K
Kitty Sinatra
Third base!
9-11 Conspiracy
- Thread starter blotsfan
- Start date
- Status
North_Ranger
Staff member
I simply and utterly despise all kinds, branches and varieties of conspiracy theorists. Healthy scepticism? That's okay in my books, and is absolutely necessary for any kind of reasonable debate and scientific discussion. Being a dick, trivializing death tolls, paranoia, inability to face facts... those people have a special level in hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theatres.
I voted yes, I do believe that a conspiracy lead to the collapse of the Twin Towers. A cabal of conspirators planned and executed a nearly perfect plan to hijack four airliners and crash them into symbols of America's wealth and power.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Hey, that is offesive to child molesters.
C
Chibibar
I voted yes. I believe there is a possible conspiracy theory on the 9-11 attacks (my personal one), but until a "wing-nut" conspiracy theorist, I look from all possible angle and different views.
What is your personal one?
C
Chibibar
What is your personal one?
[/QUOTE]edit: unlike not until (stupid auto correct)
my personal one? I personally think it is pretty well organize attack to be orchestrated by some "leader" on dialysis. I think it was allow so the U.S. can attack and hopefully gain control of Iraq to get "cheaper" fuel.
This is not a war about terror. This is a war on fuel crisis (it was getting too high and U.S. is trying to get cheaper fuel)That is the premise of it anyways.
why do I think that?
How do you win an open land war against a terrorist? They might have a "base" to train from but these people comes from many walks of life. Some even natural citizens of the country they are attacking (England and U.S. are some of the examples) but I guess the old cold war and hit jobs are out of the question (take them out before they take you out)
having this "open war" and the news constantly follow/report about it, kinda give away our position. It is like saying we are going to pull out by X date, well, if I were the enemy, I'll lay low until they leave and start up again.
What is your personal one?
[/QUOTE]edit: unlike not until (stupid auto correct)
my personal one? I personally think it is pretty well organize attack to be orchestrated by some "leader" on dialysis. I think it was allow so the U.S. can attack and hopefully gain control of Iraq to get "cheaper" fuel.
This is not a war about terror. This is a war on fuel crisis (it was getting too high and U.S. is trying to get cheaper fuel)That is the premise of it anyways.
why do I think that?
How do you win an open land war against a terrorist? They might have a "base" to train from but these people comes from many walks of life. Some even natural citizens of the country they are attacking (England and U.S. are some of the examples) but I guess the old cold war and hit jobs are out of the question (take them out before they take you out)
having this "open war" and the news constantly follow/report about it, kinda give away our position. It is like saying we are going to pull out by X date, well, if I were the enemy, I'll lay low until they leave and start up again.[/QUOTE]
You really should read Cobra II. It has a lot of specifics addressing some of the things you're talking about, and the authors do their best not to accuse anyone of anything and just lay out some of what supposedly happened behind the scenes. They had ridiculous, but confirmed, levels of access in the Pentagon and with former admin officials. It's frightening.
C
Chibibar
What is your personal one?
[/QUOTE]edit: unlike not until (stupid auto correct)
my personal one? I personally think it is pretty well organize attack to be orchestrated by some "leader" on dialysis. I think it was allow so the U.S. can attack and hopefully gain control of Iraq to get "cheaper" fuel.
This is not a war about terror. This is a war on fuel crisis (it was getting too high and U.S. is trying to get cheaper fuel)That is the premise of it anyways.
why do I think that?
How do you win an open land war against a terrorist? They might have a "base" to train from but these people comes from many walks of life. Some even natural citizens of the country they are attacking (England and U.S. are some of the examples) but I guess the old cold war and hit jobs are out of the question (take them out before they take you out)
having this "open war" and the news constantly follow/report about it, kinda give away our position. It is like saying we are going to pull out by X date, well, if I were the enemy, I'll lay low until they leave and start up again.[/QUOTE]
You really should read Cobra II. It has a lot of specifics addressing some of the things you're talking about, and the authors do their best not to accuse anyone of anything and just lay out some of what supposedly happened behind the scenes. They had ridiculous, but confirmed, levels of access in the Pentagon and with former admin officials. It's frightening.[/QUOTE]
I will read it when I have a moment to sit down and do it. I hate to do long reading in burst
From what you said, it is kinda scary that if some of my theory actually hold true (or at least on conspiracy level)
There is actually some somewhat compelling evidence that a similar thing may have happened during the Pearl Harbor Attack. The gist of it is that the message warning them of the attack was purposely lost along the chain of command, in order to spur America into action against Germany and Japan (as the people in the US weren't exactly chomping at the bit to get into a war at that time.)
