The U.S. Government is Disgusting

[Queso]

There have been many conspiracy theories regarding 9/11,

 

there has been random evidence scattered accross the internet that's made me wonder what ACTUALLY happened on that day.

 

Then I saw this movie...

 

[ame]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change&pr=goog-sl[/ame]

 

it's an hour and a half long.

And if you have an hour and a half to sit on the computer

spend your time watching that movie.

 

It's a film dedicated to the truth about that day, it's called Loose Change, have any of you seen it?

 

There is so much evidence in that film, pretty much pointing to the facts that the U.S. Government planned everything,

 

the tape of osama bin laden admitting to the attacks

ISN'T EVEN HIM,

it's an actor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If you havn't seen this movie,

please do

 

because UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Don't try to tell me that Al Queda did it,

it was a self inflicted OPPOSITE of a wound.

 

America doesn't care about you.

 

Please reply after you have seen the movie, or at least done some research into what really happened.

 

and PLEASE don't listen to the news on television,

I'm practically in tears that something this horrible could occur,

in the name of greed.

 

;) :D

 

P.S.

Hollywood is making a movie called flight 93....

 

Um....

 

I am terrified when I look outside.

This place is so corrupt and no one

knows what's going on.

 

How could this happen?

[TheBigDog]

Orb, I have watched that film and it is bunk. It uses some outright lies, sprinkled with enough historical plausibility to sell its bill of goods. You are buying into propaganda of those who would take down this country from within by convincing the citizenship that their elected officials are in some sort of giant conspiracy against them. I know that you have good enough critical thinking ability to see through the charlatan salesmanship of this video. I would like to discuss any portion of the video that your choose. Pick the parts that you feel make the best case for your worst fears of the government, and I will examine each of them with you.

 

Bill

[Mr. Potato Head]

I thought I was in the presence of intelligence on this website until I see one of the brains crack so easily. Too bad.

[TheBigDog]

I thought I was in the presence of intelligence on this website until I see one of the brains crack so easily. Too bad.

Which brain cracked?

[Queso]

oh,

ok then :shrug:

[Eclogite]

BigDog (and anyone else), one question: would you agree or disagree that the events of 911 provided a very convenient justification for actions that some members and some supporters of the Bush administration had wished to embark upon.

 

To encourage a measured response (and, of course, you would offer nothing else;) ) let me note that I have no doubts that the attack was inspired by Osama bin Laden and carried out by Al Quaeda operatives. In other words I am not trying to lay a trap for you with the above question.

[TheBigDog]

BigDog (and anyone else), one question: would you agree or disagree that the events of 911 provided a very convenient justification for actions that some members and some supporters of the Bush administration had wished to embark upon.

What specific actions are you alluding to? I don't think our current political and military situation fit anyone's master plan. With the possible exception of our enemies who would know how we would react and be willing to sacrifice any number of innocent lives as puppet strings manupulating the US military into action. Once the military is in action they just keep it going, baiting us further along with more innocent lives lost as the political will at home softens toward their favor. Until people see the US as a monster and even the instigator of the whole problem, simply because we are not willing to stand by and let innocent lives be taken without a just response and an effort to end the evil that causes such actions. And videos like this one, that lie about the whole history of it in such an incidious fashion do nothing but weaken the position of good, and strengthen the position of evil.

 

Our enemy is fighting a war under the supposition that we are politically weak. Their objective is not military victory, it is political submission. They only fight to weaken our policy into their favor. If we do not fight they attack again and again to lure us into a fight that they count upon to lead to our political submission.

 

Shall we discuss?

 

Bill

[Queso]

i'd really rather not...

 

This topic is making me sick,

I don't know who to trust, who to listen to.

 

I'm going to take a break from listening to you guys

and go out into the world and find out what's going on for myself.

 

You won't see my around for awhile,

goodbye.

[Eclogite]

Shall we discuss?

I think not. I really did just want a simple yes or no answer. I feel your response is too emotionally laden for me to conduct a balanced, objective discussion with you on this particular topic. You seem to be unaware that several within the current administration wanted an excuse to engage in the kind of action that we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not wish to deabte something as factually well validated as that.

