PDA

View Full Version : Did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld gang "do" 9/11?



EdelweissFan
01-12-2006, 04:13 PM
Since there have been some political posts here with some republicans defending Bush, I was wondering what you all thought of 9/11. There is so much new evidence pouring out that links the Bush gang with 9/11, that recent polls show that about 50% of New Yorkers believe that the Bush gang either knew about the hijackers and let it happen or were actually co plotters. To the republicans here, if it was proven to you that bush was involved would you STILL love him so much?

Beside the fact that the bush family and bin Laden family have been in business together for 30 years, here is some new evidence I read on a political discussion board.

Bin Laden's paymaster was the head of Pakistan's CIA, which is called the ISI, a guy named Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad. The ISI had been taking money from the CIA for decades to fund the fight of the Afghans and their al Queda allies against the Soviets, and continued to fund them after the Soviets fell.

Gen. Ahmad ordered an infamous ISI operative named Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the main hijacker, about a year before 9/11, which Atta used for flight school and other expenses.

Here is the weird part. On Sept. 6, 2001, Gen Ahmad as head of the ISI flew to DC to have formal meetings with the Pentagon, CIA and National Security Council. On the morning of 9/11, he was having breakfast w/ Sen Graham of Florida, head of the Senate Intelligence Comm. and Porter Goss, head of the House Intelligence Committee and representative from the same part of Florida where Atta was in flight school. In the last days of the plot, and as the planes crashed into the buildings, the leaders of the bush admin defense and intelligence and of the republican leadership on intelligence was meeting with bin Laden’s and Mohammed Atta’s paymasters. Porter Goss was later appointed head of the CIA. Gen. Ahmad stuck around to work out Pakistan’s role in the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

When the US military and CIA had bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan, Bush and his minions called them back, handed the task over to some Afghan warlord, who was then bribed to let bin Laden escape into Pakistan.

This stuff was reported in the Wall St. Journal by Daniel Pearl. When he tracked the money trail to Pakistan, he was kidnapped and beheaded by none other than Saeed Sheikh.

There is so much more damaging stuff coming out about bush’s role in 9/11.

My question is have you been hearing about this and what do most of you think?

DJ_Asia
01-12-2006, 04:22 PM
It wouldnt suprise me at all.Unfortunately,like the JFK assasination we will never find out the truth.

DJ Asia

jt money
01-12-2006, 04:32 PM
It was the jews! No jewish person went to work in the world trade centers on 9/11 so it must have been them. Oh, sorry, that is another conspiracy theory.....

"To the republicans here, if it was proven to you that bush was involved would you STILL love him so much?

Wouldn't you guys be happy! Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!

Quinn
01-12-2006, 04:47 PM
I hate Bush as much as anyone - if not more - but this is just ridiculously stupid. Speculating in this type of utter nonsense only takes our focus away from the real issues that need to be addressed (the national debt, Iraq, the environment, discrimination, etc.) and undermines all of our credibility as critics of the current administration.

-Quinn

EdelweissFan
01-12-2006, 05:24 PM
Quinn, Do the research. All I can say is that's what I thought until I started reading compilations of mainstream media reports. This is just one tiny bit of evidence. An incontrovertible case is building.

Here are a few others:

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

War Games

Several war game exercises were being conducted on 9/11/01.

Operation Northern Vigilance redeployed northeast sector air defense resources to northern Canada and Alaska.

Operations Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian, which simulated hijackings and involved live radar "injects," may have confused military and civilian personnel monitoring aircraft.

The National Reconnaissance Office, which monitors satellites and airborne objects, was evacuated while the attack unfolded because it was conducting a plane-into-tower crash drill.

The Tripod II biowarfare exercise, scheduled for 9/12/01, resulted in the deployment of FEMA to Manhattan before the attack.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline[/b]

EdelweissFan
01-12-2006, 06:05 PM
Thanks for the source Arianna, I will listen.

BTW, now that this Abramoff scandal is breaking, is everyone aware that Republican godfather Abramoff was involved in money laundering and represented a suspected terrorist group?

And that Mohammed Atta and his crew "gambled" on one of Abramoff's gambling cruise ships just before the attacks? Or that these supposed "Islamic fanatics" drank heavily, did coke, frequented strip clubs, had lap dances, gambled, and hired prosititues, including the immediate days before 9/11?

jt money
01-12-2006, 06:05 PM
Quinn, Do the research. All I can say is that's what I thought until I started reading compilations of mainstream media reports.

I see what you have linked but where are the mainstream media reports?

EdelweissFan
01-12-2006, 06:08 PM
jt, the 9/11 Timeline is a compilation of mainstream media reports. At the end of each paragraph there are citations in the form of clickable links. They are very scrupulous in showing that every single fact listed is immediately verifiable through a link to a mainstream media source.

Quinn
01-12-2006, 06:14 PM
Quinn, Do the research. All I can say is that's what I thought until I started reading compilations of mainstream media reports. This is just one tiny bit of evidence. An incontrovertible case is building.

Here are a few others:

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

War Games

Several war game exercises were being conducted on 9/11/01.

Operation Northern Vigilance redeployed northeast sector air defense resources to northern Canada and Alaska.

Operations Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian, which simulated hijackings and involved live radar "injects," may have confused military and civilian personnel . aircraft.

The National Reconnaissance Office, which . satellites and airborne objects, was evacuated while the attack unfolded because it was conducting a plane-into-tower crash drill.

The Tripod II biowarfare exercise, scheduled for 9/12/01, resulted in the deployment of FEMA to Manhattan before the attack.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline[/b]

While I respect your right to an opinion, I strongly disagree that an incontravertible case it building for two reasons:

1) I would hardly call the links you have posted "research." Look at many of the "facts" put forth in the first link alone.

2) Our government couldn't even manage to scrutinize the communications of its own citizens (using the super secret NSA) without it becoming public knowledge, so how could it hope to coordinate and contain a conspiracy on a global scale?

Every time you have a tragedy, there are always events that can be patched together to make it look like something other than what it was. For example, throughout the Muslim world there is an overwhelming consensus that Israel is responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Not surprisingly, there are websites and publications full of "facts" to support this assertion. They, too, are just plain wrong.

-Quinn

EdelweissFan
01-12-2006, 07:10 PM
Quinn, 911Research site is an advocacy site that summarizes research of others.

9/11 Timeline is a full fledged research site, and every statement is documented with a link to a mainstream on line source. I don't see how you can look at that site and say it is not research.

As for the NSA scandal, that actually proves the viability of "conspiracies" because the illegal, unconstitutional activity has been going on for five years, with many people involved, and only now one whistle blower has finally come forward.

BTW, 9/11 complicity would take very few people. We already know that Bush and Cheney were receiving extremely alarmed warnings from George Tenet and Richard Clarke about imminent attacks. All he had to do is what he did: nothing.

You can add more conspiratorial activity in the Pentagon with just a few people -- namely, disorienting the military with planned "drills" that were similar to the actual attacks.

At some point everyone has to ask himself or herself: do I reject the possibility of Bush administration complicity because I have looked at all the research, carefully weighed the evidence and concluded the administration is innocent?

Or have I dismissed the idea that Bush & co could have done this before hand. This is called cognitive dissonance in psychology. "Of course, no president could be that evil, so I won't even contemplate the possibility, and therefore dismiss any fact that is inconsistent (dissonant) with my pre-decided reality."

Have you actually read this kind of research or just dismissed it because "it couldn't possibly be true"?

