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.
As much as I think Bush JR. is the dumbest president (and i don't mean this as an insult, simply a description of his brain power) we have ever had...
To say he wasn't rushed out makes complete sense. To most it seemed like a horrible accident where a single airplane hit a building (happened to the empire state build as well If i recall) a long time ago.
I'm almost sure there was an car accident on 57th and Park ave. that very morning. Should he have rushed out of whatever room he was at the time too?
As much as I think Bush JR. is the dumbest president (and i don't mean this as an insult, simply a description of his brain power) we have ever had...
I'm with you so far.
To say he wasn't rushed out makes complete sense.
To say he wasn't rushed out more than makes sense... it's a simple statement of fact about how the events are known to have unfolded.
To most it seemed like a horrible accident where a single airplane hit a building (happened to the empire state build as well If i recall) a long time ago.
If you're talking about before 9:05 (or 9:07), that's exactly my point. I think we're in violent agreement here, but you haven't realized it yet.
I'm almost sure there was an car accident on 57th and Park ave. that very morning. Should he have rushed out of whatever room he was at the time too?
I don't get your reasoning...
Is there something going on here, like you read the caption to that picture I posted, and you're taking the caption as an expression of my view, not the view I was arguing against?
Just to be clear: I've been arguing against making a big deal out of Bush's reactions that day.
ok. i will re-read maybe i missed something. then again i'm about 1/2 hour away from some mexican beer and closing down for the day so if i don't get back to you...
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.
THIS is a most exhaustive and complete timeline of 9-11. No matter what anyones' thoughts and opinions are re. 9-11, this is a fascinating read for all...there is a huge amount of information here, withevery event in the time-line linked back to the corresponding media reports, and all the different parties involved neatly color-coded.
Bush was told that "America is under attack" by chief of staff Card at 9:06 and casually goes on with the previously arranged plans as if nothing is out of the ordinary. Bush leaves the Booker Elementary School at 9-34 am nearly a full half hour after being aware that mainland America was under it's worst ever attack, and by an unknown enemy.
In contrast, shortly after 9-00am at the White House, secret service agents lift Cheney by the arms and nearly carry him to a bunker underneath the White House, action that would be expected in such a dire emergency. Why did the secret service agents accompanying the President do *nothing* for half an hour, knowing full well that Bush's exact location was public domain for at least 48 hours before the attacks occurred? If the President's life was in danger, then also those 200 kids who were attending that speech in the school were also in the same danger.
Members of the Secret Service are detailed to protect the President at all times, and to sacrifice their own lives if necessary. Something is extremely wrong with what happened that day....and *nobody* has even been fired.
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?
I think the point is that we don't know. Despite the massive changes brought about by 9/11, there are clear inconsistencies in what various newspapers reported that remain unresolved. Things like rumsfeld being carried to safety by government agents while at the same time Bush is standing about in public like the grinning chimp he is.
Or that the top brass that secure the US being in a phone meeting for 2 hours, starting an hour after 9/11 happened, which no-one interrupted to point out that the US was under attack.
People want to know what really happened and why. And yet your dismissing this because the people who want to know what happened don't know what happened?
Is blocking an investigation really the best way to clear these issues up and prevent future disasters?
People want to know what really happened and why. And yet your dismissing this because the people who want to know what happened don't know what happened?
Is blocking an investigation really the best way to clear these issues up and prevent future disasters?
The only thing I'm dismissing is leaps to wild conclusions. I'd have been quite happy to see more investigation done.
It's one thing to point out a few inconsistencies and bit of strange or obstructionist behavior. It's another to say... therefore it was Bush's Plan! He did this to us! It's all a US-Israeli plot!
Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario: Tomorrow morning, a massive asteroid slams into the Earth, not big enough to wipe out all life, but killing several million people and causing mass environmental and property damage. Let us further presume that this was, in this hypothetical reality, a total surprise to everyone. To really stir things up, let's imagine that the impact zone was in an Arab country.
Regardless of the facts, there would be some utterly, sadly predictable results:
Millions of people would believe that THEY knew the asteroid was coming, and deliberately hid it from everyone. Every rich or powerful person who managed to avoid the impact zone and subsequent destruction would be cited as as PROOF that THEY KNEW, THE BASTARDS, THEY KNEW! Who "they" were would fall conveniently along existing lines of political and religious predispositions.
A sizeable number of people would not merely believe that an impending natural disaster was hidden from us, but that somehow THEY had CAUSED the disaster!
Those who say the asteroid strike was nothing but a natural disaster that caught us completely by surprise would be called naive, blindly swallowing what the politicians and media tell them, in denial of the "obvious facts", and worse, they'd be accused of having been "in on it".
And you know what else? If you went looking for "facts" to "prove" any of this, you'd find them. In the confusion, conflicting accounts would arise. People whose minute-by-minute actions were microexamined would show irregularites. People afraid of being made scapegoats or of being accused of incompetence for not having discovered the asteroid in time would resist and block investigations.
When I look at all I've seen hyped up about 9/11 so far, I've seen nothing yet that rises above this kind of predictable result.
Shetline just single-handedly bumped up the intelligence of this thread by an order of magnitude. Thank you. Sadly, I do not have the patience nor the writing skills to do that, so I'm indebted.
I think that's because you're not even smart enough to see that this door swings both ways.
Are you polite enough to handle this discussion without pompous ad hominem attacks?
Of course I can see that the door swings both ways. I can't deny that a US and/or Israeli conspiracy is possible, but I can say that available information doesn't make it seem very probable.
These collections of time-line "evidence" that have been linked to, that consist of (sometimes merely implied) questions like "What was so-and-so doing for this hour of time? Why did X deny Y? Why didn't the President rush out of the room?" have to be balanced against these overwhelmingly obvious facts that you don't even need to do a lot of digging to find:
Millions of Islamic extremists have for many years chanted "Death to America!" and a lot of them really, really mean it. "Death to America!" is not simply a quaint Arab way of saying "You annoy us and we're a bit upset."
Islamic extremists explode themselves on a quite regular basis, with the goal of taking as many Israeli lives with them as possible, and they go for American lives whenever they get the chance. These people are accorded the status of cultural heroes in much of the Arab world. Funds are set up to pay pensions to the families of suicide bombers.
If a man is murdered the day after someone else was heard loudly and publically screaming death threats at the man, the screaming man quite naturally and fairly becomes the prime suspect. Could yet another person take advantage of this situation to misdirect blame? Of course. However, the obvious burden of evidence is clearly and rightly heavier on anyone who wishes to prove the guilt of a suspect other than the the man who made obvious threats, especially if the threatener had means, motive, and opportunity.
Show me your evidence. Don't just lazily point to pages and pages of web resources -- summarize and analyze whatever you consider the most salient evidence against the "standard version" of who's to blame for 9/11. The burden of evidence is yours, and it's a cheap debate tactic to play the game "Well, if you haven't study everything I've studied, it's not my fault you're so willfully ignorant!"
Are you polite enough to handle this discussion without pompous ad hominem attacks?
Here is what you said:
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
And you know what else? If you went looking for "facts" to "prove" any of this, you'd find them.
What I'm saying is that I don't think that you understand that the logic you used to come up with this argument is just as valid when used to debunk your debunking. If you go looking for "facts" to "disprove" any of this, you'll find them.
What I'm saying is that I don't think that you understand that the logic you used to come up with this argument is just as valid when used to debunk your debunking. If you go looking for "facts" to "disprove" any of this, you'll find them.
Again, I already admitted that, as you say "the door swings both ways". Which is why you have to look at whether the evidence rises above the expected "noise floor", and the noise floor has to be evaluated in terms of burden of proof.
Will it help if I say it flat out? Yes, if the US and/or Israel really had been behind 9/11, a lot of people would refuse to believe the truth, and they'd desperately look for anything that helped them avoid that truth. Are you happy now?
Again... where's the burden of proof highest? Given the respective burdens of proof, in which case does the purported evidence rise above the expected noise floor of spurious evidence that people can always latch onto to support whatever they'd like to believe?
