| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Phred cannot watch that video. Both his computer and his internet connection are so archaic that it is not possible.
If he had better technology at his disposal I'm sure he would love to watch it and rip it to shreds.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
phred can go to a library, doesn't he work? just set your computer to download the video overnight and it will be loaded by morning.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: He lives in a third world country. He does not have access to the modern conveniences that you and I do.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
It's not as if it matter anyways. He has seen so many of these goddamn threads that I'm sure he knows every part of the movie by now.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
See Phred, the problem with the way you argue is that you constantly lower the standard of debate. In your latest reply to what I said, you completely and conveniently ignored everything I stated in earlier posts in this same thread. This makes for a very annoying and tiresome discussion, but I won't let this technique obscure my arguments. So I'm gonna spell it out again for you, referring to where I said it before, and asking you where you see a problem. Please reply to what I say, not what you claim I said or didn't say.
The easiest and quickest way will be this: I'll spell out a possible scenario of the events of 9/11 that addresses all your questions. It's not the only possible scenario, it has possible variations, but it is possible. If you don't think so, please point out the impossible. As everyone knows (I don't think there's any debate about that), Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have long been intelligence assets of the CIA. There have been proven ties, and the CIA knows or knew Al-Qaeda pretty well. It is therefore not unimaginable at all, even very plausible, that the CIA infiltrated Al-Qaeda, or at least had informants there. So imagine Al-Qaeda planned attacks with hijacked planes on 9/11. Of course, the CIA would have known. And not only the CIA: numerous Western intelligence agencies warned the US that attacks were on their way. If they knew, the CIA must have known even more. So the attacks are on their way. The administration, among which some people had openly wished before for "a new Pearl Harbor", ponders that it might be interesting to let the attacks happen for reasons that have been pointed out (read the PNAC). Better than to let them happen even would be to make them succeed. While they're at it, they could wipe out some evidence in embarrassing cases, make some cash for themselves and their buddies, and also make sure that if towers get hit by planes, they don't fall all over Manhattan. We want damage, but we don't want downtown NY completely wiped out. (Look at this post for more detailed reasons for the demolition option.) So, to make sure the planes hit the towers (you never know with these messy and undertrained suicide hijackers), they place beacons inside the buildings and install remote control in the planes that will be used (a remote-controlling beacon could also explain the successful stunt approach of the Pentagon by an undertrained pilot). So the Arabs can mess up all they want, the planes will hit where they should. I realize you're going to pick on this, but before you do, think of the fact all planes are equipped with beacon-related automatic pilot. It wouldn't take a huge amount of equipment to make it function from a distance. When I say "remote control", it's not exactly accurate. All it takes is remote control of the automatic pilot and remote disabling of a few automatic safety devices. No need for remote control of all manual commands. Technically, this is perfectly possible. The collapses have to look "natural", so they have to start at the impact points. Weakened by the impact, the outer structure will snap exactly there, if only you place the whole load of the buildings on it by taking out the central cores with explosives. The explosions have been heard and recorded by seismographs. If you look at controlled demos, you'll notice that buildings only snap after a certain number of detonations. The WTC towers could have been detonated very gradually, and then they could have let all the remaining charges go off during the collapse, from the moment the towers snapped 'naturally' at the impact points. There's been a fuckup with WTC7. Was flight 93 aiming for it? No-one knows. Was it supposed to have sustained heavier damage in order to make the collapse look more 'natural'? No idea. Anyway, it was a major fuckup, way too obvious. A few specific answers: Quote:See above about gradual demolition. Quote:Exactly. See above, and note those points had already been made earlier. Quote:See above, points made earlier. Quote:Why do you choose to blatantly ignore all the points I made here? Im' not claiming it was 'to make sure' the Patriot act could be passed. I gave specific reasons. Thanks for acknowledging that. Quote:See above, Al-Qaeda took care of that. It was a joint Al-Qaeda/US services operation. Only Al-Qaeda probably wasn't aware of that. This kind of thing has been done countless times in the past, it's a classic intelligence operation. It was done all the time in 70's and 80' Italy. Quote:Why do you AGAIN completely ignore this post? It proves beyond a doubt that there was a window of opportunity to do it. are you going to dismiss it again? If so, please substantiate. Quote:We agree. Only they didn't know they were being used by others still than Bin Laden. Quote:Answered above. Co-operation wasn't needed, they weren't in on the totality of the plot. Quote:Did I EVER label you closed-minded or brainwashed? I don't think so. As for you, repeating "moonbat" as often as you can won't make the questions go away. Check out what this moonbat has to say, and tell me he knows nothing about science and has no arguments. And please also tell me how and why the scenario laid out above is technically impossible.