 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
This type of subject line has almost become the third taboo: "Never discuss religion, politics or conspiracy theories." Most people tend to be solidly on one side or the other and are exasperated when the other side isn't following or agreeing with their arguments.
It does really boil down to what people consider to be incredulous. For those inclined toward conspiracies, the incredulity is related to the perpetrators vs. the results. With the JFK assassination, incredulity is that some dingbat, unknown lunatic could have killed the leader of the free world all on his own. With 9/11, incredulity is that 18 or 19 lunatics with boxcutters could kill 3,000 people, demolish two skyscrapers and damage the Pentagon. But the alternatives, that forces within the government were involved (and these are connected to the president) fail the smell test on several levels for me.
1) Motive. Whatever political gain could be achieved from this murderous venture could have also been achieved through less bloodshed, less expense and less risk. An invasion of Afghanistan? The White House could simply claim OBL sent an assassin to kill the president and it was thwarted. This would be enough excuse to invade. An invasion of Iraq? Fake a threatening letter (or better yet, an unrecorded phone call) from Saddam Hussein to President Bush that he would start killing Americans throughout the world. That would be enough excuse to invade. These would also be less expensive and less risky routes.
2) Cost. For al-Qaeda, this was a relatively inexpensive way to inflict major damage to the U.S. It required some involved some time and planning, but al-Qaeda has plenty of that. It makes perfect sense for them. But for American conspirators to fake the attacks would involve a lot of money. One thing that sets people apart from the animal kingdom is that we universally don't like to waste money if we don't need to. So the question arises: Why would conspirators spend so much money on this event? Certainly their goals could have been achieved (with lies, trickery and forgeries) by barely spending any money at all.
3) Consequences of Discovery. Imagine the reprecussions if a governmental conspiracy was uncovered. Imagine what Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and countless other nations would think if they discovered that the American government was involved in killing their citizens. The repercussions would be so severe that America would lose all credibility throughout the world. Companies would quickly abandon the U.S. and our economy would crumble. This is not to mention that there could also be military consequences with countries over this - even with our allies. Of course, this doesn't cover the trials and executions of those involved - presumably people with lots of money and power and who are willing to risk it all and their lives.
4) Risk of Discovery. Conspiracists imply that explosives were planted in the WTC towers and this is why they fell straight down. How could this be done without being discovered? The buildings had thousands upon thousands of people occupying them on a 24-hour basis. How many people would need to be involved? Fake work crews would need security passes and access to the proper explosives, so this would bring in many peripheral people. Airline and airport security would need to be breached, which would involve even more people. The hijackers needed fake IDs, so that's more people. Or the officials scouring the debris planted fake IDs, more involved people. There must also be conspirators running about in the Middle East who are faking messages and tipping off OBL and al-Qaeda to avoid the military. Or are generals intentionally avoiding killing these terrorists? The more people involved, the greater the risk of discovery. I say it is all far too risky for any rational conspirators to attempt.
|
Evelyn
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 09:28 pm |
|
Motive is actually the easiest one to deal with. My suspicion is that agents of Israel, in cahoots with a small group inside the CIA or some other US government, plus some American citizens not in government but powerful in NYC, planned this event. Their motive was to inflame American opinion against Muslims in the Middle East, in order to get the US to fight its war against Iraq. And it worked out rather well.
The method of bringing down those 3 buildings in NYC is less clear to me, but they were owned by a man who might have been part of the conspiracy.
Let me just add this: I am not anti-Semitic. But that doesn't mean that Israel would never do anything to hurt the US. I have a friend whose husband is involved in a lot of investments, and she told me back in September 2001 that her husband had gotten a hunch to pull all his money out of stocks just days before September 11th. As a result, he didn't lose anything in the economic turmoil that followed. Apparently there were a large number of unexplained financial transactions just prior to 9/11.
And yes, my friend and her husband are Jewish.
Just a lucky hunch, I'm sure.
There were a lot of lucky hunches on that day. All 4 airline flights that crashed were eerily, inexplicably low on passengers. Numbers like 44 or 55 at prime time on a perfect day for flying.
There are a lot of anomalies, to say the least. The method of collapse of the 3 buildings in NYC has never been fully explained, particularly the building that wasn't hit by an airplane. Proof? No. Reasons for suspicion of the government-sponsored official conspiracy theory involving 19 amateurs from Saudi Arabia? Hell, yes.
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 09:39 pm |
|
Just a lucky hunch, I'm sure.
Wow, true... and even luckier that the US invaded Iraq, Israel's enemy, while the American people were all hyped up because of 9-11.
____________________
Be like a dog: if you can't eat it or hump it, piss on it and walk away.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 09:51 pm |
|
Evelyn wrote: Motive is actually the easiest one to deal with. My suspicion is that agents of Israel, in cahoots with a small group inside the CIA or some other US government, plus some American citizens not in government but powerful in NYC, planned this event. Their motive was to inflame American opinion against Muslims in the Middle East, in order to get the US to fight its war against Iraq. And it worked out rather well.
