|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/28/2005 06:49:57 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to cut off discussion on this topic or have the thread locked. I was posing a serious question because the video leaves a lot of unanswered questions if we assume for a moment that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, the most obvious being what happened to the plane and all the people who were supposed to have died when it hit the building? Those people are gone, they did die, but if not in the circumstances we've come to believe, then how? The only information I have from my friend's husband is that there were no remains to return to him, but that can be easily explained. |
As I recall, this goofyness has been posted in this forum before, and the contention was something along the lines of the military directing the jet out over the Atlantic and shooting it down.
The silliest thing about all this to me is this: Generally, people don't/can't keep secrets, whether its right or wrong to do so. If you get 10 people and tell 2 of them a secret, it doesn't take long before all 10 know about it. Why do you think terrorist operate is cells, or governments and businesses have to use the threat of legal punishment to protect their secrets? And in spite of those "precautions", information still leaks out. So the idea that a plot as wide-spread and (if it were true) evil as this could be perpetuated without someone spilling the beans is beyond belief.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2005 07:29:10 PM · #27 |
| Well said, ScottK. I recall seeing Tom Clancy on TV once and he said something along the same lines. To paraphrase: The trouble with conspiracies is that a whole bunch of really smart people are going to get together, do something really amazing and not one of them will talk about it for the rest of their lives. It's not in human nature. |
|
|
|
03/01/2005 12:37:06 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to cut off discussion on this topic or have the thread locked. I was posing a serious question because the video leaves a lot of unanswered questions if we assume for a moment that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, the most obvious being what happened to the plane and all the people who were supposed to have died when it hit the building? Those people are gone, they did die, but if not in the circumstances we've come to believe, then how? The only information I have from my friend's husband is that there were no remains to return to him, but that can be easily explained. |
As I recall, this goofyness has been posted in this forum before, and the contention was something along the lines of the military directing the jet out over the Atlantic and shooting it down.
The silliest thing about all this to me is this: Generally, people don't/can't keep secrets, whether its right or wrong to do so. If you get 10 people and tell 2 of them a secret, it doesn't take long before all 10 know about it. Why do you think terrorist operate is cells, or governments and businesses have to use the threat of legal punishment to protect their secrets? And in spite of those "precautions", information still leaks out. So the idea that a plot as wide-spread and (if it were true) evil as this could be perpetuated without someone spilling the beans is beyond belief. |
ScottK, I have to agree that in this particular case (9/11), I don't think our government perpetrated that crime on its own people. However, I wouldn't be too quick to reject out-of-hand a "theory" just because someone labels it a conspiracy. In my opinion, if you get a few true-believer whacko types together -- for example, Oliver North or Gordon Liddy -- I think a small group made up of that type could wreak lots of havoc and would be quite capable of keeping their evil deeds secret. In another recent thread in the Rant Forum, someone (and I apologize for not recalling the name) posted a link to some declassified (once-Top Secret) documents on plans to overthrow Castro, and some of those plans called for the staged and/or actual murder of Americans (by the U.S. govt.) that would then be blamed on the Cuban government as a pretext for invasion. So do I think it's possible that our government is capable of doing such a thing? I do think it's possible. After all, a whole culture of secrecy is alive and well in our so-called intelligence agencies. (And what I'm about to say next isn't directly on topic, but witness the recent ousting of Jean Bertrand Aristede from Haiti just a year ago, carried out in secret by the U.S. military, and then spun by the Bush administration as a "voluntary" stepping-down by Aristede.)
Message edited by author 2005-03-01 00:39:32. |
|
|
|
03/01/2005 08:34:05 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Remember, Bush had 10 inauguration parties. That̢۪s TEN to the tune of over 40Million dollars. We paid for most of that, for a bad president to party with his millionaire and billionaire friends, while our troops STILL don̢۪t have the body armor and vehicle armor they need. |
1) If you mean we as taxpayers, then NO - we didn't pay for "most of that". The parties were privately funded.
2) If you mean that we indirectly paid for them because the funds came from individuals whose wealth derived from profits on their investments and businesses - money that eventually can be traced back to individual consumers - then yes, of course we paid for them. But by that same criteria we also paid the $20 million for Cristo's The Gates in New York City. How many sets of body armor could be bought for that $20 million? But I don't hear anyone complaining about spending that kind of money for ART that last only a couple of weeks. I wonder why? |
|
|
|
03/01/2005 09:29:42 AM · #30 |
I feel sorry for the angry, bitter people that have nothing to do but come up with some way to blame Bush and this country for every little thing.
It was Liberal Chris Matthew's that pined that he wished Clinton was presdient during 9/11 so he would have a legacy to leave. Party above the People. Pathetic.
Bush's parties cost less than Clinton's parties. Clinton never ever got 50% of the vote. Yet there was no outcry from the liberals then? Could there be a double standard in the left?
Keep up your stupid theories about 9/11 and voter fraud. And you wonder why your party is falling apart.