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:I'd love a source on this. One that also entitles you to the specific "Most scientists..." claim. I've seen this claim mostly in the posts of this forum's "scientists". Quote:Read the last link in the above post. Thermite is way more plausible than "the energy of the collapse", which is really laughable. I'll use the word "moonbat" only once, and it will be for this one. "The energy of the collapse" accounting for the puddles of molten metal is desperate wishful thinking on the part of the supporters of the official view. It just shows their hopelessness. I wonder how you can believe such a *moonbat* explanation.
| |||||||
|
Hey Its Free! Registered: 12/14/04 Posts: 367 Loc: The fabled catbi Last seen: 13 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Wow that must be really fuckin annoying. But as long as your answering conspiracy questions, why hasn't the FBI realeased any of the black boxes from the flights? Why hasn't the FBI realeased any of the videos of the Pentagon being hit? And do you think the center of our nations military has any defense mechanisms for shooting down a plane? I hope so. Edited by Turn (04/13/06 10:36 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: As far as I know all of the black boxes were unrecoverable except for Flight 93's. Flight 93's recording actually was played in court yesterday at the Moussaoui trial. Quote: As far as I know there was no video. There were only several images. Quote: Do you think that there should have been missile batteries around the Pentagon? It's a building. ....Buildings don't usually have anti-aircraft defenses around them.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Listen kiddies, if you can't produce a transcript leave it at home. I have a good connection and I'm not going to watch any fucking download more than 2 minutes or so. You can't quote anything from it and there is always so much fluff before the point that it's ridiculous. Show some restraint.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
David --
I realize you are new to this forum. You've been here what... a whole week now? So I can understand your enthusiasm for a newly discovered video. But here's the thing. None of this is new to those of us who have been rehashing this and re-rehashing this for over four years. I do realize it's not your fault you're late to the party. But neither is it MY fault. And I just don't know how I can possibly make this any plainer to you other than to repeat -- yet again -- that it doesn't MATTER whether I watch the second edition of the video or not. Or even if I have watched the FIRST edition of the video. The simple fact is that a video is nothing more than a vehicle for someone to present their arguments. It doesn't differ from an essay or a Power Point presentation in its SUBSTANCE. What matters is not how the assumptions are presented, what matters is do the assumptions stand up to scrutiny. What if I were blind? Would that mean I couldn't understand the basic premises being argued to me since I could only hear them or read them in braille? Am I forever doomed to misunderstanding the "truth" about 9/11 because I can never watch the stupid video? Not at all. Now, there are several longtime contributors to this thread who HAVE seen the video. Rest assured if they thought there was anything -- and I do mean ANYTHING -- that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked in here, they wouldn't hesitate to lay it on me. That's just the way this forum works. And yes, I realize you may not want to invest the time to churn through four years of posts here to verify that what I'm telling you is the case (that this has all been chewed over more than an old hound dog's favorite rawhide bone) really IS the case. But again, veteran contributors to the thread can back me up on that as well. I'm not trying to dodge anything here. It's just that it gets almighty old to have to retype all this every two weeks when the next new guy shows up and starts hyping the same video. Stick around... I guarantee you that by the time you've been here a year you too will have seen at the very least another dozen threads just like this one. Maybe two dozen. And no, I can't go to the library. I live in a dinky little village in a third world country where the closest library is an hour's drive away and I don't have a car and all the books are in Spanish anyway and they don't stock videos. But even if I could go to a decent library, I wouldn't bother -- because there isn't a single wild-assed premise in that video that I haven't encountered before. The whole vastly complicated scenario laid out by the producers of these videos is so wildly improbable that a half hour of rational thought and a bit of basic research on the web shows it up for the harebrained slop it really is. Think it through. The scenario these guys are trying to