 sj |
||
|
||
BS: David Lynch and 9-11
|
|
|
Subject: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:47 PM http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8175484657963455824&q=david+lynch Lynch says 9-11 is a lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:56 PM Terrific as far as far fetched opinion goes - all he has to do now is prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:23 PM We've played this simpleass game before on here. I know that BS is BS and frankly it used to be a lot of fun, but how many of these dumbass threads are we going to run? This one is one too many. Write a song about it and maybe we'll revisit this ridiculous same old shit again, but until then, enough is enough. Take this crap to one of the thousands of conspiracy sites. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:28 PM Somehow, the terms "David Lynch" and "firm grasp upon reality" don't automatically associate themselves in my mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: pdq Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:45 PM GUEST does not understand how his aluminum foil hat works. It must be grounded to block the radio waves from passing UFOs. Here is a plan. Leave your trailer long enough to get a sizeable piece of wire. Attach one of your roach clips to each end. Clip one end of wire to your tinfoil helmet, the other end to a metal water pipe. You should have nothing more to worry about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Jeri Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:03 PM I think he's been listening to the radiator people again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:24 PM Take his points one by one then. Wouldn't a Boeing passenger jet make a hole larger than 9-feet around in the side of the pentagon? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:26 PM One would hope so. But strange things happen in the Pentagon, that being just one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: akenaton Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:29 PM :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: jeffp Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:52 PM Considering that the body width of a Boeing 757 is 12 feet 4 inches and is mostly hollow, and that that wall of the Pentagon had recently been beefed up, it's not inconceivable that it would only make a hole 9 feet in diameter. (I assume you meant 9 feet across, not 9 feet around, which would be 2.86 feet in diameter.) Couple that with the fact that aircraft engines were found outside the Pentagon building and you realize that yes, it really happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:01 PM Also, numerous witnesses reported that the plane hit the ground first which means it wasn't an intact aircraft that hit the Pentagon wall. It was already coming to pieces. We'll never know how much more extensive the visible damage would have been if the "pilot" had had better aim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:41 PM Whatever happened it was a conspiracy. All theories about 91 are conspiracy theories, by definition, even the one that it was all down to Al Qaeda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:19 PM For one thing, original GUEST poster, nowhere does Lynch say that 9/11 is a lie. But as Lynch did say, you don't have to agree with all the points of the video to come to a disturbing open question about what actually happened. (And Spaw, pdq, Jeri, with your clever comments to denigrate a curiosity that isn't going to go away: why don't you keep clear of the topic if it twists your knickers. Go write about tvs being on in pubs, or Miskin, or something that you're able to take seriously. A lot of reasonable folks have serious doubts that the official version of the 9/11 events is true, and though you may not like the conspiracy-fringe tone to a lot of the commentary, (or the stupid hip-hop soundtrack of this one...) there are simply too many discrepencies to swallow. It heartens me to see that questions are being raised; it gives me a sense of hope that the events themselves worked to destroy. I've been slow to entertain the sorts of questions asked in these videos, such as what are those explosions, because, as Lynch thoughtfully said, the implication that the government was behind the event is too big to consider. But I'm also a generally conservative American voter, who was appalled at Bush's first "victory" at the polls, and I have come to start to believe that Bush came to power in a way that points more accurately to bloodless coups than to above-board elections. And I have slowly come to feel that there is a bizarre, frightening possibility that the official version of 9/11 was in fact a contrivance, to cover the manufacture of a Pearl Harbor-type event which would justify a war that had been planned long ago. You may disagree with this, and I fully expect that the usual wags will weigh in with their acquired Mudcat personas, and smear what I'm saying with bluster and tinfoil-hat jokes. So the fuck what. Have a ball. The questions that aren't going to go away, and which will continue to be posted on discussion boards, have to do with the fact that what we were told is full of holes. I have no answer, but I'm concerned about how it really does look, when I sift through the varieties of information that are circulating. And though the comment "Lynch says 9/11 is a lie" is itself a lie, I was glad to see the video this afternoon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Jeri Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:28 PM I still think he's been hangin' with the radiator people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:32 PM Those the ones who swear the moon landing never happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Jeri Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:34 PM Nope. Go rent 'Eraserhead'. Little people in the radiator that sing and dance. They seem nice enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:35 PM Warning! Tin Foil Hats INCREASE the brain damage by focusing the radiation (grounded or not!) - the real world tests with real instruments HAVE BEEN DONE - I've posted the real link before... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: bobad Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:42 PM They're the ones who say that "in heaven everything is fine." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM The "plane at the Pentagon" bit has been beaten to death! *WITNESSES* saw the plane....pieces of the plane were found. ...The walls of the Pentagon were stouter than the outer walls and wings of an aluminum airplane! It was sheared and squeezed and disintegrated! Like throwing a tomato hard against a thin piece of sheetrock! What IS it with folks who have a pre-digested idea of what is likely, then twist evidence to fit their theory? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM Its easy Bill... (Puts fingers in ears) La la la, la la la, la la la... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:03 PM I am in 100% agreement with catspaw Now lets discuss this for another 45 hours... As a hypnotist, a hypnotic subject, a witness to illusionist misdirection and a subject in cognitive interaction experiments, I can say conclusively that anyone can be misled even if they are eye witness to events. As far as the black boxes are concerned I have heard every possible combination of recovered boxes from 0 to 6. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,lox Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:11 PM I'm always hard on the conspiracy advocates. I'd like to compare us to the children of an abusive parent. They want to trust their parent and to believe that everything is going to be fine. If you say to them "you're being abused" they'll turn round and fight you tooth and nail with genuine and admirable loyalty till you shut up or take your words back. Psychologically speaking, they dissociate from the actions of the abusive parent, since comprehending the possibility that they might be in an abusive situation, with the one person who is most trusted to look after them, is more than they can handle. Just a thought after seeing David Lynch's head shaking. Perhaps the glee with which I punish conspiracy theorists, and with which many others here do too in their own special ways, is a little exaggerated to the point of being a bit manic. What reactions ... ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:40 PM Right you are, lox: "They want to trust their parent and to believe that everything is going to be fine. If you say to them "you're being abused" they'll turn round and fight you tooth and nail with genuine and admirable loyalty till you shut up or take your words back. Psychologically speaking, they dissociate from the actions of the abusive parent, since comprehending the possibility that they might be in an abusive situation, with the one person who is most trusted to look after them, is more than they can handle." If you tell folks that you think there's anything odd about their government's response to a fishy event, they label you a conspiracy nut. If you suggest that they're being abused by their government, well,... read the above circle-jerk of posts in response to an earnest comment that seems to have been more than they could civilly handle. Time to celebrate, you clever, clever folks. You're rid of me... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Grab Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:43 PM Suppose you don't agree with *any* of the points in the video? Then what? We're five years on and every one of these things has been done to death. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:44 PM Don't Bogart that joint.............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:26 PM These things havent been done to death. They haven't been done. The coverup investigation answered nothing. there has BEEN no investigation. The conspiracy is to believe that the Cavemen of Tora Bora forced NORAD to stand down. The conspiracy is to believe that "19 men with box cutters" flew leisurely over the US for over an hour before "striking a blow for Allah." The truth is that half the supposed hijackers were seen at bars the night before the hijackings. Half of them were trained at U.S. govt facilities. So, Arab men trained at US facilities, out at the titty bars the night before they go to heaven...nah. They just boarded the planes as usual, like they had no telling how many times before, thinking Sept 11 was just another drill. And it was until Dick Cheney flipped the switch to go live. Another Hollywooder, James Woods, saw "Lead Hijacker" Mohamed Atta and some of his cohorts on a flight a few weeks before 9-11. When he reported them acting suspiciously, the FBI told him to shut the hell up for "national security" reasons. So, all these years later, no questions answered, people DESPERATELY wanting to believe the lies they're fed by TV, but knowing something's not right. Then Lynch comes along. Whatever else the guy is, he's smart. He makes money in one of the most competitive fields in the world. He's pragmatic. But he's relegated to the Tin Foil Hat crowd when he expresses doubts about 9-11. Fine. Discredit THIS guy too. He founded the Marine Corps Intelligence Center. In a review of Webster Tarpley's book "Synthetic Terror" he says: The author draws on historical examples of US fabrication of threats (e.g. the bombing of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor) and many others (Jim Bamford publicized Operation Northwoods). It is an undeniable fact that the U.S. Government has been willing to kill its own citizens and fabricate attacks as part of moving the public. The author suggests that there is no conclusive evidence that 9/11 was of foreign origin, and to the contrary, quite a bit of evidence that the hijackers had been trained at US military bases, protected by the CIA and FBI, and that the end result of their actions--including controlled flying into buildings and controlled demolitions bringing down three towers, one of which was not hit at all, all suggest a US-based conspiracy. The author is compelling in his review of the conflicts of interest for each of the 9/11 Commissioners and key staff; he is conclusive in his damnation of their performance and their refusal to be tough with NORAD, the FAA, and many other Executive organizations that refused to cooperate; and he is conclusive on his suggestion that all actual evidence points to the Pentagon being hit by a missile rather than an airplane. The author is especially compelling in condemning Rudy Guilliani as part of the conspiracy, and as the "bud" of the extreme right charged with cleaning up the crime scene. Instead of making the area off-limits, Gulliani moved aggressively to "scoop and dump" to the point that firefighters rioted. I sit here, a 54-year old, liberally educated, two graduate degrees, war college, a life overseas, 150 IQ or so, the number #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, a former Marine Corps infantry officer, a former CIA clandestine case officer, founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Center, and I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers. I believe it sufficient to indict Dick Cheney and other neo-cons. Sadly, the Executive is now in the service of corporations that benefit from high crimes and misdemeanors, rather than in the service of the American people who suffer great ill from these terrible mis-deeds. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20061024220731799 HUNDREDS of intelligence analysts are saying that 9-11 was an inside job. Are they wrong too? Lynch just brings more attention to the issue than some grunt can. Lynch is much, much more brave than I ever suspected. Kudos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:57 PM Twin Peaks. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:15 PM GUEST, hang in there. The events of 9/11 stink. Too much not explained very well. I would still like an investigation to take place, even these many years after. You recall what you were doing, Here's what BUSH was doing. Odd, even if not strange. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:48 PM Robert David Steele That's the name of the man quoted above. He founded the Marine Corps Intelligence Center and says 9-11 was an inside job. I heard him interviewed, and he lamented the "opposition" party in the US (the Democrats) took the impeachment of our Republican Executives off the table. He also said the justice system is so corrupt that the only way the gangsters running the country can be disposed of is to do something like South Africa did. Form a "Truth and Reconcilliation" commission and hold hearings. Grant immunity for all criminal activity, but get people to come forward and tell their stories. That way, in the US, the agents who have been blackmailed into carrying out and covering up terrorist acts couldn't be punished. And if Cheney and the others refused to testify, then let the testimony of their subordinates condemn them. Such hearings wouldn't have the power to punish, but once it came out what the govenment terrorists did, they'd be history. Interesting idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:30 PM Oh, this is good: Daughter of 9/11 Flight Pilot Is Found Dead After a Fire Five years after her father's plane crashed into the Pentagon in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a woman was found dead yesterday in a fire at the Galaxy Towers apartment complex in Guttenberg, N.J.... Mr. DeFazio said the fire, which law enforcement officials are calling suspicious, began shortly after midnight... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06fire.html (Her daddy was in on the pentagon plane scam) Flight 77 aka N644AA, Amber Sky, TRICARE Chic Burlingame was captain of most controversial flight AA77.... According to the official database of BTS, the wheels of AA77 never took off. Which plane was really tracked on radar? Flight 77 may have been already exercised, during Operation Amber Sky in June 2001, at Dayton. If one carefully follows the animated route edited from the original Flight Explorer animation, you see that the white text "data block" for flight 77 shows a sudden altitude fluctuating down from 350 (35000 ft) to 312 and back up again all at the same spot. Could we be looking at two planes here? Later, at around 8:56 the plane appears to stop in south Ohio and suddenly reappears slightly further along its flight path then the blip stops moving again (9:07 AM). AFB Dayton is only some miles away. It is more than obvious, that the official tail, connected with AA77, was hid by flying with no transponder into a "no primary radar" area. It may have landed at a base or airport out West. The official Flight 77 (with another tail!) disappeared from the radar over southern Ohio (8:57) http://911search.bravehost.com/lost_war_drills_11.html (Chic Burlingame flew flight 77 west, off the radar, while the drone took over. He then sipped margaritas for 5 years, until his daughter threatened to talk. And to kill her, they knew they'd have to kill him first, so rest in peach Chic. So much for serving the gangster elite.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Gza Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:02 PM The official explanation that Al Queda did it all by themselves is itself a conspiracy theory, and one that appears to have some serious holes in it. One might wonder if it was a story someone made up. So why are you not all having a ball making fun and smart cracks about that and calling the government guys who presented it to us in their official report the "tinfoil hat" crowd? Hmmm??? Or is it only other people's conspiracy theories which can be safely ridiculed? "Oh, the government wouldn't lie to us...would they?" I mean, hey! Have they every been known to lie before???? Have they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Gza Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:08 PM And how did they arrange for a neat controlled demolition of the 3rd building? It takes days or even weeks to set up such a demolition, not an hour or two. It takes a lot of planning in advance and a lot of professional personnel who know exactly how to do it. And it came down just like the first two did. A perfect controlled demolition. Whole building collapses into its footprint. Matter of fact, the only thing that could have brought down those 3 buildings in that fashion was highly professional controlled demolitions...not getting hit by airplanes, and not getting weakened by burning jet fuel. But you'd just rather not think about that, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,yes Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:22 PM It often seems that regulars like Jeri, pdq, Catspaw, and Foole all consider this to be their site, and if they've read it before in any form it's old news. Well, you're pretty boring yourselves; prattling on while others try to discuss something that does still stink, and is still profoundly disturbing. Seriously, gang, if you can't hang with the topic, go to another thread. And Graham/Grab, if you don't agree with any of the points in the video, and feel it's been "done to death", then put your attention someplace the fuck else. Cynical chickenshit commentary has been done to death around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:28 PM Yes. "The Cavemen of Tora Bora and their Nineteen Box-Cutters" is like something out of the Arabian Nights. A story for children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:33 PM http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002187.htm The James Woods story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:12 AM The James Woods Story: "Several weeks before the attacks, the actor James Woods was in the first-class section of a cross-country flight to Los Angeles. Four of his fellow-passengers were well-dressed men who appeared to be Middle Eastern and were obviously travelling together." Anything particularly sinister in this, a group of four well dressed men travelling together in first class?? Anything worthy of note - none so far as I can see at this point. "I watch people like a moviemaker," Woods told me. "As in that scene in 'Annie Hall' "-where Woody Allen and Diane Keaton are sitting on a bench in Central Park speculating on the personal lives of passers-by. "I thought these guys were either terrorists or F.B.I. guys," Woods went on." Hmmmmmmmm? So someone who makes his living from fantasy and fiction makes the highly fanciful assumption that "these guys were either terrorists or FBI guys". Just exactly how would Mr James Woods recognise either? By what some Hollywood director told them they might look like. Up to this point exactly how many real life FBI guys or Terrorists had Mr.Woods met? "The guys were in synch-dressed alike." You mean business suits, shirts, ties, stuff like that? How do businessmen in first class normally travel? "They didn't have a drink and were not talking to the stewardess." No shit Sherlock!!! The observant Mr. Woods has already noted that these four men were of middle-eastern appearance and now he regards the fact that they didn't have a drink as being suspicious. "None of them had a carry-on or a newspaper. Nothing." News for Mr. Woods; Like a number of others I have office locations in a number of places depending upon how many projects I am involved with at any given time. In travelling to attend meetings, presentations or whatever, Mr. Woods would find me travelling with no carry-on luggage and no news paper - anything I need for my meeting or presentation would have been transferred ahead electronically. Now as these four respectably dressed men in first class were not drinking, or harassing the flight attendants, or reading newspapers/magazines, Woods concluded that the men were "casing" the plane. What else would they have to do apart from sleep, or talk to one another, other than look round their surroundings - this might be mistaken for them "casing" the plane. "The James Woods Story" absolute crap, scraps of memory fitted to a situation after the event. The IDing of the two men from the photographs, how many photographs were shown, how many of those photographs were of "controls" (i.e. people known NOT to been on that flight and who are known to have nothing whatsoever to do with the incident/investigation). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Jeri Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:36 AM I don't have a problem with the thread, and find the development of urban legends and discussion of theories such as this quite interesting. I enjoy Lynch's movies, but I've always thought he was just a tad eccentric. The cynics are on the conspiracy theory side of this. 'Chickenshit', yes. Something which most people would just ignore. In any case, I'm done, but you may wish to continute on your own for a bit. J, BTW, the log says 'hi'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Grab Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:37 AM Oh, not the "Cavemen of Tora Bora" bullshit again. Yeah, right, they're cavemen. Of course. Cavemen that managed to beat the crap out of the entire Soviet army, using RPGs, machine guns, trucks and tanks. And Graham/Grab, if you don't agree with any of the points in the video, and feel it's been "done to death", then put your attention someplace the fuck else. Cynical chickenshit commentary has been done to death around here. If your conspiracy theory can't handle people pointing out the vast gaping holes in it, put your attention someplace else where you won't have that unwanted pressure of rational scrutiny. Oh, and you want to draw attention to that woman's death, do you? Let's see. 265 people on the four planes. Let's suppose each has roughly 8 close relatives (parents, siblings, partners, children), to pick a number out of the air, who'd get media attention. That gives us 2000 people under the media spotlight. Now tell me with a straight face that over a 5-year period, some of those 2000 people are not going to be mugged or murdered or commit suicide. I'd honestly find it more curious if all those 2000 people *didn't* have anything happen to them. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:44 AM These cavemen Arabs are just too stupid to be able to have done that. I dislike both the tone and the implication of such an argument. Some posters here seem to think that from knowing what a conspiracy is and from knowing what a theory is they can deduct what a conspiracy theory is. They are wrong. The theory that OBL is behind the attack is not a conspiracy theory in the sense this expression is usually used. There is no need to repeat myself, you can read what I have posted about conspiracy theories here. These dreaded GUEST threads are valuable mostly for instances of errors in thinking and arguing. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:52 AM Don't you love how the troll who is posting these notes refuses to listen to any other explanation, disregards witnesses, refuses to answer questions that might poke holes in his/her theory - and then has the balls to accuse us of not keeping an open mind and telling us that we would "rather not think about that, right?" You are just a hopeless hypocrite that only looks at what they want to look at. You live in a fantasy land and love these fairy tales. Of course they are unanswered questions, but it does not point to a conspiracy no matter how hard you try. You don't even have the guts to stand behind the so-called evidence you post. Chickenshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:11 AM A conspiracy is a conspiracy. Some conspiracies involve terrorists or criminals or executives getting together and plotting things, some involve agents of governments getting together and plotting things, some involve combinations of different types of conspirators. Any theory about this kind of thing is a conspiracy theory. Some theories are convincing, some are possible, some are absurd. But limiting the term "conspiracy theory" to theories about government involvement, with an implication that that never happens doesn't really make much sense. Right now there are all kinds of theories about the murder of a man called Litvinenko, and the ones implicating agents of the Russian Government are seen by a lot of people as fairly plausible. But I don't think anyone would deny that it is a "conspiracy theory". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:19 AM Yeah, McGrath, that's what I mean. Any theory about a chaos is a chaos theory. And if I know what a disc is and I know the word 'hard' then I can talk about hard discs. Sometimes it does not suffice to know the components of an expression to be able to use that expression in the same way it has been introduced originally. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: jeffp Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:38 AM Just as an asshole is not necessarily a rectum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:40 AM A long read--memory can play one false, or be made to play one false. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Dec 06 - 12:57 PM So doesn't the theory that postulates that Putin was involved in the murder of Litvinenko the other week count as "a conspiracy theory" Wolfgang, since there is a real possibility that it might be the truth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:20 PM Can't discuss nothing serious at the playground. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:32 PM Interesting how people keep trying, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:33 PM The FBI's Most Wanted poster for bin Laden doesn't mention any link to September 11. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm Mentions a bombing that killed 200, but not the WTC thing. Hmm. So, those who say he was involved in 9-11 are part of a conspiracy theory. Must be a theory, or it'd be on the poster. And the Deputy Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, said when he retired a while back that we should leave bin Laden alone. "THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency's recently departed executive director. If the world's most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB "Buzzy" Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA's third most senior executive." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316946/posts This is the same Buzzy Krongard who was involved in stock manipulations just before 9-11. Record put options agains American and United Airlines: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090601putsshorts It's interesting that I run into this denial so often. A lot of you are like kids leaning against a closet door, your eyes closed, saying to yourself, "there are no monsters, there are no monsters, there are no monsters." Normally cute, and true, but you have bona fide psychopaths on the other side of that door tonight, kiddies. This U.S. govt is the same one that gave smallpox-infected blankets to American Indians, blew up the battleship Maine to start the Spanish-American war, fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and now they're leaning on your door ready to chew your heads off because you can't face the truth about 9-11. But you DO have the power to make the monsters disappear. It will mean you have to stop embracing the obvious lie that 19 drunks with box cutters stumbled from the titty bars to the cockpits of incredibly complex planes and got NORAD to stand down. More people are becoming aware of the truth every day. Your support of the terrorists in the seats of government will soon be regarded as treason. Get right while you can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:38 PM Fuck all this conspiracy shit Guest......Let's hear more about the titty bars! Feel free to talk.....We won't let the boogeyman get you here. .............what a tool................... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:39 PM It's all the fault of that giant spider that lives in the sewers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:46 PM Why isn't September 11 mentioned on bin Laden's Most Wanted poster? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:52 PM A definition of "conspiracy theory" from dictionary.com: A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. So, since bin Laden is not wanted in connection with 9-11, it is your THEORY that he was involved in the incident. That makes the govt's official story the conspiracy theory. And this convoluted type of semantics isn't by accident. Just one more calling card left by the perpetrators. They have SERIOUS disdain for you. They tell you they did it every way they can think of because they're positive you're too gutless to do anything about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:56 PM Do the dogs barking in your head get louder as the sun goes down? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:58 PM No, I think after sundown they begin to call him on the phone. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 07 Dec 06 - 02:10 PM "It's interesting that I run into this denial so often. A lot of you are like kids leaning against a closet door, your eyes closed, saying to yourself, "there are no monsters, there are no monsters, there are no monsters." " You are so full of shit it is leaking out your ears, which is perhaps the reason you refuse to listen to other opinions. 1. The "insider trading" is not proven. The trading was not unusually high as you and others are making it out to be. 2. Krongard was not involved with the companies at the time, yet his picture is plastered in the story. 3. Try this FBI link - http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm The link you gave us forgets to mention that this poster is from 1999! There is a lot to the story that we do not know, yet YOU are the one who draws conclusions even when there is overwhelming evidence to the opposite. Keep an open mind, not a slanted perspective to fit your fantasy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 02:16 PM "...connected with AA77, was hid by flying with no transponder into a "no primary radar" area. It may have landed at a base or airport out West." umm-hmmm...we didn't SEE it fly...we didn't SEE it land "out west"...that proves 'they' hid it well. You can't win with conspiracy theorists, as almost all their ideas would require 'proving' a negative to contradict them. If I claim seriously that aliens from planet Flasgerbiel destroyed all those buildings, how can you 'prove' they didn't? I may as well start a rumor that folks with security companies hired some Muslims to hijack those planes to ensure plenty of business for the foreseeable future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Wesley S Date: 07 Dec 06 - 02:59 PM I'm just grateful that "Guest" and Shambles don't have any personal communication. If they put their heads together they would soon figure out that the "Current Head Of The Mudcat Editing Team" is the actual culprit behind 9/11. And that all of his edits and deletions are necessary to keep it all under wraps. No matter how many members of the team drop by to leave clues on this website they can count on TCHOTMET {The Current Head Of The Mudcat Editing Team} to cover it all up. The truth is out there. Way, way out there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 03:01 PM .......ohmygawd...................Wes, I think you're really on to something here. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: jeffp Date: 07 Dec 06 - 03:15 PM And of course Snitchers' Corner is the secret communications backchannel for the conspirators. There have to be conspirators. Can't have a proper conspiracy theory without conspirators. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Wesley S Date: 07 Dec 06 - 03:15 PM Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......................... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM Y'all can slag GUEST and me as much as y'all want. Just remember: they laughed at Charlie Chaplin, too. AND, I would still like to see the whole 9/11 thing investigated by a Government that is more trustworthy than the one y'all have at present. Until then, I agree with GUEST. Something is rotten. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:33 PM I certainly agree Peace .... there are a lot of unanswered questions and open ends ... and definately something is rotten. There are those that believe (and believed) the Warren Commission was the manifesto on the Kennedy assissination. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM Bill D - "You can't win with conspiracy theorists, as almost all their ideas would require 'proving' a negative to contradict them." Ah. So I guess that means that those of us who challenge the US government's own official cospiracy theory about 911 can't win, right? So we should just all shut up and stop questioning the official conspiracy theory line that Big Brother feeds us, right? I mean, hey, does the government EVER lie to its electorate? LOL! And if they did lie about something as big as 911, would they not move heaven and earth to make sure we didn't find out...and go after the men who lied? Would they be willing to kill to cover up such a lie? You bet they would. That third building in New York came down by a controlled demolition, one that there was no adequate time to prepare unless it had been prepared well in advance. No airplane hit it. Someone had it wired and prepared with explosive charges to "take out", probably because it was the control center for taking out the first two, and there was a lot of incriminating evidence in there that had to be covered up, pronto. That's my conspiracy theory, and it's every bit as good as the one you choose to believe that came from the official 911 Commission. Maybe better, in fact. And unlike them, I have nothing to hide and no one to protect, because I'm just a little unimportant guy who doesn't count for zilch in the echelons of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM Many people here who say that conspiracy 'theorists' are crazy as batshit are also people who think--and have stated--that the US Government lied about Iraq. Huh. Go figger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:10 PM It's just the usual thing, Peace. The average human being, once he has taken up any position whatsoever on any subject whatsoever, will defend it forevermore with the tenacity of a pitbull...because it is his accustomed position, and his ego is now and forevermore involved in defending it. He has an emotional investment to defend! And his pride is on the line. That's how egos work. That's what kept the USA in Vietnam so long. And that's how fraudulent political parties keep a lot of people voting for them for an entire lifetime. Note how Bush continues to cling doggedly to a line that has become discredited almost everywhere. His ego is involved, and like the pit bull, it does not want to let go of the first thing it decided to sink its teeth into. That would be "giving up". That would be "losing". With such stubborness entire empires have gone down to destruction...time and time again. They'd rather lose it all than admit to having made a mistake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:21 PM "That third building in New York came down by a controlled demolition, one that there was no adequate time to prepare unless it had been prepared well in advance. No airplane hit it. Someone had it wired and prepared with explosive charges to "take out", probably because it was the control center for taking out the first two, and there was a lot of incriminating evidence in there that had to be covered up, pronto. That's my conspiracy theory, and it's every bit as good as the one you choose to believe that came from the official 911 Commission. Maybe better, in fact." What about proof? I never saw my parents put the presents under the tree so that means there HAD to have been a Santa Claus. I agree, the official reports stink, but the evidence required to have controlled demolitions without anyone witnessing the careful placement required is just too far fetched. If someone, anyone, could come up with a logical description of how such a controlled demolition of these buildings, I would appreciate it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,lox Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM My problem with the whole controlled demolition thing is; why bother. Thousands of people are about to die anyway as a result of the explosion, why go to the bother of making it a controlled one? That's what you do when you want to make it safe ... yes ...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:28 PM "That third building in New York came down by a controlled demolition..." oh crap!....you haven't read the explanations of why & how a building right beside the towers was damaged and set afire by the explosions and collapse of two huge buildings? Yes, I have seen the photos purporting to 'show' puffs of smoke, etc...POOH! "I mean, hey, does the government EVER lie to its electorate? " sure it does!...Does that mean that everything they say IS a lie? Do you really believe they would cause themselves all the headaches they now have ON PURPOSE? Yeah, I know they're dumb about some things, but BLOW UP billions of $$$$ worth of real estate and kill 3000 people (it could easily have been 10,000) for some vague nefarious political purpose? Look at the ENORMOUS amount of unproven premises you have to believe (about the Pentagon, the Towers, the plane in Pennsylvania, the govt., the Jews, the physics of buildings, the 'access' required to 'wire' several building for demolition...then cover it up with aircraft flights..... Does NO ONE see the importance of Occams Razor when trying to make sense of these things? sheeeesh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:28 PM If the 'third' building wasn't brought down, WHY did it come down? It sure as hell wasn't hit by anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:29 PM LOL.....Well Peace, I think 6 said about what I was going to........... Believe me, I am all for an investigation as I am dead nuts sure we haven't gotten the whole truth. And I'm one who believes that we still haven't gotten the truth out of the Kennedy killing or Vietnam or Ruby Ridge for that matter. My problem with so many conspiracy folks is they are sorta' like Oliver Stone doing "JFK." Christ, a lot of the Kennedy conspiracy types beleive that everybody and their Great-Aunt Fanny was involved.......and it becomes ridiculous. I can see how a single bullet made the proper trajectory based on seating positions, etc. But no one bothers to address the "pristine" bullet fact.....they all go for the single bullet theory. That's another story. We all tend to love a conspiracy and look for them everywhere. And 9-11 is no different. I have seen excellent explanations covering I think all of the crap on the film. But I still believe there IS something wrong and that's the "How" did we get there, to that sorry state of affairs, to begin with? And what about our Saudi connections, especially through the Bush family........Yeah....I got a few unanswered questions. But when the theorists begin seeing sinister things in every frame of film and every account, then I figure they need a vacation from the tin hat squad. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:30 PM That building was NOT on firre, Bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:31 PM To say that the US government may have engineered 9/11 is hardly a "conspiracy theory", any more than it's a "conpiracy theory" to suggest that BushCo engineered the Florida vote count. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:35 PM Floors 5 and 7 of WTC 7 were on fire. Neat that kerosene could melt steel and cause the structure to collapse. Someone ought to tell the smelting companies. Huh. Floors 5 and 7. Huh!? FIVE and SEVEN? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:36 PM Occam's Razor indeed! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:43 PM Sorry Peace, but the building was hit by debris and there WERE fires. Numerous civil engineers, including independent engineers not connected with the commission, have reported on how the structure made it vulnerable. Also, from what I've read and been told, controlled demolitions begin at the bottom of a building and not at the top. This enables the building to collapse inward and truly be "controlled". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:53 PM With respect, Ron, , forget the commentary on this link, but look at the first video. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:54 PM *sigh*...thanks, Ron...my fingers were getting tired explaining... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:05 PM Here is a view y'all won't like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:44 PM http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm Okay, I'm looking at this FBI Most Wanted poster for bin Laden. Revised in November, 2001. Exactly WHERE does it mention September 11? Let me look again. Nope. No mention of Sept 11. So I stand by my original statement. You people who believe he did 9-11 are being played for chumps. No mention of the incident on his wanted poster, and the former Executive Director says it's time to move on. For you to BELIEVE bin Laden did 9-11 requires a leap of faith. Faith in a federal govt that disseminated small-pox infected blankets to... Why go into all that again? If you "believe" but can't prove Ossama "conspired" to do 9-11, then you're a conspiracy theorist. The FBI itself is hitting you over the head with that, not me. Given the track record of the U.S. govt, I choose not to believe their theory. There needs to be an impartial investigation of 9-11. Goss and Graham, the 2 congressional heads of the 9-11 Commission, were having breakfast on 9-11 with Mohamed Atta's "money man" fer chrissake. Do some research. So, is it television that does this to you true believers? Has the brainwashing become that sophisticated? This inpenetrable denial is very interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:34 PM "without anyone witnessing the careful placement required" Indeed, Ron. Such careful placement would have been done weeks ahead of the actual incident, and it would very easily have been camouflaged as routine maintenance activities, moving of office furniture, renovations, whatever.... And no one would have noticed a thing in all probability. But as a matter of fact a number of people in the two larger buildings DID notice unusual activities for weeks prior to 911, with very heavy items of some kind being moved around on supposedly completely empty floors of the building (audible above their heads, since they were in lower floors), floors to which the ordinary public could not even get access because the elevators were not possible to open on those floors, mysteriously enough. My, my. And other things were noticed besides that like an awful lot of strange dust accumulating in the front lobbies, but I haven't got time for it all. There was a lot of unexplained "maintenance" activity going on in buildings 1 and 2 for weeks, I don't know about building 7, and people sure did wonder what it was about. None of them ever found out. You ask ME to provide proof? I'm a guy living in a small town in Canada. But believe me, there IS proof out there and you have to go and look for it yourself. There's a ton of info about it out there if you look around. I'm sure some of that info is incorrect. I'm pretty sure also that some of it is right on the mark. The reason people aren't willing to consider it is the same reason they're not willing to consider anything else somewhat outside their normal set of assumptions...and whose "proof" will they believe? Why, most of them will believe what they hear on the 6 O'Clock News, right? They believe Big Brother. And that's as far as they'll ever go with it. I've seen film of those buildings coming down, and it tells me one thing: controlled demolition, carried out by experts. It's somewhat debatable in the case of buildings 1 & 2 if you want to ignore a lot of troubling questions and things on film. It's not debatable in the case of building 7, in my opinion. Never have I seen a more blatantly obvious example of a huge building neatly brought down in seconds by an expertly controlled demolition. That would require a large conspiracy, one hatched in the USA by Americans, and people in rather high places. The Neocons in the PNAC desired a "Pearl Harbour" type event. Without it, they could not persuade Americans to go to war. They got one. When you are solving a crime, Ron, you look first for probable motive...and that points you to the most likely guilty party...just about every time. There were other probable motives too. The WTC buildings were not making a profit. Had not been for some time. They were in the red. That was not going to change. Guess who cashed in on the insurance and dumped a couple of huge white elephants? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:40 PM Thanks Peace. I honestly did not remember it falling that way. I guess the images of the towers falling from the top down is too vivid. While it does look very suspicious, don't forget it was built over a Con Edison substation and there were fires going on. I would love to have an answer and I would love there to be proof that there was a conspiracy on someones part so that we could put this to bed. Unfortunately we do not have such proof at this point in time, and who knows if we ever will. Logic still prevails and I do have a hard time believing that this operation was a consipracy that was handled in the way all these theorists proclaim. To place that much explosives in buildings of that size would require a lot of work and a lot of cooperation. It would require more work than a group of Watergate burglars. Literally hundreds of people would be needed to make this work to such precision. If you have spent anytime in that area you would see how difficult it would be to pull off something of that magnitude. A group of terrorists hijacking 4 airplanes at the same time. Not that hard to pull off with some planning. Airport security in pre 9-11 days would not have been hard to get by. Boxcutters? Why not? The guest above was wondering about why the FBI poster for Bin Laden does not mention 9/11. The FBI requires indictments from federal grand juries, and Bin Laden has never been charged for 9/11 crimes because the investigation still goes on. Yes, I do find it very hard to believe that Bin Laden has not been captured. There is something unusual that we cannot find this man after 5 years. I am very suspicious about our actions, but I still have a hard time swallowing the theories that we helped orchestrate 9/11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:55 PM "When you are solving a crime, Ron, you look first for probable motive...and that points you to the most likely guilty party...just about every time." If that is the case, then Oswald had good motive to shoot Kennedy all by his lonesome. Case closed? Hardly. Sorry Hawk, but you have supposed one motive. This isn't an Agatha Christie story. Your motive requires a complicated maze of planning and partners. Your thought that "routine" activites could have been camouflaging the planning also could have been something else - route activities. You and I are not experts. I am guessing you have never witnessed a "controlled demolition", and neither have I. There were people involved who have - the NYC firefighters. These men and women are trained and have been around such activites in the NYC area in the past. Why is it that none of these individuals are supporting this theory? Because they see no evidence of it, and they were there. Do you think they support a coverup???? The type of conspiracy that you and others are pushing would require hundreds of individuals and organizations to be involved. I have yet to hear from anyone who says they were part of it. No whistleblowers. The complaints are coming from people like you, sitting in Canada and making up theories. Keeping an open mind does not mean drawing conclusions. As I've said, there are many unanswered questions. I won't draw uneducated conclusions that are beyond reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:56 PM here's one explanation...took me 15 seconds to find it. I could go back and find it explained even better, with diagrams..(In fact, I think I did in an earlier thread.) It makes sense, unless you don't WANT it to make sense due to some preconceived opinion. "WT7 collapsed because besides being structurally damaged to an unkown extent by the adjacent WTC collapse it then burned like a torch for hours. When the towers collapsed larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon., "Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." An accelerator to the fire was the two huge diesel tanks in the building. One tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Another larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock. Diesel fuel in a situation like that would burn somewhat under 1,000 C. but structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. Like the WTC the combination of physical damage to the structure along with decreased strength from the sagging steel were more than simply 1 lower floor could take, once one floor buckled the rest has to come down. If you watch the video it is clear that the bottom of the building fails and then the building simply falls into itself. The reason it might look to you like a controlled demolition is that buildings this tall have too much inertia to fall ANY WAY but straight down. This is exactly why the WTC both fell vertically. There were twisting forces but they were not nearly strong enough to cause any significant lateral movement in the 10 seconds it took the towers to collapse. Why NOT ship out the WTC steel, what are you going to do with it? The engineers KNOW why the buildings fell, they KNOW how they fell. They know how the rather unique skeltal design of the building was actually somewhat vulnerable to a long lasting fire. And they are all painfully aware that in a skeltal structure building the failure of any one floor except possibly the top few, will cause the entire structure to fail." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:59 PM I can certainly understand why people tend to go away from 'conspiracy theories'. They are difficult to believe. I have always wondered WHY Bush went into a funk in that Florida classroom. Did stuff go click in his mind? For example, had he been told that there would be good reason provided for him to invade Iraq? He, thinking good reason would be evidence that WMDs were for sure in Iraq, was suddenly faced with the reality that his 'friends' had caused the catastrophes he was witnessing? Why was the bin Laden family (seventeen of them I think) allowed to leave America without being questioned? Where are the remains of the Towers and Building 7? Are they available so that tests can be conducted on the steel itself to determine whether any sort of explosive residue remains? If, as Bill suggests, Occam's Razor is applied to this situation, then why isn't it applied? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:01 PM "So what did Larry Silverstein mean when he stated: "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." He could not have meant that they should "pull" the firefighters from the building because there weren't any firefighters in the building, at least according to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time. And if he meant "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? The argument that "pull" is not used to mean "demolish" a building is belied by the other footage in the PBS documentary. And consider the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:02 PM All these posts and no mention of Marvin Bush, Wirt Walker and Stratesec ?!?!?! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:03 PM By the way - I blame the Neocons for starting these theories. It takes the minds off the real issues and takes the focus off Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the world. Talented people are following dead ends and looking like fools, taking away their credibility. It serves to turn constructive work by real indpendents and changmakers and lump them into the wacko class. You are the vicitims of television and a good PR move that turns the left into clowns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:11 PM We seem to have reached an impass. Hope you're keeping well, Ron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:18 PM I forgot the e on that. There it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:28 PM You can forget "building 7." It was obviously brought down by demolitions. And in the end, the govt will reluctantly admit it was wired for demolitions. Wired for years. After all, they couldn't risk letting the regional offices of the CIA, FBI, BATF, IRS, etc. fall into the hands of terrorists. So when the time came, they "pulled" it. I hate to see attention being taken away from the Newtonian impossibility of WTC 1 & 2 falling without the aid of charges. The metal's been tested, the explosive residue is there, we all saw the controlled demolition but were hypnotized into thinking the laws of physics just didn't show up to work that day. Doesn't matter who "did" it so much now. Too many people have been killed to track an accurate story (see mention of Chic Burlingame above). What DOES matter is who covered up the event? Accessories after the fact. THOSE people are indictable. The trail of the coverup is Freedom of Information. Prove motive, prove criminal demeanor, prove coverup, the rest will fall into place. The coverup needs to be investigated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:30 PM There are New York firemen, Ron, who have said that they heard other explosions being set off in the buildings prior to their collapse. They even heard explosions going off in the sub-basement. Big ones. I've seen their comments on film and heard their comments on tape. But does it get reported on normal daily news? No. Does it get spoken about on mainstream media. No. You ask how something on this scale could be kept secret when hundreds of people had to be involved. Simple. You scare the shit out of anyone who might talk, and threaten their families. You make sure that the mainstream media do not report or talk about much except the official line. You don't have to keep it secret, you just have to keep it far enough below the ordinary consumer's radar that he will dismiss the occasional revelation he hears as "just another crackpot conspiracy theory". It's credibility that determines what people believe, not secrecy. There's plenty of info out that indicates demolitions and a government coverup, but it is not countenanced by the mainstream media in the USA, it's barely spoken of, and that is ALL that needs to be done to get most people not to consider it. Whatever they hear most often, that's what they believe. So who needs ironclad secrecy to cover up something likes this? All you need is an offical story, however unlikely, that is repeated 80 thousand times on TV, and THAT's what 99 out of 100 people will believe. It's that simple. By the way, I'm pretty sure there were a bunch of Arabs with boxcutters who hijacked some airplanes, and I'm dead sure some airplanes hit buildings one and two. It's dead obvious...but that does not mean those buildings were not taken down anyway by pre-planned demolition after the planes conveniently hit them in plain sight, right on schedule. It simply means that a bunch of Arab patsys were cleverly used to provide a "smoking gun" on live TV for the whole American nation to watch. That was needed for the "Pearl Harbour" effect to take hold. They needed an absolutely enraged nation, just like in December '41. Because of it, 2 completely useless wars have now been fought, Bin Laden has not been found, the people really responsible for what happened have not been exposed, and the USA has turned itself into a worldwide disgrace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: michaelr Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:32 PM "the implication that the government was behind the event is too big to consider." BULLSHIT! It is exactly what NEEDS to be considered. WTC Building 7 didn't fall down out of sympathy for its big brothers. It wasn't hit by anything, yet it neatly collapsed into its footprint just like the twin towers did. No two-bit gang of Arab flight-school flunkies could have achieved that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:34 PM " Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?" sure there is, without his explanation! I suppose one could ask HIM...but I'm still looking for evidence that anyone did, and what he answered. People can say a lot of things under stress, but to suggest that the clearest, most reasonable explanation is that some large group of people, knowing that this attack was coming, wired that building for detonation days in advance, then triggered it secretly, from an undisclosed location with no tangible evidence left over just boggles my mind! Just the "why" requires leaps of speculation beyond .....well...beyond. All this just because you 'don't trust & believe' the administration? I STILL fail to see any clear, simple explanation of what some of you think the whole business was about, much less 'how' they (whoever 'they' was) carried it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:35 PM Only problem with all these rather wild and fanciful theories is that it is incredibly difficult to maintain a lie and keep it secret. The generally held view is that the maximum number of people who can be "in" on that lie is three, any more than that and the lie/secret is impossible to maintain. Now for all this to have occurred with regard to the events of 911, 2001, how many people would have had to have been "in" on the conspiracy - thousands - not probable - not very likely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:38 PM Why couldn't a "two-bit gang of Arab flight-school flunkies" achieve that? You expect us to believe that hundreds of people were involved in this and no one has spoke out? Scared the shit out of their families? Please. I'm not saying it is impossible, just improbable. Give me proof. There appears to be more proof supporting the "flunkies" then there is for the rest. And don't give me that bullshit that I'm not reading the theories or refuse to accept it. I do read them, but they are so full of holes that it is hard to accept. People like to complain that we believe what we see on TV, but it is okay to believe what we read on some website without made up by someone sitting in their tarpaper shack in the woods. You gotta keep digging and not believe the first theory that comes around that seems to fit into your political view. Think! Don't believe the crap they feed us on the news, but don't accept the crap you read on the internet without seeing some evidence that isn't shoddy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:47 PM Good point Ron ... very good ... in the end we could be very surprised about the 'truth'. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: michaelr Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:49 PM And didn't I hear that Marvin Bush (the other brother) was in charge of security at the WTC, and that the explosives-detecting dogs were pulled out 3 days before the airplanes hit? How many coincidences can you credit? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Bush http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:50 PM Not days in advance, Bill. Weeks and months in advance. You aren't under any pressure, you just prepare the buildings well ahead of time and get them ready. The farther ahead, the better. Who will even notice what you're doing? Who will remember it or make the connection? You ignore intelligence sources (like the Israelis) who are trying like hell to WARN you that Al Queda is planning some kind of major attack in the USA using civil airplanes. You shut down FBI investigations that are trying to look into it. You let suspects walk free and take flight training. You turn a blind eye to what's going on, and you wait. When the terrorists fly, you are all ready for them...and you just cross your fingers and hope that they do it competently enough to hit the targets. And in case they don't, you keep some other big planes in reserve. It is very easy now to fly a jet plane remotely with computer controls and crash it into any damn thing you want to. You don't need one live human being on that plane. Child's play for those who know how. It's just as easy as flying a plane in a videogame, but a lot more expensive, of course. You know, a hell of a lot of people around the world think this American administration helped plan and orchestrate what happened on 911. That doesn't mean they were all in on it. Hardly. It just means some of them were in on it, some in high places. I would not be a bit surprised if Mr Bush was not in on it, and was taken by surprise. He certainly looked like he was taken by surprise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:57 PM Jeeez LH ... they could have used you to orchestrate the whole attack !! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: michaelr Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:58 PM Ron, I have not seen proof of any of the explanations being put forward. The point I and Little Hawk are making is that there is more than enough reasonable doubt concerning the administration's story. And it should be obvious to any open-minded observer that the 9-11 commission did not do its job thoroughly. Just ask the family of a victim whether their questions have been answered to their satisfaction. Cheers, michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:05 PM Well said. That, basically, is my point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:06 PM Alright! More fuel for the fire: Actor James Brolin, the husband of Barbara Streisand, has today become the latest celebrity figure to publicly question the official story behind 9/11, after he encouraged viewers of a top rated ABC talk show to check out a 9/11 truth website. Brolin appeared as a guest on The View Wednesday morning and according to e mails we have been receiving in numbers, towards the end of the show the actor questioned 9/11 and urged the audience to check out the website 911weknow.com , which is a website that purports to expose how the twin towers and Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, were brought down via controlled demolition. We have received multiple reports that The View, which airs live from the West Coast in Pacific and Mountain time zones, was pre-empted by breaking news of the study group on Iraq in Eastern and Central time zones. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/brolin_latest_celebrity_to_publicly_doubt_911.htm Time for you wusses to go into name-calling mode again. Won't do much good. For some reason people tune into this turdy show, so a few thousand more woke up after his appearance. Gotta love it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:17 PM Don't you guys have a washing machine to fix, some new chords to learn and try out, a good book to read (besides conspiracy shit), maybe try making some macrame crap for your aunts as Xmas gifts or something. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:33 PM So...if the FBI hasn't generated the proper paperwork to list Sept 11 among bin Laden's crimes, then it is just THEORY that he was involved. And since the official line is that he CONSPIRED with 19 men with box-cutters, we're back to this reality: People who believe the government's version of what happened on 9-11 are conspiracy theorists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:44 PM Years ago I questioned that conspiracies of this magnitude could exist at all. Hell, I am a student of history, fairly well-read in it, and I thought not so stupid as to fall into any ol' story that came along. I got to looking--for one reason or another that isn't cogent here--for the 'history' of the term New World Order. I was surprised to find that a Harvard prof had had the same idea. The term started being used over 100 years ago. Social engineering takes time. But it's 'starting' to happen. Pieces begin to fall into place. As always, the question needs to be asked: Cui bono? The answer is fairly clear I think. Big Business--define that how you will. It scares me to see Paul Wolfowitz become President of the World Bank. Think about that before you scoff at it. He was one of the authors of "The Project for the New American Century", a document worth reading because it is clear that the US has intentions to gain as much control as it can. I do not doubt that we will see the end of money as such and watch it replaced with electronic money, and with that all control over our personal economics will be lost. It is increasingly easier to make people disappear. (I don't mean a la Pinochet; I do mean disappear in terms of identity and ability to live. You want to see what that's like, lose your bank card next time you're outta town and cashless. Imagine someone who has decided you're a pain in the ass to their plans and poof, your credit cards are no good. Neither is your phone card. Your plastic just went to shit.) However, not too many folks see it that way, except maybe a few of us on the 'lunatic fringe'. Well, that's where I am. Lunatics complained when Newton brought in the 'gold standard'. Other lunatics complained when electronic banking came in. And yet other lunatics are questioning the Government of the USA because of 9/11. I suppose it would be one helluva lot easier to go with the flow. But then societies have always had their lunatics and for the most part we're a harmless lot. certainly not as harmful as the government many of you can't decide to trust or not. Such is life. It's interesting that you will accept trumped up bullshit for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the thought that your government might have lied to get y'all involved, but the deaths of under 5000 people in the US is a concept beyond your imagination because your government wouldn't do that. Heck, you are the same people who have posted your disgust about Guantanamo and how bad it was that America could possibly participate in shipping people to countries that ALLOW torture. Split-level reality. They are bad enough to get y'all into a war by lying to you. They are bad enough to kill a few thousand American soldiers so that Halliburton can make a few bucks. They are bad enough to lie and cheat their way into power. They are bad enough to bullshit your Congress. But they couldn't be bad enough to participate in something like 9/11, right? Right? So someone freakin' answer this: Why was the bin Laden family allowed to leave the USA without being questioned? Ah, forget it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rove--hell, just a bunch of guys with a few connections in the financial world who are seeking the best for America with no thought of making a dime themselves. Yeah, I see and I understand. Good evening, gents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:52 PM Right on the mark, Peace. That's the way I see it. Good night as well... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: michaelr Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:14 AM Good night and joy be with you all ;-) (obligatory folk music content) If you give up questioning, you give up the right to be a free man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Teribus Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:03 AM With regard to claims for responsibility for the attacks: "Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted involvement in the incidents. On September 16, 2001, bin Laden denied any involvement with the attacks by reading a statement which was broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation." This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide. In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in which Osama bin Laden is talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape bin Laden admits foreknowledge of the attacks. The tape was broadcast on various news networks from December 13, 2001. On December 27, 2001, a second bin Laden video was released. In the video he stated "Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people," but he stopped short of admitting responsibility for the attacks. Shortly before the U.S. presidential election in 2004 in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because, "We are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation." In a videotape aired on Al Jazeera on October 30, 2004, bin Laden said he had personally directed the 19 hijackers. Another video obtained by Al Jazeera in September 2006 shows Osama bin Laden with Ramzi Binalshibh, as well as two hijackers, Hamza al-Ghamdi and Wail al-Shehri, as they make preparations for the attacks." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:22 AM Of course if Bin Laden says it's so, it has to be true... And even if he was telling the truth, that wouldn't in itself exclude the possibility of other parties being involved, making sure it happened. On balance I tend to think it wasn't a conspiracy involving agencies of the US government, but that is on balance. I don't think there is anything intrinsically impossible in the suggestion that it might have been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Grab Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:59 AM And didn't I hear that Marvin Bush (the other brother) was in charge of security at the WTC, and that the explosives-detecting dogs were pulled out 3 days before the airplanes hit? How many coincidences can you credit? Well I've yet to see anyone saying there were explosives on the planes. And as for security in US airports being shite, I could point you at a whole bunch of reports from years beforehand saying exactly that. Europe has always taken airport security seriously, because there have been too many terrorists around not to (and ditto places like Israel with the same problems). Before 9/11, the US *never* took airport security seriously, because hardly anyone in the US ever thought the US could be a target of terrorists. They thought foreign policy wouldn't affect them, and they didn't believe people could hate the US for what the US did abroad. Boy, did they learn the hard way. :-( Imagine someone who has decided you're a pain in the ass to their plans and poof, your credit cards are no good. Neither is your phone card. Your plastic just went to shit. Yeah, that's always a major component of conspiracy-theory films. Can someone show me that ever happening in real life though? Back in reality, banks are just a little sensitive about having exactly the right authorisation before they give out people's details or freeze accounts. Yes, I've no doubt the government could get a judge to sign the right forms, but then it's a matter of public record that the government and the judge have done this. Peace, I've no doubt that there's a lot of profiteering going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've no doubt that the war in Iraq was started based on a lie. The difference is that the evidence for both of those is well out there, and there are major players in the administration who are saying as much. In other words, the bosses can and will fuck up all they want, but they can't stop their underlings from following their consciences and telling us the unpleasant truth, and they can't stop the press reporting what those underlings say. Now look at 9/11. The conspiracy theory supposes that the bosses *have* managed to stop every single one of the hundreds (and possibly thousands) of underlings involved from telling the unpleasant truth *and* they've managed to keep any related facts that might lead us to suspect something else out of the press. In spite of the proven inability of the government to control its underlings and the press. That's where it falls down for me. You're supposing that the government is so competent and so in-control that it can keep all this stuff hushed up, when every available piece of evidence shows that they can hardly find their arses with both hands and a map. In other words, you're supposing that they're evil geniuses *and* complete fuckwits at the same time. And that just can't be the case. Me, I go for the "fuckwit" hypothesis every time. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:09 AM "there is more than enough reasonable doubt concerning the administration's story. And it should be obvious to any open-minded observer that the 9-11 commission did not do its job thoroughly." There are two separate issues there. Yes, there is doubt about the administrations story and it should be questioned. At the same time, there is more than enough reasonable doubt to question these theories that would take enormous effort and cooperation - involvment with so many people that there is MORE THAN ENOUGH REASONABLE doubt to question how something of that magnitude could be pulled off. The "lunatic fringe" is so willing to pin the blame squarely on the government that they are accepting these theories without question. They are also more than willing to discredit Bin Laden because they would not give him credit to pull something like this off. The names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest are normally discussed in the same sentence with the word "simpleton", but yet the same people feel they are behind a plot that would have James Bond scratching his head. Come on, use some common sense and deductive reasoning. Don't accept the facts that were given to us by the commission but don't accept science fiction. Having James Brolin jump on the bandwagon certainly does not lend credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:23 AM I agree Ron ..... very good point here .. "The names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest are normally discussed in the same sentence with the word "simpleton", but yet the same people feel they are behind a plot that would have James Bond scratching his head." Enough of the dime store conspiracy theories .... one cannot rely on them for the truth. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:35 AM Brolin may not lend credibility, but he lends visibility. You can't kill everyone who discovers the truth. The 911 Commission report is a lie. Men involved in the attacks chaired it. Fortunately, the leaks won't stop. FBI agent Robert Wright talked about how he tried to warn his superiors the attacks were coming, then a couple of days later when asked about further developments he said he'd been ordered to shut up. And he added, "All I can tell you is that the bin Ladens and the Bushes vacation together." Field agents gagged, firefighters gagged at the risk of losing pensions, people dying unnatural deaths. The crime itself will never be sorted out, but the coverup can be. It is 100% public record. Why did the CIA and FBI chiefs gag their employees? Why did the White House block an investigation? Why were flight recorder tapes shredded? Etc. And who was responsible for the orders and actions? That's all public record. Oh, except for Bush/Cheney's non-oath secret testimony to the "commission." What crap. Force Clinton to give a deposition under oath over a blowjob, but then Bush and Cheney will only testify if not under oath and if they can limit the interview time and appear together. Could YOU set rules like that if you were suspected of killing 3,000? What are you conspiracy theorists who support the govt story afraid a real investigation will turn up? Investigate the criminal coverup. That'll get results. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:22 PM "hardly anyone in the US ever thought the US could be a target of terrorists." In the wake of Oklahoma? If that is really true, it does rather imply that there is "hardly anyone in the US" who is not astonishingly stupid. And I find that hard to believe. I'd be inclined to believe that the actuaries in the Airline companies worked out the statistics, and estimated that, on balance, it would be cheaper to keep security at a low level, and to accept the risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:25 PM I repeat what Ron Olesko said: "You expect us to believe that hundreds of people were involved in this and no one has spoke out? Scared the shit out of their families? Please." I repeat what *I* said: " I STILL fail to see any clear, simple explanation of what some of you think the whole business was about, much less 'how' they (whoever 'they' was) carried it out." If that court in California failed to convince 12 jurors that O.J. Simpson was guilty, with the enormous amount of evidence that showed he was, it is obvious that in a set of circumstances as complex as 9/11, someone will find 'coincidences' to support almost ANY silly theory! People's minds can be set to sort data to please themselves, independent of reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:39 PM An analysis of the 9/11 attacks by that biased, government dominated magazine . . . "Popular Mechanics:" Editor's introduction HERE. Beginning of the multi-page article HERE. Respectfully submitted for your information. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:54 PM Ron Olesko:"Having James Brolin jump on the bandwagon certainly does not lend credibility." Just because an individual you don't respect (Brolin, or Lynch,or you name it) has an opinion you don't respect, it doesn't follow that your point is all the stronger. And no one is "accepting theories without question". But being categorically unwilling to consider that there's something to them is just reactionary and willfully self-blinding. And it makes you look practiced at grabbing your ankles... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:00 PM "I do not doubt that we will see the end of money as such and watch it replaced with electronic money, and with that all control over our personal economics will be lost." I gotta admit I'm more than a bit worried about that development myself. The banks have been pushing the use of ATM cards for everything. Sure. They charge Interac service charges for using them at the grocery store. Even using the ATM at my bank branch results in a service charge now. Strangely enough, I get no service charges for using the increasingly shrinking "real people" teller service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:16 PM It is not necessary to prevent no one from talking. It is not necessary to cover up or block all the evidence that would implicate a US-based conspiracy and controlled demolitions of the buildings. None of that is necessary. All that is necessary is to make sure that the official explanation goes out on all the mainstream corporate news media and is not seriously questioned there, and goes to Congress and is not seriously questioned there. It then becomes popular mythology from that point on, and is believed by most people. So 95% of the public will the official line as the real version, evidence and leaks to the contrary will be scoffed at and ridiculed, and "Presto!" your coverup is well accomplished. All you have to do to achieve an effective coverup of govermental wrongdoing is fool most of the people most of the time. That has been done. This is standard method "when a government lies to a people and a country is drifting to war" (lyric from a Jackson Browne song called 'Lives in the Balance'). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:45 PM " "I do not doubt that we will see the end of money as such and watch it replaced with electronic money, and with that all control over our personal economics will be lost." Does it really matter if we have a few coins or paper bills in our pocket ... even the value of that is not in our control ... our personal economics was lost as soon as we deposited our pay into the bank, took out a mortgage. We even lost more control once we commenced paying property or income taxes ... as to dealing with 'real' people (that term has been popping up in the Cat lately) such as tellers, or even automated checkouts as is happening now in the Atlantic Superstores, I find that a more of an annoyance. As opposed to dealing than a 'real person' I prefer to deal with such matters face to face with an individual ... has anyone ever met a non-real person ?? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:50 PM Your call is important to us . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:54 PM "...has anyone ever met a non-real person ??" I've met many. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:03 PM Me too! ;-) More than a few, in fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM Popular Mechanics = Hearst Publication. Remember the Maine? In a cashless society, if you don't go along with the government, your credit will be cut off. And anyone helping you (all food will be tracked), anyone helping to feed you will be charged with aiding a terrorist. THAT'S the power of computerizing our finances. Worst idea in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:15 PM Yeah, I remember when Popular Mechanics wrote articles about paneling my recreation room. When did they get in the business of being a gonernment parrot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:47 PM Did anyone READ the article by Popular Mechanics? Look at the last page! Surely you are not suggesting that Hearst co-opted 300 experts in various fields and invented all that data? Those who 'suspect' all these conspiracies are simply taking the first half-baked story they hear, embroidering it with half-truths, quoting unconfirmed sources (which were later repudiated) and phrasing the result to match their own paranoia...then submitting it as 'undeniable truths' to the rest of the world. I tried to say above that Occam's Razor is a valuable tool in these cases, and Popular Mechanics has given us the 'simpler, more reasonable' answers that Occam suggests we look for....but that ain't nearly as satisfying as 'discovering' a complex conspiracy, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:01 PM an old "Peanuts" cartoon: Charlie Brown is walking along when he comes to Lucy, kneeling and looking at something on the sidewalk..."What are doing , Lucy?" "Charlie Brown--see this big black bug? Do you know why it's so much bigger than the others? Because it's the QUEEN!"..........so Charlie gets down and peers closely... "Lucy, that's not a bug...that's a black jelly bean!" Lucy gives him this LOOK and bends to scrutinize the bug again..."Why, so it is!...I wonder how a Jelly bean ever got to be queen!" ...I have met SO many Lucys in my time...they will just NOT have their favorite theories disputed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM There is a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, like that 'money' on Yap Island. "What's this?", asks Hagar. "That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!" ....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring.... "More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard. "There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!" --------------------------------------------------------------------- *grin*...it's all in making the facts FIT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:27 PM Nice diversion, but what's it got to do with 9/11, Bill? Popular Mechanics debunked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:40 PM Would people here please find some shots of the Pentagaon crash in which there is identifiable wreckage? Every other land plane crash in history leaves identifiable wreckage. I am assuming this one did, too. Seems also that the scene is roped off and the wreckage taken to a warehouse for inspection by experts. So, uh, where is the Pentagon wreckage? Somewhere safe I presume? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:41 PM "...has anyone ever met a non-real person ??" "Your call is important to us" It's a goddamned phone message Peace! And for those that have actually met a non-real person please describe them to me .... on second thought, don't bother. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:42 PM Fuck, while everyone's looking, how's about a few pics of the Pennsylvania crash and maybe some info on where THAT wreckage was taken to be examined and maybe some info on what the examination found out, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM Funny, Bill, I thought you were the one who was seeing a jellybean there on the sidewalk, and wondering how it got to be queen. ;-) You're right, most people do hate seeing their favorite theories disputed. Bush certainly feels that way, and I bet Blair does too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM And just who is Peter Meyer? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:07 PM Peter is the guy who asked some seriously difficult questions about the Popular Mechanics stuff. Who are all the PM folks, Don? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:11 PM BTW, it matters not who Peter is. What matters is the questions and remarks he made about the PM article. Hell, Don, experts can be made to say what their employers want them to say. Just ask the pharmaceutical companies. Or the Pentagon. Or the White House. Or, or, or . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:12 PM Oscar Meyer's brother? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:16 PM Why do conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor? "Conspiracy theories generally entail the opposite of Occam's Razor. That is, when explaining observations, the conspirators often propose more complicated explanations than the commonly believed story. Their conclusions often require us to believe in additional postulated events or factors for which there is seldom any direct proof. Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon.Conspiracy theorists always contend that if you don't agree with them, then you are either abysmally stupid or, one way or another, you are in on the evil conspiracy yourself. [Note the response to the "Popular Mechanics" article.] Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:16 PM I read 2-3 pages of that 'debunking' article, Peace, and I can't even begin to type fast enough, nor do I have the spare time to C&P all the relevant distortions, dissembling, 'sarcasm' passing for fact and plain subjective interpretation of clear information I saw in that short time. "Would people here please find some shots of the Pentagaon crash in which there is identifiable wreckage?" The plane (the one seen by dozens of witnesses) hit a VERY resilient stone building at 500 or so MPH...how big would you expect the pieces to be? **EXPERTS** looked at the smaller pieces, (mostly from the tail section), and identified them! Do *I* have to go on the internet and find the proof? I suspect that if you did a series of searches from the viewpoint of a believer rather than as a doubter, you WOULD find the evidence you refer to. I remember seeing many images of aircraft debris in the last couple of years that WAS identified as part of the right kind of Boeing aircraft. What do you doubt about the testimony of the expert who was there and helped pick it up? Why do you doubt the testimony of eye witnesses. (There was a taxi driver who said he thought the plane was going to hit him...he jumped out of his cab, as I remember, and saw the whole thing?) .....and I really, really, really get pissed at the idea that '19 Muslims could not have pulled this off'......we KNOW that several of them took flight lessons in this country...and that one guy tried but DIDN'T get lessons. We have recordings from Flight 93 of shouting in Arabic and prayers as the plane went down! We have cell phone conversations from passengers SAYING they were being attacked by hijackers... oh, never mind....I am wasting my time. ....but I still have not heard WHY so many of OUR people would conspire to do this....the Muslims had clear, if misguided, reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:24 PM Everybody on this thread is a conspiracy theorist, Don, including those who believe the 911 Commission's official version. ;-) Their theory about it is a conspiracy theory. It WAS a conspiracy, obviously, that brought down those towers and hit the Pentagon that day. It didn't just happen by accident. And the only question is which conspiracy(s)? And involving whom? You're all conspiracy theorists. (grin) Don't think you can dodge that fact just because I don't buy your particular conspiracy theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM I read the other day that no parts numbers have been listed for any of the planes from 9-11. Every part on a plane is given an I.D./serial number, for reconstruction purposes, yet no numbers have been assigned to any of the "parts" found at the sites. Also, none of the planes underwent the standard reconstruction procedure the FAA uses after a crash. No matter how few pieces there are, there's always a reconstruction. Didn't happen with ANY of the planes of 9-11. Coverup. John Swinden, 1953, then head of the New York Times, when asked to toast an independent press in a gathering at the National Press Club: "There is no such thing at this date of the world's history in America as an independent press. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write his honest opinion, and if you did, you know beforehand it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things. And any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allow my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it, and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and the vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks. They pull the strings, and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." But this was before the internet, tee hee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:28 PM LH...remember, it was Lucy who called Charlie Brown over and made a claim....I am in the position of Charlie. I had no reason to wonder what a jelly bean 'really' was. "The burden of proof is on the assertor." We had disasters. We have photos and admissions of those who say they planned the disasters. We have forensic evidence and careful studies to show the origins of that forensic evidence, When a claim is made that this data is wrong, we need more than some cobbled together assumptions and 'opinions' that the data is wrong. Sarcastic remarks that "it couldn't have happened that way" are just not convincing, unless you wish to BE convinced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:40 PM Could anyone answer as to why Mohammed Atta and one of his sidekicks decided to spend the night in Portland Maine, catching a commuter flight to Boston the next morning (9/11) ... why not spend the nite in Boston with the rest of the gang? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:40 PM Everyone wishes to BE convinced, Bill. Only...by whom? And of what? In that respect you and I differ when it comes to 911, and that causes us to seek out and be impressed by different evidence. It's okay with me. I accept the fact that you will probably never see it the way I do on this one. That's life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:46 PM Well, it is nice to see everyone getting along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:48 PM "I read the other day that no parts numbers ...." You READ? Do you KNOW? Who says so? Those elaborate reconstructions are done to figure out WHY a plane crashed of exploded...and usually, the plane is in some relatively defined space, even if broken up. Those planes crashed because some idiots intentionally flew them into buildings!. And most of the parts were mixed with 100 stories of building....how much 'reconstruction' would even be possible? Did you see the process of clearing the site... over many months? They identified some pieces that fell to the street, but...sheesh! Remember...an expert found the black box from the Pentagon site. What do you dispute about that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:51 PM "Conspiracy theorists always contend that if you don't agree with them, then you are either abysmally stupid or, one way or another, you are in on the evil conspiracy yourself. [Note the response to the "Popular Mechanics" article.]" yep, Don...you remind me of the ongoing 'conspiracy' to deprive us of the 100MPG carberator.....it never appears, so that PROVES it is being hidden. *grin* I could mention theories about Roswell and Area 51, too...but.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:00 PM Why does it bother you guys so much that my thoughts about 9/11 differ from yours? Gee, I won't say another word lest someone invoke Occam. Sheesh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:06 PM As for that flippant remark about witnesses: There are witnesses who just didn't get the same press as those who toed the party line. Firefighters who said they heard explosions. A seismic record that shows an explosion of some sort about eight seconds before one of the towers hit the ground. The debunking of the 'pancake' theory. But y'all just want YOUR witnesses, don't you! Sorry, guys, but I see things differently. Occam or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM And before wishing you all a good evening, I would like to say that the interesting thing about the 'eyewitness' accounts of the crash at the Pentagon is that about 85% (close--I didn't do the math, so make it 80% if that makes y'all feel better) of the witnesses mention that it was an American Airlines plane and a few even mention that it was a 757. THAT is great eyewitnessing. Really great! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:18 PM Bruce...It is not that they are yours OR that they differ....honest! I have NO doubt that you are sincere and concerned about your beliefs. It is that I flatly do not agree with either the evidence presented or the reasoning employed to come to those conclusions. It is not unreasonable to ask questions about important incidents, it is just VERY important not to allow your disdain for the current bureaucracy to affect your evaluation of the facts. I despise Bush, his cronies, and his agenda...and am embarrased by the troubles he and his supporters have gotten us into by arrogance, stupidity and just plain callousness....but I see NO clear evidence any of them would do this to their own country. (Occam is not a weapon...he/it is a tool to guide reasoning. If it had no name, it would still be a set of sensible rules for examining evidence.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:30 PM Okay, so the planes in NYC were beyond reconstruction. Please refer me to the sites showing the reconstructions of the Pennsylvania and the Pentagon planes. Some of you say there were parts all over the place in those locations, so just refer me to those reconstructions. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:41 PM Believe it or not, Bill, I know who Ockham (Occam) was: "Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora." The fact that something doesn't follow the path of 'least resistance' does not mean that it is impossible. Assume for a moment that the events of 9/11 are just as you say. I will, for the sake of wanting to ask a friendly question assume the events were lots like you say but maybe not quite. OK. One question, just one. You or/and Don mentioned eye witnesses. So let me ask this: What of the firefighters who were inside the tower who HEARD explosions. Not just one or two firefighters. LOTS of firefighters. What of them? Would William say it is easier to believe the one witness from Government who says there were NO explosions? Buddy, this is getting really twisted, ya know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:54 PM FAA reconstructions of crashed aircraft are for the purpose of determining what caused them to crash. And it's a bloody expensive process. If there weren't any such reconstrutions in these crashes, it's because the causes of the crashes are known. I didn't make that up. I worked for Boeing in the late Sixties to early Seventies (I did some of the installation drawings for 727s, 737s, and 747s) and there were often discussions of this sort of thing. Also, numbers are not stamped on the parts for reconstruction purposes. I have seen many parts as the new airplanes were being assembled, and rarely were there numbers stamped on any of them. I guess having been employed by Boeing at one time makes me part of the conspiracy. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:10 PM So where do you figure they kept the parts they collected? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:11 PM May I remind you once again, that you are ALL being loyal to one or another conspiracy theory? Therefore the making of smart cracks about "conspiracy theorists" is meaningless in this context. The 911 Commission's theory IS a conspiracy theory, and the people in charge of it were conspiracy theorists too. And like Peace said, there were numerous firefighters who attested that there were explosions occurring in other parts of those buildings nowhere near where the airplanes hit (including in the sub-basement), and you can see a camera shaking from the distant impact of a very heavy explosion a number of seconds BEFORE one of the towers begins to fall, and you can SEE puffs of smoke and debris from what are clearly separate explosions (placed as in a controlled demolition) occurring well ahead of the collapsing floors, and those building fell too fast (at freefall speed) for the pancake effect to be the sole cause of their falling. Looks like controlled demolition to me. I've seen films of a fair few of those, quite aside from 911. Looks like no other possible explanation to me, unless you are just not willing to give it consideration. There was a steel frame highrise in Spain which burned fiercely for about 24 hours...a very big hot fire over many floors, not a smouldering, smoking situation like you saw in the twin towers (which indicates limited combustion and a not particulary hot fire, as fires go). The highrise in Spain did not collapse. Its steel supports did not melt, despite a very hot fire that burned a hell of a lot longer than the fires did on 911 (prior to the buildings collapsing, I mean). I do not believe it was airplanes or burning jet fuel that brought those buildings down. They hit them all right, but they did not bring them down, in my opinion. As for building 7, you just have to watch it fall...and you know it's gotta be a controlled demolition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:34 PM Don Firth, Bill D, and others, you may as well give it up and go do something worthwhile. GUEST and Peace are True Believers and Little Hawk doesn't believe in Reality. To him, there are no such things as facts, only opinions. Any one opinion is just as valid as any other, and reality itself is merely a conspiracy (I think he said almost exactly that). Seeking the truth with these folks is like trying to gain traction on an oil slick studded with banana peels while wearing roller skates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:44 PM Occam would say you have really screwed up the simile. Too many words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:51 PM You're not the voice of sanity...you're the voice of predictable conventionality. Ho hum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:54 PM Ok ... I always bought the theory that the towers were 'somehow' deliberatley brought down intentionally by explosive devices out side of a fuel packed 767 slamming into them. Which brings me to mention the Stratesec theory. But can anyone tell me why Atta chose to drive up to Portland Maine for the night and catch the commuter flight to Boston?? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:58 PM 1. Occam wasn't necessarily a good judge of humorous images. 2. To some folks, sanity IS predictable conventionality. But if you'd care to try it sometime, sanity can sometimes surprise you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:59 PM Because the inflight snack was fresh Maine oysters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: bobad Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:01 PM "But can anyone tell me why Atta chose to drive up to Portland Maine for the night and catch the commuter flight to Boston??" I've heard them Portland girls will treat ya fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:02 PM We ALL believe we are the voice of sanity, pal. That's human nature. Everyone always thinks it's "the other guy" who is crazy... or inattentive...or naive...or just not quite on the mark. ;-) And you should know that. 6 - I haven't the slightest idea why Atta did that. No opinion whatsoever at this point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:03 PM "But if you'd care to try it sometime, sanity can sometimes surprise you." You'll be the first I ask about it. Keep well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:03 PM Keep going ... ya smart asses. :) biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: bobad Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:04 PM Everyone's nuts except you and me and sometimes I'm not too sure about you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:09 PM No, No, No ... it's certainly you bobad. But then again .... . . Naw .. it's gotta be you. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:11 PM It's him for sure. I posted a link to two naked blondes and all he saw was their antlers. What's THAT about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: bobad Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:13 PM biLL I was trying to make an illuminating comment on LH's post "Everyone always thinks it's "the other guy" who is crazy." but a flurry of posts intervened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:14 PM It's always tough gettin' a word in edgewise when humans are around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: bobad Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:20 PM Now you've gone and done it with the blondes and antlers Peace you,ve attracted the simian crowd to this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:22 PM Hey Chongo ... I heard a Chiquita truck overturned over at the intersection of Melrose and Essex ... bananas everywhere! bobad ... now your post makes sense. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:24 PM For my favourite monkey! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:25 PM You can't fool him twice that way, 6. He just muttered, "Yeah...right...", and went upstairs to make a banana whisky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:42 PM I'm sure the greedy little bugger will go check it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:08 PM Barbra Streisand's husband a Truther? http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/07/barbra-streisands-husband-a-truther/ It's interesting to watch how the people assigned to protect the government's Big Lie about 9-11 are now denigrating the word "Truth." I sincerely hope they continue this attempt at newspeak. If average people continue to see the root word "truth" in this type of debate, they might start to suspect something is not quite kosher. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:19 PM "As for building 7, you just have to watch it fall...and you know it's gotta be a controlled demolition." "All Indians walk in single file.....anyway, I saw an Indian once, and HE was walking in single file." 'Tis amazing that 'proof' is no further away than noting a similarity of other events....I am awed! Who needs all that structural analysis by mechanical engineers and the like...we'll just squint at a few videos and say..."yup! Looks just like that apartment building I saw 'em blow up in Omaha! Easy to SEE same demolition tricks was used." Who, me? Cynical?...nawwwww... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:28 PM As someone noted earlier it is interesting to see how "truthers" have bought into the neocon fantasy diversion. This is the government conspiracy and you are too stupid to realize you have been duped! Perpetuating the lies that controlled demolitions could have been arranged and everyone in the government plotted these deaths is simply shifting the focus from the real story - our invasion of Iraq. You miserable fucks are chasing fairy tales. The only lies the government planted are these rumors of demolitions, missles and planned execution. The government knew that paranoid individuals would buy into this crap and put up a fight. The went so far as to circulate pictures of UFO's at the Trade Center and missle streams when the planes hit. They knew that you morons would buy this shit and spend all your time searching out "the truth". Meanwhile they can go about their business of killing innocents in other countries. You assholes have their blood on your hands. Stop being a stooge. The government has made a mockery of free thinkers and want to lump you in with the anti-war movement. Exposing the anti-war movement as a bunch of clowns helps them win middle America. Think for yourself and not what some government sponsored internet site is feeding you. You missed the fucking boat! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:38 PM Gee. And all along all the world had to do was listen to you, huh dickhead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 09 Dec 06 - 12:44 AM I think I got whiplash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:13 AM >>You're not the voice of sanity...you're the voice of predictable conventionality. Ho hum.<< "Predictable conventionality?" I don't think so. Reality is not for wimps. Neither, for that matter, is sanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:41 AM 9-11 is the event from which all the recent misery has sprung. And for the first time in history, the terrrorist elite has been caught red-handed perpetrating one of their "mobilizing events." Sure the wars are unjust, but now we see HOW we were duped into them. Given a bit more time and pressure from the 9-11 Truth movement, the governments responsible for assualting the world will have to clamp down on their own people, at home. And that's when the tyranny will be overthrown. After which the wars will stop and the world can get back to normal. But first the murderers have to be outed. They have to be constantly exposed so they pass more restrictive legislation and reveal themselves for the tyrants they are. When people finally see through the fog of the televised lies, change will occur. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:41 AM Tell me about it, voice of oatmeal. Bill, you're no more cynical than I am...you're just cynical about other stuff, that's all. ;-) I think you just started out by reading the wrong stuff, that's all, and like an old dog you are set in your ways. You're not about to consider an alternative. As for me, I started out believing the standard government version of 911 and I only gradually shifted my views to those I have today. It took quite awhile, and a lot of reading. So maybe I am more conducive to change than you are. Whaddya think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:03 AM "standard government version of 911 " You mean there was a government standard for 9/11 ?? Was it an ISO designated standard?? bill (wondering why the hell is he in the Cat and on this thread when I should be getting out to get some December sunrise phot shots over the Bay of Fundy) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:59 AM People reach stages in their lives when "just so" stories make them feel secure and confident. For most people, that's around ages two to six. The official version of 9/11 is a "just so" story fed to an infantilised culture. and it's not surprising to see people noisily defend the mom and dad of government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 09 Dec 06 - 11:50 AM "Just so" story? I am betting that Guest needed to enlarge his doorframe to get his big head through it. Talk about ego! You so want this story to be wrong that you will latch onto anything that is fed to you. The internet stories fit your fantasy world so they must be true. You fucking neocon! Drink the Koolaid and fall into step! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:15 PM I've got this macro-conspiracy theory. It involves a secret government department with the job of manufacturing and covertly spreading and beefing up daft conspiracy theories. The idea being to get people into the way of dismissing as ridiculous any conspiracy theories about government activities that are actually true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: bobad Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:23 PM "It is physically impossible for 9-11 to have occurred as the government says" And what expertise do you possess that enables you to make such a definitive statement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:29 PM As I posted earlier, the government is trying to divert attention from anti-war activities. With people concerning themselves with supposed conspiracies with 9/11, they paint these activists as "kooks". Middle-America and reasonable people see these kooks as being aligned with other movements, such as the anti-war movement. When it appears that the anti-war movement is run by conspiracy kooks and the fringe - their efforts to stop the war becomes tainted. Guilt by association. It is a simple diversion and easy to accomplish - much easier than what it would take to have controlled demolition on these heavy trafficed and well-known locations. Anyone can put up a website or doctor a photo to produce what they want people to see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Who was that masked man? Anyway? Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:41 PM Whoever decided to call this stuff below the line "the BS section" sure knew what they were doing. Hi-yo Silver! Oy Vey! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 09 Dec 06 - 02:05 PM "So maybe I am more conducive to change than you are. Whaddya think?" I wouldn't be a bit suprised, Little Hawk! *grin* ...however..(you knew there'd be a 'however', didn't you?)...what I "started out reading" almost 50 years ago was stuff about how to decide WHEN to change....(kind of technical manuals on the reasoning process). No, that doesn't mean I can claim to always be right in what I think, but it does means *I* may be more suited to waiting patiently for clear & compelling reasons to change than YOU are. Whaddya think? Anytime someone thinks they see a serious problem with an explanation of an important incident (like 9/11), and wonders if there is a better explanation, it's fine to ask questions. But when they get emotionally committed to having a different explanation, and begin ignoring the answers they get to their questions in favor of artificially Gerrymandered 'theories', the entire process becomes an essay in tossing out new outrageous claims and daring anyone to 'prove' them wrong. My comments about 'proving a negative' are not just rhetoric....the problem of trying to counter assertions that are flatly absurd is a real one. At the risk of bringing the point VERY close, it's like arguing with Shambles about his paranoia regarding deleted & edited threads. No matter HOW much reason one injects or how carefully one explains why this or that bit of "Shambologic" is silly, he just changes the focus slightly and picks on some other bit of detail. Want an example? Right up above, "Guest" answers my explanation about how hard it is to 'reconstruct' planes which have hit a building with this: "Okay, so the planes in NYC were beyond reconstruction. Please refer me to the sites showing the reconstructions of the Pennsylvania and the Pentagon planes. Some of you say there were parts all over the place in those locations, so just refer me to those reconstructions. Thank you." Is it any wonder I did not even TRY to explain that the Pentagon is also a building, and that it was even more resilient than the Towers? Or that the plane in Penn. dived almost straight down into the ground (pretty resiliant, the ground, at 500+MPH). Or that once again, in ALL cases, they KNEW why the planes crashed, and thus, very elaborate, expensive, time-consuming reconstruction was not relevant?..."Guest" has an *idea* in his head, and will NOT budge from his notion...like Lucy and the jelly-bean. It is an exercise in futility to type long, complex explanations..(much like this) for folks who are emotionally/psychologically committed to their own answers. You suggest that I am unwilling to listen or 'change'...but I try over & over to say that what I am unwilling to do is buy into a 'theory'...conspiracy or otherwise...unless the evidence for it is more than a constantly upgraded series of subjective linking of often irrelevant data. Experts who are NOT compromised have explained it all better than I could...but the response I get is.."well, these malevolent forces are SO powerful and integrated into the fabric of society and the government, that they can intimidate ANY expert!" right...can't win. can't tie. can't even quit the game....and since the 'authorities' are in cahoots with the bad guys, there's not even anyone to complain to! Better head for Montana, buy some guns and join a militia! Yessir! *sigh*......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 02:26 PM That's quite an interesting point, "open mind", and I think there's a good deal of truth in it. I think the government IS spinning some wild conspiracy theories and putting them out there for exactly the purposes you suggest. A rather similar technique was used by the US government in the 60's to discredit the anti-war movement. They tried to associate all war protestors (among whom were many of the most thoughtful and intelligent people in society at the time) with illegal drug use and wild-looking, long-haired, "unwashed", amoral hippies as much as possible, in order to make the middle class see the whole anti-war movement as being discredited by association. They used popular music and marketing to encourage young people to use all kinds of drugs and adopt the other hippy styles, while simultaneously, of course, prosecuting them for using the drugs...a double whammy. And almost a whole younger generation fell for it, hook, line and sinker, because it was considered "the cool thing to do". I didn't fall for it. I had the long hair and I played a guitar, etc, but I was not using any drugs...unlike all my friends at the time. Thus I did not render myself vulnerable to the long arm of the law...and I saved myself from going through a lot of nonsense, because that's what the recreational drug scene was. Now, I don't doubt that the neocons are floating some wild 911 theories out there right now, just to confuse the issue. I'm pretty sure they are. However, based on what I've seen, and based on the stated aims and purposes of the PNAC and the neocons before 911 ever happened, and based on their oil-related and other strategic objectives in occupying Afghanistan................ I DO believe that they probably conspired to either directly arrange or passively allow the 911 attack to happen, and I DO believe those buildings were mostly likely brought down by controlled demolitions. I believe it was a government job...a manufactured "Reichstag" type incident, intended to allow the USA to go to war. And it is in no way whatsoever distracting me from focusing effectively on their unjustified war in Iraq, and the lies they told in order to get the public onside for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 02:38 PM Sure, Bill. I follow your line of reasoning quite well. I am not about to move to Montana and stock up on guns, I just like to observe things, understand them, and try to figure out what's going on, that's all. I'm naturally curious. I am not under the illusion that I can personally stop what's going on in this society or bring down the people who are running it. Not a chance. ;-) I will be gone long before any of this stuff is resolved, I'm sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 09 Dec 06 - 02:42 PM "And it is in no way whatsoever distracting me from focusing effectively on their unjustified war in Iraq, and the lies they told in order to get the public onside for it." It doesn't matter squat what your motives are and whether or not you are distracted. To someone who has been led to believe that anti-war protesters are aligned with kooks in the conspiracy game you have been rendered useless. No one knew whether you were doing dope or not back then, but your message was ignored by those that were convinced you were a doper. The war may have ended sooner if those distractions were never planted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 02:56 PM You're so right "open mind". ;-) That's exactly how the government does it. They're clever at marketing, and at planting images in people's minds through the media (mostly TV), and they succeed in fooling most of the people most of the time. They only fail when their stupid wars become completely unwinnable, and it becomes so bloody obvious that it can't be hidden any longer. "No one knew whether you were doing dope or not back then, but your message was ignored by those that were convinced you were a doper." Dead right. I got harassed by cops regularly and looked down on by older people, although I was doing absolutely nothing wrong or illegal. I got marginalized and categorized as a "doper", just because of the image that was being put out there by the powers that be. It's a sad situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 03:02 PM "You miserable fucks are chasing fairy tales. The only lies the government planted are these rumors of demolitions, missles and planned execution." So, uh, what the fuck are YOU doing about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 03:13 PM A "miserable fuck" would be one where neither participant had any fun, I assume??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 09 Dec 06 - 03:31 PM "Seeking the truth with these folks is like trying to gain traction on an oil slick studded with banana peels while wearing roller skates." Excellent, GUEST,Voice of Sanity! I like complex, well-constructed, consistent similes with a touch of humor, and that's a pretty good one. But if you'll pardon my saying so, the real Voice of Sanity in this discussion is Bill D. Over and out. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 03:37 PM I always wondered about people who decided for the rest what truth is. While there is certainly much I do NOT understand about the events of 9/11, I am not as sure about it as so many people here who took the official line from government and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. It's a real sonuvabitch to be castigated for having the temerity to question a government that wouldn't know truth even if it bit their collective arses. And, many of you have agreeed to that. Yet their version of 9/11 is sacrosanct? Where is the gap in logic there? And the stupidity of some ranting arsehole telling folks that they are the cause of bloodshed in Iraq because they see something wrong with the official versions of 9/11--fuck, that is so damned stupid it's worthy of a speech from George Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 09 Dec 06 - 03:57 PM I believe George, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the whole lot are dupes in the big game. They are the "Oswald" in this whole conspiracy theory. Anyway that's my macro theory ... I also have a macro lense. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,mike d Date: 09 Dec 06 - 04:16 PM Americans are so stupid!They believe everything they see on tv.!Study the whole 911 case and olnly an idiot would believe the officical story.Bush is satans cock holder and he will destroy this country and this world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: akenaton Date: 09 Dec 06 - 04:53 PM Some interesting reading Neocon Tactics |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 05:02 PM You shouldn't have posted that link, Ake. You will get shit for causing, starting, continuing and enjoying the Iraq War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 09 Dec 06 - 05:40 PM "It's a real sonuvabitch to be castigated for having the temerity to question a government that wouldn't know truth even if it bit their collective arses. And, many of you have agreeed to that. Yet their version of 9/11 is sacrosanct?" Here is the problem. IF you read the evidence and choose to believe the "official" versions of the ongoing investigation, you get labeled as some sort of lemming who refuses to question. IF you choose to believe some of the theories you are labled a nutjob. IF you choose to question the theories that the "truth seekers" are proposing, you are also labeled a nutjob. The sad truth from reading these posts is that everyone wants you to choose a side. To use common sense and make up you own mind is not acceptable, you have to align yourself with one side or the other. THAT was truly the biggest problem caused by 9/11 - this country, perhaps this globe, became polarized and independent thinking died. I have a hard time grasping some of these theories of controlled demolition, and I find it perfectly plausible that a group of terrorists could have planned this and got real lucky to pull it off. It probably went better than they expected. Shame on us. The real questions I have are in how our "defense" fell apart leading up to 9/11, how it fell apart on 9/11, and how we capitilzed on poltical agendas in the days following it. I don't believe in the govermnent conspiracy but I do believe that are leaders are flawed and weak and won't admit to mistake. They are also conniving opportunists who misused the world sympathy and struck at the opportunity. Shame on them. I an open to reading a logical plan on how the explosives were planted in all these heavily occupied buildings or come up with something concrete I would be more likely to believe it. I know many people who witnessed the event, I saw the aftermath and smelled the fires. My brother-in-law lives 5 blocks from the site and saw the airplane engine that has been made famous in a photo on his street corner. No one dropped it off there. I've talked to people who were in that building that day. The evidence I've been shown, the information that I have seen, the people who have described it, lead me to believe that this was the action of a group of terrorists and not a planned government conspiracy. I don't know for sure, nor do I claim to. I only speak with what I am able to decipher from the mountain of information that is out there. I'm not following a party line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 05:50 PM Like I said, Ron, everyone is a conspiracy theorist, regardless of whose story they believe...the government's or someone else's. So I guess we are going to have to drop the term "conspiracy theorist" as a way of ridiculing and dismissing people one doesn't agree with, eh? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 09 Dec 06 - 05:55 PM huh? This is not a game of semantics. Dismissing is the issue. If I find a severe problem with the logic in a theory, it drops to the bottom of my list of possibilities. Let the evidence point to the answer, not have the answer find the evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: bobad Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM The way you guys talk about the "government's version" implies that the only information available on the incident is from what the government says, whereas the reality of it is that the non conspiratorial view is based on information from many sources. There are the live TV images, eyewitness accounts, the press, videos from the perpetrators etc. It would be quite a stretch to believe that all these sources are part of some grand organized plot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:06 PM Well, yeah. Naturally. I see evidence that those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. It seems very likely to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:09 PM So be it. If I could see evidence of how the expolsives were planted I would find it more likely. The videos I saw show buildings that were highly compromised by airplanes crashing into them. I find that very likely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: bobad Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:13 PM Even though many, many people with expertise in the fields of engineering and materials have offered plausible explanations for the collapses you somehow believe that either you know better than they do or they are all part of some nefarious plot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:13 PM True, Ron and Bobad. But tell me why the firefighters who reported hearing explosions have their testimony dismissed and other versions make the news? There is no question that planes struck the towers. There is also no question that thousands died when those towers collapsed. There is also no question that both buildings were heavily insured before 9/11. And that neither structure was fully occupied. Maybe they DID fall because of heat. IMO, there is the possibility that the heat had help. Asking a question about it doesn't mean that folks question that it happened. It's the how that needs to be questioned. Something that ties to it indirectly: Why does Bush's seven (?) minutes of blue funk get dismissed? Why does his family's involvement in those towers get brushed aside as though it couldn't be part of anything else? Hell, it's not like there have never been conspiracies in government before. So why does wanting the whole thing explained clearly get so many people pissed off? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:15 PM Not that either of you seem pissed off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM "Satan's cock holder"? What the fuck stupid imagery is that. C'mon, fanatic, you can do better than that, surely. Give us a kiss... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM We all know that airplanes crashed into the buildings, Ron. That's not what the argument is about. Look at it this way...if you wanted to destroy those buildings and hit the Pentagon in order to provide a hot excuse to go to war in several places, and if you knew Al Queda had a plot going to hit them with planes already...that would be great from your point of view, wouldn't it? After all, you would benefit from having a visible attack by some foreign party. What could possibly be better than that when planning a war? So, you quietly prepare the buildings well in advance by placing explosives in the internal structures against key load-bearing sections and wiring it all up...and you wait. If your intelligence work is good, you will know the very day on which Al Queda will make its move, and your people will all be in place, your detonators will be in place, your military units will be mostly nullified by holding some big exercises off the East Coast, and everything will go according to plan...as long as the suicide pilots fly the planes well enough to hit the buildings. (That's the one part you can't absolutely guarantee...but the rest is child's play.) No one will notice maintenance that is quietly done on the buildings for several weeks. If they do notice, they won't think of it as anything BUT maintenance. When the buildings fall and burn, the physical evidence will be destroyed. You will then quickly remove all the debris (which was done as fast as possible), get rid of it for good, and the evidence is gone forever. It's that simple. Your buddies will cash in on huge insurance claims, your other buddies will cash in on short-selling airline stock, and you will get your green light to go to war. I call that a clean sweep. Carefully planned, and cleverly executed all the way. When a government wants to go to war...it needs an excuse. It will find one or manufacture one. Whatever works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:27 PM In other words, lots of the pieces from the puzzle are missing And the longer they stay missing the more time 'conspiracy theories' have to grow, run wild, become fantastical. It's too bad, but shit NOT getting explained has a way of affecting stuff down the road. The puff of smoke from near the bush when JK was killed; the idea that the US knew about Dec 7 plans before Dec 7. And with regard to people not keeping 'secrets' because more than a few are involved: those who profess that should take a good look at the Manhattan Project. The secrets were kept fairly well, I think. And there were more than a few thaousnd involved. Contrary to what shithead said, I am not 'true believer' in a conspiracy. I am however someone who completely distrusts much that comes from government and big business. You'll likely agree with me if you spend any time at all researching drugs and the companies that produce them; the p[eople involved as in share holders and who is connected to whom when it comes time to market drugs. Paranoid? Possibly, but then I could always quote Kissinger on that, no? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:29 PM "So why does wanting the whole thing explained clearly get so many people pissed off?" Because whether they know it consciously or not, they are afraid of the implications. When people are frightened they get angry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM I'd still like to know why Atta flew in from Portland to Boston. Why was he not with the rest of the gang? Seriously ... is this not also part of the whole puzzle. And I'm not accepting any ridiculous remarks such the women (virgins are hard to find in Portland), Maine oysters on the breakfast menu on the flight(they no longer provide this service on commuter airlines, plus he was a strict follower of Islam, in case ya didn't know). I find it remarkable that the newspapers had the names, pictures, and countries of origin of all 19 hijackers within 3 days of 9/11. If the security forces at the time were ignorant of these guys before 9/11 ... they certainly were aware of them immediately afterwards. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:22 PM The response from the media was quicker than 3 days, number 6. Within 30 minutes of the first tower falling, Fox News was chanting "Ossama, Afghanistan," and telling us our entire intelligence apparatus had failed. So then why were they chanting "Ossama, Afghanistan?" That's when I knew it was all BS. Anyway, let's try some of the basics. Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the WTC complex on 9-11-2001. He was also in charge of security at Dulles airport (involved in the "hijackings"). He was also in charge of security for United Airlines (involved in the "hijackings"). So, someone point me to the transcript of Marvin Bush telling what he knew to the 9-11 Commission. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Teribus Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:37 PM Little Hawk - 09 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM, start counting the number of people who would have to be involved in what you suggest, all of whom have to be prepared to murder X thousand of their fellow citizens and then stay silent about it - Simply not plausible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:39 PM " if you wanted to destroy those buildings and hit the Pentagon in order to provide a hot excuse to go to war in several places, and if you knew Al Queda had a plot going to hit them with planes already...that would be great from your point of view, wouldn't it?" Risk management. How effective was it really? IF they allowed the planes to crash, would that not have been enough "incentive"? Would they risk something going wrong to further the "cause" if the initial impact would have given enough reason to go to war? A single plane killing all the occupants flying into one of those buildings would have provide sufficient reason to go after the criminals. The risk of being caught would have been so great that I have a hard time seeing anyone approving this. "you quietly prepare the buildings well in advance by placing explosives in the internal structures against key load-bearing sections and wiring it all up...and you wait." This is where I have a major problem with this theory. "Quietly" is not a word that I can see occuring in buildings of this size and the work that was involved. These are not little buildings sitting on a sidestreet that are unoccupied on weekends. If you were ever inside the buildings you would realize that each floor has different tenants and layouts. In order to place the explosives, and the amount of explosives that would be required, you would be hard pressed to come up with a plan that could cover all possiblities. The risk of getting caught, or someone spilling the beans, is enormous. Not saying it could never happen, but no one is saying how it could happen. A theory needs to have backup. Show me a plan on how this could have been pulled off and I will believe it. The risks involved would be too great to attempt. "That's the one part you can't absolutely guarantee...but the rest is child's play" Horse shit!!!! If you call that kind of planning childs play, then you must really believe Shatner is a great actor. Nuff said. " Your buddies will cash in on huge insurance claims, your other buddies will cash in on short-selling airline stock" Show us the money. There have been claims, but I do not see the evidence. Silverstein was awarded 3.5 billion from insurance that he took out - something ANY building owner would do. If you own real estate, you have it insured. It is estimated that rebuilding would cost 9 billion dollars. Do the math - where is the profit? Airline stocks? Short sell? How much was actually made? Wall Street moves all kinds of stock and you have to accept the POSSIBILITY that this is coincidence. Sure, someone might have know. Where is the proof? "I find it remarkable that the newspapers had the names, pictures, and countries of origin of all 19 hijackers within 3 days of 9/11." Flight lists, license, passports - not that hard to believe. "Maybe they DID fall because of heat. IMO, there is the possibility that the heat had help. Asking a question about it doesn't mean that folks question that it happened. It's the how that needs to be questioned." I'm with you 100%. Exactly how this building fell is open to question. The airline fuel and design of the building makes sense to me, but I wonder if there is something else at play here. I doubt it is "controlled demolition", but I would not doubt that there is something else happening here. "Paranoid? Possibly" There you go. What I see is that people have a hard time accepting that our goverment, military and people in general were/are inept. We screwed up, got hit, and won't accept failure. We have to come up with theories that the government planned it because we don't want to accept that they are as failed as we are. This is not the world of James Bond and Star Wars. This is the age of politicians and half-assed attitudes that create problems. Our collosal failure was exposed and we don't want to admit that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:42 PM Here are some fair remarks and questions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:49 PM As I see it, the problem is that the stuff we have got about the events of 9/11 are skewed and twisted. There is no doubt that the testimonies of eye-witnesses in that kind of situation are as close to worthless as testimony can get. I do not think 'for sure' that Washington was part of a conspiracy to kill the people in the Towers, or the Pentagon or the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. However, straight answers to serious questions have NOT been forthcoming from Washington. Subsequently, it is very easy to start thinking conspiracy, because it is evident that somewhere along the line there HAS been conspiracy to cover people's asses, to cover the President's family, to cover the 'intelligence' networks that fucked up, to cover people who really need cover because their ineptitude is hangin' out there like snot on the face of a kid in twenty-five below weather. A little honesty would be refreshing. BUT, we ain't gonna see that any time soon. Not from this administration. And as it begins to look, not from the next, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 09:15 PM Well, Ron, I think your interpretation of all these things is based subjectively on what you already believe...as is mine...and that's why we disagree. And I'm sure we'll continue to. Teribus - Yes, as you say....not plausible...IF the thousands of people all knew exactly what were the implications of what they were doing. I suspect that the vast majority of them did not, but were simply "following orders" and doing their job, and had no idea that it would lead to the deaths of 3,000 Americans. It is quite common in a chain of command that only a few men at the very top know the purpose of an operation, while the many underlings and foot soldiers simply do what they are told to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Dec 06 - 09:58 PM Ron's point that to achieve the desired object there'd have been no need to do anything more than stand back and allow the planes to fly into the Towers, is pretty salient. Without the collapse of the buildings it wouldn't have been as dramatic, and if the dead had been in the hundreds rather than the thousands there wouldn't have been the same shock - but it would have been quite enough to mobilise public opinion and steer it into backing the New American Century invasion agenda. After all the Gulf of Tolkien incident, which is now generally recognised as essentially a fake, managed to achieve its object without the need to stun the world with a hecatomb. It seems pretty clear to me that if you want a terrorist spectacular for political reasons, the best way is to make use of real terrorists. For all that the way the buildings came down look for all the world like a demolition job I think it unlikely it could have been, and the technical explanations about why the structure of the towers provided the explanation are plausible enough. Bad design by an architect without the imagination to envisage what a giant airliner crashing into building could do. (Which wasn't in fact all that unlikely an event to happen by accident.) It also seems quite likely that the scale of the damage caused may have been far greater than anyone planning it would have envisaged. I am sure that most people were astonished when that first tower just collapsed like that. I don't think it is possible to dismiss out of hand the possibility that people in high places conspired to bring about the events of September 11. There is nothing intrinsically improbable in that, horrible as it is to envisage it. But thinking in such terms is purely speculative, based on the undoubted fact that, in the event, September 11's events were extremely convenient for those in power who had already declared their intention to find a way of attacking Iraq. But just because something cannot be dismissed as a possibility is a long way from proving it actually happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:06 PM "Well, Ron, I think your interpretation of all these things is based subjectively on what you already believe" NO!!!! You just aren't getting the picture. I FORMED an opinion based on the information I read, saw and heard. The big difference is that the evidence forms the conclusion, not finding a conclusion and making the evidence fit. You just won't accept that I find flaws in these theories. If you can find evidence that I am wrong, show me. What I have watched in documentaries, articles and the internet just does not add up. I am also saying that my OPINION is subject to change as new information becomes available. I'm not Sherlock Holmes sifting through the rubble and trying to find the answer, but I am relying on ALL reports and stories that I have found. I am sure that there might be something out there to make me thing otherwise, but using what is currently out there - I am not buying into some of these theories (controlled demolition, government planned, no planes). I'm sure all of us have sat in bar talking out of our ass about things we do not know. That is what is happening here. We do not know for sure. Show me something that makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:13 PM "Without the collapse of the buildings it wouldn't have been as dramatic, and if the dead had been in the hundreds rather than the thousands there wouldn't have been the same shock - but it would have been quite enough to mobilise public opinion and steer it into backing the New American Century invasion agenda." Agreed. Think back to those awful moments. As soon as the second plane hit, most of us were probably thinking "terrorists". The media started saying it - before the buildings fell. We knew there was a major "war" taking place at that moment and people were dead. We saw it. We felt it. We wanted blood at that moment and the government would have had to do nothing more then sit back and say "I told you so". The buildings falling added to the drama, but the die was cast. Did we know the time and place and our government sit back? Perhaps. History has shown such events. Were those in charge exposed for the bunch of untrained fuckups that we all suspected? Perhaps. History has also shown such events. That is the real mystery that needs to be uncovered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:37 PM (I have pretty much decided to opt out of the debate...I think I have made whatever points I set out to...) but I can't resist a thread creep to note McGrath's phrase: " Gulf of Tolkien incident".......I'm sure some of these incidents DO sound like something out of "The Ring" series...but I've no doubt he meant "Gulf of Tonkin incident" anyway, back to the speculation de jour |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:41 PM Sure the hits by the airplanes would have been enough by themselves to advance the neocon agenda, even if the buildings didn't fall. Of course. But those buildings were losing money badly. They were a liability to their owners. There was money to be made be destroying them, okay? Lots of money. And there is your motive for bringing them down. How do you explain the fact that other highrises, like the one in Spain, have sustained much longer and bigger fires, probably hotter fire, judging by all the smoke from the WTC, and none of them collapsed into their own footprint? They remained standing...gutted and burnt and blackened, but standing. If it was the fire which brought those building down so quickly...then, sorry, that just doesn't add up. It has never occurred in any other case of a steel frame highrise. That kind of collapse indicates to me a controlled demolition, and anyway I can SEE the puffs of smoke and debris from various charges going off ahead of the collapsing floor wave in the films taken that day. What are those puffs and flashes? What do you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:53 PM The Sears Tower in Chicago caught on fire 2 days ago. Why didn't it fall? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:54 PM So you think that a building on fire and collapsing due to damage hit by airplanes would not have "puffs of smoke and debris" as it collapes? Why do those puffs need to be "explosions". Wouldn't there be air pressure as well as debris of the massive weight falling down that could cause similar actions? You ask why there are no other high rise fires that collapsed into their own footprint. Can you show me other high rise building, designed like the WTC, that was hit by an airliner? Can you tell me what other buildings you have seen that fell due to controlled demolition? Can you show me your financial sources? Who was loosing money? Why would they rebuild, knowing that they will now have a hard time finding tenants - and costing substantially more than they received in insurance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Dec 06 - 11:00 PM No, Ron, it's not a full-time obsession of mine or a job, it's just an area of interest...among many. I suggest you read a number of the interesting websites about it and look at films of the buildings falling that day and listen to recordings of firemen and other people that day, as I did. There's infowars.com and there's fromthewilderness.com and there are others. A lot of interesting stuff. I would not be surprised if some of it is correct. Most people aren't ALL right or ALL wrong about any given issue, but they're very often partly right. I simply haven't the time to document every last thing for the sake of convincing one other guy on an internet forum of some theory about 911. (grin) And it wouldn't make any appreciable difference to the future of America even if I did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 09 Dec 06 - 11:15 PM Little Hawk, I have checked those sites and many others. I am not finding the story you mentioned and I assumed that you would have known where you heard it. When I mention something on a forum, I usually know where the backup information can be located. I am not saying the story you gave us isn't true, just I would love to see it if you can remember where you heard it. A drunk once told me that he knew where Jimmy Hoffa ended up. I forgot to ask him his source. Damn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 11:24 PM The trunk of a car. You don't need to know how I know that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 06 - 11:27 PM If you two be talkin' about insurance, read here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 06 - 11:36 PM The towers were under orders to get rid of the asbestos used as insulation. Estimates were in the hundreds of millions for that one little job. They weren't wired properly for computers. A few hundred million needed to upgrade there. They were at half occupancy, losing money. The Port Authority was losing money on them, and the PA was looking at bankruptcy. The Rockefellers bailed out on their co-ownership 6 weeks before 9-11, sold out to Silverstein. There is financial data up to a million eyeballs on this all over the web. Pick your source. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 10 Dec 06 - 12:04 AM This is the Silverstein who said "pull it". That was odd. This is also the Silverstein who has been awarded approximately $5 billion dollars in total because of 9/11. He is also the Silverstein who continues to pay $10 million dollars per month in rental fees for the site to the Port Authority - $120 million per year with no income on the site coming in. This is also the Silverstein who is paying approximately $9 billion dollars to rebuild on the site. Lets do the math. Does this sound like a wise "investment" to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 10 Dec 06 - 12:06 AM "The Port Authority was losing money on them" Not true. See the $120 million dollars a year in rent they were receiving from Silverstein. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 10 Dec 06 - 12:14 AM "The Towers were such an albatross that in 1980 New York State Governor Hugh Carey – with the support of New York City Mayor Ed Koch – urged the Port Authority to sell them, which would thus place them on the city's tax rolls. (How bad is a situation when taxes are better than the status quo?) But the Authority nixed the idea, its directors still convinced that the buildings were to be the crowning jewel of lower Manhattan's redevelopment." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 10 Dec 06 - 12:32 AM '"Built for an enormous amount of money between 1966 and 1970 by the Port Authority of the State of New York, the Twin Towers were intended to house in one complex a great many foreign financial institutions and to provide everything that their managers, employees and clients might need (hotels, restaurants, shops, movie theaters, etc. etc). Despite the novelty of being the tallest buildings in the world -- a distinction that only lasted until 1976, when the Sears Tower was built in Chicago -- the Twin Towers were always money-losers as rental properties and required huge subsidies (tens of millions of dollars a year) from the State of New York to remain solvent. Because all of the windows in both towers were sealed up tight, and because neither tower was equipped to take advantage of its unique potential to generate power using the wind or solar energy, the WTC complex was ludicrously costly to heat and light. Furthermore, visiting business men and women weren't satisfied to remain within the WTC's purportedly self-sufficient universe, and wished to venture (and shop and do business) outside of it. In the 1980s, advances in information and telecommunication technologies decentralized the financial markets, which in turn "rolled back" the necessity for foreign institutions to be in close physical proximity to each other, Wall Street and the rest of lower Manhattan, which is precisely what the gigantic size and centralized location of the Twin Towers were intended to provide. In New York City, obsolete buildings are infrequently saved, whatever their historical or architectural interest. Most often, they are simply torn down and replaced. The only thing that saved the Twin Towers from demolition was the fact that they were filled with asbestos, which would be released into the air if the buildings were destroyed by controlled explosions. In 2000, the Port Authority calculated that it would cost $1 billion -- i.e., much more money than the Port Authority could afford to spend -- to remove the asbestos before the buildings were destroyed. And so the Port Authority was stuck with the Twin Towers, that is, until 26 April 2001, when it found a consortium of business interests (Westfield America, led by Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building at 7 World Trade Center) that was willing to lease the property. Supposed to last for 99 years, the $3.2 billion lease mandated that the Port Authority continue to pay taxes on the property. "This is a dream come true," Silverstein said at the 23 July 2001 celebration of the lease's signing. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."' That snippet is from here and it goes on to refute some thoughts conspiracy people may have--from either side of the issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 10 Dec 06 - 01:18 AM Hmmmmmmmmmm biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 06 - 02:05 AM Silverstein was the goat. The decision was made to bring the bldgs down, but how to do it? Kill a hundred birds with one stone. Bring them down in ten seconds each (not a year apiece), collect big insurance revenue, steal the precious metals out of the sub-basement vaults, blame it on an "ideology" that will take a hundred years of war profiteering to stamp out, start a war on the country needed to secure the Caspian pipeline, start taking away the protections of the Bill of Rights, begin the destruction of America at home and abroad, avert the impending financial scandals in a hundred govt agencies, avert the impending secession votes in two of the United States, etc., etc. And all they needed was someone to run the risk of getting caught holding the bag. Silverstein. He owns the Sears tower too, by the way. The global elite are constantly looking at things on a cost-benefit basis, and the numbers just added up right on 9-11. Too good an opportunity to let pass. The CIA/MI-6/Mossad people had yet another of their endless drills running, and this one was allowed to go forward. Dick Cheney suspected the incident would be the "Pearl Harbor" event his bosses had alluded to in the PNAC document, so he had control of NORAD signed over to him in the summer of 2001, then he got the interceptors to stand down so the intelligence drill could do its damage. Problem now is, we have 4 carrier battle groups hovering near Iran. The US has never massed 4 groups before. And Cheney made a one-day trip to Saudi Arabia the other day. Some bit of business he couldn't trust to air-head Condolezza Rice. And now the Saudis are saying something bad is about to happen. And the Nazi zionists have been given a hundred nuclear-tipped bunker busters by Herr Cheney. But 9-11 is still the key, even if the Bush/Pelosi crime machine starts another war. Focus on 9-11, demand an investigation. It is the achilles heel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 06 - 04:46 AM Little Hawk - 09 Dec 06 - 09:15 PM "Teribus - Yes, as you say....not plausible...IF the thousands of people ALL KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WERE THE IMPLICATIONS of what they were doing. I suspect that the vast majority of them did not, but were simply "following orders" and doing their job, and had no idea that it would lead to the deaths of 3,000 Americans. It is quite common in a chain of command that only a few men at the very top know the purpose of an operation, while the many underlings and foot soldiers simply do what they are told to do." OK Little Hawk, what you say may hold good up to the point that the plan is activated - What keeps all those people silent after the event?? To maintain a lie so collosal that it relies on the silence of thousands is impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: robomatic Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:52 AM Not long after 9/11 I was going to the airport which required a long drive through a tunnel. On the exit along with me was a very ratty old van full of fuming dark skinned gents gabbing in a gutteral tongue. It occurred to me what a bodacious target a tunnel would make and the fact that a terrorist who knew his stuff would probably be a quiet white collar appearing dude in a new looking panel truck only made me feel a little more sanguine about sharing the tunnel with those bozos, but as you can read, I'm stillhere. Anything can be made suspicious in retrospect. There's plenty of suspicious lookin' stuff that's totally innocent (insofar as terrorism concerned). "History is just a lot of stuff that happened." -Simpsons |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:58 AM Very good guest ... I will add that the exclusive secret clubs mentioned in your post .... the CIA/MI-6/Mossad are unattached to their respected governments, they are tools loyal to ?? ... the 'governments'(and as I mentioned this includes, Bush, Cheney, Blair and the lot) are the 'patsies, the duped ones, easily manipulated into their expected reactions and actions... they were not responsible for the 9/11. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:12 AM Peace - I guess I wasn't clear. On 9/11 the Port Authority no longer had the problem of "losing money" since they had leased the site to Silverstein months earlier. They were now in a position to actually make money on the lease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 10 Dec 06 - 12:08 PM I misunderstood Ron. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 06 - 12:36 PM It's heartening to think that this is just one thread. Some 'catters feel like it's been done to death, but I like to see that it's still a topic, that there is a core of people who don't swallow the official version of the events. I watched the video with David Lynch (remember that?) and I think he puts it well in saying that the idea that it was done by he government is almost impossible to consider. Yet I feel that way down the road (as in the secret bombings in Viet Nam) the real history of the event will emerge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 06 - 01:10 PM Yes, the story will emerge someday, but only in the back rooms of the whorehouses of the global elite. They'll chuckle about what knuckleheads those mud races were. They bought the September 11 lie completely and paid the terroristic governments to carry out even MORE attacks. What chumps. They DESERVED to be electronically tagged and slaughtered. That's the future, if the elite are not brought down NOW. They overreached on 9-11. Too arrogant. They can be held accountable and indicted by what's on the public record. Question is, will people tune out football and the Simpsons long enough to give a damn. Write or call your representatives and point out that Marvin Bush was handling security at the WTC on 9-11, then demand a real investigation be conducted. And not an investigation by presidential appointees. Call in to your local radio talk shows too and make the same brief demand...brief so they don't have time to cut you off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 10 Dec 06 - 01:40 PM "That's the future, if the elite are not brought down NOW." You suggest that we contact our representatives and call local radio talk shows. Do you think that will be all that effective? Is there anything else you think we should do to "bring down the elite?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 10 Dec 06 - 01:42 PM Motörhead had an idea years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Dec 06 - 01:50 PM Teribus - "What keeps all those people silent after the event??" I don't think they necessarily HAVE all kept silent, Teribus, I just think that the elite-owned and controlled media and the elite-controlled government and Congress have the ability to make sure that: 1. they are not heard on the major news media 2. they are confined to being heard only on isolated "conspiracy theory" websites and such, which most people don't believe anyway 3. they are marginalized as "kooks" and conspiracy freaks and not taken seriously 4. and many have been frightened into silence too 5. and a few have probably been "disappeared" (to put it delicately) It's easily done. You just control ABC, NBC, CBS and the usual mass media avenues of information. As long as most of the people are fooled most of the time, and as long as you keep them lobotomized with the latest phony news and entertainment, you're home free. This is how an elite order controls a modern society...by controlling the flow of public information. Simple, really. Most people will believe anything as long as it's what they hear most often on the 6 O'Clock News. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 10 Dec 06 - 01:54 PM "It's easily done. You just control ABC, NBC, CBS and the usual mass media avenues of information." I do that sometimes when I'm bored. Or drunk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Dec 06 - 02:04 PM Huh? ;-) You mean you channel-surf the news? Man, you must get REALLY bored! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 10 Dec 06 - 02:09 PM No I control it at the source. Muwahahahahahaha! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 10 Dec 06 - 02:36 PM I strenuously disagree, Little Hawk. I do agree about the major news sources such as the networks and many cable outfits (90% of the American mass media are owned by five major corporations), but there are many news sources out there besides those. I get a lot of my news from overseas news sources that the American government and the aforementioned corporations do not—and cannot—control. And every week—sometimes daily—I get newsletters in my e-mail from organizations such as MoveOn, AlterNet Headlines, the Backbone Campaign, a couple that are demanding the impeachment of Bush and asking for war crimes trials for various members of the Bush administration, and numerous other newsletters that, if they got the merest whiff of something like this—that wasn't patently a half-assed conspiracy theory—they would be on it with the ferocity of a wolverine. If this "conspiracy" was real, it would require that hundreds, if not thousands, of people be in on it, and something that extensive would simply be impossible to keep under wraps. No matter how corrupt a person may be, there would be a least a few people out of those thousands whose conscience simply wouldn't allow them to keep something like this a secret. And if not a matter of conscience, can you imagine the benefits and rewards that would come to a whistleblower who revealed—from safe cover, of course—something of this magnitude? Irresistible! And yet, where are they? All we have to support this conspiracy theory are a number of people's speculations and highly disputable interpretations of a few photos and videos. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Dec 06 - 02:54 PM (sigh) It's not "under wraps", Don. There's plenty of info out. But that info is not respected by the majority of people because the major news media and the people in power do not endorse it. It is not given official recognition by the powers that be, because it's too dangerous to them. You just have to fool most of the people most of the time. And you do that by controlling the main media outlets and the official government spokesmen. Look, Don, Hitler had a lot of Germans believing that Poland started World War II!!! How do you think he did that? After all, they could get alternative news, you know. They were able to tune into the BBC on their radios if they wanted to. There WERE other sources of info. You saw what David Lynch said when asked if the US government could have been behind it...he said "It's too big..." He was afraid to say it. Afraid that he would be marginalized, attacked as an extremist nutbar, career ruined... People in secure positions with careers to protect are afraid to speak, because as only one person they can be marginalized, ridiculed, dismissed, and dealt with. Man, they would have to ALL get together somehow and speak on the same day on national media to make it stick. I don't see that happening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 10 Dec 06 - 03:09 PM "Sigh" yourself, dammit! I'm not an idiot and I certainly know as much hstory as you do. Hell, man, I was there during World War II. I followed the news avidly then, and I've read a great deal about it since. Books. Many books. I still do not have an answer to the question I keep asking on this and other threads. If it's true, then What do you suggest that we, as citizens, do about it? Don Firth P. S. Over and out for now. Company coming. But this will give you time to formulate an answer to my question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Dec 06 - 03:37 PM I don't need much time to formulate an answer, Don, because I don't know what you can do about it. No idea. You're an American, I'm not. I know I can't do anything about it. I doubt that you can either. What would occur to you to do about it? I suppose you can write your Congressman, but I don't know what effect that will have... Ever thrown a pebble at a brick wall? It bounces back. I write about things because I'm interested in them. That does not mean I necessarily think I can do something about them. I am keenly aware of my limitations in that regard, Don. This is not a Hollywood movie we are in here where Tom Cruise rushes in and "saves the day" at the end of the show and the bad guys all get blown up. This is real life. We live it as best we can, learn some stuff, hopefully give and receive some love along the way, and then we die, and life goes on without us. You know, a lot of young people in all honesty serve a bad government and they go out and give their all in a war, and at the end when their government loses that war they are judged for it by the victors. It happens in every war. They are seen as "bad people" by a lot of other people who were fortunate enough NOT to be on the losing side. That happened to a lot of young Germans, Japanese, and Italians in WWII. How do you think they felt when it was all over? Can you imagine the sense of disillusionment? The bitterness? The sense of loss? They had thought they were doing the right thing at the time. Life is capricious, Don. People do the best they can on the basis of whatever they're aware of at the time. And I know that. I do not expect the story of our lives to work out neatly at the end of the episode, because real life is just not like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 06 - 05:47 PM Don, your question of "what do we do, then" doesn't trump Hawks points in the least. The logic that "If this "conspiracy" was real, it would require that hundreds, if not thousands, of people be in on it, and something that extensive would simply be impossible to keep under wraps", misses the obvious reality that it really isn't "under wraps" at all; it was staged to occur, and then the news reports were spun as well as possible after the fact. The horror of it was precisely that it was staged in plain sight. That's why this "conspiracy" discussion is off the mark, too; it was enacted as a war, not a conspiracy. The frightening thing is that the American government may have committed a terrorist act against the American people, an act of war, to justify the ramping up of the war machine. Some of us simply watched it occur, and talked about it - there was no "conspiracy" to uncover in the government's twisted responses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Dec 06 - 07:20 PM Exactly. It isn't under wraps. It's just under a lot of denial and just plain "Don't want to know about that. Don't bother me. I'm busy watching 'Survivor' and I don't want to be disturbed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM Lynch has made a career out of tapping into odd, dream-state visions. When he said the thing was "too big," that seems to have been a truly visceral response. The horror that floated through his mind at the moment was inexpressible. But even with those couple of words he managed to articulate what most Americans feel. The thought that your "caretakers" are really the "murderers" is a big idea. And if someone like Lynch can't get his enormous imagination around it, Joe 6-pack won't be able to. Lynch seems to have reached a certain point in his thinking...that there are anomalies, holes in the story...and he did his civic duty and pointed the issue out. Again, I marvel at the guy's courage and sense of patriotism. That's dangerous stuff. And would any of us really question Lynch's "suicide" if he turned up dead in a month? Nah. He's so "strange." He's smart enough to know all this, too. Incredibly brave man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 10 Dec 06 - 10:14 PM Little Hawk, from what you're saying, you seem to believe that I live in some kind of Disney fantasy in my own mind. Not so. I've trod this earth for a considerable period of time now, I've learned a helluva lot in that time, and I'm nowhere near as naïve as you (and a couple of others here) seem to think. I'm not going to argue any further about whether the 9/11 thing is conspiracy theory or fact. Whatever one wants to believe is an article of faith, and advocates of neither side can muster incontrovertible proof of the truth of their assertions And truth is NOT a matter of opinion; it either was a government conspiracy or it was not. I know the country and the world are in a royal mess, and much of that mess—I might say the vast majority—stems from the actions of corporate interests, power brokers, and financial finaglers. A good keyhole through which one can peer into that murky world is to be found in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins. A lot of people don't believe Perkins, but a friend I've had for decades spent a substantial amount of time in Mexico and Central American, saw this kind of thing in operation, and told me about it long before Perkins' book came out, so I know what Perkins says is, at the very least, pretty close to the truth. Just to be clear on this, I do not need someone to tell me what to do about the current state of the country and the world. My question was aimed at seeing if any of the doom-sayers here have anything at all beyond their free-floating anger, their pessimism, and their warnings of impending doom—delivered with the kind of smugness usually associated with religious evangelists. Obviously not. I do not expect John Wayne or Tom Cruise—or even Klaatu and his robot—to come galloping in to set things right. No "happy endings" guaranteed (and I can't say that I appreciate your implication that I'm that immature). But I'm not willing to just throw up my hands and say "It's no use! We are DOOMED! Oh, woe is me!" I see no point in my continuing to waste my time and energy in this discussion when said time and energy can be more effectively applied elsewhere. There are a lot of things one can do. Not all lines of communication and not all politicians are under the influence of Daddy Warbucks. To say that nothing can be done and then just sit back and issue dire warnings and whine are the actions of the lazy and the cowardly. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:39 PM All I'm doing here, Don, is talking about something I'm deeply interested in, and have an opinion on. That's it. Period. I do not have advice for you or anyone else as to what you should do about it. That's up to you. I have no idea how naive you are or to what extent you live in a fantasy world or not, and I am not suggesting that you do...or that you are. I am not suggesting that we're all doomed either. Even if it WAS a government conspiracy...well, such things have happened before, and humanity and the world went on. And they will do so again. As you say, it either was a government conspiracy...or it was not. And I doubt that we'll ever get any final consensus on that. Why should my opinion that it probably was be such a problem? I'm just one person, after all. Why not just tolerate my opinion, and say, "Okay. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not. Maybe I'm right. Let's wait and see if anything else comes out about it, and then maybe we'll be in a better postion to know." Why does someone have to win and someone else have to lose here? Or is that a subversive question in a competitive society? ;-) Here's a thought, Don...just a passing thought. Maybe I tend more toward a female approach to some things. Women like to talk about something to unburden themselves. Men always seem to want to provide a solution!!! Women don't want a solution given to them, they want to talk about it, because they feel better after they've talked about it! Ever heard of that little conundrum? I'm a man, but maybe when it comes to matters of USA national policy, I think it's really just a tad unrealistic for me to think I CAN offer a SOLUTION to something that enormous. Maybe I just would like to talk about it to unburden myself. And if so, why not? If you want a solution, go find someone who is self-important enough to imagine he has one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:41 AM I am not bothered by unanswerable questions. Some people are, and that is one of the reasons that many turn to things like fundamentalism, where there are answers to all things. Whether those answers are right, wrong, or irrelevant, they always have an answer. But if there are answers (facts to be discovered), one should seek them—and not just accept on faith any assertion that comes along, even if it may sound reasonable—and especially if it appeals to one's sense of outrage, which in some people, can be heady to the point of addiction. Hence, some people's passionate attachment to conspiracy theories. But I am not one of those people who insist on answers to the unanswerable. Nor am I one who is willing to accept someone else's beliefs on faith, no matter how passionately they believe, unless and until they can present convincing and independently verifiable evidence. Nor do I always need to "win." I am wise enough to know that when a truth emerges, everyone benefits (in the long run), even if I am proven wrong in what I believed prior to that emergence. I also believe that if something is wrong in the world and there is a chance that I can do something to make it right, I am remiss if I don't try. There is the story of the little sparrow who, when he was told that a meteor was going to strike the earth and destroy it, he lay down on his back and put his feet in the air. Another bird laughed at him and said, "You don't seriously think you can stop the meteor with those skinny legs of yours!??" The sparrow responded, "No, probably not. But one must do what one can." I've been around awhile, Little Hawk. And during that time, I've kept my eyes and ears open and my mind working. And when I saw something that I felt needed action on somebody's part, I've tried to do what I could. That's a life-long habit, I'm not about to change now. And don't worry about me. I have a pretty good idea of what to do. Will I succeed? All by myself? Probably not. But one must do what one can. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:27 AM Glad that's settled then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:16 PM Fine with me, Don. ;-) Go to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:33 PM http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm The link to the "official" government report on 9-11. Search for the name "Marvin" and you'll come up with two mentions, both of a man named Marvin Weintraub. Yet Marvin Bush was part of security at the WTC on 9-11: "George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family. The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a "completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm The omission of Marvin Bush's name is evidence of a coverup by the U.S. government. And that's just one minor issue with what the government called the "final" report on 9-11. This game is far from over. The investigation has not even begun, and you people who've made up your minds that the government is telling the truth...well, you need to start from scratch. Marvin Bush, 15 of the 19 "attackers" were Saudi but we invade Afghanistan, the "attackers" had U.S. military/FBI/CIA training and protection, etc., etc., etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 11 Dec 06 - 03:13 PM For your consideration. Regarding the manner in which the World Trade Center buildings collapsed, the following is a synopsis of a discussion I had with an architect acquaintance of mine: First factor to consider is that the aircraft had taken off from Boston's Logan airport, a relatively short distance from New York. Their fuel tanks were nearly full. The fuel tanks in airliners of this type have a capacity of 45,000 to 50,000 gallons (this I knew myself, having worked at Boeing for a period of time). The aircraft caused a great deal of structural damage on several floors both above and below the area of impact. Undoubtedly there was immediate damage to the less durable structure of these floors (walls, floors, partitions, etc.), with debris, which included desks, filing cabinets, and other office equipment, not to mention plumbing facilities, crashing to floors below. Burning fuel washed across these floors, pouring down on the floors immediately below. It also poured down elevator shafts and cascaded down stairwells, setting fire to many areas on floors well below. Floors immediate above and below the area of impact would be turned into an inferno, burning away almost everything fairly quickly. The girders, the structural skeleton of the building, remained more or less intact at first. Intense heat would be moving upward, causing those girders to expand and popping many of the rivets that held the girders, both vertical and horizontal, together. As the horizontal girders began separating from the vertical girders, the upper floors began "pancaking:" collapsing onto the floors below. The weight of all this debris was too much, far beyond design specifications, for the steel skeleton, IMPORTANT: As the floors gave way under the suddenly increasing weight, the horizontal girders flexed, causing what might be called a "hammock effect," pulling the vertical girders inward. As the domino effect of pancaking floors continued, they fell straight down, confined by the vertical skeleton before much of it, too, collapsed. It would be much like pressing the plunger down in a French press coffee maker. This is why, beyond some expected scattered debris, the buildings fell into their own footprint. Simple physics. Buildings of this height do not, indeed cannot, have the structural integrity necessary for them to topple over like felled trees. [Sidebar: If one wanted to create a much wider area of destruction, the way to do it would be to plant explosives on one side of the building, at the base, similar to the undercut that loggers make to cause a tree to fall in a particular direction. The building would still not fall like a tree, but the debris would fall on a wider area on the side of the "undercut," possibly collapsing into immediately adjacent buildings.] Considering that burning jet fuel had flowed down elevator shafts and stair wells, there would have been many areas burning on the lower floors for some time. As the upper floors began falling into the lower floors, the downward air pressure (again, like the French press coffee maker) would cause some of the windows on lower floors to blow out, followed by a sudden burst of flame, hence the apparent explosions on lower floors as the buildings collapsed. This is what was explained to me by my architect friend (who, by the way, has no kind of bias favoring the Bush administration—quite the contrary, in fact) when I put the question to him. He is very knowledgeable in his field, and the way he explained the collapse sounds reasonable to me, but I, personally, am not qualified to argue any of these points myself. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Willie-O Date: 11 Dec 06 - 04:50 PM Guest has kept saying "Marvin Bush was in charge of security" at WTC, now revises that to "was part of security at WTC on 9-11". I know he has the magic name and all, but his Wikipedia entry specifies that he was a director of Securacom, (which was involved in some aspects of security at the WTC), until late 2000 (also apparently was no longer a shareholder by the end of the year.) I think we all understand the difference between being on a board of directors and actually being in charge of anything. The company that was fully responsible for WTC security was Kroll Inc., and the guy in charge there was John O'Neill, who died at his post on 9/11. See Wikipedia.org entries for:
