Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there were no Arabic names on the itinerary because they were using *FALSE NAMES*?!?
Supposedly the passports used had the names released by the FBI.
Furthermore, they did use false names. This was discovered when ~6 of the people cited by the FBI as hijackers were found alive. Some of them had actually already known their identities were stolen.
You should spend a bit more time learning the facts rather than speculating.
BTW: the families of most of the people actually killed in 9.11 are some of the most outspoken people about the Bush admins cover-up of something. If you want to really start to understand the events leading up to, during and after 9.11, start here:
I believed they weren't on the flight or arabic either. However then I put the tin foil helmet back on and resumed pulling all the electrical wires out of my house by hand.
Soon I will be free of their government and mind control... until then, I must keep the towels wet... oh wait... the metal pipes that bring the water.. they could transmit mind-control waves... the entire house...now I'll have to take those out too....
Supposedly the passports used had the names released by the FBI.
Furthermore, they did use false names. This was discovered when ~6 of the people cited by the FBI as hijackers were found alive. Some of them had actually already known their identities were stolen.
You should spend a bit more time learning the facts rather than speculating.
Clue: I never said those were the facts. I said it was a reasonable hypothesis, and much easier to believe, at a first cut of merely pondering it for a moment, than to believe that article out of hand, as 100% gospel. Really.
And, a quick check of the facts presented in the article (such as the 'proof' of the American passenger list that was actually only of victims) did nothing to counter that speculation, and only diluted the article's credibility.
Or US would make up "proofs" about biochem weapons. Or would lie in front of UN SC. Or...
There's a difference between good ol' fashioned overblown rhetoric and deceit, and massive conspiracy.
As for Iraqi weapons... as much as I dislike Bush and his administration, and I'm willing to believe that some people involved outright lied, invoking the word "lie" is hardly necessary to explain events. All you have to do is read AI for a short while and it becomes perfectly clear how many people of all sorts of philosophical stripes will hype up information that supports what they want to believe and tune out what doesn't fit. Take some scattered, limited raw intelligence data, throw in an Iraqi regime that was going out of its way to act suspicious, add one American administration that had been looking for a reason to get rid of Saddam well before 9/11... and the end results are perfectly understandable without imagining that anyone in the Bush administration believed themselves to be lying about the threat of WoMD.
Where I do think the Bush administration was very deliberately deceitful was the way they used a few very questionable Iraqi/al Qaeda links and a lot of innuendo to link 9/11 to the Iraqi invasion. This was nothing but a crass and self-serving attempt to "market" the war to the American people -- many of whom happily and uncritically gobbled up this story.
These conspiracy theories about 9/11, however, are quite a different matter from Bush and WoMD. A US-lead fake attack on its own people would take quite a bit more willful lying and deceit, much more coordination, an incredibly difficult challenge of leak suppression among those involved, some of whom, no matter how carefully chosen, would be very likely to have crises of conscience and break rank, and an unimaginably thorough effort to plug any leaks that did occur through threats, buy-offs, and outright murder.
What I think is funny (in a sad way) about much of the conspiracist thinking is the inherent notion that an elaborate US and/or Israeli conspiracy is actually more likely that the apparent events: that Arab extremists, born out of a culture that quite clearly and deeply hates America and Americans, where millions shout "Death to America!" and praise suicide bombers as blessed martyrs and cultural heroes, actually followed through on the very sort of thing they've claimed they wanted to do for years.
I guess in the conspiracist's mind, that what's so brilliant about the conspiracy. Sigh!
From my point of view, I think the more amazing thing than the 9/11 attacks is that we haven't suffered from more or worst terrorist attacks than we have so far. Hurting and killing in massive numbers when you no longer care about getting killed yourself is unfortunately a frighteningly easy thing to do.
I said it was a reasonable hypothesis, and much easier to believe
clue: your reasonable hypothesis is unreasonable in the context of the discussion and the actual event of 9.11. If you actually spent time studying it rather than speculating, you would know this.