The method of bringing down those 3 buildings in NYC is less clear to me, but they were owned by a man who might have been part of the conspiracy.
Let me just add this: I am not anti-Semitic. But that doesn't mean that Israel would never do anything to hurt the US. I have a friend whose husband is involved in a lot of investments, and she told me back in September 2001 that her husband had gotten a hunch to pull all his money out of stocks just days before September 11th. As a result, he didn't lose anything in the economic turmoil that followed. Apparently there were a large number of unexplained financial transactions just prior to 9/11.
And yes, my friend and her husband are Jewish.
Just a lucky hunch, I'm sure.
There were a lot of lucky hunches on that day. All 4 airline flights that crashed were eerily, inexplicably low on passengers. Numbers like 44 or 55 at prime time on a perfect day for flying.
There are a lot of anomalies, to say the least. The method of collapse of the 3 buildings in NYC has never been fully explained, particularly the building that wasn't hit by an airplane. Proof? No. Reasons for suspicion of the government-sponsored official conspiracy theory involving 19 amateurs from Saudi Arabia? Hell, yes.
Not to mention that we have confirmed - confirmed! - that there were a group of five Israeli Mossad agents in a white van watching the towers as they fell, photographing the scene, and posing in front of the ruins. I mean, this was in the New York Times, ABC News, 20/20... all mainstream media.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
And for a full narrative, this obviously biased site:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
These men were arrested by local police... and then, apparently, deported back to Israel. And that's all we know. It's all classified.
To me, this is a strong indicator that Israel had foreknowledge of the attack. Not necessarily that they planned it, but that they knew about it.
And, yes, I think Larry Silverstein must have had foreknowledge. I mean, the guy owns WTC6 for like a decade. He buys WTC1 and WTC2 from the city and proceeds to take out what I believe was the largest insurance policy on them in human history. A few months later, they're taken out by planes - and then WT6 collapses for apparently no reason at all, later that day.
A government study specifically found that it didn't collapse due to structural damage from the collapse of WTC1 or WTC2; it simply burnt down and collapsed. That would make it the first steel-frame skyscraper in human history to collapse as a result of a conventional fire.
I didn't buy into the conspiracy theories at first, either, and I'm quick to dismiss the ones that are easily falsified. But there's some stuff that just plain doesn't add up.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 09:52 pm |
|
Evelyn wrote: Motive is actually the easiest one to deal with. My suspicion is that agents of Israel, in cahoots with a small group inside the CIA or some other US government, plus some American citizens not in government but powerful in NYC, planned this event. Their motive was to inflame American opinion against Muslims in the Middle East, in order to get the US to fight its war against Iraq. And it worked out rather well.
I hadn't heard that one before (with Israel, the small group within the CIA, and "powerful" NYC residents). Let me just ask you one question on this motive portion. If their goal was to get the U.S. to invade Iraq, why weren't the hijackers linked to Iraq? They were linked to al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. Bush later went into Iraq on completely different (and unfounded) grounds.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 09:56 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: Evelyn wrote: Motive is actually the easiest one to deal with. My suspicion is that agents of Israel, in cahoots with a small group inside the CIA or some other US government, plus some American citizens not in government but powerful in NYC, planned this event. Their motive was to inflame American opinion against Muslims in the Middle East, in order to get the US to fight its war against Iraq. And it worked out rather well.
I hadn't heard that one before (with Israel, the small group within the CIA, and "powerful" NYC residents). Let me just ask you one question on this motive portion. If their goal was to get the U.S. to invade Iraq, why weren't the hijackers linked to Iraq? They were linked to al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. Bush later went into Iraq on completely different (and unfounded) grounds.
My belief is that the attacks were, in fact, executed by Al Qaeda or a similar Islamist terrorist group. I also believe that both Israel and the U.S. government knew about them for months and intentionally stood down and let them happen.
We may not have realized they were going to be as destructive as they were.
But, yes, I see ample evidence of a cover-up, and I think that's what's being covered up - foreknowledge.
Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 10:15 pm by AyHyperbole
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: My belief is that the attacks were, in fact, by Al Qaeda. I also believe that both Israel and the U.S. government knew about them for months and intentionally stood down and let them happen.
We may not have realized they were going to be as destructive as they were.
But, yes, I see ample evidence of a cover-up, and I think that's what's being covered up - foreknowledge.
OK. The above is finally shifting into the realm of plausibility for me.
I'm not agreeing with it, but the idea that our security agencies discovered a plot, that it wasn't viewed as particularly damaging (maybe they didn't believe the perpetrators could pull it off) so it wasn't acted upon, and then later officials wanted to cover up that foreknowledge (because it turned out to be major destruction) ... yes, I can see that being a possibility. I can also see GW Bush saying, or Cheney advising him, saying "This plot is too elaborate and al-Qaeda will foul it up. But we can let them try it so we will have reason to go after them. After all, they will have finally attempted something on U.S. soil, as opposed to foreign embassies."
