Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

U.S should pull out!!

Recommended Posts

Guest

Give it up Aramike, these people are clueless, and are also clueless about who they are talking to, Obviously....LOL

Have fun with them if you want, but the ignorance has gotten so far under my skin, that I just can't handle watching it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

How did this turn into a tin-foil hat discussion? I don't believe that there was anything materially different about the events of 9/11 than what was given in the 9/11 Commission Report for the most part. I do however believe that 9/11 was the wet dream of the neo-Conservative movement who were itching for an excuse to begin nation building in the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Give it up Aramike, these people are clueless, and are also clueless about who they are talking to, Obviously....LOL

Have fun with them if you want, but the ignorance has gotten so far under my skin, that I just can't handle watching it anymore.


LOL! Jag, you know me ... have a hard time giving up on most any argument.

quote:


How did this turn into a tin-foil hat discussion?

Good label. But, alas:

quote:


I don't believe that there was anything materially different about the events of 9/11 than what was given in the 9/11 Commission Report for the most part. I do however believe that 9/11 was the wet dream of the neo-Conservative movement who were itching for an excuse to begin nation building in the Middle East.

See, I don't think anyone wants to be charged with "nation-building" in the middle east, despite what libs think. Frankly, I think most conservatives would rather cut ties.

The problem is that LIBERALS have made it so difficult for the western world to be self-sustaining that we are somewhat reliant upon mid-east resources.

OK, fine. You DO NOT want us to drill in ANWAR. You DO NOT want us to expand off-shore drilling. You DO NOT want to issue resolutions backing Isreal as a sovereign government. Etcetera.

Therefore, we are FORCED to deal with middle eastern governments.

Is is SO FREAKIN' WRONG to want to do so on OUR, democratically-appointed TERMS?

quote:


I'm well placed to know how politics can be dirty at a point a few lives don't count when it comes to create an environment suited to implement given policies.

That said, I have a hard time viewing 9/11 as a conspiracy because there are 35K peeps working for the NSA in the USA, not counting another 25K outsourced operatives, and the fact that New-Zealand, Canada, the UK and Australia also share significant amounts of NSA's intel and SIGINT infrastructure. Think about that Intelink, NSA's private network, serves over 265'000 customers... The whole information dissemination conduit is designed to allow "CRITIC" class messages to reach the US president within 10 minutes when an event arises.

I'am not even talking about chinese and russian eyes & ears....

With so much people involved bugging all what goes on air and cable, traffic related to the design, logistics, and final implementation of such a conspiracy would not have gone unnoticed, and it is dubious that everybody at the NSA would have considered such stunt as legitime enough to shut their mouths. Most of them are scientists, not politicians or extremists.


Precisely.

Heh, the NY Times can't even keep it's lid on FRONT PAGE publishing of classified information.

But somehow they kept the lid on THIS?

Like Silk said - Tin Foil Hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

Consider this!!

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the

Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112

deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the

same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the

U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the

nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately.

I haven't decided which is worse:

Thousands of our soldiers going off to die because they were lied to when they were told they were "fighting for their country" or some foreigner making a joke of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


I haven't decided which is worse:

Thousands of our soldiers going off to die because they were lied to when they were told they were "fighting for their country" or some foreigner making a joke of it.


The Worst: An ignorant fool who doesn't understand the difference between trained, armed men fighting terrorists overseas and untrained, unarmed men, women, and children being victimized at home.

But alas, we just keep perpetuating the "lie" that Islamic terrorism originates in the middle east.

Thank God you're ideologies aren't in charge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad, I understand your concept except that it's fundamentally flawed at its mathematical core:

So, the rich guy and the poor guy split a turkey due to math and averages?

Not so much if said turkey is TARGETTED at the rich guy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

quote:

I haven't decided which is worse:

Thousands of our soldiers going off to die because they were lied to when they were told they were "fighting for their country" or some foreigner making a joke of it.

...untrained, unarmed men, women, and children being victimized at home...


Yes, it's horrific what the Iraqi civilians are going through as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Umm yeah. Perhaps I should clue you in to the fact that you're talking to a guy who's 17 year >military career was in "information control".