The case that Arab Islamic terrorists, acting on their own, committed the 9/11 attacks doesn't require a very high burden of proof. People with a deep hatred of the US, with a willingness to commit suicide to accomplish their mission, backed by a culture that praises and supports such actions, backed by religious beliefs that promise eternal paradise for such actions, taking advantage of lax US airport security (I was amazed to learn after the fact that box cutters were actually allowed onto airplanes) did exactly the kind of thing many Arab Islamic terrorist groups have gleefully, loudly crowed that they'd like to do for many, many years.
We have video of the terrorists passing through the airports.
We have the accounts of flight instructors who remember these men, and who recount the odd desire of these men to spend more time practicing steering than the usual effort on take-off and landing.
We have the video of bin Laden and his cohorts merrily discussing the wonderful success of their plans. Even in public denials of involvement, bin Laden praised and supported the attacks.
There are trails of forensic evidence leading back to cars used by the hijackers, places they stayed, places they travelled for training, etc.
Can you dismiss this evidence? Sure, it's easy wave your hands and call it government lies, faked video, tampered evidence, etc. But given the circumstances, where's the greatest burden of proof?
I've invited you to submit your evidence for your view of events. I invite you again. Citing references if you please, but still giving your own analysis and account, present what you consider the most compelling evidence for US and/or Israeli involvement in carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
If the Bush administration really planned this thing, why did Bush stay at that school a bit longer (actually they did vut the trip short)? Why did he stay in public for a few more minutes, and others almost immediately were excorted to hiding places? I mean, if you were going to plan the attacks, wouldn't you plan this part a little more convincingly? Wouldn't you have planned either Bush getting pushed into a motorcade and racing off, or giving a good speech or something else that made it look like more of an emergency and that a real procedure was in place? Wouldn't the whole thing have fewer flub-ups, and everyone act more consistently, do their "jobs" a little better if they planned the whole thing ahead of time? Don't the oddities and inconsistencies lend themselves to the contrary in reality? Kihaha is right, use Occham's razor liberally when considering these things. How would you have done it?
If the Bush administration really planned this thing, why did Bush stay at that school a bit longer (actually they did vut the trip short)?
What the hell are you and shetline arguing against? I have no idea where you got this, dare I say it, strawman position from.
There are many intertwined threads that suggest stupidity, incompetence, malice and foreknowledge in many different areas. This is however different from claiming that the moon landings were fabricated and the 9/11 attacks were committed by Israeli secret service members disguised as arabs.
Apparently I have to create an entire alternate reality that you deem plausible before you admit that there are things about 9/11 that are *staggeringly* odd.
Just the fact that ever since 9/11, Iraq has dominated the related coverage while the (real!) Saudi connection has always been played down leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The surveys of your countryfolks show how successful this misdirection has been, and the report of Rumsfield jotting down a note, hours after 9/11, that this would be a good opportunity to go after Iraq and "sweep up things related and not" (my emphasis) would make my blood boil if I thought the death of anyone related to me was being exploited to push unrelated policy objectives.
Why not check some history books out of your local library before spouting this shit about how your (or any other) government can do no wrong, either through malice or negligance.
And, while I'm up on my high-horse, is there anything sadder than the chorus of hideously smug and painfully unfunny tinfoil hat jokes that appear whenever someone has the gall to suggest that some of the rich and powerful may actually use their riches and power for ends that are not for the greater good?
God forbid that the rich (and the army, but that's a different rant) are not all the ****ing saints your twisted right-wing agendas make them out to be.
What the hell are you and shetline arguing against? I have no idea where you got this, dare I say it, strawman position from.
?God forbid that the rich (and the army, but that's a different rant) are not all the ****ing saints your twisted right-wing agendas make them out to be.
Okay, maybe I'm stupider? like a fox, but I thought the whole point of this thread was to argue that the 9/11 events were planned by our administration. That'w here my comment comes from. Understand the connection? I have no idea why this would be considered a strawman argument. We're talking stagin the whole thing, no? Did I miss the memo? Am I really stupider? like a fox?
I do not have any twisted right-wing agendas, and don't even understand the comment about the "rich" being "****ing saints." What do the rich have to do with this? I thought we were arguing the administration (who, granted, are largely rich). I do not have agendas. That's why I'm pinting out these things, for those of you with a "twisted" super-left-wing agenda. Healthy skepticism is one thing I'm willing to entertain, and in that last post, I was entertaining it. I don't understand where you're coming from at all, why you're so mad.
What the hell are you and shetline arguing against? I have no idea where you got this, dare I say it, strawman position from.
I'm arguing against the premise of this thread, "No Arabs on Flight 77," something that seems highly unlikely to me. I'm also arguing against the point of view that generally follows claims of this sort. There are only so many alternatives to Arab terrorists generally proposed, and Basque separatists aren't in the top ten.
There are many intertwined threads that suggest stupidity, incompetence, malice and foreknowledge in many different areas. This is however different from claiming that the moon landings were fabricated and the 9/11 attacks were committed by Israeli secret service members disguised as arabs.
Stupidity and incompetence I have no problem seeing, or believing. Malice, to the extent of taking advantage of public anger over 9/11 to stir up support for an invasion of Iraq, pretending that there was any substantial connection, I see. Foreknowledge? Perhaps to the extent of signs that should have been heeded better.
Apparently I have to create an entire alternate reality that you deem plausible before you admit that there are things about 9/11 that are *staggeringly* odd.
I haven't asked anything of you in particular. If all you want to do is point out oddness, without claiming things like "No Arabs on Flight 77", I have no dispute with you.
Just the fact that ever since 9/11, Iraq has dominated the related coverage while the (real!) Saudi connection has always been played down leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I have no dispute with you here either. I'm quite aware of the political games with our dubious Saudi "friends".
The surveys of your countryfolks show how successful this misdirection has been, and the report of Rumsfield jotting down a note, hours after 9/11, that this would be a good opportunity to go after Iraq and "sweep up things related and not" (my emphasis) would make my blood boil if I thought the death of anyone related to me was being exploited to push unrelated policy objectives.
Again, I concur with you. How on earth have you read disagreement with such things into what I've written?
Why not check some history books out of your local library before spouting this shit about how your (or any other) government can do no wrong, either through malice or negligance.
My dear Mr. S. L. a. Fox, you and I have both been writing on AI for a while now. I'd have to conclude you haven't been paying much attention to my posts in this thread, or any other thread all this time, if you think I have such rosy ideas about our government -- especially with Bush in power.
I could continue this point by point, by suffice to say the rest of what you wrote continued to go way off track following from the derailment above.
I certainly don't recall the last time I was accused of have a "twisted right-wing agenda".
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Every time I think the threads can't get dumber, here we are.
Good thing you no longer have to wade through my crap, or do you...
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.
As much as I think Bush JR. is the dumbest president (and i don't mean this as an insult, simply a description of his brain power) we have ever had...
To say he wasn't rushed out makes complete sense. To most it seemed like a horrible accident where a single airplane hit a building (happened to the empire state build as well If i recall) a long time ago.
I'm almost sure there was an car accident on 57th and Park ave. that very morning. Should he have rushed out of whatever room he was at the time too?
I don't get your reasoning...
Originally posted by keyboardf12
As much as I think Bush JR. is the dumbest president (and i don't mean this as an insult, simply a description of his brain power) we have ever had...
I'm with you so far.
To say he wasn't rushed out makes complete sense.
To say he wasn't rushed out more than makes sense... it's a simple statement of fact about how the events are known to have unfolded.
To most it seemed like a horrible accident where a single airplane hit a building (happened to the empire state build as well If i recall) a long time ago.
If you're talking about before 9:05 (or 9:07), that's exactly my point. I think we're in violent agreement here, but you haven't realized it yet.
I'm almost sure there was an car accident on 57th and Park ave. that very morning. Should he have rushed out of whatever room he was at the time too?
I don't get your reasoning...
Is there something going on here, like you read the caption to that picture I posted, and you're taking the caption as an expression of my view, not the view I was arguing against?
Just to be clear: I've been arguing against making a big deal out of Bush's reactions that day.
Originally posted by giant
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
No, I'd say this is a complete waste of my time.
Bush was told that "America is under attack" by chief of staff Card at 9:06 and casually goes on with the previously arranged plans as if nothing is out of the ordinary. Bush leaves the Booker Elementary School at 9-34 am nearly a full half hour after being aware that mainland America was under it's worst ever attack, and by an unknown enemy.