Quote:
but I like being disease free.
abstenence is the best prevention. Unfortunately in your case it's apparently unintentional.
These conspiracy theories about 9/11, however, are quite a different matter from Bush and WoMD. A US-lead fake attack on its own people would take quite a bit more willful lying and deceit, much more coordination, an incredibly difficult challenge of leak suppression among those involved, some of whom, no matter how carefully chosen, would be very likely to have crises of conscience and break rank, and an unimaginably thorough effort to plug any leaks that did occur through threats, buy-offs, and outright murder.
1. invoking the term conspiracy theory when discussion 9-11 makes no sense. Obviously a group of people conspired to kill a lot of people, so any theory regarding the situation is by nature a conspiracy theory.
2. study it. anyone that has done so wants an independent investigation, most prominantly the families of those actually killed. The bush admin has forcefully stood in the way of any attempt to investigate the goverments role and/or actions, no matter how little info is requested.
As I said before, the right place to start is the 9-11 timeline put together by CCR
clue: your reasonable hypothesis is unreasonable in the context of the discussion and the actual event of 9.11. If you actually spent time studying it rather than speculating, you would know this.
*sigh* Right. No comment ever made without in depth study has any validity, even when it's a simple example of an alternate hypothesis to a wildly speculative and outright inanely obvious fabrication.
Look, the author of that story blew his own boat of the water with that link. "Hijackers not on American itinerary! Cover-up!" Er, no, that *wasn't* the American itinerary, that was a list of the *victims* from American. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. So apparently the author himself didn't bother to do any fact checking to speak of *in that case*, and instead turned off rational thought and barged on ahead with a pre-decided case. Sad.
Do I think there are coverups in all of this? Oh hell yes. Nice site you linked to, by the way, I'm finding it highly interesting.
But *that article* is such completely transparent claptrap that I'm surprised it's even being discussed. Jeez.
Now, I'd like to see the autopsy reports myself... including those of the hijackers, if possible, *and* I'd like to see the author's FOIA *request*... what was requested? "Autopsy report of flight victims" or "Autopsy report of <these> people" where <these> == that CNN *victim* list... or what?
Sorry, I don't give the author much credibility at this point, when they can't even figure out that a list of victims != a passenger list.
Quote:
abstenence is the best prevention. Unfortunately in your case it's apparently unintentional.
Exactly. I'm far more suspicious of what 'really' happened to Flight 93. Very few questions were answered about the 'explosion' many people saw before the plane crashed, and even less about the '6 miles' of debris leading up to the impact site.
Of course, we are not to question any official findings, for this was the 'Flight of Heros?'. To question is to be Un-American. I, for one, don't buy it.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
OK, so it's poorly written. Does that mean the concept...is flawed or wrong?
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Absolutely.
Well, groverat, you've pretty much dismissed 99% of AO as irrelevant.
1. invoking the term conspiracy theory when discussion 9-11 makes no sense. Obviously a group of people conspired to kill a lot of people, so any theory regarding the situation is by nature a conspiracy theory.
I'm clearly using the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the popular dramatic sense -- Big Government, Big Lies, "They" are watching you, "They" control the media -- as opposed to, say, two people conspiring to rob a liquor store.
There is absolutely nothing amazing about a bunch of Islamist terrorists pulling off something like 9/11 except for the fact that things like this haven't happened more often. Mince words if you will, but this explanation is clearly not the kind of thing I'm calling a "conspiracy theory", even if it is technically a form of conspiracy.
2. study it. anyone that has done so wants an independent investigation, most prominantly the families of those actually killed. The bush admin has forcefully stood in the way of any attempt to investigate the goverments role and/or actions, no matter how little info is requested.
As far as I can tell, the reluctance to investigation is a matter of wanting to avoid the uncovering of incompetence. I've seen nothing hinting at a cover-up of elaborate intrigue.
Grieving families are hardly a source of unbiased opinion. A lot of people simply can't accept big tragedies having small causes. It's as if we'd rather believe a man was killed by one or more men than accept that he died because of a tiny mosquito carrying an even tinier disease.
