Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread

by **pacino** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:00:54

Philly the Kid wrote:I would add as well...

That history teaches us.

There are many people who may still beleive that the Japanse boming Pearl Harbor was totally unexpected and a shock and there was no other context.

There are many who may still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone-gunman whacko who killled a sitting president without any other context or association.

There are many who know nothing about the CIA overthrowing the duly elected presidents of Iran and Chile in 54 and 73, or the US behavior and who was behind them in the Phillipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico -- in the 1890's and early 1900's.

But history has taught us a lot. British Petroleum in Nigeria, the murder of author Ken Sowaweta (sp?).

Placing and supprting the Zionists in Palestine.

Vagaries of United Fruit Co., Standard Oil ... on and on and on. The manipulation of elections around the world, the installation of puppet regimes. Heck, just in the last few years the CIA/US Military went in an removed Aristide from Haiti and installed the butcher whacko Junta puppet regime (minority).

This is history -- the facts are out there and come out in time, at least in some part. And I'm certain that some day, many things that are so called "whacko" "extremist" "conspiracy theories" about Bush-Cheney will come out as estalbished facts. Some of them I think are already out there, just not publicized or generally accepted. They will be.

I will tell you 1 thing. There are a LOT of people, structural engineers, scientists and other experts who ALL do not believe those towers could collapse in the manner their did, including Building 7, in the way the mainstream media has explained it to us. These are a large and disparate group of experts and in total, it's beyond a counter theory, but a prevailing expert theory -- that those Towers fell like a planned demolition.

And those who deny that well documented and explained scientific view, are like those in the 60's who deined 'smoking was bad for your lungs', and as the decades went on, that shifted adn eventually ubiquity was achieved and there is virtually no one credible left who tries to explain that smoking isn't bad for your health, and or tries to mitigate it with 'proper use' or 'limited use' etc...

Things will come in the future about the last 8 years that will bring many of the assertions of extremist whackos back in to credibility. History has taught us that.

You fail. THis is low, even for this thread.

by **Philly the Kid** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:08:28

I've posted authors, journalists and sites in prior threads or on the old board. When I have time, I'll try to find some stuff again. Tehre's plenty, and it's not a couple things like Esoteric Agenda and Zeitgeist the Movie. Though there are some intereting bits in those.

I listen to a lot of so-called alternative media sources, radio and print. I've heard many many many lectures/talks by a range of experts, interviews with some of these researchers and investigative journalists.

And very few facts that have been thrown have ever been refuted including by anyone here.

And no one here ever bring in a historical view point. I sited many other well documented events in history that the US and US lead corproations were behind. Anyone here want to defend the Lee Harvey theory? Want to deny the CIA overthrew Mossadec in Iran, Allende in Chile? That United Fruit and Standard Oil has been involved in altering leaders and the fate of countries and cost lives for their profits and power?

See, I see 911 in a continuum, not in isolation. I believe the Atocha train bombing in Madrid was engineered in the same way by the same kind of characters and many other things that seem to have occured.

I know this much -- the 'official story on 911' that CBS news says and that teh White House has told us -- is likely NOT true or complete.

Believe what you want. I'm no stooge or gullible rookie.

by **Disco Stu** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:12:16

I heard that they killed the hundreds of contractors that actually rigged the building to keep themfrom talking.

by **pacino** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:13:09

Disco Stu wrote:I heard that they killed the hundreds of contractors that actually rigged the building to keep themfrom talking.

No, the THOUSANDS of people it would've taken to pull off this huge charade all kept quiet. They're just very loyal.

by **The Red Tornado** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:14:42

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOxU2H-O0FM&feature=related[/youtube]

[/youtube]

by **Woody** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:18:04

Holy crap.

Just because the CIA overthrew some Iranian years ago doesn't mean they blew up the Twin Towers.

Just because we might not have the whole story doesn't mean that the story is sinister.

