Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   9-11 Conspiracy
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 106 of 148 (511151)
06-06-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by onifre
06-06-2009 3:30 PM


Who's to blame?
Oni writes:
But, since then, Dr. A and I have narrowed down our debate to just the tapes, both from NORAD and the FAA, and I've continued to argue for a cover-up with that specific issue.
Having read through both of your claims it seems like there was some cover-up of mistakes made during the 9-11 calamatity however it seems like these are cover-ups of mistakes made, not of a cover-up of a mass conspiracy by the government to self-inflict a calamity to induce us to go to war with Iraq and Afganistan. This is just my humble opinion from studying these issues on my own for the last 8 years and having intimate knowledge of how military intelligence and government/miltary operations work.
Oni writes:
I also feel that the Bush admin knew about an attack on the US was coming and ignored all of the warnings, for what reason? I don't know. But finding out will be harder than just accepting that it was for some unknown reason, beyond simply saying "they screwed up".
America has been under direct and indirect attacks for the last 200+ years of its history. Threats of attack by Al-Qeada existed way before President Bush assumed office. I believe mistakes were made all the way back to President Reagan and even before which led up to and resulted in what occurred on 9-11. Again the term is called blowback. Our very presence and actions (as well as those of other non-Arab influences) for the last 50+ years in the middle east directly caused these events and poisoned the well of mutual respect between us and the Arabs of the ME. Bush and Cheney are just the last links in a long chain of incompetancy and negligence that resulted in 9-11.
Oni writes:
I don't think Bush had something to do with the attacks. I don't think the towers were controlled demo (however, I will say this, there is no full description as to how or why the towers fell the way they did. The report by NIST is crap).
Oni I expect more from you. Why is the NIST report crap? Can you please explain in your own words and provide evidence to back up your claims.
Oni writes:
I don't think there is a single mastermind behind 911 some where in our government.
Then who is behind 9-11? OBL and his cronnies masterminded the attack but our negligence allowed it to occur.
I do feel that the folks responsible for 911 goes beyond Osama Bin Laden. I feel that more should have been done to find out who financed this attack. I feel nothing was done because the governments who supported OBL and possibily financed the attacks have ties with the Bush family and to our government. No need to show these connections to the American public, I think, was their attitude.
Totally agree with this one. We ouselves. indiectly, funded 9-11 and all the other mess happenning in the ME. If one studies the history of the last 50+ years of our involvement and influence in the ME, you will know that what I say is true. And you are right that the Bush family has seemed to be financially backing (at least indiectly) terrorists and dictators since G. W.'s grandfather Prescott's businesses were seized by the US government in October 1942 for not ceasing there financial connections with German buisnesses in the middle of WWII.
Unfortunately both the conspiracy theorists, the general public and the media take a way too much simplistic and generalized view of 9-11 much less the rest of modern history. History exists in shades of grey, not in black and white. If fingers are being pointed at who caused 9-11 to occur we might be surprised at how many fingers will be pointed back to ourselves.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 06-06-2009 3:30 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by onifre, posted 06-08-2009 5:02 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 107 of 148 (511157)
06-07-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by onifre
06-05-2009 1:20 PM


Re: Flight 175
I'll accept your point that they were just covering up their mistakes, fine, but they lied to Congress, to the Commission, and to the general public for 2-3 years, is that not enough to declair that they commited perjury?
First, show that they lied, rather than making a mistake.
Second, show that they did it for two years.
So far, the only statement we've seen from them about the timeline was released on 18th Spetember, 2001.
The overall end result was the convenient part. It showed what they wanted it to show, IMO.
The tapes showed that they were wrong.
If they were deliberately lying, why would they want to show that they were wrong?
They had their own tapes, they had access to it, HOWEVER, they never deviated from the timelines they gave on 9/18/01.
Really? When did they repeat the claims they made on the 18th?
There was planty of time to review everything the Commission was reviewing and give the right timelines on their own. But they didn't, for 2-3 years they held to the timelines they gave on 9/18 and that's what I question...why?
Maybe they didn't know that they'd made a mistake in the first place. In fact, if it was a mistake, then by definition they didn't know that they made it in the first place.
Do you do everything twice just to double-check?
However, my point, that NORAD lied, falls apart IF NORAD wasn't lying about those timelines, and was forced to change their original timelines for reasons that are beyond my knowledge.
Or if they made a mistake.
---
Now, your turn to come up with a plausible hypothesis. NORAD's timeline conflicts with the facts in one detail, by a matter of a mere 19 minutes. They turned over, to the public and the 9/11 Commission, the tapes that proved that they were wrong about this one detail.
Please try to provide a plausible motivation for them to intentionally falsify this one thing, and then to provide everyone with evidence that they were wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 06-05-2009 1:20 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 06-08-2009 5:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 148 (511165)
06-07-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by onifre
06-06-2009 3:30 PM


Re: Plausibility
I also feel that the Bush admin knew about an attack on the US was coming and ignored all of the warnings, for what reason? I don't know. But finding out will be harder than just accepting that it was for some unknown reason, beyond simply saying "they screwed up".
But doesn't that come with a loathing for Dubya? The guy was a douchebag of a president, sure. But a lot of people turned him into a diabolical fire-breathing monster who preyed on unsuspecting children.
There is no evidence to suggest that he had prior knowledge, which sounds all the more ridiculous when you consider that the 4th plane was gunning for him!
If it's the 911 Commissions timelines then why did NORAD not adjust their original timelines, having access to the same tapes the 911 Commission did?
I'm not familiar with the timeline issue. You'd have to get me up to speed.
there is no full description as to how or why the towers fell the way they did.
Well, no one can simulate or thwart gravity, so I think that one kind of goes without saying.
I do feel that the folks responsible for 911 goes beyond Osama Bin Laden. I feel that more should have been done to find out who financed this attack.
I vividly remember on the day of the attacks thinking that is was the work of Osama bin Laden. This was long before he was a household name. I remember his name during the first Trade Center attack, the Tanzania towers, and the USS Cole. The bin Laden's are Saudi billionaires. And if you think about 9/11 from a tactical perspective, it was pretty low-tech. It's a lot more low tech than funding the on going insurgency in Afghanistan.
If you'd like to discuss these particulars then cool, but if you want to debate whether Bush orchestrated the attacks, or that the tower were controlled demos ( again, I don't think it was a controlled demo, but I still don't know how they fell that way), or some other typical conspiracy theory, then I won't be game for that. I would have originally, because of boredom, but once it because a legitimate debate then I'd have to drop the conspiracy crap and get serious with the facts.
Well, you sound vastly different than the 9/11 Truthers. You don't seem to have any real objections other than the U.S. didn't react quickly enough, there were omissions of truth by NIST, NORAD, etc, and the way the building seemed odd. Not much there to debate.
Whattya say we tackle the JFK conspiracy theories?

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 06-06-2009 3:30 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by xongsmith, posted 06-07-2009 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 109 of 148 (511185)
06-07-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
06-07-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Plausibility
Onifre says:
I also feel that the Bush admin knew about an attack on the US was coming and ignored all of the warnings, for what reason? I don't know. But finding out will be harder than just accepting that it was for some unknown reason, beyond simply saying "they screwed up".
oh Onifre, what about the Project for the New American Centry, pushing for hegemony in the Middle East, with their "What we need is another Pearl Harbor" statement at the meeting? Actually here is what i found about that:
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event——like a new Pearl Harbor"
so they dont actually blatantly advocate a new Pearl Hardor. but they do note that it would speed things up.
Hyroglyphx says:
But doesn't that come with a loathing for Dubya? The guy was a douchebag of a president, sure. But a lot of people turned him into a diabolical fire-breathing monster who preyed on unsuspecting children.
no - not him - he was just a tool. it's Cheney that was the fire-breathing diabolical monster preying on unsuspecting children!
:-D
There is no evidence to suggest that [bush] had prior knowledge, which sounds all the more ridiculous when you consider that the 4th plane was gunning for him!
remember, he was safely in Florida reading about Goats to school children, holding the book upside down....
;-)
http://www.onedigitallife.com/images/bush_book.jpg
in an Astonishing Break From My Historical Pattern, i will come to poor George's Defense (!!) and say that he may have just been showing pictures on the page to the other kids in the class during her reading of it.
but the dude was safely out of the way where he couldnt screw things up.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2009 7:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2009 2:49 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 112 by Nuggin, posted 06-07-2009 3:11 PM xongsmith has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 148 (511189)
06-07-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by xongsmith
06-07-2009 1:41 PM


Re: Plausibility
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event——like a new Pearl Harbor"
How does this statement equal 9/11 being an inside job? What you quoted was nowhere near, "We need a new Pearl Harbor."

