Natalie:So why there couldn't be another group, independent from it, that wants to challenge its power by violent means?
It just doesn't add up. Why would Islamists be focused on America, when they could be focused on India (Kashmir)? Or China? Or Turkey? Or Eastern Europe? What was there to gain by attacking the US? The only group with a clear incentive for those attacks seem to me to be the military industrial complex, ruling establishment, neocons and neolibs. The attacks "succeeded" and yet Al Qaeda has nothing to show for it. The party which benefitted most, again, was the anglo-american ruling establishment in America and Britain.
In Asia, no one is afraid of Al Qaeda. People think it is a CIA myth, and they are probably right, since Al Qaeda was funded by the ISI which is a CIA front agency.
Poptech: liberty student:You never really had a choice. I complied with your statist demands and regulations. Yet I keep laughing at the hypocrisy. liberty student:It's community policy. What is this a communist site now?
liberty student:You never really had a choice.
I complied with your statist demands and regulations. Yet I keep laughing at the hypocrisy.
liberty student:It's community policy.
What is this a communist site now?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
liberty student: Natalie:So why there couldn't be another group, independent from it, that wants to challenge its power by violent means? It just doesn't add up. Why would Islamists be focused on America, when they could be focused on India (Kashmir)? Or China? Or Turkey? Or Eastern Europe? What was there to gain by attacking the US? The only group with a clear incentive for those attacks seem to me to be the military industrial complex, ruling establishment, neocons and neolibs. The attacks "succeeded" and yet Al Qaeda has nothing to show for it. The party which benefitted most, again, was the anglo-american ruling establishment in America and Britain. In Asia, no one is afraid of Al Qaeda. People think it is a CIA myth, and they are probably right, since Al Qaeda was funded by the ISI which is a CIA front agency.
The contradictory thing really, however, is that people (in this case, some libertarians, austrian-econs, limited government types, anarchists, etc.) who are either anti conspiracy-theorist, or do not believe in such things, can certainly believe in the malicious activities & intent behind government intervention in to the markets. Yet, when it comes to utilizing the very infrastructure to intervene with other countries, instigating wars to benefit justification for a bigger state & less freedom, somehow, this is all just crazy talk! The preferred social reality of stupidity over the possibility of malicious & purposeful intent, on the part of statists, is a complete blindside to a rational discussion of the possibilities in actual reality, one of those possibilities being: they know what they are doing, & they are doing everything they can to achieve their goals. How is that any different from observing & scrutinizing the agendas of political parties whenever they are in power?
Nitroadict:Who is being dishonest here?
It is not about dishonesty it is about hypocrisy. You do not support anarchy, you support your regulations. So long as you are the "bureaucrat" the regulations are acceptable. I've seen this behavior too much at alleged "libertarian" forums. Truthfully only the wiki method or unregulated forums would support a true anarchistic position. I think it is funny to find all the anarchistic posers here.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Nitroadict: The contradictory thing really, however, is that people (in this case, some libertarians, austrian-econs, limited government types, anarchists, etc.) who are either anti conspiracy-theorist, or do not believe in such things, can certainly believe in the malicious activities & intent behind government intervention in to the markets. Yet, when it comes to utilizing the very infrastructure to intervene with other countries, instigating wars to benefit justification for a bigger state & less freedom, somehow, this is all just crazy talk! The preferred social reality of stupidity over the possibility of malicious & purposeful intent, on the part of statists, is a complete blindside to a rational discussion of the possibilities in actual reality, one of those possibilities being: they know what they are doing, & they are doing everything they can to achieve their goals. How is that any different from observing & scrutinizing the agendas of political parties whenever they are in power?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
Poptech: Nitroadict:Who is being dishonest here? You do not support anarchy, you support your regulations.
You do not support anarchy, you support your regulations.