push would have to involve -- at the very least -- dozens of highly-placed, highly-dedicated, and seriously EVIL people all working together with split second timing to conceal stuff in one of the busiest places in the world. It would also necessarily mean that not a single one of them would ever let anything out of the bag. Remember that this is the US GOVERNMENT we're talking about here -- these guys can't keep anything secret for longer than a week or two. Washington leaks like a sieve. Pick up any newspaper if you don't believe me. Leaks every week. Sometimes several in a single week. And somehow these few dozen guys clammed up for four and a half YEARS? Uh huh. Add to this the undeniable fact -- and yes, it is an undeniable fact -- that the guys who hijacked the planes were foreign religious nutbars who hate America. Hate America so much they blow themselves up at a moment's notice if they think it will hurt the US. They would have had to have been in on the scam as well. Yet not a single one of their buddies has used this knowledge (of supposed US government complicity) to embarass the Great Satan. How likely do you think THAT is? To pass up the greatest propaganda coup of all time. Yeah, right. Add to that the baseless assumptions, bad science, dismissal of actual science, misrepresentation and in some cases outright bullshit that the conspiracy theorists are peddling and you can realize why these guys are considered by rational people to be at best grievously mistaken and at worst outright loons. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Aldous writes:
Quote: If by "lower the standard of debate" you mean "applying rationality to the evidence", I won't deny the charge. Quote: That's bullshit, but if it makes you feel better to claim so, knock yourself out. Quote: And this is why no one takes the tinfoil hat brigade seriously. Your very first opening statement is a load of crap. Not "everyone knows", and you better believe there would be lots of debate about that. Quote: Intelligence "assets"? Nonsense. Quote: Define "ties". If you mean the US (through the CIA) provided assistance to the Afghanis who fought the Soviets, I won't dispute that. But the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan predates the formation of Al Qaeda. It is undoubtedly true that some of the surviving Afghani mujahadin who had received weapons, money, and even training from the CIA in Afghanistan ended up joining Al Qaeda at some point down the road -- I would be astonished if none of them did. But that's a pretty flimsy basis for claiming "proven ties". If you're referring to some other "proven ties", let's have specifics and sources. Quote: One would hope so... that's their job, after all. Unfortunately you seem to have a lot more confidence in the CIA than is warranted by their well-documented history of failure. Their intelligence fumbles and lengthy list of screwups, missed signals, and outright fiascos over the years are legendary. But let's for the sake of this argument pretend they aren't completely incompetent and that they know Al Qaeda exists and its members are prone to attack American interests. Quote: I suppose it is not impossible that the CIA had some informants in Al Qaeda. That doesn't mean their informants knew anything about the operation. It is obvious from the evidence presented over the last four years that this was a VERY closely-held operation within Al Qaeda -- as it rightly should have been. "Very plausible" they had infiltrated Al Qaeda? Nonsense. Quote: There's no "of course" about it. It's sheer speculation, and implausible speculation at that. Quote: What kind of attacks? When? Where? Involving whom? Absent that kind of specificity, this has no more value than a Moscow meteorologist warning it will be cold in January. Quote: "Must have"? Bullshit. See... here we have the unvarying starting assumption of all the moonbat conspiracy theories. "The government must have known!" That is far from proven. More than that, it is far from even making logical sense. Governments miss things all the time. They fuck up all the time. They're freaking famous for fucking up! It's what they do. Quote: As a quick aside before I continue, no people in the administration have openly wished for a new Pearl Harbor. But by all means, don't let that stand in your way. Moving on... Here we see the next enormous leap of faith a rational person wouldn't make, but moonbats don't even notice -- the casual assumption that of course the administration has no problem with thousands of innocent Americans being murdered and the economy, the military, and their own ability to govern taking a gigantic hit. To extend the ancient joke, "A friend is someone who will help you move. A best friend is someone who will help you move a dead body". And a really, really REALLY double-plus-good friend is someone who will arrange the slaughter of thousands of innocents so the stocks you received when you left Halliburton will give you another hundred thousand bucks they might otherwise not have. If you really believe dozens (at an absolute minimum) of American civil servants have such an abiding hatred for their fellow Americans and are truly that EVIL (and there is no other word which is appropriate for that kind of behavior) as to bind themselves into an unholy pact to carry out such an act, it is no wonder you buy this crap. ... continued in the next post.... Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
...continued from previous post...
