Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First, thanks for the response. I appreciate you approaching this with an open mind. While one of my goals is certainly to persuade people who read my posts to my perspective (if i am, in fact, correct), engaging in reasonable discussion and learning from others are both reasons i post in these types of forums.
Ok.I'm not going to get involved in a discussion about how much power different monied interests have in US politics. It's an extremely layered topic - one in which i have much more learning to do.
Just read posts 29 & 51 in this thread. Essentially, i show examples of how some administration claims don't align with the facts, as well as showing evidence that, at the very least, some in the government had more knowledge about the threat on 9/11 than the government claimed afterwards.
I've also highlighted motive for the administration to lie, with the possibilities ranging from the innocuous (covering up gross incompetence) to the treasonable (allowing the attacks to happen).
I will again say - I don't know all of the facts. I'm not in a position to obtain the information or get answers. However, those who were in that position shirked their duty, and clear questions were largely ignored by the media (just like the billions of dollars flown into Iraq on palates was unaccounted for and the only news we got was a little blip of a blurb on the subject. One would think these types of things would demand more scrutiny, but scrutiny is not something the government welcomes.
Like i've said, i'm still on the fence between "they let it happen" and "it was gross incompetence that was subsequently covered up". Regardless, there was NO negative consequence for the administration under either of these scenarios, and, moreover, the attack enabled them to execute their pre-planned Middle East policies.
I understand that compartmentalization of knowledge and predispositions can definitely play a role in contrasting "what the Pentagon knew" and "what the administration officials knew", but when i watched administration officials lie time and again in from post-9/11 through the run-up to the Iraq war, and throughout the Iraq war, it caused me to take a deeper look into what the truth actually was.
One last note. As much as i condemn the Bush administration for their actions, i'm not a Democrat. I tend to align with liberals on many issues (equal rights, women's rights, etc), but find Democrats and Republicans on the whole to be different shades of politicians, both beholden to big money, and neither acting in the best interests of the citizenry on a consistent basis. Like any generalization, there are exceptions to the rule, but politicians who have found success on the national stage have generally sold out - largely due to the fact that it is INCREDIBLY difficult to succeed on the national stage UNLESS you sell out. "Radical" (aka non establishment) voices are routinely ignored by the mainstream media. The mainstream media - left and right wing - are largely voices for the establishment at this point.
#1) Yeah, I don't know whether or not the Bush administration was incompetent or intentionally misleading in the whole WMD thing. I remember that I had supported the intervention because Saddam did everything to have us believe that he really owned these weapons. After all, he refused weapons inspections and rather went to war than to give in to the ultimatum set by Bush.
On the other hand, Saddam had really lousy advisors, too. I remember articles from the time in which they were quoted to have advised Saddam that the US military was "no real threat" and that a US invasion would be "highly unlikely"..
Except there were pictures of the plane parts both inside and out, and even at least one picture of a passenger's body from inside the pentagon. The hole was so small because that was roughly the size of the plane's main body.
There were literally over a hundred witnesses that saw a plane heading at the pentagon.
People are trying to make these huge elaborate conspiracies, which in reality always fall apart which is why people generally don't try to do them. It is much easier to do simpler ones with less moving parts, say like, knowing the attacks are going to happen and letting them. Or even carrying out the attacks yourself. But to try carry out the attack and fake the nature of it in ways that would involve thousands of witness and accomplices is so mind bogglingly unfeasible.
People have to deal with the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon, and 2 planes took down the twin towers. This happened. Cope with it. Who was behind it, knew about it before hand, etc., much of that can be more easily debated. While difficult, you could contain an operation to crash those planes and blame AQ, but you also depend on them taking credit. You could definitely contain knowledge that an attack was imminent. But to make all these unnecessary moves for absolutely no gain? No. Not even the most incompetent of governments would do this.
Believing 2 planes could take down the the Twin Towers, not to mention WTC7 which wasn't even hit by a plane, betrays an ignorance of basic physics. But you don't need to understand physics you just need to believe what your own eyes are telling you. The official story defenders here have been strenuously ignoring the plain evidence of the aerial photo ten days after the attacks showing the tower frames in thousands of cleanly-cut, straight pieces flung out for hundreds of feet in all directions.
It is a fact that steel cannot fly out for two football fields laterally, at 80MPH, without help from explosives. This is not conspiracy it's just scientific fact. The many straight, spinning objects in the video below are 3-5 foot wide pieces of steel beam. Gravity doesn't do that.
Just curious...
Do you have an explanation why the third building that went down on 9/11 was already wired for demolition, waiting for the order to "pull it"?
...Not why the decision to pull it down was made, but why it was already wired for that decision...
whatbogsends said:In the wake of 9/11, administration officials - Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney (in the rare event that he actually addressed the public) consistently lied, regardless of whether they were lying about WMD intelligence (the lack of WMDs in Iraq relative to the administrations claims weren't the result of bad intelligence, they were the result of intentionally misrepresented intelligence). Somehow, lying to cover up incompetence is dismissed by you as a non-item.
whatbogsends said:Regarding 9/11, they consistently made non-believable claims about what they knew beforehand, for example claiming no knowledge of the "Bin Laden determined to strike" memo. We'll get more into what they might have known in a bit. Suffice to say, it looks like your giving them a pass for lying, as you believe it was lying to cover up incompetence. If being warned by intelligence reports about an impending attack and doing nothing to stop it is incompetence, then i'll agree with you, except for the part that it's not a big deal.