As I said before, the right place to start is the 9-11 timeline put together by CCR
I found the www.cooperativeresearch.org web site, and while I haven't had a huge amount of time to study it, I really don't see much of anything incredibly convincing so far.
I found the www.cooperativeresearch.org web site, and while I haven't had a huge amount of time to study it, I really don't see much of anything incredibly convincing so far.
It's pretty obvious you haven't studied it if you have that response. Read the timeline, it's just a collection of news stories, which no commentary. I'm not sure what you think it's trying to convince you of. The timeline just presents every news story that could be found in major press in order. Whatever patterns you discover in those is due to the unfolding of events themselves.
Really, until you read the timeline you really don't have any foundation to make informed judgements.
sigh* Right. No comment ever made without in depth study has any validity, even when it's a simple example of an alternate hypothesis to a wildly speculative and outright inanely obvious fabrication.
I hypothesize that rubbing two pieces of paper on an armadillo will cause Mars to become an orange. What does in depth study matter? I say it's valid so it is.
I'm clearly using the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the popular dramatic sense -- Big Government, Big Lies, "They" are watching you, "They" control the media -- as opposed to, say, two people conspiring to rob a liquor store.
If you think I'm creating a strawman, then kindly explain to me how you think a false story about the hijackers being Arab could be perpetrated and concealed for so long without appealing to Big Conspiracy kind of thinking.
There's an obvious, strongly implied story behind claiming that there were no Arabs on Flight 77 -- and it's not that we were attacked by a highly coordinated band of disgruntled Norwegian tourists. The top Big Conspiracy theories are that members of the US government, Israel, or both working together, for some reason decided attacking our own people was a good idea.
I contend that such a conspiracy would require what I'm calling "Big Conspiracy" thinking to explain.
Here's an example from the "collection of news stories, with no commentary", as you call it (emphasis mine), found at CCR:
Quote:
Both images taken at 9:03 a.m.: Bush takes part in a meaningless photo-op, knowing full well the US is already under attack. [left, from Booker video, right from Getty Images]
9:03 AM is the exact minute the second plane struck the WTC. No one really fully grasped we were under a terrorist attack until this moment. Yet we're supposed to take the fact that Bush wasn't rushed out of the room in less than 60 seconds as terribly suspicious? Later on in the same web page, they say Bush wasn't told about the second crash until either 9:05 or 9:07... yet here they try to make something sinister out of what he was doing at 9:03.
That Bush didn't leave the classroom immediately is odd, but not terribly suspicious to me. Not wanting to upset the kids is a bit lame as an excuse, but not out of the question. A lot of people were slow that day to fully comprehend the enormity of what was happening.
I believe in the old adage "Never attribute malice to that which can easily be explained by incompetence." It's something I wish a few conspiracy buffs would learn.
I also have to wonder how the above classroom incident fits with this:
Quote:
A journalist who said Bush was "flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother's bed after having a nightmare" and another who said Bush "skedaddled" were fired. [Washington Post, 9/29/01 (B)]
So, which is it? Bush knew all about the hijackings ahead of time, so he was calm and unconcerned when he shouldn't have been -- thus showing his guilt -- or Bush was running around scared, and strong-armed the press to get this man fired -- thus showing his guilt... of what?
No. To groverat and his league of flunkies, the concept of the article is flawed or wrong because it debunks all the stinking lies the world's been having to stomach the past two years.
Or because it is hypothesis, backed up by faultly logic and open conclusions.
Please detail some of the lies about 9/11 you are referring to. Obviously, they are blatant and we are fools for missing them, and you know the truth, so please enlighten us.
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there were no Arabic names on the itinerary because they were using *FALSE NAMES*?!?
Supposedly the passports used had the names released by the FBI.
Furthermore, they did use false names. This was discovered when ~6 of the people cited by the FBI as hijackers were found alive. Some of them had actually already known their identities were stolen.
You should spend a bit more time learning the facts rather than speculating.
THINK, people... THINK!
