate, with finding the truth as the goal, and discussing the new pieces of evidence like government documents, which abound on the internet. operation northwoods would be one place to start: would our governmnet have any intetion of attacking it's own people in order to use it as a catalyst to do what it wants, say launch wars, infringe upon domestic privacy etc. ?
i think commmon sense would tell everyone that diversity and conflicting opinions are even necessary to a healthy free society. if all of us bought into the conspiracy theories without backed evidence or at least a good reason to believe so, then the nation would be full of paranoids and gripped by fear (although it can be argued, we just went thru the same thing with terrorists after 911, where the suspicion was directed at osama and the middle east). but on the other hand, if we all didn't even take a look at the conspiracy theories and the claims they are making, who would keep the government in check? it is the duty of citizens to bridle their government from oppressing upon the freedoms we secured in our constitution.
Such conflicting opinions duely demands and thorough debate and openmindedness whlie considering all the evidence without rushing or censoring or keeping anything secret is vital so we make the best decision possible and don't believe in false ideas. skepticism and cautiously approachiing things is one of the things that results from a republic like ours.
as long as we firmly believe our side on any issue, we should be able to back it up and present coherency and that it makes sense in a debate. but it is because we are so sure that we become more or less "dogmatic", but then that only means we should be able to defend our stance and not back down or resort to ad hominem and diversion tactics.
but then again, is the news being dogmatic for saying asserting that it is fact? lots of theses by conspiracy theorists do in fact have backing. government documents back them up, the laws of freefall in physics back them up. power goes to your head. who knows what really happened? thats why lets find out for ourselves with independent experts and not take oversimplified answers from our government, an entity to always be suspicious off, innnocent or not.
travis: this is a debate essentially based on the finer points of architectural engineering and FIRE. It is fucking unreasonable for you to expect us to be able to debunk each one of your sources. The best we can do is give you sources and expert testimony in return, which I've done. That's not how debate works. If you've ever watched a good jury trial or competitive debate, then you'd know that people provide clash where it's possible. Otherwise we make our own responses and let the two sides weigh out. You post as if if we dropped even ONE point of contention from you, we must be wrong.
Debating this isn't going to get us anywhere :|. If I found debunkings of your debunkings I'm sure you could find people to debunk that. What it comes down to is credibility. In my mind the people that popular mechanics had access to are probably a lot more credible than joe schmoe tinkering on his website. But whatever. You and I reading shit on the internet isn't going to settle any of this. I'm just not goign to continue this argument. Besides, you seem like a cool guy outside of this thread.
I will post somethign I wrote to Ecael regarding conspiracy theories in general. I'd be interested in discussing this with you, if you want to read the whole thing. But I don't think we'll get anything done pulling up random web pages for or against conspiracy.
These kinds of debates always boil down to something like "who do you trust?" I choose to trust the "mainstream media" and their story. People like you and travis could argue that this is just an intuitive judgement, that I need to go and "research the facts". I would argue that your beliefs are just as intuitive.
I choose to trust the experts at CNN, Popular Mechanics, the 9/11 commission, etc. etc. Their explanations make sense to me based on my worldview and experience. That is, I expect a degree of the "unintuitive" in all things. And this is an important part -- I realize that not every story will make perfect sense. Everything has "holes". Planes crashing into buildings don't make the impression you expected. Taking down a skyscraper requires a lot less explosive power than I might've intuitively guessed.
Travis, on the other hand, chooses to distrust CNN. He's chosen to place his faith in the Dylan Averys of the world. Moreover, he's chosen to trust his intuition as the sole arbiter of what is right. Part of the appeal of conspiracy theories is that they promise to make an imperfect story perfect. Now I've said before that real stories are often unintuitive, they're never perfect. The only reason conspiracies can create this idealized world is by evading the question. Conspiracy theories never explain what happened, they only describe possibilities of what may have happened. A "real" story goes like this: "Al Qaeda trained people to attack the U.S. They did this by doing A B and C." A conspiracy goes like this: "Al Qaeda could never plan something that sophisticated. Skyscrapers can't collapse like that. Planes make bigger holes. So it's likely that the US government did this. I don't know how but they probably did." Nobody ever writes a full "conspiracy narrative." If we were to apply the scientific model to conspiracies, you'll find that there is no hypothesis to test. Like Freud with his theories of psychoanalysis, whenever a new finding produces something contradictory, the theory is adapted.
The "mainstream" story, on the other hand, provides a complete testable narrative. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are imperfections in the story. I don't expect any explanation to be perfect. Conspiracies on the other hand don't give me a story at all. They just tell me I should doubt, and that's fine because that's how new ideas come about, through doubt, but it's stupid to believe a totally ungrounded story just through this doubt. Whereas the mainstream story has video evidence and more "credible" sources telling the story (credible here being a subjective term... the people telling the story are more credible to me, I don't really want to argue about the quality of sources), the alternative story is undetailed, untestable, and ungrounded.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is: the reason I don't believe in conspiracies is because I accept that stories and explanations can never be perfect. It is unintuitive for me to believe in an untestable hypothesis.
