Is South Park's view of 9/11 accurate?
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
not sure if matt and trey view South Park as social critique, and educational, or merely a chance to make people laugh, but they do indeed have great social critiques on the show.
One of the more interesting was their take on "was 9/11 an inside job". They show Bush murdering a 9/11 Truther. Seeming to confirm it was an inside job. Then it is shown the guy never died, that they somehow faked his death and that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. It is suggested the government runs the conspiracy websites and that they do this to make themselves look more powerful than they really are, to scare people into doing what they say.
What's everyone's take on this theory? Is it valid at all? Could the government be behind the 9/11 is an inside job movement, and merely want to look all powerful?
One of the more interesting was their take on "was 9/11 an inside job". They show Bush murdering a 9/11 Truther. Seeming to confirm it was an inside job. Then it is shown the guy never died, that they somehow faked his death and that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. It is suggested the government runs the conspiracy websites and that they do this to make themselves look more powerful than they really are, to scare people into doing what they say.
What's everyone's take on this theory? Is it valid at all? Could the government be behind the 9/11 is an inside job movement, and merely want to look all powerful?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Kinda like Pearl Harbor
what do you mean let it happen? why would they do that?
I believe they knew about a plot, but were too stupid and incompetent to piece it together and stop it from happening.
Exactly. Agencies weren't sharing all the information needed to stop the attack. Did they do it on purpose to let the attacks happen? Probably not.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
i agree with you there jlew :shock:
lol are you new here?
Dude, you haven't seen how crazy this place can get on 9/11. I use to be a "truther", but as I did my own research I've come to the conclusion that the truthers stories have just as many holes (if not more) than what the 9/11 commission published. Chalk it up to a big fuck up of a lack of sharing info between agencies.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
a big batch of stupid between agencies.
Hail, Hail!!!
its hard to say what my favorite theory from here was. maybe it was the bombs that were planted throughout 2 110 story buildings, without anyone knowing in WTC, and strategically detonated from a secret location at precisely the perfect time to cause uniform collapses.
and maybe it was the fact that it was a missile that hit the pentagon and the plane was "kidnapped" and is still fully intact at a secret location and the passengers held hostage or possibly executed.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The following are equally unbelievable to me:
1) That the government carried out the attack (total inside job).
2) That 19 cave-dwelling extremists with plastic box cutters carried out the attack, and that our government was unable to stop them.
Just like La Cosa Nostra-- the military, CIA, and FBI all follow a pyramid structure of giving orders. No one is allowed to question those above them, and doing so has potentially dangerous reprucussions. If it was the will of the higher-ups in any of the intelligence agencies to not act in stopping the attacks, it could very well have happened that way. Weren't there plenty of people in both agencies with knowledge that Al Queda was up to something, and everytime they tried to bring it to the attentions of their superiors, they were pretty much stalled in doing so? What if everytime someone had vital information about a pending attack, that they were simply told to wait until more intel was gathered? What if they were told to wait repeatedly until it was too late? And then what? Who's going to squeal on their superiors in the CIA or FBI? There are umpteen levels of secret and security clearances within these agencies-- the left hand never knows what right hand is doing, let alone what the head is thinking.
If a rigorous pyramid structure of command is upheld, it doesn't matter how noble the efforts are of the people at the bottom who are doing all of the grunt work. If the top is corrupt, the whole thing is corrupt.
I hate to put any stock in a Hollywood movie, but what if Oliver Stone's "W." was fairly accurate in how George Bush ran his White House? He wasn't a bad guy, he just trusted EVERYTHING his advisers told him, so long as they stroked his ego a little bit when they guided his decision making. For all we know, 9/11 could have been "an inside job" without the president even knowing. You don't have to be a tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy nut to believe that the CIA does in fact act entirely on its own at times, and is rarely subject to scrutiny or accountability.
One thing is for sure: Life for all of us had become "post-9/11" whether you like it or not. As a result, we are all less safe and less free. We've played right into the "terrorists" game-- they flicked the first domino, and we've let the media and the politicians scare us into letting the rest of them fall.
the 19 hijackers were not cave dwellers. take out "cave dwellers" and that sentence is not unbelievable at all
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Never heard that one... Were there aliens involved also?
Or are they onto something
it depends on what you consider to be the motive of both 9/11 and iraq ... if the goal is to increase the funding to military and engineering firms such as the Carlysle Group and Haliburton (both of which the adminstration has ties to) - then both plans occured as planned ... if iraq was a 3 year operation - they would need to manufacture a reason to attack another country so they can continue to pay those companies money ... but by making sure it's a quagmire - they can be there indefinitely while continuing to pump money into these corporations ...
Have you ever noticed although they use some really extreme language and imagery to make their point, they don't really take a stance on anything as far as traditonally 2-sided issues?
The 9/11 episode is a good example: There is a conspiracy, but it's not the one you think. It's a much lesser conspiracy, but it still has a powerful reach.
Abortion: is "cheating that little critter right out of life" but sometimes you have to cheat to win.
The Iraq War: We're a country that was founded on saying one thing, and doing the complete opposite. We get to have our cake and eat it too! We're country AND rock and roll.
Nonetheless, these are two guys who are on top of the world, and who are receiving big paychecks from Viacom-- it's probably not in their best interests to shake things up all that much-- they do a good enough job of making your jaw drop while watching but still haven't pissed off enough people, or powerful enough people to get themselves yanked off the air.
who knows, for consipiracy sakes, maybe bush and osama like to play poker.
Well, maybe not Osama, but other members of his family may have played a few games of hold 'em together.
i think if we saw how animals got slaughtered or how our food gets made in factories - it would turn most people off on eating in general
Ha ha, no man, that is not my view on abortion at all... That was South Park's stance on it, at least, that's how I interpreted it. My point was that there is a lot of shock value in what they say, but they usually leave you with this gray area on issues that are traditionally 2-sided. Maybe their point is that there aren't exactly 2 sides to every issue? I can agree with that.