The Matthew 25 Network endorses Obama. (Video)
Rick Warren hosts McCain and Obama.
Who will rid us of this meddlesome priest?
The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
Dallas lowers grading standards - & responsibility
Recent Comments
- This is What Will Happen When the Tea Party Votes The Lesser of Two Evils 12
Atanamis, cchrisr, Colin, Ross Wolf, Atanamis [...] - Ron Paul Throws His Weight Behind the Constitution Party 21
StellaTerry30, Jew, Darius T, Chris A, Colin [...] - ZFT is Seven Years Old! Annual "State of The Site" Post 6
cchrisr, Atanamis, Bryan, Colin, cchrisr [...] - Government Motors Silently Watches While Feds and Media Take Out Its Chief Competitor 7
Jew, cchrisr, Randy, Atanamis, Ornot the Majestic [...] - Libertarian Infighting Dooms It As A Political Movement 34
Atanamis, quicksilver, Atanamis, Liberty Thought, CTLovesNathanHale [...] - Health Care Is Already Socialized. The Real Question: Should It Be Expanded? 26
Colin, Atanamis, cchrisr, Colin, cchrisr [...]
In regard to the link about the Dallas schools–I recently learned about a way parents might get their kids out of bad schools into a new style of homeschooling via a charter school called the Texas Virtual Academy. Parents homeschool their kids, but it isn’t typical homeschooling. It is run by the public school system, it provides computer and books to the students for free, and there are teachers who interact with the kids via email, chat, and phone. Regular tests are taken and graded by teachers, etc.
750 students were allowed to do this program last school year as an experiment, and it was so successful that they’ve recently decided to move it up to 1500 students. I guess not just the religious parents are interested in homeschooling.
Yeah, I had already assumed what NIST would say. They delayed the release of the report for a long time, but it was no surprise that they were going to point to a fire as being responsible for bringing down a steel structure in a symmetrical fashion. I’m no scientist, but that is completely ridiculous. No one could possibly look at the video of the building falling, and honestly say that it does not look like a controlled demolition. Look at the footage yourself and make your own judgments, but one thing the NIST report could not possibly explain is the fact that BBC reported the building had fallen 20 minutes before it actually had. Minutes after BBC reporter Jane Standley said the building had fallen, it is seen disintegrating in the skyline right behind her on live TV. Mysteriously her satellite signal is lost at that point.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Phallic cucumbers? *eye roll*
That better not be a suggestive eye roll. Stone her!
Texas Virtual Academy looks like a nearly ideal school solution. Throw in access to labs, sports facilities and teams, personal tutoring when needed, and occasional lectures and presentations and this could well replace the current school system for kids with parents who actually care about their education.
Christ A:
I was just getting ready to comment on the NIST report when I saw that you already had. I think you’re 100% correct. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know exactly what happened on 9/11. But I’m absolutely convinced that the government’s story is complete and total crap. I’m not suggesting that the Bush administration was behind all this. I don’t know. But I do know that there’s just so much that doesn’t add up. For example…
(1) Given that the US government received so many different warnings (from Russia, from Egypt, from the CIA, from the FBI), how could they not have known the attacks were coming? (2) When George W. Bush, the commander-in-chief of the United States military, learned that we were under attack, why did he continue to sit in that public school classroom reading “The Pet Goat”? (3) How is it that, in direct violation of NORAD and FAA procedure, none of the hijacked planes were scrambled (that is, intercepted) by the US Air Force? Especially given that scrambling planes that lose contact with air traffic control is a relatively common occurrence? Especially given that the Air Force is capable of scrambling a commercial airliner in a matter of minutes? (4) And how is it possible that an Air Force jet didn’t scramble Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon 1 hour and 20 minutes(!) after the attacks began? (5) Why won’t the government release video footage of the Pentagon being struck? (6) How do we explain the fact that the US military was conducting four different war games at the time of the attacks and that some of these war games closely resembled what was actually happening in the skies? This couldn’t have confused both the military and air traffic controllers, could it have? And is it at all significant that the war games were planned by Dick Cheney? (7) What did Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center, mean when, regarding Building 7, he supposedly told New York fire fighters to “pull it”? Was this just a slip of the tongue? Is it just a coincidence that “pull it” is a demolition term? (8) Right before the towers came down, why did so many individuals claim they heard explosions going off from inside the buildings? (9) How can we actually believe the government’s story about what brought down Building 7, as well as the two towers? Especially since so many experts–e.g., those represented by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as well as Scholars for 9/11 Truth–contend that the government’s story could only be true if numerous laws of nature were simultaneously violated? For example, while the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel is 1,800 degrees F, the melting point of steel is 2,800 degrees F.
