board77

Quote:

But let me humour your nonsense for a moment and ask you (again) to answer the three things that no 9/11 conspiracy nut has ever been able to answer.

(1) What is the motive for the US government to murder 3000 of it's own citizens. If you are silly enough to site the Iraq war I might point out that the case for war was built on WMD's not 9/11.

(2) How on earth did an adminstration as incompetent as this manage to pull off the biggest conspiracy in human history without any of it being leaked or discovered, when the maxim that the bigger the conspiracy the harder it is to keep it secret still holds true? The likelihood that if it had been true it would have been discovered by now, five and a bit years after the event is overwhelming.

(3) How do they explain all of those completely unrelated everyday eyewitnesses who saw nothing but planes and explosions caused by planes with not even one testimony backing up the conspiracists? Are you really going to insinuate that they are all government stooges?

I seriously doubt you are asking me these questions "again", implying that you tried once before and I ignored it (dig it up, if you can). You may use the avoidance method, but I don't.

1. Does that mean you think the US government cares about your life? Most of the biggest decision makers, including lobbying big business, care only about their own success - the only reason they would avoid using murder when it would greatly help their agenda would be if the risk of being found out was too high. Maybe you think that 9/11 was only good for starting one war - erm no. It didn't just start a war, it changed the world. This is the post-9/11 world. This is now the clash of civilisations that we are being warned will last decades. There was no reason to blame 9/11 on Iraq (would have been a much tougher sell too), because the "war on terror", started by 9/11, is going to be the cornerstone of US foreign policy for the foreseeable future.

2. Better to appear incompetent than corrupt. No, you don't get elected if you're incompetent - the campaign would never get off the ground. When you see the genius of the Bush/Rove campaigns, you must forget the idea that there are bunch of stupid people running Washington. It's too easy to say "Oh well, atleast they tried to do the right thing." I remember that Voronwe backed me up here. There are too many brilliant minds working behind the scenes to use the argument "But Bush is too stupid". As for keeping it secret - yes that is the official stories best defense. Many big secrets have been kept in the past though. The world of black ops is one we can barely see in to. It is impossible to say it "couldn't" be done, even if the chances are small. Consider that potential whistleblowers may themselves face serious punishment for their involvement.

3. This is a classic straw man, a position you invented for me. Planes did hit the buildings and cause explosions. I do not think the eyewitnesses are in on it. And if honest eyewitnesses are intimidated, I strongly disagree with that. But I'm sure that won't disuade you from continueing to paint every skeptic with the same brush! All priests are paedophiles, right..

Any more questions?

Quote:

No, you don't get elected if you're incompetent - the campaign would never get off the ground.

Election's are not won on competance, they are won on media hype and being more popular than the other sides.

.....and being competant enough to get elected does not mean that the goverment formed after election will be competent, or even the same thing at all

I do still wonder what the Bush Administration could could possibly gain from the war on terror, or rather why using the war on terror could possibly be seen as a better way of doing it than by say kicking off the drugs war in Columbia and using that as a vehical for exploitation there? Or just kicking off the Cold War again. A joint secret secret war with Russia would allow the money to be made from armenments and oil without all that tedious body bags in Iraq stuff.

Although I do wonder why nobody has tried to check to see if all the 'independent witnesses' and the 'film footage' was infact independent at all and not set up by agents working for the Bush Administration......

There are shadows, within shadows that have not been looked into.....

Iavas_Saar wrote:

I seriously doubt you are asking me these questions "again", implying that you tried once before and I ignored it (dig it up, if you can). You may use the avoidance method, but I don't.

My point was these questions have again and again been put to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and they have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. I don't do avoidance either and I know that you micro-manage every response made to you.

Quote:

1. Does that mean you think the US government cares about your life? Most of the biggest decision makers, including lobbying big business, care only about their own success - the only reason they would avoid using murder when it would greatly help their agenda would be if the risk of being found out was too high. Maybe you think that 9/11 was only good for starting one war - erm no. It didn't just start a war, it changed the world. This is the post-9/11 world. This is now the clash of civilisations that we are being warned will last decades. There was no reason to blame 9/11 on Iraq (would have been a much tougher sell too), because the "war on terror", started by 9/11, is going to be the cornerstone of US foreign policy for the foreseeable future.

No, the question is not "does my government care about me?", the question is "did my government actively arrange the biggest conspiracy in history and kill 3000 of its own citizens, all in the aim creating some clash of civilisations that could easily have been instigated using a far less onorous and absurdly risky a strategy... such as claiming that your least favourite middle eastern dictator is stockpiling WMD's...