FUCK THAT WAS LONG but i felt like i needed to express that. if you don't read this that's all good but this has been an interesting discussion. Maybe I'll post it later.
Upon further reflection I see what you are saying about "opening our minds". You did come off as if you were trying to convince us of a conspiracy. I will admit the possibility there is a chance there could be a conspiracy. But I still don't believe there is.
If you say so... it sounded like you were going for "everyone has an effect on everything", which calls for "affects" . "Effects" is used with sentences like "She effected great change" or something. It means "to bring about", basically, and that doesn't really work in the sentence you had there.
after a bunch of research I am convinced that what I said is grammatically correct, just weird.
but I will concede that affect was the word I should have used(I hate that I was wrong)
If you say so... it sounded like you were going for "everyone has an effect on everything", which calls for "affects" . "Effects" is used with sentences like "She effected great change" or something. It means "to bring about", basically, and that doesn't really work in the sentence you had there.
after a bunch of research I am convinced that what I said is grammatically correct, just weird.
but I will concede that affect was the word I should have used(I hate that I was wrong)
yea,, see... discussion about topics like these always devolve to dogmatism, grammar, adhominem and shit like that. it's a good experience though, travis, and you will find other places to have more fruitful discussions. just don't die out on us. xp
On August 04 2008 08:49 ahrara_ wrote: travis: this is a debate essentially based on the finer points of architectural engineering and FIRE. It is fucking unreasonable for you to expect us to be able to debunk each one of your sources.
I agree, I never asked that of anyone
The best we can do is give you sources and expert testimony in return, which I've done. That's not how debate works. If you've ever watched a good jury trial or competitive debate, then you'd know that people provide clash where it's possible. Otherwise we make our own responses and let the two sides weigh out. You post as if if we dropped even ONE point of contention from you, we must be wrong.
what are you talking about. You posted your reply with that popular mechanics article, and I posted a direct reply to it with my own article.
and it rarely has to do with credibility, at least for me. something either makes sense or it doesn't.
How are you at all qualified to determine what makes sense when it comes to architectural engineering? If you used this measure to judge all things, then just because the theory of relativity doesn't make intuitive sense then it's wrong? No to make credible judgements on these things you have to be trained in these areas. That's why if you don't understand the field, it's really stupid to just take somebody's word over people who have better credentials.
what are you talking about. You posted your reply with that popular mechanics article, and I posted a direct reply to it with my own article.
On August 04 2008 08:46 crabapple wrote: so ideally, i would like to see both sides dropping the side issues, and having an open debate, with finding the truth as the goal, and discussing the new pieces of evidence like government documents, which abound on the internet. operation northwoods would be one place to start: would our governmnet have any intetion of attacking it's own people in order to use it as a catalyst to do what it wants, say launch wars, infringe upon domestic privacy etc. ?
I don't think on a subject like this you can have fruitful debate. When I posted the popular-mechanics article, travis responded with his own. There will always be people on either side who will argue back and forth one way and the other. You have to choose who to believe. Like I said to travis, no you don't have ground here to judge either of their theories, because you are not an expert in the field. You wouldn't judge theoretical physics or economic theories based on your untrained intuition, so what gives you the right to determine who is right or wrong in a debate about building engineering?
On August 04 2008 09:19 ahrara_ wrote: How are you at all qualified to determine what makes sense when it comes to architectural engineering?
I never said I was
If you used this measure to judge all things, then just because the theory of relativity doesn't make intuitive sense then it's wrong?
no. but it's definitely more likely than it would be if it did make intuitive sense. But comparing the theory of relativity to this, lol, such an extreme analogy.
No to make credible judgements on these things you have to be trained in these areas. That's why if you don't understand the field, it's really stupid to just take somebody's word over people who have better credentials.
I already know this.
But it's also stupid to choose what you believe based solely on the credentials of the source.
What, and that makes the second article right?
uh, no.
did it mean your article had to be right when you posted yours?
You don’t need to believe in anything. Whether or not the conspiracy theory is true does not change the fact that the American public don’t even try to accept anything other than what they want to believe. Their mentality does not go beyond trying to cover their own eyes and ears and live in their own fantasy world. When you present evidence of corruption, they dismiss you as a nut because they don’t want anything to sway them of the notion that all is good. They’ll find one or two loosely concocted arguments to justify their own biased beliefs and end discussion, as though they’ve actually proven something.
Face it, people don’t like unhappy thoughts; they prefer to be blissfully ignorant, and that’s exactly what makes them a bunch of tools.
by the way, anyone reading this that has an open mind, please check out the article i linked to that replies to the popular mechanics article. it makes it look really silly.
no. but it's definitely more likely than it would be if it did make intuitive sense. But comparing the theory of relativity to this, lol, such an extreme analogy.
No it's not. How can you have any knowledge about the temperature at which steel melts? Unless you've studied the field, you know just as much about it as you do about theoretical physics. And are you saying that what the popular mechanics people are saying doesn't make intuitive sense to you? What part exactly?
You can't tag something like "likelihood" to theories. Science is full of counterintuitive results. Could you have guessed that the same thing that keeps planets in orbit is also what keeps us attached to Earth?
On August 04 2008 09:27 Juicyfruit wrote: You don’t need to believe in anything. Whether or not the conspiracy theory is true does not change the fact that the American public don’t even try to accept anything other than what they want to believe. Their mentality does not go beyond trying to cover their own eyes and ears and live in their own fantasy world. When you present evidence of corruption, they dismiss you as a nut because they don’t want anything to sway them of the notion that all is good. They’ll find one or two loosely concocted arguments to justify their own biased beliefs and end discussion, as though they’ve actually proven something.
Face it, people don’t like unhappy thoughts; they prefer to be blissfully ignorant, and that’s exactly what makes them a bunch of tools.
WOW, YOU'RE EXACTLY THE KIND OF PRICK ADVOCATING THESE THEORIES THAT I HATE.
More than one third of americans dude. Stop crying as if you're the minority.
you're the tool for thinking you're better than the rest of the american public for believing in a bloody conspiracy theory. look at how easy it is to play on your intellectually fragile ego. obviously anyone who disagrees is living in a fantasy world. clearly we have to live our lives open to each and every possibility. maybe george bush really is a repetilian. NO you fucktard. If I'm a biologist and I'm familiar with the evidence of evolution, I'm not going to be open to the possibility of intelligent design. I find it funny that al ot of the people like you are the same ones who are ready to rail against creationism, but when you come into threads like this anyone who disagrees with you is being close minded.
NO YOU DONT GET TO BE THE SOLE ARBITER OF WHAT COUNTS AS CLOSE MINDED. SOME PEOPLE THINK WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS RIDICULOUS. YOU THINK THEY'RE RIDICULOUS.
welcome to life. check in at the front desk you mindless twit.
no. but it's definitely more likely than it would be if it did make intuitive sense. But comparing the theory of relativity to this, lol, such an extreme analogy.
No it's not. How can you have any knowledge about the temperature at which steel melts? Unless you've studied the field, you know just as much about it as you do about theoretical physics. And are you saying that what the popular mechanics people are saying doesn't make intuitive sense to you? What part exactly?
You can't tag something like "likelihood" to theories. Science is full of counterintuitive results. Could you have guessed that the same thing that keeps planets in orbit is also what keeps us attached to Earth?
are you trying to be difficult?
I can find out the temperature that steel melts in google in no time at all.
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
I did say I was leaving this thread, but I couldn't help but respond to that last post. I'll try to keep my tone neutral from now on.
My point was there are always little exceptions that, without the neccessary training, you don't take into consideration. It's not as simple as "fire melts steel". As you can see, it can also be "fire weakens steel".
On August 04 2008 09:27 Juicyfruit wrote: You don’t need to believe in anything. Whether or not the conspiracy theory is true does not change the fact that the American public don’t even try to accept anything other than what they want to believe. Their mentality does not go beyond trying to cover their own eyes and ears and live in their own fantasy world. When you present evidence of corruption, they dismiss you as a nut because they don’t want anything to sway them of the notion that all is good. They’ll find one or two loosely concocted arguments to justify their own biased beliefs and end discussion, as though they’ve actually proven something.
Face it, people don’t like unhappy thoughts; they prefer to be blissfully ignorant, and that’s exactly what makes them a bunch of tools.
WOW, YOU'RE EXACTLY THE KIND OF PRICK ADVOCATING THESE THEORIES THAT I HATE.
More than one third of americans dude. Stop crying as if you're the minority.
you're the tool for thinking you're better than the rest of the american public for believing in a bloody conspiracy theory. look at how easy it is to play on your intellectually fragile ego. obviously anyone who disagrees is living in a fantasy world. clearly we have to live our lives open to each and every possibility. maybe george bush really is a repetilian. NO you fucktard. If I'm a biologist and I'm familiar with the evidence of evolution, I'm not going to be open to the possibility of intelligent design. I find it funny that al ot of the people like you are the same ones who are ready to rail against creationism, but when you come into threads like this anyone who disagrees with you is being close minded.
NO YOU DONT GET TO BE THE SOLE ARBITER OF WHAT COUNTS AS CLOSE MINDED. SOME PEOPLE THINK WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS RIDICULOUS. YOU THINK THEY'RE RIDICULOUS.
welcome to life. check in at the front desk you mindless twit.
Did you even read what I said? Did I advocate the theory? Where in my post did I say that? Take your own bias and stick it in your ass if you must, but don’t put words into my mouth.
Plus, last I check, anything less than half constitutes as a minority.
Now let’s talk about that poll. The poll says “third of Americans SUSPECT 9-11 government conspiracy”. SUSPECT. Do you know the difference between suspect and conviction?