Take your own advice, DS.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html
Soon I will be free of their government and mind control... until then, I must keep the towels wet... oh wait... the metal pipes that bring the water.. they could transmit mind-control waves... the entire house...now I'll have to take those out too....
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Supposedly the passports used had the names released by the FBI.
Furthermore, they did use false names. This was discovered when ~6 of the people cited by the FBI as hijackers were found alive. Some of them had actually already known their identities were stolen.
You should spend a bit more time learning the facts rather than speculating.
Clue: I never said those were the facts. I said it was a reasonable hypothesis, and much easier to believe, at a first cut of merely pondering it for a moment, than to believe that article out of hand, as 100% gospel. Really.
And, a quick check of the facts presented in the article (such as the 'proof' of the American passenger list that was actually only of victims) did nothing to counter that speculation, and only diluted the article's credibility.
Take your own advice, DS.
I'd say 'blow me', but I like being disease free.
Originally posted by Anders
Or US would make up "proofs" about biochem weapons. Or would lie in front of UN SC. Or...
There's a difference between good ol' fashioned overblown rhetoric and deceit, and massive conspiracy.
As for Iraqi weapons... as much as I dislike Bush and his administration, and I'm willing to believe that some people involved outright lied, invoking the word "lie" is hardly necessary to explain events. All you have to do is read AI for a short while and it becomes perfectly clear how many people of all sorts of philosophical stripes will hype up information that supports what they want to believe and tune out what doesn't fit. Take some scattered, limited raw intelligence data, throw in an Iraqi regime that was going out of its way to act suspicious, add one American administration that had been looking for a reason to get rid of Saddam well before 9/11... and the end results are perfectly understandable without imagining that anyone in the Bush administration believed themselves to be lying about the threat of WoMD.
Where I do think the Bush administration was very deliberately deceitful was the way they used a few very questionable Iraqi/al Qaeda links and a lot of innuendo to link 9/11 to the Iraqi invasion. This was nothing but a crass and self-serving attempt to "market" the war to the American people -- many of whom happily and uncritically gobbled up this story.
These conspiracy theories about 9/11, however, are quite a different matter from Bush and WoMD. A US-lead fake attack on its own people would take quite a bit more willful lying and deceit, much more coordination, an incredibly difficult challenge of leak suppression among those involved, some of whom, no matter how carefully chosen, would be very likely to have crises of conscience and break rank, and an unimaginably thorough effort to plug any leaks that did occur through threats, buy-offs, and outright murder.
What I think is funny (in a sad way) about much of the conspiracist thinking is the inherent notion that an elaborate US and/or Israeli conspiracy is actually more likely that the apparent events: that Arab extremists, born out of a culture that quite clearly and deeply hates America and Americans, where millions shout "Death to America!" and praise suicide bombers as blessed martyrs and cultural heroes, actually followed through on the very sort of thing they've claimed they wanted to do for years.
I guess in the conspiracist's mind, that what's so brilliant about the conspiracy. Sigh!
From my point of view, I think the more amazing thing than the 9/11 attacks is that we haven't suffered from more or worst terrorist attacks than we have so far. Hurting and killing in massive numbers when you no longer care about getting killed yourself is unfortunately a frighteningly easy thing to do.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I said it was a reasonable hypothesis, and much easier to believe
clue: your reasonable hypothesis is unreasonable in the context of the discussion and the actual event of 9.11. If you actually spent time studying it rather than speculating, you would know this.
but I like being disease free.
abstenence is the best prevention. Unfortunately in your case it's apparently unintentional.
Originally posted by shetline
These conspiracy theories about 9/11, however, are quite a different matter from Bush and WoMD. A US-lead fake attack on its own people would take quite a bit more willful lying and deceit, much more coordination, an incredibly difficult challenge of leak suppression among those involved, some of whom, no matter how carefully chosen, would be very likely to have crises of conscience and break rank, and an unimaginably thorough effort to plug any leaks that did occur through threats, buy-offs, and outright murder.