Read the top. Many here might favor anarchism, but that's not the aim of the forum. Not all students of economics are austrian economists, not all Austrian economists are libertarians, not all libertarians are anarchists, not all anarchists are against private property. Yes, that involves acknowledging reality isn't as simple as some think it to be, & acknowledging the existence of various hybrid theories & positions (some of which include mutualism, voluntaryism, agorism etc.)
This is mainly my opinion, though; I'm sure other mods will have their own to offer, if they wish to.
Poptech: Nitroadict:Who is being dishonest here? I've seen this behavior too much at alleged "libertarian" forums. Truthfully only the wiki method or unregulated forums would support a true anarchistic position. I think it is funny to find all the anarchistic posers here.
I've seen this behavior too much at alleged "libertarian" forums. Truthfully only the wiki method or unregulated forums would support a true anarchistic position. I think it is funny to find all the anarchistic posers here.
Mikhail Bakunin What is Authority?[ from: http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html ]The idea that anarchists are against authority is rejected by Bakunin. In simple and clear terms he points out that the anarchists submit themselves to the authority of natural laws besides accepting voluntarily the authority of experts in specific fields as valuable recommendations. As a matter of fact, according to Bakunin, "there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."
Mikhail Bakunin
What is Authority?[ from: http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html ]The idea that anarchists are against authority is rejected by Bakunin. In simple and clear terms he points out that the anarchists submit themselves to the authority of natural laws besides accepting voluntarily the authority of experts in specific fields as valuable recommendations. As a matter of fact, according to Bakunin, "there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."
There is nothing that I can say that will change your mind, & I frankly don't care about debating someone who has already written off everyone here beneath your self-evidently "true" anarchistic position, while still oddly caring to post here regardless. Enjoy patronizing other communities that are not full of what you subjectively perceive as poseurs, whatever the criteria maybe, as so far, it seems to apply to anyone that disagrees with you.
BioTube: Let's say 9/11 was a government conspiracy and they've managed to keep it quiet all this time - under this assumption, it's omre likely that the planes carried agents to aid the collapse, rather than a precision demolition being set up. Consider: the towers had their support split between the center and the exterior; there were no explosions on the outside of the towers, which are done even on buildings with more traditional design. The planes, whether delivered by the government or Muslim terrorists, were the agents of the towers' destruction.
Let's say 9/11 was a government conspiracy and they've managed to keep it quiet all this time - under this assumption, it's omre likely that the planes carried agents to aid the collapse, rather than a precision demolition being set up. Consider: the towers had their support split between the center and the exterior; there were no explosions on the outside of the towers, which are done even on buildings with more traditional design. The planes, whether delivered by the government or Muslim terrorists, were the agents of the towers' destruction.
No Planes, No Terrorists, No Fires Destroying Buildings
" Looney" as it might at first appear, there probably were no hi-jacked planes piloted by terrorists [although planes were in the airspace around NY that day], and no airliners flying into/through buildings, nor into the Pentagon, nor into the ground in Shanksville PA on 9/11. Which means that the WTC could not have been brought down by fires started post airliner collision, but had to be demolished by some type of demolition procedure. The scientific [i.e. physical and mathematical] impossibility of the "planes into buildings" myth , plus the impossibility of the employment of standard demolition procedures, is explained in fairly good detail by Austrian economics professor, Mount Pelerin Society member, adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lewrockwell.com contributor Dr. Morgan Reynolds, in a radio interview here: http://truther9.blip.tv/file/2551353/ WARNING! : This information is highly controversial and revolutionary in its implications.