So the first motive would be (1) Allow it to happen so we will have sentiment and legitimacy to go into Afghanistan after al-Qaeda, which was a plan of Bush's before 9/11. The second motive (2) is "Holy Cow!!! If it gets out we allowed this to happen, all our heads will roll. Cover it up."
Feasible? Hmmmm... yes. Likely? I still say "no."
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24th, 2009 10:47 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: My belief is that the attacks were, in fact, by Al Qaeda. I also believe that both Israel and the U.S. government knew about them for months and intentionally stood down and let them happen.
We may not have realized they were going to be as destructive as they were.
But, yes, I see ample evidence of a cover-up, and I think that's what's being covered up - foreknowledge.
OK. The above is finally shifting into the realm of plausibility for me.
I'm not agreeing with it, but the idea that our security agencies discovered a plot, that it wasn't viewed as particularly damaging (maybe they didn't believe the perpetrators could pull it off) so it wasn't acted upon, and then later officials wanted to cover up that foreknowledge (because it turned out to be major destruction) ... yes, I can see that being a possibility. I can also see GW Bush saying, or Cheney advising him, saying "This plot is too elaborate and al-Qaeda will foul it up. But we can let them try it so we will have reason to go after them. After all, they will have finally attempted something on U.S. soil, as opposed to foreign embassies."
So the first motive would be (1) Allow it to happen so we will have sentiment and legitimacy to go into Afghanistan after al-Qaeda, which was a plan of Bush's before 9/11. The second motive (2) is "Holy Cow!!! If it gets out we allowed this to happen, all our heads will roll. Cover it up."
Feasible? Hmmmm... yes. Likely? I still say "no."
Well, if you think the most likely scenario was that Al Qaeda took us completely by surprise... how do you explain the well-publicized fact that there were massive numbers of "put" options taken out against UA and AA airline stock (but no other airlines) just prior to the attack?
How do you explain the way our Air Force was scrambled out on simultaneous training exercises - for apparently the first time ever - leaving New York defenseless in a completely unprecedented way?
How do you explain the five Israeli spies watching the towers fall?
How do you explain the bewilderingly low passenger count on those flights?
To me, all four of these things are absolutely clear evidence of foreknowledge.
My belief is that Bush Administration and Israel agreed that they wanted a broad reduction of Muslim power - including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - and they felt the only way to achieve that was to let Muslims make a high-profile strike against the United States.
I don't know that anybody expected those towers to collapse entirely, or for the death toll to be so high - after all, the WTC was specifically engineered to resist those kinds of plane strikes.
But, look, the ensuing wars claimed the lives of about 750,000 foreign civilians. They've claimed the lives of a little over 4,300 U.S. servicemen and women. You really think the Administration who waged these wars and killed these hundreds of thousands of people, who tortured people both at home and abroad, didn't have the intestinal fortitude to consider a few American civilians an acceptable loss?
To me, that's unrealistic.
|
Henry Sidgwick
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sat Jan 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 05:04 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
But, look, the ensuing wars claimed the lives of about 750,000 foreign civilians. They've claimed the lives of a little over 4,300 U.S. servicemen and women. You really think the Administration who waged these wars and killed these hundreds of thousands of people, who tortured people both at home and abroad, didn't have the intestinal fortitude to consider a few American civilians an acceptable loss?
To me, that's unrealistic.
That is exactly the same point I've made on several occasions to the objection that the Bush Administration, however corrupt, "would never sacrifice the lives of hundreds of it's own citizens".
If you think the U.S. government isn't willing to kill its own people, you're dead wrong. The number of Americans killed in the Iraq war far exceeded those killed on 9/11. It is blatantly obvious that the Bush administration was willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives.
Last edited on Fri Sep 25th, 2009 05:07 am by Henry Sidgwick
____________________
The "FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
--Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 01:55 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: Well, if you think the most likely scenario was that Al Qaeda took us completely by surprise... how do you explain the well-publicized fact that there were massive numbers of "put" options taken out against UA and AA airline stock (but no other airlines) just prior to the attack?
I'd need to view those stats in the broader context - along with the average, everyday stats on "put" options.
How do you explain the way our Air Force was scrambled out on simultaneous training exercises - for apparently the first time ever - leaving New York defenseless in a completely unprecedented way?
Who has claimed this happened?
How do you explain the five Israeli spies watching the towers fall?
This one seems awfully presumptuous. Who says these people were Israeli "spies"? Who confirmed it? And why were these "spies" posing for pictures in front of the ruins? Isn't that a pretty stupid thing for a professional covert to do?
How do you explain the bewilderingly low passenger count on those flights?
This one is easy, it was the proverbial "act of God." If people didn't buy a lot of tickets for particular flights then that is the explanation: People simply didn't buy tickets. Do you think "the government" warned people away? Do you think "the government" bought tickets and didn't use them? Do you think "the government" encouraged passengers to stay home that day? Any government involvement in a low-passenger result would leave a mountain of evidence indicating it.