Quote:

2. Better to appear incompetent than corrupt. No, you don't get elected if you're incompetent - the campaign would never get off the ground. When you see the genius of the Bush/Rove campaigns, you must forget the idea that there are bunch of stupid people running Washington. It's too easy to say "Oh well, atleast they tried to do the right thing." I remember that Voronwe backed me up here. There are too many brilliant minds working behind the scenes to use the argument "But Bush is too stupid". As for keeping it secret - yes that is the official stories best defense. Many big secrets have been kept in the past though. The world of black ops is one we can barely see in to. It is impossible to say it "couldn't" be done, even if the chances are small. Consider that potential whistleblowers may themselves face serious punishment for their involvement.

Last time I checked Bush was enjoying some of the worst polls in American presidential history after presiding over the worst US military debacle since Vietnam, record deficits, a real fumbling of the ball in Latin America and an inability to deliver keynote domestic policies such as immigration and social security reforms. Not exactly the work of a cold stone logistical genius is it? As Dindraug mentioned above, getting elected is one thing (not that hard when you use a record treasure chest to slander and smear your opponents to death using all the media and campaigning tools that the conservative machine can put in your hands) but carrying off highly complicated programmes or conspiracies is quite another. The Bush administration has been a conspicious failure in delivering the latter aspects, and if the administration cannot even successfully cover up the likes of the Abramoff corruption scandal, the Foley embaressment, and the Plame affair it makes the mind boggle to think that they could succeed so spectacularly with covering up 9/11.

Quote:

3. This is a classic straw man, a position you invented for me. Planes did hit the buildings and cause explosions. I do not think the eyewitnesses are in on it. And if honest eyewitnesses are intimidated, I strongly disagree with that. But I'm sure that won't disuade you from continueing to paint every skeptic with the same brush! All priests are paedophiles, right..

Nice try, but I didn't claim that all sceptics are all the same. Some 9/11 sceptics are still savable, primarily the ones who just have a couple of genuine questions about particular details and who are not yet emotionally wrapped up in the culture and community of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Quote:

Any more questions?

Yes... how personally invested have you become in all of this? How many hours a week do you spend on it? How many of your new friends are fellow 9/11 conspiracists? If I surmised that this new obsession is a replacement for your previous obsession with the LOTR movies would you be inclined to agree? If not, why not?

Quote:

I do still wonder what the Bush Administration could could possibly gain from the war on terror, or rather why using the war on terror could possibly be seen as a better way of doing it than by say kicking off the drugs war in Columbia and using that as a vehical for exploitation there? Or just kicking off the Cold War again. A joint secret secret war with Russia would allow the money to be made from armenments and oil without all that tedious body bags in Iraq stuff.

Have you seen the BBC's "The Power of Nightmares" yet? Should be on Google video. The Cold War's been done.. a new boogeyman was needed.

Quote:

Although I do wonder why nobody has tried to check to see if all the 'independent witnesses' and the 'film footage' was infact independent at all and not set up by agents working for the Bush Administration......

I don't get your point.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

Although I do wonder why nobody has tried to check to see if all the 'independent witnesses' and the 'film footage' was infact independent at all and not set up by agents working for the Bush Administration......

I don't get your point.

I mean, how can you trust your new friends in the conspiracy world are telling the truth, or how can you tell they are not infact part of the problem? Its as likely as anything else?

It would be very easy to have the current administration set up or pay for the conspiracy theorists with just enough credability to set up the whole thing.

And the point with the 'independent witnesses' is that if the Bush administration were able to create the whole 9/11 conspiracy in the first place, why wouldn't they have been able to either create or control the 'independent witnesses' and the footage that went out?

They got New York looking good, but screwed up the Pentagon. Couldn't they have supressed or lost the Pentagon footage?

Quote:

My point was these questions have again and again been put to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and they have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. I don't do avoidance either and I know that you micro-manage every response made to you.

Satisfactory to whom, you?

I don't manage anything here, it is called being thorough. I can't control how anyone responds.

Quote:

No, the question is not "does my government care about me?", the question is "did my government actively arrange the biggest conspiracy in history and kill 3000 of its own citizens, all in the aim creating some clash of civilisations that could easily have been instigated using a far less onorous and absurdly risky a strategy... such as claiming that your least favourite middle eastern dictator is stockpiling WMD's...

Your question was about the motive, not whether they did it or not. I said they would have no qualms about sacrificing citizens if the benefits outweighed the risks. Northwoods proves that the tactic of using self-inflicted wounds is not some unacceptable taboo in the halls of power. It's a legitimate policy consideration! And if it hadn't been declassified we'd never have known about it.

Come on.. the WMD trick was not about civilisations, and is only going to work once or twice. This is the "global" war on terror - a far more pervasive and long-lasting concept than ousting one dictator. It's ridiculous to think tricking the public about WMD could have the same impact on public consciousness as 9/11.