If you believe that you "already know" what happened on 9/11 , and completely lack the mental ability to put aside personal pre-predjudices and listen to new information from a very intelligent source, with an honest attempt at an open mind before passing judgement on any/all of it , do not bother listening to this interview, you will only be wasting your time.P.S Dr. Reynolds interview also covers the Federal Reserve, Ron Pauls "End the Fed" proposals etc. etc.About Dr Morgan Reynolds :
" Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Professor Reynolds is the author or co-author of six books, including Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income (1977), Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (1984), Crime by Choice (1985), and Economics of Labor (1995). He has published over 50 articles in refereed academic journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Journal of Labor Research. He has authored or co-authored dozens of policy studies for organizations like the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress and the National Center for Policy Analysis. He has written dozens of op-eds for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Fortune, National Review, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, and other popular outlets. Dr. Reynolds has frequently testified before congressional committees and appeared on many television and radio news programs, including The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the PBS program DebatesDebates, CNN, and the Fox News Channel. Dr. Reynolds’ research and publication interests have ranged over a wide variety of labor market issues, including income inequality, trade union behavior, and labor regulation, as well as the economics of crime and punishment. Over the last few years he has served as a consultant and researcher for the National Correctional Industries Association, an industry trade group for attracting and administering paid job opportunities within-prison-walls for inmates. Reynolds received his Ph.D. in economics in 1971 from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He has taught and done research at several universities including the Poverty Institute at the University of Wisconsin, the University of California and Texas A&M. He serves on the board of editors at the Journal of Labor Research, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. In 1993-4 Reynolds was visiting scholar at the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. He has been an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and currently is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Among other professional affiliations, Dr. Reynolds is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international society of free-market economists, scholars and policy advocates." Dr. Reynolds's website is: www.nomoregames.net
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
What hit the WTC towers if not planes?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: What hit the WTC towers if not planes?
Dr Reynolds gives the 2 most likely explanations/suspects in the interview.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Dr Reynolds gives the 2 most likely explanations/suspects in the interview.
Act like I don't care what Dr. Reynolds says about the whole and am just looking for what actually hit them.
Laughing Man: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Dr Reynolds gives the 2 most likely explanations/suspects in the interview. Act like I don't care what Dr. Reynolds says about the whole and am just looking for what actually hit them.
To what end?
Poptech,
Do you disagree with the idea of private property? That someone can own something, and control who has access to it, and what they can do with it? That they can forbid someone from using that property at any time for any reason, or even no reason at all, if they wish? LvMI has set certain rules for the use of the forum, and has given certain people privileged access to the forum to maintain it, and enforce these rules. What is so contradictory?
If you think that it's ok to do whatever you want with the property of LvMI, then you must also think it's ok for someone to come over and take your car for a drive without your permission, or break all the windows in your house, camp in your yard (or your livingroom), demolish half your house, not let you in your own house, etc., if they so choose...otherwise you're the hypocrite.
Morgan Reynolds worked for the U.S. Department of Labour, anyone "genuinely interested in the truth" shouldn't trust him.
Seriously though, his articles and recordings are just filled with factual errors. Going by the enormous amount of evidence there probably were planes flown into the towers.
liberty student:It just doesn't add up.
Don't look at 9/11 as an isolated accident (the flaw of most truthers).
This timeline does a good job of connecting the dots of al Qaeda's activity related to the US, including a lot of things that were not mentioned in the official version (or deliberately covered up).
liberty student:Why would Islamists be focused on America, when they could be focused on India (Kashmir)?
Islamists in general or al Qaeda operatives in specific?
Did you read any of Bin Laden's interviews?
After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...
It's well known that he had a grudge against Saudi government for relying on American troops during the Gulf war instead of his own mujahedin, the veterans of the anti-Soviet insurrection in Afghanistan. Also notice his pure implacable warrior mentality: anyone who's not willing to fight to the end is weak. The Soviets were very brutal in Afghanistan, killed thousands of people not even heeding the established rules of war, carpet bombed the country (the US hasn't done this since Vietnam) and there're still leftover mines present. However, Bin Laden obviously considers Russians the worthy opponents while Americans are the "paper tigers" for running away in Somalia. And of course the mujahedin are very proud of their victories over both (however local they are).
So he thinks that if US is hit hard and often enough it might decide to cut losses and withdraw from Middle East. And even if it doesn't, what does al Qaeda has to lose? It's an international network, not a single country that can be taken over. You cut one cell, there're more left. Besides, the violent jihad is ongoing war and any success in the war with the Great Satan is bound to bring more warriors from the muslim community.
