Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Was 9-11 an Inside Job? (And the Nuts that Believe it Was) (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Was 9-11 an Inside Job? (And the Nuts that Believe it Was)
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, Rosie; says that Building 7 was an controlled explosion. A nut case came up to Condoleeza Rice and put a blood stained hand in her face.

I think Bill Clinton was excellent when he said to that accusation; "An inside job? How dare you? How dare you?"

But Bill O'Reilly instead of acknowledging that Bill is on his side attacked President Clinton and said Bill should attack these people. Which in my opinion he did. He also said that Because Hilary went to the DailyKos convention she supports these loons. Please.

However, to his credit the next day he did. (In the middle of my writing this post. So Bravo on that point for Bill, cause that is what pissed me off.)

What is wrong with these people? Are there any member on OA that believe that 9-1 was an inside job?

KE

[ October 30, 2007, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think a lot of people are suspicious. Loosechange believes it was.

I'm confused, KE. You said in the first line that Bill clinton says that Building 7 was a controlled demolition, and in the next line that he did not??

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe our government was at fault for the attack. I don't however believe they planed or executed it. By at fault I mean a combination of our foreign policies and complacency regarding our national security.

I also think that the act itself was exploited by some in such a way that it does not surprise me that there are people who have such a deep distrust of what the government does, in the name of our best interest, that they think it was an inside job.

Guess I'm only half a nut job...

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lot of loose ends out there that I don't feel have been properly explained.

NORAD's inability to track and intercept planes for over 90 minutes, to me, is the largest issue I have. Am I the only one who remembers Payne Stewart's Lear jet that strayed off course?

The Israeli Mossad connection.

The ridiculously small hole and lack of wreckage at the Pentagon, not to mention the military-like precision of a pilot who, if you listen to the instructors who taught him, could barely get a single engine Cessna off the ground.

The FBI confiscating and never releasing any of the security cameras near and around the Pentagon that might confirm what hit the Pentagon. (those grainy, crappy still frames don’t show crap)

19 Hijackers who are not on any passenger manifests, and who, if you do a little digging, you’ll find what’s-his-name former head of the FBI saying we are not sure those are the proper men.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Tommy if that was confusing. I meant that Rose thinks Building 7 was an inside job. By no means does Bill Clinton believe Building 7 was an inside job.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The beauty of the theory of conspiracy theories is that there are always unexplained and hence exploitable aspects to any sufficiently complex set of circumstances, and secondly that denials that it was an inside job from people who have no particular ax to grind can't hold up against people wielding axes and looking for a place to grind them.

I can't think of any high visibility catastrophe in recent memory that hasn't been dogged by claims. For instance, the recent fires in California have been blamed on Al Qaeda, Democrats, Environmentalists, illegal immigrants, and probably space aliens. Some well-known talking head said for damn sure they weren't set by Republicans, but I can't remember who. Smart fellow that, very smart. I'd like to see somebody make the sneaky conspiracy claim that it was the chaparral just going about its biological business, but chaparral don't have an ax to grind, so that can't be it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DaveS gives the best broadest view of such things. Myself, I have unanswered questions. There are things swept under the rug. So suspicion reigns.

Bill Clinton? **** him, **** him, **** him.

How dare I? Easy. I dare.

Just recently, Dey posted a thread showing a 600 YEAR OLD conspiracy committed by the reigning spiritual AND temporal leaders of the time -- Holy Mother Church -- finally confessed to by the bastards.

How dare they?

[ October 30, 2007, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you and Richard Dey are both sufficiently complex that you could be the same person or maybe masquerading as each other. So far, the denials are unconvincing. I'm going to see what I can find out about this on the web. "livermaile dey" gets 3 hits, all from Ornery, but "livermail dey" gets 331, none from here. Hmmm, very hmmm.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the Pentagon, there were many eye witnesses who saw a plane crash into the building. There were also large amounts of wreckage scattered about the site. Oh, and the hole in the building was very definitely large enough to have been caused by a 124 foot wide airplane, if you remember that the 124 feet includes the wings and that the actual body of the plane is only about 13 feet wide.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for complicity, it need not have been Bush et al. It could have been???
The recent Minot/Barksdale uproar where nukes were accidentally placed on the wrong place got every one's attention because it required roughly 60 people to deliberately foregoe their required protocol for it to happen.

That is now the official explanation. I don't dispute it, either. I *do* note that it was, in fact, a conspiracy if 60 personnel deliberately overrode safety protocol for handling nuke missiles.

I mean, we're not blaming those nuke miscarriages on al-qaeda. I think it is reasonable to blame some of 91`1 on our own personnel. Whether as deliberate malice or as sheer ****ed-up corner-cutting, or what... but we don't know and are not allowed to know.

We do know that Bush et al were against a formal investigation. This is on the record. I remember a group called something liike The 911 Widows having to make a press stink in order to ger an investigation rolling.

In light of such actions, I'm at a loss as to why most people aren't rampantly suspicious.

Oh well.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'twas I who crashed into the Pentagon, not that imposter Dey!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've tried imitating Dey. Really. I can't get past first base. And he doesn't seem to be able to do me either. We would LOVE to do so. We've exchanged Ornery passwords. We've poisted as each other a few times since publicly declaring our intent to do so.

But 'twere impossible. We gave up in a matter of days. or deys.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's safer to say that Bill Clinton doesn't publicly act as if he believes it was an inside job; we don't know what Bill Clinton really believes ... or knows, for that matter.
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, but the real question is whether George Bush (either one!) believes it to have been an inside job - and we never will know for sure...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
NORAD's inability to track and intercept planes for over 90 minutes, to me, is the largest issue I have. Am I the only one who remembers Payne Stewart's Lear jet that strayed off course?
I think I can answer that one. I was watching the Military channel the other day, and they were talking about missile defence. In passing, they mentioned that pre-911, only the FAA was monitoring intra-USA flight traffic. NORAD did not start monitoring things within U.S. borders until after 911. It just wasn't their mandate.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
The ridiculously small hole and lack of wreckage at the Pentagon, not to mention the military-like precision of a pilot who, if you listen to the instructors who taught him, could barely get a single engine Cessna off the ground.

In Flight Simulator its easy as hell to crash into a building. I know that sounds like a stupid argument but some places actually use Flight Simulator to train pilots so it can't be that unrealistic. My dad is a private pilot and he says that in-air maneuvering is pretty simple, which supports my experiences with the game (I play it extensively). Even if you don't have any experience with airplanes it shouldn't be too surprising that they are very maneuverable. The toughest part of flying is the landing where its important to maintain a controlled descent within a specific speed range. The hijackers just had to aim the plane in a building's general direction. That's trivial.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Some well-known talking head said for damn sure they weren't set by Republicans, but I can't remember who. Smart fellow that, very smart.

Ahem... well whoever said that may have been right. I think they said that whoever set these fires probably didn't vote for Bush that's for sure. It looks like at least one fire is being blamed on a kid playing with matches so... so far that smart fellow called it dead on. Generally, Republicans act more responsibly, especially when playing with fire. Fact.

[Smile]

I heard some funny guy on the radio talking about how liberals obviously think that Bush is God.

After all, Bush is responsible for everything from Katrina to 9-11 to the forest fires and global warming, even tsunamis. Jesus.

These conspiracy theorists obviously believe exactly what they want to believe. Same with UFOers, big footers, ghost watchers, ESPers, and all that stuff. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the people who claim to believe it really just do so for kicks and couldn't care less one way or the other, and actually believe in anything even less.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC had an article awhile back where he said the problem with liberals was they think Bush is God (I think it was in response to Katrina) because they blamed him for it like he could have prevented it??
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"After all, Bush is responsible for everything from Katrina to 9-11 to the forest fires and global warming, even tsunamis. Jesus."

Close. Bush is IRresponsible to those things.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scouser1
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No matter how much banter people in the world throw around about this subject, one thing is clear: We will never know the full truth about what happened.

[ October 31, 2007, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: scouser1 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
The ridiculously small hole and lack of wreckage at the Pentagon, not to mention the military-like precision of a pilot who, if you listen to the instructors who taught him, could barely get a single engine Cessna off the ground.

In Flight Simulator its easy as hell to crash into a building. I know that sounds like a stupid argument but some places actually use Flight Simulator to train pilots so it can't be that unrealistic.
It can't be that easy to do, if it was you would have tons of teenage boys crashing into famous landmarks within minutes of loading it onto the computer. Oh, wait, nevermind.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It looks like at least one fire is being blamed on a kid playing with matches so... so far that smart fellow called it dead on.
All children are born Democrats until their Republican parents indoctrinate them? These poor kids carry the burden of the world's ills on their small shoulders, and then they have to become Republicans! Hardly seems fair.

Cherry, given the topic of this thread, can you say with confidence that nobody who voted for Bush was a member of the 9/11 conspiracy?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TaoJeannes
Member
Member # 1490

 - posted      Profile for TaoJeannes   Email TaoJeannes       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a video out there (Wish I had the link) giving impressive detail about why the towers had to be a controlled demolition and could not have toppled from the plane strikes alone. It's obviously biased, but compelling enough that I'd like to hear a rebuttal.