Aldous writes: Quote: Embarassing to whom? The administration? Source, please. Besides, there are a hell of a lot easier and less risky ways of removing evidence than flying a bunch of planes into buildings. Computer failures, office fires, lost files, accidently shredded records, etc. Hillary had no difficulty disappearing that kind of stuff and never even got called on it. Sandy Berger just stuffed embarassing classified documents into his socks and down his pants. Of course, he's not as sharp as Hillary -- someone saw him doing the stuffing so he got caught. But those two are Democrats. A Republican would be better at that kind of thing. Quote: Like a really, REALLY double-plus-good friend would do for you. Quote: Look, you can't have it both ways. Either the towers could have been destroyed by planes diving into them or they couldn't. I thought your position was that they couldn't, absent controlled charges. So (according to you) there would never have been any danger of the towers falling all over Manhattan if the administration had just sat by and watched. Quote: And American Airlines goes along with the installation of remote control units on four of their airliners? Dude, just listen to yourself! Quote: What does that mean? That in a standard airliner, you can set the automatic pilot to home in on a radio beacon and it will fly a direct line (with an altitude variance of around ten feet or so) into that beacon? I didn't know that. You of course have a credible source for that, I'm sure. Maybe you could provide us with that source. Quote: By which I presume you mean that from a distance the remote guy can enable the system -- say when the plane is within a few miles of the towers? Quote: Gee. "All it takes" is to find someone to completely rewire all the multiple redundant safety overrides in a modern Boeing (four Boeings, actually) so that the preprogrammed autopilot (set to home in on a beacon) will engage itself and not allow itself to be disengaged. So now to the team of administration officials and lesser government (presumably CIA) underlings, we add a couple of American Airlines technicians intimately familiar with a Boeing's avionics and willing to accept a bribe to fuck with the machines they bear responsibility for. Hey... no biggie. Quote: "No-one knows"? Do you ever read the news? It's been known for a long time now that flight 93 was destined for the Capitol in Washington. Its flight path (before the passengers intervened) was for DC, not NYC. This information comes from both captured Al Qaeda members and from Moussaoui in open court. Quote: Damage from what? Not from the two airliners... they're in tiny pieces in the two towers. Not from the towers falling on them -- your whole scenario is geared around the towers not "falling all over Manhattan". I'll address the rest of your post (the answers part) later. Or maybe not. I've already spent far too long on this as it is. But let me first point out the 800 pound gorilla you have overlooked: What you seem not to grasp is the glaringly obvious fact that this operation was conceived and executed as a totality. It was far and away the most spectacular piece of guerrilla theater in the history of mankind. It was designed by Al Qaeda for maximum impact -- both psychological and strategic. Look at the choice of targets -- the center of the Great Satan's economy, the center of the Great Satan's defense establishment, and the center of the Great Satan's government. It's true they missed the center of government, but that was a VERY near thing. If they had been quicker heading Flight 93 towards Washington, the passengers wouldn't have had time to hear what had happened in NYC and the Pentagon, and wouldn't have been able to stop the Jihadis from flying their plane into the Capitol. You are focusing exclusively on the WTC flights, just as others focus exclusively on the Pentagon "missile". But the truth of the matter is you can't use one set of assumptions to "explain" how what happened at the Pentagon didn't really happen, and a different set of assumptions to "explain" how what happened in NYC didn't really happen. Any theory put forward has to make sense within the framework of three simultaneous attacks on the very heart, muscle, and brains of America. So let's revisit your speculation (and that's all it is -- speculation) that the administration knew about the attacks in advance, and decided to help them along. This means the administration knew the Pentagon would be severely fucked up -- possibly to the point where its function would be severely impaired for years, depending how many key military commanders and war plans and records and equipment manuals and computers and who knows what all else was blown up in the attack. This also means the administration knew their ability to govern would be severely compromised, if not completely destroyed. Pretty hard to run a country when the majority of its Congressmen, staffers, records, etc. have been incinerated. I guess it is just barely conceivable for someone (who has taken enough powerful mind altering drugs) to buy into the theory the Bush administration contains enough influential, competent, and evil folks to pull off something like assisting the collapse of the towers. But to believe they're also not just influential, competent, and evil, but also abysmally stupid (as they would have to be in order to co-operate in crippling themselves through allowing the destruction of the Capitol and the Pentagon) is something only a certified barking moonbat can try to sell with a straight face. I understand the urge to question authority. I do it all the time, myself. But there's a point past where what one does no longer qualifies as questioning authority and instead devolves into self parody. The trick is to recognize where that point lies. Phred
| |||||||
|
the cool fool Registered: 11/17/02 Posts: 27,397 Loc: USA |
| ||||||
|
if bush and the govt actually planned 9/11 why didnt they do something easier than crash planes into buildings. i mean they could have just as easily bombed something... that loose change shit talking about how the passengers are still alive and voice morphing is really bullshit. why go through all that trouble hiding people and shit if ur the govt. u could have just planted charges and destroyed the buildings....i think if anythign bush let the attacks happen, i think they knew something was going down. there were enough warning signs, bush was purposely negligent.
| |||||||
|
just a tester Registered: 06/16/04 Posts: 11,252 Loc: Cypress Creek |
| ||||||
|
*sigh*
I don't come into this forum much, but goddammit I have decided my new hero is Phred. I'm so sick of hearing shit like this from the liberal conspiracy theorists at college (and Immortal Technique). I love seeing a video as shitty as Loose Change get ripped apart. I watched it a while ago..it was the biggest waste of time I've sat through in a while (and yes, I just saw Benchwarmers). My input on this -- I was really close to this..my friends and I were at the beach when this happened, and eventually got to a TV, and saw them unexpectedly collapse in real time. It was like a pancake effect ..one floor eventually gave way, slamming 100s of tons (maybe more) of molten steel onto the floor below. Have skyscrapers really been designed to withstand that? I highly doubt it. These "explosions", as far as I'm concerned, are the sound of a few hundred tons of steel slamming into the floor below.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:If you read this timeline, you will read about the intelligence warnings the CIA received, and you will also see that it is confirmed and verified that a large number of people in the Arab community of NY had precise foreknowledge about the exact day and type of attack, and that many people who knew tried to warn the US authorities. In vain. If the failure to avert the attack in the face of all the warnings available was truly considered a fatal mistake, some people would have been sanctioned, which didn't really happen. Quote:That's a joke, right? All of a sudden they could do everything they always dreamed of. Quote: Quote: Two more blatant examples of lowering the standard of debate. I never said, and you know it, that money was the sole or even the most important motive. Neither did I ever state that wiping out evidence was the sole or even the most important motive. That's why I wrote "While they're at it...", but yet you pretend I gave those as sufficient motives. Quote:1. the hatred: of course not, why do you make it personal business? There's no hatred involved. 2. the evil: call it "forwarding American interests worldwide" if you wish. I mean, in the name of American interests, US governments have invaded countries, dropped two nuclear bombs and killed countless civilians. This specific administration has invaded Iraq on false pretexts and killed more civilians than died on 9/11 (they didn't hate them either). They don't do it out of pure evil, it's just that they couldn't care less about the consequences of the actions they undertake to pursue their goals. And if Americans had to die to achieve a quick invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, so be it. After all, the 2000+ soldiers who died because of their plans were Americans too, right? Who says they care about American lives? It's all *collateral*. The evil is there, yes, but it's collateral, it's not what matters. And some who believe in American interests worldwide are willing to forgive that evil for the sake of those interests, so they turn a blind eye on elements that might reveal the evil. Others consider evil cannot be excused by whatever. See, when I read that statement I quoted, I'd like to call you naive for believing governments kill out of hatred and evil, but I'm afraid you're just pretending. Which makes me doubt the usefulness of this discussion. I might come back on some of the other points raised, but I'll be away for a few days.