Of course, al Qaeda also tries to attack the Saudi government since, despite its strictness, it's, apparently is not islamic enough and deals with infidels.
Other key figures in al Qaeda were Egyptians, and this country has a long standing tradition of islamic radicalism, dating back to the Muslim Brotherhood, the first modern jihad movement, founded in 1928 as a reaction to abolishing the caliphate by Mustafa Kemal. The Muslim Brotherhood has spawned Egyptian Islamic Jihad (al-Zawahiri as a leader) that is implicated in many crimes and assassination attempts.
This whole terrorist business is quite confusing since there're so many different movements and groups, overlapping or interrelated, sharing common members with different aliases, militants as well as "elected officials" or "spiritual leaders" operating in many countries, including the West, sometimes under official facade. I think the closest analogy are various communist/marxists/socialist movements that have plagued the world since the French Revolution. They might share a common ideology and similar goals but not without conflicts and rivalries (HAMAS vs. Fatah). Aside from more organized groups, there're invidiuals that act on their own or in accordance with what the imam tells them to do, mob violence, attacks on infidels or on moderate muslims, etc. And, as with the communists, the militants are only the most obvious but maybe not the most dangerous ones - remember that interview with Yuri Bezmenov?
liberty student:Or China? Or Turkey? Or Eastern Europe?
Actually, islamists are very active in practically every area with significant muslim population especially with some kind of the separatist movement going on. It's not just al Qaeda, although, as I've said, it's not always clear who's who. They certainly participated in various conflicts in the former USSR - in Armenia and Chechnya in particular. I could send you some Russian articles on this issue but I doubt they're going to be helpful :) There're a lot of things that mainstream media doesn't cover (intentionally or not), and the politicians typically misrepresent things for their political agenda so the general public is often not aware of the bigger picture.
For example, the stabbing in Turkey. China's suppression of Ughurs - notice the difference in response. European perspective.
liberty student:The only group with a clear incentive for those attacks seem to me to be the military industrial complex, ruling establishment, neocons and neolibs.
The problem is, they had multiple opportunities to go after al Qaeda or Bin Laden prior to 9/11. The first bombing was pretty big itself and Bojinka plot, if "publicized" properly. So the US gov under Clinton goes into various military adventures, most of them not even related to the US strategic interests, bombs Serbia on a made-up story (helping islamists, by the way) - and does practically nothing about Bin Laden and the organization that had already killed many American citizens and damaged property and openly calls war on the US? Oh, he ordered to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Meanwhile, FBI treats terrorism as common crime and investigates it in its usual "prompt" way - i.e. let's wait for something to blow up and then we'll spend several years trying to figure it out while the "brains" in the cells come up with some other plans. Then there's a "wall" between the agencies so that they don't share key information and no reaction to the Philippino police reports on Yousef's plans to fly planes in the landmark buildings?
So, why not use any of this? Why make up something so embarassing for the superpower? Why not simply come up with some hidden WMD plans? (where is the WMD, by the way? Why couldn't they smuggle some, the very smart and efficient government?) Or simply foil the plot before it happens? Why was the response so chaotic?
The government doesn't always have to create a crisis to benefit from it or expand its power. It's quite possible that someone in the government or the agencies has ties with the islamists or covers up for them - why was the Able Danger data destroyed? Hiding negligence or something else? But the idea that US somehow controls the movement that is so obviously hostile and uses the ideology that has been around since the 7th century becomes really improbable once you look at what their goals are.
liberty student:The party which benefitted most, again, was the anglo-american ruling establishment in America and Britain.
Well, Russia was quite happy that many jihadists went to fight to Afghanistan or Iraq instead of Chechnya It must be the KGB!
liberty student:In Asia, no one is afraid of Al Qaeda. People think it is a CIA myth, and they are probably right, since Al Qaeda was funded by the ISI which is a CIA front agency.