Let me quote you: Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "
All this says is that there’s a portion of the Americans who consider the POSSIBILITY that the theory COULD be true. It DOESN”T mean 36% of the public firmly believes that’s what actually happened. Are you honestly telling me it’s better for people to not consider the possibility of governmental corruption at all?
But anyways, thanks for demonstrating a prime example of loosely concocted argument. Between your post and mine, which one demonstrated more bias? Guess what, bias and close-mindedness are not that different, buuuuuuddy.
On August 04 2008 10:13 yubee wrote: don't say you're leaving the thread if you're gonna post 10 minutes later, it makes you look like a drama queen and weakens your argument
deal with it
the only person i said I was going to leave this thread to was travis, and that was because we had a chat about not getting frustrated. i think it's only respectful to at least respond to his last argument.
On August 04 2008 06:01 travis wrote: I can't wait until it all comes out, it's going to happen soon now. I can't wait for all the people who said the government being involved in 9/11 was impossible. I can't wait for those people to get slapped the fuck back into reality.
I can't help but keep making posts about this stuff. It blows my mind how people can just shut theirselves off to new possibility. WAAAAAAAKE UUUUP
American people thought that Iraq had connections with terrorists and now they think that 9/11 was planned by their own government, this is hilarious.
A conspiracy isnt needed to manipulate ignorant and retarded people. If people are so stupid that they believe Fox news crap they will also believe those retarded conspiracy theories later.
Maybe it is just too hard to admit that nobody in the US was enought smart and honest to say the truth in 2001 - 2002: Saddam had no connection with terrorists period. Now people find excuses for their mistakes and their own stupidity " zomfg it was a conspiracy ! governement lied ! 9/11 was planned ! "
Every American journalist active during this period should be put in jail because they cant use mental retardation as an excuse.
I'm going to have to side against you here travis. They are right that you are not qualified to form your own opinion on the actual mechanics of 9/11 because you are not an engineer with access to the full details of both the buildings and the attack. That said, what you are qualified to do is apply your own judgement to the opinions of others who may or may not be qualified. The problem here is that there are many people claiming polar opposites of what happened. You'll have some people saying there's no way it fell down in a fire and others saying it's expected that it did. Both make sense logically because both will cite a bunch of sources and facts to back them up. The problem is that only one can be true. So the question is, at it's core, one of credibility. Which makes sense to you is not a basis for an argument because if you read only one half of the argument that'll be the one that makes sense. Faced will two well argued and seemingly logical cases you can either opt for the "I don't know" or you can consider the number of experts involved in each case, their level of expertise, their motives and the quality of their sources. It is because of the latter that I'm one of the "some planes hit some buildings and they fell down" camp. For every amateur movie maker posting their opinion on the structural integrity of skyscrapers on youtube there are a dozen engineers with a contrasting opinion. I know who I find more credible.
On August 04 2008 11:21 MeriaDoKk wrote: i totally agree with you travis.
Me too.
Even if people don't want to agree with a lot of things, for whatever reason, it should be pretty apparent to everyone that our government now completely breaks any laws it feels like and is accountable to no one.
Just the fact that the president can effectively make is own laws with executive orders is illegal. The fact that they aren't in prison for ordering torture has no excuses. The fact that they clearly are out of line with the constitution and no one does anything about it tells me that whether 911 is true or not doesn't make a difference, because people have shown that they don't care.
OH TRAVIS, ASCENDED ONE, PLEASE BLESS US WITH YOUR WISDOM
You come off really pretentious in some of these blogs (rated it 1/5 btw! Don't kill me). Not everybody thinks the way you do, and telling them they're ignorant won't change that. Atheists have been trying to do it to Christians for years.
Insulting people is usually an indication that you have a problem with them. Of course, this is a cultural thing, and I'm open to the possibility that you come from a culture where insults do not imply that there exists intolerance or incompatibility. However, this possibility seems small to me.
It's also possible that you do not consider "fuck you" to be an insult. But that interpretation would not be very flattering for you, so I do not consider it seriously.
It would seem to be that you do actually have a problem with what you call "close-minded people," and considering the associated OP, you call those who do not consider the possibility of the so-called terrorist attacks on the USA originating from the US government "close-minded."
You offer circumstantial evidence, which isn't evidence. It is not fair to insult people for not being swayed by non-evidence.
i feel that somebody in this thread gives a flying fuck about my opinion
meh, i've been over this in other threads, read lots of shit, run around the conspiracy sites, run around the debunkings, run around the debunkings of the debunkings and all sorts of other random shit and my conclusion is that any intelligent conspiracy theorist must be extremely misguided
also if you don't give a shit you can have a great big fuck you cause i don't give one either
On August 04 2008 18:36 EmeraldSparks wrote: i feel that somebody in this thread gives a flying fuck about my opinion
meh, i've been over this in other threads, read lots of shit, run around the conspiracy sites, run around the debunkings, run around the debunkings of the debunkings and all sorts of other random shit and my conclusion is that any intelligent conspiracy theorist must be extremely misguided
also if you don't give a shit you can have a great big fuck you cause i don't give one either
LEARN TO FUCKING READ
since you aren't going to understand what I mean - I will elaborate.