Despite all this, anyone who even questions the official story is considered a conspiracy kook. Yet another reason to bemoan the state of American.
As per point 9. First off your numbers need to be centigrade. If I remember my very long ago metallurgical engineering course correctly you wouldn’t need to melt the steel. You would just need to have softening with deformity to allow failure. A diffuse flame jet fuel fire burning air will have temperatures around 1000c (with oxygen it’s around 3000c not 1800c). Since structural steels softens at 450c and weakens rapidly above 650c this is well within the possibilities of burning jet fuel. I mystified why the experts you have read deem this a violation of the laws of nature.
I don’t totally buy the official reports, but I haven’s seen any conspiracy theories that hold water either. The only way 3 people can keep a secret is if 2 are dead. I do note that a lot of these people seem to be making quite a bit of money off of selling the idea of a conspiracy. I worked in 7 world trade in 91. Even after walking around the site for the first time last year the whole thing still seems unreal.
“As per point 9. First off your numbers need to be centigrade. If I remember my very long ago metallurgical engineering course correctly you wouldn’t need to melt the steel. You would just need to have softening with deformity to allow failure. A diffuse flame jet fuel fire burning air will have temperatures around 1000c (with oxygen it’s around 3000c not 1800c). Since structural steels softens at 450c and weakens rapidly above 650c this is well within the possibilities of burning jet fuel. I mystified why the experts you have read deem this a violation of the laws of nature.”
These comments are completely nullified by the fact that molten steel was found beneath the buildings - not weakened steel, but molten steel. If the steel was merely weakened and not molten would the building have fallen symmetrically at freefall speed? Not a chance. And why would the second building hit fall before the first? Do you remember how many days the rubble smoldered after 9/11? Plus traces of thermite, an explosive used in demolitions, were found in the rubble.
It doesn’t matter whether any theories you have heard hold water. What matters is that the government’s story is more incredible than the majority of the alternative theories. There is no credible evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks, and before you bring up those videos of him supposedly admitting to it, look at them a bit closer. The FBI is aware that not enough evidence exists to finger him. Look at their web site; it lists all the crimes he is wanted for. 9/11 is mysteriously absent from the list.
bob: What you say about the properties of steel makes sense. I’d just respond by noting that if it’s true that the buildings collapsed because their structures were weakened, then it’s surprising that these buildings didn’t seem to undergo any significant buckling.
I disagree with your statement that “The only way 3 people can keep a secret is if 2 are dead.” That’s simply not true. As Dean Hartwell notes, “several groups of people, loyal to one another, have kept secrets in the United States. Hundreds kept quiet about the hydrogen bomb for years before we used it on Japan. The masterminds fed limited information to all of those who helped to build the bomb so that most of them had no idea what they were building.
“Likewise, for similar reasons, other groups kept the secrets about the U-2 spy plane and the B-2 bomber before they appeared publicly. As for the U-2, it was sent to spy on the then-Soviet Union and it crashed there. The Soviets did not have surface-to-air missiles to stop the U-2 and had to rely upon radars and laser beams, a confirmation that no leak had occurred.”
Here’s another example, this one reported by the UPI in September 2000: “The Central Intelligence Agency has for the first time confirmed that a high-ranking Nazi general placed his anti-Soviet spy ring at the disposal of the United States during the early days of the Cold War. The National Archives said in a release Wednesday that the CIA had filed an affidavit in U.S. District Court ‘acknowledging an intelligence relationship with German General Reinhard Gehlen that it has kept secret for 50 years.’”
Yes under certain very tightly controlled circumstances you can keep a secret. Like, as per your example, isolating almost everyone who knew the big picture about the atomic (not hydrogen, that was later) bomb at los alamos for 3 years. The U2 was not much of a secret within the aviation community or the military by the late 1950’s. Francis Powers U2 was shot down may 1st 1960 by a salvo of sam-2 missle. Lasers were not invented yet. By coincidence the first working experimental laser was tested in may 16th 1960 by Ted Maiman at Hughs Research.