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: There are many people saying that the fire inside of the buildings were not even close to being hot enough to melt steel. The common case that is used to support this claim is a building in Spain that burned for several days. This building did not collapse and the frame remained intact, even though a tremendously hot fire burned inside. Why did it not collapse, why did its frame not melt?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Aldous writes:
Quote: I'm sure I'm not the only reader of this thread noting the irony of your claiming I lower the standard of debate. You can't even remember what you wrote in your own posts. Let's do a thorough review of every post you have made in this thread, to see what you believe the Bush administration's motives are for engineering this disaster, shall we? From post 5496881 -- Quote: So the very first reason you give is "money". You say it's not the only one, but coyly decline to elaborate on other reasons, instead leaving us to puzzle out what you think they may be. Then in the next paragraph you add another -- destruction of evidence of financial scandals. Now... am I supposed to know you are finished listing your reasons? Or am I supposed to take you at your word that you WON'T elaborate, but instead just provide clues? Great debating technique we see here -- if I address the reasons you gave, you protest there were other (unnamed) reasons. If I don't address the reasons you gave -- preferring to wait until you eventually get around to "elaborating" on your others, you chastise me for not addressing the few you've specifically named. See your whine in post # 5511034 -- Quote:Later in the same post we see this from you -- Quote: You're not claiming one motive for engineering all this was to get the Patriot Act passed? Then why did you say in post 5498841 -- Quote: You can't even remember what you wrote and you're accusing ME of lowering the level of debate? Tell you what, Aldous. To avoid further misunderstandings, why don't you give us a list of all the reasons you believe the Bush administration had for allowing the attack to take place. So far, we have -- money (by which I presume you mean the key players had plans to steer money to themselves or their friends -- money they could not otherwise have steered their way) -- destruction of evidence of financial scandals (by which I presume you mean the key players had plans to destroy evidence embarassing to themselves or their friends. Please be specific as to which scandals and which players or friends of players were embarassed by the scandals you cite) -- ensure passage of the Patriot Act. I must admit I am confused here. In one post you imply passage of the Act was a motive, in another you claim you're not citing passage of the Act as a motive. So let's get your real opinion on this. Passage of Act? Yes or no. -- furtherance of PNAC agenda. By this I presume you mean the parts of the PNAC agenda which involve taking action in the Middle East to transform the ME countries into democracies. If you have some other part of the PNAC agenda in mind, let us know. Be SPECIFIC, please. -- any additional reasons you care to name. Be SPECIFIC, please -- no vague allusions to secret agendas or hints or "clues". Speak plainly. See, this is what's so annoying about debating with the moonbat brigade. They never take a stand -- never come right out and say things in a straightforward manner. No, it's always hints and "clues" and allusions and vague references to PNAC and insinuations and metaphors and possibilities and blah blah blah. Then when I address what I believe these mushmouths are trying to say, I get chastised for "ignoring what was said" or for "making assumptions" or "putting words in my mouth" or whatever. I don't know whether this is a sneaky (and transparently lame) debating tactic or whether they are actually incapable of communicating effectively. In your case, Aldous, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume it was not a duplicitous tactic but merely a failure to express yourself plainly. So here's your chance. List for us in plain language, the specific reasons you believe the Bush administration had for allowing the attack to proceed. I hope you enjoy your time away. Phred
| |||||||
|
just a tester Registered: 06/16/04 Posts: 11,252 Loc: Cypress Creek |
| ||||||
|
I don't think that Spanish building had a Boeing flying into it at 500 miles an hour, spilling thousands of gallons of jet fuel. While the buildings withstood the initial impact and explosion, the jet fuel continued to burn.