MY POST WAS ADDRESSED TO CLOSEMINDED PEOPLE.
if you consider yourself closeminded, and you are purposely that way, then yes, FUCK YOU
those kinds of people are assholes. they cause problems for everyone around them with their purposeful ignorance. the fact that most people don't understand that doesn't change that it is the truth
I'm not really sure what your point is. It doesn't change anything... a lone scientist with a grudge against the government (whose mental health might not be all that great to begin) using something he probably works with every day (or can get easy access to at any rate). It hardly points to some massive government conspiracy. It'd be like claiming an explosion at a chemical plant was a conspiracy after an employee who worked at another site sneaked some cyanide out of his lab that and poisoned someone.
hey travis with all due respect if people are misunderstanding you, it's because you miscommunicated, not because they're dumb. maybe consider editing the OP to make your intentions clear?
On August 04 2008 06:29 Chill wrote: The government can't keep the president getting his cock sucked a secret; you think they could keep genocide a secret?
"The government" is hardly a unified collective - there are oblivious elements within it as well as colluding elements. The power of the colluders is amplified by the number of completely oblivious bench warmers who are content to do as little as possible and coast on the privilege of a good salary and a position from which to engage in petty backscratching. It's not "the government" keeping certain things secret, but guilty elements within that government.
You also presume that Clinton getting his cock sucked was meant to be a secret. The Lewinski incident was essentially like Watergate - a deliberate public scandal to distract from far more dire transgressions. Nixon (and the army of culpable people behind him!) had the denoument of the Vietnam war to hide from, and all of the highly illegal things that were done then. Watergate proved an effective distraction that caused Nixon, ultimately, no real harm. He was leaving office anyway and otherwise escaped any sort of punishment under the law. Everyone paid a lot less attention to what was being swept under the carpet about Vietnam, however.
With Clinton it was the fiasco in the Balkans. He, along with the Germans, had been funding the Kosovo Liberation Army (aka - more Islamic terrorists) and inciting them to violence in Serbia. The CIA and German BND worked together to arm and train the KLA - the terrorists were even wearing old East-German uniforms! When the Lewinski thing went down they were busy trying to blame Milosevic for the "Genocide" at Srebenicia and desperately trying to take attention away from the fact that it happened AFTER the NATO forces started carpet bombing the Serbs. Should the latter have made it to the news, it would have been apparent that the killing at Srebenicia was a reaction to the aggression of NATO (and the war that had been started by the KLA provocateurs) rather than the publicly claimed situation that the NATO bombing was a RESPONSE to the genocide. How it could be a response to something that happened after it is beyond me, but with everyone's attention on his cock it seems that nobody bothered to pay attention.
So one must be careful when making statements like this. Ask yourself what assumptions you are making and suddenly things aren't nearly as cut and dry as a hard-hitting one-liner may make it initially seem to be.
You also presume that Clinton getting his cock sucked was meant to be a secret. The Lewinski incident was essentially like Watergate - a deliberate public scandal to distract from far more dire transgressions. Nixon (and the army of culpable people behind him!) had the denoument of the Vietnam war to hide from, and all of the highly illegal things that were done then. Watergate proved an effective distraction that caused Nixon, ultimately, no real harm. He was leaving office anyway and otherwise escaped any sort of punishment under the law. Everyone paid a lot less attention to what was being swept under the carpet about Vietnam, however.
Well sir I think you make a good point but...
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
put on your tin foil hat and do a dance!
seriously I hope you die from 1st degree burns because of acid.
OH HAI GUYS! My name is travis, and I'm going to use this blog to up my post count! So this is how I'm going to do it:
1. Make a provocative post. One that includes little facts, and almost no independent or original thought, in fact, I think I'll post a couple videos instead. Then I'll end the post with
On August 04 2008 06:01 travis wrote: I can't help but keep making posts about this stuff. It blows my mind how people can just shut theirselves off to new possibility. WAAAAAAAKE UUUUP
(Note the liberal use of CAPS and bold to further provoke people to reply)
2. Now just wait for people to reply!
3. Now it's time to reply to those replies! My goal is to up my post count, and since I actually have no substance behind my posts or ideas anyway, I'll provide 1 sentence replies to everyone and quadruple-post.
4. Profit!
HERE'S ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR YOU GUYS: travis doesn't actually believe any of this! he is only trying to up his post count! :D
On August 05 2008 04:01 ahrara_ wrote: hey travis with all due respect if people are misunderstanding you, it's because you miscommunicated, not because they're dumb. maybe consider editing the OP to make your intentions clear?
I do my best to say exactly what I mean. It is not my fault that others make assumptions and inferences.
My intentions don't need to be made clear. I know my intentions, that is what is important. My intentions have nothing to do with the result.