You also have to compare technology of 50 years ago with today. The telephone system was primitive. Just calling cross country was a big deal in the 40’s. All records were paper. No internet, no computers or computer databases, no cell phones, no faxes, etc., etc.. This made organizations a whole lot more isolated and compartmentalized than they are today, both technologically and physically.
Anyway, I don’t find the idea of a vast conspiracy of any kind creditable in todays digital world. I could be wrong. The beauty of a conspiracy is that it cannot ever be proved to not exist.
Since there are hundreds of 9/11 conspiracy and conspiracy debunking websites my arguing on this subject point for point would be redundant and futile.
Like you, bob, I definitely don’t want to keep arguing about these 9/11 conspiracies.
But let me just say a few more things. First, I shouldn’t have used that Hartwell guy as a source. As you pointed out, he seems to be misinformed in a number of areas. Nonetheless, I think his overall point is valid: i.e., for many years people in the government were able to keep these programs a secret.
Second, I don’t at all buy your argument regarding modern technology. Yes, it might have been more difficult to disseminate information back then. But so what? We’re not talking about medieval Europe here. We’re talking about 1940s America, with its radios and telephones and newspapers and mail system. “More difficult” doesn’t mean “couldn’t have been done” or even “couldn’t have been done easily.” So my point still stands: it’s absurd to say that the government can’t keep secrets when recent history tells us that it can!
Third, I’ll be the first to admit that it seems improbable that the government could have kept a conspiracy as vast as 9/11 a secret. But I find the official government story just as improbable. In fact, I find it more improbable. And that’s why the conspiracy theorists here need to be listened to. Their theories may be wrong, but they’re no more wrong than the government’s story.
Some of you are obviously not engineers nor did you pay attention in any science classes apparently. Bob hit the nail on the head with his comments both regarding steel and fire and the fact that it is nearly impossible to keep any secrets these days, ESPECIALLY ones that would hurt the Bush Administration.
Let me reiterate that this is not about which theory - the government’s or someone else’s - is correct. The fact still remains that anyone who views the evidence independently will find that the official government account is completely bogus.
Does that mean I subscribe to the idea that Bush & Co. did this? Not necessarily. I personally think it is a bit more complicated than that. Mossad agents were arrested in NYC after they were seen celebrating on a bridge upon witnessing the planes hit the towers. Of course they were later released with no charges. Go figure. But I will say this: if this was investigated like any other crime you would find more evidence implicating people within the administration (Cheney in particular) than you will find for Osama bin Laden. That’s a fact, not an opinion. The NORAD exercises, Leon Paneta’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission regarding Cheney’s order to not fire on aircraft approaching D.C., obvious prior knowledge and the insufficient response, the “New Pearl Harbor” comment in the PNAC document, etc. And Cheney is on record as saying the Pennsylvania plane was, in fact, shot down.
I may be wrong about this (if so, I apologize), but wasn’t it you, Chris, who also said that a bunch of Bin Laden family members were flown out of the country by the U.S. government? That is a complete fabrication, no truth to it (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp). It worries me when professing Christians throw around rumors and half-truths. And where exactly did Cheney go on record and say that United 93 was shot down? I know that Rumsfeld had a slip of the tongue that could have been taken to mean that (though it would take a bit of a stretch), but I’ve never seen anything about Cheney.
“I may be wrong about this (if so, I apologize), but wasn’t it you, Chris, who also said that a bunch of Bin Laden family members were flown out of the country by the U.S. government? That is a complete fabrication, no truth to it…”
I don’t know what was said before. It seems like I might have brought something up like that in the past but I’m not sure. It is quite possible that I might have said something incorrect. But what is at issue is whether the bin Ladens were flown out before the airways were opened up. They were not. They did, however, leave the country as soon as the ban on flights was lifted. Prior to their leaving some of them were interviewed by the FBI, but there is disagreement as to whether those interviews were conducted thoroughly. I don’t know whether we could say they were “flown out of the country by the U.S. government”. I don’t know that to be the case. But it is no secret that the Bushes and bin Ladens have had business relations via the Carlysle group.
“And where exactly did Cheney go on record and say that United 93 was shot down? I know that Rumsfeld had a slip of the tongue that could have been taken to mean that (though it would take a bit of a stretch), but I’ve never seen anything about Cheney.”
