Project for a New American Century

[HotHotHeat]

I've exhausted my argument. As is usual with this topic it's met with personal attacks and side stepping the issues. This is the first time, however, I've seen an argument first put forward by ancient greece, it was a refreshing dismissal(thanks, photon). In a lot of ways how this forum operates is a mirror image of our society. Challenge the authority, beware of the consequences. Oh, and only talk about things that are within the limits of the norm...Otherwise your C-C-C-Crazy!

I'm still wondering how photon developed a prior history off of my 15 posts.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

it's met with personal attacks

Where?

and side stepping the issues.

Not really.

But after a few hundred thousand posts on the subject, its not really surprising nobody wants to get into it.

I'd tell you to use the search button to read through prior threads, but every thread after 2003(I think)...isn't accessible through search.

Those were the days. Right after 9/11, and leading up to the Iraq War.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

As is usual with this topic it's met with personal attacks and side stepping the issues.

I'm neutral and you're wrong on both.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly.

But I'm sure the people at the James Randi Educational Foundation would love to go over it.

forums.randi.org

Ask them HHH.

Hilarious!!! "The Amazing Randi" is now an educational foundation! The gulibility of people never ceases to amaze me. People like to talk about junk science, yet point to other sources of junk science to prove/disprove their point? I'm not a big supporter of anything where the answers stand up to less scrutiny than the questions. If the answer makes less sense than the question, then it isn't a very good answer. Randi and his following of charlatans are not credible because their work does not hold up to the light of day either. What makes their site appear effective in dismissing different perspectives is their ability to dog pile. It's similar to the conspiracy theory web site "Above Top Secret" in that regard. Both are fun to visit, but neither provide any semblance of reasoning or evidence to the contrary on any serious subject matter.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I've exhausted my argument. As is usual with this topic it's met with personal attacks and side stepping the issues. This is the first time, however, I've seen an argument first put forward by ancient greece, it was a refreshing dismissal(thanks, photon). In a lot of ways how this forum operates is a mirror image of our society. Challenge the authority, beware of the consequences. Oh, and only talk about things that are within the limits of the norm...Otherwise your C-C-C-Crazy!

I'm still wondering how photon developed a prior history off of my 15 posts.

Some people get off on being different from regular folk. So much so that it influences how they process information and what information they deem to see as a good source. One particular poster (Not you) in this thread has shown a history to jump on and adopt just about any left-wing conspiracy theory. Although very articulate and well thought out it still amounts to reading a whole lot of stuff out there and drawing conclusions that fit their prior judgements and/or view of the world. Complex events will always have elements that don't make sense. After the fact selectively piecing together these little elements and drawing conculsions based on them is very easy. In fact so easy that there isn't even one singular conclusion to piece together with such non-sensical elements.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Okay now we're into the Tin Foil Hat people. From the looks of this thread next poster's going to quote Chomsky.

Wait... so I mention a highly educated intellectual who has spent years studying this issue and you reduce me to a "tin foil hat" person?

I'd like for you to face Naomi Klein in an academic argument and prove whatever your point is before you decide trash me.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Some people get off on being different from regular folk. So much so that it influences how they process information and what information they deem to see as a good source. One particular poster (Not you) in this thread has shown a history to jump on and adopt just about any left-wing conspiracy theory. Although very articulate and well thought out it still amounts to reading a whole lot of stuff out there and drawing conclusions that fit their prior judgements and/or view of the world. Complex events will always have elements that don't make sense. After the fact selectively piecing together these little elements and drawing conculsions based on them is very easy. In fact so easy that there isn't even one singular conclusion to piece together with such non-sensical elements.

Talking about me? It's okay little fella. Let your balls drop and step up like man. You can call me out, but only of you want to actually debate the issue. So care to step up and take on the challenge?