After the Iraq war -- 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 2200 dead US military, for the purpose of getting oil for Bush's buddies and contracts for Cheney -- hurricane Katrina, where Bush & co allowed 1000s of New Orleanians to die of drowning, lack of medical care, starvation and thirst simply because they didn't want to cut short their vacation -- is it really inconceivable that they could allow 2000 citizens to be killed for political purposes?

They have practically told you to your face they could. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al wrote a think tank report, Project for New American Century, back in Sept. 2000, saying that the US needed a massive military build up to control all the world's resources and to attack Iraq. But that that wouldn't be likely to happen unless the US experienced a "new Pearl Harbor":

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

A year later they got what they wanted. Have you read the PNAC report?

The official story is also a conspiracy theory -- that a kidney patient in a cave in the most primitive country on earth directed 19 magic Arabs to overcome our trillion dollar defenses to fly planes into buildings, including the Pentagon, the most heavily defended building on earth.

BTW, did you notice the Pentagon's missile defense system didn't operate that day. And that the hijackers managed to fly almost a 360 downward spiral into the Pentagon to hit the side opposite from which they came, in order to hit the only part of the building that was mostly empty.

Or maybe there are just so many coincidences and just one damned thing after another w/ 9/11:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

willib
01-12-2006, 07:48 PM
Edelweiss Fan I was in a state of cognitive dissonance, pertaining to Bush. However, now based on your research links, I am starting to view 9/11 in a different light.

Quinn
01-12-2006, 07:48 PM
Quinn, 911Research site is an advocacy site that summarizes research of others.

9/11 Timeline is a full fledged research site, and every statement is documented with a link to a mainstream on line source. I don't see how you can look at that site and say it is not research.

As for the NSA scandal, that actually proves the viability of "conspiracies" because the illegal, unconstitutional activity has been going on for five years, with many people involved, and only now one whistle blower has finally come forward.

BTW, 9/11 complicity would take very few people. We already know that Bush and Cheney were receiving extremely alarmed warnings from George Tenet and Richard Clarke about imminent attacks. All he had to do is what he did: nothing.

You can add more conspiratorial activity in the Pentagon with just a few people -- namely, disorienting the military with planned "drills" that were similar to the actual attacks.

At some point everyone has to ask himself or herself: do I reject the possibility of Bush administration complicity because I have looked at all the research, carefully weighed the evidence and concluded the administration is innocent?

Or have I dismissed the idea that Bush & co could have done this before hand. This is called cognitive dissonance in psychology. "Of course, no president could be that evil, so I won't even contemplate the possibility, and therefore dismiss any fact that is inconsistent (dissonant) with my pre-decided reality."

Have you actually read this kind of research or just dismissed it because "it couldn't possibly be true"?

After the Iraq war -- 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 2200 dead US military, for the purpose of getting oil for Bush's buddies and contracts for Cheney -- hurricane Katrina, where Bush & co allowed 1000s of New Orleanians to die of drowning, lack of medical care, starvation and thirst simply because they didn't want to cut short their vacation -- is it really inconceivable that they could allow 2000 citizens to be killed for political purposes?

They have practically told you to your face they could. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al wrote a think tank report, Project for New American Century, back in Sept. 2000, saying that the US needed a massive military build up to control all the world's resources and to attack Iraq. But that that wouldn't be likely to happen unless the US experienced a "new Pearl Harbor":

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

A year later they got what they wanted. Have you read the PNAC report?

The official story is also a conspiracy theory -- that a kidney patient in a cave in the most primitive country on earth directed 19 magic Arabs to overcome our trillion dollar defenses to fly planes into buildings, including the Pentagon, the most heavily defended building on earth.

BTW, did you notice the Pentagon's missile defense system didn't operate that day. And that the hijackers managed to fly almost a 360 downward spiral into the Pentagon to hit the side opposite from which they came, in order to hit the only part of the building that was mostly empty.

Or maybe there are just so many coincidences and just one damned thing after another w/ 9/11:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Fan,

I only have about twenty minutes before I leave for a dental appointment in mid-town, so I'll keep my response brief.

The NSA is unquestionably the most secretive government agency to serve this or any other government on the planet. Once again, the NSA as a lone agency can't keep a secret, but a group of U.S. and foreign agencies can? For me, the math doesn't add up.

Since I don't have the time necessary to address all of the erroneous "facts" put forth in your referenced websites, I shall address a few specific statements as examples of how little or no “research” was conducted.

On the 911research website, it states the following: "The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel, a behavior inconsistent with the known behavior of steel structures outside of explosive demolition. " This is completely inaccurate because the Twin Towers used a previously unique method of construction which placed nearly all the structural load upon an outer skeletal frame. Understanding this type of architecture immediately disproves statements like:

1) Both towers fell straight down, through themselves, following the path of maximum resistance, a behavior never before observed in spontaneous collapses of any type of vertical structure. If one does any research concerning how the Twin Towers were constructed, they will realize that - once the skeletal frame was damaged - falling through themselves was the path of least resistance.

2)Both towers exploded outward and where shredded and pulverized -- a pattern of destruction much more destructive than normal controlled demolitions, yet this result was supposedly produced without the added energy of explosives. Once again, the author knows nothing about how the Twin Towers were actually built.

3) The South Tower's core structure was largely undamaged by the off-centered jet impact, unlike the North Tower, yet it collapsed sooner. The core carries almost none of the structural load, so this is irrelevant.

This is just one set of “facts” that were not researched. I can go on, but lack the time. Still, you see where I am coming from. I’ll be happy to debate more when I come back from getting my teeth cleaned. Until then, take it easy.

-Quinn

willib
01-12-2006, 08:04 PM
A friend of mind emailed the tv show "mythbusters" and asked them to conduct an experiment on the collaspse of the world trade center on 9/11. That was a year ago and he received no feedback on the request.

seaman
01-12-2006, 08:16 PM
can anyone explain how they had cell phone conversations at the altitude that would make it impossible to use cell phones on the plane that crashed out in the field in PA.?

cell phones work fine at altitude. the only reason we can't use them on planes is due to FAA restictions and concerns from carriers.

EdelweissFan
01-12-2006, 08:55 PM
Quinn, I was referring to the 9/11 Timeline as the authoritative research site. There are people who believe that some sort of demolition "assisted" in the destruction of the towers, like the WTC7 site. But that is not the main thrust of the idea that Bush was complicit. You seem to be avoiding the Timeline site and its well documented facts.

It is easy to tar all 9/11 skeptics with the seemingly even more out-there idea of assisted demolition.

If you want a typical mind blowing entry from the 9/11 Timeline, did you know that bin Laden, already the world's most wanted man before 9/11, was treated at the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by two CIA agents? Here is a typical well documented 9/11 Timeline entry for July 2001, with links to mainstream media reporting:

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Receives Lifesaving Treatment in Dubai, Said to Meet with CIA While There

The American Hospital in Dubai.

Bin Laden, America's most wanted criminal with a $5 million bounty on his head, supposedly receives lifesaving treatment for renal failure from American specialist Dr. Terry Callaway at the American hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden's personal physician, al-Qaeda's second-in-command, and leader of Egypt's Islamic Jihad), plus several bodyguards. Callaway supposedly treated bin Laden in 1996 and 1998, also in Dubai. Callaway later refuses to answer any questions on this matter. [Le Figaro, 10/31/01; Times of London, 11/01/01; Agence France-Presse, 11/1/01] During his stay, bin Laden is visited by “several members of his family and Saudi personalities,” including Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence. [Guardian, 11/1/01] On July 12, bin Laden reportedly meets with CIA agent Larry Mitchell in the hospital. Mitchell apparently lives in Dubai as an Arab specialist under the cover of being a consular agent. The CIA, the Dubai hospital, and even bin Laden deny the story. The two news organizations that broke the story, Le Figaro and Radio France International, stand by their reporting. [Le Figaro, 10/31/01; Radio France International, 11/1/01] The explosive story is widely reported in Europe, but there are only two, small wire service stories on it in the US. [Reuters, 11/10/01; UPI, 11/1/01] The Guardian claims that the story originated from French intelligence, “which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.” The Guardian adds that during his stay bin Laden is also visited by a second CIA officer. [Guardian, 11/1/01] In 2003, reporter Richard Labeviere will provide additional details of what he claims happened in a book entitled “The Corridors of Terror.” He claims he learned about the meeting from a contact in the Dubai hospital. He claims the event was confirmed in detail by a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain. This prince claimed the meeting was arrange by Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's intelligence director. The prince said, “By organizing this meeting...Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between and the CIA on one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their hostilities against American interests.” In exchange, the CIA and Saudis would allow bin Laden to return to Saudi Arabia and live freely there. The meeting is said to be a failure. [Reuters, 11/14/03] On July 15, Larry Mitchell reportedly returns to CIA headquarters to report on his meeting with bin Laden. [Radio France International, 11/1/01] French terrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It “is nothing extraordinary. [b]Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.” [Le Figaro, 11/1/01] A CIA spokesman calls the entire account of bin Laden's stay at Dubai “sheer fantasy.” [Reuters, 11/14/03]

Felicia Katt
01-12-2006, 09:00 PM
Do I beleive Bush and his administration were rdirectly esponsible for 9-11? NO

Do I believe they capitalized on it as an opportunity to advance their own agendas and enrich their supporters? yes.

The first is just a conspiracy that can be argued endlessly, but never proven.

The latter is something very real that should be the focus of discussions, if not indictiment and impeachment, but which is obscurred by all the smoke, mirrors, and waving red flags of the 9-11 conspiracy buffs.

Do I think this is intentional? I'm not sure. but it makes for a nice conspiracy theory.

FK

TrueBeauty TS
01-12-2006, 09:30 PM
Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!


Your admission of love for our current president is very telling. I don't know of ANY politician that I LOVE. At best, I might think they are doing a good or decent job, but never enough where I absolutely love them.

Love is blind. When you have that much blind love for a politician, it's impossible for you to see any of their faults or admit when they have done something wrong.

Therefore, meaningful debate is useless.

yourdaddy
01-12-2006, 11:20 PM
You conspiracy people really and truly are hopeless. Your heads are buried so far up your liberal asses, that you wouldn't know the truth if it backed up into you. Get Real !!!

Andrew Johnson
01-12-2006, 11:41 PM
Sorry folks, but there is no way I can believe any American, holding any office, would let something so awful happen to innocent people.

I don't care what kind of coincidences you can dig up, or what sort of circumstantial evidence you may contrive. I just won't buy it.

I've heard whacked out conspiracy theories about the Government knowing the Japenese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and allowing it to happen to gain sentiment for joining the war effort. I think that's a lot easier to swallow being that it was a military installation and all. I think even that's a strectch though.

One could dig deeply and find similar things, I'm sure, pointing to the "Clinton Regime" in regards to the Oklahoma City bombing. Surely they could have used the support of the people when it came to passing all their oppressive gun laws. There is a fine line between legitimate gun activists and fringe anti-government groups, as far as the general public is concerned. It would have been a perfect set up. Would any of you buy this?


THIS IS COMPLETE........absurdity, babble, balderdash, baloney, bananas, blather, bombast, BS, bull, bunk, claptrap, craziness, drivel, fatuity, flightiness, folly, foolishness, fun, gab, gas, gibberish, giddiness, gobbledygook, hogwash, hooey, hot air, imprudence, inanity, irrationality, jazz, jest, jive, joke, ludicrousness, madness, mumbo jumbo, palaver, poppycock, prattle, pretense, ranting, rashness, rot, rubbish, scrawl, scribble, senselessness, silliness, soft soap, stupidity, thoughtlessness, trash, tripe, twaddle

Quinn
01-13-2006, 12:16 AM
Do I beleive Bush and his administration were rdirectly esponsible for 9-11? NO

Do I believe they capitalized on it as an opportunity to advance their own agendas and enrich their supporters? yes.

This is essentially how I see it.

Arianna,

I'm checking out your link now. Given that there are many related feeds on that page, is there a specific feed I should check out first?

EdelweissFan,

Now that I have some time, I'm checking out the 911Timeline website more thoroughly before responding to it specifically.

-Quinn

Edmund
01-13-2006, 12:47 AM
Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!


Your admission of love for our current president is very telling. I don't know of ANY politician that I LOVE. At best, I might think they are doing a good or decent job, but never enough where I absolutely love them.

Love is blind. When you have that much blind love for a politician, it's impossible for you to see any of their faults or admit when they have done something wrong.

Therefore, meaningful debate is useless.

That's unfair of you. He was responding to someone who said "would you still love [bush]" if he was responsible. jt was just responding using their terms.

EdelweissFan
01-13-2006, 01:04 AM
Sorry folks, but there is no way I can believe any American, holding any office, would let something so awful happen to innocent people.

I don't care what kind of coincidences you can dig up, or what sort of circumstantial evidence you may contrive. I just won't buy it.



AJ, your initial paragraphs are very telling. You are admitting that even if the evidence was in front of you, you could not believe it. That's cognitive dissonance, which I explained above. What you are saying is that if GWB got on TV and said he had been saved again, and wanted to confess 9/11, "there is no way I can believe any American, holding any office, would let something so awful happen to innocent people." You are dismissing the possibility, even before reading the evidence.

There are at least two kinds of people who don't believe in Bush complicity in 9/11: Those who have reviewed all the evidence, balanced the possibilities and decided that Bush wasn't involved; and the 99% who say no elected official could have done this and therefore I won't even consider the possibility.

You, my friend, are admittedly in the second category.

Did you know that the former German Minister of Defense has publicly stated that 9/11 was an inside job? Or that eminent writer Gore Vidal has also done so? Or that the US Pentagon "father" of the star wars defense shield also says it was an inside job? Reasonable prominent people are coming out to say what is screaming in our faces. Connect the dots.

I admit that when you start reading the mainstream media reports of what actually happened on 9/11, it is like taking the "red pill" in the matrix. Much of what you believed becomes obsolete. But these are facts. Expose yourself to them. If you want to say there was no complicity, at least put yourself in the first category of having examined the facts and come to a different conclusion, rather than the second, cognitive dissonance category of dismissing the possibility -- especially after Iraq and Katrina.

mbf
01-13-2006, 01:17 AM
please lets stop the conspiracy theory nonsense

i am as non-supporter of our chimp-in-command and his money/blood sucking gang aka "current US-administration" as it can get. but those conspiracy theories are useless, boring and foolish. most ridiculous is the "no jew went to work" blah blah and

there might be a grain of truth in there in so far that you could say they "let it happen". but much more important are those facts that show bin laden and his comrades were fed by the us-taxpayers for years when they still were useful in the afghan-sovjet war. thats the real agenda running through us-foreign policy. boasting about democracy and using/working together with dictators and terrorists when it "serves" the us-interests. it makes me sick to see the us-governments (virtually ALL) in the last decades kissing the saudis asses, one of the most resentful dictatorships in the world today .

thats double-standard. period.

same with "oh lets bring democracy to iraq" great, but what about all those central asian states where the us built army bases after 9-11? non of them are democracies. if it was the real zeal of that administration to bring democracy to dictatorships and authoritarian regimes why not sdupport opposition groups in those countries too? na, a dictator / authoritarian leadeer serves us better there right now...

ps: i wonder how long will it take this time until one of our "newly found allies" turnes against the US (with of course weapons we provided them with) like it happened so many times in the past.

