Loose Change - Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
realitybites said:
Well of course 9/11. But if you look back.... 9/11 would never have happened if Bush didn't steal the election.

Ergo, the 2000 election is what defines this generation.
Click to expand...

Is that your view, or are you "playing the voice of disaffected youth?"
Or are you being sarcastic. I actually don't know! :)

Eta: anyone else feel free to pipe up with an opinion. I'm an old fart and don't know what this generation feels are their defining experiences. Is the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened without Bush a common one?
 
Last edited:
Honestly Gravy, I don't know. I'm not a kid anymore.

My defining moments have little to do with a common defining moment of those my age. Though some memorable ones are the Challenger explosion, Columbia breaking up on re-entry, 9/11, Oaklahoma City bombing, just to name a few.

Of course I don't see a vast conspiracy of those events, nor do I think the presidents in power at the time of those events have much to do with them.
 
JamesB said:
According to Paul Krugman it will be Enron...
Click to expand...
Interesting idea. In the 80's we had such financial mayhem as the Savings & Loan crisis, insider-trading scandals that shut down huge brokerages, and a massive stock market crash in 1987. In that crash the market lost a third of its value: comparable to the beginning of the 1929 crash. BUT, it recovered to its previous level in something like 2 1/2 years, whereas the market took almost 40 years to reach its 1928 high again.

Eta: Oh, there was a point to this. Aren't we all here, on this thread, to fight against rampant speculation? ;)
And that is my socioeconomic commentary for the evening. I have to go print up some flyers to hand out at Ground Zero tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying that I agree with him, personally I think he is an idiot. Both Brainster and I are actually mentioned in a book coming out about bloggers for some posts we did on him. Just a little shameless self promotion. :cool:
 
XXX said:
OK, just want to make sure before I start blasting this guy...no tapes of phone calls from the planes, other than Betty Ong's, have ever been released, right? I can't find any.
Click to expand...
That Discovery Channel movie about Flight 93 incorporates audio from the tapes. I've seen it, and it uses actors resembling Bingham, Beamer, Lyles, et al and has them lip-synch along with the tapes at various points during the movie.
 
Just uploaded a new version of the "Usual Suspects" on YouTube. The full video will be on MySpace soon.
 
JamesB said:
I am not saying that I agree with him, personally I think he is an idiot. Both Brainster and I are actually mentioned in a book coming out about bloggers for some posts we did on him. Just a little shameless self promotion. :cool:
Click to expand...

Yep, oddly enough on the famous "stolen" election of 2004.

In a lot of ways, I feel like I'm paying the price now for my youthful belief in conspiracies. I was born in 1955, so the defining event for me was the Kennedy assassination, and I believed in the conspiracy. Not so much that it became an obsession, but I could rattle off the problems with the magic bullet and connect the dots ("Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission, and now he's being effectively appointed to the presidency!"), all that sort of nonsense. To give myself a little credit, I did follow the Jim Garrison case and realized pretty quickly that he was a complete bozo.

Like Jim Fetzer, watching JFK changed me completely, but in the opposite way. I was flabbergasted watching Stone try to make a martyr out of nutbar Garrison and walked out of the theatre about halfway through. After that I noticed that no "factoid" was ever refuted permanently; the CTers would retire it for a couple years and then resurrect it a few years later when the evidence defeating it was largely forgotten.

I can buy that a heck of a lot of CTers started out as 2000 Sore Loserman types, although obviously that doesn't explain Morgan Reynolds or (apparently) Stephen Jones. As I've said many times, most CTers start with the conclusion (Bush/Cheney was responsible for 9-11) and work backwards from there. Obviously those who opposed Bush in 2000 would be prone to reaching the conclusion quickest.

There are paranoid types on both sides, on the far wings who start the ball rolling on the theories against the other side, and that at some point the "evidence" they've gathered becomes compelling enough that some of the paranoid types on the other side hop on board (although disputes develop as to who was "really responsible"). Remember, CT evidence is similar on both sides; it relies on quote mining, focusing on the eyewitnesses whose account disputes the OT, and "connecting the dots". I would imagine that just as there are "conservatives" among the "Truthers" there were probably some "liberals" muttering about Vincent Foster.
 
Gravy said:
Is that your view, or are you "playing the voice of disaffected youth?"
Or are you being sarcastic. I actually don't know! :)

Eta: anyone else feel free to pipe up with an opinion. I'm an old fart and don't know what this generation feels are their defining experiences. Is the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened without Bush a common one?
Click to expand...

I think it simply comes down to the fact that Bush has been compared to Hitler so many times, it starts to stick with some people. So it goes from our country being caught off guard by a terrorist attack --> Bush being caught off guard by a terrorist attack --> Bush being unprepared for a terrorist attact ---> Bush allowing the terrorists to attack us --> Bush creating a terrorist attack because...*

I know some people who fully believe that if Al Gore was in office 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Gore would have taken terrorism seriously, etc... Unfortunately, they fail to realize that there was no way to stop 9/11 from occuring without a major security restructuring, which was extremely unlikely to happen no matter who was in office.

*
1.Collect Underpants
2.?
3.Profit!
 
WildCat said:
Hey! Gordon Ross himself (author of one of the scholar's journal articles) has shown up to defend his work in the 911 studies forum. View it here.
Click to expand...

Wow. That response is nearly impenetrable to me. If I understand him, he's basically acknowledging one of my points (while ignoring the other, btw), but somehow the fact that the building mass fell thru more than 1 storey somehow *decreases* the potential energy available?

:eye-poppi
 
Gravy said:
(Psst! 9/11.)
Click to expand...

I thought about this some more Gravy and I think you're right. Well, I think we're both right.

I guess the defining event for that generation would be the whole zeitgeist that involves the disputed 2000 election, 9/11, the wars in Iraq & Afgahnistan, and all of the subsequent politics that arose out of all those events. You can't really separate them out and say *this* is the one thing. It just seems to me (this is just an impression I get) that to the averate 9/11 CT, history prior to the 2000 election is largely irrelevant or ignored or forgotten.
 
Brainster said:
There are paranoid types on both sides, on the far wings who start the ball rolling on the theories against the other side...
Click to expand...
I think a study of CTers would be a fascinating one to read. My opinion (humble of course :)) is CTers "think" differently, connect the dots differently, as you suggest, and that's the foundation for belief in CTs. While it often takes a political bent, I don't think it starts with a certain political bent.

I find a lot of the 9/11 CTers are also moon hoaxers believers, chem trail kooks, Waco Wacko's and OKC CTers. The last two are occurred during Clinton's years. Pure anecdotal, for sure.
 
Brainster said:
There's a lot of truth to that analysis of Hollywood (and books).

Also note that in Three Days of the Condor, The Bourne Identity, The Parallax View, JFK, Conspiracy Theory... you name it, the paranoid nutters are always right. About the only one I can think of who's a harmless crank is the Dan Ackroyd character in Sneakers.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, movie studios try to make stories as appealing as possible, and that means making the CTer right almost every time. After all, it wouldn't be very exciting if all movies turned out to be logical, and if CTs were always wrong...
 
I believe the defining moment of the second half of the 20th century was Yeltsin on the tank. The Soviet Union, the erstwhile Evil Empire bent on world domination (and seemingly capable of pulling it off) no longer had the power to stand up to one man. After that moment, the Western powers no longer had a well-defined opponent. Instead, our enemies became shadowy, ill-defined figures -- and to some, ourselves.
 
Hey gang, hope I didn't miss a post that already announced this: DJRunaway has opened his own forum...

http://www.operation911freedom.co.nr/

Currently boasting 26 subforums, and 24 users. Why do they need another forum? Is it because the more thinly spread the information is, the more potent it becomes?
 
Stellafane said:
I believe the defining moment of the second half of the 20th century was Yeltsin on the tank. The Soviet Union, the erstwhile Evil Empire bent on world domination (and seemingly capable of pulling it off) no longer had the power to stand up to one man. After that moment, the Western powers no longer had a well-defined opponent. Instead, our enemies became shadowy, ill-defined figures -- and to some, ourselves.
Click to expand...

That might very well be an important element to this.

Of course, CTs existed many decades ago, so it's really hard to tell.
 
I'd say that CTs were a kind of safety net. Like JFK and 9/11, the enemy is really an unknown force. Oswald was a lone nut, and sometimes it's hard to understand why he did it. Al Qaida acts on an agenda that is alien to the western world, it's hard to understand how they can harbour so much hatred that they'd kill themselves to hurt the west. The CT brings the enemy out of the shadows, making them a known entity and totally describes their motives. The government may be bigger and more powerful than either Oswald or Al Qaida, but they're out in the open and familiar, so the believer can tell themselves they understand why they would act that way, and turn an irrational act into a rational one. They talk themselves into believing the real enemy is the snake out in open, a snake they can keep an eye and one they they know, because they can't see or understand the snake in the grass and it scares them.
 
Shrinker said:
Hey gang, hope I didn't miss a post that already announced this: DJRunaway has opened his own forum...

http://www.operation911freedom.co.nr/

Currently boasting 26 subforums, and 24 users. Why do they need another forum? Is it because the more thinly spread the information is, the more potent it becomes?
Click to expand...

26 Subforums!!! What the heck do they cover, I refuse to look, and will make my own fun:

Pentagon Grass Discuss the grass in front of the Pentagon here

Flight 93 Assembly rivets Discuss the rivets used to build Flight 93 here.

Poodles (experimental) Discuss the contraversial theory that Poodles, not Bush arranged for 9-11. SKEPTICS OF POODLES NOT ALLOWED.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom