Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PATRIOTS-80, Feb 11, 2007.
Well NEM, you asked for a political contribution to start discussion. Here goes...
I try real hard not to believe this, but GWB is the biggest liar who every sat in the oval office.. there are a lot of questions never answered about 9-11, however when they are posted the only response is name calling. Will not list them, but when they are answered then I will be satisfied.. until then, I will be a skeptic about what happenned that day.
Are you saying that you think 75% of Americans are lefty loonies? If so, I'd think that makes you more the conspiracy theorist.
That's not an absurd number. We already know that the government lied about the health related issues in the area after that tragic day. More to the point, when has our government been upfront and totally honest with us about anything? It would not be shocking if we find out that flight 93 went down under other circumstances.
The knee-jerk neo-cons are willing to believe anything the government says regarding the military or terrorism as long as the government is being led by a neo-con. The y also like to think that Cheney is anything more than a tax-and-spend freak. He taxes like King George and spends like a drunken sailor. But then the cons come up with number tricks that they use to make President Cheney look like something else. This puppet administration is one of the worst bunches to come down the pike since Hoover.
That's rather insulting to Hoover. Hoover was brilliant. His problem was timing, that and he vigorously opposed government spending on people's problems (to remedy the depression). It seemed every time there was a light at the end of the tunnel something horrific would happen, as a plague. His Presidency was doomed because of the collapse of Wall St. Something that he tried to correct before it took place. The problem was no one wanted to make the corrections (Rockefeller, bankers, Roosevelt, etc.) As opposed to W and 9/11. Where Bush lapsed at his duties of protecting our country while asking cabinet members to find a reason to invade Iraq (prior to 9/11). If you flipped these Presidents' years in office we might have been better off, with Bush spending and Hoover not invading a country with no connection to 9/11. In addition, Hoover would have aced Hurricane Katrina as he had a similar experience in Europe which was unprecedented at that time and his performance was outstanding. In the years to come, Hoover's name will indeed be replaced as the worst......unfortunately, not do to reviewing his term, but due to the most inept president in the history of the country who is currently serving out his term.
Scout, most historians rank Hoover very low:
Your point is interesting, but did Hoover ever try to introduce legislation to protect the economy? I think he was part of the old school, and Roosevelt brought in the new school of thinking with much more regulation.
I don't believe the poll # or the conspiracy theorists.....
Hoover is a great example of a leader unwilling to adapt to situations and change policies to ameliorate their impact. He was steadfast in his belief that market forces would inevitably correct the imbalances within the economy. He failed to recognize and react to the extrordinary suffering this collapse in Wall Street, Banks, and the Dust Bowl effect had on his constituents. History has judged him harshly. Bush/Cheney will suffer a similar fate.
That's where he failed. He didn't make the offerings until it was too late. To his credit, he did try to change the banking regulations prior to the collapse. There were no margin requirements on borrowing and he knew this was a problem. Roosevelt, became President and helped us through this period of history, but he opposed Hoover's attempt to regulate banking and the stock market.
My cousins friend died on one of the flights that hit a WTC tower. Sorry guys, I don't buy this "the government did it" crap. 50 years ago? Maybe. Not today. Too many forms of registered communication, and far too many news outlets to keep something of this magnitude under raps. Is it possible? Sure, afterall, Shaq got traded, so anything is possible, but I don't buy it.
Indeed. Five and a bit years later and NOT ONE person has stepped forward to say they were involved? I can't see that. Every single media outlet in the world (including the pro-Bush ones) would kill for the story. Also, the Dems would jump on the chance to put the Administration leaders (I presume that some of them would have to sanction something like this) on the stand for murder(?), treason(?) or anything else carrying the death penalty. Bush and the others would lose every friend they had and would be falling over themselves to cop plea bargains, so the chances of a cover-up are minimal.
More importantly, you raise another issue when discussing this topic, which is that real people known to real people on this board got killed that day. It's worth remembering.
Imagine how many people would have to be in the loop on an attack of this magnitude. Hundreds? Thousands? All of them willing to see thousands of Americans killed for what reason exactly? It's just a bit much for me to believe.
The link won't open for me so I can't read exactly what it says. By "suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11" if they mean that any little untruth or mistake qualifies as "not telling the truth" then the number doesn't surprise me. If it means that the U.S. Government set up the attacks and that 75% of the country is living in the world if NEM, then it's simply not true. There is no way the majority of the country is that psychotic.
Frankly, I'm not sure I trust my govt. to tell me the truth about anything whether it's a Republican or Democrat in the WH. I'm not sure that makes them an accomplice in 9-11, but let's say for the sake of argument they were. A conspiracy on that level has its own built in repudiation/defense mechanism in that it is so far fetched, nobody would believe it even if it was true. If you were planning a conspiracy on this level that's something you could pretty much count on.
There are actually two acronyms involving 9-11 that have made their way onto the internet over the years.
MIHOP: Made it happen on purpose.
LIHOP: Let it happen on purpose.
If I were going to believe one of the two, I would be more inclined to believe the latter. When you look at 9-11 you have to look at who benefited. Clearly terrorists benefited because they achieved their objective in doing harm to the US.
But neo conservatives also benefited. 9-11 gave them cart blanche to advance their cause. Without 9-11, it would have been virtually impossible for Bush to sell the American people on a full scale invasion of Iraq.
