WTC demolition admitted by bush

BlackLiger · Post by **BlackLiger** » 06 Nov 2006, 17:32

Actually, I have a question for all of you conspiracy theorists....

If the US goverment did such a swell job of planning, then completing this attack, how come said conspiracy theorists who've 'found out' haven't been taken off and kneecapped or something by the secret service?

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 06 Nov 2006, 17:41

Before i answer i wanna reiterate i dont think it was government planned...

Dissapearing people suggesting that kinda thing is a hell of a good way of discrediting their theories, why not just let the content middle classes ridicule them? It works just as well

e: i met a guy at a protest once who was adamant that we should use the term "conspiracy believer" as opposed to theorist, made me rofl

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 06 Nov 2006, 17:49

I'm split on the issue. On one hand there has been plenty historical precedent of heads of state inscenating "terror" attacks to get their populous to approve genocide against a religion (Nero and Hitler, for example), on the other hand Al Qaeda apparently misfired the bomb in '93 on purpose (with a warning attached that next time they'll aim properly and a proper hit would have killed the building) and I wouldn't say it's unlikely that they planted some bombs before crashing the planes in there to make sure the headlines don't read "Terrorists crash planes into WTC, symbol of capitalism survives with minor damage" the day after. But that wouldn't explain WTC7. Could even have been a combined attack, Al Qaeda plans an attack, govt decides that's just what they need to get the Reichstagsbrandverordnung, er, USAPATRIOT Act passed and that some nearby building contains documents they'd like to remove discretely so they let the attack pass, plant a few extra charges and let it look like one attack.

Govts looking away when attacked to gain support for a war isn't unprecedented either, Pearl Harbor for example was a pretty good way of selling the entry into a war that happens "over there".

I don't think the govt is too incompetent to do that, after all the secret services would do most of the job and those are usually pretty good at what they do.

To be fair, I don't think Bush had any fault for the New Orleans reaction, that's not his job. He's supposed to deal with cross-state stuff, not state internal affairs (or at least not without the state asking him for help). But as a result there's now a law enabling him to declare martial law without needing consent from the local governor or whoever had to sign that off (the person that failed to call it quickly when the desaster struck). Sending the army to a place in the country previously required agreement between the local government (declaring martial law/state of emergency) and the commander of the armed forces (who'd send the actual troops). Now both powers are in the same hand. Not a good thing, no matter if you trust Bush to not abuse it a successor could.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 06 Nov 2006, 18:27

A far more likely answer, by occhams razor, is that the administration was simply too inept to handle a brilliantly executed surprise attack on our own soil.

Seems to sum it up pretty good. But, I mean, really...who would have thought September 11th was possible, let alone about to happen. Maybe I'm incredibly naive, but its still hard to belive that it actually happend. Just like the Holocaust, its hard to imagine people can be so...evil.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 06 Nov 2006, 19:15

Occam's Razor is more of a philosophical construct than a practical one, and really wasn't designed to be applied to political and similar phenomena.

It would be marginally applicable if there were no additional evidence cited by those who believe the US government is guilty of planning the 9/11 attacks, or knowingly allowing them to happen. However, these parties do cite additional evidence. They cite the towers collapsing - and collapsing straight down in a free-fall manner - as evidence of controlled demolition. They cite financial reasons for believing that someone or some people had advance knowledge of the attacks.

It would also be marginally applicable if it were demostratable that the accepted theory of the 9/11 attacks is simpler than the "conspiracy theory". However, that's not really the case either. Governments and leaders can historically be shown to desire more power than they already have, and in many cases go to great lengths to acquire that power. I realize that I lose the argument by default via Godwin's Law, but I just have to demonstrate this by the most obvious example of the 20th century: it is widely contended that the Nazi party played a role in the Reichstag fire of 1933, which directly contributed to a Nazi victory in the legislative elections soon afterward. On the other hand, a group of young men with box cutters hijacking four airplanes at once, performing piloting feats, crashing them into buildings constructed of reinforced steel, and having those buildings collapse after only an hour of burning is something that's never happened before, and actually could be thought to be quite inconceivable.

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 06 Nov 2006, 19:18

you missed out the part about the vice president diverting the vast majority of USAF to alaska, and the rest ignoring teh hijacked planes

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 06 Nov 2006, 19:28

The moon landing never happened before, just so you know.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 06 Nov 2006, 20:01

Zoombie wrote:The moon landing never happened before, just so you know.

Of course, someone countered your point so you simply respond with an unrelated attack.

I <3 the Internets!

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 06 Nov 2006, 20:24

I could react to this in two ways. Number 1, get angery and flame and start a long flamewar. Or, number 2, apologyize for not thinking my argument through very well.

I'll go with number 2

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 06 Nov 2006, 20:41

considering previous "politics" threads i think we have all been remarkably good natured over this one :)

ZellSF · Post by **ZellSF** » 06 Nov 2006, 21:35

BlackLiger wrote:Actually, I have a question for all of you conspiracy theorists....

If the US goverment did such a swell job of planning, then completing this attack, how come said conspiracy theorists who've 'found out' haven't been taken off and kneecapped or something by the secret service?

Because it would be a waste of resources to deal with something that isn't a problem?

FoeOfTheBee · Post by **FoeOfTheBee** » 06 Nov 2006, 21:35

Foe OfTheBee wrote: Luckily, his limited appeal makes him irrelevant among serious policy makers. Unluckily, it makes his odious views impossible to avoid, as his fan base of na├â┬»ve and credulous undergraduate students is nearly impossible to educate, or even quiet.

'Nuf said.

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 06 Nov 2006, 21:59

The reason this hasnt gotten heated, is because any sane rational person reads views that the government either planned and executed, or let the 9/11 attacks happen, as completely retarded conjecture.. It accomplishes nothing, and the risk of it being found out is so great as to make any rewards far from worthwhile..

So the rest of us just walk away chuckling at you knuckle heads that think this is some evil conspiracy to kill us all..

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 06 Nov 2006, 22:40

tbh im giggling that the only people using personal attacks, questioning the intelligence of others, and not using factual evidence are the ones so vehemently attacking us "conspiracy nutters".
That and foe not realising that quoting yourself and adding "Nuf said" is kinda paradoxical.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 06 Nov 2006, 22:42

all the bush presidents have been ultra patrotic hotheaded and a bit shaky in the good decisions, but would someone that patrotic blow a big whole in the middle of the centerpoint of capitalism? I dont think so. Its just a stupid idea. even if it was cruise missles, it sure as hell wasnt from america. america is the most arrogant country in the world, its not going to use blowing up its most presigious buildings as an excuse for anything, much less for leveling third world countries that the populance could have been turned against with a year or propaganda anyway.

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 06 Nov 2006, 22:43

What facts... WHAT FACTS.. YOU HAVE NO FACTS...

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 06 Nov 2006, 22:45

i have linked to 2 academic textbooks, could copy paste my bibliographies from some essays if you like OR REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT inane statements with capslock if you prefer

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 06 Nov 2006, 22:45

Fanger wrote:The reason this hasnt gotten heated, is because any sane rational person reads views that the government either planned and executed, or let the 9/11 attacks happen, as completely retarded conjecture.. It accomplishes nothing, and the risk of it being found out is so great as to make any rewards far from worthwhile..

So the rest of us just walk away chuckling at you knuckle heads that think this is some evil conspiracy to kill us all..

Before I say anything, let me first say that I do not personally hold a "conspiracy theorist" view of 9/11. Of course, I don't take the spoon-fed government line, either. I'll leave what exactly my personal views are out of this discussion.

I'm primarily arguing such statements as the quoted one.

Let's consider what makes a "sane, rational" person sane and rational.

Code: Select all

sane. adj.
1.	free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind: a sane person. 	
2.	having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice. 	
3.	sound; healthy.

Fanger's statement essentially reads "any sane, rational person [believes] that views that the government either planned and executed, or let the 9/11 attacks happen, as completely retarded conjecture." (I've made what I believe to be one minor semantic change that does not change the meaning of the statement.)

Let us consider what it means to be sane. As given in the above definition, from dictionary.com, sane has two meanings: free from mental illness, and showing good reason. If Fanger's conjecture is true, and we are to accept that any sane person believes that the government did not plan and execute or allow to happen the 9/11 attacks, then we must believe that anyone who believes that the government did either plan/execute the attacks or allow them to happen is not sane, i.e. insane.

Now, who tells us the majority of what we know about the 9/11 attacks? The media tells us. Who tells the media? Well, they have a variety of sources and do some investigative reporting on their own. However, the primary source of information about the 9/11 attacks is the government. I contend that it is accurate to say that the government, for all intents and purposes, communicates to us the "official", accepted, version of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The government, of course, tells us that it was not involved in the attacks in any way.

Let's assume that Fanger's statement is correct. Sane people believe the accepted version of events on 9/11. The accepted version of events on 9/11 is what the government tells us it is. Thus, sane people believe what the government tells them. Ergo, anybody who does not believe what the government tells him or her is insane. QED.

Wait a second. Since when is not believing what the government tells you a sign of mental disorder? Is skepticism now listed alongside schizophrenia in the DSM? Well, sane does have another (colloquial) definition, "having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense". Is not accepting as true what the government tells you showing lack of reason? It is showing poor judgment? Is it showing a lack of good sense?

I submit to you that a sane, rational person does not necessarily believe what the government says simply because the government says it. In fact, I further submit to you that a sane, rational person examines what the government says in light of the facts that are available, and that not doing so is a sign of simple-mindedness and stupidity, not sanity and rationality.

Of course, there's more issues that I could point out with that post. For example, accepting any version of the 9/11 events is "conjecture", as "conjecture" is defined as "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof." As far as I am aware, no party has conclusively and rigorously proven their story, and thus all 9/11 explanations are conjecture - including the commonly accepted one!

Of course, this entire post was pointless; Fanger's post wasn't a reasoned argument, it was flippiant flamebait.

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 06 Nov 2006, 22:48

pwned

e: HAR HAR no double post for joo!

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 06 Nov 2006, 22:48

Fanger wrote:What facts... WHAT FACTS.. YOU HAVE NO FACTS...

*double post of dewm* edit: darn you pintle, you killed the dewm, i'll have to have a faggy emo MySpace suicide now.

Go watch Loose Change. While the film is a piece of propaganda, doesn't report all of the facts, doesn't provide sources with which to verify its facts, and is overly long for what it communicates, it does provide some facts (or at least things that it asserts as facts, and that I have no reason to believe are fabrications).

If you actually, seriously, really want facts, I can probably find you to some websites with facts and reasoned analysis of 9/11.

Spring RTS Engine

WTC demolition admitted by bush