Video Fakery in the 9/11 Attack

[Anders Lindman]

Here's where you claim a vast conspiracy, Anders. Just because it drops off the last page in the thread doesn't mean it disappears.

But the cover-up is not a conspiracy in the way I think of it. The cover-up HAD to be done by innocent people.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let me clarify: The 9/11 attack was a conspiracy. The cover-up is not.

And there's the point where you take leave of reality in order to convince yourself of an untenable hypothesis. How can the work of tens of thousands of government workers to cover up the causes of a faked terrorist attack, and the witholding of information about this work to the general public to the extent that they are unaware even of its existence, not be described as a conspiracy? It ticks all the boxes: two or more people (in this case tens of thousands, at a conservative estimate) forming a plan to carry out a criminal enterprise (in this case, perverting the course of justice). It's a conspiracy.

Oh, and by the way - did al-Qaeda admit responsibility for the attacks just to preserve the public's faith in the combination of government and the mass media, and hence prevent the collapse of a society whose collapse is perhaps their most cherished aim? If so, why?

Dave

 

[Anders Lindman]

I'll give you a clue: Here is George W. Bush telling thousands of people in positions of power that he is on their side and that the government and those he was addressing need to go along with the cover-up, and yes lie if need be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-h4Zc57QKg

 

[T.A.M.]

I'll give you a clue: Here is George W. Bush telling thousands of people in positions of power that he is on their side and that the government and those he was addressing need to go along with the cover-up, and yes lie if need be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-h4Zc57QKg

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

But the cover-up is not a conspiracy in the way I think of it. The cover-up HAD to be done by innocent people.

Why, exactly?

Dave

 

[tsig]

But the cover-up is not a conspiracy in the way I think of it. The cover-up HAD to be done by innocent people.

Innocent people do not cover up crimes.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Why, exactly?

Dave

To uphold the public's trust in their government and in mainstream media.

 

[Architect]

I'll start: Anders, welcome to my ignore list.

Seconded

 

[Anders Lindman]

Innocent people do not cover up crimes.

If you are talking about purely innocent people perhaps, but that's a rare species.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Seconded

But what about the safety factors for buildings? Have you given up on that already?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The whole civilized world is built on the public's trust in mainstream media and trust in their governments. Period. Collapse that trust, and you will have the whole society collapse along with it.

Just a couple of useful data points here:

Poll: 78 percent don't trust big government

The survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time...

Distrust in U.S. Media Edges Up to Record High

For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

Since society has, apparently, already collapsed, what is it that we now have instead?

Dave

 

[uke2se]

But the cover-up is not a conspiracy in the way I think of it. The cover-up HAD to be done by innocent people.

A cover-up is a conspiracy.

 

[uke2se]

But what about the safety factors for buildings? Have you given up on that already?

You don't listen, so why should he bother?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Just a couple of useful data points here:

Poll: 78 percent don't trust big government

Well, I'm talking about the Mad Max kind of distrust in the government.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You don't listen, so why should he bother?

My multitasking skills are not that well developed, I admit.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No. Completely and utterly unconvincing. Bush was already faced with the political fallout from having failed to prevent the attacks. The option of telling America everything was fine was not available to him. He had no reason whatsoever to stick his head in a noose by becoming an accessory after the fact. Anyone political or in the news media whom he discovered had been involved would have been very publicly thrown to the wolves.

I still want to know why a scheme that depended on intercepting and censoring every single camcorder movie of the attacks was a "no risk" plan. can you explain how that was supposed to work or not?

 

[Dave Rogers]

To uphold the public's trust in their government and in mainstream media.

Why would they see that as their responsibility, given that it would make them accessories after the fact to the capital crime of high treason?

And (see above), what trust in government and mainstream media?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, I'm talking about the Mad Max kind of distrust in the government.

Ah, I see. So you're saying that if government is distrusted to the point where society has collapsed, then society will collapse?

Dave

 

[Architect]

You don't listen, so why should he bother?

Actually, I presented him with a rather lengthy post on the technical issues which he refused to respond to before finally admitting he'd jsut plucked the figures out of the air.

Like you say, he's not listening. And now he's on ignore.

 

[Anders Lindman]

A cover-up is a conspiracy.

Yep, and downloading a copyrighted BitTorrent is a crime.