EdelweissFan
01-13-2006, 01:23 AM
Perhaps the most perfect example of the psychologically debilitating condition of cognitive dissonance every displayed.


please lets stop the conspiracy theory nonsense

i am as non-supporter of our chimp-in-command and his money/blood sucking gang aka "current US-administration" as it can get. but those conspiracy theories are useless, boring and foolish. most ridiculous is the "no jew went to work" blah blah and

there might be a grain of truth in there in so far that you could say they "let it happen". but much more important are those facts that show bin laden and his comrades were fed by the us-taxpayers for years when they still were useful in the afghan-sovjet war. thats the real agenda running through us-foreign policy.

You are willing to admit (1) Bush might have let it happen and (2) the US intelligence establishment was the prime funder of bin Laden.

But of course the big picture is conspiracy theory bullshit.

When you make a post like this, there really isn't much more for me to say. Please Google "cognitive dissonance." Because that's what you have.

TrueBeauty TS
01-13-2006, 01:26 AM
Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!


Your admission of love for our current president is very telling. I don't know of ANY politician that I LOVE. At best, I might think they are doing a good or decent job, but never enough where I absolutely love them.

Love is blind. When you have that much blind love for a politician, it's impossible for you to see any of their faults or admit when they have done something wrong.

Therefore, meaningful debate is useless.

That's unfair of you. He was responding to someone who said "would you still love [bush]" if he was responsible. jt was just responding using their terms.


Not at all. He could have told that person that he did not have love for the President. He could have used his own words.

If he disagreed with that term, he could have easily said so. By going along with it, it shows he agreed.

chefmike
01-13-2006, 01:30 AM
It is certainly interesting stuff, and I wouldn't put anything past the bunch of lying, greedy neocon chickenhawks in office....

But insomuch as the Warren Commission whitewashed the JFK conspiracy, so these events also will continue to be the subject of speculation for many years...

PS...if you're into exploring the JFK assasination, check out James Ellroy's historical fiction series that begins with American Tabloid. He also authored LA Confidential and The Black Dahlia, in addition to many other great novels...

The American Nightmare
01-13-2006, 01:54 AM
Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more.
If you love him so much, the why don't you marry him?

That's right, you can't. Cause he's against gay marriage.

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/binary/53371-273-2/news-2248.jpeg

I just nailed you.

BlackAdder
01-13-2006, 02:18 AM
I think the most telling evidense from the JFK fiasco was the fact that even a riflery pro couldnt aim and fire that weapon 3 times and hit a small target in a car from that distance......One shot..difficult but not for a pro....

3 shots...impossible.

And dude wasnt a ranked rifleman.


And if something huge like that can be covered up, so can other situations....

The American Nightmare
01-13-2006, 02:29 AM
I think the most telling evidense from the JFK fiasco was the fact that even a riflery pro couldnt aim and fire that weapon 3 times and hit a small target in a car from that distance......One shot..difficult but not for a pro....

3 shots...impossible.

And dude wasnt a ranked rifleman.


And if something huge like that can be covered up, so can other situations....
I'm afraid you're wrong. This has been tested multiple times, by people not even trained by the military.

I saw a documentary about the Kennedy assassination on the Discovery Channel (or the History Channel, can't remember), and it showed that every aspect of the Oswald theory is entirely plausible. In no way does it fall apart on a scientific level.

Andrew Johnson
01-13-2006, 03:41 AM
Sorry folks, but there is no way I can believe any American, holding any

office, would let something so awful happen to innocent people.

I don't care what kind of coincidences you can dig up, or what sort of circumstantial evidence you may contrive. I

just won't buy it.



AJ, your initial paragraphs are very telling. You are admitting that even if the evidence was in front of you, you could not

believe it. That's cognitive dissonance, which I explained above. What you are saying is that if GWB got on TV and said he

had been saved again, and wanted to confess 9/11, "there is no way I can believe any American, holding any office, would let

something so awful happen to innocent people." You are dismissing the possibility, even before reading the evidence.



I don't think you read me right, but you quoted me. I never said I wouldn't believe it if GWB confessed. I think you put

your own words into my text. Maybe that's an example of "cognitive dissonance".



I admit that when you start reading the mainstream media reports of what actually happened on 9/11, it

is like taking the "red pill" in the matrix. Much of what you believed becomes obsolete. But these are facts. Expose

yourself to them. If you want to say there was no complicity, at least put yourself in the first category...

I don't consider things to be facts just because someone printed them. I guess, if someone is printing what you want to hear

it's real easy to latch onto it and say, "look at the facts". Look how much crap hits the newstands about celebs. Is all of

it true?




...especially after Iraq and Katrina.

Oh yeah, I forgot 'ol George summoned the Wrath of GOD and brought it down on all those poor black people. Silly me!

Andrew Johnson
01-13-2006, 03:53 AM
I think the most telling evidense from the JFK fiasco was the fact that even a riflery pro couldnt aim and fire that weapon 3 times and hit a small target in a car from that distance......One shot..difficult but not for a pro....

3 shots...impossible.

And dude wasnt a ranked rifleman.


And if something huge like that can be covered up, so can other situations....
I'm afraid you're wrong. This has been tested multiple times, by people not even trained by the military.

I saw a documentary about the Kennedy assassination on the Discovery Channel (or the History Channel, can't remember), and it showed that every aspect of the Oswald theory is entirely plausible. In no way does it fall apart on a scientific level.

I don't think there's any conspiracy here. There's no way that guy made those shots. There's no way anyone that's ever shouldered a rifle believes he did it either. For one guy to pull off all those shots, he'd have to have one hell of a resume'. Oswald was a stooge.

Did I express my "cognitive disonance" disorder in this post?

Andrew Johnson
01-13-2006, 04:03 AM
...And further more your use of the term cognitive disonance is a fallacious twist of the definition.

I checked. Hey, it's in print at Wikipedia must be true. :lol:

Cognitive dissonance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.

Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. Cognitive dissonance is a perceived inconsistency between two congnitions in which the person believes one thing but then acts in a different way from what they believed. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.

The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.

In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.

Andrew Johnson
01-13-2006, 04:07 AM
...And further more your use of the term cognitive disonance is a fallacious twist of the definition.



Look at me, I'm so smart I can't even spell it.
:oops: :oops:

chefmike
01-13-2006, 04:16 AM
...And further more your use of the term cognitive disonance is a fallacious twist of the definition.

I checked. Hey, it's in print at Wikipedia must be true. :lol:

Cognitive dissonance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.

Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. Cognitive dissonance is a perceived inconsistency between two congnitions in which the person believes one thing but then acts in a different way from what they believed. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.

The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.

In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.

Interesting. It would appear that Karl Rove aka Bush's brain is familiar with that, judging by shrubya's recent attempts at credibility.

KD
01-13-2006, 01:03 PM
I've been wating to respond to this thread since I read it. There's alot too it. Let's go down the list. 9/11 is way too big to break down in just one post, but i'll try to answer questions, give y'all a better lead on things.