And I'm the King of England, a former employee of the 'Military Industrial ComplexÔÇØ, and a technical communication specialist. Ok ... I'm not the freaking King of England. You caught me. Information control can be anything from a filing clerk, a reporter for Az-Zaman, to a writer for the Us Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) Journal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Impress me with your intricate knowledge of the mechanics and limitations of such operations and why it just couldn't be so.

>I agree. But that's where your logic completely dodges my point.

>Yes, someone perpetuating a hoax of this magnitude would want to control information >regarding it. NO, they would not likely be ABLE TO.

I don't see anything in your unsupported statement to convince me that they would ÔÇ£not likelyÔÇØ be able to. Care to elaborate or should I just take your opinion for it?

>Sorry, sir, but that is NOT Psy-Ops. Psy-Ops are information campaigns dedicated to causing a >specific emotional and/or psychological response to information.

>What you're referring to is called "Information Warfare" which involves the control and >dissemination of information.

Yes, the whole 911 operation, regardless of who did it, was to induce a very specific emotional and psychological response in the American public and the world. Do you deny that? All terrorist acts are by definition Psychological Operations calculated to induce a emotional and psychological response to bring about change. Are you telling me that providing enemies (Ben Lauden was fingered 33 mins after the first crash), carefully crafted(but premature) reporting that massive buildings are falling in New York due to fire induced structural weakness (when none had ever done so before 911) and generally undercutting the sense of security of every American not a Psy-Op?

>Did you miss the fact that the IRAQI press doesn't have NEARLY the power of the >American and British media?

This has relevance how? Are you to trying to suggest that someone who could manipulate the small IRAQI press because they are in complete control of it wouldn't be unable to manipulate the BBC and CNN because you assume they are not? I need more an argument than that given the evidence in hand. One word, and since you're an old intelligence man from way back, you'll understand what I mean when I say ÔÇ£gatekeepersÔÇØ. Maybe you could elaborate on the necessity of regulating the flow of information or propaganda that is provided to local news organizations to ensure the event is perceived as designed. Example: Bay of Tonkin.

>Or, did you COMPLETELY overlook the fact that the American media has the FIRST >AMMENDMENT protecting it's dissemination of information?

That is correct, the constitution does. However do you think that is what is really happening here? If that is so then why hasn't the WTC 7 911 BBC/CNN premature report not been reported in the mainstream media, especially since it was on the tail of a BBC 911 special? If the corporations or government doesn't have any power over the dissemination of information why hasn't any of the other networks, who are normally quite eager to point out their competitions mistakes?

>Could have been a simple error. I mean, maybe its news to you but the press has been known >to jump the gun in sensationalizing things.

You want me to just dismiss out of hand a major and quite incredible blunder made by not one but two of the worlds major networks on one the most significant days in American history for what reason exactly? I have yet to get anything from you but your emphatic unsupported opinion about how things are ... in CAPS YET. Sensationalizing things? Have you watched the actual footage in question? Besides, they hardly needed to sensationalize anything about 911, I'm sure you'll agree with me there.

>Now, I know you probably WANT to think that its a grand government conspiracy, but...

Quite frankly a person would have to be crazy to want to think something like that. It's the last thing I want to think. I've been trying very hard not to and until just recently wasn't taking it seriously.

>Show me where the BBC ITSELF says they lost all of the tapes, not just where someone says >that they say it.

You want me to believe you had 17 years in military information control and you need me to show you the BBC NEWS, THE EDITORS article by Head of BBC World News Editor Richard Porter himself because you either have dismissed this out-of-hand because you just inherently ÔÇ£know betterÔÇØ, you don't know how, or you don't really care enough to look? In any case here it is amigo. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...conspiracy.html

>The latest Star Wars took what, a year or so to make a FULL LENGTH film? People would have >had YEARS to edit simple background footage on a news report.

I wish you fellows would educate yourselves before you try to have a conversation about something. You're wasting my time and propagating misinformation. The footage is archive footage. A key fact here is that the BBC admits the mistake. There is no question that they broadcast the demise of WTC 7, with the official story, at least 30 minutes before hand. There is no question that CNN did the same.

>The footage is not that impressive.

Well, I'll have to say you haven't been either.

>And why should we trust them?

Well don't. You're an ex-military information control specialist. Trust government and big business, after all, you should know best that history has shown they have your best interests at heart.

So Jag, did you ever find those Vietnam War history books you were reading where it was a righteous war where we had 'em on the run and that we would have just won if it hadn't been for those dang war-hating pussies? I thought you were going to set me straight on that. I'd be more than glad to read your source material and change my opinon if the evidence warrants it.

I've come to the conviction that anyone who hurls the words Conservatives or Liberals around like they were two homogeneous groups of people are either truly ignorant of the American political landscape or simply caught up in the false dualism with which public opinion is manipulated. In either case they are usually followed or proceeded by the most intelligence insulting hyperbole imaginable. Is that just me or has anyone else come to that conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Frozen Ghost, you have no idea who you are talking too, take my word for it, if he doesn't know, then nobody does.

You are NOT talking to a file clerk.

Some of you people are just unbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me make sure no one misunderstands me. I don't know why the BBC and CNN would prematurely report the collapse of that building.

I'd just like to see a reasonable explanation as to why. I have yet to see one. I'd also like to see a reasonable explanation for its absence in the main media. Are those such unreasonable, revolutionary, and conspiratorial things to ask?

If anything I'm curious because of the unprecedented nature of the event. Has it got to be where asking "why?" is Politically Incorrect? Is that the way you think it should be in America gentlemen? I don't.

Look, I'm under no delusion that anyone here is going to supply a reasonable answer. That isn't the point. That can only come from CNN and BBC. They have yet to do so. One can only wonder why that is so I suppose unless you're predisposed to being blissfully ignorant and not apt to question those in authority over you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another important information control term to be familiar with is 'compartmentalization".

I knew this before I went to work there but when I was an employee of a large military contractor I saw the effectiveness of the compartmentalization of information first hand. By only allowing someone to know about his small piece of the project and not the entire enterprise, it is possible to carry out very sophisticated projects while 98% of the people carrying it out do not understand what they are doing in relation to the overall project. It is possible to have someone make a part of a weapon system and believe they are making components for communications equipment. You understand this principle I'm sure.

A large classified operation requires many tasks that by themselves mean nothing to the individuals carrying them out but which contribute to the unknown (to them) end goal. You must know as well as I that there have been many secret operations that were only disclosed until many years had later transpired and they were declassified for the gatekeepers to release.

There are many questions surrounding the events of 911 that have not been answered to the satisfaction of reason.

Why would the President resist an investigation into the events of 911 like he did? If there is nothing to hide then why has the FBI not released the footage clearly showing the aircraft striking the pentagon? Why or even how could the BBC suddenly become aware of the total loss of all 911 footage they shot only after someone points out a rather glaring inconsistency in their reporting for that day?

These are all bizarre happenings if everyone was on the up and up don't you think?

To not question the official story of 911 would require me to be more trusting of the government and big business than I am at the moment. That in the light of history seems to be an unintelligent choice. Would you not agree?

It seems as though a lot of pro-war and pro-bush folks think to question the government is unpatriotic. Its like expecting my government to account for the Trillion dollars that Romsfield said the Pentagon lost is unamerican instead of good stewardship.

If I question the official story and I'm wrong there is no harm done. If I believe everything the government tells me and they are liars then a great deal of harm is done. Therefore, I don't see the harm in questions but I do see the harm in not asking them. Would you agree with that?

I really would like to see Jaq put some substance to his assertions that Vietnam was a righteous war that we were winning until it was subverted by liberal propaganda. I mean really man, if I have that all wrong I'd like to see the evidence to the contray. I would love to not think LBJ lied to get us into it and wouldn't provide the means for his generals to "win" the war (whatever the hell win means) So please, give me some references that support your claims. I mean for Pete's sake man, you're the "Head of Diplomacy Fleet". Be diplomatic or just do it to show me up because I'm libel to continue to think you're prone to making unsupported claims because ... well ... you can't support them with a valid argument or evidence. What is it called when a poster is prone to make unsubstantiated controversial or inflammatory statements in a forum and falls to ad homen attacks when challenged?

Well anyway, I'd love to be proven wrong about Vietnam and my suspensions about 911. I mean, it sucks, I want to trust my government and live the American dream like everyone else, happy as can be. Help me out if you have the wherewithall. References, quotes, authors, news reports, a well thought out argument, just something other than hollow proclamations and logical fallacies.

I'm an independent. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. I'm beginning to think that the Constitutionalists have it right.

I really don't want to foster any ill will. But honestly, it would be nice to see something of substance rather than hollow accusations of ignorance on my part. Cure my "ignorance" and help another poor slob out whose trying to make sense of this felgercarb. I need a little more than "because I said so."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

That and 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee jaq.

I don't know what to tell you then FG.

I know Aramike, personally, and I know what he does.

You are looking like a complete and total fool, but, hey, if you don't want to believe me, that's your choice, just continue to look foolish. Fine with me. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by PTCruiser:

.... I don't know what is worse....

Thousands of our soldiers going off to die because they were lied to when they were told they were "fighting for their country" or some foreigner making a joke of it.

1st of all, ask the vast majority of solders over there if they think "They Were Lied to" and they will tell you an overwhelming "NO". One of my best friends is over there and he believes that he's helping people, both over there and helping to maintain security over here. Most of his comrades feel the same way. Second, what about Washington DC's having a high rate of people getting killed by guns do you find to be funny? Where's the joke, it's a simple fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't give a hoot if he works for the Secret Service. That has nothing to do with whether what he said makes sense or not. If you could concentrate on the discussion and actually add something it, it would be cool jag. So what about the Vietnam thing? You really have no valid argument for what you said do you? Of course not.

What is the expert's opinion?

He said:

"Could have been a simple error. I mean, maybe its news to you but the press has been known to jump the gun in sensationalizing things."

and

"The latest Star Wars took what, a year or so to make a FULL LENGTH film? People would have had YEARS to edit simple background footage on a news report."

Its either a simple error where two news agencies got excited and accidentally reported the world's first steel frame building collapse by fire before it happened. Or someone doctored the footage and hired Aaron Brown, the CNN anchor to read the a report of WTC 7 falling before it fell for them too. They should have had him do it without the obvious confusion and dismay in his voice as he reads the building has collapsed when he knows its standing behind him.

I'm sorry guys but both of those require me to simply dismiss one the most incredible cock-up(as the head of CNN World News said)of all time as a simple mistake?

If you'll watch the footage you'll see the reporters were reading copy someone else had written. Who, why, and how that other someone could know enough to write about a WTC 7s collapse before it actually did should be the real question here. Its not did it happen. It did. The real question is, "Why did it happen and how." I'd like to know the name of the producer that created that report. Don't you? I bet not.

Darkling,

I hear what you are saying and I respect that, but if everyone is so gung-ho why the constant extensions and why have we drained our reserves already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Dude, I dropped out of this discussion, because it is no use to discuss this stuff with people with closed minds.

I learned this discussing science with creationists.

It is a losing proposition, I KNOW history, what I told you was the truth, what you don't WANT to know, you will NOT listen to.

Therefore, I gave up on this discussion.

I was trying to be helpful, and let you know that you were making an ass of yourself.

BUT, please, continue....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jaguar...

Now for *MY* fun...

quote:


And I'm the King of England, a former employee of the 'Military Industrial ComplexÔÇØ, and a technical communication specialist. Ok ... I'm not the freaking King of England. You caught me. Information control can be anything from a filing clerk, a reporter for Az-Zaman, to a writer for the Us Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) Journal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Impress me with your intricate knowledge of the mechanics and limitations of such operations and why it just couldn't be so.

I've given NUMEROUS reasons as to the lack of plausibility in your arguments. You can either keep asking me to restate them or respond specifically to them.

In case you haven't figured it out yet - information control on an international scale isn't simple.

Oh, and have you stopped long enough to examine the PARADOX of your argument yet? That being that the US government could control the dissemination of such information on such a grand scale yet NOT stop the availability of so-called information NOW?

Kinda silly, if you think about it...

quote:


I don't see anything in your unsupported statement to convince me that they would ÔÇ£not likelyÔÇØ be able to. Care to elaborate or should I just take your opinion for it?

I just did. Read above. OK, I'll restate it:

US government able to restrict and control ADVANCE information on an INTERNATIONAL scale PRIOR to the events actually TAKING PLACE.

Yet, SAME US government UNABLE to control people like Frozen Ghost from getting their hands on such information thereby "stopping" the perpetuation of a so-called "lie".

Hmm. Odd.

quote:


Yes, the whole 911 operation, regardless of who did it, was to induce a very specific emotional and psychological response in the American public and the world. Do you deny that? All terrorist acts are by definition Psychological Operations calculated to induce a emotional and psychological response to bring about change.

Umm, would you MIND NOT CHANGING your contexts when using terms?

The 9/11 operation WOULD qualify as psy-op. The so-called GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION of the dissemination of information (which this discourse is about) is called Information Warefare.

quote:


Are you telling me that providing enemies (Ben Lauden was fingered 33 mins after the first crash), carefully crafted(but premature) reporting that massive buildings are falling in New York due to fire induced structural weakness (when none had ever done so before 911) and generally undercutting the sense of security of every American not a Psy-Op?

Umm, no, it's not a psy-op. That's information warefare.

Oh, and by the way - info warefare CAN be a part of a psy-op. But that's not what we're talking about here.

quote:


This has relevance how?

Are you SO FREAKIN' IGNORANT that you can't see how the ability to send 1000s of reporters to REMOTE locales and the lack thereof would impact the effectiveness of free media? SERIOUSLY?

quote:


Are you to trying to suggest that someone who could manipulate the small IRAQI press because they are in complete control of it wouldn't be unable to manipulate the BBC and CNN because you assume they are not?

No.

What I'm suggesting is that the Iranian Army would have no problem dealing with Kuwaiti Army but would be completely overmatched by the US Army.

There's no assumption in that the power of established western media is QUITE great in comparison to the power of a newly established Iraqi free press.

quote:


I need more an argument than that given the evidence in hand.

Sorry dude, but in debate, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.

If you're asserting the governments can manipulate the media to perpetuate your theories, the ONUS is on YOU to prove it.

I can easily prove the opposite to not be true.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why the media continuously PANS Bush yet is SO impotent when faced with the most SENSATIONAL story in modern history?

Clearly not.

quote:


One word, and since you're an old intelligence man from way back, you'll understand what I mean when I say ÔÇ£gatekeepersÔÇØ. Maybe you could elaborate on the necessity of regulating the flow of information or propaganda that is provided to local news organizations to ensure the event is perceived as designed. Example: Bay of Tonkin.

Different media. Different time.

As for the necessity of information flow, well, let me start by saying that I'm not from SO "way back" that I'm not up to muster on today's media doctrine.

And, said doctrine does not include mass-manipulation of established media.

Any idea why?

I guess probably not. I'll tell you:

IT WOULD BE DOWNRIGHT FREAKIN' STUPID.

To rely on people who are NOT OBLIGEDto protect sensitive information is madness. To go further and rely on those who would PROFIT from LEAKING that information is MADNESS.

Oh, but I'm sure that's just what they want us to think, right?

This is getting silly...

quote:


You want me to just dismiss out of hand a major and quite incredible blunder made by not one but two of the worlds major networks on one the most significant days in American history for what reason exactly? I have yet to get anything from you but your emphatic unsupported opinion about how things are ... in CAPS YET. Sensationalizing things? Have you watched the actual footage in question? Besides, they hardly needed to sensationalize anything about 911, I'm sure you'll agree with me there.

That is about the MOST UNEDUCATED and IGNORANT thing I've ever READ!

In case you haven't learned this, most network news comes from contracted sources such as Reuters and the AP.

Hmm, would it be THAT far of a stretch to propose that, say, the Associated Press mistakenly reported that a building fell and two networks who SUBSCRIBE to AP wires REPORTED that said building fell?

Oh, and before you try to counter with "well, that's how the government plotted it then - use the wire services" let me cut you off by saying how freakin' stupidly risky that would be with so many cameras on scene anyway.

No benefit. Therefore stupid. Yet government smart enough to cover up 9/11 was stupid enough to screw up that detail.

Sure.

quote:


You want me to believe you had 17 years in military information control and you need me to show you the BBC NEWS, THE EDITORS article by Head of BBC World News Editor Richard Porter himself because you either have dismissed this out-of-hand because you just inherently ÔÇ£know betterÔÇØ, you don't know how, or you don't really care enough to look? In any case here it is amigo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...conspiracy.html

1: Why would I bother investigating something I KNOW not to be true.

2: So? They don't have the tapes. What about the 100s of other networks that have recordings from the day it happened? Did they ALL participate in a conspiracy?

See, so much has to happen for your theory to be true. All of it improbably. But it really didn't happen.

quote:


I wish you fellows would educate yourselves before you try to have a conversation about something.

Education includes more than finding one side of an opinion piece to take.

You should try it.

Oh, and I was educated to weigh my options and go with the most likely. As were most people here.

You may not want to throw around the word "education" so easily around here. Most of us are quite learned.

quote:


You're wasting my time and propagating misinformation.

Umm, I was about to say the same thing.

quote:


The footage is archive footage.

...that the BBC doesn't have archived. Right.

quote:


A key fact here is that the BBC admits the mistake.

I haven't seen that. I've only seen that they say that they may or may not have.

quote:


Well, I'll have to say you haven't been either.

Good meaningless shot coming from the guy in the tin hat.

I'm pretty sure that I'm a bit more impressive to those who matter in this world. Maybe not all that much to the guy who can't differentiate between unlikely things and likelyhoods, but hey - oh well.

quote:


Well don't. You're an ex-military information control specialist. Trust government and big business, after all, you should know best that history has shown they have your best interests at heart.

Odd. You picked the anti-establishment to trust.

10 points if you can identify THAT paradox.

Heh, got more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some snips:

quote:


Let me make sure no one misunderstands me. I don't know why the BBC and CNN would prematurely report the collapse of that building.

OK. Go with that then.

quote:


There are many questions surrounding the events of 911 that have not been answered to the satisfaction of reason.

LOL! Your assertions aren't remotely rationalized through reason and probabilities...

quote:


I really don't want to foster any ill will. But honestly, it would be nice to see something of substance rather than hollow accusations of ignorance on my part. Cure my "ignorance" and help another poor slob out whose trying to make sense of this felgercarb. I need a little more than "because I said so."

I've backed up EVERYTHING I've said with reason. You've just chose to ignore it.

Rather and more accurately, you've ATTEMPTED to burden ME with the proof that YOUR VIEWS (not commonly accepted as logical) are inaccurate.

Umm, just so you know, in debate if you want to detract from common views, the burden of proof is on the detractor.

You're akin to someone telling me that Elvis lives then tasking me with proving that he's dead.

Silly.

quote:


I knew this before I went to work there but when I was an employee of a large military contractor I saw the effectiveness of the compartmentalization of information first hand. By only allowing someone to know about his small piece of the project and not the entire enterprise, it is possible to carry out very sophisticated projects while 98% of the people carrying it out do not understand what they are doing in relation to the overall project. It is possible to have someone make a part of a weapon system and believe they are making components for communications equipment. You understand this principle I'm sure.

K... hogwash...

"Sir, why am I reporting that a building has fallen when it clearly hasn't"?

"You don't need to know that."

Right.

How the freakin' HELL do you think you can compartmentalized media stories?

quote:


So what about the Vietnam thing? You really have no valid argument for what you said do you? Of course not.

Actually, he DOES have a point.

Would you like for me to illustrate it for you?

It's actually fairly easy.

quote:


What is the expert's opinion?

He said: "blah...blah..."


Actually, I said A LOT MORE than that. You just PATHETICALLY chose to choose two simple broad rationalizations to sum up the more complicated points.

Forgive me if I'm not surprised by that amateur tactic.

Heh, let me try it. You said: "I mean really man, if I have that all wrong I'd like to see the evidence to the contray."

Good counter-point.

How about this: "Why would the President resist an investigation into the events of 911 like he did?"

I could go on and on with one-liners if you'd like.

Let me answer one FINAL, STUPID question that you've asked:

quote:


Who, why, and how that other someone could know enough to write about a WTC 7s collapse before it actually did should be the real question here.