You’re actually right about this. It was Rumsfeld. Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that the president had authorized planes to be shot down if they were headed toward the White House; this must have been where I got mixed up. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me. I don’t want to misinform anyone.
Here’s the video (19 secs) of Rumsfeld saying Flight 93 was shot down. Was this a Freudian slip or something else? You be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0
Let’s look at the context of “shot down the plane in Pennsylvania.” Who does he say shot it down? Terrorists. So I think it appears most likely that he meant crashed it. After all, why in the world would he say terrorists shot down that plane?
“After all, why in the world would he say terrorists shot down that plane?”
Exactly. Why in the world would he say something like that? Of course, he might have meant the plane crashed or he might have meant something else. We don’t really know. I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if we didn’t have this mountain of evidence and unanswered questions.
I personally think the plane was shot down; in my opinion the evidence seems to point in that direction. And that would be a good thing in one sense, because it would mean that NORAD did what it was supposed to do.
I think most people who are loyal to the government’s conspiracy theory about 9/11 assume that those of us who question that theory must necessarily subscribe to the theory that the attacks were carried out by the Neocons. Of course, I have already said that I think its more complicated than that, and do not subscribe to any “theory” per se - meaning I think the evidence points to possible government complicity, but the details of that are still sketchy. But let me give you another reason why I don’t believe the blame can rest entirely with the Bush administration.
On September 11, 2001, Joe Biden, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and now Vice-Presidential nominee, met with Mahmood Ahmed. He was the head of the Pakastani ISI and the alleged financier of the hijackers. Ahmed also met with George Tenet, CIA head, senators Bob Graham and John Kyl, Rep. Porter Goss (who later took Tenet’s job), Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. This was all reported by the New York Times on September 13, and later confirmed by Biden himself. Do I believe that this proves that Biden, Tenet, and the rest of these guys conspired to attack America? No, but it presents another crucial unanswered question. Why were these guys meeting on the day of the attacks? When confronted with this question, Biden said that he told Ahmed that if he didn’t stop financing terrorists he would have to deal with the U.S. And remember, at the time presumably no one would have known that Ahmed wired this money to Mohammad Atta for the purposes of the 9/11 attacks. To my knowledge, Mahmood Ahmed remains a free man to this day.
That was my question: is it a bad thing that the plane was shot down? I’m not sure how that ties into the other conspiracy theories behind 9/11.
Most of this is just evidence that further proves my belief that government is almost always inefficient or bumbling in its methods.
“That was my question: is it a bad thing that the plane was shot down? I’m not sure how that ties into the other conspiracy theories behind 9/11.”
You keep talking about conspiracy theories, while I keep talking about key unanswered questions and holes in the official story. Answering these questions might lead to formulating a theory, but asking them does not constitute a theory.
Darius wrote:
“Most of this is just evidence that further proves my belief that government is almost always inefficient or bumbling in its methods.”
I have to agree with Darius here. While I’m sure there are unanswered questions, I often have a hard time subscribing to public conspiracy stuff simply due to the government being government. I’m operating on Occam’s Razor here….simplest is often true. While I know a lot of you aren’t saying true “conspiracy”, it seems unlikely for something to public to be hidden so well by a bumbling hierarchy. And I don’t think they are just pretending. Can government keep things secret from the people? YES. But they are usually things that no one knows about anyways. HUUUUGE things like 9/11 and stuff? VERY unlikely in my mind.
“While I know a lot of you aren’t saying true “conspiracy”, it seems unlikely for something to public to be hidden so well by a bumbling hierarchy.”
If criminal elements within the government were in some way involved, I think they did a horrible job of covering it up. Certainly it wasn’t meant to be public knowledge that Dick Cheney was in charge of war games were being ran that interfered with NORAD’s function at the time of the attacks. Was the public supposed to find out about Cheney’s order for NORAD to stand down, according to Norman Mineta’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission? Were we supposed to know that the authority to give such an order was transferred to the Vice-President for the first time is U.S. history weeks before the attacks?
“I’m operating on Occam’s Razor here….simplest is often true.”
What exactly would be the simplest explanation here? The guy who was meeting with U.S. government officials wired $100,000 to 19 terrorists who penetrated a billion dollar security system by coordinating four simultaneous attacks? Doesn’t seem likely to me. And they managed to level another skyscraper without directly hitting it with a plane? Really?
Actually Ahmed has been identified has having ordered Saeed Sheikh to wire the 100,000. I have never seen any source document that backs this up or even identifies where the original claim comes from. This puts your assertion on this issue in a very different light. Sort of like the “molten steel” vs “molten metal” you jumped on me about. It’s never been clear which it was, but makes a huge difference in the interpretation of the events. Time, poor or non existent source documentation, misunderstandings of the original statements, loss of context, heat of the moment, deliberate bias, etc., etc., make these issues ,at best, very hard to clear up and very subject to interpretation or agenda.
So let me see if I am clear on this subject. Some unknown group, probably one of the usual suspects such as cia, mafia, israeli’s, aliens, egyptians, managed to:
1. Sneak a couple thousand pounds of high explosive into 1,2, and 7 wtc.
2. Access all the maintenance spaces and set up these explosives for a controlled demolition.
3. Spent 2 years very cleverly arranging for a virulently anti western fringe muslim terrorist group to hijack airliners and fly them into the wtc to conceal the controlled demolition that actually brought down the wtc buildings.
4. Got the us military to set up 4 war games on that exact date (the relevance of this escapes me).
5 Got the vice president of the united states to stop the air force from scrambling fighters.
6. Managed to get the entire us government and several independent investigations to cover up for them.
7. And the pista de resitance, managed to avoid creating or destroyed all telephone records, cell phone records, email, credit card transactions, bank records, travel records, and paper documents.
Very very clever. Somewhat unlikely in my opinion, but clever.
So yes there are unanswered questions. There are always unanswered questions in every investigation. Hell I have lots of unanswered questions. I don’t think the fact they aren’t being addressed represents some type of cover up. The investigations covered what the people in charge thought was important then ground to a halt. That’s the just way it is.
bob, your attempt to pin me down to some ridiculous theory is unbecoming. Sure, there are always unanswered questions. But there is a difference between something being unanswered because it is a mystery and something being unanswered because those involved have refused to address it; that does, in fact, smell like a cover up. The question is: what is being covered up? Rather than whether there is a cover up at all. When you look at the 9/11 Commission Report and the information that was omitted or completely ignored, it shows incompetence at the very least and complicity at the worst. If you really wanted some valuable intelligence on what took place, there are plenty of well-informed people who could do that. David Ray Griffin, for instance, the former CIA agent whose job it was to brief President George H.W. Bush every morning, has as much of a grasp on what actually happened as anyone else.
David Ray Griffin wasn’t a CIA officer was he?
No, he’s a retired professor of theology. Yeah, he must have a GREAT grasp of the issues.
I meant Ray McGovern. My bad.
Not a jab at you personally, just a jab at how silly some of the stuff out there is. Lazy probably, incompetent possibly, political agenda and spin oh yea to the max, cover up I doubt. Could very well be wrong.
“Not a jab at you personally, just a jab at how silly some of the stuff out there is. Lazy probably, incompetent possibly, political agenda and spin oh yea to the max, cover up I doubt. Could very well be wrong.”
You’re right. There is a lot of crazy stuff out there. I suspect that some of it is a result of COINTELPRO. You’ve got these people who say that there were no planes at all and that it was all an illusion - holograms or something. And this, of course, is intended to discredit the science and other evidence behind alternate explanations.
Ah yes, because it is impossible that the thousands of expert structural engineers who HAVE seen the videos could be right in saying there is nothing suspicious in them. Or perhaps almost all structural engineers in the world have been paid off or threatened to keep silent, and only the ones you trust are telling the truth. Or maybe the experts you are reading were ALSO paid off, and the whole 9/11 conspiracy idea is actually ITSELF a smokescreen to distract us from the REAL secret. I mean, if a powerful government wanted to fool people into believing airplanes could cause the collapse of the trade towers, would they leave such obvious evidence and allow it to be observed by non-secured persons? Obviously they must have PLANTED this evidence to trick us into believing this was a conspiracy. All that’s left is to figure out why they wanted us to believe there was a conspiracy…
Atanamis…the premier name in strawmanification.