1. invoking the term conspiracy theory when discussion 9-11 makes no sense. Obviously a group of people conspired to kill a lot of people, so any theory regarding the situation is by nature a conspiracy theory.
2. study it. anyone that has done so wants an independent investigation, most prominantly the families of those actually killed. The bush admin has forcefully stood in the way of any attempt to investigate the goverments role and/or actions, no matter how little info is requested.
As I said before, the right place to start is the 9-11 timeline put together by CCR
Originally posted by giant
clue: your reasonable hypothesis is unreasonable in the context of the discussion and the actual event of 9.11. If you actually spent time studying it rather than speculating, you would know this.
*sigh* Right. No comment ever made without in depth study has any validity, even when it's a simple example of an alternate hypothesis to a wildly speculative and outright inanely obvious fabrication.
Look, the author of that story blew his own boat of the water with that link. "Hijackers not on American itinerary! Cover-up!" Er, no, that *wasn't* the American itinerary, that was a list of the *victims* from American. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. So apparently the author himself didn't bother to do any fact checking to speak of *in that case*, and instead turned off rational thought and barged on ahead with a pre-decided case. Sad.
Do I think there are coverups in all of this? Oh hell yes. Nice site you linked to, by the way, I'm finding it highly interesting.
But *that article* is such completely transparent claptrap that I'm surprised it's even being discussed. Jeez.
Now, I'd like to see the autopsy reports myself... including those of the hijackers, if possible, *and* I'd like to see the author's FOIA *request*... what was requested? "Autopsy report of flight victims" or "Autopsy report of <these> people" where <these> == that CNN *victim* list... or what?
Sorry, I don't give the author much credibility at this point, when they can't even figure out that a list of victims != a passenger list.
abstenence is the best prevention. Unfortunately in your case it's apparently unintentional.
Oooh, good one. Feh.
Originally posted by Eugene
Bush. Missile.
Exactly. I'm far more suspicious of what 'really' happened to Flight 93. Very few questions were answered about the 'explosion' many people saw before the plane crashed, and even less about the '6 miles' of debris leading up to the impact site.
Of course, we are not to question any official findings, for this was the 'Flight of Heros?'. To question is to be Un-American. I, for one, don't buy it.
Originally posted by bunge
OK, so it's poorly written. Does that mean the concept...is flawed or wrong?
Originally posted by groverat
Absolutely.
Well, groverat, you've pretty much dismissed 99% of AO as irrelevant.
Originally posted by giant
1. invoking the term conspiracy theory when discussion 9-11 makes no sense. Obviously a group of people conspired to kill a lot of people, so any theory regarding the situation is by nature a conspiracy theory.
I'm clearly using the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the popular dramatic sense -- Big Government, Big Lies, "They" are watching you, "They" control the media -- as opposed to, say, two people conspiring to rob a liquor store.
There is absolutely nothing amazing about a bunch of Islamist terrorists pulling off something like 9/11 except for the fact that things like this haven't happened more often. Mince words if you will, but this explanation is clearly not the kind of thing I'm calling a "conspiracy theory", even if it is technically a form of conspiracy.
2. study it. anyone that has done so wants an independent investigation, most prominantly the families of those actually killed. The bush admin has forcefully stood in the way of any attempt to investigate the goverments role and/or actions, no matter how little info is requested.
As far as I can tell, the reluctance to investigation is a matter of wanting to avoid the uncovering of incompetence. I've seen nothing hinting at a cover-up of elaborate intrigue.
Grieving families are hardly a source of unbiased opinion. A lot of people simply can't accept big tragedies having small causes. It's as if we'd rather believe a man was killed by one or more men than accept that he died because of a tiny mosquito carrying an even tinier disease.
As I said before, the right place to start is the 9-11 timeline put together by CCR
I found the www.cooperativeresearch.org web site, and while I haven't had a huge amount of time to study it, I really don't see much of anything incredibly convincing so far.
Originally posted by shetline
I found the www.cooperativeresearch.org web site, and while I haven't had a huge amount of time to study it, I really don't see much of anything incredibly convincing so far.
It's pretty obvious you haven't studied it if you have that response. Read the timeline, it's just a collection of news stories, which no commentary. I'm not sure what you think it's trying to convince you of. The timeline just presents every news story that could be found in major press in order. Whatever patterns you discover in those is due to the unfolding of events themselves.
Really, until you read the timeline you really don't have any foundation to make informed judgements.
Originally posted by Kickaha
sigh* Right. No comment ever made without in depth study has any validity, even when it's a simple example of an alternate hypothesis to a wildly speculative and outright inanely obvious fabrication.
I hypothesize that rubbing two pieces of paper on an armadillo will cause Mars to become an orange. What does in depth study matter? I say it's valid so it is.
Or so you would say
Originally posted by shetline
I'm clearly using the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the popular dramatic sense -- Big Government, Big Lies, "They" are watching you, "They" control the media -- as opposed to, say, two people conspiring to rob a liquor store.
to quote groverat: strawman
Are you trying to stir the pot? hehehehe
Fellows
Originally posted by groverat
No Arab names on the manifest + a couple of the accused being alive != conspiracy, especially a Bush conspiracy.
Is this thread about a Bush conspiracy?
Originally posted by giant
to quote groverat: strawman
If you think I'm creating a strawman, then kindly explain to me how you think a false story about the hijackers being Arab could be perpetrated and concealed for so long without appealing to Big Conspiracy kind of thinking.
There's an obvious, strongly implied story behind claiming that there were no Arabs on Flight 77 -- and it's not that we were attacked by a highly coordinated band of disgruntled Norwegian tourists. The top Big Conspiracy theories are that members of the US government, Israel, or both working together, for some reason decided attacking our own people was a good idea.
I contend that such a conspiracy would require what I'm calling "Big Conspiracy" thinking to explain.
Here's an example from the "collection of news stories, with no commentary", as you call it (emphasis mine), found at CCR:
Both images taken at 9:03 a.m.: Bush takes part in a meaningless photo-op, knowing full well the US is already under attack. [left, from Booker video, right from Getty Images]
9:03 AM is the exact minute the second plane struck the WTC. No one really fully grasped we were under a terrorist attack until this moment. Yet we're supposed to take the fact that Bush wasn't rushed out of the room in less than 60 seconds as terribly suspicious? Later on in the same web page, they say Bush wasn't told about the second crash until either 9:05 or 9:07... yet here they try to make something sinister out of what he was doing at 9:03.
That Bush didn't leave the classroom immediately is odd, but not terribly suspicious to me. Not wanting to upset the kids is a bit lame as an excuse, but not out of the question. A lot of people were slow that day to fully comprehend the enormity of what was happening.
I believe in the old adage "Never attribute malice to that which can easily be explained by incompetence." It's something I wish a few conspiracy buffs would learn.
I also have to wonder how the above classroom incident fits with this:
A journalist who said Bush was "flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother's bed after having a nightmare" and another who said Bush "skedaddled" were fired. [Washington Post, 9/29/01 (B)]
So, which is it? Bush knew all about the hijackings ahead of time, so he was calm and unconcerned when he shouldn't have been -- thus showing his guilt -- or Bush was running around scared, and strong-armed the press to get this man fired -- thus showing his guilt... of what?
Originally posted by der Kopf
No. To groverat and his league of flunkies, the concept of the article is flawed or wrong because it debunks all the stinking lies the world's been having to stomach the past two years.
Or because it is hypothesis, backed up by faultly logic and open conclusions.
Please detail some of the lies about 9/11 you are referring to. Obviously, they are blatant and we are fools for missing them, and you know the truth, so please enlighten us.
This thread is ****ing Stupid
Originally posted by SDW2001
Five Words:
This thread is ****ing Stupid
And yet you whine, bitch, and moan when anyone says something similar about yours.
Originally posted by Tulkas you know the truth, so please enlighten us.
I do know the truth. I'll be working on my statement.