I was watching the news that morning... I know that there was a lot of misinformation put out that day.. It was pure chaos.. I'm sure a lot of people were confused about what they saw and heard....
But this many people? Maybe.
I'm no engineer.... but doesn't it seem improbable that those planes could have destroyed the buildings as perfectly as they did?
#7 posted April 6, 2007 at 2:48pm (EDT) edited April 6, 2007 at 2:49pm (EDT)
icurok wrote: > I've read enough about it to know that watching
> it would be as much a waste of my time as visiting
> Dinosaur
> Adventure Land
That's a shame considering the only thing in that flick that's really not valid is the "no plane hitting the Pentagon thing." There's a great article called Sifting Through Loose Change bu Jim Hoffman I think you shopuld give a read to.
The big question no one is asking about the Pentagon attack is why would the plane change course ina way that would increase the chances opf the hijakcers gettign shot down, when if they'd gone straight ahead they would've hit the part of the Pentagon where Rumsfeld actually was, AND, why is it the side of the building they ultiamtely did hit was the side that had the least amount of people because of construction work? Ironically, that side of the building was being reinforced to withstand just such an impact as happened on 9/11. Makes you think don't it?
Oh yeah, cause the terrorists would know which part of the Pentagon has the most number of people, and which part has Rumsfeld in it at the time. Maybe they figured hitting a construction area would make the attack look worse than it was which would look more horrified in the papers. Their goal was maximum photo shot, not maximum carnage.
Yeah there bombs in the twin towers...........the planes. I think the impact of the planes compromised the integrity of the building and large hunks falling through the floors sounded like explosions as well as the fire and heat blasting anything flammable or under pressure.
What would have been the goal for our own government to do this?
southernyankee wrote: > Oh yeah, cause the terrorists would know which
> part of the Pentagon has the most number of people,
> and which part has Rumsfeld in it at the time.
> Maybe they figured hitting a construction area
> would make the attack look worse than it was which
> would look more horrified in the papers. Their
> goal was maximum photo shot, not maximum carnage.
>
They were smart enough to get past airport check points even though many of them were on a watch list, yet they were dumb enoguh to risk failure in order to hit the one section of the Pentagon that could take the hit and remind realtively intact? What really blows my mind is a lot of the people who've swallowed the govs official sotry on 9-11 whole are the same people who claim that our "government can't be trusted" in a lot of their books and speeches. That's a litle bit liek, like, aw fudge, I can't possibly make up a metaphor that sounds equally as crazy as this "politicans are all liars, except about 9/11." You just can't. I mean, let me hit you with amde up stuff, and it won't sound as messed up, watch.
Calista Flockhart's Guide to Memphis BBQ
Stephen Hawking's Super Secret Scuba Tips
The Democratic Leadership Council
pennyann wrote: > Yeah there bombs in the twin towers...........the
> planes. I think the impact of the planes compromised
> the integrity of the building and large hunks
> falling through the floors sounded like explosions
> as well as the fire and heat blasting anything
> flammable or under pressure.
>
> What would have been the goal for our own government
> to do this?
Starts with a P, ends with an R, has an O, a W, and an E in the middle. Rhymes with "sour."
Frostbrand wrote: > pennyann wrote: >> Yeah there bombs in the twin towers...........the
>> planes. I think the impact of the planes
> compromised
>> the integrity of the building and large
> hunks
>> falling through the floors sounded like
> explosions
>> as well as the fire and heat blasting
> anything
>> flammable or under pressure.
>>
>> What would have been the goal for our
> own government
>> to do this?
>
> Starts with a P, ends with an R, has an O,
> a W, and an E in the middle. Rhymes with
> "sour."
What would this power have accomplished? Over what?
> They were smart enough to get past airport check points even though
> many of them were on a watch list, yet they were dumb enoguh to risk
> failure in order to hit the one section of the Pentagon that could
> take the hit and remind realtively intact?
It doesn't take that much intelligence to get your hands on fake IDs and/or commit identity theft. Hell, if random INDIVIDUAL gambling and crystal meth addicts and illegal Mexicans can get their hands on stolen social security numbers, it wouldn't be too challenging for organized well financed terrorist organization to pull it off. Hell, the Italian mafia, whats left of them, could probably pull off a few thousand ID thefts.