Oh, and "conspiracy theories" do not have political bias. Need I remind you that you regularly swallow conspiracy theories as fact. All the reasons to go to war with Iraq, was a conspiracy theory. The Bush Administration developed a theory that there was a conspiracy on the part of the Iraqi government, lead by Saddam Hussein, to attack America. You swallowed that hook line and sinker, and that was a (right wing) conspiracy theory, one that proved to be false. Another great example of a conspiracy in action, working off of theory, is the climate change debate going on in North America. The rest of the world accepts the science as presented by the IPCC, but the clarity of the waters have been mudied in North America by a series of dissenting voices working for (documented) industry. That is a conspiracy my friend, and you lap it up like it is mother's milk. So please save the "conspiracy theorist" label BS, because we all choose to believe what ever theories we like. You choose the ones you do because you are intellectually lazy and have a closed mind. That's fine, but please keep your ill-informed comments to yourself while the rest of us discuss the subject matter.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Hey Cowboy. On second thought, I'm dropping the gauntlet down. Come on out and play. I'll even make it easy for you. I'll even set up the arguments for you, and you can choose which one you wish to support and defend. Which position you going to take?

H1: 19 lowly trained Arabs hatched a complex plan, evaded detection by the intelligence community, the law enforcement communities, the military establishment, and the security communities, commandeered four commercial airliners, and flew them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating, and saw complete systematic failures across the board.

H2: 19 lowly trained Arabs hatched a complex plan, commandeered four commercial airliners, and flew them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating. The government knew of this plan, but complete systematic failures across the board prevented them from defending the nation from the most basic of attacks.

H3: 19 lowly trained Arabs hatched a complex plan, commandeered four commercial airliners, and flew them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating. The government knew of this plan, and allowed it to happen through the implementation of a dozen war games and military exercises that confused all involved and caused complete systematic failures across the board allowing the attacks to occur.

H4: Factions within the United States government, in cooperation with another organization, enlisted 19 lowly trained Arabs to execute a complex plan, commandeering four commercial airliners, and fly them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating. This government had a predetermined story in the can to present to the media immediately after the attacks so as to cover their tracks.

H5: Factions within the United States (government) execute a complex plan, using government controlled assets to commander four commercial airliners, and fly them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating. The government has a predetermined story in the can to present to the media immediately after the attacks so as to cover their tracks and lay the blame on Islamic extremists.

Also, since you know me so well, which one do I ascribe to?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Some people get off on being different from regular folk. So much so that it influences how they process information and what information they deem to see as a good source. One particular poster (Not you) in this thread has shown a history to jump on and adopt just about any left-wing conspiracy theory. Although very articulate and well thought out it still amounts to reading a whole lot of stuff out there and drawing conclusions that fit their prior judgements and/or view of the world. Complex events will always have elements that don't make sense. After the fact selectively piecing together these little elements and drawing conculsions based on them is very easy. In fact so easy that there isn't even one singular conclusion to piece together with such non-sensical elements.

This right here basically proves you have no grasp on what is going on in this thread. The argument should not involve any political bias whatsoever.

Shock tactics have been used for centuries by many different factions. They are used by socialists, by fascists and everything in between.

Anyone willing to suggest that only right wing thinkers would stoop to this level is naive. Same goes for the other side. Keep partisan politics out of this thread please.

[worth]

This has nothing to do with left or right wing. When people resort to saying "you're a left wing hippy" or a "right wing lunatic" it just makes me cringe. The government has done a good job at dividing the people into segments so they argue over petty differences instead of focusing on actual issues that affect everyone.

What you have in power in Canada and the US isn't right wing, nor is it Republican or Conservative. The parties ruling the countries fit none of those descriptions overall. So the right wing, left wing argument is pretty much void right there.

If I had to categorize myself, i'd say i'm pretty far to the right, yet I subscribe to some of the beliefs that have been labeled "conspiracy theories" in this thread. Does anyone actually know what a conspiracy is? No matter who carried out 9/11, it was a conspiracy. If Bin Laden carried out the attacks, it's still a conspiracy. Labeling someone a conspiracy theorist isn't really saying much.

I'm kind of frightened by the lack of regard from both sides for the other. This forum contains probably the smartest collection of people I've found on the net, yet many people can't discuss a hot topic in a civilized manner. In order to get anywhere you have to listen to what each other is saying instead of labeling them crazy or a sheep. Otherwise this thread is just a great big waste of time.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I've exhausted my argument. As is usual with this topic it's met with personal attacks and side stepping the issues.

See, once again you simply make something up and then attack that. How is someone expected to have a rational discussion against that?

In a lot of ways how this forum operates is a mirror image of our society. Challenge the authority, beware of the consequences. Oh, and only talk about things that are within the limits of the norm...Otherwise your C-C-C-Crazy!

See, same thing again. Who said you are crazy? Who said things only in the limits of the norm can be discussed? Which authority is handing out consequences as a result of being challenged?

Again with the black and white that you accused others of; the only two positions aren't agree with you or be part of the authority that's "persecuting" you...

I'm still wondering how photon developed a prior history off of my 15 posts.

I can see the IP addresses of posters when they register. You are saying you've never been a member of this forum with a different ID?

[mykalberta]

The video was nice.

I particularily like how they blame Chaney, Rumsfeld, and Libby for the Nazziization of the US and they call 9-11 the first counter attack. So either the Nazziization of the US was going on durring the Clinton years and before or it happened less than 1 year after Bush took office. Hmmm, interesting, looks like the "first Black President" and his wife have some explaining to do

Personally I think the US should give the world the "eff-you TD" and recall all US troops back to US soil with the exception of Korea and Cuba.

It amazes me that people still dont see what Iraq is. Iraq is a place where US trained killers can meet those of its enemies face to face simply because the FBI, Fire, Police, EMS are completely out of their leage when it comes to these people.

After 9-11 people complained mightily about the complete incometance of border security of the US. Its been 7 years since another attack on US soil, now why is that, is it that border security has improved so much - hardly. Its because groups are now aware of what the US is willing to do if you piss it off, it will invade. And so countries who used to be in bed with these groups do alot more to curtail their actions because they know the consequences.

What were to happen if a Syrian, Lebanese, Iran, etc etc etc based terrorist group attacked US soil? Those countries would now be held responsible and UN resolution or not, it would not be happy days in those countries so long as they werent supported by China or USSR. The real gong show in our life will be when that happens.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Top Shelf

In the Zeitgeist documentary, during the 9/11 part, there was an engineer (i think it was an engineer) who was explaining about the molten metal that was still in pools long after the collapse of the building. He provided scientific evidence that proved the only way those pools of molten could get that hot was with a substance (can't remember the name right now) that had to be present.

Interesting stuff, I would recommend watching Zietgeist to everyone, http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Yeah, that was one that I managed to debunk pretty quickly/easily based on having even the slightest bit of engineering knowledge (I am one afterall).

The "Substance" was thermite, which was claimed to be a military demoltion device.

Thermite is used as a military explosvie for demolitions but it is also used for several other purposes, such as welding/repairing large steel structures (not as common), or in thermal lances, that are widely used when having to cut through large steel members for something like a rescue operation.

that all being said, even if thermite wasn't used in construction or rescue operations, it basically consists of Iron Oxide, Alluminum, and magnesium to get the whole process kicked off, three substances that should be relatively common, when a giant plane made of aluminum and magnesium slams into a bog old steel building.

But hey, since some guy said it HAD to be an explosive, it must be true, even if some random guy can pretty easily come up with three very plausible explinations on his own.

Edit: See that's what pisses me off about these things.
People see an "Expert" say it had to be one thing and they take it at face value. The dude never mentioned other uses, or other possible scenarios, he just presented his opinion as fact, and since he is an "Expert" it must be infallibly true.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Hey Cowboy. On second thought, I'm dropping the gauntlet down. Come on out and play. I'll even make it easy for you. I'll even set up the arguments for you, and you can choose which one you wish to support and defend. Which position you going to take?

H1: 19 lowly trained Arabs hatched a complex plan, evaded detection by the intelligence community, the law enforcement communities, the military establishment, and the security communities, commandeered four commercial airliners, and flew them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating, and saw complete systematic failures across the board.

H2: 19 lowly trained Arabs hatched a complex plan, commandeered four commercial airliners, and flew them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating. The government knew of this plan, but complete systematic failures across the board prevented them from defending the nation from the most basic of attacks.

H3: 19 lowly trained Arabs hatched a complex plan, commandeered four commercial airliners, and flew them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating. The government knew of this plan, and allowed it to happen through the implementation of a dozen war games and military exercises that confused all involved and caused complete systematic failures across the board allowing the attacks to occur.

H4: Factions within the United States government, in cooperation with another organization, enlisted 19 lowly trained Arabs to execute a complex plan, commandeering four commercial airliners, and fly them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating. This government had a predetermined story in the can to present to the media immediately after the attacks so as to cover their tracks.

H5: Factions within the United States (government) execute a complex plan, using government controlled assets to commander four commercial airliners, and fly them into specific targets, scoring a 75% success rating. The government has a predetermined story in the can to present to the media immediately after the attacks so as to cover their tracks and lay the blame on Islamic extremists.

Also, since you know me so well, which one do I ascribe to?

I gather you subscribe to H3. I suscribe to H2 with a bit of H1, meaning that there were people in the government who had pieces of information pointing to the attacks and the largess of government/mistakes in judgement prevented appropriate action. The jump from H2 to H3 requires sufficient proof of military excercises (which there is) and also a 'smoking gun' if you will of willful failure on the part of Washington. Coincidences of confusing orders by people who answer to the president aren't enough to convince me. With those there is an implied motive and an implied pulling of strings. Without concrete evidence of who ordered/orcastrated what there isn't anything. Proving that someone/some group has the ability to do something doesn't mean they did it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The video was nice.

I particularily like how they blame Chaney, Rumsfeld, and Libby for the Nazziization of the US and they call 9-11 the first counter attack. So either the Nazziization of the US was going on durring the Clinton years and before or it happened less than 1 year after Bush took office. Hmmm, interesting, looks like the "first Black President" and his wife have some explaining to do

I know most of your posts are off the wall and make little sense, but this is incoherent babbling. WTF are you talking about???

Personally I think the US should give the world the "eff-you TD" and recall all US troops back to US soil with the exception of Korea and Cuba.

Yeah! We agree on something! American bases in other countries does not promote stability. It's about time you figured that out. Oh, and the world agrees with that position as well, including the average American.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=345&lb=hmpg1

It amazes me that people still dont see what Iraq is. Iraq is a place where US trained killers can meet those of its enemies face to face simply because the FBI, Fire, Police, EMS are completely out of their leage when it comes to these people.

That's the way you see Iraq? Wow. So you say its okay for the United States to invade an innocent soverign nation to settle a score and have a theatre of battle? Again, wow.

You also don't have a clue what you're talking about in trying to win the "war on terror". What is going on is an ideological battle, not a physical battle. People are dying because of the occupation, and the numbers against America are increasing, again because of the occupation. You don't win a battle of ideology at the end of gun, you win it through modification of societal norms. The best way to handle societal changes is through education. I could make you go blind in linking studies in journals that show assimilation to a culture happens quickest when it is done through social, and not institutional means. The solution is policing, and the fine men and women in the American police and intelligence services do a damn fine job of protecting the country. If the morons in the Bush Administration listened to what the law enforcement and intelligence agencies were saying prior to 9/11, the attack would not have taken place. So either they ignored the intelligence, which proves their incompetance, arrogance, and stupidity, or they let it happen.

After 9-11 people complained mightily about the complete incometance of border security of the US. Its been 7 years since another attack on US soil, now why is that, is it that border security has improved so much - hardly. Its because groups are now aware of what the US is willing to do if you piss it off, it will invade. And so countries who used to be in bed with these groups do alot more to curtail their actions because they know the consequences.

Uh huh. Only problem to your little theory is that the first attack took place in '93. There was a seven year gap before 9/11 when, as you put it, nothing happened. And the response has nothing to do with it. Do you think the terrorist organizations give a rip if the United States invades a "country"? No, they don't. In fact, its good for the terrorists because it increases recuitment efforts and opens the United States up to another costly front where they can be financially bled to death. Again, this is a war of ideologies, and an ideology is not constrained by lines on a map. You can't defeat an ideaology with an army.

What were to happen if a Syrian, Lebanese, Iran, etc etc etc based terrorist group attacked US soil? Those countries would now be held responsible and UN resolution or not, it would not be happy days in those countries so long as they werent supported by China or USSR. The real gong show in our life will be when that happens.

What about the Israeli terror establishment? How come they get a free pass? Don't they get to accept any of the responsibility in this mess?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I gather you subscribe to H3. I suscribe to H2 with a bit of H1, meaning that there were people in the government who had pieces of information pointing to the attacks and the largess of government/mistakes in judgement prevented appropriate action. The jump from H2 to H3 requires sufficient proof of military excercises (which there is) and also a 'smoking gun' if you will of willful failure on the part of Washington. Coincidences of confusing orders by people who answer to the president aren't enough to convince me. With those there is an implied motive and an implied pulling of strings. Without concrete evidence of who ordered/orcastrated what there isn't anything. Proving that someone/some group has the ability to do something doesn't mean they did it.

And jumping to H3 also requires the existence of an executive stand-down order, which was indeed given, and testified to by NORAD. There you go. There's the compartmentalization in a nutshell. The White House orders the Joint Chiefs to undertake a series of 12 excercizes, all on the same day, and then when NORAD identifies that what is happening is not part of the noise from those excercises and asks for executive directive to fire on commercial traffic, they are told to completely stand-down. That is all it takes to allow this to happen. But that isn't enough for you? Jesus, the President and Vice President refused to appear separately, or under oath, to any of the commissions that investigated the actions of 9/11 simply because they did not want the admission of their actions registered in the record of that willful failure. BTW, If you or I tried to use that defense, we would end up in prison, they have a get out of jail free card called executive priviledge. Seriously, I've seen conspiracy charges filed on a lot less.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And jumping to H3 also requires the existence of an executive stand-down order, which was indeed given, and testified to by NORAD. There you go. There's the compartmentalization in a nutshell. The White House orders the Joint Chiefs to undertake a series of 12 excercizes, all on the same day, and then when NORAD identifies that what is happening is not part of the noise from those excercises and asks for executive directive to fire on commercial traffic, they are told to completely stand-down. That is all it takes to allow this to happen. But that isn't enough for you? Jesus, the President and Vice President refused to appear separately, or under oath, to any of the commissions that investigated the actions of 9/11 simply because they did not want the admission of their actions registered in the record of that willful failure. BTW, If you or I tried to use that defense, we would end up in prison, they have a get out of jail free card called executive priviledge. Seriously, I've seen conspiracy charges filed on a lot less.

There are plenty of reasons to stand down from shooting upon hundreds of civilians on commercial airliners. Afterall planes have been hijacked before without driving into buildings. In order to make that call you'd need to know the exact details of their plans. Very difficult to know in the exact hour you need to make that call. They screwed up and it looks horrible on them. They ignored intelligence and they followed it up with screwing up the day of and they don't want to talk about it because they don't have to due to such executive priviledge.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by photon

See, once again you simply make something up and then attack that. How is someone expected to have a rational discussion against that?

I've given you plenty to argue about, you snipped it out of your reply and wrote 'stuff'. In fact the only bit of true rational argument I've seen to this point is that 'evidence doesn't lie'. As LM said, that's a two way street as well. You're throwing your support behind a computer model recapture of the event, mine is behind the political motivation that exists.

See, same thing again. Who said you are crazy? Who said things only in the limits of the norm can be discussed? Which authority is handing out consequences as a result of being challenged?

Maybe not you to the same extent, but the sarcasm this thread has been met with makes it pretty clear.

Again with the black and white that you accused others of; the only two positions aren't agree with you or be part of the authority that's "persecuting" you...

Expand on this...I do agree...But what do position do you subscribe to?

[photon]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I've given you plenty to argue about, you snipped it out of your reply and wrote 'stuff'.

I snipped it out because it was actual content, and I'm not interested in debating the actual topic of "who's behind 9/11" anymore, I was more interested in the method of discussion.

You're throwing your support behind a computer model recapture of the event, mine is behind the political motivation that exists.

See, I haven't said anything about supporting or not supporting a computer model, or not supporting any political motivation. So if I were to engage I'm already battling ghosts. This is what I'm saying.

Maybe not you to the same extent, but the sarcasm this thread has been met with makes it pretty clear.

Keep in mind that a lot of the sarcasm and mocking has to do with the long history of stuff that goes along with the whole "truth movement". There's a lot there that is worthy of sarcasm and mockery, which is unfortunate because any good information gets lost in the noise.

My posts weren't intended to launch a discussion about the content, I was talking about how you were defending and attacking the subject matter.

Expand on this...I do agree...But what do position do you subscribe to?

Like anything else I take the simplest explanations for events unless evidence demonstrates otherwise. Governments have their own self interests at heart so I have no difficulty in seeing intentional or unintentional involvement to some degree as being at least plausible in the absence of evidence. I wouldn't go so far as to say the buildings were brought down with explosives or anything.

Like I said I'm not at all interested in getting into it, because ultimately there's more important things that I would prefer to put my time into.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

There are plenty of reasons to stand down from shooting upon hundreds of civilians on commercial airliners. Afterall planes have been hijacked before without driving into buildings. In order to make that call you'd need to know the exact details of their plans. Very difficult to know in the exact hour you need to make that call. They screwed up and it looks horrible on them. They ignored intelligence and they followed it up with screwing up the day of and they don't want to talk about it because they don't have to due to such executive priviledge.

You believe what you just wrote? So all of the scenarios that analysts imagine, develop and propose, which are turned into real world scenarios and practiced every year, don't mean a damn thing? You are aware that them fighter jocks are trained to fire their weapons regardless of the target being military or commercial. A target is a target and they trained to execute their orders without question. And no, you do not need to know what their plans are. The protocols are explicit. If a plane varies off course NORAD is to respond and have that aircraft escorted back on course. If the pilot does not respond they are to take appropriate measures, which can include downing the aircraft. NORAD had a pretty good idea what the hell was going on too. Reports of four aircraft being off course and at least three of them reporting being hijacked. Yup, a lot to think about there.

As well, NORAD's ability (and responsibilty) was handicapped by the incredible number of war games and exercises going on that particular day (at no other time in US history has that many exercises been conducted that tied up so many functions to protect the nation). Let me guess, coincidence? It was also a coincidence that an aircraft was allowed to penetrate one of the most heavily protected no-fly zones in the country (the skys over Washington)? Interesting that the missle batteries that protect the White House and Pentagon failed that day too. Even more interesting is the most secure above ground building in the United States (the Penatgon) could not produce one frame of evidence from its federally mandated surveillance system of what hit the building or the resulting mayhem. Just another coincidental failure, right?

Sorry, but too many failures of protocols and systems that have redundancies built into them. I was a skeptic to begin with, but every day I find out a little more while working on the inside that confirms this was at best allowed to happen. The government has done a wonderful job obfuscating the facts and convincing people otherwise.