Don't look at the evidence either or listen to what people said that were there. Check out the Popular Mechanics article posted earlier in the thread. |
|
|
|
03/01/2005 10:54:56 AM · #31 |
To me it's higly suspicious that after the two WTC attacks that morning Norad hadn't scrambled any Jet fighters to at least try to divert flight 77 away from the nation's capital. They didn't even get to the dilemna you pose below. After all of the historical Islamist terrorist bombings both abroad and in the US in the 90s, as well as, all of the urgent intelligence warnings from other countries the Bush administration had gotten in the summer of 2001 about impending attacks, the least one could say is that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel. If you're a conspiracy theorist, an explanation of complicity with those who undertook those attacks are not that far fetched.
Hard to say what I would have done as I don't have all the facts in front of me, nor am I trained in those kinds of attacks or situations. However, a reasonable person with common sense would want more information and certain questions answered to all of the attacks that day.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think another question to be asking is just how did a 757 penetrate US air space that should have been the most protected and defended of any air space in the world.
Speaking of trading with the enemy...
Halliburton is doing business with Iran.
Washington Post article |
Easy. We can't trust auto-detect/auto-destroy technology for fear that it could destroy a "legitimate" aircraft "by accident". On the other hand, we can't permit humans to make the decision to kill hundreds of innocent civilians based on "worst case" intelligence reports for fear that the naysayers ( e.g. liberals ) would scream long and loud that dissenting opinions were ignored if the worst-case turned out to NOT be the real case. Hence, inaction was the rule of the day.
By the time enough evidence was gathered to counter the nay-sayers, it was, unfortunately, too late to take pre-emptive action. When it was NOT too late to take pre-emptive action, as in the case of Iraq, we can all see what happened when the worst-case was not the case.
My guess is that the next attack will, likewise, be met with a paralysis of analysis for fear that it might be another Iraq-type situation, and no one wants to be on the firing line if they guess wrong. And as far as I'm concerned, that indecision will be a direct result of the left's response to past action based on best intelligence - to the left, best isn't good enough ( unless, of course, the democrats are in control ).
But, here's a good question, Olyuzi. What would YOU have done? |
|
|
|
|
03/01/2005 11:29:24 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
To me it's higly suspicious that after the two WTC attacks that morning Norad hadn't scrambled any Jet fighters to at least try to divert flight 77 away from the nation's capital. They didn't even get to the dilemna you pose below. After all of the historical Islamist terrorist bombings both abroad and in the US in the 90s, as well as, all of the urgent intelligence warnings from other countries the Bush administration had gotten in the summer of 2001 about impending attacks, the least one could say is that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel. If you're a conspiracy theorist, an explanation of complicity with those who undertook those attacks are not that far fetched.
Hard to say what I would have done as I don't have all the facts in front of me, nor am I trained in those kinds of attacks or situations. However, a reasonable person with common sense would want more information and certain questions answered to all of the attacks that day.
|
What exactly did Clinton do during the 90's to stop terrorism when we actually were attacked before at the WTC and the USS Cole? What was his response? He did bomb the Sudan. Oh wait, that was to cover up his BJs. Or how about when Clinton was handed Bin Laden but did not take him? Yet Bush was asleep at the wheel... You act like we have never had any terrorist threats since 1970 and any threat should have been challenged. However, when we were attacked, St.Bill did nothing at each and every turn. Could 3,000 or more lives been saved if he had? Maybe. But most likely not.
I am not a conspiracy nut that will ignore logic just to try to make my opponent look bad.
What you think is that the 'dumbest' president in history was able to see just how he could benefit from all of this and wanted to go a step further and blow up the Pentagon.
If we had shot down the 757, you would be forever going on about how that was wrong to kill so many to save so few. You know it is true. You are the same people that complain about the Patriot Act but can't point to one person who has had their Civil Liberties violated. I think shoot a plane down would be worse.
Truth is, and you prove it in every political forum on this site, you believe Bush can never do anything right. You believe he is the cause of all evil that has ever happened. I guess that means that the new democray in Iraq, coming elections in Egypt, freedom for Lebanon, and possible Saudi elections are evil as well.
Message edited by author 2005-03-01 11:30:31. |
|
|
|
03/01/2005 12:37:18 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
To me it's higly suspicious that after the two WTC attacks that morning Norad hadn't scrambled any Jet fighters to at least try to divert flight 77 away from the nation's capital...
...Hard to say what I would have done as I don't have all the facts in front of me, nor am I trained in those kinds of attacks or situations. However, a reasonable person with common sense would want more information and certain questions answered to all of the attacks that day. |
Hmmm. Hard to say what you would have done because you don't have all the facts in front of you, but strangely enough, you seem to have enough facts to criticize the actions/inactions of others.
Again, you say that a reasonable person with common sense would want more information, but you are unwilling to grant that the people who made the decisions of that day were also reasonable people with common sense who wanted more information.
The big problem is TIME. They didn't have it on 9/11. You do, but STILL can't say what you would have done. Funny that.
And, just out of curiousity, how do you divert a plane being piloted by terrorists who don't want to be diverted?
Message edited by author 2005-03-01 12:42:06. |
|
|
|
03/01/2005 01:04:55 PM · #34 |
Bill Clinton was not the president on 9/11, George Bush was. One of the first tasks of any incoming president should be to make sure that the seat of national government is secured. There had already been two attacks that morning and that there were other planes in the air off course, so they had prior warning. Seems to me there is no excuse that the air defenses over the nation's capital should have been completely absent, unless you can come up with one.
I am not a fan of the democratic party or Bill Clinton, never was and have stated so in these forums in the past. You seem to narrow politics down to merely republican/democrat and this is very narrow minded. They are the same party with different names, imo, for reasons I won't go into during this discussion. Don't go putting words in my mouth about what you believe I think the president did or didn't do that day.
Canadian citizen Maher Arar had his civil rights violated through the Bush administration's "extraordinary renditions" program and just today a judge ordered that Jose Padilla cannot be held indefinitely, like he's been for over 2 years, without being charged with any crimes. (Note, I am NOT defending Jose Padilla.)
No, I don't believe that Bush is the cause of "ALL" evil that has "EVER" happened, just the wrongdoings that he and his administration are responsible for.
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
To me it's higly suspicious that after the two WTC attacks that morning Norad hadn't scrambled any Jet fighters to at least try to divert flight 77 away from the nation's capital. They didn't even get to the dilemna you pose below. After all of the historical Islamist terrorist bombings both abroad and in the US in the 90s, as well as, all of the urgent intelligence warnings from other countries the Bush administration had gotten in the summer of 2001 about impending attacks, the least one could say is that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel. If you're a conspiracy theorist, an explanation of complicity with those who undertook those attacks are not that far fetched.
Hard to say what I would have done as I don't have all the facts in front of me, nor am I trained in those kinds of attacks or situations. However, a reasonable person with common sense would want more information and certain questions answered to all of the attacks that day.
|
What exactly did Clinton do during the 90's to stop terrorism when we actually were attacked before at the WTC and the USS Cole? What was his response? He did bomb the Sudan. Oh wait, that was to cover up his BJs. Or how about when Clinton was handed Bin Laden but did not take him? Yet Bush was asleep at the wheel... You act like we have never had any terrorist threats since 1970 and any threat should have been challenged. However, when we were attacked, St.Bill did nothing at each and every turn. Could 3,000 or more lives been saved if he had? Maybe. But most likely not.
I am not a conspiracy nut that will ignore logic just to try to make my opponent look bad.
What you think is that the 'dumbest' president in history was able to see just how he could benefit from all of this and wanted to go a step further and blow up the Pentagon.
If we had shot down the 757, you would be forever going on about how that was wrong to kill so many to save so few. You know it is true. You are the same people that complain about the Patriot Act but can't point to one person who has had their Civil Liberties violated. I think shoot a plane down would be worse.
Truth is, and you prove it in every political forum on this site, you believe Bush can never do anything right. You believe he is the cause of all evil that has ever happened. I guess that means that the new democray in Iraq, coming elections in Egypt, freedom for Lebanon, and possible Saudi elections are evil as well. |
|
|
|
|
03/01/2005 03:18:57 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
To me it's higly suspicious that after the two WTC attacks that morning Norad hadn't scrambled any Jet fighters to at least try to divert flight 77 away from the nation's capital. |
Olyuzi, this chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report may answer your question above. |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 02:50:07 PM · #36 |
I know this thread is old, but I wanted to add that I read a great book on the subject. Its called "The War on Freedom - How And Why America Was Attacked On September 11th", by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (spelling?).
The book was the best written on the subject in my opinion, and is a great compilation of facts and Standard Operating Procedures that were ignored/went horribly wrong, on the day of the tragedy. It also has a great section on the history of chaos in the Afghani region to which I learned a great deal, even as I have always followed current events and payed close attention to world history. Check it out if you have time. Its a great read, and extremely well documented. If you live close to Philly, I lend you mine, but you'll need to write a book report. :) Come to think of it, its in my top 5 best books read, in the non-fiction category. |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 05:34:43 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Well said, ScottK. I recall seeing Tom Clancy on TV once and he said something along the same lines. To paraphrase: The trouble with conspiracies is that a whole bunch of really smart people are going to get together, do something really amazing and not one of them will talk about it for the rest of their lives. It's not in human nature. |
The way that usually works is, people are setup in such a way that its one of those "...I'll take you down with me" situations so people don̢۪t rat. Now and again they do slip up though, but mass media doesn̢۪t usually cover this.
Bush himself lied about the 1st time he heard about the attacks. As illustrated here: Bush's "slip", he said:
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident.""
But the 1st plane strike did not show up on TV until days later because it was not a press camera that recorded the 1st and certainly was not being aired live nation wide, as Bush was in FL.
As hard as it may be to keep a secret, these men̢۪s lives depend on tight lips. That and a leashed media. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 04:13:30 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 04:13:30 PM EDT.
|