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by xongsmith, posted 06-07-2009 1:41 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 111 of 148 (511190)
06-07-2009 3:07 PM


Inside/Outside
There is a world of difference between these three scenarios:
A) Government officials plan and execute, through the use of a black ops team, a series of wide ranging and complicated attacks - including months worth of planting demolitions in and around the WTC. It goes completely unobserved. - Unplausible and WOEFULLY inaccurate.
B) Government officials ignore warning signs of impending attack because they know whatever the attack may be, they'll be able to use it as a new "Pearl Harbor", rallying people into any and every military action they choose. - Plausible, but historically inaccurate
C) Government officials strive to gain big budget contracts for their missile defense shield to continue fighting a cold war that's been over for 20 years. While distracted they miss the current war which has been brewing under their noses. A war which they were specifically warned about by the previous administration. When 9/11 happens, they over react and use it as a launching ground for military actions that they were planning anyway but had no idea how to sell to the public. - What actually happened.

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 112 of 148 (511191)
06-07-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by xongsmith
06-07-2009 1:41 PM


Re: Plausibility
remember, (BUSH) was safely in Florida reading about Goats to school children, holding the book upside down....
If this had been an orchistrated operation, then at the time it went down Bush would have been safely some place where he could have had a kick ass photo op - not reading a children's book.
It would have been "When the planes hit, aides rushed to inform the President who was, at that time, beating the Iranian president in a push up contest."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by xongsmith, posted 06-07-2009 1:41 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Shield, posted 06-07-2009 4:06 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 114 by xongsmith, posted 06-07-2009 5:12 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 113 of 148 (511194)
06-07-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Nuggin
06-07-2009 3:11 PM


Re: Plausibility
I think thats really a good point. I never understood why that would indicate a goverment "inside job".
Besides, he was holding the book right. Photoshopped pictures of him holding the book wrong circulated a lot on the internet, though mostly on random forums, conspiracy forums and so forth. Never in any respected media outlet (except as a clear joke).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Nuggin, posted 06-07-2009 3:11 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 114 of 148 (511196)
06-07-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Nuggin
06-07-2009 3:11 PM


Re: Plausibility
If this had been an orchestrated operation, then at the time it went down Bush would have been safely some place where he could have had a kick ass photo op - not reading a children's book.
why? politicians always like to use children.
not that i'm a Conspiracy Advocate here, anyway.
It would have been "When the planes hit, aides rushed to inform the President who was, at that time, beating the Iranian president in a push up contest."
LOL! One-handed!
Then they'd have a brush burning event.
Then on to lunch at the ranch where the lovely Laura serves watercress fingersandwiches. Bush pats Ahmadinejad on the back, and confides "wanted to thank you for getting rid of Carter and getting Ronnie in!"
come on.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Nuggin, posted 06-07-2009 3:11 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 115 of 148 (511229)
06-08-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by onifre
06-03-2009 2:19 PM