To me, all four of these things are absolutely clear evidence of foreknowledge.
My belief is that Bush Administration and Israel agreed that they wanted a broad reduction of Muslim power - including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - and they felt the only way to achieve that was to let Muslims make a high-profile strike against the United States.
I don't know that anybody expected those towers to collapse entirely, or for the death toll to be so high - after all, the WTC was specifically engineered to resist those kinds of plane strikes.
But, look, the ensuing wars claimed the lives of about 750,000 foreign civilians. They've claimed the lives of a little over 4,300 U.S. servicemen and women. You really think the Administration who waged these wars and killed these hundreds of thousands of people, who tortured people both at home and abroad, didn't have the intestinal fortitude to consider a few American civilians an acceptable loss?
To me, that's unrealistic.
Yes, I don't think they'd do that. The key here is "foreign" civilians and "servicemen and women." There's a difference between casualties in war and what you are suggesting, because what you are suggesting runs contrary to the primary function of our federal government, and that is to protect the American population against foreign enemies. That is its main function, above all else. There may be a handful lunatics that get into office or are hired by elected officials but they are few, silent and disconnected. For them to get together and conspire would expose them, so they remain isolated.
I absolutely do not believe Bush or Cheney would sacrifice U.S. civilians in such a callous manner. I do not believe Obama or Bill Clinton would either. People who rise to the presidency have led relatively unblemished lives. They are scrutinized by the media and any tendency toward being evil or maniacal would be revealed. These traits simply are not displayed with these people. They are not the types to say "Oh, let's let foreign terrorists kill a bunch of American women and children ... HA HA HA ... then we'll have an excuse to go blow them up with rockets!"
The only way I can even entertain the "foreknowledge" scenario would be that those with foreknowledge did not believe the plot would succeed. Personally, if I had foreknowledge and I thought a single American would be hurt I would have terminated the plot forthwith.
|
Henry Sidgwick
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sat Jan 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 04:55 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: But, look, the ensuing wars claimed the lives of about 750,000 foreign civilians. They've claimed the lives of a little over 4,300 U.S. servicemen and women. You really think the Administration who waged these wars and killed these hundreds of thousands of people, who tortured people both at home and abroad, didn't have the intestinal fortitude to consider a few American civilians an acceptable loss?
To me, that's unrealistic.
Yes, I don't think they'd do that. The key here is "foreign" civilians and "servicemen and women." There's a difference between casualties in war and what you are suggesting, because what you are suggesting runs contrary to the primary function of our federal government, and that is to protect the American population against foreign enemies.... I absolutely do not believe Bush or Cheney would sacrifice U.S. civilians in such a callous manner.
But there is evidence that the Bush administration could exhibit that type of callousness towards American civilians. The Bush adminitration's EPA evidently lied about the air quality in New York causing thousands of Ground Zero workers to be exposed to very high levels of asbestos. Experts believe that the eventual death toll from 9/11 related illnesses will be in the thousands.
____________________
The "FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
--Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 05:14 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: Well, if you think the most likely scenario was that Al Qaeda took us completely by surprise... how do you explain the well-publicized fact that there were massive numbers of "put" options taken out against UA and AA airline stock (but no other airlines) just prior to the attack?
I'd need to view those stats in the broader context - along with the average, everyday stats on "put" options.
Well, you're free to do so. They're incredibly out of proportion - up to 100 times higher than normal.
They were so out of proportion that major news outlets ran the story and the U.S. government did indeed vow to investigate. They "deputized" the officials they chose to investigate, placing them under a code of strict secrecy; disclosure of anything relating to the investigation would result in prison time.
Later, the 9/11 Commission released a brief statement saying that although this was "highly suspicious trading on its face," they found that "the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous." They made some general statements about some of the trades, but did not release specific details about any of the them.
It's all on Snopes - which declares the foreknowledge theory "false," based solely on the fact that the 9/11 Commision denies it.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
How do you explain the way our Air Force was scrambled out on simultaneous training exercises - for apparently the first time ever - leaving New York defenseless in a completely unprecedented way? Who has claimed this happened?
Many sources. Wikipedia has aggregated them - and believe me, anti-conspiracy sentiment on Wikipedia is extremely high, and this has been fact-checked extensively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001
My understanding is that the war games left NORAD utterly bewildered by the 9/11 attacks, unsure whether they were a real event or part of a drill, and that the number and nature of such war games was unprecedented - that this was, in effect, the one day in recent American history that anyone could possibly get away with this attack.
By the way, the 9/11 Commission came away conviced that NORAD was flat-out lying to them when it gave its version of events.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
How do you explain the five Israeli spies watching the towers fall? This one seems awfully presumptuous. Who says these people were Israeli "spies"? Who confirmed it? And why were these "spies" posing for pictures in front of the ruins? Isn't that a pretty stupid thing for a professional covert to do?
Well, ABC News ran a story saying simply that after a 71-day investigation, some people in the U.S. government still believed them to be spies. They were released after high-level negotiations between the U.S. Government and Israel. The FBI was ordered to release them by the White House.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
How do you explain the bewilderingly low passenger count on those flights?
This one is easy, it was the proverbial "act of God." If people didn't buy a lot of tickets for particular flights then that is the explanation: People simply didn't buy tickets. Do you think "the government" warned people away? Do you think "the government" bought tickets and didn't use them? Do you think "the government" encouraged passengers to stay home that day? Any government involvement in a low-passenger result would leave a mountain of evidence indicating it.
Just good luck? Really? No one I've ever talked to has ever seen a flight like these anywhere near as empty as these were.
If we had a "stand-down" approach to these attacks, obviously it's in our interests to have the planes emptier than usual. A full plane would be more likely to thwart the attack; and, if it failed, it would kill people unnecessarily.
I do not think it would leave a mountain of evidence to get a simple instruction passed to AA or UA's servers to stop selling tickets at a certain point. It's all electronic, there's no paper trail, and ultimately all you need is one man with access.
To me, all four of these things are absolutely clear evidence of foreknowledge. My belief is that Bush Administration and Israel agreed that they wanted a broad reduction of Muslim power - including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - and they felt the only way to achieve that was to let Muslims make a high-profile strike against the United States. I don't know that anybody expected those towers to collapse entirely, or for the death toll to be so high - after all, the WTC was specifically engineered to resist those kinds of plane strikes. But, look, the ensuing wars claimed the lives of about 750,000 foreign civilians. They've claimed the lives of a little over 4,300 U.S. servicemen and women. You really think the Administration who waged these wars and killed these hundreds of thousands of people, who tortured people both at home and abroad, didn't have the intestinal fortitude to consider a few American civilians an acceptable loss? To me, that's unrealistic.
Yes, I don't think they'd do that. The key here is "foreign" civilians and "servicemen and women." There's a difference between casualties in war and what you are suggesting, because what you are suggesting runs contrary to the primary function of our federal government, and that is to protect the American population against foreign enemies. That is its main function, above all else. There may be a handful lunatics that get into office or are hired by elected officials but they are few, silent and disconnected. For them to get together and conspire would expose them, so they remain isolated. I absolutely do not believe Bush or Cheney would sacrifice U.S. civilians in such a callous manner. I do not believe Obama or Bill Clinton would either. People who rise to the presidency have led relatively unblemished lives. They are scrutinized by the media and any tendency toward being evil or maniacal would be revealed. These traits simply are not displayed with these people. They are not the types to say "Oh, let's let foreign terrorists kill a bunch of American women and children ... HA HA HA ... then we'll have an excuse to go blow them up with rockets!" The only way I can even entertain the "foreknowledge" scenario would be that those with foreknowledge did not believe the plot would succeed. Personally, if I had foreknowledge and I thought a single American would be hurt I would have terminated the plot forthwith.
Really? You don't believe Bush or Cheney would sacrifice a single American in "such a callous manner," even though you've seen them kill roughly 750,000 foreigners without a hint of remorse?
Maybe you believe that U.S. officials all hold the philosophy "A foreign life is worthless, a soldier's life is expendable, and an American civilian's life is absolutely precious," but I don't. It's a philosophy that makes no moral sense and is, frankly, downright evil. I mean, basically, you're telling me our leaders are too evil to be evil enough to harm an American.
No, I don't think the Administration thought anything resembling "Oh, let's let foreign terrorists kill a bunch of American women and children ... HA HA HA ... then we'll have an excuse to go blow them up with rockets!"
You know what I think they thought? I think they thought "This is ultimately a struggle between good and evil. This is a struggle between God's chosen people and God's enemies. This could, in fact, be part of the final battle between good and evil. The American people are regrettably blind to this, and, unfortunately, we cannot fight this battle without their support. And we cannot win their support without an event such as this one. God have mercy on all our souls: stand down."
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 05:55 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: Well, you're free to do so. They're incredibly out of proportion - up to 100 times higher than normal.
They were so out of proportion that major news outlets ran the story and the U.S. government did indeed vow to investigate. They "deputized" the officials they chose to investigate, placing them under a code of strict secrecy; disclosure of anything relating to the investigation would result in prison time.
Later, the 9/11 Commission released a brief statement saying that although this was "highly suspicious trading on its face," they found that "the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous." They made some general statements about some of the trades, but did not release specific details about any of the them.
It's all on Snopes - which declares the foreknowledge theory "false," based solely on the fact that the 9/11 Commision denies it.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
Many sources. Wikipedia has aggregated them - and believe me, anti-conspiracy sentiment on Wikipedia is extremely high, and this has been fact-checked extensively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001
My understanding is that the war games left NORAD utterly bewildered by the 9/11 attacks, unsure whether they were a real event or part of a drill, and that the number and nature of such war games was unprecedented - that this was, in effect, the one day in recent American history that anyone could possibly get away with this attack.
By the way, the 9/11 Commission came away conviced that NORAD was flat-out lying to them when it gave its version of events.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
Well, ABC News ran a story saying simply that after a 71-day investigation, some people in the U.S. government still believed them to be spies. They were released after high-level negotiations between the U.S. Government and Israel. The FBI was ordered to release them by the White House.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
Just good luck? Really? No one I've ever talked to has ever seen a flight like these anywhere near as empty as these were.
If we had a "stand-down" approach to these attacks, obviously it's in our interests to have the planes emptier than usual. A full plane would be more likely to thwart the attack; and, if it failed, it would kill people unnecessarily.
I do not think it would leave a mountain of evidence to get a simple instruction passed to AA or UA's servers to stop selling tickets at a certain point. It's all electronic, there's no paper trail, and ultimately all you need is one man with access.
I am quickly approaching my Internet weekend blackout, so I will not have time to check these sites until Monday.
Really? You don't believe Bush or Cheney would sacrifice a single American in "such a callous manner," even though you've seen them kill roughly 750,000 foreigners without a hint of remorse?
I think - Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted revenge on Hussein. He deluded himself into thinking he had palpable reasons for it when actually he did not. He considered it a war, and wars produce casualties. His father (Daddy Bush) was able to put together a very unique coalition - the first in history - with tremendous technology (for the first time) and therefore was capable of conducting a clinical war with almost no civilian casualties. This was the exception and not the norm. Bush Jr. aimed to invade Iraq and remove Hussein. That was a typical bloody venture that all wars produce. Does Bush Jr. have remorse about the civilian casualties there? I say he does. It's possible he thought that pulling our troops out of the country after civilians were killed was not an option. Or he thought that allowing Hussein to remain in power was ultimately more deadly for those civilians than removing him. Do any of us know for sure what Bush was thinking?
Maybe you believe that U.S. officials all hold the philosophy "A foreign life is worthless, a soldier's life is expendable, and an American civilian's life is absolutely precious," but I don't. It's a philosophy that makes no moral sense and is, frankly, downright evil. I mean, basically, you're telling me our leaders are too evil to be evil enough to harm an American.
Well, your first sentence is not what I believe. But ... if your job as president is to protect American citizens, it is unlikely you are doing your job if you place American civilians and foreign civilians on the same plate. You would not be able to do your job. It is not evil for a president to differentiate between civilians because his job is to protect Americans - first. He didn't run for the job of pope or a saint.
And from that same public servant position, American troops are not expendable because they too are Americans. They should never be unecessarily placed in harm's way.
No, I don't think the Administration thought anything resembling "Oh, let's let foreign terrorists kill a bunch of American women and children ... HA HA HA ... then we'll have an excuse to go blow them up with rockets!"
You know what I think they thought? I think they thought "This is ultimately a struggle between good and evil. This is a struggle between God's chosen people and God's enemies. This could, in fact, be part of the final battle between good and evil. The American people are regrettably blind to this, and, unfortunately, we cannot fight this battle without their support. And we cannot win their support without an event such as this one. God have mercy on all our souls: stand down."
You know why they didn't think that? Because Osama bin Laden is a hit-and-run terrorist who up to that time caused only minor deaths and damage to the U.S. or Israel. Afghanistan was being run by a primitive Taliban government that was thoroughly incapable of using or understanding the technology required to pose a threat to the U.S. or Israel. These two entities in no way represent some final struggle between God's people and Satan's army. You are suggesting Bush and Israel mistook them for that. While real threats like Iran and Syria were dismissed. And Iraq was only later invaded on totally different grounds.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 06:36 pm |
|
Ronson wrote:
Really? You don't believe Bush or Cheney would sacrifice a single American in "such a callous manner," even though you've seen them kill roughly 750,000 foreigners without a hint of remorse?
I think - Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted revenge on Hussein. He deluded himself into thinking he had palpable reasons for it when actually he did not. He considered it a war, and wars produce casualties. His father (Daddy Bush) was able to put together a very unique coalition - the first in history - with tremendous technology (for the first time) and therefore was capable of conducting a clinical war with almost no civilian casualties. This was the exception and not the norm. Bush Jr. aimed to invade Iraq and remove Hussein. That was a typical bloody venture that all wars produce. Does Bush Jr. have remorse about the civilian casualties there? I say he does. It's possible he thought that pulling our troops out of the country after civilians were killed was not an option. Or he thought that allowing Hussein to remain in power was ultimately more deadly for those civilians than removing him. Do any of us know for sure what Bush was thinking?
Well, the closest you can come to knowing what Bush is thinking is to have Bush tell you what he's thinking.
And Bush did, in fact, tell Jacques Chirac what he was thinking. Bush called Chirac, asked to appeal to their "common faith," reminded Chirac of the story of Gog and Magog, said he believed Gog and Magog were operating in the Middle East, and then he told Chirac (in Chirac's paraphrase), "This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins."
Chirac didn't actually know what the heck he was talking about and had to have someone in his staff research "Gog and Magog."
I don't think this is something as banal as a family feud between the Bushes and the Husseins. I think Bush literally felt he was part of an ultimate battle between good and evil.
"Maybe you believe that U.S. officials all hold the philosophy "A foreign life is worthless, a soldier's life is expendable, and an American civilian's life is absolutely precious," but I don't. It's a philosophy that makes no moral sense and is, frankly, downright evil. I mean, basically, you're telling me our leaders are too evil to be evil enough to harm an American. "
Well, your first sentence is not what I believe. But ... if your job as president is to protect American citizens, it is unlikely you are doing your job if you place American civilians and foreign civilians on the same plate. You would not be able to do your job. It is not evil for a president to differentiate between civilians because his job is to protect Americans - first. He didn't run for the job of pope or a saint.
Yes, one of the jobs of the President is to protect American citizens, but I don't think that precludes thoughts like "by sacrificing a hundred now, I can save a million later."
And from that same public servant position, American troops are not expendable because they too are Americans. They should never be unecessarily placed in harm's way.
Well, of course they're expendable. We expend them. All the time. We make estimates of how many of them we're going to lose, and then we go forward.
"You know what I think they thought? I think they thought "This is ultimately a struggle between good and evil. This is a struggle between God's chosen people and God's enemies. This could, in fact, be part of the final battle between good and evil. The American people are regrettably blind to this, and, unfortunately, we cannot fight this battle without their support. And we cannot win their support without an event such as this one. God have mercy on all our souls: stand down."
You know why they didn't think that? Because Osama bin Laden is a hit-and-run terrorist who up to that time caused only minor deaths and damage to the U.S. or Israel. Afghanistan was being run by a primitive Taliban government that was thoroughly incapable of using or understanding the technology required to pose a threat to the U.S. or Israel. These two entities in no way represent some final struggle between God's people and Satan's army. You are suggesting Bush and Israel mistook them for that. While real threats like Iran and Syria were dismissed. And Iraq was only later invaded on totally different grounds.
Osama bin Laden is irrelevant. I believe Bush wanted a final struggle between Christianity and Islam - not a petty war between America and Afghanistan. And I believe Israel was well-aware at how much that benefited them.
I made an Internet posting in late 2001 protesting the Afghanistan war, in which I said "I hope America gets its nose bloodied in this war. Because if it's too easy for us, there will be another. And another. And another. We won't stop until someone finally gives us a bloody nose."
In retrospect, I think I was completely right. It would have been Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and then Iran, and then Syria, and then Lebanon, and so on and so on - except that Iraq managed to hit us pretty hard across the bridge of the nose.
|
met
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1500 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 08:34 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
I made an Internet posting in late 2001 protesting the Afghanistan war, in which I said "I hope America gets its nose bloodied in this war. Because if it's too easy for us, there will be another. And another. And another. We won't stop until someone finally gives us a bloody nose."
In retrospect, I think I was completely right. It would have been Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and then Iran, and then Syria, and then Lebanon, and so on and so on - except that Iraq managed to hit us pretty hard across the bridge of the nose.
well, they don't call Afghanistan the "graveyard of Empires" for nothin'
and Iraq? .. . kicking a few reluctant and undermotivated Iraqi troops out of Kuwait was much much easier than going in and occupying .... Desert Storm created a lovely IMPRESSION of the America's overwhelming military strength, but apparently B. Jr mistook that impression for real, and didn't realize it was a sabre only fit to be rattled, not actually removed from its scabbard 
Last edited on Fri Sep 25th, 2009 08:37 pm by met
____________________
“Hum tum ek kamre meins band ho, aur chaabi kho jaaye”
-from Bobby
o Dir. Raj Kapoor. 1973. R.K. Films Ltd.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 08:59 pm |
|
met wrote: AyHyperbole wrote:
I made an Internet posting in late 2001 protesting the Afghanistan war, in which I said "I hope America gets its nose bloodied in this war. Because if it's too easy for us, there will be another. And another. And another. We won't stop until someone finally gives us a bloody nose."
In retrospect, I think I was completely right. It would have been Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and then Iran, and then Syria, and then Lebanon, and so on and so on - except that Iraq managed to hit us pretty hard across the bridge of the nose.
well, they don't call Afghanistan the "graveyard of Empires" for nothin'
Ahhh yes, and the last notch on the Afghan stick was the USSR.
and Iraq? .. . kicking a few reluctant and undermotivated Iraqi troops out of Kuwait was much much easier than going in and occupying .... Desert Storm created a lovely IMPRESSION of the America's overwhelming military strength, but apparently B. Jr mistook that impression for real, and didn't realize it was a sabre only fit to be rattled, not actually removed from its scabbard
Yeah, the "shock and awe" of initial contact in the invasion of Iraq was quickly snuffed out by the suicide bombers. Was it FOX news that coined that term "shock and awe" in order to replace good ole fashion "death and destruction"?Last edited on Fri Sep 25th, 2009 09:01 pm by yoki
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
yoki wrote: Yeah, the "shock and awe" of initial contact in the invasion of Iraq was quickly snuffed out by the suicide bombers. Was it FOX news that coined that term "shock and awe" in order to replace good ole fashion "death and destruction"?