Naw, I’m not nearly that good at it! Still, you have to admit that it is strange to believe in a government powerful enough to prevent thousands of structural engineers from pointing out something you as an uneducated (regarding engineering) observer believes violates the laws of physics. To my mind, it seems easier to believe that your perceptions are wrong than that the government can squash thousands of viewpoints not just in the US but worldwide?
Atanamis:
First, do the majority of structural engineers really believe the government’s story? What’s your source? If you go to places like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, you can find many reputable structural engineers who think the buildings were demolished.
And even if you’re right, and most engineers believe the 9/11 Commission, that’s hardly proof that Commission got it right. Argumentum ad verecundiam. And if you think this does vindicate the 9/11 Commission, then let me ask you this: do you always believe the majority of scholars are right? As a Christian, would you accept the theory evolution just because most scientists did? As a Christian, would you reject the literal resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth just because most ancient historians did?
Over the past few days, Chris has given one argument after another. Yet people have almost entirely ignored his arguments and instead just pointed out how difficult they think it would be for the government to pull all this off. Okay, fine, that may be true. But that still doesn’t answer several questions. For example, how could the government not have known the attacks were coming? Why wasn’t Flight 77 scrambled? Why were war games planned for that day? Etc.
I don’t have answers to any of these questions. But I’m certainly not going to give this government, or any other government for that matter, the benefit of the doubt. Because one thing that history tells us is that governments have a propensity to lie and that governments have a propensity to murder.
“I don’t have answers to any of these questions. But I’m certainly not going to give this government, or any other government for that matter, the benefit of the doubt. Because one thing that history tells us is that governments have a propensity to lie and that governments have a propensity to murder.”
This is really where I’m coming from. If I told people that I found two intact passports that fell from the planes that exploded into the World Trade Center, no one would believe me. Yet if the government tells the same story (and they have) people would believe them. Why is that? What gives them that credibility, especially when they admittedly funded and essentially created the group they say is responsible for the attacks? Sorry, I don’t believe that.
Trust in anyone (the government included) must be based on prior credibility. I really don’t think the government has that great of a record. In fact, Thomas Kean, the leader of the 9/11 Commission even said NORAD officials lied in their testimony. At one point, the commission even considered referring the matter to the Justice Department. Of course, they didn’t (not that it would have done any good anyway). If a person lies to me, I’m not inclined to believe anything they say without unimpeachable corroborating evidence. And if the evidence contradicts what they say, why would I believe them? They have already proven themselves to be liars! And why would I make an exception for the government?
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0910ja.html
Darius, I read that article. Obviously you intended to provoke a response from me about it. So what I have decided to do is exactly what others have done to me. I have decided to completely ignore all the author’s points altogether.
In discussing the subject of 9/11, I have not done what some have accused me of - that is, formulating some kind of theory. Although there is obviously evidence of government incompetence at the very least, I have not said that the Neocons or CIA or the Israelis or anyone else was directly responsible for the attacks. Nor did I say that they all worked in collusion. I have merely said and continue to say that the government’s official story is complete bunk. As for an explanation of their motivation for lying and what exactly they are hiding, I’ll leave that up to others to decide. Nevertheless, that has not stopped dishonest people from calling me a conspiracy theorist. If that amuses people, it is to their own shame.
Americans died seven years ago in the attacks on our nation. Many others, who courageously volunteered to try to save lives, are suffering and dying from respiratory illnesses. Yet the persons who conspired to commit these crimes have not been brought to justice. So pardon me for being after the truth. These terrorist attacks affected all Americans in one way or another, but because people want to “move on” and have “closure” they have been unwilling to examine the evidence and ask questions. They think that if the administration says bin Laden was the culprit, they must be right - even if the FBI has still refused to charge him with the crime. And do you know why they haven’t charged him? Because there isn’t any evidence that he was responsible. And they guy the accuse of financing the operation, Pakistani ISI General Mahmood Ahmed (who just so happened to be in the country around the time of the attacks meeting with government officials like Joe Biden), apparently has diplomatic immunity or something.
But I and others like me - we are the crackpots. We are wackos for pointing out the numerous inconsistencies with the government’s account of events. How dare Americans ask questions! How dare us suggest that the government is lying, when they - NORAD in particular - have admitted as much. If people want to go on living in La La Land, believing the government story - fine. But don’t expect me go along with it, ’cause I ain’t goin’ to. And no one is going to shame me into shutting my mouth about it either.
And a response I got…
You don’t have to shut your mouth, but I won’t waste my time listening.
“You don’t have to shut your mouth, but I won’t waste my time listening.”
You’re right. If you aren’t willing to concede that the government is dishonest, it’s a waste of time listening to me.
Oh, I believe the government is dishonest about things all the time. The government is made of human beings. But I haven’t heard anything about the destruction of the towers or about bin Laden that gives me cause to doubt the generally accepted version of history. I’m open to new evidence, of course, but I’m not really going to waste my time revisiting and reevaluating things I’ve already looked at and rejected.
“Oh, I believe the government is dishonest about things all the time. The government is made of human beings.”
Well, at least we can agree on this.
“But I haven’t heard anything about the destruction of the towers or about bin Laden that gives me cause to doubt the generally accepted version of history.”
I wonder what you consider to be “the generally accepted version of history”. Suppose we accept the commonly held belief that al Qaeda and bin Laden were behind the attacks. We must then ask, “Who is al Qaeda and what was their motivation?” To answer that, we have to go back to the Carter administration and look at the military operation constructed by Brzezinski.
No one can deny that bin Laden and al Qaeda were supported by the U.S. against the Soviets, and no one can deny that bin Laden was on the CIA payroll. Nor can anyone deny the business relationships between the George H.W. Bush, former head of CIA, and the bin Laden family. That too should be part of “the generally accepted version of history” because it is documented and unimpeachable fact. Yet for someone to actually mention these glaring conflicts of interest is an invitation to be insulted and heralded as a nut.
Does this mean that the two George Bushes in concert with the bin Ladens and the CIA covertly plan an attack on the U.S.? I didn’t say that. I’m simply saying that history is being altered by omission, and the generally accepted version of events is only accepted because people are not aware of how the accused relate to the accusers. The illusion, however, is that people like me are in the minority. The article Darius posted cites polling data that seems to suggest the opposite.
Um, what? No, I don’t think anybody disputes that the US supported bin Laden when he was helping us against the Soviets. Nor does anyone deny ties between the bin Laden family and America–although what that has to do with Osama is pure conjecture, given that he’s on the outs with the family.
Nobody’s altering history by omission. We all heard these facts in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The reason we don’t continue to hear about them every day is that they have no bearing on current events.
Anyway, what does any of that have to do with the question of who orchestrated 9/11, or what caused the buildings to come down?
“Um, what? No, I don’t think anybody disputes that the US supported bin Laden when he was helping us against the Soviets. Nor does anyone deny ties between the bin Laden family and America–although what that has to do with Osama is pure conjecture, given that he’s on the outs with the family.”
Conjecture is always used in the investigation of crimes. Plus the assertion that Osama is outs with the family is also conjecture.
“Nobody’s altering history by omission. We all heard these facts in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.”
I followed the media coverage fairly closely in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and don’t remember learning this stuff until years later. Maybe you knew it from the get go, but I and many others I have talked to did not. Generally people are shocked to learn this stuff.
“The reason we don’t continue to hear about them every day is that they have no bearing on current events.”
Also conjecture. Any billionaire has the potential to affect current events, either directly or indirectly.
“Anyway, what does any of that have to do with the question of who orchestrated 9/11, or what caused the buildings to come down?”
It has a lot to do with it, because the relationship of the accuser to the accused is always relevant. If I accuse you of a crime, the first thing the police want to know is our prior history. In other words, “How do you know this person? What is your relationship to him?” etc. Not only that, but if I’m going to accuse you, the police are going to look for corroborating evidence - an independent source of information. In this case, we have the administration and CIA pointing the finger at the accused. The only semi-independent party here is the FBI, and because there is a lack of corroborating evidence, they cannot finger bin Laden.
How the buildings came down is a separate issue.
Well, we also have Bin Laden himself taking credit for the bombings.
What it really comes down to is this: do you honestly believe that the liberal media, ever so ready to implicate Bush as more evil than Hitler, is either complicit in a conspiracy or so incompetent that it’s never found serious evidence of what you’re hinting at? In this era of no privacy and no secrets, do you really believe that a conspiracy involving the Bushes has been covered up? The media hates George Bush, and every chance they’ve gotten, they have worked to undermine him and this country (SWIFT tracking, wiretapping, etc.). So why in the world should we believe that on this ONE area, they give him a pass?
