- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The World Remembers 9/11
|
|
Comments (51)
31 earlier comments in the full thread.
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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".
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".
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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. :-)
> 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. :-)
> 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.
Quite on topic, and, certainly something everyone should think about, but again, I'm not going to address that here.
>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.
A little tongue in cheek on my part. I suspect words get in the way at least as often as actual disagreement.
Quoting:Bob_Robertson & SFN,
If we're going to discuss this let's stay on point. Specifically the 9/11 twin towers and Pentagon attacks.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
> 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.
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.
"The reasons he particularly wanted to take out the WTC are probably known only to him..."
Wow. Didn't read the article, I see.
Wow. Didn't read the article, I see.
> 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.
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.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
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.