No, it was coined by Harlan Ullman and James Wade of the National Defense University of the United States, in 1996.
As for who popularized the phrase in 2003 - that was the Bush Administration itself.
|
Henry Sidgwick
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sat Jan 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 10:16 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
I think Bush literally felt he was part of an ultimate battle between good and evil.....Osama bin Laden is irrelevant. I believe Bush wanted a final struggle between Christianity and Islam - not a petty war between America and Afghanistan. And I believe Israel was well-aware at how much that benefited them.
Here are Bush's words delivered on 9/14/2001:
"Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil."
____________________
The "FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
--Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 05:55 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
Getting back to your links from last week...
According to the 9/11 Commission (per the above Snopes link) the "put" options were a coincidence. One person (who was identified) caused the whole "put" event and this person was speculating all over the place, including buying airline shares, the opposite of a put action.. A guy with a track record of doing this exact sort of thing for a living isn't terribly suspicious to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001
According to this article, Russia set the date for the exercises on Sept. 11 and the U.S. and Canadians responded to that. And these exercises were cancelled (including the Russian exercises) when the 9/11 attacks occurred. It doesn't appear the exercises had any impact on the 9/11 event. It probably would have occurred exactly the same whether they planned exercises for that day or not. Is the point here that NORAD never conducts exercises? Or that the Russians picked the date because they knew something?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
You said: "By the way, the 9/11 Commission came away conviced that NORAD was flat-out lying to them when it gave its version of events." That's a deceiving summary of the link.
What the article says is the 9/11 Commission came away assuming ineptness was being hidden, not a sinister plot: "Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said." Thanks for the spin, though.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
I found this article interesting. Obviously they were suspicious on the face of it, to the point the FBI and CIA held them for questioning. Considering most conspiracists believe the FBI and/or CIA was involved, this is a peculiar action for them to take.
"Two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them to be deported. But sources told ABCNEWS that FBI and CIA officials in Washington put a hold on the case."
However, ultimately, their behavior and reckless actions prove they weren't involved - even if they were spies.
"'Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11,' Cannistraro noted."
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28th, 2009 06:21 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: And Bush did, in fact, tell Jacques Chirac what he was thinking. Bush called Chirac, asked to appeal to their "common faith," reminded Chirac of the story of Gog and Magog, said he believed Gog and Magog were operating in the Middle East, and then he told Chirac (in Chirac's paraphrase), "This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins."
Chirac didn't actually know what the heck he was talking about and had to have someone in his staff research "Gog and Magog."
I don't think this is something as banal as a family feud between the Bushes and the Husseins. I think Bush literally felt he was part of an ultimate battle between good and evil.
Hmmm... OK. I always assumed Bush's motives were personal, because Hussein tried to kill his father, or because he wanted to finish the job his father started so the Bush family will go down better in history. If he was telling Chirac he had a "Gog and Magog" reason for the invasion then that's plain spooky. However, even if true, this doesn't translate well into Bush secretly sacrificing innocent lives for a larger cause for God. If he thought he was launching the war on behalf of God then he must have also believed his secret 9/11 sacrifices of innocent people were quite visible to God. It doesn't wash.
Osama bin Laden is irrelevant. I believe Bush wanted a final struggle between Christianity and Islam - not a petty war between America and Afghanistan. And I believe Israel was well-aware at how much that benefited them.
I made an Internet posting in late 2001 protesting the Afghanistan war, in which I said "I hope America gets its nose bloodied in this war. Because if it's too easy for us, there will be another. And another. And another. We won't stop until someone finally gives us a bloody nose."
By "bloodied," you mean you hoped Americans would die in great numbers?
In retrospect, I think I was completely right. It would have been Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and then Iran, and then Syria, and then Lebanon, and so on and so on - except that Iraq managed to hit us pretty hard across the bridge of the nose.
Bush muddled everything when he went into Iraq. What should have been a conflict between us and terrorists who are constantly blowing up American citizens, blowing up American embassies, American buildings, kidnapping and beheading Americans overseas ... Bush turned it into a unconnected war with Saddam Hussein who had no clear link to any of that. So then the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts became synonymous as a "War On Terror" when only one of them actually was/is.
In regard to Afghanistan, I most certainly do not want to see America get bloodied. What I want to see is solid U.N. action in an infrastructurely weak, impoverished, unemployed and malnourished region of the world that is often a vaccum filled by nasty extremists and criminals. Once the U.N. gets a handle on the place I suspect the criminals will migrate to places like Somalia (which I hear they have begun doing so). One anarchy at a time.
|
Current time is 08:47 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
|