First, Yes I agree, most of the 9/11 websites are garbage. But, the 9/11 timeline is not garbage and its backed by every media source. It gives us a history of events.

Now, lets start at the beginning. Planning 9/11. This is the biggest problem of 9/11. Did some Arabs crazy muther fuckers do it? Or our own people?

I personally think Osama Bin Laden was involved, I think he OK'd it. On 9/11, I was home at 5 am PST watching CNN, I was getting up for my 7 am job. The first thought that came to my mind was Osama Bin Laden. Then again, I've read about the Middle East for years, so this attack was no suprise to me. In fact, I thought it was long over due. The US has fucked with so many people and countries, this was bound to happen.

Question #1 Did the US plan these attacks or was it Osama Bin Laden?

The Evidence for a US citizen planning these attacks is small, but possible. Some of you don't think a country will attack it's own citizens. Think Again. It has happened before, I'll give a couple examples.

First there was Nero. Though he cant be directly blamed for buring his own city. (it happened 2000 years ago, 64 AD) what was written about it relates to Bush today. I'll Quote Tactius, a roman historian at the time.

"And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up [i.e., falsely accused] as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Nero’s scapegoats (the Christians) were the perfect choice because it temporarily relieved pressure of the various rumors going around Rome. Christus (Jesus), from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Iudaea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed; then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of [their] hatred for the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clothed in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual."

Now, noone knew who set fire to Rome in 64 AD, but Nero was very quick to blame Christians. Sound familiar?

Example #2 Your Favorite guy and mine, Adolph Hitler. From Wikipedia, you can get your own source if you wish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_hitler

And I'll Quote.

After the Reichstag was set on fire (for which the communists were blamed), the Reichstag Fire Decree (28 February) suspended basic rights including habeas corpus and in the resulting legal confusion the entire Communist Party and some quarter of the SPD were un-constitutionally arrested, put to flight or murdered under this general cover.

Despite evident questions concerning the perpetration of the Reichstag Fire, and resulting calls for cancellation of the elections, Hitler successfully utilised the full novel force of State broadcasting and aviation in a massive modern general election campaign. This period was characterised by extremely strong anti-Semitic and anti-Communist propaganda. On 6 March 1933, after elections marred by paramilitary violence the Communists vote decreased by 4 per cent, and the Social Democrats by 2 per cent, with thus their representation in the Reichstag little changed. The Nazis received an increase to 43.9% of the vote. This brought the coalition between them and the DNVP into a slim but absolute majority.

Hitler's extant parliamentary majority was however to be much exacerbated through the un-constitutional preventative detention of the Communist deputies, carried over from before the elections. The manner in which Hitler excluded them and their mandates from parliament revolved on an Interior Minister settlement with the Reichstag Elders . This amounted to a change of procedure categorising them as voluntarily absent and achieved thereby the necessary long-term Hitler aim of legal appearance for NSDAP policy of subverting democracy from within .


Hindenburg greets Chancellor Hitler at Reichstag opening ceremonyAt an impressive opening ceremony of the Reichstag, held in the replacement parliament building on 21 March, both Hindenburg and the world press were impressed by Hitler's apparent acceptance of constitutional government.

Hmmm, Sound Like the patriot Act? Well, it was called the Enabling Act. Same, thing, Hitler attacked his own people to garner support.

Do you think the US would actually think about attacking its own people? YES. It has. Let me show you operation Northwoods. Granted, the US didn't implement this plan. But, it was written down and documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood

and I quote.

Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real domestic terror attacks (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the US military, the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff,

The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal.

Notice how the Operation Northwood plan calls for Hijacking planes. And thy didnt think people would fly planes into buildings? Well, lets see. So hijacking planes was not thought of eh?

How about this? Operation Bojinka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka

Oplan Bojinka (also known as Operation Bojinka, Project Bojinka, Bojinka Plot, Bojinga, possibly from Arabic: بجنكة – slang in many dialects for explosion and pronounced Bo-JIN-ka, except in Egyptian where it is Bo-GIN-ka) was a planned large-scale attack on airliners in 1995, and was a precursor to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Several media outlets, including TIME Asia [1], claim that the word Bojinka means "loud bang" or "explosion" in Serbo-Croatian. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed fought with Muslim fighters in Bosnia and supported this effort financially [2]. Endnote 7 of Chapter 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report states that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed claims that "bojinka" is "a nonsense word he adopted after hearing it on the front lines in Afghanistan." In English, the acronym "BOHICA" for 'Bend Over Here It Comes Again' is common military slang which refers to an incoming enemy attack, often bombs and is also used in online chat, e-mail, or newsgroup postings.

Not all media or text that refer to Oplan Bojinka will call it by that name.

Everything I;ve posted is available from the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, lets get past this , OMG, the US cant attack its own citizens stance to, OMG, what the fuck happened on 9/11.

and Republicans, Fuck you too.

Now, WTC Building 7, is a whole new topic and I'd be glad to discuss it.

KD

Quinn
01-13-2006, 04:46 PM
EdelweissFan,

I’ve read through a number of the articles listed on 911Timeline website. The assertions put forth on this site are supported by an interesting array of articles. While some of these articles involve really good reporting, some of the others are questionable at best.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=randyGlass

The above linked group of articles makes the assertion that the administration was forewarned of the attacks on 9/11 by a con artist and international arms dealer named Randy Glass. From my perspective, the basis of these articles – that Randy Glass was an arms dealer who had the appropriate connections to come by such information and acted accordingly – is suspect at best. Beneath the August 17, 1999, article, there is a picture of the aforementioned Mr. Glass standing there with a supposed Singer Missile. There are, however, two major problems with that picture:

1) That’s not a Stinger Missile or, more appropriately, a Stinger Missile Launcher. It’s a common AT4, which is designed for use against armor, not planes.
2) This supposed international arms dealer doesn’t even know how to hold an AT4 because he is pointing it the wrong way (backwards). Given that anyone who has completed basic training in the U.S. Army knows how to properly hold and fire an AT4, this is a stunning oversight for a supposed arms dealer.

This is only one of a number of serious inaccuracies contained in these articles, and, no, I am not going to go through the trouble of individually listing all of them.

Look, I am not saying that our government is not routinely involved in covert dealings that would disgust the average person if they knew about them; what I am saying is that our government isn’t capable of successfully pulling off an operation on the scale of 9/11 and then keeping it a secret. Once again, if the NSA can’t keep secret something as mundane as spying on the communications of US citizens, how are we to believe that multiple agencies – across multiple governments – can keep a supposed 9/11 conspiracy under wraps? IMO, it isn’t possible. Still, there are some very interesting bits of info being presented that are worthy of consideration; I just don’t see enough accurate information to convince me that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

-Quinn

EdelweissFan
01-13-2006, 06:52 PM
Quinn, Thanks for having an open mind. Since you responded seriously rather than dismissively, let me be a bit more frank about what I'm getting at. At first, all I wanted to ask in the post was what people thought -- kind of a poll. But since you raise questions about whether such a big "conspiracy" could be pulled off, let me answer it this way.

First of all, I should mention an experience I had. Many years ago, I lived in a third world country that was undergoing a revolution. It was a strange experience. There were security police and underground revolutionaries and foreigners all with their fingers in the pot. The weird part though, was that none of the lines between these forces was nearly as clear as you would expect. Underground "comrades" were routinely warned of raids by trusted police sources; and some comrades were suspected of being informers. At first, you try to draw lines and figure out who is who, who is lying. But after a long talk with a woman who was both working for the government and working for the "movement" I realized that there were no lines to be drawn. It's every man for himself; everyone is playing a double game. Even the players don't know what side they're on; they're just trying to make sure that whoever wins, they'll have some someone to get their back.

That's what I've come to conclude about bin Laden et al. Yes, they hate America and want to kill Americans. They planned and carried out terrorist events including 9/11. But they also were funded by the Americans through Pakistan for decades. Pakistan ISI leverages its money from the west for operations in Afghanistan, by engaging in widespread drug trafficking (Afghanistan produces most of the world's opium), creating networks of partially governmental, partially free-lance drug trafficking, money-laundering and arms dealing.

OBL knows that as much as the Pentagon might cut loose a cruise missile and grease him instantly at any time, there are members of the intelligence-drugs-money laundering-oil -arms dealing networks he's worked in (including his brother, partner with Poppy Bush in the Carlyle Group) with deep reach back at the DOD and CIA that might warn him because he could be useful in the future for other purposes. When French news outlets reported that CIA agents visited OBL in Dubai in July 2001, I don't assume that those agents were "part of the conspiracy"; they themselves probably didn't know whether to arrest the guy or give him a black bag of cash, given how contradictory the commands coming down the chain from headquarters are: OBL is the most wanted criminal on earth; but the White House says back off OBL, the Taliban and al Qaeda, because we're on the brink of a pipeline deal from the Causasus to Pakistan by way of Afghanistan.

Ultimately all the information flows up to the White House and commands flow down. In the summer of 2001, George Tenet at CIA, and Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism czar were screaming every day that OBL was going to attack the US using hijacked air planes, and their superiors, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld seemed not to care. This was not a big conspiracy. As Colin Powell has leaked, the entire foreign policy was hijacked by what he called a neo-con cabal -- he also called them "crazies" and "black shirts" -- consisting of a very few people. These are the same people who wrote just one year earlier that they hoped for a "Pearl Harbor" event, that would justify a vast increase in defense spending, the seizure of Iraq's oil, the domination of Black Sea oil that used to be Russia's oil, the conquest of Afghanistan for an oil pipeline to get that out.

We know from the summer 2001 PDB that Bush was specifically warned of these attacks, but did nothing to operationalize the CIA or DOD to stop the plot. The Israeli Mossad, as well as German, Russian, Jordanian, and Eqyptian intelligence agencies are all providing urgent, desperate warning to the CIA that the attacks are coming, and when that doesn't work some try to go straight to the top, but the Bush administration, bizarrely does nothing. US intelligence agencies were probably listening to every word Mohammed Atta said on his cell phone, even after "Able Danger" supposedly stopped listening, but information flows up and out of the NSA (which is not an operational organization) to the White House, where the dimwitted Bush believes he is taking direct instructions from Jesus, but Cheney and Rumsfeld are intent on carrying out the PNAC planning document they wrote. Cheney's energy task force has already divided up Iraq's oil fields, and plotted out the pipeline routes through Afghanistan (according to mainstream news reports), and Rumsfeld's DOD already has a plan of invasion for both countries. In the days before 9/11, US military leaders, Atty Gen Ashcroft, SF Mayor Willie Brown, Israeli PM Sharon, and many others stop flying commercial airlines because of the threat that everyone knows about; tens of millions of dollars of money flow into put options, shorting the major airlines because a lot of people know what is about to happen. As reported in local papers, even a Brooklyn school boy, part of the Atlantic Avenue Arab-American community, absent mindedly points out the window to the world trade towers, visible from his classroom and tells his teacher that in a couple of days those towers will be destroyed.

This scenario is called by researchers, LIHOP or "let it happen on purpose." That's evil enough -- enough for a treason conviction.

But I can easily imagine a few additional acts just among this small group to make it what other researchers call MIHOP or "make it happen on purpose." Someone or some network kept the money flowing from Pakistan's ISI and Saudi "charities" to Mohammed Atta, even though official intelligence sources know this; someone or something planned the confusing military exercises for 9/11; someone scheduled FEMA to be in NYC on 9/10/01, carrying out a vast counter-terrorism exercise as a "coincidence".

BTW, you make the point that it is unlikely that this conspiracy could be kept secret. Why is there no whistle blower? But there is: her name is Sibel Edmonds. She was a translator for the FBI, rushed into service after 9/11 to translate all those FBI and NSA recordings. She says that the things she heard painted a picture of a whole different world of links between terrorism, arms dealing, drug trafficking and money laundering and tried to tell her story to the media, and even appeared on 60 Minutes. But she is the most judicially gagged person in American history slapped with restraining orders and threatened with jail. She says that if she is allowed to tell her story you will understand what really happened on 9/11, but most of the political leadership of the country would go to jail. She is still waiting to tell her story.

jt money
01-13-2006, 07:12 PM
Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!


Your admission of love for our current president is very telling. I don't know of ANY politician that I LOVE. At best, I might think they are doing a good or decent job, but never enough where I absolutely love them.

Love is blind. When you have that much blind love for a politician, it's impossible for you to see any of their faults or admit when they have done something wrong.

Therefore, meaningful debate is useless.


That's unfair of you. He was responding to someone who said "would you still love [bush]" if he was responsible. jt was just responding using their terms.


Not at all. He could have told that person that he did not have love for the President. He could have used his own words.

If he disagreed with that term, he could have easily said so. By going along with it, it shows he agreed.

Wow, truly insightful! I'm flattered you take so much interest in what I say and hey, maybe you are onto something here. Well, no, not so much.

As previously posted, the original question was: "To the republicans here, if it was proven to you that bush was involved would you STILL love him so much?"

Try not to get yourself so worked up over a little humor.

TrueBeauty TS
01-13-2006, 07:41 PM
Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!


Your admission of love for our current president is very telling. I don't know of ANY politician that I LOVE. At best, I might think they are doing a good or decent job, but never enough where I absolutely love them.

Love is blind. When you have that much blind love for a politician, it's impossible for you to see any of their faults or admit when they have done something wrong.

Therefore, meaningful debate is useless.


That's unfair of you. He was responding to someone who said "would you still love [bush]" if he was responsible. jt was just responding using their terms.


Not at all. He could have told that person that he did not have love for the President. He could have used his own words.

If he disagreed with that term, he could have easily said so. By going along with it, it shows he agreed.

Wow, truly insightful! I'm flattered you take so much interest in what I say and hey, maybe you are onto something here. Well, no, not so much.

As previously posted, the original question was: "To the republicans here, if it was proven to you that bush was involved would you STILL love him so much?"

Try not to get yourself so worked up over a little humor.

Eh.... nice try. You can say whatever you want, but how you say things are just as important as what you say. I don't believe you were joking or being in a light hearted mood at all. There was no indicator such as LOL, :), etc. Now you are just trying to save face. Or... maybe you are just not very good at communicating. LOL

Anyway, thanks for thinking of my welfare, but don't worry, I'm not really worked up over you. But thanks for caring about me!!!! :D

DJ_Asia
01-13-2006, 07:45 PM
Edelweiss,

Nice post.

BTW did a Google on Sibel Edmonds...some interesting reading.Thanks for the info.

DJ Asia

fishman33
01-14-2006, 12:09 AM
1) That’s not a Stinger Missile or, more appropriately, a Stinger Missile Launcher. It’s a common AT4, which is designed for use against armor, not planes.
2) This supposed international arms dealer doesn’t even know how to hold an AT4 because he is pointing it the wrong way (backwards). Given that anyone who has completed basic training in the U.S. Army knows how to properly hold and fire an AT4, this is a stunning oversight for a supposed arms dealer.


lol, maybe he was selling them as stingers and they believed him? Maybe that was the CIA's master plan all along- sell anit-tank weapons as Stingers and stingers as tank busters?

(ps- Quinn, to me it looks like he is just holding it a little crooked (that red button by his left hand is the trigger), but not backwards. The little end (narrower end) goes to the front and the strap should hook to the tail end. Been awhile for me, though, so I could be wrong.)

T-chaser
01-14-2006, 01:20 AM
Hey Quinn, you are an ignorant human being. The "official" 9/11 story has about as much basis in fact as Humpty Dumpty. I Have researched and studied this topic for hundreds of hours and have come to a definitive and scientific conclusion that 911 was a conspiracy of epic proportions. Even most people in the current Bush administration have no idea that the global elitists orchestrated it all. 911 was supposed to be the perfect crime. It wasn't. Most people are stupid and can be controlled, brainwashed and injected with fear, via the mainstream media. However, there are always a few which see throught the fog of lies. You are not one of these, but I do some hope for you... www.supportthetruth.com is a good place to start. And remember, the biggest government conspiracy of all is the view that there are no government conspiracies.

Quinn
01-14-2006, 03:30 AM
Hey Quinn, you are an ignorant human being. The "official" 9/11 story has about as much basis in fact as Humpty Dumpty. I Have researched and studied this topic for hundreds of hours and have come to a definitive and scientific conclusion that 911 was a conspiracy of epic proportions. Even most people in the current Bush administration have no idea that the global elitists orchestrated it all. 911 was supposed to be the perfect crime. It wasn't. Most people are stupid and can be controlled, brainwashed and injected with fear, via the mainstream media. However, there are always a few which see throught the fog of lies. You are not one of these, but I do some hope for you... www.supportthetruth.com is a good place to start. And remember, the biggest government conspiracy of all is the view that there are no government conspiracies.

Given my inability to put forth such an articulate. well structured, and cogent argument as yourself, I must be ignorant. Seriously, how could anyone disagree with a person as wise as yourself and be anything other than ignorant? As an aside, perhaps you can also give me your wisdom as it relates to alien abductions and the Lockness Monster. Dont worry, "the truth is out there."

-Quinn

chefmike
01-14-2006, 03:36 AM
I do know for a fact that I saw Elvis and Bigbird in the VIP section at Ruby Tuesdays...they were having captain crunch.

Quinn
01-14-2006, 03:47 AM
EdelweissFan,

I keep an open mind because you put forth a reasoned debate, which was supported by an array of facts. As with anything of this breadth, some of the related data will be good, and some of it will be bad. While I remain unconvinced of the overall basis of the argument, there are some really great articles, put forth by reputable sources, that appear to be completely valid (certain hijackers still alive, etc.) and raise serious questions. I'll keep reading.

-Quinn

Quinn
01-14-2006, 03:52 AM
I do know for a fact that I saw Elvis and Bigbird in the VIP section at Ruby Tuesdays...they were having captain crunch.

LOL. Apparently, it's a complimentary dish served to anyone important enough to get seated at in the VIP section. Unfortunately, the offer is only good in "B'more."

-Quinn

T-chaser
01-14-2006, 09:18 PM
Quinn, find some pictures of the Pentagon Aftermath. look at them and use your common sense. What do you see? I'll give you a little fair warning. No luggage, no plane debris, no bodies, no wing-marks, etc. It was no passenger plane. This is just the most blatent loophole in the official 911 story. Sometimes it is unbelievable to me to think about the crap that these guys thought they could pull over the entire world. The 911 conspiracy has so many dead ends and double blinds that it is hard to pinpoint the facts. For example, did you know that the government on 911 was implementing a SIMULATED terrorist attack, wherein planes where hijacked and flowin into skyscrapers?? An exact simulation of the events that were happening in real time. Hmmm isn't that interesting? Maybe to delay and cause confusion in emergency responses, or to cover their asses? Oh yeah, the same simulation exercises took place in last years London's bombings. Don't believe me? its in the associated press. Again man, I ask where is your evidence supporting the "official" story? If the authorities commit the crime, there will be nobody henceforth to answer to. The bottom line is that killing is wrong unless it is a last resort survival tactic. Occupying the middle east and raping and killing for inherent resources is not last survival. An event like 911 might help to secure public approval for their own greedy "foriegn policies". See where I am going with this... hint hint.
"Nothing gains support from the public like the fear of terrorism" -Adolf Hitler

T-chaser
01-14-2006, 09:21 PM
Oh yeah, about aliens... I would be willing to bet that out of the billions of galaxies, each containing trillions of star systems; we are not the only "inteligent" biological life to currently exist.

Andrew Johnson
01-14-2006, 09:26 PM
Oh yeah, about aliens... I would be willing to bet that out of the billions of galaxies, each containing trillions of star systems; we are not the only "inteligent" biological life to currently exist.

Who said we are "intelligent"? lol :lol: :lol:

T-chaser
01-14-2006, 11:45 PM
That is why I put it in parenthesis..! Gimme a break Jackson, its been a couple o' years since college. Anyway this isn't about grammatical errors, its about something much more sad.

jamans
01-14-2006, 11:59 PM
Why does it seem that people who are anti-Bush are pro Socialism??

Felicia Katt
01-15-2006, 12:44 AM
Socialism is grounded in the idea that the best of all possible human societies is one based on cooperation and nurturing, rather than competition and greed. Socialists advocate an egalitarian society, with an economics that would, in their view, serve the broad populace rather than a favored few. Socialist" ideologies tend to emphasize economic cooperation over economic competition; virtually all envision some sort of economic planning placing at least some of the means of production -- and at least some of the distribution of goods and services -- into collective or cooperative ownership.

Is that such a bad thing? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence start with "we the people"? And don't we already have some de facto Socialism going on in the military industrial complex. I mean, except for the good of the average man part?

just for the record, I'm not a Socialist. But as a philosopy, it merits discussion, not summary dismissal.

FK

T-chaser
01-15-2006, 12:58 AM
Republicans are by and large, greedy and extremely selfish individuals. Sit down and talk to one, ask them... they will confess. They are closer to the australopitheces robustus on the evolutionary chart!

Quinn
01-15-2006, 02:30 AM
I Have researched and studied this topic for hundreds of hours and have come to a definitive and scientific conclusion that 911 was a conspiracy of epic proportions.

Hundreds of hours? Really… Let’s just analyze that statement first. Hundreds of hours means we are talking about at least 200 hundred to three hundred hours. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and split the difference at 250 hours. Equating this to a 40-hour work week, you mean to tell me that you have spent 6 plus 40-hour work weeks studying this. Either you are full of shit, or you are some fat guy who sits behind his computer all day with nothing better to do. Either way, I am not impressed.


Even most people in the current Bush administration have no idea that the global elitists orchestrated it all.

Global elitists? What are we talking about here, the Illuminati or some other such nonsense? Where is your proof? Why hasn’t someone in this global conspiracy broken ranks? Your math doesn’t add up.


Quinn, find some pictures of the Pentagon Aftermath. look at them and use your common sense. What do you see? I'll give you a little fair warning. No luggage, no plane debris, no bodies, no wing-marks, etc. It was no passenger plane. This is just the most blatent loophole in the official 911 story

What exactly did hit the Pentagon? Are we talking about a cruise missile or some sort of fighter? Where is your evidence of either?

Here is some in research that strongly argues in favor of a Boeing 757:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis.htm

Unlike much of the other conjecture, this computer model takes into account the Pentagon’s architecture, the structure of a Boeing 757, its flight speed, the impact vector, etc.


Hey Quinn, you are an ignorant human being.


Before calling someone else ignorant, it might help if you first demonstrate some intellect and clarity. So far as I can tell, you are nothing more than a garden variety armchair international relations specialist. While I may disagree with the conclusions of some of the other posters in this thread, I can respect them because of how they present themselves and their arguments. You, on the other hand, merit no such consideration.

-Quinn

T-chaser
01-15-2006, 02:38 AM
Here are some real photos, no simulations
http://www.rense.com/general29/penta.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/lawn.html

Quinn 911 was a set up.

T-chaser
01-15-2006, 02:41 AM
One more post... video link
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

Quinn
01-15-2006, 02:47 AM
So what you're saying is that you can't produce scientific evidence that:

a) "Even most people in the current Bush administration have no idea that the global elitists orchestrated it all;"

b) A specific object other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

You certainly sound like a guy who has "researched and studied this topic for hundreds of hours." Stop wasting my time.

-Quinn

Andrew Johnson
01-15-2006, 06:05 AM
That is why I put it in parenthesis..! Gimme a break Jackson, its been a couple o' years since college. Anyway this isn't about grammatical errors, its about something much more sad.

Umm.....actually, I didn't even notice you made an error 'til you just pointed it out. I meant, who says humans are a form of intelligent life.

Andrew Johnson
01-15-2006, 06:13 AM
Why does it seem that people who are anti-Bush are pro Socialism??

I'm pretty sure all socialists are anti-Bush. But you're sure going out on a limb saying most that are anti-Bush are pro Socialist.

EdelweissFan
01-15-2006, 03:00 PM
T-Chaser, I'm not a subscriber to the "no plane" at the Pentagon theory, but since most people outside NYC would consider me a "crazy conspiracy theorists" for my believe in Bush administration complicity, I keep an open mind. I once read a really interesting analysis of the "no plane" and "controlled demolition of WTC" that said that even if you believe them to be true, they are not the most fruitful avenues to prove complicity. That's because you get drawn into a discussion of physical evidence that cannot be conclusive because the government carted away all the debris before it could be analyzed.

The really obvious evidence is the movement of money and people -- the put options on the airlines, the money connections between Pakistan, the Saudis and hijackers, the refusal of elites to use commercial flights, and so on.

And as for the "drills" simulating terrorist attacks, you are right, that is really quite telling. In the transcripts from the airlines and FAA at several instances when someone reports to someone else that planes have been hijacked the response is a confused, "is this real or is this a drill?" slowing down the response immensely.

And Arianna, thanks for your comments and your sites to those radio files!

Oh yeah, to everyone -- since this IS an erotic site, did I forget to mention that whistle blower Sibel Edmonds is one of the most babelicious woman on the planet?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds.jpg

El Nino
11-12-2007, 08:38 PM
bump

JohnnyVee
11-12-2007, 08:42 PM
bump

http://www.damninteresting.com/wp-content/tinfoil_hat.jpg

stimpy17
11-12-2007, 09:53 PM
Republicans are by and large, greedy and extremely selfish individuals. Sit down and talk to one, ask them... they will confess. They are closer to the australopitheces robustus on the evolutionary chart!

Mmmm.....haha.....HaHaHa.....BWAHHHHHHH!!!!......R OTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"We" rarely resort to name calling, but thank-you for the belly laugh.

Really.

interestedParty
11-12-2007, 10:26 PM
Oh my fucking god, I thought nothing could make me start posting about this again. Do I have to dredge up all my old arguments about how this conspiracy shit is all bullshit? About how the very nature of such theories make them impossible to prove or disprove? I really don't want to waste any more time beating this dead horse, but I will if I have to.

PS—I'm no Bush supporter (keep all puns to yourselves); in fact, I believe him to be the worst president this country has ever had.

PPS—Doesn't this thread belong on the Politics and Religion section?

lust4ts
11-13-2007, 12:03 AM
I can't be bothered to write some long winded reason why but while the some of conspiracy theories are interesting to say the least, I would say no.

trish
11-13-2007, 12:36 AM
Did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld gang "do" 9/11?

bush is too stupid, rumsfeld was too inept (and if he was in on a plan of that magnitude they would've killed him instead of letting him resign), and cheney is smart too have attempted such a colossal undertaking. besides it would've been way to hard to keep the "gang" quiet this long (now six years after the disaster). reason, evidence and time have removed the bush administration from the list of suspects...not to mention we already know bin laden as the prime mover.

thx1138
11-13-2007, 07:16 AM
a lot of good articles here by researcher/reporter Daniel Hopsicker http://www.madcowprod.com/

Kriss
11-26-2007, 04:19 AM
http://www.thesmokehammer.com/

NewYorker
11-26-2007, 05:27 AM
"We" rarely resort to name calling, but thank-you for the belly laugh.

Really.

Really? I guess you didn't see that video of the McCain fundraiser. Last time I checked calling someone a "bitch" is name calling. There's numerous other examples too if you need to a refresher course in what name calling is.

thx1138
11-28-2007, 02:56 AM
I thought ad hominem attacks were prohibited. Guess I was wrong. We'll find out the truth about 9/11 about 50 years from now.

hippifried
11-28-2007, 03:19 AM
We'll find out the truth about 9/11 about 50 years from now.
Hmmmm... Isn't that what was said about the Kennedy assassination?

thx1138
11-28-2007, 11:01 AM
Lyndon Johnson. Bush 41 (as head of the CIA at the time) handled the particulars. This wil come out when Papa Bush is no more.

NewYorker
11-28-2007, 06:41 PM
We'll find out the truth about 9/11 about 50 years from now.
Hmmmm... Isn't that what was said about the Kennedy assassination?

And we did, it was exactly what was always said to have happened.

hippifried
11-28-2007, 08:31 PM
George HW Bush was head of the CIA for one year & one year only. That was 1976. More than 11 years after the assassination.

As far as I know, the full extent of evidence from the Warren report still won't be unsealed until 2014. Nothing released so far ever needed to be sealed in the first place.

I was 12 when this happened. I watched the continuous coverage for 3 days. I saw Oswald get shot on live TV. I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories, but the magic bullit has never made sense. The more I see of the story, the less inclined I am to think Oswald ever had anything to do with it at all. Even at 12 & 13, I was skeptical of the Warren report.

NewYorker
11-28-2007, 08:53 PM
George HW Bush was head of the CIA for one year & one year only. That was 1976. More than 11 years after the assassination.

As far as I know, the full extent of evidence from the Warren report still won't be unsealed until 2014. Nothing released so far ever needed to be sealed in the first place.

I was 12 when this happened. I watched the continuous coverage for 3 days. I saw Oswald get shot on live TV. I don't buy into most of the conspiracy theories, but the magic bullit has never made sense. The more I see of the story, the less inclined I am to think Oswald ever had anything to do with it at all. Even at 12 & 13, I was skeptical of the Warren report.

Actually on the anniversary of the assassination a couple years ago (2004, I believe), they did that whole big report and looked at all the evidence. They showed how there was no magic bullet, that the change in trajector was the result of the president being a special car with seats at different heights.