On August 05 2008 04:27 Mooga wrote: OH HAI GUYS! My name is travis, and I'm going to use this blog to up my post count! So this is how I'm going to do it:
1. Make a provocative post. One that includes little facts, and almost no independent or original thought, in fact, I think I'll post a couple videos instead. Then I'll end the post with
On August 04 2008 06:01 travis wrote: I can't help but keep making posts about this stuff. It blows my mind how people can just shut theirselves off to new possibility. WAAAAAAAKE UUUUP
(Note the liberal use of CAPS and bold to further provoke people to reply)
2. Now just wait for people to reply!
3. Now it's time to reply to those replies! My goal is to up my post count, and since I actually have no substance behind my posts or ideas anyway, I'll provide 1 sentence replies to everyone and quadruple-post.
4. Profit!
HERE'S ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR YOU GUYS: travis doesn't actually believe any of this! he is only trying to up his post count! :D
rofl! the moon ladning didnt happen pearl hardbor was planned by the US
You also presume that Clinton getting his cock sucked was meant to be a secret. The Lewinski incident was essentially like Watergate - a deliberate public scandal to distract from far more dire transgressions. Nixon (and the army of culpable people behind him!) had the denoument of the Vietnam war to hide from, and all of the highly illegal things that were done then. Watergate proved an effective distraction that caused Nixon, ultimately, no real harm. He was leaving office anyway and otherwise escaped any sort of punishment under the law. Everyone paid a lot less attention to what was being swept under the carpet about Vietnam, however.
Well sir I think you make a good point but...
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
put on your tin foil hat and do a dance!
seriously I hope you die from 1st degree burns because of acid.
Laugh if you like. I invite you to read the works of academic historians, however - their version of history tends to be substantially more researched and generally much more critical than what popular culture has assimilated from the evening news. I assure you that what I've said is not nearly as ludicrous as you seem to believe.
FACT: Larry Silverstein ordered the demolishion of World Trade Center 7 Video Evidence
FACT: For a building of it's size it would take approximately 2 weeks to set up a controlled demolishion
For me this was the smoking gun, I don't think I have to tell anyone what the above video imply.. the 9/11 comission conveniently ignored mentioning WTC7 alltogether because it doesn't fit in to thier official storyline. Silverstein is Jewish, DO NOT tell me he was in cooperation with Al-Qaeda, more likely Mossad had a hand in this.
i watched the video and i have to say, are you fucking retarded? pull can also mean you know... pulling out? as in the firefighters pulling out? now i know conspiracy theorists like to reach but this is like reaching to the fucking moon. i will be reasonable if you can present reasonable evidence, but that was dumb as hell.
The 9/11 conspiracy theory takes a couple insignificant details that don't make sense, and twist it into a giant whore of a conspiracy.
If the government wanted to blow up WTC, they wouldn't have flown a passenger plane into it. Also there is absolutely no science to support that the plane couldn't have caused WTC to collapse.
On August 06 2008 02:59 ahrara_ wrote: i watched the video and i have to say, are you fucking retarded? pull can also mean you know... pulling out? as in the firefighters pulling out? now i know conspiracy theorists like to reach but this is like reaching to the fucking moon. i will be reasonable if you can present reasonable evidence, but that was dumb as hell.
'Pull out' would be semantically correct if he was talking about firefighters, 'pull it' is obviously referring to an object, to add to that there were no firefighters in or around WTC7 after the initial evacuation according to FEMA, NIST & Popular Mechanics
So we spend time arguing whether or not the government did something wrong, eh?
We already have more than enough evidence that the Bush administration was either criminally negligent or criminally stupid. Why are you spending your time arguing whether or not a particular instance of failure was negligence or malice?
i don't think you get it anyway you're free to think what you want
this is such a pathetic answer. he directly challenges you and this is how you reply.
it's ridiculous that anybody would consider one word that could've easily have been misspoken as a "smoking gun". even i have to admit you posted credible evidence and argumentation. but because one guy said "pull it" instead of "pull out" doesn't mean jack.
Certainly nothing is impossible, but I don't see how these anthrax attacks were related to 9/11. It seems to be the case of a disgruntled/crazy government employee, not a mass government conspiracy. Mathematically, the probability of the government covering up a large conspiracy is very low.
09-11-01 THIS IS NEXT TAKE PENACILIN NOW DEATH TO AMERICA DEATH TO ISRAEL ALLAH IS GREAT
#2
09-11-01 YOU CAN NOT STOP US. WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX. YOU DIE NOW. ARE YOU AFRAID? DEATH TO AMERICA. DEATH TO ISRAEL. ALLAH IS GREAT.
I read an article on these notes a few years ago. These notes were written by him in order mislead the investigation. They did some sort of linguistic and handwriting analysis etc.
On August 07 2008 03:49 UnitarySpace wrote: Certainly nothing is impossible, but I don't see how these anthrax attacks were related to 9/11. It seems to be the case of a disgruntled/crazy government employee, not a mass government conspiracy. Mathematically, the probability of the government covering up a large conspiracy is very low.
