Conspiracy theorists are suspicious on this idea
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hiohoaus Sep 12, 2006 2:46 PM EDT |
There is too much government involvement, too much (ignored, apparently) early warning from many sides, too many unusual frames in videos, and so on. It may well have been a random attack, but it's looking less & less likely as more oddness comes to light. |
| jimf Sep 12, 2006 3:16 PM EDT |
I'm not even going to touch the event its self. 'Who done it', or 'if' there was someone else behind it will be out there as conspiracy theory 'forever'... It's simply too convoluted to be provable. What I will say is 'what people have since used the events of 9/11 for was definitely not patriotism, but, entirely in the pursuit of politically power, and, totally beyond contempt'. |
| salparadise Sep 12, 2006 10:35 PM EDT |
I've watched a fair few hours of film on this subject. Mostly just film taken by people on the day, without realising what they were inadvertently recording. The evidence is nigh on overwhelming that it was an inside job. The biggest pointer is not the footage of obviously altered aircraft hitting the WTC, nor the huge balls of fire rolling up the outside of the WTC from both impacts (meaning a whole lot of fuel was not present inside the buildings to burn), nor the footage clearly showing that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a commercial airliner, nor the eye witnesses who reported things not included in the official version. The biggest pointer is the utter refusal of the government to even address these questions. If the official version is really what happened, (and I'd be a lot happier if it were terrorists than the US Gov staging the whole thing as a political stunt) then surely all the evidence would only back the official story and it would be obvious to anyone who looked that "yes, it happened as they said". But no, no meaningful video footage of anything to refute the "conspiracy theories". Just lie after lie after lie and denial after denial after denial. In the light of the evidence it is most curious as to why the media is staying so silent. Are they also complicit? And if not complicit, how are they thus made silent? If you're unsure about all this then check out the http://www.loosechange911.com site. Also there's http://www.911truth.org. If the US government is telling the truth then the evidence can stand all the scrutiny we can give it. If they're not telling the truth then people need to know. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2006 11:15 PM EDT |
sal - Please give this more thought. Any disaster is rife with questions. By definition, things have gone badly wrong, people have made mistakes, people have done bad things, and people have done stupid things. You can concoct a conspiracy theory out of nearly anything. Remember the "Moon landing was a hoax" craze from just a few years back? I would be that the only reason we haven't heard claims that some government was behind the Maldives tsunami and hurricane Katrina is that nobody would believe that any government has the technology to cause them. The problem is not a matter of buying into official versions of anything. The problem is concocting something that fits the facts better. Most conspiracy theories (including the 9/11 theories) fail miserably on this count. They hang together like an action movie -- the kind you walk out of the theater saying , "Wow! That was cool." but, on the drive home, it changes to, "But, of course, they could never get blah blah blah" on the way home. There are basic smell tests one should always ask in something like this: 1. Why. Really. Why? Why this and not something else? 2. How pefectly does the plan have to work? Plans come off without a hitch in Hollywood. Big complex undertakings tend to run into trouble in real life. That also goes to number 1: if you're a politician (or a general), you tend to shy away from things that can go very wrong in a very public way, even more so from things that can be discovered and lead a trail back to you. 3. Why is everybody so quiet? In today's world, how does anybody keep such a thing secret? Especially something that would require so many conspirators. I don't believe that the 9/11 commission is definitive. It was a bi-partisan report -- meaning that it needed buy-in from both sides to get published, meaning that it's criticisms were blunted. It is a lowest common denominator document. Cowardice, incompetence, stupidiy, distraction, and self-interest explain a lot more than oddball conspiracy theories. |
| jimf Sep 13, 2006 12:12 AM EDT |
> The evidence is nigh on overwhelming that it was an inside job. Huh! A few crazies and a mad professor running around spouting nonsense 'do not' constitute overwhelming anything. > why the media is staying so silent The 'legitimate' media usually stays away from space alien stories. Of course you can find those in the supermarket line pulp.... I saw the original live televised hits, and, as an engineer, I sure believe that those two planes caused the buildings demise. Hundreds of government agents running around and setting charges and recruiting terrorists, then faking all the film, is a 'highly unlikely' scenario, no matter how much you distrust the people in power. I know it's an election year, but 'please' people, use a little common sense. When in doubt, let's try applying Occam's Razor 'before' we go spinning all the data. |