Yeah, and Americans think that Fed is there to control inflation ;)
There're al Qaeda and Taliban bases in Pakistan. That's where Daniel Pearl was murdered. I guess the "establishment" didn't like his articles.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
there is such a thing as islamic extremist propaganda.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:" Looney" as it might at first appear, there probably were no hi-jacked planes piloted by terrorists [although planes were in the airspace around NY that day], and no airliners flying into/through buildings, nor into the Pentagon, nor into the ground in Shanksville PA on 9/11.
So are my sister and friend who live in NYC and saw the second plane hit lying?
The no-plane arguments have failed the debate test.
Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (1/2) (Video) (30min)Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (2/2) (Video) (30min)
this is why i like knowing what liberty is and what it is not (coercion). i like the clarity in such a world this is.
people shooting people, irrationality reins so grab the nearest gun - kill or be killed, government's are more sophisticated streets gangs, etc... there's people who like dialogue and then there's people that like to physically push their way through life. from the potential ivory tower of the internet sometimes it's difficult to know who pulled out the gun first.
lot's of insight Natalie.
Juan:It seems Natalie is quite the expert when it comes to neocon propaganda.
I love all the neo-con propaganda from National Geographic.
Inside 9/11 (Episode 1: War on America) (1hr 45min) (National Geographic)
Juan you don't know that. your focus on groups instead of individuals makes it difficult to know where you're going with this
Are you saying the neocon's are the only people that coerce others?
my point is that islamic extremist propoganda is things like "jews are pigs and apes, america is great satan...therefore ....they are our enemy"
neocon propaganda is 'muslims thinks jews are pigs and apes and that america is the great satan ..... therefore they are our enemy'
to deny the neocon propoganda without addressing the islamic is not to properly grasp it by the horns i would think.
Juan you don't know that. your focus on groups instead of individuals makes it difficult to know where you're going with this Are you saying the neocon's are the only people that coerce others?
i mean, your dismissal of neocon propaganda lacks the force it would have if you have arguments that you could call up (if needed) which address the islamic propoganda which plays an obvious part in the story of how there comes to be the neocon propaganda in the first place.
i dont intend to 'come down on you', but rather i am suggesting ways for you, and i and others to be more knowledgable and more convincing. is there a good reason for rejecting this particular suggestion?
Poptech: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:" Looney" as it might at first appear, there probably were no hi-jacked planes piloted by terrorists [although planes were in the airspace around NY that day], and no airliners flying into/through buildings, nor into the Pentagon, nor into the ground in Shanksville PA on 9/11. So are my sister and friend who live in NYC and saw the second plane hit lying? The no-plane arguments have failed the debate test. Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (1/2) (Video) (30min)Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (2/2) (Video) (30min)
It depends on what they claim to have seen, and from where, exactly.
However, if they claim to have seen the "2nd strike" event exactly as depicted in this video, they are either lying or on some serious medications, because the video contradicts fundamental laws of physics [therefor it was faked].
And no , I am not going to debate laws of physics with you, or any one else here.
I am fully confident that those few here [very few ] with open minds will be capable, by the employment of simple logic [no advanced degree in physics required]!, to answer the simple question posed by "Killtown" s video analysis :
"would a real aircraft be able to fly though steel and concrete at exactly the same speed as it does through air as depicted in this video broadcast on CNN on 911" ?
Natalie:Don't look at 9/11 as an isolated accident (the flaw of most truthers).
Strawman.
Natalie:Did you read any of Bin Laden's interviews?
Have you listened to Sibel Edmonds testimony?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:It depends on what they claim to have seen, and from where, exactly. However, if they claim to have seen the "2nd strike" event exactly as depicted in this video, they are either lying or on some serious medications
However, if they claim to have seen the "2nd strike" event exactly as depicted in this video, they are either lying or on some serious medications
They were not that close but no they are not on medication so are they lying?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:because the video contradicts fundamental laws of physics [therefor it was faked]. And no , I am not going to debate laws of physics with you, or any one else here.
