The path of least resistance is not straight through the building itself.
So many people are aloof to this for some reason.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
So let me see if I've got the talking points down:
1) The Bush Administration is, perhaps, the most inept administration in the history of the United States
and 2) That didn't stop them from pulling off the single greatest conspiracy in the history of conspiracies and getting away with it.
Oh-kay ...
what the hell are you even talking about?
when someone calls the Bush Administration inept, they aren't saying that the Bush Admin is incapable of doing anything. They're saying the Bush Admin is incapable of rightfully taking care of this country in the right way.
The Bush Admin has been capable of getting away with SO much shit that you don't even know about... in fact, it almost looks like you don't even care to know about this kind of shit... you're one of those people who says "let's not dwell on the past, but look to the future..." :rolleyes:
please, go ahead: come up with theories.
but please don't fill them up with 50% garbage claims and say people can pick whatever they think is true...
why do you want me to post my theories on here? so that you can quickly respond by saying "nope, not true."
The fact of the matter is that, no matter WHAT, you cannot logically say "I don't think 9/11 is an inside job," because, in the end, you have no proof to support that. Just like how people who think there is more to 9/11 than you see in the news, you also HAVE to think that, because there are just soooo many unanswered questions. it just makes no sense to quickly debunk anything.
If you're so fucking interested, why don't you do your own research and come up with YOUR OWN theories? because it looks to me that all you wanted to do here was prove a simple point from the beginning, and I really don't think you came in with an open mind. It looks like you were just expecting people's arguments and had responses made up before you even posted this thread.
I don't have to answer your question with my own theory because it's just a theory. But you can't actually say that you don't think there's much more to 9/11. And you can't actually say that it's impossible for the Bush Admin to carry this out. What's 4000 people dead? The Bush Administration is responsible for MILLIONS of other deaths worldwide, and you think 4000 deaths on US soil is so hard to believe? The Bush Administration has no problem SPYING on US citizens, throwing them in jail unjustly, and torturing MANY people.... you think killing a few thousand with some airplanes is really a big deal to them?
and you should read the last page...I made some pretty profound points;)
not really. You keep saying things like they're facts, when really it's just opinion. You can't actually PROVE that it's impossible for a couple thousand people to be incredibly powerful in this world.
What I don't get, is if the US DID plan, and pull off 9/11..
Then why couldn't they plant a WMD? If they had that, they could do whatever the hell they wanted the rest of their years.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
when someone calls the Bush Administration inept, they aren't saying that the Bush Admin is incapable of doing anything. They're saying the Bush Admin is incapable of rightfully taking care of this country in the right way.
The Bush Admin has been capable of getting away with SO much shit that you don't even know about... in fact, it almost looks like you don't even care to know about this kind of shit... you're one of those people who says "let's not dwell on the past, but look to the future..." :rolleyes:
I'm just saying Bush is obviously an idiot, right? So how could he possibly pull off the biggest scam in the history of scams?
The left's two greatest caricatures of the his administration don't jibe. He's a bumbling genius, apparently.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
What I don't get, is if the US DID plan, and pull off 9/11..
Then why couldn't they plant a WMD? If they had that, they could do whatever the hell they wanted the rest of their years.
This is another excellent point.
They had no problem killing thousands of their own citizens. No moral qualms there. But when it came to framing Saddam, all of a sudden they couldn't or wouldn't pull it off?
Sorry, not buying it.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
The fact of the matter is that, no matter WHAT, you cannot logically say "I don't think 9/11 is an inside job," because, in the end, you have no proof to support that.
That's because you can't prove a negative.
I can't prove you didn't have sex with a cat today. Does that automatically make you a catfucker?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Yeah, I'm sure someone here could invent another theory out of thin air. They're good at that here. It's kind of the forte of this board.
It's responses like this that makes this board so fucking annoying now. I actually acknowledged a good point and all you did was respond with some insulting comment.
The point is that you can't prove it was terrorists either when the facts don't match up.
Except for, you know, the terrorists on the plane. And all the shit Al Qaeda blew up before 9.11. And their fucking confession.
There's a logical principle called Ockham's razor that has been used by logicians for centuries. It states: The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
If I've got Al Queda claiming to have blown up the building they already tried to blow up before, that they've been threatening to blow up for a decade ... that seems to be the simplest answer.