| salparadise Sep 13, 2006 12:39 AM EDT |
I didn't doubt the official story until I stumbled across one of the "where's the plane?" pages. It was immediately obvious a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. If they lied about that then what else did they lie about? Only a relatively small number of people would need to know. It's like all crimes, you carry it out in full site of people and act like you're allowed to be doing whatever it is and no one will notice. It's furtive behaviour that rings alarm bells. And when it comes to the moonlanding I only have one question? Why are some of the photographs dodgy? (Meaning why does the moon buggy appear to be in front of the cross hairs on the lens? Why are there photographs, allegedly of different parts of the moon, from different missions, clearly showing the same terrain and same rocks? I ask only for information. I'm not saying I do or don't believe the theory, only that when it comes to some of the arguments, they sort of have a point and dismissing the theory as nonsense without being able to answer the questions only fuels the theory.) I have heard a conspiracy regarding the tsunami and yes America was named as responsible. Do I believe it? Probably not. Earthquakes happen. (Although marine biologists did report that the water around the site where the earthquake happened is dead. No return of marine life. This is out of the ordinary. Why has this happened?) Buildings don't fall down after burning for an hour or so. Why did the tower to be hit 2nd fall first? Why were the emergency helicopter crews ORDERED not to rescue anyone? Why does the fact that a relative of Mr Bush being involved in the company that looked after the WTCs security not ring any alarms. How come there were "security drills" in the months leading up to 9/11 where all the people who worked there were told not to come to work that day? How come some of those drills involved turning off the security cameras? Why did a number of people who were in the towers report bombs going off? And if all this is spurious why has it not been addressed? A bit like the 7/7 bombings over here. The cameras on the trains and in the stations hit "were not working that day". Oh come on! One eye witness reported that the explosion came up through the bottom of the carriage, which contradicts the official story. Those "responsible" bought return tickets and were seen happy and smiling and laughing on their way to the targets. It doesn't add up. Once I realised what had happened on 9/11 it was obvious "we would get ours". So when some delinquent youth snatches a pair of jeans from a shop the cameras track him for miles so he can be arrested yet when some terrorists turn up and start killing, suddenly the cameras are all broken. I don't believe a word of it. As for the 9/11 Commission Report, it's much like the report into the David Kelly affair over here. A government sponsored whitewash. They pick who will will sit on the commission according to the result they want. It's barely even worth considering as anything other than a gross act of deception. We have been conditioned into believing officials are dumb and officialdom is hopeless so we swallow such mishaps as "par for the course". But if you download mp3's or look at porn they have it all on record. It doesn't add up. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 12:43 AM EDT |
jimf - Some of the best questions, I think, to ask "inside jobbers" are: 1. What about Barbara Olson, the wife of the US Solicitor General who died on flight 77? Any decent group of conspirators with the chops to pull of 9/11 so incredibly well -- without leaks -- would never have allowed such a powerful and well-connected official to acquire a deep and personal reason to spill the beans. (Hey! I can play the "why" and "would never" game too!!) 2. How come all the fingers seem to point at the Bush administration? This makes NO sense. Bush wasn't even inaugurated until January 21, 2001. Does anybody seriously believe that these people could take office, formulate plans for such a large and intricate operation, eliminate any potentially hostile elements, and carry it in less than 7 months? Let's not forget the number of Clinton administration folks who were still lying around, not to mention the career government folks -- military and civil service -- who are not beholden to any particular administration. To work, this had to have started in the Clinton administration and been picked up smoothly by the Bush administration. Question: Was ANYTHING started in the Clinton administration and picked up smoothly by the Bush administration? After November 2000, does anybody really believe that old Clintonites in the CIA (still run at the time by George Tenet, a Clinton holdover) would rally behind the new Pres? Would Valerie Plame? Would Richard Armitage over in State? Is the sky falling? IMHO, the heavy Bush focus indicates a lot of this nonsense is Bush hatred plain and simple. |
| dek Sep 13, 2006 1:29 AM EDT |
>>IMHO, the heavy Bush focus indicates a lot of this nonsense is Bush hatred plain and simple. Granted. Just like the heavy Clinton focus in that docu-crap on ABC indicates a lot of that nonsense is Clinton hatred pure and simple. . . . |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 1:42 AM EDT |