I do not believe for one second that 75% of Americans think the government carried out the 9/11 attacks. I've seen other polls which ask that question specifically, "Do you believe the the U.S. govt carried out the 9/11 attacks?" and about a fourth answered in the affirmative. As for this thread's poll I would've answered "Yes" because, "Not telling the truth," applies for a lot of things. Are all of the hijackers who the govt says they were? Doubt it. Were there warnings prior to the attacks? Probably. Like I said, there's a huge difference between believing our govt intentionally flew commercial airlines into towers populated with thousands of women and children and believing that our govt isn't telling the entire story due to security or even political reasons.
try the link now.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/... disbelief - fresh doubts over 911/article.do
And BTW, you're right...75% aren't psychotic enough to believe that. But the article cites the poll to say that such beliefs are not abnormal or weird (yeah, right). The article is written from Europe and tries to give mainstream credence to a bunch of conspiracy theories held by a bunch of screwballs who say that the government purposely let it happen.
For example, here's 4 quoted paragraphs per forum rules.
"Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.
Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.
Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.
But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly (bold mine) - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late."
You're right. People need to be reminded that we got people in the intelligence community who don't like Bush -- remember when the classified wiretap program got leaked....
Whether there is a conspiracy or not, there are too many inconsistencies and too many easy leads after this event. The whole trail in Portland about ATTA is just too easy, seeing him on video, disposing of his briefcase in a place where it could be found is something that does not sit well. This could be considered wacko left, but it there is a standard that I usually use.. What would a reasonable man believe?? Here is what I believe in a nutshell:
- The WTC towers & Pentagon were targeted and it happened by extremists
- As a country and Gov't we were asleep at the wheel, it may have been prevented if we were paying attention, there is plenty of blame to go around amongst the WH, Pentagon and intelligence community.
- The plane in Penn was shot down by our own military
- WTC 7 did not fall down on its own, it was controlled demolition, not sure why but it is the only thing that makes sense
- The convenient allowance of Bin Laden's Family out of the Country post 9-11 was part of some type of cover up
- 9-11 whether it was LIHOP or MIHOP, played into the hands of the neo con's policies.. I think it may have been the former.
- It would not happened if the outcome of loss of life was known, it was something that got out of hand
There you go, beat me up, but from what I have read, both sides, there is a lot of stuff that does not make sense.. there is a lot of fabrication of evidence on both sides and a lot of spin from this whole event.
I believed that on 9/11/01 and still do today. Even my buddy at West Point thinks it was shot down. No condemnation coming from here, you had to shoot it down to avoid further chaos. The BS story about the passengers being the heroes and crashing the plane is just that... BS. "Let's Roll" was probably thought up by interns in the Pentagon. It was a inspirational story that the nation could rally around.
If THAT is Bull.....doesn't it make sense to you that all of these events are related to one another, and thus are BULL as well? Does the fact that there is NO video of the plane hittinbg the pentagon say anything? Does the collapse of the nerve center (building 7) say anything. The falling of the towers in their own shadows at the rate of objects in a vacuum? Connect the dots.
The smoking gun is building 7
The fact that Bin Laden isn't wanted by the FBI for 9-11, and denies doing it, after accepting his groups bombings of the Cole and other strategic US strikes is interesting as well. why would he deny having a hand in 9-11?
OH YEAH.....and we stopped looking for him to invade IRAQ.....next is IRAN...watch.
"Its a swindle....." -Johnny Rotten
Occam's Razor at work
Ha......Even the official explanation of 9-11 isn't 'simple'.
More like the 'Gulf of Tonkin' at work.
Basically you contradict your own beliefs here. If you think it was extremists, and that we fell asleep at the wheel, then how can you think that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition? Who set the C4? Furthermore, your last point, who would have prevented it from happening had "they" known the loss of life would be so high? Targeting the WTC and expecting a small number of lives lost? Your positions contradict themselves.
Yes, that is quite possible. I'm not about to say that it was shot down, but I could see where it would be. I can understand why the plane wouldn't be, since a hijacking has never resulted in an attack like that. Had the military shot down a plane immidiately, everyone would have been outraged. After we saw what happened with the first few, could you blame them if they did?
Has anyone ever seen the film 'Wag the Dog', starring De Niro as a political expert who uses a Hollywood producer to manufacture a media crisis?
When it came out 10 years ago I thought it was unrealistic, but I am starting to buy into the idea that the media is definitely used as a propaganda tool to further the government's interests.
I think you need to get out more Holy. When the two buildings were burning I kept telling my friends that they were going to collapse. The weight of the top floors on the burning floors below was obvious to most people. I work in construction, and it was obvious to me what was going to happen before it did. Even in a demo, they blow from the bottom cuz it allows the weight of the top of the structure to crumble everything below. When those floors were burning, and the support structure lost its integrity, the weight of the top floors did what they were supposed to, which was crumble everything below them.
pancake theory? No steel building has ever collapsed by being on fire. you've been watching too much discovery channel.
then explain how building 7 went down the exact opposite way? demolition style?
you can't have it both ways. That building was never hit, not on fire......yet went straight down.
Um, no steel building has ever been hit by a pasenger airliner travelling at high speed, acting as a projectile, and spewing jet fuel all over the support structure. It's one thing when some sheet rock, and a desk is burning, it's another when a plane and it's fuel smash into the side of a building.
Anyhow, here's some WTC 7 perspective.
Maybe we should merge this thread with the 'evidence' therad...but for every website that shows X, there is another that explains Y....
I don't know what happened, given unlimited resources, I would build another tower and remote control a fully fueled jet into it to see what happens. That is the only way we will know for sure.
in the meantime, in all that has happened since. I'm sticking with my view, and not trusting this administartion. They wore out my trust in 2003.
Separate names with a comma.