Quote:

Last time I checked Bush was enjoying some of the worst polls in American presidential history after presiding over the worst US military debacle since Vietnam, record deficits, a real fumbling of the ball in Latin America and an inability to deliver keynote domestic policies such as immigration and social security reforms. Not exactly the work of a cold stone logistical genius is it? As Dindraug mentioned above, getting elected is one thing (not that hard when you use a record treasure chest to slander and smear your opponents to death using all the media and campaigning tools that the conservative machine can put in your hands) but carrying off highly complicated programmes or conspiracies is quite another. The Bush administration has been a conspicious failure in delivering the latter aspects, and if the administration cannot even successfully cover up the likes of the Abramoff corruption scandal, the Foley embaressment, and the Plame affair it makes the mind boggle to think that they could succeed so spectacularly with covering up 9/11.

I believe it was FDR who said "If something happens in politics, you can bet that someone planned it that way." Things like Abramoff or Plame - these are actually beneficial if they take attention away from far more heinous crimes. Plus, they know that most of the public has a short attention span. How many people now still look at the Republicans and think "Abramoff". The fact that the 08 presidential race is wide open shows that these kinds of scandals do not hurt the party in the long run.

Quote:

Nice try, but I didn't claim that all sceptics are all the same. Some 9/11 sceptics are still savable, primarily the ones who just have a couple of genuine questions about particular details and who are not yet emotionally wrapped up in the culture and community of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

You should be aware that if there was anything to the theory of government involvement, they would likely put some plants into the movement to discredit it through tactics like demonising witnesses, putting forward stupid theories to poison the well, etc. And then they can count on quite a few conspiracy theorists who genuinely are stupid to follow them. The movement is a mess of good and bad.. if your only tactic is to ridicule the bad, then you are ignoring the good.

Quote:

Yes... how personally invested have you become in all of this? How many hours a week do you spend on it? How many of your new friends are fellow 9/11 conspiracists? If I surmised that this new obsession is a replacement for your previous obsession with the LOTR movies would you be inclined to agree? If not, why not?

An hour a day perhaps. If I have an obsession right now, it's my audio hobby, not 9/11. I don't really socialise at all with other 9/11 conspiracists.

Quote:

I don't manage anything here, it is called being thorough. I can't control how anyone responds.

Yes you do. You leave people little option on how to respond, and jump down the throat of anybody who disagrees with you.

Quote:

Come on.. the WMD trick was not about civilisations, and is only going to work once or twice. This is the "global" war on terror - a far more pervasive and long-lasting concept than ousting one dictator. It's ridiculous to think tricking the public about WMD could have the same impact on public consciousness as 9/11.

And yet the same trick of fear of WMD kept us in a state of war with Soviet Russia for almost half a century.

An hour a day? So seven a week, or 364 a year? Or more at weekends and holidays? Still a lot.

Quote:

I mean, how can you trust your new friends in the conspiracy world are telling the truth, or how can you tell they are not infact part of the problem? Its as likely as anything else?

It would be very easy to have the current administration set up or pay for the conspiracy theorists with just enough credability to set up the whole thing.

Oh, your conspiracy theory about the conspiracy theories.

Can you show that this is more than pure speculation on your part? If the purpose is to detract from failures like the war, it's not working at all.

Quote:

And the point with the 'independent witnesses' is that if the Bush administration were able to create the whole 9/11 conspiracy in the first place, why wouldn't they have been able to either create or control the 'independent witnesses' and the footage that went out?

They got New York looking good, but screwed up the Pentagon. Couldn't they have supressed or lost the Pentagon footage?

Again, I'm not really understanding you. What footage are you talking about?

Quote:

Yes you do. You leave people little option on how to respond, and jump down the throat of anybody who disagrees with you.

That is simply untrue. If someone comes in with insults and ridicule but is not prepared to talk about the issues, then I am going to take issue with that - as would you if I called you an idiot in another thread without making any effort to defend that viewpoint.

Find me one example where I've jumped down someone's throat who has respectfully disagreed with me.

You have been extremely rude coming in here and using buzzwords like "loon" right off the bat, and then complain that it is YOU who is getting jumped on.

Quote:

And yet the same trick of fear of WMD kept us in a state of war with Soviet Russia for almost half a century.

This is turning into a war against a religion, not a state. It needed a big terrorist attack to kick it off. They could never have sold it as an arms race as these countries are waaay behind the Soviets in that respect, and can never be a rival superpowers.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

No, you don't get elected if you're incompetent - the campaign would never get off the ground. When you see the genius of the Bush/Rove campaigns, you must forget the idea that there are bunch of stupid people running Washington.

I'm sorry, but with all of the incredulity stretching things posted in this thread, this takes the cake.

You think the people running the country are stupid? You think they got where they are through stupidity, even if their own stupidity was masked by their advisors?