Their second video, however, is an absurd Michael Mooreish chain of correllations trying to show why Bush orchestrated it.

In short, I am at least willing to entertain discussion of whether the attacks happened as they were supposed to. But even if the conclusion reached is that Al Qaida didn't do it, the question "Who did?" is apparently unanswerable.

Posts: 279 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> DaveS

> Cherry, given the topic of this thread, can you say with confidence that nobody who voted for Bush was a member of the 9/11 conspiracy?

I can say with confidence that very few Al Qaeda members voted or ever will vote for Bush or any non-isolationist Republican.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nova: Why the Towers Fell.

In short, the impact caused damage to the floor's load bearing core and stripped away the fire resistant foam the protected the floor. The heat caused the the floor to sag and collapse straight downward causing a domino affect with the floors below.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not directed at anybody: I think the confusion over 9/11 is honest, but it is essentially a conceptual vacuum, not a real one. In other words, not knowing creates a space of unresolved conclusions in our minds that thoughts and ideas rush to fill. This thread is hardly wacko or alarmist, but it gives a flavor of the divergent suspicions people will harbor. As TaoJeannes said, the question of who did it is apparently unanswerable. But, in opposition to that view is that the further anyone's solution drifts from facts into conjecture, the more they are falling into that conceptual hole.

The fact is the buildings were destroyed, OBL took responsibility for it, if we want either revenge or justice we should be after him with a vengeance. The grand NeoCon conspiracy theory led us into Iraq where we've spent the last 6 years chasing a conjecture that didn't fit the facts.

Here's some wacko dust to sprinkle on your thoughts. Some people claim that the reason we haven't had any further major terrorist acts in this country is because we invaded Iraq. But if 9/11 was a Bush job to get us into Iraq, then he accomplished his mission and didn't need to cause further acts like 9/11. That's why there haven't been any since then. Ergo, the war in Iraq was the reason for 9/11. Anybody have any evidence that shows that I am wrong about this?

[ October 31, 2007, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because we invaded Afghanistan first?

After all, why go through the trouble of invading them if the goal was to get to Saddam. It would have been better to frame Saddam directly.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, we NeoCon conspiracy theorists know that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism and that AQ had bases in Iraq and had at least one meeting with AQ representatives in Prague.
quote:
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.
Cheney's winking comment is code for we know it, but don't want to embarrass our friends in European Intelligence who say otherwise. Still don't believe that Saddam and OBL were linked? Then, read this bombshell:
quote:
First, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has gotten hold of a secret government memo detailed a huge number of intelligence sources pointing to a link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. While many opposed to the Iraq war already treat it as proven that there was no such link, this memo indicates the preponderance of the evidence is the other way - it is much closer to proven that there was a link than that there was not. While a shortened version of this piece appeared in the Australian last week, this is a story of enought importance to provide it again and in full for the benefit of those who have not seen it or who want the whole story.
I have no evidence to contradict this. To your point, we know that Saddam was pulling the strings, and maybe even was the puppetmaster behind implicating OBL in 9/11. Possible that even OBL didn't realize that Saddam was playing him for a stooge. Let's not let ourselves be fooled. If we hadn't staged 9/11, we never could have gotten public support to go in there and clean out that hornet's nest.

[Note to Mod: I repeat my oft made request that UBB add a satire font. If you previously didn't grant my request because of the format demands I made, I don't care if it comes with serif or not.]

[ October 31, 2007, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that this doesn't address my point at all. [Smile] If 9/11 were an inside job intended to get at Saddam, then it would have been better to point all the evidence towards Saddam, rather than the Taliban. Consider all the good will we enjoyed from the world when we invaded Afghanistan. We would have enjoyed that same good will if that evidence pointed to Saddam.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TaoJeannes
Member
Member # 1490

 - posted      Profile for TaoJeannes   Email TaoJeannes       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
[QB]
The fact is the buildings were destroyed, OBL took responsibility for it...[QB]

But did he? He's certainly delighted in it. He's even threatened an even greater attack. But has OBL ever actually publicly confessed to being involved in 9/11? Didn't he even deny involvement at the beginning with a video that said something like "The Great Satan has been punished. We did not do it, but it was awesome"?
Posts: 279 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is a video out there (Wish I had the link) giving impressive detail about why the towers had to be a controlled demolition and could not have toppled from the plane strikes alone. It's obviously biased, but compelling enough that I'd like to hear a rebuttal.
There's a great article from Popular Science, I think, that debunks most of the stuff like this, including specifically the controlled demolition theory. Ah, here you go: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

(Anyone who claims these kinds of questions haven't been answered isn't looking.)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave S wrote
quote:
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.
I don't know if this was the satirical part or not.
Czech intelligence officials say there is no evidence that it took place.