Steel doesn't have to reach a melting point to be significantly weakened
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
This is getting a tad tiresome, but I won't quit because of that, it would give false impressions. I hope most people have understood there's a division between motives for planning the attacks and motives for specifically blowing up the Trade Center, and between main motives and "collateral" motives. I'll try to spell it out as clearly as I can.
My view is that the Bush administration wanted/needed "a new Pearl Harbor" from the beginning, to dramatically speed up the implementation of their policies. They either selected an interesting terrorist plot among all plots the intelligence services regularly discover, or they elicited it themselves through infiltrants. Anyway, this doesn't matter here, I'm merely trying to get my point understood, whether people agree or not. So what were their motives? They had several political main motives, foreign as well as domestic. As for foreign policy, they wanted to dispatch American forces to the Middle East ("furtherance of PNAC agenda"). You'll notice that invading first Afghanistan, then Iraq, is a great way to get at Iran. This is for strategic and economic reasons, but both are very much intertwined. In today's (and even more tomorrow's) world, oil equals money equals power. (You'll notice that the often-quoted PNAC report, "Rebuilding America's defenses", never associates the terms "Middle East" and "democracy" (only 2 occurrences!), but does associate "Middle East" with "energy", "stability", and "American interests"). On a domestic level, they seriously restricted personal freedom by enacting laws that allow for a large degree of control of the state over the individual ("ensure passage of the Patriot Act"). The US is certainly closer to a police state than it used to be (whatever you feel the current degree of police state is today in the US; I mean whether one feels the country is still very free or it's almost become a police state, one can't deny there's been a serious movement toward restriction of general freedoms), and this is certainly due to the way the Bush administration 'reacted' to 9/11. In my view, the political motives prevail over all other general motives. They were sufficient motives for the attacks to be organized, as opposed to the other motives, which are "collateral", but nevertheless interesting. Among the general collateral motives, there's money (the billions made from insider trading on put options; the insurance money, although this one is debated; plus all the extra military spendings going to Halliburton, the Carlyle group, etc.) and destruction of evidence. As a general motive (i.e. a motive to organize the attacks as such), I am willing to admit this last one is rather speculative: WTC7 had "interesting" tenants, but that's not enough. A lot of SEC files were destroyed, some of them related to the WorldCom case: Quote:... and WorldCom is indirectly linked to the Bush family via Marvin Bush, but I really think this is rather shady. I haven't researched this thouroughly enough, so I'm willing to withdraw this one, although it's potentially interesting. "Who knows what" was destroyed in the WTC7 Secret Services, CIA, SEC offices, but that's hardly enough, I confess. Then there are what I will call specific motives for the destruction, motives that could explain the option for controlled demolition by explosives: these are related to material circumstances of the attacks, which are of course speculative, since they rely on the assumption that it was an inside job, but which are consistent with that assumption. These motives are, again, destruction of (material) evidence. There's been a lot of speculation about this, and I'm not going to endorse any of it. All I'm saying is: if the attacks were an inside job, there were certainly material elements that didn't fit the official story. Destruction would have been an option to wipe out some of the embarrassing evidence. And limitation of damage, as I said before. Contrary to what you contend, Phred, I didn't say the plane impacts couldn't make the towers collapse, I said the plane impacts couldn't account for collapses this early on and this thorough