It sounds plausible, but I think that's something that's better lost to time at this point.
It sounds plausible, but I think that's something that's better lost to time at this point.
C
Chibibar
well I can understand (hindsight 20/20) that it is a good thing. Military power has grown A LOT since the world wars (both of them) and now we are a major superpower.
I just think that we, as a nation, SHOULD look into more alternative fuel now. We could have done it 10 years ago (California did have electric cars back then AND charging station) a lot of improvement have been made since then and people should look forward. (part of my theory that people who make money off oil want to continue making money in oil and thus............ result into this war)
The war is 8 years old now. We (the world really) fought a MAJOR war in 4 years, but this just prove that you can't fight terrorism with land war. Our brothers and sisters are fighting a battle with rules, while the enemies do not even care with the rules (at least the world wars most follow some rules)
When the U.S. try to "bend" the rules people get mad (like Gitmo prison) and when the SAME institution is being shut down and want to move the prisoner to U.S. soil, the same people get mad saying "we can't have terrorist on American soil" well DUH!! that is why we have gitmo at the first place...
Sometimes you can't please the public.
K
Kitty Sinatra
The major failing of the Pearl Harbor theory is the obvious truth: A competent defense against the Japanese attack would still have had the US entering the war on all fronts.
There was no reason to simply allow significant military assets get sunk. Indeed, what's really annoying about this conspiracy is that anyone wanting to get into the war would let their warmachines get destroyed before they could be put to use. No one with any intelligence gives their enemy a headstart to victory (and that's why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, anyway - so the US wouldn't get the headstart)
There was no reason to simply allow significant military assets get sunk. Indeed, what's really annoying about this conspiracy is that anyone wanting to get into the war would let their warmachines get destroyed before they could be put to use. No one with any intelligence gives their enemy a headstart to victory (and that's why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, anyway - so the US wouldn't get the headstart)
1 out of 9 who actually took the poll is bad? I dare say that's better than the national average.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Who here has even said their Yes vote indicates a US conspiracy? I voted yes, but because I'm answering the question as written, not as intended.
The war is 8 years old now. We (the world really) fought a MAJOR war in 4 years, but this just prove that you can't fight terrorism with land war. Our brothers and sisters are fighting a battle with rules, while the enemies do not even care with the rules (at least the world wars most follow some rules)
When the U.S. try to "bend" the rules people get mad (like Gitmo prison) and when the SAME institution is being shut down and want to move the prisoner to U.S. soil, the same people get mad saying "we can't have terrorist on American soil" well DUH!! that is why we have gitmo at the first place...
Sometimes you can't please the public.[/QUOTE]
If you go into any conflict involving bloodshed and expect mercy or quarter, then you are in for a nasty surprise.
R
RocketGirl
A bunch of foreigners armed with box cutters get on three planes and manage to fly two of them into buildings? Sounds like a conspiracy to me!
...it just wasn't a conspiracy beyond the obvious, is all.
A bunch of foreigners armed with box cutters get on three planes and manage to fly two of them into buildings? Sounds like a conspiracy to me!
...it just wasn't a conspiracy beyond the obvious, is all.
[/QUOTE]Yeah. I think the poll question needs to be re-done. Most here assumed it referred to a US Government Conspiracy.
US Government Conspiracy
Outside Conspiracy
None
I will read it when I have a moment to sit down and do it. I hate to do long reading in burst
From what you said, it is kinda scary that if some of my theory actually hold true (or at least on conspiracy level)[/QUOTE]
It makes a plausible (the authors are careful about presenting evidence over drawing too many conclusions) case that going back to Iraq was a Bush Admin goal since before 9/11, and that Rumsfeld believed that a failed terrorist attack could provide the national impetus to go back. The authors do not seem to believe that Rumsfeld ever intended to help it along, just that he assumed the attack would fail, and they would be able to turn it into a big propaganda circus for going back.
It more or less matches what Richard Clarke claimed about what Rumsfeld and Cheney were pushing in the Cabinet, only it provides it mostly from what orders were being passed around in the Pentagon.
S
Soliloquy
A bunch of foreigners armed with box cutters get on three planes and manage to fly two of them into buildings? Sounds like a conspiracy to me!
...it just wasn't a conspiracy beyond the obvious, is all.
[/QUOTE]Yeah. I think the poll question needs to be re-done. Most here assumed it referred to a US Government Conspiracy.
US Government Conspiracy
Outside Conspiracy
None[/QUOTE]
What exactly would the "none" option mean? That some guys just went for a joyride in a few airplanes, and crashed?