As for being too "dumb" to fly a plane into a more intact area, you have overlooked a few things. First off, how do you calculate the carnage of hitting area X over area Y from the outside? Secondly, if the plane didn't get shot down after steering off their original flight path obviously heading for thousands of miles, its very unlikely that making a minutes worth u-turn would have made a difference. Here is what I think went on inside the heads of the terrorists: "ok, looking with my naked eyes, I am making an educated guess that hitting this area would cause more damage than this area." Ok, they just guessed wrong. Also, striking a construction area would make for a much "cooler" and scary photo on the front page news than a bunch of burned down cubicles. Their goal was to cause maximum PERCEIVED carnage, not maximum absolute carnage. Afterall, terrorism is more of a form of psychological warfare, whose purpose is to break the will of the people.
What really blows my mind
> is a lot of the people who've swallowed the govs official sotry on
> 9-11 whole are the same people who claim that our "government can't
> be trusted" in a lot of their books and speeches. That's a litle bit
> liek, like, aw fudge, I can't possibly make up a metaphor that sounds
> equally as crazy as this "politicans are all liars, except about 9/11."
> You just can't. I mean, let me hit you with amde up stuff, and it
> won't sound as messed up, watch.
>
Hey man, I share your cynicism of the government and the "official". I just have a hard time believing that W would be despicable enough to knowingly let a terrorist hit his own people's buildings. Is W a bad enough guy to make money on the side from a war based on questionable premises? Sure. But that doesn't mean he would do something that despicable as to knowingly let terrorists hit the WTC. Thats a rather serious accusation.
pennyann wrote: > Frostbrand wrote: >> pennyann wrote: > |>> Yeah there bombs in the twin towers...........the
> |>> planes. I think the impact of the planes
>> compromised
> |>> the integrity of the building and large
>> hunks
> |>> falling through the floors sounded like
>> explosions
> |>> as well as the fire and heat blasting
>> anything
> |>> flammable or under pressure.
> |>>
> |>> What would have been the goal for our
>> own government
> |>> to do this?
>>
>> Starts with a P, ends with an R, has an O,
>> a W, and an E in the middle. Rhymes with
>> "sour."
>
> What would this power have accomplished? Over
> what?
Wow, you don't get out much do you? Ever hear of the PATRIOT Act, posisbly the most ironically named piece of legislation in recorded history?
southernyankee wrote: > Frostbrand wrote: >
>> They were smart enough to get past airport
> check points even though
>> many of them were on a watch list, yet they
> were dumb enoguh to risk
>> failure in order to hit the one section of
> the Pentagon that could
>> take the hit and remind realtively intact?
>
>
> It doesn't take that much intelligence to
> get your hands on fake IDs and/or commit identity
> theft. Hell, if random INDIVIDUAL gambling and
> crystal meth addicts and illegal Mexicans can
> get their hands on stolen social security numbers,
> it wouldn't be too challenging for organized well
> financed terrorist organization to pull it off.
> Hell, the Italian mafia, whats left of them,
> could probably pull off a few thousand ID thefts.
>
> As for being too "dumb" to fly a plane into a
> more intact area, you have overlooked a few things.
> First off, how do you calculate the carnage of
> hitting area X over area Y from the outside?
> Secondly, if the plane didn't get shot down after
> steering off their original flight path obviously
> heading for thousands of miles, its very unlikely
> that making a minutes worth u-turn would have
> made a difference. Here is what I think went
> on inside the heads of the terrorists: "ok, looking
> with my naked eyes, I am making an educated guess
> that hitting this area would cause more damage
> than this area." Ok, they just guessed wrong.
> Also, striking a construction area would make
> for a much "cooler" and scary photo on the front
> page news than a bunch of burned down cubicles.
> Their goal was to cause maximum PERCEIVED carnage,
> not maximum absolute carnage. Afterall, terrorism
> is more of a form of psychological warfare, whose
> purpose is to break the will of the people.
>
Wow. You want to beelive so storngly in the official story that you will say anythign won't you? That is the most ridiculous scenario I've ever heard. Also, you inadvertently shot down your argument against govt. invovlement by pointing out the lack of military response. Cheney gave the stand down order. If anybody else but a war hawk neocon had been in charge, once it becmae clear what that plane was goign to do, it would've been shot down. But a smoking hole in the side of the Pentagon makes for a great propaganda poster don't you think?
>
> What really blows my mind
>> is a lot of the people who've swallowed the
> govs official sotry on
>> 9-11 whole are the same people who claim that
> our "government can't
>> be trusted" in a lot of their books and speeches.
> That's a litle bit
>> liek, like, aw fudge, I can't possibly make
> up a metaphor that sounds
>> equally as crazy as this "politicans are all
> liars, except about 9/11."
>> You just can't. I mean, let me hit you with
> amde up stuff, and it
>> won't sound as messed up, watch.
>>
>
> Hey man, I share your cynicism of the government
> and the "official". I just have a hard time believing
> that W would be despicable enough to knowingly
> let a terrorist hit his own people's buildings.
> Is W a bad enough guy to make money on the side
> from a war based on questionable premises? Sure.
> But that doesn't mean he would do something that
> despicable as to knowingly let terrorists hit
> the WTC. Thats a rather serious accusation.
I didn't say Bush did. Is aid elements within our governemnt. Bush could never be trusted with information of that nature. Yous ee what happens when he goes off the 3 X 5 cards Rove gives him; he accidnetlaly tells the truth, like when he said "We have no evidecenc Saddam Husseinw as invovled with Spetembet the 11th." I bet Cheney slapped him around for that one. You want to know who was invovled? Look at the signataries on a Spetember 2000 docuemtn called "Rebuildign America's Defneses" put out by PNAC. Just Google the phrase "pnac, pearl harbor," you'll find it. Also note that almost all of those signatories had key posotions in the governemnt on 9/11, including Secretary of Defnese and Vice President.
Yes, it all is a very seirous accusation, which is why until I heard about the PNAC document, and about the bomb sniffing dogs beign removed from the World Trade Center, and building 7 I didn't believe it either. Kepe in mind folks I'm not absolivng Bin Laden of anything, just to nip that eventual attack in the bud, I'm just syaing, it's posisble the reaosn we haven't cuaght him yet is becuase if he's captured alive, he might talk, and say some things the administration does not want to get out.
> Wow. You want to beelive so storngly in the official story that you
> will say anythign won't you? That is the most ridiculous scenario
> I've ever heard. Also, you inadvertently shot down your argument against
> govt. invovlement by pointing out the lack of military response. Cheney
> gave the stand down order. If anybody else but a war hawk neocon had
> been in charge, once it becmae clear what that plane was goign to
> do, it would've been shot down. But a smoking hole in the side of
> the Pentagon makes for a great propaganda poster don't you think?
A bit presumptious, don't you think? Face it, it is deeply ingrained in our culture not to shoot down a hijacked plane, nor is it socially acceptable to go in with the military in the event of a hostage situation. It would make no differnce if it had been Gore in power, Kerry, Bush Sr, or whoever. I doubt that anyone would have acted any differently. And not automaticlly a bad thing, in case you don't remember the news from 2 years ago when the Russian police stormed their Opehra house when the Chechians took hostages.
It would take an extremely cyncial and corrupt person to diliberatly not stop a terrorist attack in exchange for some power. I don't think that EVEN a neo-con would do something like that. Not even Cheney himself.
> Yes, it all is a very seirous accusation, which is why until I heard
> about the PNAC document, and about the bomb sniffing dogs beign removed
> from the World Trade Center, and building 7 I didn't believe it either.
> Kepe in mind folks I'm not absolivng Bin Laden of anything, just to
> nip that eventual attack in the bud, I'm just syaing, it's posisble
> the reaosn we haven't cuaght him yet is becuase if he's captured alive,
> he might talk, and say some things the administration does not want
> to get out.
Ok, but I am still not conviced. Whatever it is that the adminstration does not want to get out, its most likely something stupid and benin in order to avoid embarrasment.
Frostbrand wrote: > pennyann wrote: >> Frostbrand wrote: > |>> pennyann wrote: >> |>> Yeah there bombs in the twin towers...........the
>> |>> planes. I think the impact of the
> planes
> |>> compromised
>> |>> the integrity of the building and
> large
> |>> hunks
>> |>> falling through the floors sounded
> like
> |>> explosions
>> |>> as well as the fire and heat blasting
> |>> anything
>> |>> flammable or under pressure.
>> |>>
>> |>> What would have been the goal for
> our
> |>> own government
>> |>> to do this?
> |>>
> |>> Starts with a P, ends with an R, has
> an O,
> |>> a W, and an E in the middle. Rhymes with
> |>> "sour."
>>
>> What would this power have accomplished?
> Over
>> what?
>
> Wow, you don't get out much do you? Ever
> hear of the PATRIOT Act, posisbly the most
> ironically named piece of legislation in
> recorded history?
You could have said that without being an butt-hole, butt-hole.
southernyankee wrote: > Frostbrand wrote: >
>> Wow. You want to beelive so storngly in the
> official story that you
>> will say anythign won't you? That is the most
> ridiculous scenario
>> I've ever heard. Also, you inadvertently shot
> down your argument against
>> govt. invovlement by pointing out the lack
> of military response. Cheney
>> gave the stand down order. If anybody else
> but a war hawk neocon had
>> been in charge, once it becmae clear what that
> plane was goign to
>> do, it would've been shot down. But a smoking
> hole in the side of
>> the Pentagon makes for a great propaganda poster
> don't you think?
>
> A bit presumptious, don't you think? Face it,
> it is deeply ingrained in our culture not to shoot
> down a hijacked plane, nor is it socially acceptable
> to go in with the military in the event of a hostage
> situation. It would make no differnce if it had
> been Gore in power, Kerry, Bush Sr, or whoever.
> I doubt that anyone would have acted any differently.
> And not automaticlly a bad thing, in case you
> don't remember the news from 2 years ago when
> the Russian police stormed their Opehra house
> when the Chechians took hostages.
>
> It would take an extremely cyncial and corrupt
> person to diliberatly not stop a terrorist attack
> in exchange for some power. I don't think that
> EVEN a neo-con would do something like that.
> Not even Cheney himself.
>
You don't think they would. Fine. Doesn't change that the evidence is they did. Believe all you want. It emans nothing. John Travolta believes that Battlefield Earth was a good movie. Doens't change crap.
>> Yes, it all is a very seirous accusation, which
> is why until I heard
>> about the PNAC document, and about the bomb
> sniffing dogs beign removed
>> from the World Trade Center, and building 7
> I didn't believe it either.
>> Kepe in mind folks I'm not absolivng Bin Laden
> of anything, just to
>> nip that eventual attack in the bud, I'm just
> syaing, it's posisble
>> the reaosn we haven't cuaght him yet is becuase
> if he's captured alive,
>> he might talk, and say some things the administration
> does not want
>> to get out.
>
> Ok, but I am still not conviced. Whatever it
> is that the adminstration does not want to get
> out, its most likely something stupid and benin
> in order to avoid embarrasment.
Perhaps, but again, I find it ironic that people who dislike government so strongly they want to get rid of social security, welfare, and affirmative action are so quick to beleive the official story of 9-11 like a 4 year old beelives in Santa Claus. Denial is the longest river in the world. Unfortuantely for the government, I can't swim.
pennyann wrote: > Frostbrand wrote: >> pennyann wrote: > |>> Frostbrand wrote: >> |>> pennyann wrote: > |>> |>> Yeah there bombs in the twin towers...........the
> |>> |>> planes. I think the impact of the
>> planes
>> |>> compromised
> |>> |>> the integrity of the building and
>> large
>> |>> hunks
> |>> |>> falling through the floors sounded
>> like
>> |>> explosions
> |>> |>> as well as the fire and heat blasting
>> |>> anything
> |>> |>> flammable or under pressure.
> |>> |>>
> |>> |>> What would have been the goal for
>> our
>> |>> own government
> |>> |>> to do this?
>> |>>
>> |>> Starts with a P, ends with an R, has
>> an O,
>> |>> a W, and an E in the middle. Rhymes with
>> |>> "sour."
> |>>
> |>> What would this power have accomplished?
>> Over
> |>> what?
>>
>> Wow, you don't get out much do you? Ever
>> hear of the PATRIOT Act, posisbly the most
>> ironically named piece of legislation in
>> recorded history?
>
> You could have said that without being an butt-hole,
> butt-hole.
I'm not an butt-hole, I'm sarcastic. Learn the difference.
#22 posted April 9, 2007 at 8:30am (EDT) edited April 9, 2007 at 8:35am (EDT)
I think we will never know the whole story. I think that we are told very little and on some levels I think the government does that bcuz they don't want the enemy to know how much they know about them..and that is smart. But I think there is sooo much evil in this world. People that are so twisted that , things that are sooo screwed up, and I don't see it getting better. I do think that since that date people have on some level forgotten, or have turned their backs bcuz they don't want to think about how aweful it was. And I think that we are getting volnerable again. I think to watch these films from time to time is healthy for all of us. We need the reminders, we need to protect our future. I don't think the government is out to cloud us like say sadom did. And I think we are told enough of what we need to know. The rest is the details...we know what happened...where it came from that there were signs blah blah blah....we aren't brain washed....there are just details kept to intelligence so that they can do the best they can to protect us.
"You don't think they would. Fine. Doesn't change that the evidence is they did. Believe all you want. It emans nothing. John Travolta believes that Battlefield Earth was a good movie. Doens't change crap."
It wouldn't be worth the risk EVEN IF their sense of morals wouldn't stop them. Considering how much the president makes, plus his kickbacks from Halliburton, he's rich enough to not have to risk going down in history as the guy who delibratly let 9-11 happen, not to mention impeachment and criminal charges. That would be like Bill Gates committing armed robbery.