Oops, “bombings” should have been “attacks.” Now Chris will think I’m in on the conspiracy and it was a Freudian slip.
“What it really comes down to is this: do you honestly believe that the liberal media, ever so ready to implicate Bush as more evil than Hitler, is either complicit in a conspiracy or so incompetent that it’s never found serious evidence of what you’re hinting at? In this era of no privacy and no secrets, do you really believe that a conspiracy involving the Bushes has been covered up? The media hates George Bush, and every chance they’ve gotten, they have worked to undermine him and this country (SWIFT tracking, wiretapping, etc.). So why in the world should we believe that on this ONE area, they give him a pass?”
I didn’t say anything about a conspiracy involving the Bushes. I am saying they would naturally be persons of interest given their associations with the bin Ladens. I am approaching this from the standpoint of crime investigation, not making accusations of actual conspiracy. Basically I’m saying the refusal to address certain questions displays incompetence, adding to my assertion that official story is inaccurate.
The media is a propaganda arm of the government to a great extent. Sure, there are those in the media that hate Bush. But the question here is: What was the media’s primary source with respect to 9/11 information? Surely you know the answer, which is the government, of course. Some of their sources are former government people, but they all generally have some government association. So you have a situation where the media simply reported what they were being told. Very little investigation was done independent of the government. This is institutional analysis, not conspiracy; this is complicity by means of functionality, not collusion.
Incidentally, Fox News via Brit Hume (and I can’t remember the other guy’s name) did some investigation where they uncovered a lot of information about Mossad and Israeli telecommunications relative to their operations within the U.S. after those Mossad guys were arrested on 9/11. But this investigation occurred early on before there was coherent indoctrination. The consensus gained momentum over time, however, and could not be stopped once the public had been thoroughly indoctrinated. What are they going to do? Admit they were telling half-truths the whole time? Plus, we have to remember that Bush wasn’t “Hitler” until after the Iraq blunders.
“…the liberal media, ever so ready to implicate Bush as more evil than Hitler…”
What?
By the way, I’m really sick of hearing people talk about “the liberal media.” Glenn Greenwald recently argued that the media is controlled by the Right in many significant ways. Of course, those of you addicted to committing the genetic fallacy probably won’t even bother to read the article. After all, Greenwald’s a known liberal, therefore he must be lying, right? Anyway, for those interested, it’s worth the read:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/08/msnbc/index.html
I think Greenwald is mistaking liberal for Democrat, and conservative for Republican. The media is generally pretty good at not being blatantly partisan, but I rarely hear good conservative voices in the newspapers.
Jew — What definition of “conservative” are you using? If by conservative you mean paleoconservative (as opposed to neoconservative), then I’d agree.
Yeah, the lines are being blurred and the definitions are changing. Neoconservatism, which masks itself as Conservatism, actually pays homage to the Marxist philosophies of Leon Trotsky. In many respects the Left/Right paradigm has become increasingly indistinguishable in terms of actual practice, particularly in terms of foreign policy objectives. The most recent examples of their approach toward Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Russia prove this. There is very little difference in actuality, although the rhetoric is somewhat different. The reason for this seems to be the infiltration of the two parties by globalist interests introduced by elites - the Council on Foreign Relations, for instance. Effectively, this narrows the boundaries of debate. This, of course, confirms this infamous and prophetic quote from Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
We don’t actually have a two party system. We have a one party system with dueling factions that don’t always agree. One faction may be more aggressive than the other, but both of them have essentially the same goals in mind. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any good people in politics, but it does mean that most of the people are corrupted by the system.
Anyone who denies that the mainstream media leans hard left has his head so far into the sand, he’s irrelevant to any conversation about the media. The MSM is prima facie liberal.
What do you define as MSM?
“What do you define as MSM?”
I think that was directed at Darius, but let me give you my take. The mainstream media consists of, but is not limited to the major media conglomerates that have effectively monopolized the release of information to the public through concentration of ownership. These include Disney, National Amusements, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, Sony, General Electric, Vivendi SA, Clear Channel, and Lagardère Group. There are others, but these are the biggest media corporations. I believe this would be consistent with the dictionary definition of mainstream.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
main·stream (mān’strēm’) Pronunciation Key
n. The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity: