The one that uses circumstantial evidence about a firefighter saying he wants to pull his fellow firefighters out of WTC 7 as proof the CIA wanted to “pull” (completely different meaning) the building?
The one that uses evidence of common chemicals found in concrete and steel as proof for the use of thermite in the explosions?
The one that uses some whacked out “scholar’s” theory about a laser beam from space destroying the WTCs?
Yes, conspiracy theories performed on national television involving massive logistical problems on a scale never seen before are much, much easier.
A lot of people in Medieval Europe believed in the divine right of kings.
Or that cute little protocol might not be in place. How would you know? How would you know that air traffic controllers actually follow that rule? We saw the SEC fail, wouldn’t it be possible for other government employees to do so? Wasn’t Air Traffic Control aware of the problem fairly quickly?
Well, I was just attempting to dispell the myth that a government would never act(or plan to act) against its own citizens. It’s interesting how krazy kaju would dismissively say
“Some crazy kooks within government thought it was a good idea”…
it seems however that the plan was signed by this guy Lemnitzer who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which, again according to wikipedia, is
" by law the highest ranking military officer in the United States Armed Forces, and the principal military adviser to the President of the United States. "
Personally, I like #4 - that the buildings fell as one would expect in a planned demolition, not falling to the side as they would have under other causes. One could emulate controlled demolition by chance - but all 3? That’s a helluva coincidence, and I mostly don’t take those as starting hypotheses.
Why do you insist upon believing that all actions would have to be performed on television? Even television has behind-the-scenes activity.
At the time, it was a rational belief, based upon the social norms. So?
Um - air traffic controllers who fail at this lose their jobs. It’s fairly well-documented - and, as I said, any ATC worker or pilot can verify this, if you don’t trust internet searches.
Yes, ATC was aware, very early, that these flights had deviated from flight plan. What was unprecedented was that they reported the problems, and nothing happened. Pilots knew of the problems, and wanted to be scrambled - but they were not given any information about where to find the rogue planes, when ATC was reporting their location. The system failed, and it’s never been looked into carefully.
If you want to believe the official story, I can’t stop you - and wouldn’t stop you if I could. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this - I’d rather not argue it further in this forum.
Danno, who should be used to these blinders by now.
Again, Wikipedia is almost right - the Chairman of the JCoS is the second-highest ranking person in the military chain of command. They’re outranked by the President. And, yeah - they’re supposed to be the principal military adviser. They’re not a random “crazy kook”.
I’ve noticed that krazy has had apparent difficulty in reading comprehension in other threads, and isn’t terribly bound to reasoned debate anywhere. I’m gathering new names for my “ignore” file fairly frequently these days. Pity - reasoned debate used to be easier to find around here.
Danno, doing that annoying “good old days” song again…
I know it’s really hard to believe at first glance, but there is more then enough evidence to prove that it was to be covered up. How else can you explain the new insurance policies in the building, Mayor Gulliani not going to his safe house, and the pur physics that was ingnored in all main stream arguments.
I’m not going to go out and say it was the government that pulled of the job, but can you honestly say they didn’t cover it up?
And lastly, this might interest some of you guys. I wouldn’t be suprised if a lot of you have seen this. It’s from the Lou Dobbs Show; reporting on a “New World Order”
Emulating a controlled demolition? Controlled demolitions don’t explode, they don’t send debris flying around for miles, and they sure don’t fall as slow as the WTCs did.
Likewise, at this time, it might be a rational belief for some that 9/11 was an inside job, despite absolutely NO concrete evidence showing it to be.
Nice ad hoc you got going on there. It’s no surprise that they didn’t scamble fighters, as most hijackings prior to this one were ones where the terrorists landed somewhere and demanded ransom or some kind of political negotiations. Scrambling fighter jets might have escalated the situation in such a case. Also see this.
So? A lot of military advisors also wanted a nuclear war with the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Did we nuke the Soviet Union? Nope. Likewise, an absurd plan thought up by a few in the government was never carried out. Wonder why?
So your calling top ranking military officers “some crazy kooks” is ridiculous. I doubt you’ll admit it though, but hey, nationalism is hard to overcome, even for anarchists…
So ?
No I don’t. I can’t believe you’d argue that gov’t doesn’t carry out absurds plans. Like, say, a war in vietnam ? Or what about dragging the US into two world wars ? Or…Never mind.
The funniest part with that argument, is that it has no purpose!
Wouldn’t it be enough that terrorists fly two passenger aeroplanes into the Twin Towers? What does it matter if they collapse or just stand there burning? The administration would’ve had a great excuse for introducing a patriot act anyway. The inside job believers just use the “explosives in the Twin Towers” argument because it is technically difficult to understand why they collapsed. But the argument doesn’t fit with the rest of the inside job theory.