Gee, Captian Obvious, a building collapsing would probably show some signs of it collapsing prior to its collapse.

Duh.

And, therefore, by showing those signs someone just *MAY* have predicted it would collapse.

Duh.

And they WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT.

Duh.

And the PRESS may have caught wind of that prediction and reported it, or mistakenly taken it as fact.

DUH.

You know what you're problem is, Frozen?

Here, let me outline it for you:

You come with an assertion.

Others disagree.

You accuse others of having no proof and ignore and/or simplify their arguments. You attack the FACT that they argued it rather than the facts they argue themselves.

Tin hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I'm using the terms incorrectly. My bad.

You're also correct in that if you do take the most simple explanation for things you'll be right most of the time.

The simple answer is it was a mistake. That as you said, an AP wire story was generated by someone with partial information and picked up on by the BBC and CNN. CBS and ABC could have ignored it because they fact checked it first. The BBC and CNN in a rush to beat the others to the punch made a mistake. Or as Director of Collections at the Internet Archive has said

"Another explanation is that there was simply confusion at the time and some journalistic ÔÇ£whispering down the laneÔÇØ in which early stories that there was something happening at WTC7 led to rumors of its collapsing which then led to on-air reporting of its collapse. The fact that the WTC7 is still standing and visible in the background of the live shot appears to confirm that the reporting of the collapse did take place before the actual collapse. "

The entire BBC archives were released around 2003. It got feed into the Internet Archives and someone reviewing the information in Canada recently found the footage in question. Thinking he had found something important he reported it to a talk show host and posted it on YouTube and it went viral.

The BBC may have lost the footage from that entire day as files, tapes, and disks were suffered around in the act duplicating everything for release. Nothing too strange there. Everyone looses things at one time or another.

The lack of media coverage is explainable. They just don't consider it a news worthy story. There are more important things to report on like the Walter Reed affair or Britney's tragic conversion into the Antichrist.

So yeah, I see the "tin hat" aspect of being concerned when you read about, or in this case, see an anomaly like reporters reporting on things before they occur. I see why someone would think that. Does that mean asking questions about these things and discussing them brands you as a tin-hat nut case? Where does that lead us then?

Thinking that someone could screw with the news reports AP puts out to the major networks would be silly wouldn't it?

The tales that the footage exists and is confirmed as being actual stamp-stamped BBC World News aren't anything to be concerned about because even if it really exists everything in it is perfectly explainable.

WTC 7 obviously fell because it was hit with parts of the falling Twin Towers and caught ablaze weakening its steel frame to the point of collapse. Although no other steel building had ever collapsed before 911, the Twin Towers after all, two of the largest steel buildings in the world, had fallen earlier in the day. And certainly the Twin Towers fell because fire weakened the joists holding up the floor and a pancake collapse occurred, the weight and kinetic energy reducing concrete and office furniture to dust.

Military drills occur all of the time without the publics knowledge. The fact that there was a drill being run that day very similar to the actual events was a coincidence as was the bombing drill that was running the day of the tube bombings in London. Its a numbers game. Eventually you'll hit a day where two similar events collide like that.

People want to have answers as to why such things happen and if they can't find them they'll create them. They'll take a little detail and it a lench-pen in some world-wide conspiracy.

I see and understand to some extent the views of both sides. The problem is there are always more than two sides and more shades than just black and white. I am pretty much convinced we will never know more about what happened than the official story.

One other thing, did you explain why the FBI won't release footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon? Because of my obvious stupidity, ignorance, and refusal to use all-caps for emphasis, I may have missed it. Don't they have film from several cameras that had a clear view of the crash site? The locations of the cameras are already known and some were owned by private businesses. So it isn't like it's a secret. In your professional opinon, why would they hold them back like that? National Security? Maybe its that a film of a plane hitting the Pentagon could reveal aspects of its construction that we want to keep from the enemy.

I don't trust the government anymore than I trust the 911 truthers.

I have questions about current events other than freaky shit about 911. Like: If we are waging a war against a global Islamic Jihad why are we allowing Mosques to preach radical Islam in this country? Why do we have our pants around our ankles at the border? Would you agree that the simplest explanation is bad management and a refusal to enforce existing laws?