As for your power argument, a very weak one, because he will be out of power by 2008 anyway. Whatever extra benefits that come to the president from the Patriot Act would end around January 2009, at least for him they would.
The evidence that you present so far isn't convincing enough.
"Perhaps, but again, I find it ironic that people who dislike government so strongly they want to get rid of social security, welfare, and affirmative action are so quick to beleive the official story of 9-11 like a 4 year old beelives in Santa Claus. Denial is the longest river in the world. Unfortuantely for the government, I can't swim."
Yeah, theres people like that out there. Although they're kinda rare. I personally believe we should have a smallER government and I am pretty cynical towards the government myself, but I wouldn't go as far to advocate anarchy. Its good to avoid the extremes.
Something drastic like "the government dilibrary let 9-11 happen" seems pretty far-fetched even to a cynic like me. I think I'll go with the government on this one.
Penny: The Bush family has been involved in American politics since at least JFK. This isn't just about Dubya... He's too much of an idiot to have too much involvement. People keep saying "Why would Bush do that".... Bush didn't. He's evil, his family is evil... but he's still a dumb monkey.
southernyankee wrote: > "You don't think they would. Fine. Doesn't change
> that the evidence is they did. Believe all you
> want. It emans nothing. John Travolta believes
> that Battlefield Earth was a good movie. Doens't
> change crap."
>
> It wouldn't be worth the risk EVEN IF their sense
> of morals wouldn't stop them. Considering how
> much the president makes, plus his kickbacks from
> Halliburton, he's rich enough to not have to risk
> going down in history as the guy who delibratly
> let 9-11 happen, not to mention impeachment and
> criminal charges. That would be like Bill Gates
> committing armed robbery.
Not really. A look at how apathetic the country is proves that. Large numbers of people beelive that at the very least 9-11 was allowed to happen, at worst outright planned by this government (again, I think it's somehwhere inbetween those). Yet, very few of them actually try to do soemthing about it. The reaction of this country to information that eleemnts of the U.S. government were invovled in the 9-11 attacks was "Well, that's pretty ba- Oooh, shiny!"
> As for your power argument, a very weak one, because
> he will be out of power by 2008 anyway. Whatever
> extra benefits that come to the president from
> the Patriot Act would end around January 2009,
> at least for him they would.
Your argument only works if every single Republican, every single defense contractor, and every single far right Christian leader ALSO goes away January of '09.
> The evidence that you present so far isn't convincing
> enough.
That's okay. I've actually only given you a portion of it, trying to spark your interest.
> "Perhaps, but again, I find it ironic that people
> who dislike government so strongly they want to
> get rid of social security, welfare, and affirmative
> action are so quick to beleive the official story
> of 9-11 like a 4 year old beelives in Santa Claus.
> Denial is the longest river in the world. Unfortuantely
> for the government, I can't swim."
>
> Yeah, theres people like that out there. Although
> they're kinda rare. I personally believe we should
> have a smallER government and I am pretty cynical
> towards the government myself, but I wouldn't
> go as far to advocate anarchy. Its good to avoid
> the extremes.
Agreed. After all, despite what icurok said (lied) I'm not implying it was the entirety of the U.S. government. That is a crazy fringe theories that Right Wingers love because they can use the logical fallacy of conflating the fringe with the entire movement. They did to black activtists in the 60s and AIM in the 70s, and they still do it today. They do it wether they're in power at the time or not.
> Something drastic like "the government dilibrary
> let 9-11 happen" seems pretty far-fetched even
> to a cynic like me. I think I'll go with the
> government on this one.
Despite the evidence that they lied out their ass? That speaks poorly of you SoYa.
pennyann wrote: > Frostbrand wrote: >
>> I'm not an butt-hole, I'm sarcastic. Learn
>> the difference.
>
> No, you are. I thought we were having a conversation.
> I ask a question because I genuinely don't know
> the answer and you turn into an butt-hole on me.
How can I have a conversation with someone ignorant of basic facts? I said the Right Wing wanted power, and you said "dir, what kind of power?" when a simple opening of the eyes could demonstrate that for you. For years, Bush has asserted the kind of powers for himself that the framers of the constitutiopn risked their lvies to fight against, and you're all like "buh-um, power? what power? oooh look, air!" If anything, I was kind to you in my post. You think I'm being an butt-hole? Beleive me, when I am being one, you'll know, and you'll realize how mistaken your initial claim was.
they wrote: > Penny: The Bush family has been involved in American
> politics since at least JFK. This isn't just
> about Dubya... He's too much of an idiot to have
> too much involvement. People keep saying "Why
> would Bush do that".... Bush didn't. He's evil,
> his family is evil... but he's still a dumb monkey.
>
> Check out the 9/11 Loose Change Movie:
>
>
#29 posted April 10, 2007 at 10:58pm (EDT) edited April 10, 2007 at 11:02pm (EDT)
I watched all of them. Some compelling points are made. If there were bombs in the building I don't think it was a our government at work. I don't say this because I like Bush, I think he's a bafoon, a moron. I think that bush has some ideas and things he wants to do, such as the guest worker program - basically dreaming of a caste society and making the immigrants the untouchables, to do the undesirable work so americans won't have to get their hands dirty. And the other players are letting him focus and mess with these things while they attend to more serious matters, like letting a child play on the floor with his toys while the grown ups tallk about grown up things. I think that there are more powerful people than the president but I can't relate that to 9-11. I believe people have used 9-11 to their advantage but I am still not convinced it was caused by those people. I don't know enough about architecture, science, or planes to say anything more than what I BELIEVE happened. No I don't think the people were allowed to view/hear all of the evidence, but I don't know why. As many eyewitnesses say it was one thing the same amount say it was another. When you gather only the ones who say it was a demolition then you will see and hear evidence for that argument. When you watch the ones who say it was a passenger plane you will see and hear only evidence for that. All combined I still believe the twin towers fell due to the plane hitting it and the explosion and heat. Now, I wouldn't be surprised to learn a sort of government behind the government was involved but I still don't think it was even that.
Frostbrand wrote: > pennyann wrote: >> Frostbrand wrote: >>
> |>> I'm not an butt-hole, I'm sarcastic. Learn
> |>> the difference.
>>
>> No, you are. I thought we were having
> a conversation.
>> I ask a question because I genuinely don't
> know
>> the answer and you turn into an butt-hole
> on me.
>
> How can I have a conversation with someone
> ignorant of basic facts? I said the Right
> Wing wanted power, and you said "dir, what
> kind of power?" when a simple opening of
> the eyes could demonstrate that for you.
> For years, Bush has asserted the kind of
> powers for himself that the framers of the
> constitutiopn risked their lvies to fight
> against, and you're all like "buh-um, power?
> what power? oooh look, air!" If anything,
> I was kind to you in my post. You think I'm
> being an butt-hole? Beleive me, when I am being
> one, you'll know, and you'll realize how
> mistaken your initial claim was.
It works like this. Often times I don't think of things while in conversation but as soon as I am reminded I can say, 'Oh, yeah, that makes sense.' But you didn't even offer me that. It's called BRAIN DAMAGE, real, actual brain damage. I'm sorry I had a faulty blood vessel but nothing I can do about that now. Thanks for making just having a conversation discouraging. All you had to do was say, 'Well, the Patriot Act for example' and I would have said 'Oh yeah, good point.' Because I know what it is even though I have to look it up for specifics but once you mention it I can make the connection. butt-hole.
#31 posted April 10, 2007 at 11:08pm (EDT) edited April 10, 2007 at 11:11pm (EDT)
Frostbrand wrote: > pennyann wrote: >> Frostbrand wrote: >>
> |>> I'm not an butt-hole, I'm sarcastic. Learn
> |>> the difference.
>>
>> No, you are. I thought we were having
> a conversation.
>> I ask a question because I genuinely don't
> know
>> the answer and you turn into an butt-hole
> on me.
>
> How can I have a conversation with someone
> ignorant of basic facts? I said the Right
> Wing wanted power, and you said "dir, what
> kind of power?" when a simple opening of
> the eyes could demonstrate that for you.
> For years, Bush has asserted the kind of
> powers for himself that the framers of the
> constitutiopn risked their lvies to fight
> against, and you're all like "buh-um, power?
> what power? oooh look, air!" If anything,
> I was kind to you in my post. You think I'm
> being an butt-hole? Beleive me, when I am being
> one, you'll know, and you'll realize how
> mistaken your initial claim was.
It works like this. Often times I don't think of things while in conversation but as soon as I am reminded I can say, 'Oh, yeah, that makes sense.' But you didn't even offer me that. It's called BRAIN DAMAGE, real, actual brain damage. I'm sorry I didn't come out of surgery the same way I went in but nothing I can do about that now. Thanks for making just having a conversation discouraging. All you had to do was say, 'Well, the Patriot Act for example' and I would have said 'Oh yeah, good point.' Because I know what it is even though I have to look it up for specifics but once you mention it I can make the connection. It isn't ignorance, it's a memory deficit.......butt-hole.
My impression is that the neo-cons had it in for Saddam. They would use anything as an excuse. So if 9-11 had never happened, they would have very easily just used something else. I have my doubts that they would actually want 9-11. Not even the American New Century people would. To me, 9-11 would fall into the category of "making the best of a bad situation." Hell, before Bush, even Clinton, and then Bush Sr had warred with Iraq. So its not like W is the only US president to have fought a war with Saddam.
"Your argument only works if every single Republican, every single defense contractor, and every single far right Christian leader ALSO goes away January of '09."
Far right Christian leaders and defense contractors are two separate entities. Hell, theres a reason why the GOP stands for Grand Ole Party. Its made up of various disagreeing factions. The same can be said of Democrats. These factions also switch "sides", make and break alliances every day. Don't oversimply politics strictly the left verses the right. The neo-cons are only one small faction in the large scheme of things, and they will be out of power soon even if Republicans as a party keep winning. When 2009 hits around, Guilani (sp) will be coming in to the White House (hopefully) and Bush goes bye-bye.
EVEN IF the neo-cons stay around, the old bosses will soon retire so that the new guys will take their space. Any power that W got for himself from the Patriot Act will be short lived.
pennyann wrote: > I watched all of them. Some compelling points
> are made. If there were bombs in the building
> I don't think it was a our government at work.
> I don't say this because I like Bush, I think
> he's a bafoon, a moron.
Ah, but I counter with, how else could the explsoives have gotten in? Bush's brother owned the security company that was in charge of security for the WTC towers. Is that merely a coincidence? Just like how in Spetemebr of 2000 a document is signed by a bunch of neocons that says we'd need a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to get what they want, and one year later they get it? Or how our military had a war game simulating just such an attack as 9/11 but on the opposite side of the country, on the same day? Going back to something SoYa said about the Pentagon, if they were smart enough to know the military would be occupied, then why did they not know they wer ehitting the opposite side of the Pentagon from where Rumsfle was?
> I think that bush has
> some ideas and things he wants to do, such as
> the guest worker program - basically dreaming
> of a caste society and making the immigrants the
> untouchables, to do the undesirable work so americans
> won't have to get their hands dirty. And the other
> players are letting him focus and mess with these
> things while they attend to more serious matters,
> like letting a child play on the floor with his
> toys while the grown ups tallk about grown up
> things. I think that there are more powerful people
> than the president but I can't relate that to
> 9-11. I believe people have used 9-11 to their
> advantage but I am still not convinced it was
> caused by those people.
For what it's worth I don't think ALL of thost people were invovled. Just the ones who were in the right position to mke it happen, and maybe a few others (basically, my suspect list is eveyrone who signed that PNAC document I like to go on about. Dubya was NOT one of them)
> I don't know enough about
> architecture, science, or planes to say anything
> more than what I BELIEVE happened. No I don't
> think the people were allowed to view/hear all
> of the evidence, but I don't know why. As many
> eyewitnesses say it was one thing the same amount
> say it was another. When you gather only the ones
> who say it was a demolition then you will see
> and hear evidence for that argument.
How about your own eyes? There are visible signs of controlled demolition.
> When you
> watch the ones who say it was a passenger plane
> you will see and hear only evidence for that.
Can we get off the fringe theories like "no planes on 9-11?" Seriously, I hate when people assign those to me.
> All combined I still believe the twin towers fell
> due to the plane hitting it and the explosion
> and heat.
On the 9/11 tapes, New York firefighters can be heard reporting in from floors that, if the fire were hot enough to melt steel as the official story claims and you believe against all reason and logic, they would not have been able to get to. In fact, one can be heard stating that he has a plan to put the fires out. Adn this sin't some podunk volunteer fire department guy talking, this is FDNY! It's on the tapes which are avaialble for the public to listen to.
> Now, I wouldn't be surprised to learn
> a sort of government behind the government was
> involved but I still don't think it was even that.
Why not? Shadow governments aren't exactly unheard of in recorded history.
pennyann wrote: > Frostbrand wrote: >> pennyann wrote: > |>> Frostbrand wrote: > |>>
>> |>> I'm not an butt-hole, I'm sarcastic. Learn
>> |>> the difference.
> |>>
> |>> No, you are. I thought we were having
>> a conversation.
> |>> I ask a question because I genuinely don't
>> know
> |>> the answer and you turn into an butt-hole
>> on me.
>>
>> How can I have a conversation with someone
>> ignorant of basic facts? I said the Right
>> Wing wanted power, and you said "dir, what
>> kind of power?" when a simple opening of
>> the eyes could demonstrate that for you.
>> For years, Bush has asserted the kind of
>> powers for himself that the framers of the
>> constitutiopn risked their lvies to fight
>> against, and you're all like "buh-um, power?
>> what power? oooh look, air!" If anything,
>> I was kind to you in my post. You think I'm
>> being an butt-hole? Beleive me, when I am being
>> one, you'll know, and you'll realize how
>> mistaken your initial claim was.
>
> It works like this. Often times I don't think
> of things while in conversation but as soon as
> I am reminded I can say, 'Oh, yeah, that makes
> sense.' But you didn't even offer me that. It's
> called BRAIN DAMAGE, real, actual brain damage.
> I'm sorry I had a faulty blood vessel but nothing
> I can do about that now. Thanks for making just
> having a conversation discouraging. All you had
> to do was say, 'Well, the Patriot Act for example'
> and I would have said 'Oh yeah, good point.' Because
> I know what it is even though I have to look it
> up for specifics but once you mention it I can
> make the connection. butt-hole.
southernyankee wrote: > My impression is that the neo-cons had it in for
> Saddam.
When they weren't trading with him and shakign his hand, yes.
> They would use anything as an excuse.
> So if 9-11 had never happened, they would have
> very easily just used something else.
They would've tried, but I doubt they would have gotten even half the public support they got from tying him to 9-11.
> I have
> my doubts that they would actually want 9-11.
Oh they wanted it. Check out the PNAC document. It's not stated explicitly of course, but it's there.
> Not even the American New Century people would.
See above.
> To me, 9-11 would fall into the category of
> "making the best of a bad situation."
> Hell,
> before Bush, even Clinton, and then Bush Sr had
> warred with Iraq. So its not like W is the only
> US president to have fought a war with Saddam.
True.
> "Your argument only works if every single Republican,
> every single defense contractor, and every single
> far right Christian leader ALSO goes away January
> of '09."
>
> Far right Christian leaders and defense contractors
> are two separate entities.
In theory.
> Hell, theres a reason
> why the GOP stands for Grand Ole Party. Its made
> up of various disagreeing factions.
Who all agree on one thing; gays are bad.
> The same
> can be said of Democrats. These factions also
> switch "sides", make and break alliances every
> day. Don't oversimply politics strictly the
> left verses the right. The neo-cons are only
> one small faction in the large scheme of things,
> and they will be out of power soon even if Republicans
> as a party keep winning. When 2009 hits around,
> Guilani (sp) will be coming in to the White House
> (hopefully) and Bush goes bye-bye.
You hope for Giuliani? You hope for HIM? Oh go fudge yourself, you have officially stopped being fun to talk to. You support HIM? That scum? The guy who made his mobbed up driver NYC's police commissioner? The guy who put New York's emergnecy comand center IN the World Trade Center? The guy who humiliated his seocnd wife on national TV? The guy who wouldn't give the FDNY and NYPD proper radios so that firefighters in the Norht Tower on 9-11 woudln't hear the evac order causign their deaths? That fasicst? If you want a leader like him, build a time machine and go live under Mussolini.
> EVEN IF the neo-cons stay around, the old bosses
> will soon retire so that the new guys will take
> their space. Any power that W got for himself
> from the Patriot Act will be short lived.
For himself yes, but agian, you are basing your arguments on false assumptions, i.e. that Bush is the only one who benefits. Continuing to argue from a false premise doesn't help you any.
Brian: I love your comments. I can see past your crustiness, so it's fine with me... I just wish that you didn't come off as so hateful... more people would listen to you.
I think people automatically turn you off and discount what you have to say because of your approach. It would benefit everyone if your great ideas were presented in a way that didn't alienate everyone... I feel like more people would listen and absorb what you have to say if you presented it in a different way.
When I say 'you' I didn't mean you specifically just who ever was reading the post at large.
When I say our government I'm talking about the one we see, not the one behind the scenes. I just don't think Bush himself is as in on it as he'd like to think. He is an imbecile being used IMO. I don't think he'd have the capability to understand such a project if it did exist.
they wrote: > Brian: I love your comments. I can see past your
> crustiness, so it's fine with me... I just wish
> that you didn't come off as so hateful... more
> people would listen to you.
>
> I think people automatically turn you off and
> discount what you have to say because of your
> approach. It would benefit everyone if your great
> ideas were presented in a way that didn't alienate
> everyone... I feel like more people would listen
> and absorb what you have to say if you presented
> it in a different way.
I was just starting to get frustrated... because I do agree with most of what he's saying... It's driving me nuts that everyone discounts valid points solely because they are being made by Brian.
I respect his brain... his ego is gi-normous though... I wonder what ever happened to that insecure teenager I once knew?