In contrast, shortly after 9-00am at the White House, secret service agents lift Cheney by the arms and nearly carry him to a bunker underneath the White House, action that would be expected in such a dire emergency. Why did the secret service agents accompanying the President do *nothing* for half an hour, knowing full well that Bush's exact location was public domain for at least 48 hours before the attacks occurred? If the President's life was in danger, then also those 200 kids who were attending that speech in the school were also in the same danger.
Members of the Secret Service are detailed to protect the President at all times, and to sacrifice their own lives if necessary. Something is extremely wrong with what happened that day....and *nobody* has even been fired.
Originally posted by shetline
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?
I think the point is that we don't know. Despite the massive changes brought about by 9/11, there are clear inconsistencies in what various newspapers reported that remain unresolved. Things like rumsfeld being carried to safety by government agents while at the same time Bush is standing about in public like the grinning chimp he is.
Or that the top brass that secure the US being in a phone meeting for 2 hours, starting an hour after 9/11 happened, which no-one interrupted to point out that the US was under attack.
People want to know what really happened and why. And yet your dismissing this because the people who want to know what happened don't know what happened?
Is blocking an investigation really the best way to clear these issues up and prevent future disasters?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
People want to know what really happened and why. And yet your dismissing this because the people who want to know what happened don't know what happened?
Is blocking an investigation really the best way to clear these issues up and prevent future disasters?
The only thing I'm dismissing is leaps to wild conclusions. I'd have been quite happy to see more investigation done.
It's one thing to point out a few inconsistencies and bit of strange or obstructionist behavior. It's another to say... therefore it was Bush's Plan! He did this to us! It's all a US-Israeli plot!
Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario: Tomorrow morning, a massive asteroid slams into the Earth, not big enough to wipe out all life, but killing several million people and causing mass environmental and property damage. Let us further presume that this was, in this hypothetical reality, a total surprise to everyone. To really stir things up, let's imagine that the impact zone was in an Arab country.
Regardless of the facts, there would be some utterly, sadly predictable results:
Millions of people would believe that THEY knew the asteroid was coming, and deliberately hid it from everyone. Every rich or powerful person who managed to avoid the impact zone and subsequent destruction would be cited as as PROOF that THEY KNEW, THE BASTARDS, THEY KNEW! Who "they" were would fall conveniently along existing lines of political and religious predispositions.
A sizeable number of people would not merely believe that an impending natural disaster was hidden from us, but that somehow THEY had CAUSED the disaster!
Those who say the asteroid strike was nothing but a natural disaster that caught us completely by surprise would be called naive, blindly swallowing what the politicians and media tell them, in denial of the "obvious facts", and worse, they'd be accused of having been "in on it".
And you know what else? If you went looking for "facts" to "prove" any of this, you'd find them. In the confusion, conflicting accounts would arise. People whose minute-by-minute actions were microexamined would show irregularites. People afraid of being made scapegoats or of being accused of incompetence for not having discovered the asteroid in time would resist and block investigations.
When I look at all I've seen hyped up about 9/11 so far, I've seen nothing yet that rises above this kind of predictable result.
Originally posted by shetline
When I look at all I've seen hyped up about 9/11 so far, I've seen nothing yet that rises above this kind of predictable result.
I think that's because you're not even smart enough to see that this door swings both ways.
Originally posted by bunge
I think that's because you're not even smart enough to see that this door swings both ways.
Are you polite enough to handle this discussion without pompous ad hominem attacks?
Of course I can see that the door swings both ways. I can't deny that a US and/or Israeli conspiracy is possible, but I can say that available information doesn't make it seem very probable.
These collections of time-line "evidence" that have been linked to, that consist of (sometimes merely implied) questions like "What was so-and-so doing for this hour of time? Why did X deny Y? Why didn't the President rush out of the room?" have to be balanced against these overwhelmingly obvious facts that you don't even need to do a lot of digging to find:
Millions of Islamic extremists have for many years chanted "Death to America!" and a lot of them really, really mean it. "Death to America!" is not simply a quaint Arab way of saying "You annoy us and we're a bit upset."
Islamic extremists explode themselves on a quite regular basis, with the goal of taking as many Israeli lives with them as possible, and they go for American lives whenever they get the chance. These people are accorded the status of cultural heroes in much of the Arab world. Funds are set up to pay pensions to the families of suicide bombers.
If a man is murdered the day after someone else was heard loudly and publically screaming death threats at the man, the screaming man quite naturally and fairly becomes the prime suspect. Could yet another person take advantage of this situation to misdirect blame? Of course. However, the obvious burden of evidence is clearly and rightly heavier on anyone who wishes to prove the guilt of a suspect other than the the man who made obvious threats, especially if the threatener had means, motive, and opportunity.
Show me your evidence. Don't just lazily point to pages and pages of web resources -- summarize and analyze whatever you consider the most salient evidence against the "standard version" of who's to blame for 9/11. The burden of evidence is yours, and it's a cheap debate tactic to play the game "Well, if you haven't study everything I've studied, it's not my fault you're so willfully ignorant!"
Originally posted by shetline
Are you polite enough to handle this discussion without pompous ad hominem attacks?
Here is what you said:
Originally posted by shetline
And you know what else? If you went looking for "facts" to "prove" any of this, you'd find them.
What I'm saying is that I don't think that you understand that the logic you used to come up with this argument is just as valid when used to debunk your debunking. If you go looking for "facts" to "disprove" any of this, you'll find them.
Originally posted by bunge
What I'm saying is that I don't think that you understand that the logic you used to come up with this argument is just as valid when used to debunk your debunking. If you go looking for "facts" to "disprove" any of this, you'll find them.
Again, I already admitted that, as you say "the door swings both ways". Which is why you have to look at whether the evidence rises above the expected "noise floor", and the noise floor has to be evaluated in terms of burden of proof.
Will it help if I say it flat out? Yes, if the US and/or Israel really had been behind 9/11, a lot of people would refuse to believe the truth, and they'd desperately look for anything that helped them avoid that truth. Are you happy now?
Again... where's the burden of proof highest? Given the respective burdens of proof, in which case does the purported evidence rise above the expected noise floor of spurious evidence that people can always latch onto to support whatever they'd like to believe?
The case that Arab Islamic terrorists, acting on their own, committed the 9/11 attacks doesn't require a very high burden of proof. People with a deep hatred of the US, with a willingness to commit suicide to accomplish their mission, backed by a culture that praises and supports such actions, backed by religious beliefs that promise eternal paradise for such actions, taking advantage of lax US airport security (I was amazed to learn after the fact that box cutters were actually allowed onto airplanes) did exactly the kind of thing many Arab Islamic terrorist groups have gleefully, loudly crowed that they'd like to do for many, many years.
We have video of the terrorists passing through the airports.
We have the accounts of flight instructors who remember these men, and who recount the odd desire of these men to spend more time practicing steering than the usual effort on take-off and landing.
We have the video of bin Laden and his cohorts merrily discussing the wonderful success of their plans. Even in public denials of involvement, bin Laden praised and supported the attacks.
There are trails of forensic evidence leading back to cars used by the hijackers, places they stayed, places they travelled for training, etc.
Can you dismiss this evidence? Sure, it's easy wave your hands and call it government lies, faked video, tampered evidence, etc. But given the circumstances, where's the greatest burden of proof?
I've invited you to submit your evidence for your view of events. I invite you again. Citing references if you please, but still giving your own analysis and account, present what you consider the most compelling evidence for US and/or Israeli involvement in carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
They're so addicted to " conspiracy theories " that their frebrile minds would implode if reality ever caught up with them.
It would never occur to them to ask why the worlds most powerful nation would have to resort to these measures....
But no matter what ultimate proof you lay before them, they'll just dismiss it all as fabrication anyway..
Let them play with their winkies..they're already blind as it is...
Originally posted by BuonRotto
If the Bush administration really planned this thing, why did Bush stay at that school a bit longer (actually they did vut the trip short)?
What the hell are you and shetline arguing against? I have no idea where you got this, dare I say it, strawman position from.
There are many intertwined threads that suggest stupidity, incompetence, malice and foreknowledge in many different areas. This is however different from claiming that the moon landings were fabricated and the 9/11 attacks were committed by Israeli secret service members disguised as arabs.