>Tin Hat.

Jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

And it's exactly because people talk that I doubt 9/11 is a conspiracy. While it is relatively easy to keep a secret when said secret is in line with your perception of duty, it's a complete different matter when common sense tells you that we are talking about a crime against your own people. Leaks usually occur for two reasons: either to push an agenda forward, or because an individual becomes very uneasy/upset with some information he came across.

Thanks for a measured response,

That is one my major problems with all the 911 conspiracies. People talk. Pissed off people talk even more and 911 pissed off a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

Darkling,

I hear what you are saying and I respect that, but if everyone is so gung-ho why the constant extensions and why have we drained our reserves already?

Are you kidding me??? Hello!!!!

WTC happened just months into W's Presidency, Clinton had been draining, gutting and slashing the Military for the previous 8 years and the first ones to get cut were the Professional Soldiers. Do you think Clinton got that wonderful surplus by reducing Government Spending? All that was left to the Military when we went to get the Taliban was mostly reservist. Why do you think that in the VERY FIRST stages of the war, we had to call up GUARD UNITS!!! Usually they're the last ones to go. Most of the guys that had left the military went on to make careers in the private sector, and yes some did come back, but the vast majority had moved on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...but to do so and then to attempt to answer them from only one angle (which isn't even the most LIKELY angle), is intellectually dishonest."

"It does appear for all intents and purposes to be the result of a premature news release to the BBC by someone culpable ...What are your takes on this fellas?"

So in stating "it appears to be" and "what are your takes" wasn't I positing one way of interpreting the footage and inviting other opinions to foster a discussion? Does that make sense to you Mr. Jerk? I'm not in lock step with 911 conspiracy theorists or the official story. I find it interesting like I find UFO reports interesting and my jury is still out on that as well.

About WTC7 I said "...it appears to be ..." I also said, what is your take on it fellas"?

I think it was my comment about the myth of the liberal media where things started getting out of hand. I'm sure there are some other things we disagree about as well, like the Warren Report, but I really don't think either of us give a hoot.

... you didn't even broach the MOST LIKELY possibility

What I did do was say,"...there are many possibilities as to how and why this could have happened. I think the "official story" of 911 is quite well known and doesn't need a lot of explanation nor does it need to be defended with religious fervor when tested. Of course the first thing that comes to anyone's mind is "it was a mistake, they obviously aren't vetting evertying in an attempt to scoop the other networks.", the next thing that comes to mind is that it is a hoax, after that you might start thinking about what is being said about WTC7's odd fall. I thought it was obvious being Capt. Obvious and all.

My statements about WTC 7 were suppositions. No where do I say, "this is how it happened" not did I say "that's not possible" to anything said here. My jury is still out. I guess in the case of folks who already know everything about 911 they don't need to bother with things like this. However, I ran into something new to me and threw it out there for us to chew on because I found it interesting. Pardon me.

I'm all for the freedom to worship as you choose. I think it is an important right. I also believe that political correctness will kill us. Religious freedom does not include the right of sedition. Would you not agree?

1. Could it be a hoax? Yes ,but not likely given BBCs response and the CNN reporter commenting that the building had yet fall.

2. Could it be just a mistake? Yes, and this is the most likely explanation. It is the least path of resistance.

3. Could it be a mistake made by conspirators orcastrating the attack. Yes, but it is the least likely of the bunch. However it is the most scary, and deserves to evaluated. Did a shadow government or whatever, plan and execute the attack to make the citizens to want to go to war? I think it may be more possible than it being a hoax of some kind for reasons I've already stated.

If it was a mistake then how it happened would be very interesting to know. I'm sure it will be written off as just part of the choas of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...military budget...

Speaking of military budgets and 911, if the military budget was so raped how did the come up with trillions of dollars to loose?

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions, ..."

DOD Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week KickoffÔÇöBureaucracy to Battlefield

Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, The Pentagon , Monday, September 10, 2001

In the speech Rumsfeld talks about how the military financial systems are antiquated and inadequate. Please not the date. Maybe the trillions of dollars are just misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×