Come on.... parties that can get themselves elected are not filled with morons that walk from blunder to blunder. The Bush Admin can call on the services of the finest minds in the country. There may be lapses due to miscommunication, or maybe arrogance, but not stupidity. These guys know what they're doing, don't try to pretend it's a bunch of headless chickens.

They are smart on the subject of politics, I will grant them that.

Otherwise yes, they are stupid. Incredibly so at times.

I

Completely

Agree

With

CG

C_G - can you give some examples of CLEAR stupidity (i.e. couldn't possibly be anything else) on the part of an individual or group currently in power?

I was going to add 'shoot me, shoot me now', but knowing CG he probably would jump up and down saying I was giving in on his 2nd Amendment opinions.

Well, Iavas, Bush does look pretty damn dumb most the time. He doesn't have a good command of the English language, anyway. I have two books of "Bushisms" and there are lots of videos of him out there acting like his stupid self.
But, you can be stupid and still be crafty and underhanded. I think Bush fits into this category. And he is supported by not-so-stupid-looking Condi and Cheney...
I must commend you, Iavas, for sticking to your guns and providing proof wherever and however you can. Whereas I don't agree with everything you say, this debate is enlightening and it is thoroughly refreshing to see someone stand up for what he believes in and not back down, like so many of us do when the opposition to our ideas and beliefs can be overwhelming.
We need more people like you, dude.
Keep up the good work.

Thank you!

Quote:

I must commend you, Iavas, for sticking to your guns and providing proof wherever and however you can.

I'm glad someone can see that this has been the way of things in this thread.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

C_G - can you give some examples of CLEAR stupidity (i.e. couldn't possibly be anything else) on the part of an individual or group currently in power?

Iavas, I could give you any number of examples of CLEAR stupidity on the part of individual in power (and I'm not including Bush, because I don't really believe he HAS any power). How about Cheney scrawling "did his wife send him on a junket" on Wilson's op-ed piece, and then putting it under the glass on his desk? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

That having been said, as you mentioned before, I do agree with you to a certain extent that people like Rove and Cheney are very canny in a sly, underhanded, completely unethical way. I don't particularly believe that they were behind the 9/11 attacks (as you know), but I don't put it past them. Frankly, I think that manipulating the "9/11 Truth Movement" for their own purposes is far more their speed. That is very much the type of thing that Rove would excel at. I don't think that he (and I consider him to the evil mastermind of the Bush administration) would have the wherewithal to organize and carry through a plot of the type that you suggest.

However, like cheerfulchaos I do also admire you for sticking to your guns, and for (mostly) refusing to answer the personal attacks that are often directed at you with personal attacks of your own.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

Iavas_Saar wrote:

C_G - can you give some examples of CLEAR stupidity (i.e. couldn't possibly be anything else) on the part of an individual or group currently in power?

Iavas, I could give you any number of examples of CLEAR stupidity on the part of individual in power (and I'm not including Bush, because I don't really believe he HAS any power). How about Cheney scrawling "did his wife send him on a junket" on Wilson's op-ed piece, and then putting it under the glass on his desk? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

That having been said, as you mentioned before, I do agree with you to a certain extent that people like Rove and Cheney are very canny in a sly, underhanded, completely unethical way. I don't particularly believe that they were behind the 9/11 attacks (as you know), but I don't put it past them. Frankly, I think that manipulating the "9/11 Truth Movement" for their own purposes is far more their speed. That is very much the type of thing that Rove would excel at. I don't think that he (and I consider him to the evil mastermind of the Bush administration) would have the wherewithal to organize and carry through a plot of the type that you suggest.

However, like cheerfulchaos I do also admire you for sticking to your guns, and for (mostly) refusing to answer the personal attacks that are often directed at you with personal attacks of your own.

V -

I for one absolutely agree with you. There is something about Cheney and Rove that makes my skin crawl, and I suppose it has to do with their excellent skills at playing the political spin/advantage game. They are two scary people, and both of them, in my mind, would do anything entirely within a "gray" area to further their political agenda. Forget gray, I am sure that sometimes it has crossed over into gross abuse, but, unlike the Nixon years, we have no "Deepthroat" out there.

But, I do still disagree that 9/11 was "known about" (enough to act on at the time) ahead of when it took place and was allowed to carry forth in some bizarre twisted manner. What I have found is that as much as Washington likes to talk the Talk, they are a pretty inept bunch after all, too caught up in power struggles and bureaucratic crap, in other words, politics, to do their jobs effectively. The ones that DO do their jobs are always the first to get axed.

Bush Jr., mark my words, will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. I can tell already from the legacy he is leaving us with now.

And, IMO, I think Cheney and Rove are probably guilty of major abuse charges, deal wheeling, and manipulations, if it could ever be proven. Maybe not payoffs or bribes, but pretty darn well close to it in terms of "abusing their power while in office."

Beth, I agree with everything that you say.