Anything else, and I'm going to have to see some actual proof, and not paranoid, wild-eyed conjecture on the Internet.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Still waiting to see Bin Laden wanted for 9/11 on fbi.gov....
been a long time now....
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's responses like this that makes this board so fucking annoying now. I actually acknowledged a good point and all you did was respond with some insulting comment.
Who am I insulting? There are plenty of people who really will invent you something out of mid-air. This point has been brought up often on threads such as these. And guess what? Someone ALWAYS invents something out of air to try and answer the question.
"Oh, it was too hard. There were satellites all over the place."
and, of course, my favorite: "It would require too many people you'd have to keep quiet." -- as if an inside job on 9.11 could be pulled off by like two dudes.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
By the way, just to avoid misinterpretation and accusation of arrogance... I know you're using the term "sober" in its original Latin origin - that is, serious, moderate, etc.
As fellow non-native English speaker that is apparent to me (along with the irony), but it might not be so to English-speaker where the most common meaning of sober is not intoxicated by alcohol.
not really. You keep saying things like they're facts, when really it's just opinion. You can't actually PROVE that it's impossible for a couple thousand people to be incredibly powerful in this world.
giving (valid) examples from history where people fail miserable in even controlling their own country(while they have much more means for it than the US admin or their masters to do so) is much more evidence than any of you guys put here to support your opinions ot theories. and I'm talking about controlling in the sense that you mean it, not in the sense of governing. everyone who believes 1000 people can controll earth in its entiretly, nobody noticing except a few Cosp. Theorists who can say this without anything happening to them and making a shitload of cash with giving lectures and selling books...is up to believe everything...
just like those guys who follow Erich von Daeniken who claims major sites like the pyramides were built by aliens...the guy makes a living of this crap...but hey...I can't disprove it...must be true...maybe it was god...or Darth Vader...or maybe me? CAN YOU DISPROVE IT?
don't you see how hard it is to even control this stupid little forum???;)
as I said: you can claim EVERYTHING...the burden of proof is on your side then...and claiming something that can't be disproved, is not being right: it's making up stories, like religions or...well conspiracy theories...
I really suggest for people (and I know I sound like a dick) instead of reading demolition textbooks and looking at clouds of dust, get yourself some serious history, economy, or social science literature...and well...sit down for a while...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
The path of least resistance is not straight through the building itself.
So many people are aloof to this for some reason.
Actually, people who believe only the great USA is capable of pulling something like this off are following the path of least resistance...
at the core of this seems to be the believe that (whether you're an american or not) america can only be harmed if
a) it let's it happen or
b) they do it themselves...
and at the core of this seems to be the believe that america actually is in control of the world...I know it's a superpower...but that doesn't mean it (or its proverbial puppet masters) can control each and everything in the world...america doesn't run the show...it's only a main contributor...
so get off your ego-trips (or paranoia, if you're not american) and accept that fact that contrary to us propaganda...there are also some other pretty influencial humans...
Americans, get a grip, and step back to look at the world for a while...what role America plays in it, how some people might really hate it so much to do such unbelievable things as 911...how others are standing loyal and what their reasons are...Americans should finally realize that they live on planet earth not on planet america, and that they are intertwined with other countries in manyfold ways...and that yes...the actions of other people than americans can have consequences for america...even people in a cave with boxcutters...
you can blame the federal reserve for the weak dollar no problem...of course an american institution...
but maybe, only maybe loaning billions of dollars from China has a little something to do with it...and thus inflating the money supply in the country way above the supply of goods -> INFLATION, you know..
blaming THE MAN, or THE ONE HUNDRED isn't doing anything helpful in solving REAL problems...they divert...and the most positive contribution they can make I guess, is zero...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
one last thing...
opinions...actually can be called garbage...if they are uninformed...and without any veryfiable chain of reasoning...
I can have the opinion I'm not ill and tell the doctor many times...yet, he would be right to call my opinion garbage when in fact I have terminal cancer...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
By the way, just to avoid misinterpretation and accusation of arrogance... I know you're using the term "sober" in its original Latin origin - that is, serious, moderate, etc.