Too rapidly such discussions create a defensive posture in which criticism of the US administration is seen as criticism of the US. That is not a road I enjoy travelling down.

Ophiolite

[TheBigDog]

I think not. I really did just want a simple yes or no answer. I feel your response is too emotionally laden for me to conduct a balanced, objective discussion with you on this particular topic. You seem to be unaware that several within the current administration wanted an excuse to engage in the kind of action that we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not wish to deabte something as factually well validated as that.

Too rapidly such discussions create a defensive posture in which criticism of the US administration is seen as criticism of the US. That is not a road I enjoy travelling down.

Ophiolite

It is very convenient for you to brush aside discussion by simply saying that I cannot be objective in discussing it with you. I am wondering what statement I made was so emotionally charged that you see me as being incapable of debate? The thread is about the video linked at the top. I would love to discuss that video point for point so that it is not seen as gospel by those who watch it and are eager for whatever reason they have within them to abondon reason and accept it as verbatim fact.

 

Anyway, to answer your question.

 

• Yes, it did act as justification for policy changes popular with members of the administration.
  
• No, it was no administration member's sole and primary intention to instigate and engage in open conflict in the middle east.
  

 

Bill

[Eclogite]

No. Contrary to your opening statement it is bloody inconvenient to brush aside the discussion.

You ask what makes me doubt your ability (note I do not doubt your willingness) to enage in objective debate.

With the possible exception of our enemies who would know how we would react and be willing to sacrifice any number of innocent lives

From the standpoint of bin Laden those who support the materialistic, exploitative practices of the West, implicitly or explicitly, are not innocent. You maintain they are. I would argue that is not an objective position.

 

You keep repeating the phrase innocent lives, several times in the following sentences. I have to tell you on this point I am not capable of an objective reaction. Setting aside whether the victims of 911 were innocent or not, I am disgusted by our concern for these 3000 victims compared with our lack of concern for the annual toll from gun crime and road traffic accidents, either of which far exceeds the one-off deaths of 911.

 

Yet does the administration declare a war on guns, or a war on drink driving, or a war on careless driving?

 

 

Our enemy is fighting a war under the supposition that we are politically weak. Their objective is not military victory, it is political submission. They only fight to weaken our policy into their favor. If we do not fight they attack again and again to lure us into a fight that they count upon to lead to our political submission.

The enemy are a bunch of fanatical dumb asses who would have faded into history if we had not accorded them the status of number one enemy. Declaring war on a concept ranks as one of the stupidest political errors in the history of the US. You cannot win a war against a concept such as terror. The US was defeated on this the day Bush made that declaration. From here on in its all down hill.

 

It almost makes me nostalgic for Nixon.

[bartock]

i have not read all the posts but i want to say it any ways.

well i knew it was the CIA and the american gov involved in those attacks.the way that the towers came down, is exactly a planed demolition.and guess who was the incharge of security for WTC for those days? bush's own brother's company!

 

it is all a war game to them(bush regim and uncle sam). the american people and EU and the muslims are all pawns that keep this money making game going. and guess who wins at the end of it all? the companies who supply war the killing equipment.isnt it neat that they have a great system set up in iraq to creat more terrorists so the great war on terror never ends.

[TheBigDog]

No. Contrary to your opening statement it is bloody inconvenient to brush aside the discussion.

You ask what makes me doubt your ability (note I do not doubt your willingness) to enage in objective debate.From the standpoint of bin Laden those who support the materialistic, exploitative practices of the West, implicitly or explicitly, are not innocent. You maintain they are. I would argue that is not an objective position.

I argue that bin Laden does not inventory the beliefs of those he murders. He supports random violence and death. Those who practice terrorism in his vein are just as arbitrary in their killing. That means that he is calous to the taking of innocent life, and sees it as a necessity, a means to an ends.

 

You keep repeating the phrase innocent lives, several times in the following sentences. I have to tell you on this point I am not capable of an objective reaction. Setting aside whether the victims of 911 were innocent or not, I am disgusted by our concern for these 3000 victims compared with our lack of concern for the annual toll from gun crime and road traffic accidents, either of which far exceeds the one-off deaths of 911.

 

Yet does the administration declare a war on guns, or a war on drink driving, or a war on careless driving?