I don't see why.
There have been cases where a witness refuses to testify because the criminal threatened him or his family.
There have been cases where rape victims refuse to testify for the above reasons or because they don't think anyone would believe them or because they would feel shame.
There have been cases where victims refuse to testify because the suspect is a friend/family member and they will not betray them.
There have been cases where victims refuse to testify because they do not want to reveal that they committed despicable actions.
Imo the majority of people who would have witnessed evidence and are brave enough to testify would be 'grunts', people who would be dismissed out of hand because they lack a venerable enough position in society. They'd be labeled as 'a loonie', 'out to get a book deal', 'unqualified'.
Imo those witnesses that have reached a high enough position to actually be listened to, would have to have been so intensely loyal to have reached that position that they would feel honor bound to the president to keep the secret. Or they would subscribe to one of the above situations, fearing for their familys well being etc. They may see others go forward to speak out and see how they get thrown under the bus and ridiculed, and feel like there's no point in taking such a big risk just to get marginalized.
Also it's not like credible people aren't speaking out...
All you have are people who work for the government who say "there's got to be a conspiracy here". There has never been anyone credible who has come out and said "listen, I was there. they planned 9/11." There's also the problem of convincing american soldiers to hijack planes and fly themselves into a tower. How the fuck do you go about doing that?
You're just creating a scenario in which the circumstances that you describe are possible: a whole bunch of what-ifs. All I'm saying, is that mathematically, the more people are involved, the more likely it is that somebody is going to snitch, nothing else.
Also, people who claim to have "scientific" evidence for the 9/11 attacks should try to get their views published in a refereed journal. This is how these things are done in science. Unless of course there is some massive conspiracy in academia.
but still if there's a bunch of fishy stuff about it, let's say it's proven one day that the towers were brought down by demolition, you'd have to just accept that evidence despite it being quizzical as to how they got the damn bombs in there in the first place.
EDIT:
On August 07 2008 06:27 UnitarySpace wrote: this is how these things are done in science. Unless of course there is some massive conspiracy in academia.
This raises a question: do you believe in man-made climate change?
now because a-game dragged me out of my weary depths and asked me to write something substantative, here it is:
The difference between theorists and non-theorists is simply whether or not they believe this simple maxim:
"The system can be trusted to produce meritable evidence."
There's a need for this maxim because evidence can be so easily presented as meritable. Give me enough time and I can put together a plausible and persuasive case that the world is flat, based on 'expert testimony'. I know this because I argue shit I don't believe all the time in debate, and I win because I can do it credibly. Naturally, this has made me skeptical of any kind of argument, because I know it's so easy to argue anything and make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.
Case in point: Conspiracy theories. I have avoided debating the *evidence* in this thread as much as possible because as I have pointed out before it isn't about who is right or wrong; it's about who do you choose to believe, and why. Anybody can construct a credible sounding case for anything. You'll always be able to find people who will testify on your behalf. Trial lawyers depend on this fact. But you need to believe in something. So what matters is who you trust: I choose to trust in the "system": the 'mainstream media', credentialed scientists, investigative committees.
Simply put, the idea that the average joe can objectively determine the truth through research is plain wrong. The information he finds needs to be vetted by someone with expert understanding to weed out the hacks.
There is a system and a process the scientific community has developed over centuries to do just this. Of all things, science is the easiest to con people on. That's because scientific results rarely meet intuitive expectations. To really be able to judge the merit of scientific results, you have to be an expert in that field. Another example: "perpetual motion machines". My experience studying physics has convinced me that at least on the scale that we are able to construct machines today, they are impossible. And yet there are many people without scientific training who could probably be persuaded easily that a law defying the laws of physics is possible. Another case in point: Steorn
The system works by having credentialed people vet what counts as scientific "truth". You know, academia. This system can be trusted because it is self correcting. Unusual results gets vetted by other scientists. If the results can be repeated, then the ideas that test was verifying can be counted as "true", regardless of its political alignment. If a finding about 9/11 or global warming hasn't been accepted widely by academics, it's because the methods were flawed, not because the scientists are biased. Scientific truth is the best kind of inducted truth, because it is grounded in experiment.
Which is not to say the system's perfect. But I have seen no good evidence the system is corrupt that isn't circumstantial.
To distrust in the system just because you're cynical and you don't trust results that violate your intuitive expectations is ludicrous. The world rarely behaves like you'd expect it to. Our intuitions are built upon our experiences with the materials and environments we spend the most time around. We take the observations we make there and analogize them onto other things. Sometimes this is appropriate. Other times, like when we judge how big a hole a plane should leave in a building, it's not. That's when we have to trust science, and what credentialed people consider to be scientific fact.
there i wrote a lot of shit. like ten people will read this at best, but whatever. i made my point (about conspiracies)
sidenote: holy shit this thread has generated like a page of PMs from various people.
On August 04 2008 06:29 Chill wrote: The government can't keep the president getting his cock sucked a secret; you think they could keep genocide a secret?