and this "clean" (meaning quick and straight). So if they had let the towers burn, maybe the official story could have come true, i.e. collapses from long-lasting fires and heavy damage to the central cores. I don't know, but it could be. Only, such a collapse would not have been as clean-cut, and could have made for even worse damage to the surrounding neighborhood. So they may have opted for controlled demolition to *somewhat* limit the damage. [Just to make myself clear: as for WTC7, it could never have collapsed from just fire; and here, the limitation of damage is very clear, as it hardly damaged any neighboring building, since it fell so neatly inside its footprint.] SO, I don't think any of the above motives are in contradiction with the motives I listed before. In some instances, you were trying to make me say that the attacks had been pulled off "just" or "only" in order to have some friends make money, or to pass the Patriot act, etc. I hope I have cleared out those misunderstandings by pointing out what I consider primary and secondary motives, the primary one being the double (foreign and domestic) political motive. Another clarification: I never "coyly declined to elaborate on other reasons" when I wrote: Quote:Just after that, I listed all other reasons I could think of. I just meant I wouldn't write up a whole piece about each of them, just explain them briefly (those were the "clues"). So no motive was left unnamed, I just wanted to spare myself some writing work by just naming the motives with a few explanatory words. Quote:I could write exactly the same about you. Sometimes I suspect you're deliberately misunderstanding me, but this is only suspicion. I'll leave you some benefit of doubt as well, but I also suspect you'd be great as a lawyer, saving your clients' asses on purely formal grounds. I hope I have been clear enough in everything I said. If I haven't, keep in mind that English is my third language, and try to understand what I meant in good faith. Thanks.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
my friend Phred, just becaues I'm new to the forum means nothing at all. I have been interested in this stuff since the beggining. A friend just recently told me about this site and after seing some posts I figured I would suggest a video and see what people had to say in response... Big F-ing Deal. I bet some of the video is bullshit, I agree there and it isn't even all about the video. When a national catastrophe happens in MY country and all of the information the government has about this catastrophe is classified and not available, I get a little worried and currious. Is it wrong that I am questioning what is being told to me every day for the past four years since 9/11. Mabey if you actualy lived in America you would realize how bad the propaganda is. Every single day there is something on the news, on another tv channel or in the paper about it. They will not let you forget, just so they can push their new bills through congress without anyone being worried about anything other than "National Security". Our country is changing and it has become pretty obvious in the last year and a half. Mabey I want to learn the reason why
David -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
9/11 Questions ( |
11,141 | 90 | 03/11/06 03:27 PM by Aldous | ||
![]() |
Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA 9/11 Involvement | 900 | 1 | 09/19/04 01:23 AM by afoaf | ||
![]() |
9-11 please wake up america. this is going to happen again. ( |
5,371 | 43 | 09/12/05 04:23 AM by Los_Pepes | ||
![]() |
9-11 moms want answers | 869 | 8 | 08/23/03 08:02 PM by Cornholio | ||
![]() |
Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission | 1,229 | 4 | 12/18/04 11:43 AM by usefulidiot | ||
![]() |
Obama places second next to Chinese President Hu Jintao Forbes most powerful people | 1,072 | 9 | 11/08/10 11:08 AM by AmericanPsycho | ||
![]() |
Guerrilla News: Propaganda Since 9/11 Video | 1,222 | 6 | 07/02/02 04:44 PM by Thor | ||
![]() |
So now that the Justice Dept is going to release the Pentagon video ( |
2,348 | 33 | 05/20/06 09:30 AM by Andy21 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 8,367 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