Just because you listen to some so-called alternative media doesn't mean you're more enlightened or have more information than others.

Just because I ask you repeatedly for evidence and you answer that you'll look for it sometime doesn't mean there actually is any.

You're a rambling, incoherent mess. I award you no points, and may Cheney's New World Order have mercy on your soul.

(p.s. I've yet to meet anyone willing to fess up to being a stooge)

by **Disco Stu** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:18:39

pacino wrote:
Disco Stu wrote:I heard that they killed the hundreds of contractors that actually rigged the building to keep themfrom talking.

No, the THOUSANDS of people it would've taken to pull off this huge charade all kept quiet. They're just very loyal.

Lets not forget that explosives are always placed on the 37th floor (or whatever) when trying to demolish a building. If there is no floor that high, they add more levels.

by **Woody** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:25:35

An evil conservative think tank released this under the guise of 'Popular Mechanics', one of the world's leading science and technology publications

by **pacino** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:26:41

this thread usually only reaches about 20 pages before it completely devolves into BS. It took about 34 this time, a new record.

by **meatball** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:30:54

I'd find these 911 theories a lot more palatable if they weren't wrought with at least 12 different logical fallacies. PTK, you strike me as an intelligent person, so why ignore logic in this case?

by **mpmcgraw** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:42:28

Philly the Kid wrote:
Since shortly after it happened, I have been following trails of info.

LOL I swear to god this guy thinks he is Jake Green from Jericho.

by **dajafi** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:57:47

Philly the Kid wrote:And no one here ever bring in a historical view point. I sited many other well documented events in history that the US and US lead corproations were behind. Anyone here want to defend the Lee Harvey theory? Want to deny the CIA overthrew Mossadec in Iran, Allende in Chile? That United Fruit and Standard Oil has been involved in altering leaders and the fate of countries and cost lives for their profits and power?

At the risk of sounding naive... none of these are good parallels to suggesting that "9/11 was an inside job." Covert events in Iran and Chile in the '50s and '70s are, by definition, easier to obscure than wiring gigantic buildings for demolition in downtown Manhattan in 2001. Not to mention that, with all due respect to the subsequent miseries of Iranians and Chileans, the everyday American in the 21st century would care a hell of a lot more about this topic.

The media culture was way different back then as well; I don't know exactly when it was revealed that we knocked over Mossadegh or Arbenz (Guatemala, I think in the late '50s--that was United Fruit), but it's certainly plausible that the Eisenhower administration could have gone to any journalists who did uncover CIA involvement at the time and said, "Don't publish this for national security reasons," and that the reporters would have agreed. I'm 99 percent sure that wouldn't happen now.

I thinkthis was the piecethat convinced me about the fundamental unseriousness of the "9/11 Truth Movement," as well as the fact that, as I've written before in these threads, their allegations let the government off the hook for their everyday ineptitude. Matt Taibbi wrote:

I don't have the space here to address every single reason why 9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid, so I'll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime.

Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?

Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about "Able Danger" and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski's Pirates.

The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:

A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for the New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to Al Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote-control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with Al Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

by **Woody** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 17:09:00

It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 17:11:55

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 17:15:33

meatball wrote:I'd find these 911 theories a lot more palatable if they weren't wrought with at least 12 different logical fallacies. PTK, you strike me as an intelligent person, so why ignore logic in this case?

You can't argue a conspiracy theory. The one side will always say "but that's part of the conspiracy" or "you've been led to believe that" or "that's what they want you to think" or something of the sort.

With that in mind, the intelligence of the individual you are arguing with has little to do with it.

by **dajafi** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 17:27:20

jerseyhoya wrote:
RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of $#@! nowhere.

The whole imagined conversation is pretty great, except that for some reason Cheney addresses Rummy as "Dick."

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 17:29:21

Yeah, I didn't get that. Though I suppose you might have called him that at certain times. :wink:

Maybe the author of the article has as well.