As fellow non-native English speaker that is apparent to me (along with the irony), but it might not be so to English-speaker where the most common meaning of sober is not intoxicated by alcohol.
Just thought to clarify it!
yes, that's pretty much what I meant...thank you:)
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
1. If you believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone - look no further...
2. Motives - The Project for the New American Century clearly claims that a 911kinda event is the only thing that will make their agenda possible. None had more to win on 911 than the Bush adm and its powerful men behind it. I hope we can all agree that Bush adm wanted this war bad.. No way they would have gotten it without 911.
3. Strongest airforce in the world was not able to stop 4 planes flying into buildings - although it was based right beside Pentagon
4. Although there had been "no warnings" of such an attack, Bin Laden was immidiately guilty of this crime and the pilots were soon exploited.
5. When your country is under a terroristattack - the president should be taken immidiately into safety.. Not reading a book at a public school. If you can fly 4 planes into significant buildings, beat the biggest defence system of all time, you could easily find out where the president is located.
Now, to your question. I believe the pilots were AlQ guys or something to that extend, thinking they were doing it just on behalf of their terroristgroup.
actually I've read some thesis that Fascists in particular have to cater to their people (the majority)...as they have no other legimatization than the claim that they are good for the country...a hundred years of brutal violence and suppression against the MAJORITY of the people has never accured in history...especially dictators tend to at least try to please the main group of society...cause they live in constant fear of an overthrow (see e.g. Stalin)...
m.
Oh no, I totally agree that fascist states had to legimise their claim to power by catering to the majority - which also supports the fact that the only repression was of minorities, also the perceived "enemy" against which all can unify against.
There are various instruments used historically to enforce dictatorship, but not active repression of a dominant group. It would be self-defeating, in a sense.
Oh no, I totally agree that fascist states had to legimise their claim to power by catering to the majority - which also supports the fact that the only repression was of minorities, also the perceived "enemy" against which all can unify against.
There are various instruments used historically to enforce dictatorship, but not active repression of a dominant group. It would be self-defeating, in a sense.
EXACTLY:)
and I knew you agreed...I was just enhancing your point...:)
now, people, don't you think conspiracy theorists would be a very easy minority to oppress??;)
in fact...they are a minority who are good at deception and good at making a fair amount of cash by making FALSE claims...
"the real story behind 911" "this is how the tower really went down" "Bush and Osama-dream couple" "illuminati behind 911"
yawn...SUPER FUCKIN YAWN...
people like to believe they are the powerless playball of some higher power...gives them a lot of excuses...
add shady facts, unsourced information, and absolutely FALSE analogies and you've got thousands of internet discussions spreading the "truth"...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
1. If you believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone - look no further...
2. Motives - The Project for the New American Century clearly claims that a 911kinda event is the only thing that will make their agenda possible. None had more to win on 911 than the Bush adm and its powerful men behind it. I hope we can all agree that Bush adm wanted this war bad.. No way they would have gotten it without 911.
3. Strongest airforce in the world was not able to stop 4 planes flying into buildings - although it was based right beside Pentagon
4. Although there had been "no warnings" of such an attack, Bin Laden was immidiately guilty of this crime and the pilots were soon exploited.
5. When your country is under a terroristattack - the president should be taken immidiately into safety.. Not reading a book at a public school. If you can fly 4 planes into significant buildings, beat the biggest defence system of all time, you could easily find out where the president is located.
Now, to your question. I believe the pilots were AlQ guys or something to that extend, thinking they were doing it just on behalf of their terroristgroup.
1.what does Oswald have to do with this?
is it the same people who killed Kennedy, that are rsponsible for 911?
and the same people who killed King for that matter?
2. only because they profited from the attack, doesn't mean they were behind it? that's after the fact reasoning...
you might profit from finding a 100$ bill on the street tomorrow...doesn't mean you put it there...
3. that's what I claimed above: even the US isn't all powerful (although many people actually profit from that image)...it wasn't as easy to react to the hi-jacking as your portray it here...it was an absolutely uncommen and unique event
who would even consider they fly into those buildings? and thus, who would shoot them down only because they were hi-jacked? I keep telling you...there were HUMANS at work...on both sides...
4. he proudly supported the attacks...I don't claim he was behind it...all I do is to disprove that the US did it...logically two different things
5. oh really...so everytime a bomb went up in London, they immediately hid the prime minister or the queen? cause surely the IRA knew exactly where they were and could have easily killed them...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
EXACTLY:)
and I knew you agreed...I was just enhancing your point...:)
now, people, don't you think conspiracy theorists would be a very easy minority to oppress??;)
in fact...they are a minority who are good at deception and good at making a fair amount of cash by making FALSE claims...
"the real story behind 911" "this is how the tower really went down" "Bush and Osama-dream couple" "illuminati behind 911"
yawn...SUPER FUCKIN YAWN...
people like to believe they are the powerless playball of some higher power...gives them a lot of excuses...
add shady facts, unsourced information, and absolutely FALSE analogies and you've got thousands of internet discussions spreading the "truth"...
m.
Cool (was just reading quickly and wasn't sure if I had made my previous point clear)
With regard to conspiracy theories, it seems to me that their appeal is that while the ignorant masses are led by whatever obscure puppet-masters, only a few really know what it really is going on, hence deriving a sense of purpose and power from this "esoteric" knowledge, when the reality is actually much more mundane and complex.
Now, to your question. I believe the pilots were AlQ guys or something to that extend, thinking they were doing it just on behalf of their terroristgroup.
KUDOS to you...and I mean it!
Answers like this are what I made this thread for (not to hear what I want to hear, as one person claimed)...
clear, coherent, without linking pictures to dust clouds...just a short statement, for a short and easy question.
I specifically asked that question to avoid another general 911 thread...I knew that would make me mad...like keep repeating that it's textbook demolitions or claims that the Reichstag Fire was even remotely similiar to 911...or that the patriot act is the enabling act...or that the federal reserve controls the (world) economy etc...
I hope some more people will follow your example (and the 2 or 3 people before) that made a statement like that...
it's fair enough for me...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Cool (was just reading quickly and wasn't sure if I had made my previous point clear)
With regard to conspiracy theories, it seems to me that their appeal is that while the ignorant masses are led by whatever obscure puppet-masters, only a few really know what it really is going on, hence deriving a sense of purpose and power from this "esoteric" knowledge, when the reality is actually much more mundane and complex.
yes:)
as I said a hundred times...
I am totally in support of questioning official reports of whatever shape or form...
but including at least 50% of false claimes and unsourced information in your counter-claims, does make you neither right nor look very reliable...and it sure doesn't make it the truth...
only because something seems to make sense or match, doesn't make it true...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
1.what does Oswald have to do with this?
is it the same people who killed Kennedy, that are rsponsible for 911?
and the same people who killed King for that matter?
2. only because they profited from the attack, doesn't mean they were behind it? that's after the fact reasoning...
you might profit from finding a 100$ bill on the street tomorrow...doesn't mean you put it there...
3. that's what I claimed above: even the US isn't all powerful (although many people actually profit from that image)...it wasn't as easy to react to the hi-jacking as your portray it here...it was an absolutely uncommen and unique event
who would even consider they fly into those buildings? and thus, who would shoot them down only because they were hi-jacked? I keep telling you...there were HUMANS at work...on both sides...
4. he proudly supported the attacks...I don't claim he was behind it...all I do is to disprove that the US did it...logically two different things
5. oh really...so everytime a bomb went up in London, they immediately hid the prime minister or the queen? cause surely the IRA knew exactly where they were and could have easily killed them...
1. If you believe that americans politicians had anything to do with the JFK assassin - then you will know what men in power are capable of. The same 3 questions - Who benefit, who had the power to pull it off and who had the power to cover it up.
2. Dont underestimate the motives
3. There were several warnings of such an attack. Get to know the facts. Also, get to know the timetable. That a plane can crash into the pentagon some time after the biggest terroristattack on american soil, is f%#&ing unbelievable. One guy also testified to the commision that Dick himself ordered the plane not to get shot down. He was in the same room.
4. I didnt ask whether you believe it was him or not. Just saying it was strange that 19 men + osama was guilty the next day when at the same time the bushadm claim not to have any knowledge of such an attack.
