catalyst wrote:Cnorman18 wrote:
My final emark about religion was merely a comparison and was not intended to be directly related to 9/11.
Then why bring it up in a specifically 911 related thread?
Because this is a religion forum, and I shall compare statements and positions of any kind in any way that I choose?
In all your extended remarks, you answered lots of questions I didn't ask, but never got near the one I did, which I shall here state more directly:
Debate is about addressing people's statements and if valid, questions as well. I responded to both.
How does one convince several thousand ordinary Americans to participate in the mass murder of thousands of innocents and uniformly keep their mouths shut afterward?
I did answer it. Perhaps it is not the answer you wanted to read, or perhaps mores the point, acknowledge. As I stated, thousands were not required to be willing participants knowingly, and in fact, only a handful or two would have been necessary to have known EXACTY or what was ACTUALLY happening. Many of the people just doing their job. Obviously I need to elaborate for you to get what I mean.
On the morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony.
Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run.
In October 2000, there was the MASCAL Drill, which ironically Charles Burlingame (deceased Pilot Fl77) was party to at the time, was a "tabletop" simulation of an airliner crashing into the pentagon. For all we know, he was there willingly, assuming it was just a live drill of the same scenario. He had been party to these types of drills before in his career..again, it was him just doing his job.
And are we to assume that he "just did his job" and followed the scenario of the drill to the point of actually flying the plane into the building?
A former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that ON 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS.
So, all of these "several thousand ordinary Americans(convinced) to participate in the mass murder of thousands of innocents", would have needed no convincing, to be party to what they assumed at the time was "just another drill" so again, they were just doing their job. What is it you don't GET about that?
The connection? Some semblance of an actual scenario?
You speak as if all this stuff explains everything. Okay; if it does, what HAPPENED?
All of that, I admit, is interesting and somewhat suspicious. Proves nothing by itself; offers no guess, even, as to what specifically happened; but it's suspicious.
And...
As to why many are silent as to what happened and their own part in it as unknowing of the reality OF it participants? Could be a bevy of reasons; either shame that they themselves were duped, perhaps adhering to the "zip" clauses written into their job description (as in what happens in Vegas STAYS in Vegas), even perhaps them being in a state of PTS. If you know anyone who has seen live action in the military for example, they are quite reluctant to speak of MUCH if anything for years after if EVER. Other reasons is that those part of the assumed (at the time) drills are dead. Could even be fear with those still alive as they have been warned to STFU.
This, however, is not credible. That no one - repeat, NO ONE - has come forward with testimony saying, "I was told to ignore this and do that and now I realize I was being used to make this mass murder happen" makes these scenarios incredible to me.
Sorry. I just don't believe that everyone in all of these supposed categories of "dupes" is entirely devoid of balls. I would come forward instantly, and I'm just an ordinary guy. Wouldn't you?
"STFU"? The proper response is "F. you!" Threaten to kill me? Kill me, but I'll be calling CNN and the NYT before I tell you I'm going to do it and therefore before you get the chance.
If this had happened as you speculate, there would be direct testimony and direct evidence, not just speculation, coincidence, innuendo, hints and possibilities. I have seen none.
You have achieved the level of vague suspicion. No more. But you act as if the case is clear, detailed and proven beyond doubt. I don't call that "logical."
There have been however a multitude of whistleblowers since, and I will mention Sibel Edmonds again by name, as well as William Rodrigeus, Scott Forbes, Fillipe David and Anthony Saltamachia, as well as many, many others.
Where can I learn more about these people and their testimony? What exactly did they say? Who did they implicate? If their testimony is bombshell material, why wasn't it on the front page of the New York Times every day for more than a month? Abu Ghraib was.
Six Air Traffic Controllers, ones who had themselves been tracking the "hijacked" aircraft on the day of 911, were called into a conference room at approximately 11.40am, to give statements as to what happened from their position and their recorded statements were promptly destroyed by an FAA official. The existence of this, what would have been quite telling tape, was not even known about until 2002 when some of the ATC's themselves questioned why they had not been allowed access to them. Their verbal statements in 2003 however were disregarded as it was felt far too much time had passed, so therefore clarity of what happened vs to what they at this later time "said" happened, could not be confirmed.
In other words, no one knows what they said. And this proves what? What do the controllers themselves say they said? Again, if this is evidence of such enormous importance, why, etc.?
There are many more examples so the "silence" you claim to be, is not there. People ARE talking and have been from the getgo, it is just that many, perhaps such as yourself, just don't want to hear because EVERYONE "involved" aren't raised in voice with the mass media reporting it.
I've seen lots of speculation and guesswork and innuendo, as noted. Little more.
You realize, of course, that you are implying that the mass media - not just in America, but in the UK and the entire English-speaking world, including your own country - have no interest in investigating or reporting one of the most enormous scandals and most heinous crimes in human history.
Do you think THAT is credible? I don't.
Sorry, but all the "unanswered questions ' I have seen or read anywhere, including in your post, pale into insignificance next to that one.
Well you can hear squat while you are "la la laing" with fingers in your ears, cnorman18.
I don't find that an explicit claim that my disagreeing with your opinion makes me a deliberately ignorant moron is an answer; nor do I find that it inclines me to consider it more deeply. Those are the words and the attitude of a fanatic and a True Believer, and have nothing to do with civil debate.
I never said I swallowed the 'official version" whole. There are some questions about that,
But you believe it in part so what parts DO you actually believe?
This controversy strikes me as so silly on the face of it that I haven't given that a lot of thought, but I think it's pretty certain that the planes were hijacked by extremist Muslim fanatics (which, in spite of claims to the contrary, in no way reflects on ordinary Muslims - a point which was made clear by very many commentators and authorities, including President Bush himself). I think the details of the damage caused by those planes was pretty much as advertised; much of this thread has been about the supposed "anomalies" in the Pentagon crash, and much of the program of the "truthers" revolves around the controlled-demolition idea concerning the WTC - and I'm glad you agree that all that is a load of crap.
I am aware of all the drills and exercises and so on that were allegedly taking place on that day. I have seen no proof of any direct connection, or even any detailed guess at what that connection might be. I doubt very much that any pilot taking part in an "exercise" would carry it to the point of actually flying into a building, and given that, what specific scenario would explain these events if Al Qaeda was NOT involved?
WHAT HAPPENED? If there was a conspiracy, how did it work? How, exactly, did this happen? Long lists of "relevant facts" are all very well, but how do they connect?
Who flew the damn planes into the buildings, and why?
but the nonsense about the controlled demolition of the WTC and a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon remain just that - nonsense.
I agree and that is why I don't even bother with them. They are nothing but diversion and actually move focus from more poignant questions. I didnt' bring either issue up in my original post or in my reply to you, so why did you feel the need to even mention them in yuor reply to me?
Because they have taken up a great deal of space on this thread?
I think my post was pretty clearly not directed at only you.
Past incidents are irrelevant War plans that have been in place since the Clinton Administration are irrelevant.
Why to you are the common practices of the US governments throughout time irrelvant in your eyes?
Because (a) they are none of them any more proven than the allegations you post here, (b) they are the products of wildly different Administrations even if true, and (c) the analysis you offer here based on those ideas betrays some extremely broad and extremely negative assumptions about my country that I do not think are warranted. That does not make me a rabid flag-waver, whatever you think.
The rather poorly hidden assumption that anyone who does not instantly accept your speculations as proven fact, and does not assume
a priori that every statement from the US government as a blatant and obvious lie, is necessarily a Bush-worshipping jingoist is an attitude and approach that I do not find credible or persuasive. It is characteristic of fanatics that they regard their own approach as the only sane or permissible one, and assume that everyone who disagrees is either sticking their fingers in their ears and singing or is a willing supporter of the regime. See below.
To me, it is a case of them going with a "what ain't broke, don't fix" mentality. They got away with it MULTIPLE times before, expect the same patriotic, unquestioning gullibility and do it again! THAT is evident by them trying it on with IRAQ!
We are dealing with a crime here cnorman and ANY repetitive behaviour of either the individual or bodies planning such MUST be taken into account. To use your logic, a charged serial killers patterns of behaviour in prior slays, that he or she at time got away with, should have no bearing whatsoever on the actual, single murder he slipped up on and was busted FOR.
Sorry. We aren't dealing with formal specific charges in a court of law (in which case such charges and connections must be, first, detailed, which these are not, and also matters of fact and not speculation), but with unspecific hints and "indications" without any direct statements about what HAPPENED.
Apparently though LEGALLY it DOES matter, or said serial killer would not be considered a "serial killer" but instead just convicted getting 20 years for the one he/she stuffed up on, rather than multiple life sentences,(or death penalty..if the state or country you live in still allows the barbaric practice) for the 20 odd others.(example purposes only).
Got a specific individual to charge with these crimes? Got a specific charge to detail (as in what actually
happened)?
If this were a criminal trial, it would be thrown out before the defense made an opening statement. There's just no case here.
Coincidences and vague possibilities and speculations do not constitute a criminal case. Sooner or later you have to tell
what happened, as in who did what and how they did it. Haven't seen that here.
In this case though, I would see the current admin as the "copy cat killer". Seeing full well that another got away with the same stuff, so it works. Even in these "copycat" cases, the original plans of the first killer ARE taken into account, for the "copycat" to have copied from and as a result, THEY go down in history and are convicted AS the copycat killer. As to "copycat" much of what happened on 911, could well have been pulled straight out of the never followed through on(at the time of proposal) "Operation Northwoods".
But you've never SAID "what happened on 9/11." how do you know it matched anything?
You've written a story with background and motivation and character and setting and a moral and everything - but no actual plot.
What happened? You've never said.
With the US governments throughout history the common "theme" has been needing an external evil, to have purportedly done things to "justify" (in the minds of the american people) either action or retaliation. This rhetoric is EVERYWHERE in the American lifestyle, from comic books, hollywood blockbusters to "reality". You are conditioned to believe it. To Americans, the US is always the "good guy" superhero, out to save the day and the "american way". The US is SUPERMAN to "insert external evil country or "organisation" here"... LEX LUTHER, the BATMAN to the miriad of foe.... Hollywood ...perfect example of letting people know WHO is the "next baddy" and movies like Rambo and Die Hard are example of this as well. This rhetoric is ingrained in you all.
This is the kind of thing that I find incredibly bigoted and annoying, The assumption that all Americans are ignorant and easily manipulated yahoos who believe in cartoons and superheroes is rather common in other nations. It's a load of stereotype, prejudice and politically correct crap. Perhaps you noticed that we just elected a notably leftist black man as our next President, and by a considerable margin. How does that track with your anti-American stereotype?
Perhaps you pay more attention to our popular media than we do, and only to selected parts of it.
Rambo and
Die Hard both came out more than a decade ago. We have produced a few other movies, too, including
Fahrenheit 911, JFK, An Inconvenient Truth, Bowling for Columbine, Nixon, All The President's Men, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and, oh, a couple of hundred more of that kind. Perhaps those weren't in wide release in Australia. They were megahits here.
If you want to criticize my country, don't traffic in silly, hateful stereotypes and ignore the other side entirely. Not even all Texans are Bush supporters. I voted for Obama.
How do you feel about the stereotype of Australians as unwashed, semiliterate, provincial happy drunks who are indifferent to the plight of the native peoples they murdered, abused and still discriminate against? Does that annoy you just a bit?
Tell me how all those people were convinced to become mass killers and then to keep quiet, and I might consider the credibility of the rest of this manifestation of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Otherwise, it remains a partisan fantasy, in my opinion.
I explained above, but somehow I doubt you will even start to see the logic behind my comments and that ironically could well be part of your own partisan bias, rather than mine, Mr location: Texas.
No bias, prejudice, stereotype or unwarranted assumptions
there, of course.
What, precisely, have you explained?
WHAT HAPPENED?
I dont' have any bias as to this. I am an Australian, living IN Australia. I have no "party" ties as to US politics and so my personal agenda is a desire to have the guilty party held responsible..PERIOD, not only for the deaths of thousands in the US ON 911, but all the other people in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether uniformed or civillians, who in my eyes, given the "official story" evidence, have died on a barrage of lies. If credible evidence was actually shown at some point to show there was even ONE iota of buyability as to the official story, them my 'tude would change tac, until then however, I am left with what my logic WITHOUT patriotic fevere getting in the way.. logic.
Blatant prejudice against the US in general and, yes, hatred of the Bush administration in particular tend to get in the way, too. See below.
If your conspiracy theory has a hole in it big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, like that one, it's no big surprise that no one but rabid Bush-haters take it seriously.
And the US government "official story", which IS a conspiracy theory all its own...
With 19 guys in it. That's doable, I think.
...has enough holes to sink not only EVERY aircraft carrier, but also the QEII and her sister ships. I don't hate GW...
Oh? Perhaps "hate" is just shorthand for "sneering total disdain," That seems clear enough, at least..
...and if anything, I personally believe he is just pretty much a player in a game he cannot, nor will ever begin to understand. He's just happy reading books upside down and chuffed with himself when the rare occasion arises, that he can master pronouncing a 3 syllable word correctly. I find it amusing, that even after 8 years of much practice, NUCLEAR STILL eludes him and he is still none the wiser as to why....poor pet. *shaking head*
The ones actually behind it NEEDED Bush(or someone as "astute"- *cough*) at the "helm". Apart from requiring someone who was not savvy enough to ask questions, Bush is irrelevant. He's a puppet with others pulling his strings...nothing more and nothing less as far as I am concerned. If you have noticed cnorman, any comments as to this I have made have been either the Bush Admin or Bush government and never placing blame on GW directly and frankly, I reckon he is dumb as astump and twice as thick. It is just unfortunate for him that he will go down in history as being a VERY incompetant, if not the most incompetant US President in history and he will have no damn clue as to why.
Mmm, yes, I can see your attitude toward Bush is completely open-minded and unbiased.... (eyeroll goes here)
There has never been a credible answer to my question on this thread. Till there is - and I'm not holding my breath - I think I shall eschew posting on it any further.
Well, we all set our own standards as to what we personally consider viable and what we don't. The simple fact you claim that there is something "credible" in the official story so as not to disregard it AS A WHOLE, speaks volumes as to what you supposedly deem AS "credible".
On the contrary. It appears to me that you dismiss the "official version" in its entirety from an
a prioriassumption that ANY statement from the US Government MUST be a lie. Your dismissal of the OBL videotapes and similar material seems to be similarly based - on what you have chosen as the only possible conclusion in advance and little else.
Once again; if this conspiracy is so glaringly obvious and indisputable, where is the New York Times? That paper is no friend of the Bush Administration or the Republican Party. Where are the London Times and the Sydney Morning Herald, for that matter?
In the Muslim world, it is widely believed (to the point of being taken for granted) that 9/11 was an Israeli Mossad operation. Why is your nebulous, vague and undetailed scenario any more credible than that one?
Have a nice day.
Every day is and I wish you the same. I look forward to your reply.
And here it is.
Try to avoid heavily implying that disagreeing with you makes me a Bush zombie or an idiot in your next; and you might try detailing for me at least a guess at exactly what happened, when, how, and who did it. All those exercises and drills are interesting and suggestive - but that's all they are. Show me the direct connection and not just the coincidence.
Suspicion is not proof. It is not even evidence until a crime is described in sufficient detail to talk about.
You keep speaking of criminal law. What court could or would convict on the basis of suspicion alone without even detailing how the crime was carried out?
When this business moves beyond coincidences, possibilities, alleged motives, and sneering at American stereotypes in general and Bush in particular, I'll think about it. Tell me what happened and how it was done and by whom, or there really isn't anything to talk about as far as I can see. It's premature to talk about criminal responsibility if you can't describe the crime. .
Ironically though, the official story (which by your comments I assume you believe) goes out of its way to vilify ALL muslims and this vilification has been successful when you consider how many muslims have been made target of supposedly, retaliatory angst as to the events of 911. That mentality is akin to a witchhunt and is usually carried out with those incapable or perhaps to much in fear for what ever reason to actually question. .