dek - I agree. In fact that ABC mini-series was a great example of what bias really is, not to mention the difference between facts and truth. For all the whining by former Clintonistas, the facts (in the context of a dramatization) were basically in line with the 9/11 report. Where the truth gets injured is in context. 9/11 changed everything. We, as a nation, looked at things differently on 9/10. We felt safer on 9/10 than we did on 9/12, but we weren't. We were just blissfully unaware. I doubt that Clinton or Bush could have done very much before 9/11 happened, any more than FDR could get us into WWII before Pearl Harbor. The airport security hassles alone would have met with outrage and a heavy political price. For me, about the only positive thing about the ABC drama was a chance to see mainstream network television show something biased in my direction for a change. It was refreshing. No more truthful, but refreshing. |
| jimf Sep 13, 2006 1:51 AM EDT |
> It was immediately obvious a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. And just what does a 757 look like after hitting a (very large) building at over 300 mph??? I'm not going to bother answering the rest of this this point by point. All of it has already been rebutted by qualified engineering and architectural experts. The formal Engineering forensics have been extensive and thorough. All of that is in the public record. Obviously you're just piling together a bunch of random speculation that has been posted on the Internet for god knows what reason. Added to that you toss in unrelated conspiracy theory and plain old urban legend to support (?) your case.... This is just plain 'lame' Sal. I don't know if Dino is right about the 'Bush hatred' but that's not really the point. I do know that whole line of reasoning (?) is bogus. |
| salparadise Sep 13, 2006 2:13 AM EDT |
Mostly what I'm saying is that there are unanswered questions. Unanswered questions make me uneasy when they are these sorts of unanswered questions.
I also don't accept everything that's said to me by official channels. I also know that the "neo-cons" were in power under Reagan and have had plenty of time to plan. It's not bogus to question the commonly held view. Equating "space aliens" with any attempt to find the truth is cheap. |
| jimf Sep 13, 2006 3:14 AM EDT |
> Equating "space aliens" with any attempt to find the truth is cheap. Heck Sal, I figured I might as well throw in Roswell. You threw in everything else. |
| SFN Sep 13, 2006 4:42 AM EDT |
I see where Sal is coming from. I don't buy into the possible conspiracies here, but his basic question is valid. The idea that the various conspiracy ideas are ridiculous does not excuse the people we elect to run our government from having to answer questions regarding the incident. If anything, it should compel them to do so. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 5:05 AM EDT |
SFN - Asking questions is good. It applies to 9/11, to global warming, to the war in Iraq, to Michael Moore, to everything. When you start offering alternatives, however, you need to ask yourself questions every bit as hard as the original ones. I always liked the Carl Sagan book The Demon-Haunted World, in part, for it's discussion of a BS detector. He describes the proposition that there is a dragon in the garage. As one asks questions, the dragon has to be invisible, silent, and not leave any footprints. Eventually, the dragon becomes impossible to refute because an explanation has been derived for every possible objection. Trouble is, the dragon ain't there. Most conspiracy theories start to unravel the same way. First, it's this is odd. How could this be true. Then a nefarious explanation. But then, the nefarious explanation raises a question, which is handled by another nefarious explanation, and so on. The whole 757 thing is like that. I've seen explanations that required a remote-controlled 757 to come out of nowhere, while a hijacked 767 was flown under the radar and ditched in the ocean, etc. Somehow, the "757" theorists never bothered to ask this very simple question: How does a group of people with the smarts and resources to pull this off, and to hide the truth so well, fail to hijack the same kind of plane that they fly into the WTC? The answer, of course, is that they don't. That's not the kind of little detail you overlook. |
| SFN Sep 13, 2006 5:20 AM EDT |
Hang on. Hang on. This isn't about whether or not the official story is true. This is about why they won't answer the questions. The dragon in the garage thing doesn't apply here because the government has supplied evidence (call it dragon footprints) that, in some people's eyes, isn't holding up to scrutiny (say, the footprints are the same shape and size as a human's). When one supplies evidence, that evidence needs to be supported by facts. If the evidence can't be supported by facts, it has to be disregarded but that is not what is happening here. In this case, the people supplying the evidence are simply refusing to support it. That causes the evidence to become suspect. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 5:25 AM EDT |