It's hilarious though.

by **dajafi** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 17:34:13

Taibbi has a book out, "The Great Derangement," the thesis of which is essentially what he writes (and what Woody cited a bit of) at the end of this article--that large chunks of the American public on both the left and the right have broken off into their own little, mutually exclusive realities.

A big section of the book evidently is about his adventures in the 9/11 Truth Movement, which he did undercover. He also joined John Hagee's church, and I read an excerpt of that section--good but not great. I would like to read his full account of the Truthers, but not quite enough as yet to buy the book.

by **Philly the Kid** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 18:25:02

I want to clarify a couple things...

I don't know what the Truth is? I don't.

I never said I did. The only thing I asserted today, is that I've heard enough credible non-political engineers and science people discuss in great detail, why the physics of the crashed planes topping the towers is unlikely and begs a lot of questions.

While the hurried shipping of all the metal on barges to china or the sudden change in security company for the towers and the supposed connection to Bush to the head of that security agency -- are by no means smoking guns....

What I'm asserting is this:

The "official story" parroted by mainstream news outlets like Fox, CNN, CBS and even NY Times - as well as the 911 Commission or the White House itself -- are not believable to me.

That doesn't mean every theory posited is valid. Unfortunately, it's usually the right-wingers that refuse to open files, and debate the left-wingers in an open forum. I would luv to see some of the 911 Truth people debating others at 8pm on CBS. Why won't that happen? I'd like to know why the people of America can't see the video footage on teh Hotel and Gas Station that may have had an angle on whatever flew toward the Pentagon? Those tapes were confiscated and have never been seen? Why? If what the govt has told is true, then the tapes would confirm or show nothing conclusive. It's little things like these that make me distrustful. Not proof of anything, but shapes my distrust of govt. secrecy.

As well, I put it out there that for me, there is a historical context and a continuum. No matter what i say, someone here will pick on and take out of context. So now Iran in 54 or Chile in 73 are not relevant examples. As usual you pick on some brief siting I make rather than extrapolating the larger point and suddenly I'm no longer credible.

Again -- I don't know what happened. But there are many disturbing questions and coincidences. I do not deny that there are people from foreign lands who have been brainwashed (many of them orphans indoctronated at a young age) who hold the gun or wheel or trigger. But who funds them, trains them -- do people here deny Bin Laden's connection to Bush family? To prior objectives? Saddam as well?

Do you think Cheney and Bush have no broad agenda? No world view? You think they stand for liberty, freedom, equality?? Do you?! Cause if you do, then you are a flaming idiot.

I don't have to defend anything to flippant jack-a-holes on a sport forum. I appreciate the well considered comments some of the more reasonable and articulate posters add to the discussion. I realize that many things I assert off-the-cuff or in the heat of debate should, fairly, have some supporting evidence. I've brought a bit of that in the past, I'll bring some again in the future. I've tried to explain that I haven't formed these opions based on one event, or one thing I read on a website or saw in some propoganda style movie on YouTube. I realize that me descibring 7 years of following information streams, isn't the same as presenting a summary of that info with sited references. I've also stated I'm not a researcher, investigative reporter -- I'm a citizen with a curious and active mind and suspicious tendency to power -- which tends to corrupt.

What I feel secure in believing though -- is that the Bush White House is covering more than just bungling of prevention and handling the crisis as it happened.

And if people don't think that powerful entities in govt and corporate and black opps and off the books and all the rest -- don't actually have agendas, meetings, kill people, ruin lives -- and scheme stuff up -- then you are very very naive. What their role was in 911 -- did they have any role? I don't know -- but many think they did. It's not all outlandish and the mere fact that the govt types won't go in public to debate their challengers -- hide behind either indignancy, or 'threats to national security" nonsense, is enough to continue to make me very unsettled.

by **philliesr98** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 18:37:39

Philly the Kid wrote:
I don't know what the Truth is? I don't.

best.?.use.ever

Archived

Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread