Loose Change

[Xraye]

That's not it at all, Xraye. The default position is where the evidence lies. We have video records of planes flying into the WTC, structural engineers that show that both towers and the WTC 7 collapsed as a result of that damage, and similar evidence for the attack on the pentagon, plus evidence that Al-Qaeda members participated, motive, and a claim of responsability.

I'd call that overwhelming evidence. Would you ?

Overwhelming evidence? Evidence is still being collected and reviewed.

As far as your coment to my post that I'm not getting it, I'm posting to a particular statement of a view expressed by someone else in which I was seeking clarification.

 

[chipmunk stew]

No time to talk but will post a link to dispute your claim that max cleland was angry at bush for not connecting saddam to the attacks. Don't know where you got that info from but it's the other way around...read transcript to radio interviw here...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

as you can see here, he was hinting that sept 11 may have been allowed to happen by the bush admin and the fact they've covered up the amount of information and evidence of foreknowledge they had heading toward sept 11, which pretty much makes them complicit in the attacks...

Cleland is criticizing Bush for not grasping the threat posed by al Qaeda, given the information he had, and for being obsessed with Saddam and Iraq instead. It's a legitimate criticism. He said nothing that implied that the Bush administration intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen, or that they were complicit in any way. He did accuse them of a cover-up--a political one, not a criminal one.

And it's worth taking into consideration that this interview was during the 2004 presidential campaign season, and Cleland was an active Kerry supporter.

 

[Xraye]

how's this as a catalyst for CT's?

youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY&eurl=

 

[aggle-rithm]

Blah I hope I'm making sense here...I haven't had my usualy cup of coffee this morning.

No less than usual, geggy. Carry on.

 

[juryjone]

One may work under the paradigm that the government doesn't care about you, that politicians tend to lie, and that there's a lot going on behind the scenes besides what we're fed from Fox News. With that premise it may be just as logical and reasonable to believe the government screwed us over instead of a small terrorist group who's leader has alledged connections with the CIA.

No, with that premise it would be logical to expect them to do the same thing they've always done - try to cover up their own incompetence (badly) and, as long as bad things happen, use those bad things to further their own political goals. That looks familiar - it's what the Bush administration has done.

It is a HUGE leap of logic to assume that they would make the step to blowing up their own citizens, expecting it not to be revealed.

 

[dubfan]

how's this as a catalyst for CT's?

youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY&eurl=

Sobering. I think that old chestnut "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" applies here.

This seems to check out: link to NYTimes archive search

Article source date is 5/22/2003. The blood products were apparently sold in the mid-80s. The documents were released as a result of lawsuits by American hemophiliacs against Bayer and others. Bayer has admitted no wrongdoing but has paid out over $600M in claims to settle the suits out of court.

 

[aggle-rithm]

No, with that premise it would be logical to expect them to do the same thing they've always done - try to cover up their own incompetence (badly) and, as long as bad things happen, use those bad things to further their own political goals. That looks familiar - it's what the Bush administration has done.

It is a HUGE leap of logic to assume that they would make the step to blowing up their own citizens, expecting it not to be revealed.

It's one thing to cover up one's incompetence, another to cover up willful malfeasance, as the Loosers claim Bush has done.

Bill Clinton -- "Slick Willie" himself! -- couldn't keep the Monica Lewinsky thing under wraps, and only TWO PEOPLE knew about it! He knew from past history (Watergate, etc.) that he was far better off coming clean than to attempt a coverup. The truth has a way of making itself known.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't care for your rudeness, it doesn't really affect me at all. In fact it's quite amusing, keep it coming.

You're right, I'm starting to the see the differences between conspiracy thoeries and raising questions. I consider these information that were either not addressed or manipulated in the official report as evidence (or clues, whichever you want to call it) to back up my questions to seek the real truth. I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.

True Cleland blamed the bush admin for gross incompetence as he has pointed out how much they knew what was coming and didnt do anything to prevent it but there are also other info that he didn't point out which contradicts the incompetent theory.

Blah I hope I'm making sense here...I haven't had my usualy cup of coffee this morning.

Does this mean you dismiss the controlled demolition all together?

The fact, pointed out by Cleland, that because we don't have all the info from the White House about their knowledge of the attacks, doesn't mean it implicitely incriminates them with the attacks. We have to be carefull not to jump to conclusion unless there is substancial proof.

And I wonder what you consider a coincidence? And how much coincidences there can be in one event? What exactly differanciates a BIG coincidence from a SMALL coincidence (yet another Seinfeld reference, unintentionnal this time) ? Aren't there coincidences happening all the time? Aren't coincidences a perception of things, something very suggestive and personal to one's view of things?

 

[Pardalis]

So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense. I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.

I disagree. I do find it strange a government would kill thousands of it's own people, indiscriminately of their gender, race or religion. I think the Al Qaeda responsability to be a valid theory, because of Al Qaeda's history of behaviour, it's known hatred of anything american, it's indiscriminate acts of pure violence. 9/11 seems to be following exactly that pattern of behaviour. if it indeed was the the governement's doing, it would be unprecedented in history.

Under that deffinition I don't doubt that some people within the 9/11 Truth Movement are skeptics as well and are activly involved in scrutinizing the governments "outlandish" claims that they wheren't involved in 9/11 despite the fact that we're the most powerful nation and where duped by some small terrorist group, that the government capatalized immediately on the situation, and that they started seemingly inventing reasons to invade a country which had nothing to do with the event. (that for some would be a reasonable and logical position based on thier experience with the governemnt).

I wonder what do you think is so "outlandish"? The Bush administration has shown repeatedly it's incompetence. And the propencity for intelligence agencies to have failures and beaureaucratic defects isn't that far-fetched to me. But your doubts are nonetheless worthwhile to investigate, as any other theory, but unless you can find proof that the Gov had some kind of foreknowledge of the specific attacks and proof that they actually stood down, these doubts musn't become a platform for political propaganda.

 

[Walk The Line]

Geggy/Xraye, perhaps you've answered this before, but I thought I would ask anyway. What are your thoughts on the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000 and the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998?

The "official" story is that these attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda agents. If you believe that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, do you then also believe that the government carried out these attacks? If so, what evidence do you have for government involvement?

 

[Gravy]

Overwhelming evidence? Evidence is still being collected and reviewed.

Okay, you're not convinced by the evidence collected so far that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

What evidence would convince you otherwise?



edited to rephrase.

 

[Gravy]

Geggy/Xraye, perhaps you've answered this before, but I thought I would ask anyway. What are your thoughts on the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000 and the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998?

The "official" story is that these attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda agents. If you believe that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, do you then also believe that the government carried out these attacks? If so, what evidence do you have for government involvement?

Don't forget Oklahoma City. Arabs were there. Oh, wait: so were the feds. And Controlled Demolitions, Inc. Jeez, was anyone NOT involved? Yeah, Tim McVeigh and the Nichols brothers, poor saps.


edited to correspond more closely with prevailing CTs.

 

[Belz...]

You're right, I'm starting to the see the differences between conspiracy thoeries and raising questions. I consider these information that were either not addressed or manipulated in the official report as evidence (or clues, whichever you want to call it) to back up my questions to seek the real truth.

How can you back up a question ?

I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.

Name your coincidences. I don't think you know what a coincidence is, since I don't remember you naming any.

 

[Belz...]

Overwhelming evidence? Evidence is still being collected and reviewed.

Irrelevant. The evidence we already have is overwhelming. If you disagree, why don't you simply pick apart the list of things I gave you ?

As far as your coment to my post that I'm not getting it, I'm posting to a particular statement of a view expressed by someone else in which I was seeking clarification.

I'm saying, clearly, that the unlikeliness of the US government doing this and that ISN'T the reason why people consider the official story to be the default position. I'm answering your post.

 

[Xraye]

No, with that premise it would be logical to expect them to do the same thing they've always done - try to cover up their own incompetence (badly) and, as long as bad things happen, use those bad things to further their own political goals. That looks familiar - it's what the Bush administration has done.

It is a HUGE leap of logic to assume that they would make the step to blowing up their own citizens, expecting it not to be revealed.

It didn't in Hitler's case. He had his own parliamentary building, the Reichstag building, set ablaze and blamed it on the communist in order to pass Article 48 which allowed him bypass the parliament in his decision making. Of course he promised to only use it in times of war. Sound familiar? The alleged arson was sentanced to death, but afterward in the Leipzig Trial it was found that the Nazi party itself orchistrated the events.

So by no means is such an event impossible to be commited. And how about that good ole patriot act?

Did you know that our government is now capable of holding military tribunals? Check this out, for interests of "national security" they don't have to reveal evidence, don't have to publicize the trial, don't have to disclose thier voting, and look at this liitle excerpt here: "Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death." Read it all for yourself. All you have to do is be accused of being a terrorist, or even of supporting terrorists in any way. (and who knows who they're gunna want to call terrorists)

So in light of these facts, I don't think it's very inconcievable to imagine that our government would try to orchistrate something like 9/11. I personally don't think they're as stupid as they'd like us to believe.

 

[Xraye]

Geggy/Xraye, perhaps you've answered this before, but I thought I would ask anyway. What are your thoughts on the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000 and the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998?

The "official" story is that these attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda agents. If you believe that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, do you then also believe that the government carried out these attacks? If so, what evidence do you have for government involvement?

I haven't researched all that so I can't make any comments.

 

[Xraye]

Okay, you're not convinced by the evidence collected so far that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

What evidence would convince you otherwise?



edited to rephrase.

I'm still reviewing all your guys evidence as well as evidence which supports the conspiracy theory. I haven't come to any conclusions about it and don't wish to debate it until I have.

 

[DavidJames]

You're right, I'm starting to the see the differences between conspiracy thoeries and raising questions. I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.

So you are willing to convict the president of treason based on your perception of coincidences. Geggy, you have no intellectual honesty, further your disregard for honesty, fairness and the law and are far worse then those who you so cavalierly convict.

 

[Hellbound]

I'm already subject to military tribunals, and have been for the past 17 years.

Hasn't been a problem yet.

Also, you apparently did not read your link.

Section 1
(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.

Section 2
a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

There are additional requirements as well.

I haven't researched all that so I can't make any comments.

Your lack of research didn't stop you from making comments that support your own position.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm still reviewing all your guys evidence as well as evidence which supports the conspiracy theory. I haven't come to any conclusions about it and don't wish to debate it until I have.

With what you've reviewed so far, can you tell us what you think about the relevant knowledge and expertise of those presenting the CT evidence.