It doesn't contradict anything except your lack of knowledge of all things relating to science. First you have to understand physics to debate them. Truther imaginary "physics" has nothing to do with real physics.
I am fully confident that most people here are not as fundamentally insane as you are.
Juan is quite the expert on non-specific insults.
Juan:Juan you don't know that. your focus on groups instead of individuals makes it difficult to know where you're going with this Are you saying the neocon's are the only people that coerce others? What ?
nevermind. it's too obvious
According to Juan anyone who is not an anarchist is a neo-con. He doesn't even know the definition of the word.
Poptech: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:It depends on what they claim to have seen, and from where, exactly. However, if they claim to have seen the "2nd strike" event exactly as depicted in this video, they are either lying or on some serious medications They were not that close but no they are not on medication so are they lying? onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:because the video contradicts fundamental laws of physics [therefor it was faked]. And no , I am not going to debate laws of physics with you, or any one else here. It doesn't contradict anything except your lack of knowledge of all things relating to science. First you have to understand physics to debate them. Truther imaginary "physics" has nothing to do with real physics. I am fully confident that most people here are not as fundamentally insane as you are.
"They were not that close but no they are not on medication so are they lying?" I have absolutely no idea .
Why don't you show them the video, and ask them whether or not it accurately portrays what they think they saw , and if it does, are they prepared to go on record to this effect, and would they be willing to go to court and testify to that end and be cross-examined as to what they claim to have seen [i.e the event depicted in the video,?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I have absolutely no idea.
Either they are lying or they or not. Do you live in NYC or anywhere near it?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Why don't you show them the video, and ask them whether or not it accurately portrays what they think they saw , and if it does, are they prepared to go on record to this effect, and would they be willing to go to court and testify to that end and be cross-examined as to what they claim to have seen [i.e the event depicted in the video,?
They saw a passenger jet hit the second tower and not from that angle. They are more then willing to go on record of what they saw. Cross examined? With your nonsense? Give me a break. People like you are an embarrassment to the human brain.
Why don't you go on Hardfire and debate your no-plane theory if you are so sure.
wilderness:people shooting people, irrationality reins so grab the nearest gun - kill or be killed, government's are more sophisticated streets gangs, etc... there's people who like dialogue and then there's people that like to physically push their way through life.
There has always been a struggle between coercion and cooperation in any society. No one is blameless and big governments of today do tend to distort behavior a lot.
wilderness:lot's of insight Natalie.
All from neo-con certified sources ;)
North Americans are so used to the US waging unnecessary wars overseas and the Hollywood image of macho spies and ace pilots that they simply can't believe that it can be hit so hard on its own soil and all the military might didn't help.
Natalie:All from neo-con certified sources ;)
I think your anti-islam bias undermines your positions more than your conservative credentials.
That's your deal. Whatever.
That said, Sibel Edmonds has some interesting things to say about Bin Laden.
Sibel Edmonds: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11
Interesting, the article also sources Eric Margolis, a regular contributor at LRC.
liberty student:I think your anti-islam bias undermines your positions more than your conservative credentials.
I'm biased against many things, including socialism, fascism, communism - funny how they're often very cozy with violent islamists. I'm biased in favor of free-market and Judeo-Christian values. And chivalry ;)
Besides, when George W. Bush states that "Islam is a religion of peace" any reasonable person would like to find out if it's really true.
Islam: What the West Needs to Know
liberty student:That said, Sibel Edmonds has some interesting things to say about Bin Laden.
Edmonds came to work for FBI a week after 9/11. All she did was translating documents, she never had access to top secret schemes.So I'd like to see more evidence of than words of someone who hasn't been in the FBI since 2002 and has never been in any important position. Besides, international ops are CIA area, not FBI. CIA sent money to the mujahedin through Pakistan in 1980s but there's no evidence that Bin Laden was CIA's puppet.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: What did the Clinton administration know about Osama bin Laden and when did they know it?
Richard Miniter: One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.