There's an old proverb amongst gangsters "nobody dies or goes to jail unless they want to"
Bill Clinton did something to someone or opposed the wrong person... I'm sure they had more on Clinton then just a blowjob.. in fact, if you research his presidential campaign and his presidency there's a lot of shady stuff that comes out.
Believe me, nothing comes out unless someone wants it to. Don't be naive enough to think that people in the government are "idiots". In fact, it's not even people in the government. It's people who've earned enough money to have some powerful influences in the world. People like this are not idiots. They're very tactful in the art of people management.
On August 07 2008 06:02 UnitarySpace wrote: Large conspiracies are mathematically improbable. The more people involved, the more likely somebody is to snitch, for lack of a better word.
mathematically improbably doesn't mean anything
"in a world of infinite possibilities, everything is a coincidence"
-me
(I don't want to discuss 9/11 anymore for a while, I just wanted to post that quote cuz I think it's cool)
Well, I have two engineering degrees and am months away from a PhD in physics and, I agree, science is easy to fool people with. On the other hand, as a somewhat competent scientist myself, and generally knowledgeable about the industries and protocols of aviation and civil engineering, I would have to say that, unlike the fairy tales spun by the likes of Steorn and other obvious crackpots, a good number of the arguments presented in the 9/11 case are very much based on logical and justifiable scientific principles. It's difficult to say that there is a conclusive case one way or the other, but the oddities in the circumstances of the events are certainly, in my opinion, of such gravity that they leave open very, very disturbing possibilities about what actually happened.
On August 04 2008 10:48 Boblion wrote: American people thought that Iraq had connections with terrorists and now they think that 9/11 was planned by their own government, this is hilarious.
A conspiracy isnt needed to manipulate ignorant and retarded people. If people are so stupid that they believe Fox news crap they will also believe those retarded conspiracy theories later.
Maybe it is just too hard to admit that nobody in the US was enought smart and honest to say the truth in 2001 - 2002: Saddam had no connection with terrorists period. Now people find excuses for their mistakes and their own stupidity " zomfg it was a conspiracy ! governement lied ! 9/11 was planned ! "
Every American journalist active during this period should be put in jail because they cant use mental retardation as an excuse.
The people who said it was a conspiracy (btw, have not seen any one say that in this thread, only that it was possible) are not at all the same people who said Iraq had to do with 9/11, or the faux news watchers.
There is ample reason to be suspicious.
Though I really don't think it makes a difference whether it was planned by the Bush administration or a different group of terrorists. It's not like that would make Bush any worse than he is now.
It's tough to continue playing devil's advocate when someone like Suskind is making the claim.
Although if anything does come of this, I can't wait for all the "I told you so" morons to start popping up, even though they had zero legitimate proof until Suskind came along.
It's tough to continue playing devil's advocate when someone like Suskind is making the claim.
Although if anything does come of this, I can't wait for all the "I told you so" morons to start popping up, even though they had zero legitimate proof until Suskind came along.
I'm not sure how this is new? How is it different from things like how Richard Clarke was ordered to connect 9/11 to Iraq, we've had that out since... 2002? And the way all of the evidence for the case to go to war has been so thoroughly trashed it is pretty obvious to most people that they made up reasons to go to Iraq. If they found official forgeries that is just confirming something that has been pretty damn obvious.
Dick Clarke was also the guy who had us bomb the medicine factory in Sudan. All of his statements are incredibly charged and it's difficult to trust him when he's talking about things he should have no knowledge of.
On August 07 2008 22:08 Jibba wrote: Dick Clarke was also the guy who had us bomb the medicine factory in Sudan.
No idea what you're talking about or what your point is ~.~ The point of my mentioning Clarke is he gave a literal account of Bush telling him to connect 9/11 to Iraq.
No, he gave an interpretation that Bush tried to tell him to connect Iraq.
""The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. "
If that doesn't sound like grasping for straws then I don't know what does. Suskind, I assume, has a much better case presented.
On August 07 2008 22:17 Jibba wrote: No, he gave an interpretation that Bush tried to tell him to connect Iraq.
""The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. "
If that doesn't sound like grasping for straws then I don't know what does. Suskind, I assume, has a much better case presented.
And,
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'
"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."
And that's not all, but I'm hoping to avoid going further into this.
Yea, that was the 60 Minutes interview. And then in his PBS interview he added that that the President was angrily waving a finger in his face after pulling him into a room. And then in his book the confrontation goes like:
"I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." When Clarke responds by saying that "al-Qaeda did this," Bush says, "I know, I know, but see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred....." Again Clarke protests, after which Bush says "testily," "Look into Iraq, Saddam."
"And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer.""
That statement alone is incredibly speculative and has no merit, and the book is filled with tons of those types of speculations. He ends up writing part of it more like a novel than anything else. It doesn't even match with the interviews, because they paint the administration in a much worse light than what the book actually does. If you watch his different interviews and then read his book, I think you'd have difficulty trusting him.