A bunch of foreigners armed with box cutters get on three planes and manage to fly two of them into buildings? Sounds like a conspiracy to me!
...it just wasn't a conspiracy beyond the obvious, is all.
[/quote]Yeah. I think the poll question needs to be re-done. Most here assumed it referred to a US Government Conspiracy.
US Government Conspiracy
Outside Conspiracy
None[/QUOTE]
We could go a bit further:
* Gov't fully orchestrated attack and/or collapse
* Inbetween (not fully commision, but more than intentional omission)
* Gov't knew enough to stop attack, but chose to allow it
* inbetween (Didn't _choose_ but at least a few people had at least a date and the targets)
* Terrorist conspiracy (Gov't had enough info in hand, but no one pulled it together)
* Inbetween (Willfully ignorant - could have had enough info, but chose to dismiss too much)
* Terrorist conspiracy (Gov't didn't have enough info collected)
Suckers... everybody with half a brain knows that all the conspiracies on the internet are put there to distract us from the real conspiracy... the one involving an evil underground savage race of mole people!!!
P
Philosopher B.
Sheee-it! I knew those mole fuckers were up to something.
This is as close as I can realistically see a US government conspiracy being involved, mostly based on the administration's reaction to it.
North_Ranger
Staff member
I'm not worried about the mole people. The lizard men will surely eat them to extinction.
Don't even joke about that... my friend LOVES David Icke and one of his big things is he believes that there is a race of Lizard People controlling humanity by mind control and that they can shape shift into people, taking over their lives. I'm starting to wonder if she's hanging out with these fringe people because of how bad her experiences with Authoritative figures have been in her life. It was one thing when she was simply a vaccine denier... on some level, I could understand that. But to believe in a guy who thinks Cancer is a fungus, denies AIDs is a problem, and thinks LIZARD PEOPLE ARE CONTROLLING THE PLANET?! *sigh* Why is she making it so hard for me...
North_Ranger
Staff member
Don't even joke about that... my friend LOVES David Icke and one of his big things is he believes that there is a race of Lizard People controlling humanity by mind control and that they can shape shift into people, taking over their lives. I'm starting to wonder if she's hanging out with these fringe people because of how bad her experiences with Authoritative figures have been in her life. It was one thing when she was simply a vaccine denier... on some level, I could understand that. But to believe in a guy who thinks Cancer is a fungus, denies AIDs is a problem, and thinks LIZARD PEOPLE ARE CONTROLLING THE PLANET?! *sigh* Why is she making it so hard for me...[/QUOTE]
I'm... trying my best not to read that last sentence in a double entendre fashion
For some people, it's a matter of mental stability. The human mind's most powerful abilities is the ability to make connections and generalizations of individual phenomena. When that goes haywire, well then you have some major problems.
Then there are people who are after the money. Like those people who keep making 2012 books. What the hell are they going to do with money if we're all gonna kick the bucket?
Then there's the ideologically driven kind. Anarchists, political radicals, and generally people who think there's some grand conspiracy going on. I've started to hate YouTube because when perusing a Schindler's List trailer I came to realize that there's still people out there who think there's "a global Zionist conspiracy" out there to kill/control the rest of us.
And then there's the people who buy into the bullshit of all the people above. Generally I would say it's a matter of intellectual laziness and hindsight gone awry.
This is as close as I can realistically see a US government conspiracy being involved, mostly based on the administration's reaction to it.[/QUOTE]
See, and I can't even go to this point.
The way I see it is like this-
They had information that a coordinated attack was planned for the day (we've seen images of file folders being carried by White House Officials which said just that), but for the most part it was blown off as implausibly unrealistic. I think the attacks succeeded because of outright negligence. President Bush looked utterly shocked when he got the news.
Now here is where people might think I'm being a conspiracy nut. A couple of people in that WH administration were more than happy to take advantage of the tragedy for political gain. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, all people who have been around since the Nixon era. They even had Roger Ailes aiding them on the Fox news front along with Rupert Murdoch (who I think is just happy about the money, tbh).
I think George W. wanted to attack Iraq to show he could "win" where his father pulled back. I think advisors convinced him the best way to do that was to invent a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 tragedy. They all had different reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, though. No bid contracts ensured Cheney and Bush backers would get rich in the process of cleaning up after the war (Haliburton, Blackwater, KBR, etc) and George could have his victory as a war time president (mission accomplished).
So I'm sure I sound a little nutty. I think though that my conspiracy ideas about the U.S. government are pretty tame compared to some though. Besides, sometimes all we need to understand people is to see their greed.