Okay, firstly, apologies for the delay; I've been having connection problems (boo to Virgin Media ).
quote:
It very well can be nonsense, but you'll have to explain why you accept the 911 Commissions timeline and reject NORAD's timeline.
Because the commission's timeline makes sense. The one you seem to place so much trust in does not.
Remember, United 175 made its last radio contact at 08:37. At that point, no hijack had taken place, although they do mention a suspicious broadcast. The flight did nothing out of the ordinary until its transponder changed frequency at 08:47. There is no way that anyone on the ground could possibly have known that anything untoward was going on. The original NORAD timeline is simply not possible.
If you want to explain this away, you are going to have to drag the FAA into the cover-up as well as the staff at NEADS. That is an extraordinary claim and it requires more evidence than you have been able to present to make it at all believable.
quote:
Curiously, have we ever been lied to before by the media?
Oh please!
Creationist#94 writes:
Have scientists ever lied before?
Evolutionist writes:
Well yeah, but...
Creationist#94 writes:
Ah-ha! They have lied! Therefore evolution is a global conspiracy! I therefore declare this debate over and myself the winner!
Evolutionist writes:
Hold on...
We all agree that politicians have lied. You need to demonstrate that they were lying about this and that they were lying for the reasons you imply. Anything else is completely irrelevant.
quote:
Or, is it that anyone who agrees with Bin Laden is automatically labeled a "fundie" by the news media...?
Anyone who supports the murder of others in the name of their religion is a textbook fundamentalist. I have no problem labelling them in this way. The scum who support the recent murder of an abortion doctor are fundies and so are AQ's supporters. I see no useful distinction, other than their religion of choice.
quote:
He had the support of many, many, many Muslims long before 911.
And he was responsible for terrorist outrages before 9/11 as well.
quote:
By this standard, Bush and the US government are Christian terrorist scumbags. I'm not saying OBL hasn't acted in a way that many in the West consider "terrorism", but IF we view his actions as terrorism, then we must view the actions of the US, UK and it's allies, as terrorism as well.
Can you agree with that?
Not quite. The US and its allies, including my own country, have, in my view, behaved apallingly. That does not, however make them terrorists per se. Terrorism has a different MO to the actions of the US/UK. Terrorists plant bombs in cars, aim to maximise civilian casualties, plant IEds by public roads, that sort of thing. Military action by highly organised and professional armed forces don't use these kinds of techniques.
The word "terrorist" has a meaning beyond simply "someone who kills people with bombs". It implies a kind of home-grown methodology that doesn't accurately describe the military. Calling Bush a terrorist makes for good rhetoric, but I don't think it is an accurate way of describing him. It is much better to call Bush a reprehensible scumbag, without muddying the waters by using inaccurate terminology.
quote:
You are just looking at the act itself. Look at the whole picture, from them getting visas to taking flight classes. Financing the attacks is a very important issue, who did finance it? The 911 Commission decided that "it was of little significance"...do you agree with that? Because I don't.
Perhaps it was deemed "of little significant" because it pointed to too many people who didn't want to be signaled out?
I do think that the funding of the attacks has been swept under the carpet somewhat. I suspect that this has most to do with OBLs friends in Saudi Arabia. The flow of oil is too precious for any government to rock the boat regarding the Saudis. This however, is a separate issue to that of any cover-up of mistakes at NEADS.
quote:
Now, can you provide evidence for more of a connection, other than that video? - we were not discussing the "bombers".
In a 2006 video OBL was actually pictured with the damn bombers. He has admitted responsibility in videos broadcast in both 2004 and 2006 (not just one video). What exactly would satisfy you here?
quote:
I'm saying that their agreed upon lies - (which I noticed you are now calling "lies") - can have more to it than just "make themselves look better".
Or not. And you haven't been able to provide any evidence to back up your claims beyond opinion.
quote:
And what do you mean by the Kennedy reference? What are "conspiracy theorist" not satisfied with? Oswald as the lone shooter? Are you satisifed with that?
Yes.
quote:
The issue here is bigger than "politicians telling lies". We are also talking about misinformation from the government, bias opinions from the media, connections between Bush and the governments that funded the attacks, timeline differences in 2 independent reports - however one report comes directly from the Bush/Cheney interview with the 911 Commission - but I guess more needs to be done by me to provide evidence for these connections. So, I'll try.
However since you wrote this, you are still stuck with nothing more than a disagreement between timelines and the fact that Bush & co. are lying assholes.
One SNAFU and three lying politicians do not a conspiracy make.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by onifre, posted 06-03-2009 2:19 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 8:09 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 116 of 148 (511231)
06-08-2009 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Michamus
06-03-2009 5:13 PM