If you want to use the fact that a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi diplomat can not be disproven as evidence that there was a connection, fine.

I will use the fact that a meeting between Atta and Rush Limbaugh can not be disproven as evidence that there is a connection too. [Smile]

In any case, the VP of the US should not be making statements like that if there is no evidence. If he thought there was evidence and it proved wrong, he should retract the statement, not just imply that the negative needs to be proven.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hate Bush with a fiery passion bordering on the delusional and insane, and not even I think he did, or was capable of, executing the tragedy that was 9-11. Get a life you egg-sucking dope smoking losers!

It's one thing to sink a Navy battleship, it's another to destroy two giant buildings filled with innocent Americans and make it look like two Jet Liners crashed into them!

Although Rosie does have a point when she says that "fire can't melt steel". [Confused] [Exploding] [FootInMouth] [LOL]

KE

[ October 31, 2007, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
Ed, we NeoCon conspiracy theorists know that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism and that AQ had bases in Iraq and had at least one meeting with AQ representatives in Prague.

Relations between Saddam and Osama were icy at best. Iraq may have been a state sponsor of terrorism in that Saddam had no qualms enacting severe punishments on citizens, however the idea that it collaborated seriously with Al-Qaeda is just plain wrong. Al-Qaeda probably had more meetings in Pakistan and other "friendly" countries than it did in Iraq.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
DaveS:
quote:
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.
Velcro: I don't know if this was the satirical part or not.
I got that from a very reputable source.

[Quick, Mod, the font...hurry...]

[ October 31, 2007, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quote:

"I think a lot of people are suspicious. Loosechange believes it was."

TommySama, I hope you were not talking about THIS LooseChange on the forum?
I have clearly stated my stand on this in previous posts. I originally believed that there may have been some direct involvement (BTW - not doing enough to prevent the attacks I consider direct involvement) of the US government in the 911 incident. I regard this as normal angry reaction to the way the whole case was handled.
I currently think that 911 exposes the lack of competence which a massive militarized system shows when dealing with tiny groups of extremists. The "investigation" by the 911 Commission left gaping holes in the story, which were not touched for one political reason or another.

"WeAreAlljust LooseChange" stands for We Are All just Loose Change in the pockets of the people in power - The Bushes, The Clintons, the Kennedys, the Gores. etc. When a political system becomes such, that encourages treating politics as family business - all the "voters" become just pawns in the Ponzi scheme called "elections".
A wise person recently said to me, when I started expressing my anger with all the conflict of political opinions in US, regarding the next elections:
"The mice are once again arguing if a white cat or a black cat should be elected for president"

Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry to misrepresent your opinion, loose. The last time I read your posts regarding 911 I think you were arguing that you believed Bush & Company was involved.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just have to say that on my walk to work today I encountered "9/11 Truth" propaganda on a bunch of lampposts, advertising some meeting in my city where a bunch of these bozos can rattle around their conspiracy theories, and where they can boast that they have some Ph.D. on their side.

The posters were taped up but good. I tore every single one of them down. I've never done anything like that before, and under normal circumstances I would simply shrug and say they have the freedom to speak... but I found that tearing them down was very satisfying. If I get fined, I would pay it gladly. There is no greater way to dishonor a tragedy than to use it to spin something that fits your own anti-government agenda. The people behind this "movement" are nothing more than attention-whores who think they have soe special truth that nobody else can see. They are no different from the end-of-days people who hide out in a cave.

Nobody is entitled to their own facts, and nobody gets to publicize the tragedy for their own emotional needs. I hope I encounter more of these posters so I can smile as I destroy every last one of them.

[ June 11, 2008, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Baaa... the sheep are good at playing sheepdog, aren't they? Are you so sure of the “rightness” of your opinions – for that is exactly what they are, Josh, opinions of what the "facts" are – that you gleefully try to silence others opinions? If they are so asinine, let them stand up and make fools of themselves. That’s the beauty of free speech – it lets us know who the idiots are.

Granted, there's a big difference between inside job and allowing an attack to happen.
The US government has a long history of false flag operations and/or allowing provocations to occur. It's not too much to apply what we know about the past - Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, for example - to 9/11 and ask some hard questions which the 9/11 commission failed to answer or side-stepped.

Inside job or not, there has not been an adequate amount of disclosure and investigation from the US government. What's wrong with some discussion trying to pick up where the government should have?

Talk you agree with is easy to support. It’s the “crazy” and “inflammatory” speech we must all strive to protect if we are to really maintain our freedom of speech and opinion.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1