Poptech: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I have absolutely no idea. Either they are lying or they or not. Do you live in NYC or anywhere near it? onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Why don't you show them the video, and ask them whether or not it accurately portrays what they think they saw , and if it does, are they prepared to go on record to this effect, and would they be willing to go to court and testify to that end and be cross-examined as to what they claim to have seen [i.e the event depicted in the video,? They saw a passenger jet hit the second tower and not from that angle. They are more then willing to go on record of what they saw. Cross examined? With your nonsense? Give me a break. People like you are an embarrassment to the human brain. Why don't you go on Hardfire and debate your no-plane theory if you are so sure.
Sir, or madam, as the case may be, you need to lose the almost continous flow of hyperbole and ad hominems, it does not make you look good. Regardless, ALL FUTURE COMMENTS BY YOURSELF ON MY POSTS, REGARDLESS OF SUBJECT WILL NOW BE IGNORED. Have a nice life.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Sir, or madam, as the case may be, you need to lose the almost continous flow of hyperbole and ad hominems, it does not make you look good. Regardless, ALL FUTURE COMMENTS BY YOURSELF ON MY POSTS, REGARDLESS OF SUBJECT WILL NOW BE IGNORED. Have a nice life.
Truthers have to ignore reality, it is the only way they can keep supporting their delusion.
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower (Video) (60min) (BBC)
Natalie:Edmonds came to work for FBI a week after 9/11.
Like clockwork, I knew you would try to discredit her
And, I suppose you're also going to discredit Margolis as well?
Natalie:Besides, international ops are CIA area, not FBI.
lol. Read another spy novel!
Natalie: All she did was translating documents, she never had access to top secret schemes.
Wrong again.
Natalie:So I'd like to see more evidence of than words of someone who hasn't been in the FBI since 2002 and has never been in any important position.
The Inspector General vetted her claims. Coworkers have corroborated her claims. Her 9/11 testimony was so damning it was sealed. She's twice been gagged by the DOJ under the state secrets executive order which puts her in very exclusive company.
I don't think you have a clue who she is, and the debunker sites don't cover her, because she's so legit, they have had to gag her until her deposition last month.
Natalie:CIA sent money to the mujahedin through Pakistan in 1980s but there's no evidence that Bin Laden was CIA's puppet.
Yes there is. Sibel Edmonds' sealed 9/11 Commission testimony.
Ultimately, you are going to believe what you want to believe. I've been down this road. It's an emotional issue for many Americans. Evidence (and lack thereof) doesn't matter. Discrediting, strawmen and shouting down the opponent (the way leftists are wont to do) is the typical response.
Natalie:Islam: What the West Needs to Know
Like I said, you have a blindspot on that. Hate and fear keep us from thinking clearly. They are the tools states have always used to manipulate us.
"So, I've noticed that quite a few of the members here seem to think that conspiracy theories aren't rational and that they don't make sense and that they're impossible to prove and that somehow it's all fiction. What's so hard to believe about conspiracy theories?"
Conspiracy theories usually attempt to explain complex events using incomplete data, non-rigorous evidence standards, and faulty logic. In addition most people don't love the truth enough to wade through the piles of BS conspiracy theories to find the grains of truth.
"What makes you think that the government isn't conspiring with the UN and its allies to make a new world order,"
Not a conspiracy theory - that's official policy well documented in U.S. and U.N. documents and it is a common theme in the books, journals, and speeches of the academic community.
"What makes it so hard to believe that the more powerful countries are trying to manipulate the smaller ones with the World Bank? "
Naivety.
"What makes it so hard to believe that the government is perhaps now monitoring all your communications? "
Once a conspiracy theory, now it's old news. That was revealed in a Congressional investigation a few years ago and was covered by the AP and other national news media. It's usually spun as "warrant less wiretaps against Americans communicating with foreign terrorists" but the details included the room in AT&T's San Francisco facilities in which all data is copied and split in a secret room in which a copy of all data is sent to the NSA.
The number one reason for denying these and other conspiracy theories which turn out to be old news and public policy: fear.