Hi Michamus,
quote:
I'm not sure, but I think this is my first response to you, so this should be interesting.
I hope so. As I said to Oni, sorry for the delay. i have had connection problems.
quote:
Viewed unanimously by whom? This statement is quite vague, unless you are actually trying to make the claim that nearly every human being on this planet views OBL this way.
Okay, I think you have hold of the wrong end of the stick here. It's my fault. i didn't make myself clear enough.
To be clear, I was replying to Onifre about how OBL is viewed in the West. Perhaps my statement should have read more like this;
Granny writes:
Amongst non-Muslim Westerners, OBL is viewed pretty much unanimously as being a Muslim terrorist scumbag, but then, that's what he is.
I hope that makes things clearer. I am well aware that many others view him differently, and indeed I made reference to that fact in the post you replied to.
quote:
The vast majority of Muslims here in Afghanistan simply want us to leave them alone. They want us out of their country, and OBL and the Taliban facilitate that desire.
I appreciate that this is how most Afghans see things. It does seem odd to me though, since if it were not for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the US almost certainly wouldn't be in Afghanistan at all. The harder they fight back, the less the US is able to justify pulling out.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this apparent paradox.
quote:
As I was told by a Pashtun Commander; "The Afghan people are a proud people."
No doubt. Every army that has ventured into Afghanistan has found this to be true.
quote:
Firstly, to put it bluntly, your opinion is worthless in this matter as:
A) You don't really know anything about OBL.
B) You don't really know anything about how OBL is viewed by his subordinates.
C) You don't really know anything about how the local populations in the middle east and Southwest Asia view OBL.
I quite agree. My opinion is utterly worthless and should be disregarded by all thinking people.
This is a discussion board though, and it would be a trifle dull if we didn't express our opinions. Fortunately, the chances of anyone out there basing their view of the world on "what Granny Magda said" are minimal and long may that remain the case.
quote:
OBL is known to view himself as a soldier that has not provided himself any more comfortable accommodations, or food than any of his soldiers.
Yes. And say what you like about him, he gave up the life of a billionaire playboy to do it. You can't doubt his sincerity or commitment.
quote:
Take care.
I'll be fine. You take care and I hope that next week finds you safe and sound amongst your loved ones at home.
Mutate and Survive. (I always write that, but in your case, I really mean the second bit )

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Michamus, posted 06-03-2009 5:13 PM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Michamus, posted 06-08-2009 5:34 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 117 of 148 (511256)
06-08-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate
06-06-2009 11:06 PM


Re: Who's to blame?
Having read through both of your claims it seems like there was some cover-up of mistakes made during the 9-11 calamatity however it seems like these are cover-ups of mistakes made, not of a cover-up of a mass conspiracy by the government to self-inflict a calamity to induce us to go to war with Iraq and Afganistan. This is just my humble opinion from studying these issues on my own for the last 8 years and having intimate knowledge of how military intelligence and government/miltary operations work.
This seems to be the popular position, perhaps I need to reevaluate the way I'm looking at the issue; everyone seems to support this position that you are advocating.
America has been under direct and indirect attacks for the last 200+ years of its history. Threats of attack by Al-Qeada existed way before President Bush assumed office. I believe mistakes were made all the way back to President Reagan and even before which led up to and resulted in what occurred on 9-11. Again the term is called blowback. Our very presence and actions (as well as those of other non-Arab influences) for the last 50+ years in the middle east directly caused these events and poisoned the well of mutual respect between us and the Arabs of the ME. Bush and Cheney are just the last links in a long chain of incompetancy and negligence that resulted in 9-11.
I can agree with that.
Oni I expect more from you. Why is the NIST report crap? Can you please explain in your own words and provide evidence to back up your claims.
I guess I over stated that. I simply meant that it wasn't well done. It could have been a lot better. There are many loss ends. But again, I guess I need to reevaluate the way I'm looking at the evidence.
Totally agree with this one. We ouselves. indiectly, funded 9-11 and all the other mess happenning in the ME. If one studies the history of the last 50+ years of our involvement and influence in the ME, you will know that what I say is true. And you are right that the Bush family has seemed to be financially backing (at least indiectly) terrorists and dictators since G. W.'s grandfather Prescott's businesses were seized by the US government in October 1942 for not ceasing there financial connections with German buisnesses in the middle of WWII.
Unfortunately both the conspiracy theorists, the general public and the media take a way too much simplistic and generalized view of 9-11 much less the rest of modern history. History exists in shades of grey, not in black and white. If fingers are being pointed at who caused 9-11 to occur we might be surprised at how many fingers will be pointed back to ourselves.
I agree with this 100%.
I'll also add that if our current support of Israel and lack of support for the ME countries continues, we will not see any change in the way the Muslim world sees the US.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 06-06-2009 11:06 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 118 of 148 (511258)
06-08-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
06-07-2009 3:44 AM


Re: Flight 175
First, show that they lied, rather than making a mistake.
Second, show that they did it for two years.
So far, the only statement we've seen from them about the timeline was released on 18th Spetember, 2001.
It seems like I'm the only one viewing it as a lie, rather than simply a mistake.
The way I'm looking at is as such: They had the evidence, they had the tapes, they had their original timelines, however, it took the 911 Commission to give all the correct timelines and it seems to me that NORAD could have done that without the Commission. The only other position I can take is that the Commission seeked the huge bugget that the got to do their report and had NORAD given the correct timelines to begin with, they wouldn't have seen dime one.
Like I told Devils Advocate, perhaps I simply need to reevaluate the way I'm looking at the evidence.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2009 3:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2009 1:31 PM onifre has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 119 of 148 (511263)
06-08-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Granny Magda
06-08-2009 1:09 PM


Granny Magda writes:
I hope that makes things clearer. I am well aware that many others view him differently, and indeed I made reference to that fact in the post you replied to.
I didn't really think that you thought that the whole world felt that way. I was just filling spaces with words on most of that other than the "this statement is quite vague part".
Granny Magda writes:
I appreciate that this is how most Afghans see things. It does seem odd to me though, since if it were not for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the US almost certainly wouldn't be in Afghanistan at all. The harder they fight back, the less the US is able to justify pulling out.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this apparent paradox.
I actually laughed pretty loud when I read this part.
You are absolutely right, it makes no sense whatsoever to me, or any other American Soldier for that matter. The fastest way they could get rid of us is to stop fighting long enough for us to leave.
The only reason I see though is in a Pashtun's eyes, this is considered cowardice (but dressing up in a Burka and opening fire on troops from within a crowd isn't O.o)
Granny Magda writes:
Fortunately, the chances of anyone out there basing their view of the world on "what Granny Magda said" are minimal and long may that remain the case.
Wow, from all the posts I have seen of you annihilating creationists and the likes, I really wasn't expecting a these types of responses.
If it means anything, I have found your posts to be QUITE informative, and entertaining.
Granny Magda writes:
I'll be fine. You take care and I hope that next week finds you safe and sound amongst your loved ones at home.
Thank you, and it will. WOOHOO!!!
Granny Magda writes:
Mutate and Survive. (I always write that, but in your case, I really mean the second bit
ROFL, I never thought of it that way. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Granny Magda, posted 06-08-2009 1:09 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 120 of 148 (511358)
06-09-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by onifre
06-08-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Flight 175
It seems like I'm the only one viewing it as a lie, rather than simply a mistake.
Yes.
Let me explain why.
We normally suppose that someone making an erroneous statement is making a mistake rather than telling a deliberate lie, because this is in fact usually the case. We need positive evidence to accuse someone of deliberate dishonesty. You have supplied none.
Then again, when we suspect someone of lying, we look for some sort of motive. I can't see NORAD's motive for lying here, can you? I've asked you to supply motive: you haven't.
We also look at the rest of their statements for veracity. Now, the only discrepancy between NORAD's timeline and the findings of the Commission is about this one detail.
Finally, we notice that in this case they themselves supplied sufficient information to the Commission and the public to show that their claim was wrong. This does not look like the action of a deliberate liar.
The way I'm looking at is as such: They had the evidence, they had the tapes, they had their original timelines, however, it took the 911 Commission to give all the correct timelines and it seems to me that NORAD could have done that without the Commission.
Sure. And every time I post something inaccurate on the Internet, and someone corrects me, I could have found out that I was wrong with sufficiently diligent research, and without needing their help. But the very essence of making a mistake is that you don't know that you've made a mistake.
In NORAD's case, it would take exceptional diligence to spot that their timeline was in error. There were (IIRC) about 120 hours of tapes requiring review. How many people listened to them all? Do you suppose that any of the "top brass" did so ... ever?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 06-08-2009 5:06 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024