whatbogsends said:My "alternate explanation" is that they were aware of the threat of planes being used as weapons, and that Condoleeza Rice flagrantly lied about it.
whatbogsends said:It's hard to say. There were several reports that indicated that the simulation caused some confusion with air traffic control on 9/11. Those that think it's more sinister (i.e. that it was more than gross incompetence rather some involvement of the administration) say that the exercises on that day helped create the environment which allowed the attack to succeed.
whatbogsends said:"And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences, including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but will occur soon. Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
whatbogsends said:My attempt to make this into a smoking gun? No, it's another suspicious coincidence. You seem to be the one to disregard the all the other evidence and make me being able to explain motives or specifics into the end-all-be-all for this.
whatbogsends said:No, the most important one will be the overall news and context, and trying to highlight any one item as the make-or-break item is a red herring. You've dismissed the vast evidence of foreknowledge and the lies about that knowledge afterwards as simple incompetence, and don't even seem concerned about it. If their incompetence and failure to respond to warnings had been publicly acknowledged, rather than dismissed by 9/11 falsers such as yourself, perhaps we would have been spared a 2nd term of George W. Bush (not that Kerry would have been much of an improvement).
whatbogsends said:"Bowmans experience as a fighter pilot made him extremely skeptical of the governments 9/11 narrative. Based on his experience, Bowman knew that every time a commercial plane goes significantly off-course, a military fighter plane shows up next to it within about ten minutes. The fighter pilot rocks its wings as a signal to follow me and get back.
whatbogsends said:He wondered how four allegedly hijacked planes flew through Americas skies for nearly two hours without being harassed by US air defenses.
It is a fact that steel cannot fly out for two football fields laterally, at 80MPH, without help from explosives. This is not conspiracy it's just scientific fact. The many straight, spinning objects in the video below are 3-5 foot wide pieces of steel beam. Gravity doesn't do that.
I would assert that the building falling into it's footprint pretty much like the towers did, except without a plane strike, is evidence that it was wired for demolition. Can you suggest anything more plausible?No. And the only evidence for that is one garbled audio feed.
Do you have any explanation of how explosives could be set and a building where daily business was going on could be wired for demolition without any one noticing?
Couldn't it as well be true that a "falser" chokes on a nat from an unofficial but professional investigator while swallowing camels in the official report?One other trait of a Truther is they choke on gnats in the official explanation while easily swallowing camels in the Truther version.
Yes, gravity does, given tons of pressure.
Explosives can't be hidden--they leave indelible traces of synthetic compounds. If that much explosive had been used, any number of experts would have been able to determine with absolute certainty not only that explosives were used, but even what country produced it.
Yes, gravity does, given tons of pressure.
Explosives can't be hidden--they leave indelible traces of synthetic compounds. If that much explosive had been used, any number of experts would have been able to determine with absolute certainty not only that explosives were used, but even what country produced it.
You seem wholly unable to distinguish between a skeptic (such as myself) and a conspiracy theorist who believes any and all conspiracies.
Moreover, your links seem to unwittingly acknowledge that not all things labeled "conspiracy theories" are false.
"Suspicions of President Nixon’s involvement in a burglary at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee began as a seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, but turned out to be true"
Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. | Robbie Sutton - Academia.edu
Watergate isn't the only former "conspiracy theory" to have been later proven true.
True Government Conspiracies - Business Insider
Does this mean that all conspiracy theories are true? Absolutely not. Believing that the government doesn't keep secrets, many of which relate to ethically questionable or worse actions, is truly the epitome of magical thinking.
Why would it have to be done during regular business hours?
QUOTE=Trogdor the Burninator;66379302]So how did a group of people enter, night after night, a highly populated buildings in a densely populated city and yet no-one ever saw them and they were never spotted on CCTV?
And why the need to do it at all - flying the planes into the WTC would be excuse enough if the government wanted an excuse for war, and there would be no possibility of being found out?
And if the building was pre-wired, then how do you convince people to suicide themselves in planes as part of your conspiracy when all you need to do is blow up the building?
Not really. They needed terror to start an unending war on terror. Drama is fuel.
Evidence can be classified.
They were seen with their black vans night after night, but you won't find out if you don't want to know.
How do you know the planes weren't empty and remote controlled?
How different is a suicide bomber on a plane any harder to convince than all the walking suicide bombers?
Btw,... I gotta give you props on your forum handle. I chuckle every time I see it. Good one. Lol
So how did a group of people enter, night after night, a highly populated buildings in a densely populated city and yet no-one ever saw them and they were never spotted on CCTV?
And why the need to do it at all - flying the planes into the WTC would be excuse enough if the government wanted an excuse for war, and there would be no possibility of being found out?
And if the building was pre-wired, then how do you convince people to suicide themselves in planes as part of your conspiracy when all you need to do is blow up the building?
And it still doesn't explain the Pentagon
So how did a group of people enter, night after night, a highly populated buildings in a densely populated city and yet no-one ever saw them and they were never spotted on CCTV?
And why the need to do it at all - flying the planes into the WTC would be excuse enough if the government wanted an excuse for war, and there would be no possibility of being found out?
And if the building was pre-wired, then how do you convince people to suicide themselves in planes as part of your conspiracy when all you need to do is blow up the building?
And it still doesn't explain the Pentagon
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?