5. So you agree that the president should be seated? One thing is that he should be taken into safety, the other thing is that when the country is under attack - shouldnt he do something?
Comments
People need to understand that if anything
The path of least resistance is not straight through the building itself.
So many people are aloof to this for some reason.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
when someone calls the Bush Administration inept, they aren't saying that the Bush Admin is incapable of doing anything. They're saying the Bush Admin is incapable of rightfully taking care of this country in the right way.
The Bush Admin has been capable of getting away with SO much shit that you don't even know about... in fact, it almost looks like you don't even care to know about this kind of shit... you're one of those people who says "let's not dwell on the past, but look to the future..." :rolleyes:
The fact of the matter is that, no matter WHAT, you cannot logically say "I don't think 9/11 is an inside job," because, in the end, you have no proof to support that. Just like how people who think there is more to 9/11 than you see in the news, you also HAVE to think that, because there are just soooo many unanswered questions. it just makes no sense to quickly debunk anything.
If you're so fucking interested, why don't you do your own research and come up with YOUR OWN theories? because it looks to me that all you wanted to do here was prove a simple point from the beginning, and I really don't think you came in with an open mind. It looks like you were just expecting people's arguments and had responses made up before you even posted this thread.
I don't have to answer your question with my own theory because it's just a theory. But you can't actually say that you don't think there's much more to 9/11. And you can't actually say that it's impossible for the Bush Admin to carry this out. What's 4000 people dead? The Bush Administration is responsible for MILLIONS of other deaths worldwide, and you think 4000 deaths on US soil is so hard to believe? The Bush Administration has no problem SPYING on US citizens, throwing them in jail unjustly, and torturing MANY people.... you think killing a few thousand with some airplanes is really a big deal to them?
not really. You keep saying things like they're facts, when really it's just opinion. You can't actually PROVE that it's impossible for a couple thousand people to be incredibly powerful in this world.
Then why couldn't they plant a WMD? If they had that, they could do whatever the hell they wanted the rest of their years.
I'm just saying Bush is obviously an idiot, right? So how could he possibly pull off the biggest scam in the history of scams?
The left's two greatest caricatures of the his administration don't jibe. He's a bumbling genius, apparently.
for the least they could possibly do
This is another excellent point.
They had no problem killing thousands of their own citizens. No moral qualms there. But when it came to framing Saddam, all of a sudden they couldn't or wouldn't pull it off?
Sorry, not buying it.
for the least they could possibly do
That's because you can't prove a negative.
I can't prove you didn't have sex with a cat today. Does that automatically make you a catfucker?
for the least they could possibly do
The point is that you can't prove it was terrorists either when the facts don't match up.
Maybe someone else here would have an answer for that.
So who did? It was Cheney, right? Had to be Cheney? He just likes to blow shit up. I bet he giggled like a schoolgirl.
for the least they could possibly do
Yeah, I'm sure someone here could invent another theory out of thin air. They're good at that here. It's kind of the forte of this board.
for the least they could possibly do
Except for, you know, the terrorists on the plane. And all the shit Al Qaeda blew up before 9.11. And their fucking confession.
There's a logical principle called Ockham's razor that has been used by logicians for centuries. It states: The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
If I've got Al Queda claiming to have blown up the building they already tried to blow up before, that they've been threatening to blow up for a decade ... that seems to be the simplest answer.
Anything else, and I'm going to have to see some actual proof, and not paranoid, wild-eyed conjecture on the Internet.
for the least they could possibly do
been a long time now....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Who am I insulting? There are plenty of people who really will invent you something out of mid-air. This point has been brought up often on threads such as these. And guess what? Someone ALWAYS invents something out of air to try and answer the question.
"Oh, it was too hard. There were satellites all over the place."
and, of course, my favorite: "It would require too many people you'd have to keep quiet." -- as if an inside job on 9.11 could be pulled off by like two dudes.
for the least they could possibly do
By the way, just to avoid misinterpretation and accusation of arrogance... I know you're using the term "sober" in its original Latin origin - that is, serious, moderate, etc.
As fellow non-native English speaker that is apparent to me (along with the irony), but it might not be so to English-speaker where the most common meaning of sober is not intoxicated by alcohol.
Just thought to clarify it!
giving (valid) examples from history where people fail miserable in even controlling their own country(while they have much more means for it than the US admin or their masters to do so) is much more evidence than any of you guys put here to support your opinions ot theories. and I'm talking about controlling in the sense that you mean it, not in the sense of governing. everyone who believes 1000 people can controll earth in its entiretly, nobody noticing except a few Cosp. Theorists who can say this without anything happening to them and making a shitload of cash with giving lectures and selling books...is up to believe everything...
just like those guys who follow Erich von Daeniken who claims major sites like the pyramides were built by aliens...the guy makes a living of this crap...but hey...I can't disprove it...must be true...maybe it was god...or Darth Vader...or maybe me? CAN YOU DISPROVE IT?
don't you see how hard it is to even control this stupid little forum???;)
as I said: you can claim EVERYTHING...the burden of proof is on your side then...and claiming something that can't be disproved, is not being right: it's making up stories, like religions or...well conspiracy theories...
I really suggest for people (and I know I sound like a dick) instead of reading demolition textbooks and looking at clouds of dust, get yourself some serious history, economy, or social science literature...and well...sit down for a while...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Actually, people who believe only the great USA is capable of pulling something like this off are following the path of least resistance...
at the core of this seems to be the believe that (whether you're an american or not) america can only be harmed if
a) it let's it happen or
b) they do it themselves...
and at the core of this seems to be the believe that america actually is in control of the world...I know it's a superpower...but that doesn't mean it (or its proverbial puppet masters) can control each and everything in the world...america doesn't run the show...it's only a main contributor...
so get off your ego-trips (or paranoia, if you're not american) and accept that fact that contrary to us propaganda...there are also some other pretty influencial humans...
Americans, get a grip, and step back to look at the world for a while...what role America plays in it, how some people might really hate it so much to do such unbelievable things as 911...how others are standing loyal and what their reasons are...Americans should finally realize that they live on planet earth not on planet america, and that they are intertwined with other countries in manyfold ways...and that yes...the actions of other people than americans can have consequences for america...even people in a cave with boxcutters...
you can blame the federal reserve for the weak dollar no problem...of course an american institution...
but maybe, only maybe loaning billions of dollars from China has a little something to do with it...and thus inflating the money supply in the country way above the supply of goods -> INFLATION, you know..
blaming THE MAN, or THE ONE HUNDRED isn't doing anything helpful in solving REAL problems...they divert...and the most positive contribution they can make I guess, is zero...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
opinions...actually can be called garbage...if they are uninformed...and without any veryfiable chain of reasoning...
I can have the opinion I'm not ill and tell the doctor many times...yet, he would be right to call my opinion garbage when in fact I have terminal cancer...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
yes, that's pretty much what I meant...thank you:)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
1. If you believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone - look no further...
2. Motives - The Project for the New American Century clearly claims that a 911kinda event is the only thing that will make their agenda possible. None had more to win on 911 than the Bush adm and its powerful men behind it. I hope we can all agree that Bush adm wanted this war bad.. No way they would have gotten it without 911.
3. Strongest airforce in the world was not able to stop 4 planes flying into buildings - although it was based right beside Pentagon
4. Although there had been "no warnings" of such an attack, Bin Laden was immidiately guilty of this crime and the pilots were soon exploited.
5. When your country is under a terroristattack - the president should be taken immidiately into safety.. Not reading a book at a public school. If you can fly 4 planes into significant buildings, beat the biggest defence system of all time, you could easily find out where the president is located.
Now, to your question. I believe the pilots were AlQ guys or something to that extend, thinking they were doing it just on behalf of their terroristgroup.
hahaha!! That's priceless!
What can I say it was too late for me!
Pretty funny, but yeah, I wouldn't be surprised
Oh no, I totally agree that fascist states had to legimise their claim to power by catering to the majority - which also supports the fact that the only repression was of minorities, also the perceived "enemy" against which all can unify against.
There are various instruments used historically to enforce dictatorship, but not active repression of a dominant group. It would be self-defeating, in a sense.
EXACTLY:)
and I knew you agreed...I was just enhancing your point...:)
now, people, don't you think conspiracy theorists would be a very easy minority to oppress??;)
in fact...they are a minority who are good at deception and good at making a fair amount of cash by making FALSE claims...
"the real story behind 911" "this is how the tower really went down" "Bush and Osama-dream couple" "illuminati behind 911"
yawn...SUPER FUCKIN YAWN...
people like to believe they are the powerless playball of some higher power...gives them a lot of excuses...
add shady facts, unsourced information, and absolutely FALSE analogies and you've got thousands of internet discussions spreading the "truth"...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
1.what does Oswald have to do with this?
is it the same people who killed Kennedy, that are rsponsible for 911?
and the same people who killed King for that matter?
2. only because they profited from the attack, doesn't mean they were behind it? that's after the fact reasoning...
you might profit from finding a 100$ bill on the street tomorrow...doesn't mean you put it there...
3. that's what I claimed above: even the US isn't all powerful (although many people actually profit from that image)...it wasn't as easy to react to the hi-jacking as your portray it here...it was an absolutely uncommen and unique event
who would even consider they fly into those buildings? and thus, who would shoot them down only because they were hi-jacked? I keep telling you...there were HUMANS at work...on both sides...
4. he proudly supported the attacks...I don't claim he was behind it...all I do is to disprove that the US did it...logically two different things
5. oh really...so everytime a bomb went up in London, they immediately hid the prime minister or the queen? cause surely the IRA knew exactly where they were and could have easily killed them...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Cool
With regard to conspiracy theories, it seems to me that their appeal is that while the ignorant masses are led by whatever obscure puppet-masters, only a few really know what it really is going on, hence deriving a sense of purpose and power from this "esoteric" knowledge, when the reality is actually much more mundane and complex.
KUDOS to you...and I mean it!
Answers like this are what I made this thread for (not to hear what I want to hear, as one person claimed)...
clear, coherent, without linking pictures to dust clouds...just a short statement, for a short and easy question.
I specifically asked that question to avoid another general 911 thread...I knew that would make me mad...like keep repeating that it's textbook demolitions or claims that the Reichstag Fire was even remotely similiar to 911...or that the patriot act is the enabling act...or that the federal reserve controls the (world) economy etc...
I hope some more people will follow your example (and the 2 or 3 people before) that made a statement like that...
it's fair enough for me...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
yes:)
as I said a hundred times...
I am totally in support of questioning official reports of whatever shape or form...
but including at least 50% of false claimes and unsourced information in your counter-claims, does make you neither right nor look very reliable...and it sure doesn't make it the truth...
only because something seems to make sense or match, doesn't make it true...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
is it the same people who killed Kennedy, that are rsponsible for 911?
and the same people who killed King for that matter?
2. only because they profited from the attack, doesn't mean they were behind it? that's after the fact reasoning...
you might profit from finding a 100$ bill on the street tomorrow...doesn't mean you put it there...
3. that's what I claimed above: even the US isn't all powerful (although many people actually profit from that image)...it wasn't as easy to react to the hi-jacking as your portray it here...it was an absolutely uncommen and unique event
who would even consider they fly into those buildings? and thus, who would shoot them down only because they were hi-jacked? I keep telling you...there were HUMANS at work...on both sides...
4. he proudly supported the attacks...I don't claim he was behind it...all I do is to disprove that the US did it...logically two different things
5. oh really...so everytime a bomb went up in London, they immediately hid the prime minister or the queen? cause surely the IRA knew exactly where they were and could have easily killed them...
1. If you believe that americans politicians had anything to do with the JFK assassin - then you will know what men in power are capable of. The same 3 questions - Who benefit, who had the power to pull it off and who had the power to cover it up.
2. Dont underestimate the motives
3. There were several warnings of such an attack. Get to know the facts. Also, get to know the timetable. That a plane can crash into the pentagon some time after the biggest terroristattack on american soil, is f%#&ing unbelievable. One guy also testified to the commision that Dick himself ordered the plane not to get shot down. He was in the same room.
4. I didnt ask whether you believe it was him or not. Just saying it was strange that 19 men + osama was guilty the next day when at the same time the bushadm claim not to have any knowledge of such an attack.
5. So you agree that the president should be seated? One thing is that he should be taken into safety, the other thing is that when the country is under attack - shouldnt he do something?