I believe in conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true or are logical. For example, labor unions push minimum wages to reduce competition from low skilled workers. FDR or others in government knew about Pearl Harbor but decided not to act in order to have an imperative for war. Doctors push national health insurance so that they would get higher wages and compensation.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You use an example of a plan that was never carried out as proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Beside the obvious non sequitur, the plan was never carried out. The people who designed the plan were obviously quite crazy, just like those who proposed we nuke the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both were absurd plans, both were rejected by government. Now you say that I have nationalist impulses? What are you talking about? You’re the one defending the integrity of military generals and others subordinate to the Commander in Thief. And now you compare this to Vietnam and WWI and WWII? Do you realize how grand of a false analogy this is? You cannot compare wars which are waged with full public knowledge to self-terrorism plans which were never carried out, especially one which literally required the help of at least hundreds of people doing things that were in plain sight to thousands (millions?) of others, e.g. planting bombs in WTC1, 2, and 7.
Oh boy. WHERE did I say such a thing ? I just pointed out that the US government has planned such inside jobs in the past and it’s perfectly well documented. That’s all. Get it ? It really seems as if you reply without reading what I write.
What ?? I’m " defending the integrity of military generals " ? Where ?
You pretend to believe that the gov’t is sensible enough to avoid absurd plans. I provided counter examples.
Personally I agree with the former Chief of the Pakistani ISI. So you believe the official story? Hahah. Do you also believe the statistics they put out?
‘Bush or others in government knew about 9/11 but decided not to act in order to have an imperative for war.’ [;)]
Deciding to act, or not act - is still action. [:)]
Hitler burned down the Reichstag. Nooo of course not, no-one would ever do such a thing like that. [8-)]
Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Screen by Buttler Shaffer
That doesn`t fit. From the news in September and October 2001 it was apparent the US was not prepeared for a war with Afganistan, the government was actually slow in attacking it and even somewhat reluctant, scaring away from putting any conventional troops on the ground. It was the farthest thing from a Gotcha! moment. They were not enthusiastic about it at all as the strategy they subsequently used illustrated. Initialy there was talk they would make some minor advances in the fall, followed by an air campaign through the winter and the real push would come in the spring. But then things unexpectedly unraveled when Mazar Sharīf fell. Stil the way US went about it was the farthest thing from Shock & Awe.
Actually, I think there is consensus among historians today that it was that commie who did it on his own initiative. Don’t underestimate the useful idiots! And arabs excel in precisely that role, just take a look at Israel/Palestina. They never quit giving Israel excuses for castrating them militarily, economically and politically.
However, when Hitler invaded Poland, he had arranged a group of trusted German soldiers in Polish uniforms to attack a German border post and I think that dead poles were left behind in Polish uniforms as proof. That’s the closest of a proven 911-like conspiracy which I know of. Ah yes, and the Swedish king Gustav III created an excuse for starting a war against Russia in a similiar way in 1788. But that’s more of a diplomatic tradition than a true conspiracy. Noone believes such irrational provocations, but it is necessary for the diplomatic record to claim that the other one was the attacker. The complexity and morbidity and humiliation of 911 makes it much less likely to be an inside job. Border posts have the job of being attacked. But when the enemy crashes hijacked airplanes in major cities, then it is a serious failure of the security which is the responsability of the administration. They wouldn’t have overdone it so terribly.
[8-)]. It doesn’t fit, “perfectly” - probably because I deliberately took one of Kaju’s sentences and just altered the person and date. You only address the second part of the sentence, not the first. The first is more important to the point, not the latter. War on a Tactic and War on a Country are also a different thing.
The Reichstag fire
On February 27, Hitler was enjoying supper at the Goebbels home when the telephone rang with an emergency message: “The Reichstag is on fire!” Hitler and Goebbels rushed to the fire, where they encountered Hermann Goering, who would later become Hitler’s air minister. Goering was shouting at the top of his lungs,
This is the beginning of the Communist revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found. Every Communist deputy must this very day be strung up.
The day after the fire, the Prussian government announced that it had found communist publications stating,
Government buildings, museums, mansions and essential plants were to be burned down… . Women and children were to be sent in front of terrorist groups… The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war… It has been ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.
So how was Goering so certain that the fire had been set by communist terrorists? Arrested on the spot was a Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe. Most historians now believe that van der Lubbe was actually duped by the Nazis into setting the fire and probably was even assisted by them, without his realizing it.
Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history — that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for “security.” And that’s exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis.
I love it how you seem to project your morality onto those in government, those who run the State. Why wouldn’t they have ‘overdone’ it? How was it humiliating? To whom? The United States collectively? WHY all the better if you want to go invade the Middle East… and make the case for invading Iraq as the Administration did endlessly up until the invasion.
But really, I really couldn’t be too bothered with all this. It’s not the end game. World government is. I see both of you didn’t bother addressing that last point/question in my post you quoted. Any particular reason? [:)]