SFN - You've lost me here. What is your distinction between evidence and facts, and, more to the point -- what the heck are you talking about? Seems to me the government has answered all the significant questions. May or may not be right, but they've answered them. The more compelling rules here, I believe, are: 1. If you're going to make an extraordinary claim, your evidence had better be extraordinary (different plane, spiriting away passengers on hijacked plane,etc). 2. Occam's razor. Any theory has to deal with the airplanes that actually did disappear AND the passengers that were on them. If you have to build a tower to the sky to make one of the theories work, that one probably ain't right. |
| salparadise Sep 13, 2006 5:29 AM EDT |
The loose change 9/11 film doesn't contain people sitting around talking about how the "official line is BS", it contains film footage taken at the time. If you haven't seen it, then I suggest you watch it. If you have seen it and can honestly explain most of what it says in such a way as to make me see where they have it wrong, then I'm all ears. Because, believe me, I'd much rather live in a world where America got caught napping than one where stuff like 9/11 is perpetrated deliberately to manipulate the global situation. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 5:46 AM EDT |
sal - You're asking the wrong person to explain things to you. I am not an engineer or a scientist. I've seen a lot of 9/11 conspiracy stuff, and, so far, all of it has reminded me of moon landing hoax theories or, for that matter, biblical creationism that puts dinosaurs on the ark with Noah. I doubt that I could ever convince you that you're wrong. If you take this stuff seriously, I doubt that anything could. |
| SFN Sep 13, 2006 5:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:what the heck are you talking about? Ok. Let's get simple. If 1) you work for me (as our elected officials do for us) and 2) you tell me that something happened a particular way and show me video that "proves" that it happened the way you say it does and 3) I say it doesn't appear that way to me you need to start showing me where I'm wrong or hand in your resignation. Quoting:Seems to me the government has answered all the significant questions.How is it that the questions that Sal raises haven't been answered? Or are we deeming those questions not significant? I don't believe that this was a conspiracy on the part of anybody but Bin Laden and his cohorts but dismissing those questions as insignificant casts doubt on any "answers" that have been provided. |
| dcparris Sep 13, 2006 6:56 AM EDT |
I think the US Gov't's role in 9/11 may have been much more akin to the Pearl Harbor attacks. Some may recall that questions arose about how the gov't handled the intelligence on that one. At any rate, there are now people running around claiming the Holocaust was a hoax. That fits Dino's 'dragon in the garage' line of thought. Most of these people happen to also be racists. I had an e-mail discussion with one such individual. I told him about a picture I saw in the local newspaper of a black woman in Detroit shielding a white Ku Klux Klansman who was attempting to protest. He warned me to be cautious of the Jewish-owned press. After all, they always lie - or mix lies into truth. I just worry that some people, following Dino's line of thought, keep looking for dragons where there are none. That doesn't necessarily apply to anyone on this forum - it's just a general comment. My big question about 9/11 is why the Saudi Royal family members allowed to leave the country (while every other plane was grounded at the time), and why did the Bush Admin block Congress' efforts to investigate? Was he just looking out for their safety, or is there something to cover up? If the former, there is no reason to block investigations. When I find out the answer to that one, I'll worry about all the other questions, most of which probably do pale in significance. That said, I don't dislike Bush any less than I disliked Clinton. I do wonder if the terrorists decided to attack because Bush won office, and whether they would have attacked if Gore had won. I don't really believe they would have aborted the years of planning that most definitely took, but it's a curiosity - not a super important question. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 7:10 AM EDT |
> I do wonder if the terrorists decided to attack because Bush won office, and whether they would have attacked if Gore had won. That's one thing you shouldn't wonder about. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming: 1. World Trade Center attack #1 2. The Nigerian and Tanzanian embassy bombings 3. The attack on the Cole, 4. Al-Qaeda's declaration of war on the US, 5. Formulation, planning, and initial activities (getting operatives in place, flight training, etc) All took place while Clinton was president. If the outcome of the presidential election mattered to the 9/11 planners, a better case could be made for calling them off in the case of a Bush election. That, at least, was a more clear change of administration. The terrorists don't care who the president is. They make their plans to further their own agenda. Short of ditching the US Constitution, becoming an Islamic nation, and putting all of our women in Burkas, I doubt anything we do will change their plans. Except, of course, for killing them and taking away their resources. |
| jdixon Sep 13, 2006 7:18 AM EDT |
> Although marine biologists did report that the water around the site where the earthquake happened is dead. No return of marine life. This is out of the ordinary. Why has this happened? The is probably still exposed magna leaking enough sulphur into the water to kill everything. Seriously Sal, you need to realize a couple of things. The first is that in an emergency, where quick decisions and actions are required, some people are inevitably going to make bad decisions. The second is that governments routinely lie to their people and refuse to reveal information for "national security reasons". The third is that governments always try to increase their power, using any available excuse or emergency to do so. These things combined account for most of the points which concern you. I don't think for a second that the US government was behind the WTC/Pentagon attacks. I do think a lot of people made bad decisions at the time, and that the government has acted as I would expect (see points 2 and 3 above) since then. |
| salparadise Sep 13, 2006 7:47 AM EDT |
Well, we can agree to disagree and such subjects are beyond the remit of lxer. But as yet, no one's said anything to make me think differently. Give me a solid argument as to why the conspiracy theory is junk and I'll listen otherwise, exhortations to "be sensible/real/serious" are just meaningless. No doubt you feel the same way about the alternative explanation. Like I say, go watch the loosechange film. I'd be happy to talk about this via email if anyone wishes to continue the debate. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 7:55 AM EDT |
sal - I've watched about 15 minutes of the second edition and feel pretty bad about wasting my time on it. |
| NoDough Sep 13, 2006 8:10 AM EDT |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/3705191.html |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 8:18 AM EDT |
Or, for that matter, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ Not about conspiracies per se, but a great look into the actual demolition of the World Trade Center. |
| dcparris Sep 13, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
Perhaps some of us missed (or dismissed) Updegrove's recent discussion on standards. His post involved the issue of the kind of insulation used in the WTC, and the role it played in the structural failure, iirc. My posting of the article was really to encourage folks to pause and remember the tragedy - sort of a moment of silence kind of thing. I'll leave the conspiracy debate to those with a serious interest. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 9:32 AM EDT |
Rev - Did you catch the recent Nova (last week?) episode on standards for building skyscrapers in the wake of 9/11? Good stuff -- and a great investigation into the building collapse from the standpoint of preventing a repeat. |
| kc Sep 13, 2006 10:07 AM EDT |
Alot of theories it was an excuse to use muscle and gain power in foregin lands but does that mean certain people were paid off to take the blame and while the world believes they are being hunted for they are actually having a peaceful rich life away from it all? |
| jimf Sep 13, 2006 12:43 PM EDT |
> recent Nova (last week?) episode on standards for building skyscrapers in the wake of 9/11 Second that.. very well done |
| jimf Sep 13, 2006 1:20 PM EDT |
I'm probably one of the most untrusting and suspicious people around when the word 'Government' is mentioned, so I find it totally bizzare that I should be put in a position where this may be construed as a defense of government. It's not. What tick's me off is that all this ranting about grand conspiracies takes focus from the real issues that need to be dealt with. A lot of people perished in 9/11. This is first about making sure that kind of event will not happen again. I know that the Architect's, Engineers, and especially the Politicians go into CYA mode. No one wants to have the finger of blame pointed at them. "hey Joe, did you guys really remember to put that extra layer of foam on those critical girders?". " no Fred, you guys never spec'd that feature in the blueprint!". "Agent Slattery, why didn't you issue a warning, since you knew...." "Station director, Why didn't you pass this information to Agent Slattery?"... And on and on, ad nauseam. It is the intent of no one in these situations to do harm, but, a real fear is that they will get hung anyway. I saw that behavior first hand in the Chicago flood of 1992 and know how convoluted and counter productive it can get. The public wants a scapegoat, when, what's really needed is the knowledge to prevent repetition of the same kind of disaster. An Investigative Commission is in fact a official 'public' inquiry. Investigative Commissions have the task of resolving issues for the public record. The people chosen for an investigative Commission are almost always the top experts in their respective fields. The final statement isn't always technically worded, but, accurate none the less. Those who want more technical details are usually able to see those too, since all of this is on the public record. Anyone who wishes to contest the findings should read the actual records before trying to interject their own spin. More often than not, critics have not done their homework. Now, I'm not saying that there is never a political involvement or bias in an investigation, but, the public's eye is already focused on the investigation, especially with an event this important. Any possibility of a cover up becomes more and more difficult because of that public scrutiny, and, any Commission, especially one with so many lives potentially at stake, will take heed of that. There is also the question of how many inquires and what criteria needs to be followed before the public is satisfied that conclusions are accurate. In some situations, it may indeed be impossible to ever prove events to an absolute. Do we need more investigations? Who's word should we accept? The Commission's? The Government's? The Architectural and Engineering community? Or maybe we should just get it from Joe Public on the Internet? Sadily, many will choose Joe as the final arbatrator. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 1:34 PM EDT |
Jimf - Pretty decent job of explaining why I say that the government (among others) has answered the important questions. At some point, you get to say "We researched this thoroughly, and, best we can tell from all of the evidence, from all of our experts, etc, this is what happened." At that point, you no longer have to answer every question somebody comes up with. If somebody asks, "Why did the plane flying into the WTC have humps where bumps should be and must really be a Cessna strapped to the top of the Spruce Goose so it couldn't be a 767?", you have effectively answered that by saying it was AAL 11 that flew in, and if somebody thinks they see humps where bumps should be, they have every right to be as wrong as they wish to be. At the very least, you can demand real evidence instead of some hokey thing like the Loose Change thing that thinks "Why, How come, isn't it strange, Do you get my drift?" is evidence. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 13, 2006 2:03 PM EDT |
"Where the truth gets injured is in context. 9/11 changed everything. We, as a nation, looked at things differently on 9/10. We felt safer on 9/10 than we did on 9/12, but we weren't. We were just blissfully unaware." False. Utterly, totally, false. That is what the media and government _want_ you to believe, just like they did after Perl Harbor (another engineered "disaster"), and the Gulf of Tonkin (which was completely made up). Even if it was not directly an inside job, meaning that the government itself didn't fly the planes (same as Perl Harbor), why was the AirForce _ordered_ to stand down and let the planes fly? That's the conspiracy evidence that cannot be passed off with "what does a plane look like after hitting a very large building at 300 mp?" But more seriously, even if everything the report says is true, the fault still lies directly in the lap of government. "We" didn't want to fly disarmed, that was an order of government. "We" didn't want to have identical security at every airport, letting these thugs smuggle box cutters onto aircraft, that was an order of government. "We" were left with plane-loads of people, each terrorized by a few thugs with knives, because the central planners would rather have people die than able to defend themselves. And that's if the conspiracy theories are _false_! http://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 2:08 PM EDT |
Bob - I think it's been made pretty clear that our leaders were slovenly and cowardly in their approach to terrorism prior to 9/11. They didn't make it the priority that it deserved to be. I don't think we would have stood for it if they had, but that's probably another indictment of leadership. Real leaders take the followers where they need to go. |
| number6x Sep 13, 2006 3:15 PM EDT |
I've met two of the men who walked on the moon (Eugene Cernan and Harrison B. Schmidt). My freshman Physics teacher and college adviser worked on project Mogul (he helped to build the weather balloon that crashed in Roswell in 1947). I have no reason to doubt their veracity. I cannot comprehend the appeal of conspiracy theories. Of course there are also people of the opposite persuasion. Those that over simplify everything into an us or them, black or white, if your not with us you are against us (so I can destroy you) type of scenario. I don't get them either. Some people reject simplicity and only believe the extremely complex conspiracies. They see aliens and government agents under every bed. The others can only comprehend simple binary explanations. They used to see reds under the bed, but I think they see democrats now. I just don't get it. |
| SFN Sep 13, 2006 3:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:At some point, you get to say "We researched this thoroughly, and, best we can tell from all of the evidence, from all of our experts, etc,John F. Kennedy was killed by a single bullet that entered, exited and re-entered his body multiple times" Quoting:At that point, you no longer have to answer every question somebody comes up with. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 13, 2006 3:22 PM EDT |