Apparently I have to create an entire alternate reality that you deem plausible before you admit that there are things about 9/11 that are *staggeringly* odd.
Just the fact that ever since 9/11, Iraq has dominated the related coverage while the (real!) Saudi connection has always been played down leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The surveys of your countryfolks show how successful this misdirection has been, and the report of Rumsfield jotting down a note, hours after 9/11, that this would be a good opportunity to go after Iraq and "sweep up things related and not" (my emphasis) would make my blood boil if I thought the death of anyone related to me was being exploited to push unrelated policy objectives.
Why not check some history books out of your local library before spouting this shit about how your (or any other) government can do no wrong, either through malice or negligance.
And, while I'm up on my high-horse, is there anything sadder than the chorus of hideously smug and painfully unfunny tinfoil hat jokes that appear whenever someone has the gall to suggest that some of the rich and powerful may actually use their riches and power for ends that are not for the greater good?
God forbid that the rich (and the army, but that's a different rant) are not all the ****ing saints your twisted right-wing agendas make them out to be.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
What the hell are you and shetline arguing against? I have no idea where you got this, dare I say it, strawman position from.
?God forbid that the rich (and the army, but that's a different rant) are not all the ****ing saints your twisted right-wing agendas make them out to be.
Okay, maybe I'm stupider? like a fox, but I thought the whole point of this thread was to argue that the 9/11 events were planned by our administration. That'w here my comment comes from. Understand the connection? I have no idea why this would be considered a strawman argument. We're talking stagin the whole thing, no? Did I miss the memo? Am I really stupider? like a fox?
I do not have any twisted right-wing agendas, and don't even understand the comment about the "rich" being "****ing saints." What do the rich have to do with this? I thought we were arguing the administration (who, granted, are largely rich). I do not have agendas. That's why I'm pinting out these things, for those of you with a "twisted" super-left-wing agenda. Healthy skepticism is one thing I'm willing to entertain, and in that last post, I was entertaining it. I don't understand where you're coming from at all, why you're so mad.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
What the hell are you and shetline arguing against? I have no idea where you got this, dare I say it, strawman position from.
I'm arguing against the premise of this thread, "No Arabs on Flight 77," something that seems highly unlikely to me. I'm also arguing against the point of view that generally follows claims of this sort. There are only so many alternatives to Arab terrorists generally proposed, and Basque separatists aren't in the top ten.
There are many intertwined threads that suggest stupidity, incompetence, malice and foreknowledge in many different areas. This is however different from claiming that the moon landings were fabricated and the 9/11 attacks were committed by Israeli secret service members disguised as arabs.
Stupidity and incompetence I have no problem seeing, or believing. Malice, to the extent of taking advantage of public anger over 9/11 to stir up support for an invasion of Iraq, pretending that there was any substantial connection, I see. Foreknowledge? Perhaps to the extent of signs that should have been heeded better.
Apparently I have to create an entire alternate reality that you deem plausible before you admit that there are things about 9/11 that are *staggeringly* odd.
I haven't asked anything of you in particular. If all you want to do is point out oddness, without claiming things like "No Arabs on Flight 77", I have no dispute with you.
Just the fact that ever since 9/11, Iraq has dominated the related coverage while the (real!) Saudi connection has always been played down leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I have no dispute with you here either. I'm quite aware of the political games with our dubious Saudi "friends".
The surveys of your countryfolks show how successful this misdirection has been, and the report of Rumsfield jotting down a note, hours after 9/11, that this would be a good opportunity to go after Iraq and "sweep up things related and not" (my emphasis) would make my blood boil if I thought the death of anyone related to me was being exploited to push unrelated policy objectives.
Again, I concur with you. How on earth have you read disagreement with such things into what I've written?
Why not check some history books out of your local library before spouting this shit about how your (or any other) government can do no wrong, either through malice or negligance.
My dear Mr. S. L. a. Fox, you and I have both been writing on AI for a while now. I'd have to conclude you haven't been paying much attention to my posts in this thread, or any other thread all this time, if you think I have such rosy ideas about our government -- especially with Bush in power.
I could continue this point by point, by suffice to say the rest of what you wrote continued to go way off track following from the derailment above.
I certainly don't recall the last time I was accused of have a "twisted right-wing agenda".