I fail to see how this equates to the conversation. The things you are describing are in fact already enforced and come down to actions by individuals upon other individuals, much of it accidental. Not conspiracy, just the fact that life is dangerous and people need to be more careful.

The enemy are a bunch of fanatical dumb asses who would have faded into history if we had not accorded them the status of number one enemy. Declaring war on a concept ranks as one of the stupidest political errors in the history of the US. You cannot win a war against a concept such as terror. The US was defeated on this the day Bush made that declaration. From here on in its all down hill.

This is not a war against a concept. This is a war against acts of random violence in the name of political gain. People can be unhappy. they can feel represssed. They can hate the west and our policies and our beliefs and our ways, but they cannot come over and kill us and cause mayhem and destory building and monuments and make threats and incite fear until they get bored and decide to stop on their own. What action would you suggest as an alternative to the actions that have already been taken? How could the situation be better?

It almost makes me nostalgic for Nixon.

:hyper: :) Cheers!

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

i have not read all the posts but i want to say it any ways.

well i knew it was the CIA and the american gov involved in those attacks.the way that the towers came down, is exactly a planed demolition.and guess who was the incharge of security for WTC for those days? bush's own brother's company!

 

it is all a war game to them(bush regim and uncle sam). the american people and EU and the muslims are all pawns that keep this money making game going. and guess who wins at the end of it all? the companies who supply war the killing equipment.isnt it neat that they have a great system set up in iraq to creat more terrorists so the great war on terror never ends.

How would you have thought the buildings would fall? To take down a building with controlled demolitions takes teams of experts days to plant all of the charges and run the wiring to insure that they go off in the correct sequence. Did all of the people who worked in the towers miss all of that somehow? Is the fact that nobody saw any any demolitions or mysterious people wrapping explosives around structural elements enough to disuade you from this belief? In the video there is a firefighter who makes a statement to the effect that the tower fell like ones that are brought down by demolitions. Uh... yeah, it did appear that way. But a hell of a lot of work would go into making it happen. And there is no evidence of that taking place. No triggered memories among the survivors of some strange maintenance going on prior to the event. No evidence of explosives in the debris. Or in the video of the towers falling from any angle.

 

As for the explosions that were heard. Have you ever been around structural elemts when they fail? Concrete stressed past its load limit? Steel stressed to breaking point? Steel and concrete in a complex structure like a supertower stressed to the point of failure? It does not happen quietly. Failures cause loud sonic events that are in fact explosive releases of potential energy. This was all caused by airplanes loaded with fuel smashing into the upper floors and igniting fires that burned hot for a long time. The argument that the fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt stell is a joke. Wood doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, but with the proper airflow and channeling of flames you can stoke a furnace far hotter than the open temperature you get from the fuel souce alone. That is how the temperatures rose high enough to weaken steal members and cause catastophic structural failure.

 

This is a science site. We take the time to discuss social issues, but try to do so within the framework of evidence and fact. If you are going to state that the twin towers were taken down by controlled explosives then explain how it took place without anybody noticing the explosives going in or the explosives going off.

 

Bill

[bartock]

How could the situation be better?

 

 

 

 

think critically and for that you have to have all of the evidence and not just listen to the popular media baught over by the big companies who make the KILLING EQUIPMEENT(companies who do defence contracts e.g. GE).

 

no offence but

IMO people (including me)who dont check the alternative news sources are eithr too scared to find out the truth or too lazy.

[Queso]

ugh, bigdog....

 

it was a planned demolition,

there is so much evidence pointing to it.

all of the explosions, the perfect fall.

 

dude,

over 50 years ago a b-52(!!!!) flew into the empire state,

only a few floors caught fire.

 

so many buildings have been hit by planes, and not fallen.

 

if you watched the movie...you would know that.

 

there's so much evidence in that movie!! stop being such a patriot, with your family!

YOURE BEING LIED TO!

 

we all are.

[Queso]

you're right bartock,

bush's brother was head of security,

and a few weeks prior to the attacks

a bunch of floors on the WTC were evacuated for "drills"

 

obviously to set up the demolition.

 

look at how the buildings fell....

 

there's no way that's possible from a plane.

 

it's so obvious and america is too stupid to see it.