"I think it's been made pretty clear that our leaders were slovenly and cowardly in their approach to terrorism prior to 9/11." And _nothing_ has changed. If there were a god, the only politician alive in DC tomorrow morning would be Ron Paul. The only reason they are "leaders" is because they have the IRS and military to keep control of the "followers". They do not lead through example or moral suasion, only coercion. "Real leaders take the followers where they need to go." Real leaders don't have to take anyone. They _lead_. Please don't try to convince me that coercion is ever "for my own good". |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 3:42 PM EDT |
> Please don't try to convince me that coercion is ever "for my own good". I wouldn't dream of it, though you might dream of picking up a dictionary. Real leaders to indeed take their followers where they need to go -- by leading. Note the term "leader". Not storm trooper, not dictator, not jailer. We follow leaders because we trust and respect them. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 13, 2006 3:55 PM EDT |
Now I'm curious. Dictionary for what? If I may guess, the only word that KDE marked as wrong was "suasion", confired by looking it up in the dictionary. I did indeed note the word "leader", yet saw that you also said, "take", not "lead". This den of thieves certainly has "taken" this country, by force of arms, where the thieves wanted to go. They Did Not Lead. I get the distinct impression that you and I will never agree on anything except using Linux. In a world of completely voluntary interaction, that would be sufficient. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 3:59 PM EDT |
Bob - Substitute "lead" for "take", then, as that is the sense I meant -- like a hunting guide taking you into the woods or a fishing guide taking you to a favorite fishing spot. >I get the distinct impression that you and I will never agree on anything except using Linux. I might agree, but it seems that you never will. |
| jimf Sep 13, 2006 4:05 PM EDT |
Bob_Robertson & SFN, If we're going to discuss this let's stay on point. Specifically the 9/11 twin towers and Pentagon attacks. Bringing in other conspiracy theory and historical trivia does nothing but muddy the waters. As far as any happenings after that, I've already made a statement at the beginning of the thread. I don't think I want, or, have to say more. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 13, 2006 4:36 PM EDT |
Dino, if we don't both agree, then we're not agreeing, ne? JimF, "historical trivia"? Interesting. A pattern of deception, of creating tragic situations for political gain, is "trivia"? Ok. How about this? The Question Never Asked by John M. Peters "The question which is never asked is "why?" Why did so many American citizens die on American soil that day? Why would people want to attack us in such a vicious and grandiose fashion?" Is that on-topic enough? |
| dcparris Sep 13, 2006 4:40 PM EDT |
Bob:
Mad magazine ran one of its "Lighter Side" cartoons where a guy suggested having Thanksgiving every
Thursday in Washington D.C. When asked why, he replied, "to get rid of all the turkeys in office. > The only reason they are "leaders" is because they have the IRS and military to keep control of the "followers". I think you mean the IRS and the ATF, the BATF, the BSA and the RIAA. They have reserved the military for foreigners so far. ;-) Just something from my experience: When I was stationed over in the UK, we shared security responsibility with the RAF Police. They took care of their base, and we our compound. One day a young-looking person showed up in a field opposite our compound. He definitely had binoculars and another device - something that looked very much like a radio. Being trained not to take anything for granted, we notified the RAF Police, who sent a couple of patrols around to "have a word with the chap". Turned out to be a school-aged kid with an interest in airplanes with a regular old AM/FM type radio. We watched as the patrols appeared and descended on the kid. It was pretty obvious - even from the distance - that he was pretty scared about the RAF showing up. I'm sure he had to clean his drawers out when he got home, but for us that's a lot better than the gov't having to send the local recruiters to inform our parents of some "bad news". Of course, things like that can indicate to a terrorist cell whether the potential target is a good one. For all we know, we really could have saved our backsides. I doubt that the kid was connected to terrorists, but that's the thing - you can't always tell. The IRA set off a bomb at Paddington station the same day my brother travelled back up to London after visiting me. Scared the mess out of me until I got word that he was fine. I don't think my brother was even impacted - thank goodness. I can't recall now whether that happened before or after the other incident with the kid watching the planes. But I just don't take much for granted. "Complacency kills" was our mantra in security training, and should be the mantra in computer security, and probably is the mantra all the way up to the FBI/CIA, etc. For a while, my wife would call me at work to tell me about some robbery she saw on the news. I think what I have told her applies generally: Complacency kills because... Attacks can happen at any time to anyone anywhere (so be prepared) Prepare defensively (to prevent and respond to an attack) Prepare responsively (when the defenses fail) That applies whether you're talking about national security, home security, or computer security. :-) |
