PDA

View Full Version : What 9/11 revelations will occur if Dems win in '08? (not political)



SpitfireIX
2006-Apr-05, 05:11 PM
Here's a question I'd like to pose to all conspiracists: if the Democrats win the next Presidential election, and/or take control of one or both houses of Congress, what sorts of information do you expect will be forthcoming about the September 11 attacks, and what, if any, new investigations do you expect to see?

To all non-conspiracists: should the above political shift occur, what excuses do you expect the conspiracists to offer if (when) there are no major revelations or new investigations?

Just a friendly reminder to everyone [edit: including myself]--discussions of politics are not appropriate for this thread, except where necessarily related to the topic. Any necessary mention of political issues should be confined to verifiable facts, not contain political opinions or political value judgments, and be respectful.

BenderBendingRodriguez
2006-Apr-05, 05:22 PM
Well, I'm not a conspiracist, so I don't expect that any "revelations" will come up, ofcourse, but:

"It was a bipartisan deal."
"It's part of a masonic (or insert "worldwide conspiracy group" here) deal, so it's not just the Republicans"
"The Republicans changed everything dealing with 9/11 and related business while they were still in charge!"

From my own experience with "believers", the most fanatical ones will always find an excuse.

jrkeller
2006-Apr-05, 05:23 PM
To all non-conspiracists: should the above political shift occur, what excuses do you expect the conspiracists to offer if (when) there are no major revelations or new investigations?



They'll offer something like there are all part of the Illuminati. Or both parties are in bed with big oil (which is true to some degree). The Repulicans have black mail information on all the keys leaders. They've been corrupted by the right and no longer have opened minds.

Gillianren
2006-Apr-05, 10:14 PM
Um . . . you're missing the point. The point is, in our vast experience with certain CT (conspiracy theorist) types, there's always an excuse as to why the evidence isn't available. Currently, the excuse for 9/11 CTs is the Republican control of the government. If the Democrats take control of the government in '08, this will no longer be a good reason. (Not that I think it is one now, but anyway.) So what will be the excuse in that eventuality?

JayUtah
2006-Apr-05, 10:58 PM
You give the conspiracy theorists too little credit. Since when has a change in government made a difference? Did Nixon's victory in 1968 change the landscape of the alleged Apollo hoax? We're talking about people who easily and routinely rewrite or invent history to satisfy the needs of their conjecture. Why is it so hard to speculate that if one party didn't perpetrate a certain form of nonsense for which it appears responsible, then "obviously" the other party must have somehow set them up?

Gillianren
2006-Apr-06, 01:02 AM
Because the Constitution says we have to?

Chainsaw1
2006-Apr-06, 02:16 AM
They have already came up with an excuse for that Clinton, Bush Sen, Regan, and Carter were in on it, it goes back before FDR. and the fake attack on peril harbor, or how about the fake attack on the Lusitania, or the fake attack on the Maine In Cuba, or the fake firing on fort Sumter, or the fake war with Mexico, the fake war of 1812, how about a fake revolution.
I bet they even will say the 30 year war was faked.
Sorry about any spelling or grammerical errors, but I am in a lot of pain this evening tore a shoulder, will be weeks before I am back to normal what ever that is.

ktesibios
2006-Apr-06, 02:57 AM
I came with about ten reasons, but all of them were political and I don't want the free-speech advocates of this forum to ban me.
But here is one semi-political CT: Maybe there won't need to be any reasons to change the story because there will be no corrupted democrats running the office. Maybe the Time magazine Person of the year 2004 will figure out how to remain in office just a bit longer (and be subsequently awarded as a Time magazine person of the year 2008)
That would be probably the best solution for America and CT's as any change only brings confussion. CTs often points out that there is no democratic ellection anyway so why to give them another proof to their agenda.

Say what?

Claims that TPTB are scheming to cancel the elections are common, in fact routine, among CTers. Besides being a perennial among the tin-foil-hat set in general, 9/11 CTs tend to be intensely political, so syndromism in that direction is pretty common in that sector of the CT market. Good grief, the "Scholars for 9-11 Truth" just linked to an April Fools hoax on that very subject.

If such an unlikely thing should ever come to pass, CTers would see it as proof positive of all their views.

It's having a normal election, especially if it should result in significant changes in Washington that would run counter to CTer expectations. That would have to be dealt with by second-convolution thinking, perhaps some form of the "they're just two different brands of the same Illuminati/Zionists/lizards/whatever" refrain.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Apr-06, 03:20 AM
They have already came up with an excuse for that Clinton, Bush Sen, Regan, and Carter were in on it, it goes back before FDR. and the fake attack on peril harbor, or how about the fake attack on the Lusitania, or the fake attack on the Maine In Cuba, or the fake firing on fort Sumter, or the fake war with Mexico, the fake war of 1812, how about a fake revolution.
I bet they even will say the 30 year war was faked.
Sorry about any spelling or grammerical errors, but I am in a lot of pain this evening tore a shoulder, will be weeks before I am back to normal what ever that is.
AW, That Sucks, I Hope you Feel Better ...

As for The OP, I Fully Expect Certain Small Revelations to Come Out of The Republican Camp After The Election, Win or Lose ...

Ya' Know, The Tiny Stuff, The Kinda Things Presidents Put In their Memoirs After they Stop Worrying Over Much About their Approval Numbers!

VenusROVER
2006-Apr-06, 03:21 AM
The CIA planned the 9/11 attacks it wasent middle eastern terrorists like the media so wrongfully puts on the TV. They did this because people would not have any problem going to war. They wanted war because the economy goes up when u have war also Bush gets more oil.

SpitfireIX
2006-Apr-06, 04:00 AM
The CIA planned the 9/11 attacks it wasent middle eastern terrorists like the media so wrongfully puts on the TV. They did this because people would not have any problem going to war. They wanted war because the economy goes up when u have war also Bush gets more oil.

So I pose the original question to you, VenusRover, what revelations about the September 11 attacks do you expect to come out in 2009 if the Democrats win the next election?

VenusROVER
2006-Apr-06, 04:51 AM
I didnt vote for him i couldent anyway i'm 13

Vermonter
2006-Apr-06, 04:52 AM
Goodbye.

VenusROVER
2006-Apr-06, 04:53 AM
k bye i guess???????????????

Fram
2006-Apr-06, 08:21 AM
That's the whole core of nonsense, right here. You should really believe the official story and not that screaming Alex Jones. He is just pulling your strings to sell more of his videos. The official story is the truth. Get over it. Bush was two times nominated as Person of the year by Time magazine. He has no interest in oil. He is here to defend your country. He is here to spread democracy and peace. All short sentences - is it that hard to understand?!
Incidentally, that will be also the revelation after 2008 except it will use "was" not "is".

Mr.X, don't get me wrong, I understand your reaction, it was highly provoked, but your defense of Bush is a political topic and can easily lead to responses in the same vein from opposers, as it is debatable. Most people agree with the official 9/11 story, no matter what they think of Bush. If your post had stopped after the "get over it", it would have been equally good, and safer (wrt board rules).

jkmccrann
2006-Apr-06, 10:55 AM
VenusROVER you should be named as a chief examinator in Schollars for 911 truth. You use short and simple words and you go right to the point.

Whatever

Personally, I don't expect any major revelations. So, the FBI/CIA/NSA etc. were asleep at the wheel! Big deal, obviously they were otherwise it wouldn't have happened - but we already know that so I can't see any groundbreaking revelations. What's come out since JFK was murdered? (Since LBJ left office - to make a parallel) Nothing with any substance that I can think of.

Have another question for you Mr.X, are you related in any way to Mr. X who is another member here? Actually, one of the earliest members here - well before I arrived.

You
Mr.X (http://bautforum.com/member.php?u=24)

The Original
Mr. X (http://bautforum.com/member.php?u=12856)


????????

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-06, 02:36 PM
Bush was two times nominated as Person of the year by Time magazine.

I'd note that the Time Man of the Year is the person, people or idea that they felt was the most influential that year, for good or ill, not the one they felt was the greatest figure of the year.

It has included Adolf Hitler (1938), Josef Stalin (1939, 1942), Richard Nixon (1971), and the Personal Computer (1982)

for a full list of every one since it was concieved in 1927, go here (http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa050400a.htm)

SpitfireIX
2006-Apr-06, 04:17 PM
Bush was two times nominated as Person of the year by Time magazine.

I'd note that the Time Man of the Year is the person, people or idea that they felt was the most influential that year, for good or ill, not the one they felt was the greatest figure of the year.

It has included Adolf Hitler (1938), Josef Stalin (1939, 1942), Richard Nixon (1971), and the Personal Computer (1982)

for a full list of every one since it was concieved in 1927, go here (http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa050400a.htm)

When publisher Henry Luce originally came up with the idea of choosing a "man of the year," the criterion was simply that that the person picked have done the most to drive the news during that year, whether "for good or ill." Sadly (IMO), in recent times the Person of the Year has become mostly a popularity contest. In 1979 Time chose Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, as the Iran crisis was far and away the biggest American news story that year. Thousands of readers canceled subscriptions; many more complained. Ever since, the selections have been mostly non-controversial; Osama bin Laden was the obvious choice for 2001, but he was passed over for fear of another reader backlash.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Apr-06, 06:13 PM
Well, I suppose that if the Democrats win the 2008 election, we'll probably get a another CT about the Trilateral Comission being in cahoots with whatever dastardly act you can think of to force a Global Dictartorship and they'll twist their already twisted theories on 9/11 a bit more so they fit in that CT "Framework" :rolleyes:

Gillianren
2006-Apr-06, 06:59 PM
Er--have posts in this thread been deleted? Because my preivous posts were replying to posts that aren't there anymore, and no longer make sense.

jt-3d
2006-Apr-06, 10:16 PM
Some of them already say the CIA/Ninja Demolitionists/MIB/... planted explosives in the trade center buildings back in '93, the Clinton era. They are a versatle lot.

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Apr-06, 11:59 PM
Er--have posts in this thread been deleted? Because my preivous posts were replying to posts that aren't there anymore, and no longer make sense.
I was wondering the same thing. As best as I can tell, it looks like there might have been some nastiness from Mr.X that's being "covered up". It's a conspiracy! :whistle:

Cylinder
2006-Apr-07, 12:04 AM
This one's easy. Absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy. Next question. :)

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Apr-07, 12:28 AM
I was wondering the same thing. As best as I can tell, it looks like there might have been some nastiness from Mr.X that's being "covered up". It's a conspiracy! :whistle:
It seems Mr.X has been deleting his posts (http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=40133). In that thread, the only post of his left is the thread-opener, which he's replaced with an apology.

Methinks he didn't read the rules...

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-07, 03:08 AM
I didn't think you could delete a post once it'd been replied too, just edit it out, which of course is generally against the rules, unless it needed to be removed due to something else that broke the rules.

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Apr-07, 04:15 AM
I didn't think you could delete a post once it'd been replied too, just edit it out, which of course is generally against the rules. . .
Alright, yeah... That's what I thought, too.


. . .unless it needed to be removed due to something else that broke the rules.
I hadn't seen any warning by a moderator. Some of his now-missing posts are still preserved in quoted replies, and you can see that they don't seem to be anything worthy of outright and total deletion.

Maybe he requested that they be deleted?

Edit: Dang. This is the wrong thread to be having this conversation in. Heh.

ZappBrannigan
2006-Apr-07, 06:13 AM
I seem to recall that prior to 2000, all conspiracies involving the U.S. Gubmit involved some sort of nefarious plan to hand the country over to the U.N. I'm guessing that that will come back into play.

Y2K was also popular back then, but I'm not sure it'll have as big a comeback.

I'm talking in general here. I don't know if someone will decide to include the U.N. in a 9/11 conspiracy.

Hmmm. Come to think of it, if you take a highly compressed frame from a 9/11 film, put it in PhotoShop, and apply at least 10 random filters to it, the planes do look kind of blue...

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-07, 06:29 AM
I seem to recall that prior to 2000, all conspiracies involving the U.S. Gubmit involved some sort of nefarious plan to hand the country over to the U.N.

You mean like the claims that the US Government did 9/11 so they could send all their troops off to Afganistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, then once they were out of the way, stage a number of natural disaters like New Orleans so that the UN has to send troops over to support the depleted National Guard all while the million Chinese soldiers who are hiding in tunnels under New York take over the East Coast and start rounding up the good US citizens and placing them in the Rex 65 Internment camps?

ZappBrannigan
2006-Apr-07, 06:35 AM
And it's all being run from the giant complex underneath the Denver airport. Exactly.

Edit to add: But it doesn't matter, because Planet X is still baubling out there, waiting to attack!

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-07, 07:05 AM
Planet X was running late due to following the Electrically charged Comet White Rabbit, so the Zeta ATC has now placed it in a holding pattern which randomly teleports it about the solar system all while rescheduling it for an apperance in 2012.

SpitfireIX
2006-Apr-07, 01:25 PM
I seem to recall that prior to 2000, all conspiracies involving the U.S. Gubmit involved some sort of nefarious plan to hand the country over to the U.N. I'm guessing that that will come back into play.

The reason I posed my original question is that so many 9/11 conspiracists have clear political motivations for their beliefs. To me it stands to reason that they would expect "the truth" to come out if the Democrats win.

JayUtah
2006-Apr-07, 01:32 PM
I haven't seen a conspiracy theory or theorist yet who wasn't politically motivated. The question is whether it's partisan politics in this case. And my answer remains the same -- it doesn't really matter because speculation will trump all fact if allowed to.

N C More
2006-Apr-07, 02:02 PM
-- it doesn't really matter because speculation will trump all fact if allowed to.

Reminds of this quotation:

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. " Mark Twain

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Apr-07, 02:08 PM
So! there are things that travel at faster than the speed of light!: Gossip, Rumours and CTs :lol:

captain swoop
2006-Apr-07, 02:33 PM
Monarchy?
the Heir becomes the king at the instant of the kings death.

Well, according to PTerry.

Kesh
2006-Apr-07, 04:21 PM
My feeling is that little new will be revealed should that happen. There's bound to be some new information coming to light at that time, regardless of who's in office: documents declassified, further research completed, etc.

But, I doubt a change in political parties is going to have a significant impact on those things. Further, doing so would cause more grumblings of "partisanship" and undermine the new administration's ability to get its own policies out the door.

In short: not likely.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Apr-07, 06:55 PM
My feeling is that little new will be revealed should that happen. There's bound to be some new information coming to light at that time, regardless of who's in office: documents declassified, further research completed, etc.

But, I doubt a change in political parties is going to have a significant impact on those things. Further, doing so would cause more grumblings of "partisanship" and undermine the new administration's ability to get its own policies out the door.

In short: not likely.
Yeah ...

As I Said Before, I FULLY Expect there to Be Certain Small Revelations After The Election Regardless of Who Wins ...

Ya' Know, The Kinda Things you Put Into your Memoirs but Would Hurt your Approval Rating If they Were to Get Out While you Were Still In Office!

:shhh:

SpitfireIX
2006-Apr-07, 08:05 PM
I haven't seen a conspiracy theory or theorist yet who wasn't politically motivated. The question is whether it's partisan politics in this case.

Good point, Jay--of course I did mean partisan politics.


And my answer remains the same -- it doesn't really matter because speculation will trump all fact if allowed to.

And the World Wide Web has given speculation an unprecedented soapbox, unfortunately. BTW, Jay, when are you going to start a September 11 web site? :)

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Apr-07, 11:54 PM
Planet X was running late due to following the Electrically charged Comet White Rabbit, so the Zeta ATC has now placed it in a holding pattern which randomly teleports it about the solar system all while rescheduling it for an apperance in 2012.
All classified under the codename "Plan 9"...

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Apr-08, 07:29 PM
All classified under the codename "Plan 9"...

All hail Ed Wood :D

metamars
2006-Apr-08, 11:10 PM
Here's a question I'd like to pose to all conspiracists: if the Democrats win the next Presidential election, and/or take control of one or both houses of Congress, what sorts of information do you expect will be forthcoming about the September 11 attacks, and what, if any, new investigations do you expect to see?

To all non-conspiracists: should the above political shift occur, what excuses do you expect the conspiracists to offer if (when) there are no major revelations or new investigations?

Just a friendly reminder to everyone [edit: including myself]--discussions of politics are not appropriate for this thread, except where necessarily related to the topic. Any necessary mention of political issues should be confined to verifiable facts, not contain political opinions or political value judgments, and be respectful.


I expect the Democrats, in the scenarios you indicate, to still do absolutely nothing about 911. I consider their failure to call for a thorough investigation into 911 to be treasonous. While it's certainly possible that those who refrained from expressing their real beliefs about 911, will all of a sudden find their spine when they have more power, I don't believe that for an instant.

Of course, I welcome them to prove me wrong.

Mike Ruppert's comments in response to a citizen's attempt to understand the lack of response to this citizens' attempts to get some Congress members to act, are appropriate:

( http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/unanswered_questions_911.html )



"The flaw in your work is not in the legal foundation or in the way the evidence is presented, [but] in your basic assumption that the system functions and operates as you think it should or the way it is described in textbooks. History is replete with instances of impeachable or prosecutable conduct which are much better documented, more easily proven, and more glaring than what you have described."

"In Watergate, there was an abundance of evidence that Richard Nixon had committed offenses far greater than the one which brought him to the brink of impeachment—obstruction of justice. The issue was not what offense would be used to remove him, but (as far as Congress was concerned) finding an offense which could remove a sitting president without destroying the entire American system of government. The same question governs Congressional response to 9/11," Ruppert wrote.

Ruppert went on to write, "The entire system is corrupt. Those who participate in it rationalize— in order to protect their seat at a crap table— that when one player gets out of line the primary objective is to protect the crap game. (I thank Peter Dale Scott for this analogy). I can guarantee you that many members of Congress are aware of every detail you have documented, and much, much more. . . To impeach Bush et al on the grounds you have delineated would open a can of worms that would call into question the legitimacy of the entire government. That will never be permitted.
“In the late 1990s I secured hard documents (much better evidence than you have presented from a legal standpoint) showing an active conspiracy to protect drug traffickers by the CIA that was sanctioned by the White House. An impeachment trial would have been open and shut. It never came about for the reasons I have stated above.

“In the case of the Clinton impeachment, while there were perhaps ten (or more) offenses upon which that president could have been removed and jailed, none of them were ever pursued. Why? Because they involved the simultaneous exposure of Republican corruption and/or demonstrated that the entire government was complicit in one degree or another. So what did they go after Clinton on? Extramarital sex and lying about it. It was the only charge available that did not bring down the whole system.

“I believe that (as it was with Watergate) Bush will likely be impeached after winning the 2004 election. On what charge? The forged Niger documents about alleged attempts by Saddam Hussein to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program and the malicious exposure of Valerie Plame (wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson who was critical in exposing that lie) as a CIA case officer. That offense does not expose the whole crap game.
“There is no legal argument you can make that will make a broken system function the way that you want it to function."
Another valuable insight about the Democratic Party was provided on 2/20/05 by Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. Gagnon writes:

"Hillary Clinton, who hopes to become president, is on the Sunday morning talk shows saying that our troops might be in Iraq for some time to come. ‘We've been in Korea for 50 years,' she said. ‘We are still in Okinawa,' she told the TV cameras.

“That is it. Pack up your bags, peace movement, and just go home. Hillary has made the pronouncement. She is in sync with George W. Bush, the neo-con crowd, Haliburton, Bechtel....she wants to be president and she knows that the road to the White House has to pass through the gates of the military industrial complex....and the oil corporations....and the globalization crowd that intends to create a ‘market economy' in Iraq (read privatization of everything there.) Hillary has totally sold out.

"The war in Iraq, and the very long presence of U.S. troops there, will bleed America to the bone. The Democratic party, with few very noble exceptions, is on their knees in loyal complicity with the war machine. How can any self-respecting peace activist contemplate for a moment supporting such a party in the next election?”

SpitfireIX
2006-Apr-09, 02:58 AM
I expect the Democrats, in the scenarios you indicate, to still do absolutely nothing about 911. I consider their failure to call for a thorough investigation into 911 to be treasonous. While it's certainly possible that those who refrained from expressing their real beliefs about 911, will all of a sudden find their spine when they have more power, I don't believe that for an instant.

How do you know what their "real" beliefs are? What's your evidence that they secretly agree with you?


Of course, I welcome them to prove me wrong.

Do you welcome anyone to prove you wrong about US government complicity in the September 11 attacks? What would convince you that you're wrong?


Mike Ruppert's comments in response to a citizen's attempt to understand the lack of response to this citizens' attempts to get some Congress members to act, are appropriate:

They're appropriate for someone with an extremely warped and paranoid view of the American system of government. Further, you neglected to mention what the evidence was that the Democrats chose to ignore. From the article linked above:


John B. Massen On 9-13-01, the Senate Armed Services Committee, with a Democratic Chairman and majority membership, heard General Richard Myers testify that fighter aircraft responded to an apparently hijacked plane inbound to the U.S. and forced it to land in a remote base in Canada. Standard operating procedures were clearly in effect outside, but not inside, the U.S. on 9-11-01. If there had been no advance warning of the attack, fighter planes responding under standard operating procedures would have prevented all attacks inside the U.S. The Bush regime must have decided to permit the attack to succeed.

The short version: About five hours after American 11 struck WTC1, a Korean Airlines 747 approaching Alaska mistakenly set its transponder to "squawk" 7500 ("we have been hijacked"). Forcing the plane to land was not "standard operating procedure"; rather, it was a response to the attacks earlier in the day. Further, prior to September 11, 2001, NORAD was only concerned with air threats from outside the US, and not from within. Finally, as mentioned this testimony was given before the Senate Armed Services Committee--presumably these Senators, most or all of whom are knowlegeable about military matters, were capable of deciding for themselves whether or not this incident constitutes evidence of a conspiracy.


John B. Massen A comprehensive report was written, by myself, which cited Myers' testimony, the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, Bush's behavior at the Florida school, and evidence of planning, long before 9/11/01, aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report was sent, by myself, ... to all 257 Democrats in the House and Senate. The transmittal letters all strongly appealed for impeachment of the Bush regime for complicity in permitting the 9/11 attack to occur...

The issue of Bush's behavior at the school has been discussed in the 9/11 thread--again, briefly, there was no need for Bush to rush out of the school--he couldn't leave until the route to the airport had been secured, and there was no need for him to issue any immediate orders, as he knew the military would take appropriate defensive measures.


John B. Massen David Ray Griffin's vital book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, was released in April 2004. It presented comprehensive evidence indicating deep complicity by the Bush regime in the 9/11 attack. The simplest "snapshot" of that evidence is this: (a) the North Tower (WTC-1) was struck at 8:46 AM, and collapsed 102 minutes later at 10:28 AM; (b) the South Tower (WTC-2) was struck at 9:03 AM and, with a much smaller fire, collapsed 56 minutes later (55% of WTC-1 time) at 9:59 AM; and (c) the 47-story WTC-7, which was two blocks away and not struck by a plane and had smaller interior fires, collapsed at 5:20 PM. (p.12) The collapse of WTC-2 before WTC-1 indicates the cause was not fires, but controlled demolition. (p.17)

This is lame even by conspiracist standards--the planes struck at different levels, and at different attitudes, and probably at different speeds. Also, the size of the fires is in each building is not certain. Yet the difference in times of collapse is offered as "proof" of a conspiracy.


John B. Massen Copies of Griffin's book were sent by myself to these Democrats: [list omitted] ...All transmittal letters urged impeachment action, contending that such action and injecting the "complicity issue" into the 2004 presidential campaign was the only way to assure Bush's defeat...

Of course, many Congressional Democrats received, from other persons, much information about the Bush regime complicity in addition to that reported above.

All Congressional Democrats and especially its [sic] leaders, and DNC Chair MCAuliffe, were adequately informed of the Bush regime complicity and had staff and other resources to investigate further. Congressional Democrats had sworn to protect and uphold the constitution. They utterly failed in their obligations to the constitution and to their constituents to be an effective opposition party. The title of this essay is fully justified: the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party and the Media, covered up the deep complicity in the 9/11/01 attack by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Myers.
Why does the principal opposition party join the ruling party in covering up what are probably the worst presidential crimes in U.S. history?

We have two competing theories here:

1) the Democrats took no action because they are spineless lapdogs who also benefit from the corrupt system, or

2) the Democrats took no action because they knew that the "evidence" of the Bush administration's complicity in September 11 was laughably absurd.

Which theory is simpler, and better explains the known observations?

[edit: typo]

metamars
2006-Apr-10, 05:49 AM
How do you know what their "real" beliefs are? What's your evidence that they secretly agree with you?



Do you welcome anyone to prove you wrong about US government complicity in the September 11 attacks? What would convince you that you're wrong?



They're appropriate for someone with an extremely warped and paranoid view of the American system of government. Further, you neglected to mention what the evidence was that the Democrats chose to ignore. From the article linked above:



The short version: About five hours after American 11 struck WTC1, a Korean Airlines 747 approaching Alaska mistakenly set its transponder to "squawk" 7500 ("we have been hijacked"). Forcing the plane to land was not "standard operating procedure"; rather, it was a response to the attacks earlier in the day. Further, prior to September 11, 2001, NORAD was only concerned with air threats from outside the US, and not from within. Finally, as mentioned this testimony was given before the Senate Armed Services Committee--presumably these Senators, most or all of whom are knowlegeable about military matters, were capable of deciding for themselves whether or not this incident constitutes evidence of a conspiracy.



The issue of Bush's behavior at the school has been discussed in the 9/11 thread--again, briefly, there was no need for Bush to rush out of the school--he couldn't leave until the route to the airport had been secured, and there was no need for him to issue any immediate orders, as he knew the military would take appropriate defensive measures.



This is lame even by conspiracist standards--the planes struck at different t levels, and at different attitudes, and probably at different speeds. Also, the size of the fires is in each building is not certain. Yet the difference in times of collapse is offered as "proof" of a conspiracy.



We have two competing theories here:

1) the Democrats took no action because they are spineless lapdogs who also benefit from the corrupt system, or

2) the Democrats took no action because they knew that the "evidence" of the Bush administration's complicity in September 11 was laughably absurd.

Which theory is simpler, and better explains the known observations?

Both your "fact base", and your theories, are rather limited. Especially the fact base - whole books have been written about what the 911 commission chose to ignore completely, or first investigate, and then not include in their report (or relegate to a mere footnote or two.)

I find it ironic that your limited fact base would include the testimony about the air responses. That was the only televised testimony that I paid a great deal of attention to, since (at the time), it was what interested me the most.

As you'll recall, this was left to the last day of testimony, and was woefully inadequate.

No doubt you are more than satisfied with the bang up job the 911 commission did, just as you are no doubt satisfied with the NIST'ian handwaving re "inevitable global collapse".

metamars
2006-Apr-10, 06:25 AM
whole books have been written about what the 911 commission chose to ignore completely, or first investigate, and then not include in their report (or relegate to a mere footnote or two.)

I should have written: "whole books have been written, covering the 911 commission's report, including what the 911 commission chose to ignore completely, or first investigate, and then not include in their report (or relegate to a mere footnote or two.)"

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-10, 10:03 AM
with the NIST'ian handwaving re "inevitable global collapse".

We can add you to the group of people that has no understand of engineering prinicples and FEA software as well I see.

Monique
2006-Apr-10, 04:28 PM
If democrat win in America, world get shock of revelation!!








No secrets to reveal!!! :shifty:

Swift
2006-Apr-10, 07:40 PM
Both your "fact base", and your theories, are rather limited. Especially the fact base - whole books have been written about what the 911 commission chose to ignore completely, or first investigate, and then not include in their report (or relegate to a mere footnote or two.)

Whole books have been written about astrology, on the idea that the moon landings were fake, on UFOs, and about a million different diets for weight control. The fact that someone wrote a book does not make it any better of a "fact base". It just means a publisher thought they could make money off of it, or someone put up the money for self-publishing.

SpitfireIX
2006-Apr-11, 12:24 AM
Both your "fact base", and your theories, are rather limited. Especially the fact base - whole books have been written about what the 911 commission chose to ignore completely, or first investigate, and then not include in their report (or relegate to a mere footnote or two.)

I find it ironic that your limited fact base would include the testimony about the air responses. That was the only televised testimony that I paid a great deal of attention to, since (at the time), it was what interested me the most.

As you'll recall, this was left to the last day of testimony, and was woefully inadequate.

No doubt you are more than satisfied with the bang up job the 911 commission did, just as you are no doubt satisfied with the NIST'ian handwaving re "inevitable global collapse".

I'm sorry, but I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here. The author of the article that you linked in your post listed these as the principle evidence that he presented to the Democratic members of Congress to attempt to persuade them to impeach Bush and company. I merely responded to the listed points. The NIST report was not mentioned as a reason.

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-11, 02:21 AM
It must be good to be a CT, it doesn't actually matter what happens, you can still claim you are right, simply because your case was never based on anything other than your belief anyway, so all you do is dream up a reason for why conflicting evidence occurs, usually that the conspirers created it, which of course just goes to prove even further that there is a conspiracy and that they are trying to cover it up.

For 9/11 just look at the list.

- If OBL confesses? Either it wasn't really him, or he was made too, or he's a CIA stooge anyway
- Zacarias Moussaoui confesses? He was made too, he was lying to become a martyr, he's a CIA stooge.
- The Democrats get elected in 2008 and nothing big comes out? Well they are in on it and controlled by the lizard people/illuminati/freemasons anyway.
- No Engineers agree with you? They really do, but secretly because they are afraid of losing their jobs.
- Photos show you are wrong? They were edited, photoshoped, or just plain hoaxed.
- Black Box recordings show you're wrong? They were created by the consipators, just like the OBL tape.
- Video frames show a plane? It's not clear enough to tell, it's faked anyway.
- Security footage of hijackers? It's faked.
- Checkout staff recall the hijackers? They are lying, afraid of their jobs.
- Checkout staff commit suicide? They learned their part in the truth and couldn't handle what they'd been part of.
- Flight manuals and ID of hijackers found in vehicles? They were planted.

and so on and so forth. It's great, you explain away any evidence you don't like, then because you don't accept any of it, you claim that there is no case for the offical story, come up with loads of things you don't understand, nor want to understand, and call then inconsistancies and hey presto, you have proved your conclusion to yourself.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Apr-11, 01:12 PM
- Black Box recordings show you're wrong? They were created by the consipators, just like the OBL tape.

You didn't mean constipators did you? :whistle:

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-11, 02:20 PM
um nope, lol. I mean conspiriators, but your's fits too, lol

Gillianren
2006-Apr-11, 08:16 PM
Whole books have been written about astrology, on the idea that the moon landings were fake, on UFOs, and about a million different diets for weight control. The fact that someone wrote a book does not make it any better of a "fact base". It just means a publisher thought they could make money off of it, or someone put up the money for self-publishing.

Not to mention multiple, contradictory books about the Kennedy assassination; they can't all be right, can they?

SpitfireIX
2006-Apr-12, 03:52 AM
Not to mention multiple, contradictory books about the Kennedy assassination; they can't all be right, can they?

If they were all right, given the sheer number of locations from which shooters were firing, and the number of shots fired from each location, the limousine would have been riddled with bullet holes, and all six occupants (and probably several bystanders) would have been killed.

metamars
2006-May-10, 12:52 PM
Whole books have been written about astrology, on the idea that the moon landings were fake, on UFOs, and about a million different diets for weight control. The fact that someone wrote a book does not make it any better of a "fact base". It just means a publisher thought they could make money off of it, or someone put up the money for self-publishing.

But this is an obvious point, no? One gets the feeling that you're not familiar with the considerable body of 911 literature.

While it may get you brownie points on this forum to ignore it, or assume that it is not worth becoming familiar with, or that some of it, being off, entitles you to claim that it is all off, this reveals a mind determined to filter out unpleasant facts. If they're not facts, well then, why bother?

Some of the facts are singly sourced, though very important, if true. E.g., Daniel Hopsicker's work at madcowprod.com. It just amazes me that nobody has taken the time to confirm - or disconfirm - his work. That a government, intent on covering up what really happened, would not pursue not only the claims of Hopsicker, but the leads that many such claims represent, surprises me not at all. But the failure of media, including the "alternative media", 911 groups, and other aspects of society, to fail to pursue these matters bothers me quite a bit, also. I don't see how anybody can happy with this state of affairs, if they are seriously interested in the truth.

I have long since concluded that society is not well organized to facilitate the work of investigative reporters, and have proposed a way out of the "media mess", that allows subscribers to fund research of interest to them via minor, automatic disbursements of small portions of their subscription fees.


I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.

The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"

Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=76406

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED

twinstead
2006-May-10, 01:07 PM
LOL filter out unpleasant facts?

That's the pot calling the kettle black for sure :naughty:

metamars
2006-May-10, 01:57 PM
I'm sorry, but I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here. The author of the article that you linked in your post listed these as the principle evidence that he presented to the Democratic members of Congress to attempt to persuade them to impeach Bush and company. I merely responded to the listed points. The NIST report was not mentioned as a reason.

No, the NIST report is not mentioned as a reason. I threw that in there, as I was speaking to your mindset, which affects your view of various claims.

I view the US government as enormously corrupt, and your characterization of Ruppert's view (similar to mine) as "extremely warped and paranoid view of the American system of government" is so unrealistic as to stagger the imagination. Maybe not for Joe Sixpack, who presumably needn't know much of anything at all to win an argument at a local bar, but as an "official" :) debunker, one would expect you to know more, and have a more realistic attitude re Uncle Sam.

Note that much of Ruppert's knowledge of the darker side of the US government comes not only from personal experience, but also communicating with other American citizens who have confronted, or considered confronting, 'the Beast". Indeed, he wrote an article on the subject of government whistle blowers, which, IIRC, was addressed primarily to the whistle-blowers, themselves.

Of course, it's not the gross characterization that matters, but rather the appropriateness of it wrt specific actions. Saying that the US government is "enormously corrupt", as I do in the previous paragraph, is not all that illuminating.... Similarly, for the opposite claim.

Ruppert has also stated the results of private communications with US Congress people on the subject of the Wellstone crash, which certainly backs Ruppert's view. I guess you'll just claim that this is a figment of Ruppert's imagination - yet more evidence of his "warped and paranoid" view. Or maybe you'll just flat out call him a liar. (Just to be clear: I certainly don't believe that Ruppert claims that "the US goverment killed Wellstone", but rather that aspects of the US government helped cover up the assassination, and that Congress people who also believe it was a case of assassination are practicing omerta - publicly, that is.)

Most people would agree, I believe, that if Ruppert is correct on the Wellstone crash, then his gross characterization of the US government is more accurate than yours.

JimTKirk
2006-May-10, 02:17 PM
<snip>Some of the facts are singly sourced, though very important, if true. E.g., Daniel Hopsicker's work at madcowprod.com. <snip>

As the only info I could find on Hopsicker's work was a sale, I'll pass. :mad: Unless you have a specific link laying out his actual arguments, I see no reason to investigate further.

Edit: *Hint* - Paying $29.95 doesn't guarantee truth in any form.

SpitfireIX
2006-May-10, 04:07 PM
No, the NIST report is not mentioned as a reason. I threw that in there, as I was speaking to your mindset, which affects your view of various claims.

My "mindset" is that before I will believe in a conspiracy, I require real evidence--not unfounded speculation.

As for the NIST report, although I personally lack the expertise to thoroughly evaluate its accuracy, I know that it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of people with expertise in structural engineering and finite element analysis. I also know that it was produced by engineers who are experts in those areas. So, in the absence of any other information, why should I not accept it?

I view the US government as enormously corrupt, and your characterization of Ruppert's view (similar to mine) as "extremely warped and paranoid view of the American system of government" is so unrealistic as to stagger the imagination.

What is your evidence that the US Government is "enormously corrupt?" And please don't use circular reasoning.

Maybe not for Joe Sixpack, who presumably needn't know much of anything at all to win an argument at a local bar

Standard conspiracist drivel--"the 'sheeple' don't know what's really going on, but we do, because we're the only ones who are smart enough to see through the Evil Gummit Conspiracy, and brave and incorruptible enough to speak out." :rolleyes:

as an "official" :) debunker, one would expect you to know more, and have a more realistic attitude re Uncle Sam.

Yes, of course--anyone who claims to hold a view different from yours is clearly either a dupe or a stooge. :rolleyes:

Ruppert has also stated the results of private communications with US Congress people on the subject of the Wellstone crash, which certainly backs Ruppert's view. I guess you'll just claim that this is a figment of Ruppert's imagination - yet more evidence of his "warped and paranoid" view.

Your guess is partially correct--it is yet more evidence of his warped and paranoid view. However, the figment of Ruppert's imagination is that there is any real evidence that Wellstone was assassinated--not that the "evidence" was ignored by members of Congress, which it undoubtedly was.

Let me attempt to state Ruppert's case in the form of a logical argument.

Premises:

If convincing evidence that Senator Paul Wellstone was assassinated were presented to members of Congress, then only "enormously corrupt" or fearful members would fail to investigate that evidence.

(I completely agree with this premise.)

Ruppert has presented convincing evidence to members of Congress.

(I completely disagree with this premise.)

Congress has failed to investigate Ruppert's evidence.

(Clearly true.)

Conclusion:

Members of Congress are enormously corrupt or fearful.

(I disagree with the conclusion, as I disagree with the second premise).

Or maybe you'll just flat out call him a liar.

I have no basis for evaluating whether or not Ruppert believes what he's saying; however, I note that many members of S911T have no problem calling people "liars" when it suits them.

Just to be clear: I certainly don't believe that Ruppert claims that "the US goverment killed Wellstone", but rather that aspects of the US government helped cover up the assassination, and that Congress people who also believe it was a case of assassination are practicing omerta - publicly, that is.

Any discussion of who might or might not have been responsible for Senator Wellstone's assassination clearly begs the question of whether or not he was assassinated. I decline to be drawn into a discussion of possible responsibility in the absence of any significant credible evidence of foul play.

Most people would agree, I believe, that if Ruppert is correct on the Wellstone crash, then his gross characterization of the US government if more accurate than yours.

Exactly what do you believe my characterization of the US Government to be? I don't recall that I've actually characterized it--I've merely taken issue with your characterization.

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-May-10, 11:24 PM
Some of the facts are singly sourced, though very important, if true.
*hack* *cough* *wheeze* That's a big "if", but you lightly brush it aside.

metamars
2006-May-17, 06:13 PM
*hack* *cough* *wheeze* That's a big "if", but you lightly brush it aside.

Not only have I not "brushed it aside", but complained about the lack of verification repeatedly, and also brainstormed a replacement media wherein subscribers can "vote with their hands" by funding investigative reporting with small, automatic disbursements from their modest subscription fees.

Lack of verification allows CT'ers and "debunkers", alike, to potentially (and actually) waste tons of bandwidth arguing about "facts" that may be anything but.



I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.

The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"

Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=76406

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED


Hopsicker has recently published a paper with yet more connections between Atta and the military-industrial complex (not to mention some Saudis). This certainly looks like original work, to me. However, if the past is any guide, I unfortunately expect his work to be as unverified a year from now as it is today. Furthermore, I expect nobody but Hopsicker to pursue the leads contained within his article.


5.5 Ton Cocaine Bust Reveals New Details of the 911 Attack
http://www.madcowprod.com


Shame on the the US Governement, the debunking community, the "alternative media", and the 911 Truthers, as well, for this sorry state of affairs.

The skeptic
2006-May-24, 02:00 PM
Here's a rather 'odd' one...

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

twinstead
2006-May-24, 03:13 PM
Great, another site author who seems to think that the evidence of an 'inside job' is so overwhelming, so easy for folks off the street to figure out, that anybody who thinks otherwise is just stupid. :wall:

Nonkers
2006-Jul-06, 07:40 PM
Is there anything odd here, or is it readily explainable?
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bi....cgi?read=90306

Swift
2006-Jul-06, 07:49 PM
Is there anything odd here, or is it readily explainable?
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bi....cgi?read=90306
Your link does not work.

Yodaluver28
2006-Jul-06, 08:36 PM
Here's a working link:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90306


It's nothing revelatory, just a rehash of how the registration numbers of some of the hijacked jets weren't officially cancelled until recently.

JayUtah
2006-Jul-06, 08:42 PM
What, there's a conspiracy now because someone has a "to do" pile?

Swift
2006-Jul-06, 08:45 PM
Here's a working link:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90306


It's nothing revelatory, just a rehash of how the registration numbers of some of the hijacked jets weren't officially cancelled until recently.
That website says the following:

Here are some very strange findings regarding the paper-fate of the four aircraft that went "missing" on 9/11. The following info is copied directly from www.planecrashinfo.com <http://www.planecrashinfo.com>. You're free to verify the data yourself if you want to do the homework. I did...


But when you actually go to planecrashinfo.com, you do not actually find the data that the rumormill website claims.

For example, rumormill says this about Flight 93

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 28142 Type Registration
Corporation Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date
07/01/1996 Model 757-222 Mode S Code 51721341 Year
Manufacturer 1996 Cancel Date 09/28/2005 Reason for
Cancellation Cancelled Exported To
But the planecrash info site says:

The aircraft was hijacked after taking off from Newark International Airport. The hijackers took control of the aircraft and turned the plane towards Washington D.C. A struggle ensued between the passengers and hijackers after which the plane crashed at a high rate of speed into a field in the Pennsylvania countryside. It was one of four planes that were hijacked the same day.

The planecrashinfo website also has this disclaimer:

The data contained on this website should not be used for anything other than general interest information. PlaneCrashInfo.com makes no guarantees, stated or implied, regarding the validity of the information found on this website or any website linked to this site. Neither PlaneCrashInfo.com or its operator will be held liable for any information, omissions, improper use of the information presented, or any violations of any law which may occur as a result of utilizing this resource. Information contained on this web site does not necessarily reflect the conclusions, opinions or official position of any government agency, airline, aircraft manufacturer or organization.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-06, 11:02 PM
What, there's a conspiracy now because someone has a "to do" pile?

Well, now, I'm sure a conspiracy would involve a "to do" pile, but its presence or absence certainly doesn't prove one!

ZappBrannigan
2006-Jul-06, 11:38 PM
I think the "to do" pile was the conspiracy's undoing.

1. Paint missile pods same color as plane.
2. Tell actor playing "Osama" to take off rings.
3. Pay off that cold fusion guy.
4. Make bigger hole in Pentagon.
5. Take huge blue NASA logo off front of plane.

There are some more, but those are the only ones my Secret Cabal handler told me about.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Jul-07, 03:05 AM
I think the "to do" pile was the conspiracy's undoing.

1. Paint missile pods same color as plane.
2. Tell actor playing "Osama" to take off rings.
3. Pay off that cold fusion guy.
4. Make bigger hole in Pentagon.
5. Take huge blue NASA logo off front of plane.

There are some more, but those are the only ones my Secret Cabal handler told me about.
They Told me More:

1. Rebuild Building
2. Destroy New Building
3. Rebuild Building Again
4. Convince Everyone you're NOT Quiite Riight In The Head, By Using Odd Capitalizations and Puntuations!

Gillianren
2006-Jul-07, 07:08 AM
They Told me More:

1. Rebuild Building
2. Destroy New Building
3. Rebuild Building Again
4. Convince Everyone you're NOT Quiite Riight In The Head, By Using Odd Capitalizations and Puntuations!

Oh, is that what it is! (Is your odd spelling of "punctuation" part of it?)

ZappBrannigan
2006-Jul-07, 07:26 AM
In high school, my football team got into many bad puntuations.

Nonkers
2006-Jul-09, 01:45 AM
Is this correct that the 757 and 767 somehow exceeded their flight software limitations on 911?
http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html

jt-3d
2006-Jul-09, 10:33 AM
Uh...uh...uh, just where does this gerbal get his information? OMG, the pilots can not override this 'feature'. Good lord. I know the 757 best but the 767 is similar, so similar that a pilot checked out on a 757 can drive a 767 too. It's capable of landing by itself, at least to touchdown but it can't take off by itself. Oh my. And the pilots can over ride any feature by shutting the busses off, deploying the RAT (for hydraulics) and manhandling the beast. The only possible buss that can't be overridden is the direct battery buss and that would drain the battery in no time and thus would be overridden in 15 minutes or so, if such a feature existed.

As for this software thing, well see above. Software don't mean didily without hardware. For that matter, the only 'software' I'm aware of on a 757 or 737 is for the DFDMU which has a floppy disc that we change on S-3 checks every couple of weeks. The rest is firmware or hardwired.

P.S. They aren't classed as commuter planes either.

PhantomWolf
2006-Jul-09, 09:28 PM
As far as I knew Boeing doesn't use flight limitation software does it? That's Airbus' area. Boeing is more let the pilot be in control.

Nonkers
2006-Jul-11, 03:24 AM
An enthused Professor Kevin Barrett of WU was expatiating on Hannity & Colmes tonight about the 911 conspiracy.

Has everything on his site http://www.st911.org/ been comprehensively refuted, or are there still some anomalies?

Are there any sites attempting to refute his 911 claims point by point?

Conrad
2006-Jul-11, 11:51 AM
If the Democrats win in 2008, then they'll still be in office when Planet X/Nibiru/Great Green Arkelsiezure sweeps by in 2012 and ends all life on Planet Earth, after which the Republicans can convincingly deny all responsibility. There may be a flaw in this argument but I can't quite see it ...

Metricyard
2006-Jul-11, 04:35 PM
An enthused Professor Kevin Barrett of WU was expatiating on Hannity & Colmes tonight about the 911 conspiracy.

Has everything on his site http://www.st911.org/ been comprehensively refuted, or are there still some anomalies?

Are there any sites attempting to refute his 911 claims point by point?

One only has to look in this section of Baut to see that the 911 conspiracy is alive and well, and alot of st911 continues to be argued here.

I have a feeling as long as a profit can be made on 911, people will continue to find and make up all kinds of theories of how the big bad government was involved.

JayUtah
2006-Jul-11, 05:13 PM
Boeing specifically does not limit pilot control commands in software for "passenger comfort" or any other reason.

There is an autopilot, of course, and digital flight control systems. These provide various levels of autonomous control. But if you disable the autopilot and turn the yoke hardover to the right, you get the full rightward roll rate of which the airframe is capable. Nothing in the Boeing flight control system says, "No, you shouldn't be doing that."

Airbus, on the other hand, does offer that feature. This is a point of longstanding philosophical difference between the companies. Boeing lets the pilot be the pilot, even to his detriment.