This is as close as I can realistically see a US government conspiracy being involved, mostly based on the administration's reaction to it.[/quote]
See, and I can't even go to this point.
The way I see it is like this-
They had information that a coordinated attack was planned for the day (we've seen images of file folders being carried by White House Officials which said just that), but for the most part it was blown off as implausibly unrealistic. I think the attacks succeeded because of outright negligence. President Bush looked utterly shocked when he got the news.
Now here is where people might think I'm being a conspiracy nut. A couple of people in that WH administration were more than happy to take advantage of the tragedy for political gain. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, all people who have been around since the Nixon era. They even had Roger Ailes aiding them on the Fox news front along with Rupert Murdoch (who I think is just happy about the money, tbh).
I think George W. wanted to attack Iraq to show he could "win" where his father pulled back. I think advisors convinced him the best way to do that was to invent a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 tragedy. They all had different reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, though. No bid contracts ensured Cheney and Bush backers would get rich in the process of cleaning up after the war (Haliburton, Blackwater, KBR, etc) and George could have his victory as a war time president (mission accomplished).
So I'm sure I sound a little nutty. I think though that my conspiracy ideas about the U.S. government are pretty tame compared to some though. Besides, sometimes all we need to understand people is to see their greed.[/QUOTE]
Really, it's not nutty at all, I think.
Whatever the reason for the success of the actual attack on 09/11, it was capitalized on in a big way by the most evil group of motherfuckers to hold power in US history.
There IS a Global Zionist Conspiracy. It's called "For the love of God, please stop blaming us for all the worlds problems and then trying to kill us for them." So far, it seems to be falling apart.
I
Iaculus
This is as close as I can realistically see a US government conspiracy being involved, mostly based on the administration's reaction to it.[/quote]
See, and I can't even go to this point.
The way I see it is like this-
They had information that a coordinated attack was planned for the day (we've seen images of file folders being carried by White House Officials which said just that), but for the most part it was blown off as implausibly unrealistic. I think the attacks succeeded because of outright negligence. President Bush looked utterly shocked when he got the news.
Now here is where people might think I'm being a conspiracy nut. A couple of people in that WH administration were more than happy to take advantage of the tragedy for political gain. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, all people who have been around since the Nixon era. They even had Roger Ailes aiding them on the Fox news front along with Rupert Murdoch (who I think is just happy about the money, tbh).
I think George W. wanted to attack Iraq to show he could "win" where his father pulled back. I think advisors convinced him the best way to do that was to invent a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 tragedy. They all had different reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, though. No bid contracts ensured Cheney and Bush backers would get rich in the process of cleaning up after the war (Haliburton, Blackwater, KBR, etc) and George could have his victory as a war time president (mission accomplished).
So I'm sure I sound a little nutty. I think though that my conspiracy ideas about the U.S. government are pretty tame compared to some though. Besides, sometimes all we need to understand people is to see their greed.[/quote]
Really, it's not nutty at all, I think.
Whatever the reason for the success of the actual attack on 09/11, it was capitalized on in a big way by the most evil group of motherfuckers to hold power in US history.[/QUOTE]
General Thomas S. Power wants a word with you. His mentor, Curtis LeMay, a self-admitted war criminal, described him as a 'sadistic fascist'.
Seriously, there were some scary people running around in high office during the Cold War.
Clinton had just as big a desire to crack down on Iraq as Bush Sr and Bush Jr, but the opportunity didn't present itself during his administration.
I don't understand why people are blaming iraq on Bush - if Clinton or Gore were in the same position, they'd make very similar decisions because this iraq war machine was set in motion long, long before bush jr came into office.
Clinton had just as big a desire to crack down on Iraq as Bush Sr and Bush Jr, but the opportunity didn't present itself during his administration.
I don't understand why people are blaming iraq on Bush - if Clinton or Gore were in the same position, they'd make very similar decisions because this iraq war machine was set in motion long, long before bush jr came into office.[/QUOTE]
When Clinton made the switch in the Armed Forces, from fighting large set-piece battles in open terrain to fighting low intensity conflicts in urban areas, I knew that war with Iraq was going to happen in the near future.
Clinton had just as big a desire to crack down on Iraq as Bush Sr and Bush Jr, but the opportunity didn't present itself during his administration.
I don't understand why people are blaming iraq on Bush - if Clinton or Gore were in the same position, they'd make very similar decisions because this iraq war machine was set in motion long, long before bush jr came into office.[/QUOTE]
I am in awe at how you can compare what someone DID and what someone in your mind may have wanted to do. I simply can not form an argument against an unsupported hypothetical.
- Status