| jimf Sep 13, 2006 4:47 PM EDT |
> Why would people want to attack us in such a vicious and grandiose fashion?" Quite on topic, and, certainly something everyone should think about, but again, I'm not going to address that here. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 5:02 PM EDT |
>Dino, if we don't both agree, then we're not agreeing, ne? A little tongue in cheek on my part. I suspect words get in the way at least as often as actual disagreement. |
| SFN Sep 13, 2006 5:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:Bob_Robertson & SFN, Actually, as I've said a couple of times, I don't believe the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. I don't buy the Moon Landing, Pearl Harbor or Gulf Of Tonkin ones either. Not too sure about Oswald v. Kennedy either. This isn't about specific incidences. This is about whether or not questions should be answered. The Kennedy reference had to do with dino's idea that authorities shouldn't have to answer questions beyond a certain point. I was pointing out the similarities between that idea and the justification for the magic bullet theory. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2006 5:37 PM EDT |
SFN - The so-called "magic" bullet is a great example of that. The Commission put its theory of the bullet into the report and explained the basis for its findings. The correct answer to the questions was "We did the research and this is what we found. You have all the tests we did. Got something better? Tell us about it. Otherwise, we stand by our work." The presumption that the commission members didn't question their own work is, to me, simply nuts. There is one other aspect to the "magic" bullet that doesn't come up, but should get a nod from anybody who's ever tried to write fiction. There's an old saying -- truth is stranger than fiction. It recognizes that a good fiction writer has to make the reader go along for the ride. Some twists and turns simply won't be believed. If you are trying to perpetrate a cover-up, it's always better to come up with something mundane and believable. Incidentally, there have been some modern recreations of the assassination that took advantage of modern modeling and computerized animation techniques that make the supposedly magic bullet look a lot more mortal. |
| jdixon Sep 13, 2006 5:57 PM EDT |
Lord, a busy thread. Where to start: jimf: A minor nitpicking to an otherwise were written summary. > A lot of people perished in 9/11. This is first about making sure that kind of event will not happen again. Well, the plane attack won't happen again, but preventing any type of terrorist attack is impossible, for pretty much the same reason no computer can be completely secured. Someone will always find a way, and they only need to do so once. I have argued in the past that trying to prevent terrorist attacks the way we're doing today is rather pointless, and what we need to do is concentrate on killing those who attack us and those who support them. That may mean we loose people to more attacks, which is regrettable, but I think in the long term it would be more effective. Bob: The same applies here: > And _nothing_ has changed. If there were a god, the only politician alive in DC tomorrow morning would be Ron Paul. You're assuming a rather vengeful god. Not all gods fit your assumption. Some are more concerned with free will and allowing us to make our own decisions and mistakes. > Why would people want to attack us in such a vicious and grandiose fashion?" It's what Bin Laden wanted. Bin Laden wanted just such a grandiose attack and, unfortuantley, got one. The reasons he particularly wanted to take out the WTC are probably known only to him, but he obviously viewed it as an important symbol of American culture. DC, ditto: > They have reserved the military for foreigners so far. Not at Waco. Dino: > I suspect words get in the way at least as often as actual disagreement. Ain't it the truth. Well written and argued positions. Kudo's to all. |
| jimf Sep 13, 2006 11:41 PM EDT |
> A minor nitpicking The reference was only meant to pertain to things that could or should have been done to secure the airspace(s), prevent the building(s) collapse or delay it enough so that people could escape, or, to better implement that escape. Of course other logical security improvements are in order too, but it's likely impossible to 'completely' prevent any kind of possible attack. It also touches on 'after the fact' plans and actions of Those currently in political power. That, in itself, probably deserves an Investigative Commission of it's own. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 14, 2006 9:56 AM EDT |
"The reasons he particularly wanted to take out the WTC are probably known only to him..." Wow. Didn't read the article, I see. |
| jdixon Sep 14, 2006 10:21 AM EDT |
> Wow. Didn't read the article, I see. Nope, didn't. However, unless they're quoting him directly, I'd take everything said about motives with a grain of salt. In fact, even if they are quoting him directly, I'd take it with a grain of salt. People are usually very poor judges of their own motivations, and he's not above lying to the western media to advance his own goals. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!