As for Number 6's query about why Atta travelled separately, isn't simple tradecraft the most likely explanation? If one or more of his co-conspirators had been picked up before boarding the flight, it stands to reason that Atta, as the leader, would want to avoid being obviously associated. W-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 11 Dec 06 - 04:59 PM Now, Don... as much as I love coffee metaphors, I think you've touched upon a sensitive nerve here... Please... from now on... call your coffee press by it's new patriotic label O.K? It's a 'freedom press' coffee maker... ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:00 PM "This game is far from over. The investigation has not even begun, and you people who've made up your minds that the government is telling the truth..." No we have not, yet you appear to have your mind made up. Tell us, if an independent organization investigated ALL the claims and determined that the official report was correct and there was no goverment involvement - would you be satisfied? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:06 PM I understand why you find that theory of the buildings' collapse persuasive, Don, and I originally found it very persuasive as well, until I read some other material which proposed different theories and questioned some of the key assumptions in the first. I lost confidence in the original theory at that point. That's why I sort of get a bit heavy-lidded and start yawning when I read it all again one more time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:07 PM I wonder why I had chicken for lunch today? I rarely eat chicken, usually bring a sandwich. What made me run to Boston Market? It is too coincidental that a Boston Market exists two blocks from where I work. And why is a Popeyes opening up less than 1/2 mile down the street? A few months ago they shut down the Taco Bell, which I think I would have preferred. Of course there was the e-coli problem last week. I think George Bush once raised chickens. I am sure that he planted this e-coli just before Taco Bell closed down and made sure that I forgot my sandwich so I would have to go to Boston Market. Wait a minute - Boston is near Yale isn't it? That is where George went to school. It is all becoming perfectly clear. There is a connection, but I guess no one is willing to admit. All of you people have your minds made up that I just happened to be hungry for chicken today, but none of you are willing to admit that there was a longstanding plan at work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM Does this have anything to do with the fact that I can't get a decently ripened papaya at Longo's? I bet it does. Thanks for alerting us all, Ron. If I could get your autograph, that would be great. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM What? Yale is New Haven? That is just down I-95 from Boston - and if you follow I-95 you will get to NJ!!! Holy shit!!!! This is bigger than anyone expected!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:11 PM Little Hawk, for you I will give a discount. I better give it to you quick because I think I am a marked man now that I figured out this conspiracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:18 PM "I originally found it very persuasive as well, until I read some other material which proposed different theories and questioned some of the key assumptions in the first. " Why don't you share what parts of the theory you had difficulty accepting? Perhaps that can open up this discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:24 PM You're not well known enough yet to be a marked man, Ron. But if you were a TV anchorman...well, that would be a different story. Your life wouldn't be worth shit after those revelations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:27 PM I'm too jaded, tired, and cynical to bother today, Ron. Maybe later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:30 PM So I assume that means everything you posted today was jaded and cynical. Thanks for the warning! I look forward to hearing your non-jaded and coherent explanations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:50 PM My architect friend was not giving the "conventional explanation," he was calling on his knowledge of architecture in general, and some knowledge of the way the World Trade Center buildings were constructed. No, he didn't work on them, but when they were originally built, they were naturally a matter of interest to many architects. Don Firth P. S. Sorry, Thomas, but I like our French press coffee maker, and if they try to take the word "French" away from me, they will have to pry it out of my snarling, clenched teeth! Humph!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM 3,000 people died when GWBush was in charge of a job, and he immediately scrubbed the crime scene and sealed all records relating to the crime, then he appointed known mafioso to "investigate," and that investigation didn't even mention his brother, who was in charge of security at the crime scene, so Bush is squeaky clean, right? Is that what you supporters of the govt's version are telling me? Just give me some believable argument. Tell me again why Marvin Bush wasn't questioned. I must have missed that first basic step. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 11 Dec 06 - 08:35 PM You're all like a bunch of people standing at different spots on the beach. "You won't believe the sand over here!" "Think you've got sand? It's nothing like my sand over here!" "Sand? You want sand? Lemme tell ya you ain't seen sand yet! Check it out over here!" "Ah, you're all fulla shit! I've got the SAND right friggin' here!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 08:52 PM So that's what Marvin Bush said when he was questioned? The President's brother was handling security at the WTC, Dulles Int'l airport and United Airlines on 9-11, people. What has he said about his role in 9-11? Can anyone answer this? Of course not. That's why you're going nuts over this. You KNOW what happened on 9-11, but you can't admit it to yourself. The people in charge of your "security" are killing you, and you're willing to give up your liberties for more "security." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:23 PM OK .... no one can tell me why Mohamed Atta drove up to Portland on Setember 10th just to fly back down to Boston the next day(some conspiracy detectives you guys are) ... Meanwhile the FBI says he made a credit card purchase in Manhatten on September 10th. Just ta let you know I did find out how the names, pictures and country of origins for all the 19 hijackers were known almost immediately following September 11th .... and it wasn't due to the efforts of the FBI or the CIA. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:29 PM 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying. Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,The Anti-GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:34 PM "That's why you're going nuts over this." YOU'RE the one who's going nuts over this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:45 PM Uh, Marvin wasn't questioned because he wasn't "handling" security at the WTC. You should look up the function of members of a board of directors. I will grant you this. The security company and their Saudi ties were conveniently swept under the rug. Frankly, employees of companies like that are more likely to spill the beans when something is suspicious - but the fact that the company was not looked at careful opens up questions. That actually lends credence to the governement planting stories to divert attention from their Iraq plans. While the security guards from this firm are unlikely to have been involved in anything, the fact that we are talking about it now shows that they are planting red herrings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:55 PM oh... and Marvin left the company in 2000 and was not even a shareholder according to a couple of different reports I read. Also, the company handled security at Dulles in the 1990s - not on 9/11/01. Still, the family connection deserved some attention - even if it led nowhere. It sounds like they were trying to distance themselves from all the bungling that was going on. That might be the real coverup - we had a group of fuckups running everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 10:31 PM Bush worked for the company up until the day of 9-11. Mission accomplished. And it wouldn't be the security guards of the company suspected in this case, it would be their bosses. The bosses who could let in anyone they wanted into the complex. And Marvin Bush was one of these bosses. He had the keys. He had the authority. Who pays you to do this Olesko? You're not very good at it. You bring up the "security guards" when Marvin Bush is under discussion. You say the fact that we're talking about it proves that "they" are planting red herrings. Then you come back and insert the default "bungling" non-sequitir. An invasion force of 40,000 American troops was massed on the border of Afghanistan on 9-11, and 30 minutes after the second plane hit Fox News was screaming "Afghanistan." So our intelligence system was working pretty well. They anticipated the attack and had a response force in place. Where's the bungling in that? Olesko is a plant. In more than one sense of the word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:06 PM Wooo Hooo! Wow. A rabid conthpeewathy theeuweeist guest is calling another long time respected member a plant. My Oh My... Ya just got a lot less entertaining, pal... If you have to sprinkle half truths all over the place, could ya at least be pleasant? ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,The Anti-GUEST Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:34 PM If Ron is a plant, I think that makes GUEST an invasive species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 12 Dec 06 - 09:33 AM Good one guest, just like the neocons you support. You can't face the facts so you make up bullshit and start attacking the individual. You love to play spin doctor and ignore the facts. Just like your buddy Rush and friends at Fox News. If I am wrong about Bush being part of the company I will gladly admit that I am wrong. Everything I read about Marvin said he left the company in 2000. He was a member of the board of directors which is a big difference from being a "boss". The company had not been involved with security at Dulles or United Airlines on 9/11 but you fail to mention that in your diatribe. Show us your sources and prove me wrong, don't give us bullshit. An ounce of intelligence beats all the propaganda you can dish up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Teribus Date: 12 Dec 06 - 11:13 AM GUEST 11 Dec 06 - 10:31 PM "An invasion force of 40,000 American troops was massed on the border of Afghanistan on 9-11," Really??? Where on the borders of Afghanistan?? Any proof or substantiation of this?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Wesley S Date: 12 Dec 06 - 11:47 AM And it's amazing that none of those 40,000 troops ever talked about the experience either. Or maybe one of the "Men in Black" erased their brains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 12 Dec 06 - 02:19 PM They weren't issued aluminum foil linings for their helmets. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 06 - 08:11 PM The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a "completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." The link is above. I don't care if Marvin Bush was the moron brother of GW and was just working as latine cleaner, he had access to the crime site. You defenders of the govt's story act like this is an THEY vs ME issue. Unless you're Marvin or Jeb or GW Bush, or Cheney, you're in the same boat as all other Americans. Questions weren't answered in a satisfactory manner. Some questions weren't even asked. Media clampdown, "national security" clampdown...and that's not in our interest. All that needs to occur to put this to rest is a publicly verifiable, independent investigation. THAT'S what WAY too many of you are fighting. So many of you are fighting it, you appear to have a stake in the status quo the phony "war on terrorism" has brought about. I don't think you're gestapo, so I have to wonder why you're working against your childrens' best interest. Just hold an investigation. Do any of you have a problem with an independent investigation? Also, an issue that's been overlooked is Brolin's jumping into this. A lot of the people who don't want 911 to be reopened in an investigation are claiming that the 911 Truth Movement is anti-semitic. Quickest way to get the sphincters to tighten seems to be the anti-semitism charge. But then here's Mr. Barbra Streisand, saying there are unanswered questions. This could get a LOT more interesting if she starts speaking out. It's a losing cause, govt-boys. Demand truth before the peasants break out the pitchforks and come for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Cluin Date: 12 Dec 06 - 08:26 PM Well thank god the aging celebrities are finally jumping into the fray. Now we'll see some action! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 12 Dec 06 - 09:47 PM "I don't care if Marvin Bush was the moron brother of GW and was just working as latine cleaner, he had access to the crime site." So did everyone. It was a public building. Perhaps you are admitting to doing something there? " All that needs to occur to put this to rest is a publicly verifiable, independent investigation." My friend, that is what has already occurred. You can verify the findings, and still ask questions. All you have done in your anonymous posts is throw another hissy fit and you are not coming up with facts or logic to back up your theories. We gave you some information that doesn't jive with your pipedreams, and you can only defend yourself by calling us names. Anyone with the brain larger than the size of a pea can see you that you are backed in a corner and cannot come up with any logical rebuttals. Face it, you have no facts to back you up, only ideas that can be contradicted - and that scares you. You don't even realize it, but you are nothing more than a tool of the neocons. You simply regurigtate wild ass theories you read on the internet. You aren't thinking for yourself. You have a preconceived notion that everyone in the government is corrupt and these websites offer you some comfort. The truth is, you can't face reality and find comfort in having others feed you ideas. When confronted you have no obvious recourse but to attack those who are rocking your dreams. You can't stand to see that your theories have little basis in reality so you lash out. It is no wonder that you are remaining anonymous. I really hope you can take an honest look at yourself. Get some help before it gets you. Sure, there are plenty of unanswered questions. Don't latch onto the first theory that makes you feel good. Sometimes the truth is hard to face. You can do it. Believe in yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 12 Dec 06 - 09:51 PM "The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a "completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." " By the way - no one is denying that. The problem is, there are many companies that had contracts for various services in the building. What about the cleaning companies, phone service, IT departments, food vendors, elevator operators, etc. It is one thing to say that a security company had access to the building, but you have to figure out what they could have done and how. That isn't easy to do. Many of these offices were 24/7 operations. Take a look at what services the security company provided and then try to figure out how they could have done it. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of companies like Stratesec around the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 06 - 10:15 PM But none of those companies had Marvin Bush working for them. At least not that I'm aware of. But then again, maybe he DID work for some of them. Let's find out. Investigation. What do you have to fear from an investigation? Why do you argue against it? Do you do it for money or for a sentence reduction? I just want to know why Marvin Bush was involved in the security of the WTC complex, Dulles Int'l and United Airlines and was never investigated. For starters. And has your thinking, Oleosko, become so tangled that you think the "neocons" are the ones questioning September 11? The neocons are the ones in power. The neocons were in power when September 11 took place. Those are the people I want investigated. The Bushes are neocons. Is this one of the talking points your handler or parole officer hands you..."confuse the meaning of terms like 'neocon' and 'patriotism'." Whoever's paying you isn't getting much bang for the buck. Let me have the name of your handler so I can send in a status report. You're probably due for another dose of re-education. "Now ask yourself who's the people with the most to gain (Bush) 'fore 911 motherf**kas couldn't stand his name (Bush) Now even brothas waivin' flags like they lost they mind Everybody got opinions but don't know the time 'Cause Amerikkka's been took - it's plain to see The oldest trick in the book is make an enemy Of phony evil now the government can do its dirt And take away ya freedom lock and load, beat and search..." Lyrics by Paris http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18359&Disp=All "This agenda was clarified two years later with the publication of John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No. 1 in which he detailed his plans to mold Americans to his concept of "perfect human nature." This, he claimed, might best be accomplished by destroying parental influence, traditions and customs, while reducing national intelligence levels." http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/apocalypse/red_double_cross.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 12 Dec 06 - 11:42 PM Yeah, GUEST, I can see why the neo-cons would be quite happy with you. There you are, trying to panic everybody into thinking your cardboard cutout of Frankenstein's monster is real so we'll all be too distracted to notice that they're trying to stuff ferrets down our pants. How much are they paying you? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 06 - 12:27 AM Frightened old men ganging up on the truth. Pathetic. If Bush leans on 9-11 one more time in his upcoming State of the Union, even his Democrat cronies Pelosi and Conyers may not be able to save him. Doesn't take much to start an impeachment, and once it starts Americans are going to want the whole show, just like with Clinton. And when the impeachment proceedings begin, September 11 will take center stage. Do you honestly think the House of Representatives isn't going to ask about the Marvin Bush thing? It'll be so, so good. But the Bush/Clinton work in America is nearly done. The latch on the gallows is just popping free now and the trap door is about to drop. And you pensioners who have been protecting "the system" are about to dance your final jig. All the Bush team and the CEOs are dumping their stocks and selling off their holdings of dollars. The bigger pensions will be plundered first, then the smaller, because you old guys didn't have the guts to demand an accounting for 9-11. Took a week to start investigations on JFK, the Challenger explosion, Pearl Harbor...but 411 days for Sept 11 ("the most imminent threat America has ever faced"). And then, at the end of the "investigation," no answers were given. They were going to throw hundreds of copies of the 9-11 Commission Report into Boston Harbor tonight. Hope they did. While you old turncoats try to silence the people asking questions. Must be a miserable life, hoping to squeeze just one more drop from the tit of that downer govt cow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 13 Dec 06 - 12:53 AM I have bad news for you, GUEST. The sun will rise tomorrow morning. I know that will be a major disappointment to you. Why don't you go to bed and get some sleep. You're a nervous wreck and you undoubtedly need it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Mrs Charles Date: 13 Dec 06 - 01:49 AM Don, you might take your own advice; the thread is a little overclogged with your accumulated wisdom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:23 AM "What do you have to fear from an investigation?" Your paranoia is overtaking you guest. Who said I fear an investigation? Who said any of us fear an investigation? You still have yet to answer the question - would you accept an investigation that showed the government had no involvement?? "Why do you argue against it?" Show me where I argued against an investigation. I showed you that your theories have a lot of holes and are doubtful. You have yet to produce anything other than your ideas. " Do you do it for money or for a sentence reduction? " I do it for love. So why do you do it? Do you honestly think that someone would pay me to post messages on Mudcat??? Are you that paranoid?? No, you just can't fight logic and you have to attack the individuals. Deep down you realize that your arguements have little value, and you just might even be catching on to how the neocons are using you - and that really scares the hell out of you. To think that the value system that you felt set you apart from everyone was actually a tool of the goverment. Wow. How could you have been so blind? Yes, I do buy that theory that the government planted many of these wild ass theories to throw people off the scent. It is easier to have loons chasing UFO's and missles then it is to have people question their ineptitude. There is no proof evident and they effectively divide the country, leaving them to do what they please. Meanwhile they march around the world, and the blood is on your hands. You are a stooge of the neocons guest and you need to wake up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 13 Dec 06 - 01:08 PM GUEST, Mrs. Charles, wisdom is in very short supply these days, so you'd better take it when and where you find it. By the way, I got a very good night's sleep last night, thank you. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 06 - 01:38 PM Hey, I do it out of a sense of patriotism. Gangsters have seized the U.S. government, and it'll have to be taken back from them. Best way to do that is to expose their smelliest, most public crime. I was wrong about the Boston Tea Party thing. It's on 12-16-06: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/07/18335726.php Whereas the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001 have been used to justify attacks upon our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and habeas corpus, and whereas subsequent wars launched upon the world have, together, threatened all of humanity--physically, legally, morally, and psychologically; and Whereas the 9/11 Commission ignored the fact that the Government lied and falsified scientific data about the quality of the air and water in the wake of 9/11, thereby compounding the disaster, endangering the health of unprotected first responders and citizens, sacrificing them in the interests of re-opening Wall Street, and later fighting the victims in court to deny them health benefits; and Whereas the 9/11 Commission was directed by Dr. Philip Zelikow, author of Bush's "pre-emptive war doctrine," whose tenure as a member of the Bush National Security transition team caused him to appear as a witness before the Commission and represented so outrageous a conflict of interest that the 9/11 Family Steering Committee demanded his resignation, to no avail; and whereas Dr. Zelikow's expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, "public myths," which he defined as "beliefs… thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty)," and in what he called "'searing' or 'molding' events [that] take on 'transcendent' importance and retain their power" across generations; and Whereas the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate members of the Administration who also were members of the Project for a New American Century and wrote "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," which stated the need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts," and that "further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor;" and Whereas the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate numerous Air Force war games conducted on September 11, 2001 that severely crippled our highly competent aircraft interception capability; and Whereas the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate or even mention the demolition of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, but went down at near freefall speed at 5:20 pm on 9/11; and Whereas the 9/11 Commission failed to mention that fire had never caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse, and that the pulverization of the towers shared the distinctive features of controlled demolitions, and mischaracterized the towers' core structure as "a hollow steel shaft," ignoring the 47 massive steel support columns as large as 22 inches by 54 inches; and Whereas the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate and explain how the Pentagon, within the most-guarded airspace on the planet, including its own missile defense system, was penetrated on 9/11/2001; and Whereas, the 9/11 Commission decided that who financed 9/11 was "of little practical significance," ignoring evidence that top ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had $100,000 wired to alleged lead pilot Mohammed Atta, and evidence that top Al Qaeda operative Ali Mohammed, who was involved with the '93 WTC bombings, the African Embassy attacks and 9/11, was employed and protected by the FBI, CIA and the US military; and Whereas the 9/11 Commission failed so utterly in its stated mission "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks," that Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, deemed the Commission's effort a 571-page lie, after chronicling 115 of its "errors;" We, people of the United States of America, today, from Boston to California, from sea to shining sea, on the sixteenth day of December in the year two thousand and six, do hereby REJECT the findings contained in the Report of the Kean-Hamilton Commission to Investigate Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, and DEMAND the release of documents, evidence, withheld by the government, and an IMMEDIATE, genuinely Independent 9/11 investigation with subpoena powers, independent 9/11 researchers, and oversight by 9/11 families and concerned citizens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:31 PM I see the black jelly-bean is still queen.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM (Alright. Yet another 9-11 film): Henry Kissinger "nearly fell off the couch." He spilled his coffee on himself. He was visibly shaken. The next day he announced that he was stepping down as chairman of the 9/11 Commission, the post to which President Bush had named him a couple of weeks earlier. What had caused the always poised and famously unflappable "Dr. K" to come unhinged? Why the abrupt resignation from the chairmanship he had so recently accepted amidst such fanfare? The day before his resignation, Dr. Kissinger invited a small group of 9/11 family members to the New York office of Kissinger Associates, the premier global consulting service to presidents, princes, potentates, and corporate executives. The date was December 12, 2002. Kissinger, no doubt, expected them to be putty in his hands. After all, he is the fabled, gravelly voiced eminence who has strode across the world stage for the better part of half a century. Wars, revolutions, financial panics, political scandals, and economic crises — he has come through them all, not only unscathed but almost apotheosized to demigod status. But the ever calm and supremely confident diplomat was unnerved when Laurie Van Auken, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center, said the families wanted him to disclose his client list to assure there was no conflict of interest. She asked if there were any Saudis among his clients and if any were members of the bin Laden family. Kristen Breitweiser, another 9/11 widow who was there, gives this account of the meeting: "Kissinger told us to trust him. We told him we couldn't.... Kissinger seemed stunned.... He didn't understand the fuss about his client list — they were all reputable people, he said. Kissinger seemed stricken and became unsteady. In reaching for his cup of coffee he bobbled, knocked the pot, spilled his own cup and nearly fell off the couch." http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4358.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:28 PM Thanks for the link Guest. Yes, Kissinger probably should have disclosed if some of his clients were members of the Bin Laden family. Now, perhaps you would like to disclose that the link you gave us is for a publication that is put out by the John Birch Society? Isn't this the group that is anti-leftist and anti-communist? This is the same group that opposed the civil rights movement aren't they? Aren't they based on a conspiracy history of history? I guess my neocon comment was not far of the mark. Now I understand why you choose to remain anonymous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:57 PM The John Birch Society ... a pretty nasty super right wing organization ... yes, vehemently opposed to the civil rights movement. Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to assassinate a man by the name of Major General Edwin Walker by taking a pot shot at him through the living room window of his house. Walker had strong ties to the John Birch Society. In fact was reprimanded by the U.S. military for attempting to indoctrinate troops into the movement. Just some food there for thought. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 13 Dec 06 - 11:06 PM I should add .. I find it interesting that Oswald attempts to shoot Walker ... who by the way was at loggerheads with the Kennedys over his right wing teachings to U.S. troops, and with the Civil Rights Movement and then Oswald goes ahead and shoots Kennedy. And then the John Birch Society pops up in this thread about 9/11. Hmmmmmmm .... I will be keeping my eyes on this thread for sure. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 06 - 11:40 PM The film describes the 9-11 widows talking to Kissinger. And Oleosko tries to politicize their grief. Beneath shameful. 9-11 is not a polarizing political issue. All Americans were harmed by it. Americans need straight answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:13 AM http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1hole1.html Pictures of the airplane impact hole on the North Tower. One of the buildings that the news media told you was brought down by intense fires. Yet the woman leaning against the beam stood there for 20 minutes. But you were TOLD by the news media that a roaring inferno just behind her brought down the building. The site doesn't look too hot to me. And the interior of the tower was coated with thousands of tons of asbestos, the best fire retardant in the world. But this woman isn't coated in asbestos, so why isn't she on fire? She stood there 20 minutes, then explosions were picked up on seismographs, then the building fell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 14 Dec 06 - 09:19 AM Where do I try to politicize their beliefs? Stop being an ass. Read what I wrote. You are playing spin doctor again and ignoring the discussion. Those tactics will not work - give us facts. You show us a picture of what "could" be a person standing looking out - it could also be a body, or it could be anything since the photo is not very clear. I assume you see the fire at the top of the picture, and I assume that you see the damage done by the impact of the plane and the damage it did to the support structure of the building. You can think whatever you want, obviously you weren't there and neither was I. If you are going to throw out theories you should be prepared to defend them, not to attack the people who are questioning them. So you did not mention the John Birch Society? How about coming forward with the "truth" that you are asking from others? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,jeezus Date: 14 Dec 06 - 12:14 PM "9-11 is not a polarizing political issue. All Americans were harmed by it. Americans need straight answers." What a crock! By what sort of fantasy can you assert that it's not polarizing. Look at yourself in relation to the posts you're reacting to. And wtf does "politicize" mean? It's a cloak term intended to trivialize an opinion. "Don't politicize it" is a politician's weapon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:36 PM The woman standing in the hole was identified years ago by her family, based on skin & hair color, what she wore to work that day, the floor she worked on, etc. I saw her name some time ago but can't recall it right now. But it's on the internet somewhere. I could probably find her family's phone number if you assholes want to call up and mock her. Whether you are still caught up in the myth that there is a "democratic" party in opposition to a "republican" party or vice versa, if you you are an American, 9-11 is a trans-political issue. "Someone" attacked the U.S., and we don't know who. We need an investigation. We need to rule out the people and organizations with motive first (our own govt., our own leaders), and get to the truth. I won't debate you mockers of the dead anymore, but I'll post to this thread from time to time as more people go public with knowledge about 9-11, just to keep things current. Like this story today: "A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets...." http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/boston_air_traffic_controller_911_inside_job.htm Also, there are hundreds of scientists, government analysts and politicians already on record saying 9-11 is suspicious. Even people on Bush's team: "Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7...." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/150605wtccollapse.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:39 PM Stop being an ass. So tell us more about John Birch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:42 PM "I won't debate you mockers of the dead anymore" You haven't debated us yet so why would we expect you to start? You post ideas, won't respond to questions, deny our rebuttals without thought, and you appear to be a member of the John Birch Society. And yet you have the balls to say that we are politicizing and mocking the dead? How dare you! You are simply ignorant and won't respond to normal discourse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:43 PM I heard the reports of the first hit on my clock radio and immediately turned on the television. The first building was gushing smoke and some flame from the impact hole and also from the hole where parts of the plane went all the way through (engines, for example, are heavy). I was watching when the second plane struck. For most of the rest of the day, I watched replay after replay, some from different angles, and as the day progressed more film kept coming in. There was one spectacular shot of the second hit that someone (not a professional news person) got from a nearby park area with a video camera. She was filming the fire in the first building when she heard the second plane, glanced over her shoulder and saw it coming, and immediately knew what was about to happen. She had the presence of mind to keep filming. The plane was banking somewhat (starboard wing low, port wing high) when it struck, and as the nearly full wing-tanks burst, fire exploded on three or four adjacent floors. By the way, what do you make of this? CLICKY Is GUEST trying to tell us that what millions of people watched on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and what have you (not to mention CBC) was all cooked up at Industrial Light and Magic? Boy, they're really fast!! As to the photos that GUEST posted, in the larger photo, it looks to me like there is smoke pouring out of the hole. In the detail photo (pretty fuzzy), if that is indeed a person standing there (for 20 minutes, you say?), he or she (if that is long hair, one assumes it's a she) could very well be trying to decide whether to jump or not. A lot of people did jump, preferring to die quickly in a fall rather than burn to death. When it comes to that, there is nothing indicating where the photo was taken (as in what building in what city). Also, Comprenez-vous "Photoshop?" Proves nothing. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 14 Dec 06 - 04:50 PM " Yet the woman leaning against the beam stood there for 20 minutes. But you were TOLD by the news media that a roaring inferno just behind her brought down the building. The site doesn't look too hot to me. And the interior of the tower was coated with thousands of tons of asbestos, the best fire retardant in the world. But this woman isn't coated in asbestos, so why isn't she on fire? " It is astounding that you could crowd so many half-truths, assumptions, speculations and distortions into such a few words. 1)assuming that is indeed a woman, you don't know when or how she got TO the hole. 2)you don't know HOW hot the area was by the time she arrived, nor where the flames actually were by that time. 3) You don't know what the woman's condition WAS as she stood there...she might have been badly injured or barely able to stand and unable to go elsewhere. 4)That is not precisely what we "were told by the media"...we were told the fire contributed to the collapse, not that it was "directly behind her"...that jet fuel went a lot of places! 5)The technical reports (which you choose to reject) make the point that the asbestos coatings on the beams was **dislodged** by the impact (Why would that be surprising?), and that this was a major factor in the softening of the structural components by the fire. You simply think that 'looking' at pics tells you a lot...and that 'thinking' about your notions of physics explains it all...and that you (or your 'sources') know more about demolitions and building structure than the experts who wrote the reports. slowly now: Bad guys who hate us steal airplanes, turn off transponders so we can't find 'em...airplanes hit buildings, make BIG mess & start fires....buildings fall down, squishing out mucho dust and cause lotsa damage around them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 14 Dec 06 - 05:32 PM Sorry. I had my "starboard" and "port" bass-ackwards (typing too fast). It was the other way around. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 14 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM (that's ok, Don...my typing's only half-fast.. ;>)) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 06 - 08:01 PM http://911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/woman_wtc.jpg This image is from Chapter 2 of FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study. Stamp of approval from FEMA. Sorry, I just can't argue with you on this. 4 widows in a film draw your ridicule. A dead woman's image draws your ridicule. I thought you had a bit of humanity, but you don't care about other humans. I'm beginning to understand where Abu Grahib came from. Please do some soul-searching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: jeffp Date: 14 Dec 06 - 08:21 PM Actually, it's you unsupported assertions about these people and items that draw ridicule. You are using these people for your own purposes and that is disrespectful and sick. You are less than human. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 06 - 08:42 PM The NIST "Response", p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same woman looking over the edge of the 94th floor. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 14 Dec 06 - 10:33 PM so WHAT? There was someone who survived for awhile, but didn't get rescued. She was one part of a great tragedy...it proves NOTHING about how, why or when. Since we didn't get to interview her, we do not KNOW where she was at the impact or how she got there. You keep throwing out 'stuff' that has no relation to what you want to claim and making oblique insinuations, using tragic photos as if misery proves something. Give it up... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 14 Dec 06 - 11:06 PM "4 widows in a film draw your ridicule. A dead woman's image draws your ridicule." You are pretty damn sick Guest. Show me where any of us have ridiculed the 4 widows or a dead woman. Questioning whether a picture shows a woman is not ridicicule, but I supposed you have already been indoctrinated to start throwing out accusations like that when you are questioned. I see the woman in the other picture you showed us. I am wondering if she is one of the 200 or so people who choose to jump instead of being burned to death in that horrible fire. I can't imagine how horrible it must have been to have to make that choice. So, since you seek the truth, are you going to address the question about the John Birch Society? What is there involvement and how are you involved with them? Just thought I would ask again since you seem to be clamoring for the truth. By the way, the link you gave us from the John Birch website really did not go anywhere. Sure, Kissinger did resign - and hopefully it was because of the pressure from the Jersey widows. Kissinger was the wrong choice to begin with and I am sure if he stayed on the commission there would have been larger outcrys. By the way, everything that I have read about the Jersey widows have them questioning the report mainly for the lack of information on how much the U.S. knew prior to 9/11 as well as the follow up afterwards. I have not seen them linked to the consipracy theory (controlled demolition). Perhaps you could share a link where they have made those claims? Frankly I would respect their opinion more than yours. They have knowledge, not just knee jerk responses. Can't wait to hear about the John Birch Society from you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:41 AM The people in those holes and the firemen radioing for two hoses to put out the small fires tell a very important story...fire did not bring down the buildings. You don't want to listen to me, that's fine, but when the dead are telling you something contrary to the "official" version of what happened on 9-11, you owe it to them to listen. Forget your pensions and your government funding and do the right thing. Speak up for the dead and demand an open investigation into 9-11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 15 Dec 06 - 09:22 AM You are only listening to one story guest and you have made up your mind. Pensions? Government funding? Do you know something that I don't? Why do you feel that you have the only voice for the dead? The Jersey widows have a stronger voice, and they are not saying the same thing that you are. You have a picture on a floor where there were small fires, apparently. Explain to me how that proves that there were no larger fires elsewhere in the building and how that disproves the "official" theory, and explain why 200 people jumped to their death in what appears to have been an attempt to escape the flames and heat. Explain the phone calls from people trapped in the building who were describing fire and heat that you deny? Explain why the NYC firefighters, police and EMS crews have not joined in this supposed cause? Explain why you only listen to select voices. Don't make a mockery of this. So still no comment on your connection with the John Birch Society? Hmmm. We want the truth! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,annie Date: 15 Dec 06 - 12:00 PM This chatter will go on for a hundred years after we're dead, and there will still be no definite picture of the government's role in the event, because it's too hard to imagine that level of evil. And yet I believe they did it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: jeffp Date: 15 Dec 06 - 12:59 PM Believing doesn't make it so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:23 PM "Believing" is the key to the whole problem. Our John Bircher Guest appears to have been indoctrinated to believe in conspiracies. To this person, the fact that the sun rises each day has a plot behind it. Annie is somewhat different, based on the post. She is right, the discussion will go on for ages - as will the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations. Even knowledge does not change perception in these cases. As Annie pointed out, it is too hard to imagine this level of evil - so many people grab onto the consipiracy theories because they appear to be the solution. It becomes easy to say that you watched a controlled demolition because you have something to model the images against. No one every saw a plane crash into this sort of building so it becomes hard to absorb the fact that it could have caused the destruction. It is easier to imagine someone planted explosives. We never watched a building of that size and mass collapse, so air pressure blowing out debris is a new image - but we can equate images of explosions to what we saw. It is easy to explain away what we saw with something that we have seen before - demolition. The culprits - why not the government? Events in the past has made us leary of their motives and operations so it is easy to answer our own questions by blaming them. I don't blame normally intelligent people for latching onto these theories. What I do have a problem with is the lack of interest in considering other theories and trying to analyze all the data. Motive needs to be tied into logic, and some of these consipiracy theorists fail to re-examine their beliefs. I am perfectly willing to hear theories and examine evidence, but when questions arise that can't be answered - I have to say wait a minute. At this moment in time, the "official" explanation of how the building collapsed makes more sense then the theories that John Birch Guest posted for us. The theories he or she posted open up too many questions as to how it could have been accomplished, and it relies on a suspension of belief in how to interpret information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:27 PM Exactly, annie. Such a big smokescreen has been put up, it could probably not be proven who was behind Sept 11. But the people who cover up a crime are the prime suspects, and the people who covered up 9-11 are still in office. And they didn't cover up for "national security" reasons (if we were under threat, the borders would have been shut down immediately). So they covered up for some other reason. But whatever the reason, their actions made them accessories to murder. We need an open and independent investigation to ferret out the rats. As for the John Birch Society, I don't know anything about their operation. Never looked into it. I think they're pretty right-wing and anti-U.N., and the anti-U.N. part sounds good to me. But then the American Communist party makes some good points, too. Since you seem so keen on the Birch thing, Olesko, maybe I should look into it. As repulsive as continuing this dialogue may be, I realized I do indeed owe the dead from 9-11 my effort, as an American, to set things right. The event was used by the federal government of the U.S. to launch a destructive agenda, and it is up to each and every American to do what he/she can to derail that insane, genocidal agenda. And the best way to do that is to go back to the event which triggered the current unrest in the world...9-11. In an effort to reach you folks who support the diabolical course the U.S. government is following, I'm working on a classification system. If I can just figure out what category you fit into, I might be able to make more sense to you. I noticed there's another thread running on Holocaust denial, and this approach might help with understanding that sort of person, too. The Holocaust deniers and the 9-11 Truth deniers seem to have a lot in common. So far, I've come up with 4 types of denial. Types 1 & 2 are sub-categorized. I have determined that you deny the U.S. government had a hand in the 9-11 attacks because: 1) You're truly ignorant, because: a) you lack the mental ability to understand, or b) you're able to understand but, i) you have not been exposed to the truth, or ii) you've been exposed to the truth but government/media brainwashing is dominating your better sense 2) You're terrified of the changing world and you think that if you parrot the govt's lies you'll be able to extend your existence, or 3) You're protecting your investment in "the system" (a pension, a job, some imagined "standing" in the community, etc.), or 4) You serve the government and will back it no matter how misguided its policies are. Categories of servitude are: a) an active employee of the federal government, drawing a paycheck b) employed in a field which is heavily endowed or funded by the government (university work, aerospace work, etc.) c) you work as a slave for the government in its "justice field." You may be a blogger writing from prison, as part of a sentence-reduction agreement, or you may be on parole and doing the same thing as part of your "community service." Any thoughts on this would be welcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:37 PM Oops. It's categories 1 and 4 that have been sub-categorized, not 1 and 2. And 4b should probably also mention state/county/city employment, since so many of those entities accept money from the federal govt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:46 PM My thoughts are - you need to get some help, quickly. Your rambling message is showing that you are not capable of having a discussion. For someone who is concerned that the world has been screwed, you seem to show little compassion and understanding and I certainly think you lack the fiber that would be required to bring change. Why are you so keen on catagorizing people? Why do you seen only Side A and Side B? Are you such a follower that you have closed your mind to free thought? Your "4" types of denial seem a little cut and dry, and you do not open up any other potentials. The world is not so cut and dry my friend. You still have yet to wrap yourself around the possibility that the rest of us might be right, and you have been wrong. You are so afraid of finding out that you might be wrong you go into a defense mode. That is a sign of deeper problems. It isn't a question of "buying" any story. There are plenty of problems with the official report. There is plenty of reason to keep questioning and to keep this alive. There should also be discussion - and here is where you have shown yourself over and over to be close minded. You have also shown yourself up as a liar. Instead of taking out points and making an arguement, you can only comeback with attacks on our character and motivations - you have yet to disprove anything from the official report in terms of how the towers fell. (Let's focus on that since it seems to be your biggest point.) As for the John Birch, I think that is very important and you seem to be glossing it over. You have made several strong points that people like Bush and Kissinger failed to disclose their connections to Bin Laden and the Saudis. (I agree with you on that.) Yet when you brought up an example from the John Birch Society magazine website, you completly ignored my questions as to your motives and connections. Don't you think we deserve to know who YOU are reprenting? I won't even bring up the fact that you choose to remain anonymous from your West Coast location, but now that you have shown your connection with John Birch Society, perhaps it is time to come clean? Think about these things, and perhaps you would be willing to come back and actually have a discussion. I now it makes you feel like a real bigshot when you can throw out insults and be rude to others, but in reality you have become the same people that you are fighting. You are the one who has become a liar and end up covering up your own agenda. Get help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:47 PM 5. The planes actually caused the collapse, and the report is reasonably accurate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 15 Dec 06 - 02:53 PM I think GUEST's repeated references to pensions and how we won't agree with him because we're afraid we'll lose them probably stems from my mentioning (on another thread and in another context) that, like a lot of folks my age, I receive a monthly Social Security check. He immediately leaped on that, claiming that I was a coward for disagreeing with him because I was afraid I'd lose my "pension" if I admitted publicly that I thought he was right. Four things: 1) Social Security is not a "pension," it is essentially the same as payments from an annuity; 2) my Social Security check couldn't be stopped unless they stopped them all, and that's a can of worms they wouldn't dare open; and 3) I am not wealthy by any means, but I even if my Social Security check were to stop, I'd still be in fairly good shape. I have other sources of income ; and 4) the reason I disagreed with what he claimed was that he was patently wrong on several points he was trying to peddle. Sorry, GUEST, I can neither be bought nor intimidated. I think GUEST is verging in hysteria, and desperate for validation, so he has to dismiss those who don't immediately hail him as a Prophet (Jeremiah comes to mind) as either stupid, or in on the conspiracy, or don't want to admit that what he claims is the "truth" because of petty self-interest. Okay, GUEST, here's all the validation you'll get out of me. I think that the idea that the 9/11 attacks were a monstrous conspiracy between the Project for the New American Century and members of the Bush administration (some of whom are the same people) IS within the realm of possibility. I read their "Statement of Purpose" and some of their articles long ago, and I'm thoroughly familiar with that outfit. And I identified them (in threads a few years ago on this forum) as the crypto-fascists and empire builders that they are. And I've always thought that Bush was less of a president and more of a hand-puppet for those who would rather stay in the shadows, like the neo-cons in the PNAC and the religious right-wing. If it were eventually PROVED--solid, believable evidence, not just speculation--that the attacks were a plot by these people, I would not be totally surprised. Outraged, yes. But not totally surprised. BUT—do I really think they did? I think it is extremely unlikely. So far, the evidence presented is interesting, but not convincing. And, GUEST, I've read much more persuasive and well-presented arguments favoring the government conspiracy idea than you have presented. You're just flailing about and grasping at straws. And you list of reasons why we don't buy the blather you are putting forth simple demonstrates how desperate and needy you are. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:25 PM ...and they are still going thru this sort of discussion about the death of Princess Diana....the official report is out, but conspiracy theorists will have none of it. Same with assassination of Kennedy...etc. Meanwhile stuff like global warming and overpopulation are being ignored.... ah, it's interesting to contemplate how the mind can work... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: jeffp Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:54 PM Do you expect an "official" report to convince the true believers? Do you expect anything to convince the true believers? They are as unshakable in their faith as any fundamentalist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 06 - 09:14 AM No, there are 4 categories of denial as far as I can see. Sub-categorized. I'll detail more as more becomes evident. All I'm asking for is an investigation. Today's the day they're supposed to throw the 9-11 Commission report into Boston Harbor (re-enact the Tea Party scenario). Hope they do. Hope they get arrested. Hope it's front page news in America. Then maybe the avg person would realize something about the report isn't right. Like how it didn't even mention bldg 7 coming down and didn't mention the largest steel-core support systems in the world being part of WTC 1 and 2. Ain't your "friend" Olesko. You apparently take govt money for university work, so there goes your objectivity. Anything to keep the tit flowing. Same with Firth. I know you have to put bread on the table, but at what cost? And I looked at the John Birch Society website. Been meaning to for a while. I even wrote to them and told them you referred me, Olesko. Said I didn't know if you were a member, but you spoke of them often. I even signed the petition on the upper right, regarding House Concurrent Resolution 487 and emailed that. Hard to disagree with wanting to save America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 16 Dec 06 - 09:28 AM Wow... you really are insane!! Have you "looked" at the website - the one you referred everyone to? You gave everyone a link to the John Birch Society website, and now you are claiming ignorance? Well, maybe that part would be easy for us to believe. It is about time you check your facts. Boston Harbor? The link you gave us the other day was for an event in San Francisco. Did they move the harbor as part of the conspiracy? My friend, it is pretty obvious to all of us that you are grasping at straws and cannot conduct yourself in a real discussion. Now you make statements about me and others that you obviously have no concept of, and you think it makes you feel good to say. I'm sure you smile produdly to yourself after you post. You keep forgetting that people read your posts, and if you look around - no one is impressed with you. You aren't discussing anything - you are simply trying to bait people into an argument. You could care less about any cause, you are just here to cause more grief - something your neocon brethren have taught you well. You don't realize that you expose yourself to the world, even thinly clouded in a veil of anonymity. We all realize that you understand your points about 9/11 are something that even you don't believe, so now you chose to troll around and start fights - fights that you could not finish in real life. Good luck to you. Listen to your doctors, take the meds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Donuel Date: 16 Dec 06 - 10:26 AM The Holocaust deniers and the 9-11 Commission seem to have a lot in common |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 06 - 11:05 AM Everybody has a lot in common. Proves nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 06 - 01:05 PM Do you have a reading disability, GUEST, or are you just thick? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Dec 06 - 07:56 AM So doesn't the theory that postulates that Putin was involved in the murder of Litvinenko the other week count as "a conspiracy theory" Wolfgang, since there is a real possibility that it might be the truth? (McGrath) Exactly, it doesn't. It is a theory about a conspiracy but not a conspiracy theory. In a conspiracy theory, the evidence against the theory or lack of evidence for the theory is explained by postulating a major conspiracy with many people involved. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 17 Dec 06 - 04:06 PM Good distinction, Wolfgang. The problem that almost invariably comes up with conspiracy theories is that their advocates must invent complexities to cover obvious holes in the theory. The ultimate result of this is that the whole operation, according to the conspiracy theory, ends up resembling a Rube Goldberg device, an immensely complicated, many-step contraption for accomplishing a simple task. And with a conspiracy theory, the more complicated it gets, the more people have to be involved, which increases the likelihood of exposure far beyond the point of anything reasonable. Without going into the convolutions of the Project for the New American Century's real conspiracy to permanently establish the United States as "the sole superpower" (the PNAC's euphemism for Empire America), part of that plot involves control of Middle Eastern oil. What was needed was a "Pearl Harbor," giving the United States an excuse to invade Iraq, which, theoretically, would give the U. S. geopolitical control of the area. This, incidentally, is outlined in the PNAC's literature (CLICKY). I'm not making it up. Assuming that the Bush administration was amenable to this (and it's a relatively safe assumption, considering the number of PNAC members who were and are in top positions in the Bush administration), the easiest way to get their "Pearl Harbor" excuse would be simply to ignore the many warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration, people like Richard Clarke, and numerous intelligence sources, that an attack by al Qaeda (including the belief by many agents that the attack would be in the form of flying airliners into the World Trade Center buildings) was imminent. If they merely sat back, twiddled their thumbs as they waited, and looked dumb, the worst they could be accused of would be rank incompetence. It would have been exceeding stupid for the Bush administration to get actively involved. The attack on the WTC would be sufficient. An obvious attack on the United States in which a lot of people would die, even if the buildings didn't collapse. The problem then would be to connect Iraq with al Qaeda (even though no connection existed--in fact, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein hate each other), which, with the aid of Right-Wing propaganda flacks like Fox News Service, and the "me too-ism" of the major networks (Edward R. Murrow must be spinning in his grave!), they managed to do in the minds of a fair percentage of the population. The idea that standard procedure when airliners go out of their assigned flight paths and were not intercepted merits serious investigation. But the idea of setting up controlled demolitions of the buildings just doesn't wash on many counts. Here is a brief portion of an article from Scientific American magazine regarding the collapse of the buildings. CLICKY. And I'm far more inclined to believe an article in Scientific American than I am one in The New American, the organ of the John Birch Society. Yes! This whole affair needs to be seriously investigated, and in great depth. But this asinine conspiracy theory that GUEST is trying to get people excited about merely distracts from the real issues. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 17 Dec 06 - 05:31 PM Well put Don! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:35 PM "...Nor would the 9-11 Commission's labors stop a group this weekend from dumping its report into Boston Harbor "to cast off the tyranny, deceit and lies imposed on the American Public by way" of the report...." http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=144209&zoneid=34 Hey, I can't help it if the govt-controlled media doesn't report on this stuff. Should have been front-page news, not just a mention in an editorial. The group in Boston was planning to meet. Hope they did. For Oleosko (Denial category 4b): "Institutions of higher learning cannot rely on government funding, although it is an important source...." Link below to the waterboard of education: http://view.fdu.edu/default.aspx?id=2787 For Firth (Denial category 3), on the Bush Administration's latest member. Video clip, in case he the printed news stories didn't penetrate: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pelosi_Impeachment_off_table_1023.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:48 PM Even by your lack of standards, that is a real stretch. You are just showing more and more how your paranoia has destroyed your logic and ability to think for yourself. What a stretch! I assume you also suspect the same thing of the hundreds of universities that offer similar courses? You really must be lonely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:56 PM I'm curious as to why you posted the link to the story about the tea party. (Yes, it looks like there was another event in Boston if that editorial is correct.) What is interesting is that your posting appears to be a subtle way of you admitting that you have been wrong about these postings. Why else would you share a story that knocks down conspiracy theories and ends with: "Conspiracies love complication, and the Internet, where electronic gossip that would once have been ephemeral, hardens it into theory and then to sturdy fact. Nothing wrong with that, of course, as long as you know what you are reading." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 06 - 10:16 PM It appears you defend the govt's version of 9-11 Olesko because the organization you work for benefits from it. Awarding degrees in waterboarding and spying. How sick is that? And I don't care how many other universities are doing it, it's wrong. The gangsters currently in control of America are hoping that we ALL have conflicts of interest similar to yours, because then we won't make any effort to stop the destruction of the country. As far as quoting from divergent sources, when the media doesn't do its job, you get your news where you can find it. 9-11 did not happen the way the "official" and "final" 9-11 Commission report claims. You need to demand an investigation, or someday those students you're training to torture are going to flay you alive while they discuss last night's reality TV show. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 18 Dec 06 - 10:02 AM Again, you need to check your facts. You can make all the insinuations that you wish, and because you are hiding under the cloak of anonymity you think you are not held accountable. I am not a paid employee, I do not teach students, I volunteer to host a self-produced radio show for the community radio station that the university operates. Your wild ass theories need to have some substance to them. Just saying "it is so" does not make them true. You need to use facts and logic. Everyone sees through your false bravado. Look around you. Also, if you had the reading skills to follow this conversation and what people are telling you - we are not "defending" the 9/11 report. Having the ability to reason and understand certain aspects does not give blanket approval. Read Don's note above. So tell us what you are doing to demand an investigation? What have you done beside trolling on the internet and becoming a member of the John Birch Society? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Okselonor Date: 18 Dec 06 - 11:59 AM This tendency for "members" to use the argument of "hiding under a cloak of anonymity" is bullshit. Not joining the club just means that the "catlaughing/shambles/big mick/ron olesko/little hawk/number six/...etcetera... fraternity feels too insular and highschoolish. It's perfectly valid to post without a "name". Demanding to see an i.d. is no proof of any sort of credibility. Calling people whose points you don't agree with "trolls" a cowardly rhetoric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 18 Dec 06 - 12:08 PM It's not bullshit, the proof is plain to see. If I were to make libelous or slanderous statements, I am responsible and it would reflect on me. I could go under the cloak of anonymity and say that you sleep with sheep and I have proof, but no one could point fingers at me - or my online personna. The idea of acting insular and "highschoolish" is evident in the postings of anonymous guests who can feel brave by saying whatever they wish and then run away. It takes a bit more courage and responsibility to stand by your words and absolutely no guts to spew venom and lies while hidden from view. You do not have to be a member, but when you play in the schoolyard don't stand behind mommies apron when you are challenged. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 18 Dec 06 - 12:41 PM "Demanding to see an i.d. is no proof of any sort of credibility. " This has nothing to do with the issue. It is a Red Herring...No one is demanding to 'know' who 'guest' actually is...the point of asking for a name is to differentiate posters! It 'may' be possible to guess which 'guest' one is replying to, but in many, many cases it is NOT. Even using a consistent name without joining would be tolerable...(we have regular posters who are unable to set cookies, but are polite enough to sign their posts, even if it as "Rumplestiltskin". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 06 - 12:58 PM Never mind. All of you are right. I have been stirring the pot and I no longer see the conspiracy. I've been going through some difficult times and these posts and the arguements that it has caused have been a distraction for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 06 - 01:21 PM There's no way to differentiate guests, as far as I can tell. You use a name as a guest, then someone comes along and posts something to discredit what you said...discredit you by using your temporarily assumed name. I've tried signing things, etc., but the hijacking I just described always happens. The only proper way to receive credit (or blame) for what you post is to sign up. I post to "liberal" and "conservative" forums in my free time, Olesko. You think I'm right-wing, I could introduce you to some folks who would rather chew your frilly head off than talk to you. Mostly I post cookie cutter stuff I can copy and paste. Sometimes I get bogged down in bickering but I try not to. And I type fast, so this 4-5 minutes is like a smoker taking a smoke-break. The spreading of ideas seems a better use of time, though. Not much I can copy and paste from these bickerings, but at least I've come up with a new idea. The growth of Homeland Security Educational programs needs to be addressed. Our universities are now showing brain-dead children how to invade privacy, interrogate and spread terror. Kind of like the negative image of the Peace Corps, it seems to me. And you're right that it's everywhere, so this cancer needs to be addressed. That URL to your university's Gestapo page...you have to admit that's pretty distubing reading. And this curriculum is springing up everywhere. America's becoming a prison economy, and these college courses are proof of that. This trend needs to be stamped out. So, I think I'll work on that as time permits. Work up a statement against the practice, then find some of the more repulsive course descriptions. Waterboarding 101. Advanced Bamboo splinters. The 9-11 Omission Report created a boom in arms sales, corporate boondogles and torture education. "Well, honey, have you thought about going into nursing?" "Yeah, but I want to HELP people, and my counsellor Herr Schickelgruber says I should look at Homeland Security." Who'd have thunk it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 18 Dec 06 - 01:36 PM "frilly" head? Real nice comeback. Tell me what purpose you are trying to serve. You try to appear noble and fight against conspiracies, you rail against those in power (which is a good thing), but you show no compassion or willingness to communicate on a human level. How are you going to make the world better when you can't even hold a conversation without resorting to name calling? You ignore questions and honest attempts to discuss your points. "I could introduce you to some folks who would rather chew your frilly head off than talk to you." To what purpose? You silence me and then what? You've become your greatest foe. Can you face that reality? As you admit, you have been merely cutting and pasting and probably did not realize you were grabbing something from the John Birch Society. I can believe that. You might be an intelligent person, but your lack of skills in handling a discussion merely brands you as a fringe troll who has little to offer. I am not a fan of Homeland Security and I think it is wrong that students sign up for these things. It disgusts me that universities offer these type of programs. Ban them? That would be rather hypocritical. Preventing someone from pursuing these opportunities amounts to banning and censorship - which I oppose and I bet you do as well. The only way to fight these things is to educate, and I attempt to do that. I agree with you also on the point you made about a prison economy. When we create so many laws and restrictions we have to expect criminals. The laws need changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:16 PM "3) You're protecting your investment in 'the system' (a pension, a job, some imagined 'standing' in the community, etc.)." Sorry, GUEST, missed by a mile. I have no "investment in 'the system'," as you so quaintly put it, and as I pointed out above, the monthly Social Security check is not a "pension." Go back and re-read—or rather, just read—what I said. I'm not wealthy (I'm a musician, remember?), but I'm far from destitute, and even if the monthly check were to stop, I'd still be in good shape because I have a few investments (perfectly legal) where the United States government can't touch them. I didn't plan it that way, but it just happens to be the case. I own my home outright, and I'm debt-free (how many people do you know who can say that?). And if I needed additional income, I could very easily return to teaching music. I do a bit now just to keep my hand in, but all I would need to do is take on a few more students and I could make up for the Social Security check if it were to stop. No sweat. And I have plenty of good, long-time friends, so my "standing in the community" is not something that I worry about one way or the other. I'm free to say anything I damn well please, and I often do! The "categories of denial" thing is really sort of pathetic. It shows GUEST's mind-set. If someone disagrees with him, he doesn't have to analyze why the person disagrees and see if there might be something to it, he merely slams the person into a pigeon hole. It saves a lot of thinking, and that's something that GUEST obviously doesn't like to do, any more that he likes to actually read and try to understand what someone else has posted rather than just give it a quick scan and a sneer, and then lash back with some baseless accusation that the person is either in on the plot or has a vested interest—implying, of course, that the person knows that GUEST is right, but they don't dare admit it. There is ample reason that this section of the forum bears the prefix "BS." I don't know why I bother to argue with people like this. Their brains are locked into one idea, and no amount of logic, evidence, or direct confrontation with reality will jar that idea loose. Sounds like paranoid schizophrenia to me. GUEST really needs to get help, but of course, due to the nature of the condition, he would never do that on his own. It would take the intervention of friends and/or relatives to bring it about. There's a fellow I was acquainted with some years ago who sounded a lot like GUEST, only the conspiracy theory he was promulgating was, perhaps, a little more imaginative and "far-reaching," if I may say so. It had to do with an alien invasion. I never learned what planet the invasion was coming from, but the fellow wasn't all that up on astronomy and didn't know a solar system from a galaxy, so he wasn't too sure himself. Somehow, the U. N. and the "international bankers" were in on the plot, and although he could go on for hours about the various details of the conspiracy (many of which contradicted each other), he was never able to give a clear, overall picture of it. He got pretty rabid about the whole thing. The upshot was that he drove his friends away and had his relatives tearing their hair out. There was an intervention, he was evaluated by a couple of psychiatrists, and since he refused to take his meds (his relatives and the psychiatrist were in on the plot and they were trying to poison him) he was eventually committed to Western State Psychiatric Hospital where he tells anyone who is willing to listen (and lacking that, he talks to the furniture) that he has been kidnapped by aliens and is being held prisoner on their planet because he was trying to expose the conspiracy between the aliens and the U. N. In his spare time, he rocks back and forth and bangs his head against a wall. They make him wear a crash helmet so he won't injure himself. Don Firth P. S. No paranoid schizophrenics were harmed in the writing of this post, but that won't stop them from insisting that they—and we—will be, if we all don't heed their dire warnings. P. S. "The latch on the gallows is just popping free now and the trap door is about to drop. And you pensioners who have been protecting 'the system' are about to dance your final jig." That's a good piece of writing, by the way. Insane. But very graphic. A good image! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 06 - 09:16 PM Well, I made it through Olesko's but got bogged down in Firth's. Pointless to continue this guys. I'll just watch for updates of the Lynch or Brolin or Streisand angle to insert here. It's been surreal. Later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 18 Dec 06 - 10:16 PM "Pointless to continue this guys" See - something else we agree on. :) Best of luck to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 18 Dec 06 - 10:45 PM 'Bye, now. Don't forget to wear your crash helmet. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 06 - 10:54 PM Okay...I came back and waded through Firth's post. alien invaders, schizophrenic, conspiracy, lots of talk about outer space and international bankers. Frothing name-calling. Or is that Firthing? Firthing at the mouth. I've been duly Firthed. Consider me Firthed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 18 Dec 06 - 11:27 PM Put your damned helmet on! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Anonymous Chickenshit Guest Date: 19 Dec 06 - 11:07 AM That's the firth time I've laughed in this whole thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 20 Dec 06 - 01:59 PM Another celebrity making a fuss about September 11. You deniers will like this one. This one's a GOVERNMENT man. Big name. Big, big name... ...Danny Bonaduce. Yes. THE Danny Bonaduce. Of "The Partridge Family" fame. The red-haired kid on the TV show in the 1860's. He's been chasing low-grade TV shows ever since that one folded, and in an interview uploaded to Youtube he unloaded on the 9-11 Truth movement. Rumor is he's going to sit in for the #3 or 4 fascist radio host soon (Glenn Beck), so this sounds like a publicity stunt. Beck says anyone who questions the govt's 9-11 story or questions the Iraq war should be put in a concentration camp. For every David Lynch who points out there are unresolved questions about September 11, there will be a Danny Bonaduce to present the government's case. More details later, if I can quit chuckling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 28 Dec 06 - 11:23 PM MICHAEL MEACHER 8 September 2003 "A senior member of the ruling British Labour Party has charged that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and allowed them to take place in order to further longstanding plans for the invasion and occupation of Iraq...." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/meac-s08.shtml (This is interesting because there was a December 20 report that Meacher may run for Prime Minister): "Michael Meacher is "well on the way" to announcing his decision to stand in the forthcoming Labour leadership race, according to one of his key supporters...." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/meac-s08.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 28 Dec 06 - 11:30 PM A good site about the pentagon event: http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttack.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 28 Dec 06 - 11:56 PM Jeeeeezuz H. Christ .... this thread has resurfaced from the bottom of the bog. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 06 - 02:47 AM ain't going away |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 29 Dec 06 - 10:34 AM Why do you only look at websites that support your theory? Are you afraid to check out information that will prove you wrong? Why are you afraid to look at alternatives to your unofficial theory? Here is a good site about the conspiricacy theories: www.debunk911myths.org Here is another: www.911myths.com Maybe Guest can't handle the truth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 06 - 01:23 PM Oh, I've looked at the sites. But I keep coming back to how the laws of Newtonian physics would have to be suspended in order for WTC 1 & 2 to have fallen the way the govt says. WTC 7 was obviously a controlled demolition, and even the debunkers are willing to let that one go as a possible gimme, but WTC 1 & 2 did not fall due to airplane damage and a little jet fuel. Look at the top of the one going over sideways until the floors below it are blown (squibs). Isaac Newton would snort at the official Commission report. But all that aside, if even ONE point is questionable (which FBI agents sat on which field reports? Why was NORAD control transferred to Cheney, whom Transportation Sec Mineta heard give an override order? Why were people notified not to show up for work at the WTC on 9/11?...if there's any question about ANY of those points, and the thousands of other dubious aspects of the case, then why was the case officially "closed" by the govt? It there's even a CHANCE that the govt had a hand in this, then that hand needs to be looked at again. The Bush mafioso did the 9/11 job, then they tried to cover it up, but it didn't work. And letting the Bush cabal squeak out of office unpunished (like they did at the end of Bush # 1's term) won't be good enough this time. The Rockefeller/World Bank's B-team Democrats are coming in to play now, and they'd better get things right. 1/3 of Americans are convinced 9/11 was an inside job. 84% think the govt is covering up SOMETHING about the incident. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,with an open mind Date: 29 Dec 06 - 01:39 PM Listen to you! Have you ever taken a physics class in your life? Even Steven Jones admits that the official report meets the laws of physics, yet you regurgitate the crap you read on the internet without thinking about what you are saying. Your comment about Cheney is unfounded. He was in charge of the wargames which gave him control of NORAD for the drills, but there is no evidence that he was in control of NORAD and no "stand down" was issued. Show us where people were told not to show up for work on 9/11. The stuff of urban legend. Your agenda is obvious. You don't listen to reason. You dismiss hard evidence to the contrary. You are a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 29 Dec 06 - 01:55 PM The buildings collapsed because of Newtonian physics, not in spite of it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 06 - 08:48 PM Nope. All the points I made are valid. Attempts by govt defenders to engage in spin can't change the facts. I suggest you watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 Argue with the conservative Republican who helped make the film. He's a demolition expert. Cheney...yeah, I don't mind digging that stuff up again. BRB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST, NORAD Date: 29 Dec 06 - 09:56 PM NORAD's standing orders for more than half a century were to intercept planes as soon as they went off course, challenge them, then shoot them down if they posed a threat. Half a century+. Thousands of intercepts performed. Then Dick Cheney had the Secretary of Defense transfer control of NORAD to the Executive Branch. First time in history that had been done. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf That's the order transferring control of NORAD. June 1, 2001. Then, on September 11, 2001, there were lots of wargames going on in and around Washington D.C. and New York. All the air traffic controllers standing at their panels knew the games were going on, but they didn't know which blips were fake and which were "real world." The tapes are posted on the internet, if you look for them. Probably the only man in the world who knew which radar blips were fake and which were real was Dick Cheney. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was with Cheney when the planes were crashing. Mineta testified before congress that Cheney was actively involved in monitoring the planes and making decisions about them: Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??" Those could only have been override and stand-down orders, since NORAD's default mission is to intercept and shoot if necessary. After September 11, NORAD reverted to the system it had always used. The Mineta video clip is various places on the web, like here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7005882592257086628&q=attack+on+pentagon Another interesting point about the flight that hit the pentagon is that it got near the building at all. The bldg bristles with Phalanx gatlings and Surface to Air missiles to prevent this kind of thing, so someone turned off the defenses. Boss Rumsfeld was in the bldg. There's lots of damning evidence regarding Cheney and NORAD, but Mineta's testimony...that's so good. So damning. And it's on-the-record public testimony, and there's no statute of limitations on murder. If anything convicts Cheney, it'll be this testimony. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 29 Dec 06 - 10:15 PM First a plane hit the Pemtagon. Then it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Then it was an internal explosion that hit the Pentagon. Then it was a truck bomb like the one in Oklahoma City that exploded by the Pentagon. Then it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Now we're back to a plane again. Mercy me! How confusing! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 06 - 10:59 PM "Mercy me! How confusing!" No kidding. Tried reading all of posts in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 29 Dec 06 - 11:05 PM Oh, there's no doubt a projectile hit the Pentagon. Wasn't one of the 757s though. No approach damage was done (and the plane was supposed to be in the control of a man who couldn't fly a Cessna). Photos of wreckage around the site show pieces of a smaller craft. Some experts say it was a Global Hawk. Pentagon defenses should have picked it up, whatever it was, especially considering the events earlier in that day. Why wasn't the bldg on high alert? Why didn't the building's defenses work? The Pentagon was being renovated at the time of the attack. As a matter of fact, the job was completed the day before. Since the wedge of the building that was hit had been upgraded and hardened, many believe that no 757 could have penetrated through to the inner ring and beyond. So that points to the use of explosives. A guided plane or cruise missile hitting the outside, then explosives triggered inside would make a hell of a big bang. That's the most likely scenario. The section that was hit housed the pentagon's dirty laundry...records relating to 2+ trillion dollars unaccounted for by the government auditors. Those records were conveniently lost in the "attack." The major papers were beginning to give the story a lot of attention, but where is that story now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 30 Dec 06 - 10:04 AM "Why didn't the building's defenses work?" The answer is quite simple .... they didn't have any. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 30 Dec 06 - 10:21 AM There was no "approach" damage because if you look at the Pentagon you would see that it is in the flight path for the airport. IF they had a missle defense, they would risk shooting down planes on an hourly basis. As for the plane that hit the Pentagon, unless you were there you have no way of knowing what hit it. I would rather believe the dozen witnesses who saw a 757 instead of someone who is copying and pasting notes from suspect websites. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:19 PM Precisely! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:39 PM " Photos of wreckage around the site show pieces of a smaller craft. " no they don't. They show small pieces of a 757, authenticated by experts. "...many believe that no 757 could have penetrated through to the inner ring and beyond." but it did. Believing is easy. The area HAD been imporved, or the damage might have been a lot worse. "The section that was hit housed the pentagon's dirty laundry...records relating to 2+ trillion dollars unaccounted for by the government auditors. Those records were conveniently lost in the "attack." B.S.!!..I **KNOW** a woman who was knocked down by the crash, who works there every day....that area was NOT used in that way. You are either inventing 'facts' or simply copying someone else's invented facts. You INTEND to believe conspiracy theories, so you cherry-pick sites and opinions which support your beliefs. *note to self* "why DO you bother, Bill? Remember the admonition about not trying to teach a pig to sing?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:40 PM Dozens of witnesses also saw NO airplane just before the explosion. Dozens of witnesses also saw a small white plane, corporate sized. The bit of debris on the lawn wasn't from a 757. It was from a smaller craft. And the defenses are there...why would you question that? It's public record. Phalanx gatling guns and Surface-to-Air missiles. But they were turned off on 9/11. Why? We need a new investigation, that's all. The people who had the most to gain from this were in charge of the "Commission" to investigate. Too many unanswered questions. Too much conflicting evidence. As far as 'suspect websites,' the stand-down order is from a govt website. The Mineta clip is from CSPAN. You whores protecting your meal-ticket are pathetic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:48 PM For your information: Eyewitness Accounts Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 30 Dec 06 - 02:02 PM and a link FROM Don's link Photos of 757 wreckage inside the Pentagon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:29 PM I wish I had a meal ticket to protect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:45 PM I dunno Bill ... they look like pieces from a MD-11 to me. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:50 PM Conspiracy theories Ha! 911 NEVER Happened! Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,heric Date: 30 Dec 06 - 06:56 PM My grandmother wasn't fooled by Apollo 11, either. I also remember an Apollo launch to which they had invited one of the country's oldest men, a black guy well in excess of 100. He, or maybe his parent, had been a slave. When they interviewed him for the nationwide broadcast, he just laughed at the entire bit of nonsense. I remember his words clearly: "Once they get it up there, how they gonna keep it up there? The MOON sure isn't going to hold it up there!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:14 AM Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D - PM Date: 30 Dec 06 - 02:02 PM and a link FROM Don's link Photos of 757 wreckage inside the Pentagon Might be worthwhile to count the holes in the tire rims from both the wreckage and then the shiny rims on the Boeing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:26 AM One of the Rense pics from a different source. The other Rense pic. COUNT THE HOLES on the rim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:42 AM 9/11 Pentagon eyewitness IDs Global Hawk Samuel Danner (electrical engineer for AmTrak), was involved in the clean-up at the Pentagon crash site and inspected the debris at the site. He said, "It was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. The plane looked like a hump-back whale." He thinks a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon. (There were only seven made as of 9/11/01 and two were missing at the time.) Danner is a former pilot. He said the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was very quiet with one engine near the back. He also saw a second plane overhead and wonders if it was controlling the plane that hit the Pentagon. He walked the lawn and picked up small pieces of debris with others. He did not see any bodies from the aircraft. Danner is very ill now with lymphoma, which may be the result of DU exposure at the Pentagon on 9/11. He wants to talk now (after seeing "Loose Change") because "it's been bugging me." The Global Hawk fired a DU missile that penetrated the thick concrete wall of the Pentagon. DU was detected at the time and workers on the scene later in the day wore protective equipment.... http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6636 (This is why you skeptics are good. I wouldn't have seen this story if not for you making me search out more about the pentagon. Didn't know Depleted Uranium was involved. A DU missile makes sense. Warehouse a little 757 debris inside, maybe along the wall next to the courtyard, to be blown inwards. And damn, look at this next site. Nice work. Talk about doing homework): http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:47 AM Not necessarily significant, Peace. Boeing generally doesn't manufacture all the parts of an aircraft, such as wheels for landing gear. They buy some of the parts from different vendors. For example, as I recall, most 707s had GE engines, but some had engines made by other manufacturers. Actully, even if the wheels were exactly the same, that wouldn't necessarily establish the manufacturer and model of the plane. Different aircraft manufacturers sometimes use the same vendors, or the same wheels might be put on a couple of different models from the same manufacturer. I worked in the Boeing Commmercial Airplane Division for several years. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:48 AM Yeah. Definitely not a 757 wheel at the pentagon, Peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Peace Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:49 AM Well, that's part of what Rense used in their argument. Though it might be worth a look. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 31 Dec 06 - 08:42 AM After viewing the first set of pictures posted here I concluded that the wheel certainly wasn't one from a B-757, but that of a MD-11. But with the pictures that Peace presented, I am most certain they are from a Fokker Dr. 1. The earlier models had no holes in them at all, but the later ones had holes (to lessen the weight of the aircraft) and they had the exact number of holes that are on the wheel in that picture. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 31 Dec 06 - 09:42 AM "Conspiracy theories Ha! 911 NEVER Happened!" Conspiracy theories Ha! Saddam had WMD's and there where none!! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 31 Dec 06 - 10:48 AM I don't suppose all you wheel-rim hole counters can explain (clearly...without wild speculation) where flight 77 went, and where all those missing people are. We know some of the hijackers got ON the 757, and it took off...But no one is explaining how an MD-11 or a "Fokker DR1" sneaked into the airspace, or where ANY of them got any depleted uranium, or who flew these mystery aircraft....etc... It is much easier to explain that not all wheel rims had exactly the same design than to invent entirely new airplanes and concoct a theory that covers KNOWN planes going totally missing....but not nearly as satisfying for those who NEED to find a conspiracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 31 Dec 06 - 10:58 AM Here is a story about the "witness" that I found on one of the conspiracy websites. It appears he lied: danner Guest seems to believe anything that he or she can find on the internet that supports his or her preconceived idea of what happened on 9/11. Guest scolds the rest of us for not questioning the official report, yet Guest can automatically accept ANY source that he or she finds on the internet without questioning the validity or probablity of the source and theory. ASK QUESTIONS! Don't accept anything. Use whatever logic skills you may have to review the data. Don't be a patsy of right wing conspiracy or left wing conspiracies. Be your own person, not a stooge for a political agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: heric Date: 31 Dec 06 - 11:24 AM (The Fokker was joking Bill.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:30 PM yeah, but the MD-11? *grin*.....those wheel hole counters were not joking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,heric Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:38 PM I have to admit Peace had me counting holes for a moment there. . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 06 - 01:48 PM Well, I didn't say I believed the Danner story, but I'm glad you skeptics are so eager to take the govt's story as gospel, because that makes sensible people look even more at the inconsistencies. And we come across things like the Danner article. Two interesting things about the anti-Danner article, 1) it doesn't address the fact that 2 of the 7 Global Hawks in the govt inventory were unaccounted for on 9/11, and 2) it doesn't mention radioactivity at the pentagon. The article's just a hit piece directed at a man dying of lymphoma. They try to discredit the messenger but not the message. When I have time I'll look at the depleted uranium angle, now that I see the point has been raised. By the way, at the erroneousbusczh.homestead site above, #558 is one of my favorite articles on the physics of the WTC collapses. "Muslims Suspend laws of of Physics": http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html September 11 was an intentionally sloppy job. It was meant to be "discovered." 86% of Americans now think the govt is at least covering up the facts, and 1/3 believe the govt did it. This job was MEANT to be obvious. Look at this bit of "evidence" reported on by CNN: "The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. 'It was a significant piece of evidence for us,' Mawn said." http://www.rense.com/general13/strangecase.htm The black boxes don't survive, but the paper passport of one of the "dead hijackers" survived the "intense fires" and was found intact on top of some rubble? Come on. Phony evidence. Planted. This job was MEANT to be an obvious fake, that way, when the U.S. is brought down, it'll make some kind of historical sense, won't it? I mean, the govt is seized by gangsters who kill their own constituents to start a world war. The constituents know what happened but are too lazy and scared to take action. So the Allies have to come in and stop the aggression. America has invaded illegally (just like the Nazis in Europe), concentration camps are being set up in America (just like in Nazi Germany), and now we'll go through a few years of holocaust before we're brought under control by the U.N. But there is a solution. Here's my favorite recent finding. This woman has the right attitude: Investigations? Impeachment? It does not matter at this late stage. Either is too slow and ponderous. Nothing short of a secret grand jury indictment for treason and the immediate arrest of the highest officials in the Executive, State, and Justice branches now in office will be able to save our United States, restore it to its former status as a beacon of freedom in a troubled world and save all our sorry asses. Throughout this whole takeover of the United States, from the initial electoral blitzkreig through the unilateral initiation of two separate wars, the shredding of the civil rights that have been granted by the Constitution, the draining of the Treasury through no-bid contracts with hand-picked multi-national corporations, and the assumption of absolute power of the Executive, the Neo-Con cabal have been two jumps ahead of those in Congress who might attempt to bring it under control. By the time Congress determines that there is a "problem", it is already too late to do anything about it and, meanwhile, the next step in the coup d'etat has been solidified and another initiated. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_pit_061229_too_little_too_late.htm As one of my projects in the new year, I'm going to start writing to celebrity fan sites. Encourage the celebrities to go public with their doubts about 9/11. THAT'S why someone like David Lynch voicing doubts is so important. He's a "celebrity," and everything he says has some kind of news value. And there's still a bit of competition within the media, so his comments get repeated. I'm going to encourage lots of big names to go public. I'll have to make a list and start at the top. Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, Fonzie... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Bill D Date: 31 Dec 06 - 02:21 PM "I'll have to make a list and start at the top. Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, Fonzie..." *grin*...oh, that'll do it for sure! Maybe add in Madonna, Mike Tyson and Monica Lewinsky...just to be 'sure' you get solid respect! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: Don Firth Date: 31 Dec 06 - 02:56 PM GUEST, just because a lot of people here don't buy into your baroque theories does not mean that we are "taking the government's story as gospel." You're very big on making quick assumptions. Therein, perhaps, is your basic problem. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:26 PM Fonzie ??!??!! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:34 PM "but I'm glad you skeptics are so eager to take the govt's story as gospel, because that makes sensible people look even more at the inconsistencies" I know this is hard for you to comprehend the subtley that is involved, but accepting the core of the "government" story does not mean that every aspect ia accepted. As for the inconsistencies, you have failed to point them out. Instead, you are offering wild ass theories that can easily be disproven. Because you have failed to make a strong case does not mean that we are "accepting" any version other than what makes sense logically and can be proven - or at least not discounted as easily. As for the uranium and the missing global hawks, there is no proof to those suppositions. By focusing on fairytales, you are discrediting the REAL questions that need to be asked - why were we unprepared, what did we know about the attacks prior, what was the purpose of our reaction, etc. Those ARE the real issues, but when you focus on garbage you discredit anyone that is trying to find the real truth. That is why you are a tool of the propaganda machine Guest, and you aren't smart enough to figure out you have been used. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:37 PM Most people I have talked with on this topic can't accept the possibility of a government conspiracy to demolish the World Trade Center. I for one do believe that the Bush Regime did conspire and execute this most unthinkable crime. I also believe that Bush 1, Reagan, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be tried as war criminals for selling illegal weapons to Saddam. If you hang one war criminal, Hang Them ALL! Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: number 6 Date: 31 Dec 06 - 04:54 PM "when you focus on garbage you discredit anyone that is trying to find the real truth. That is why you are a tool of the propaganda machine" So true Ron. That is exactly what happened when Bush, and the gang fell for the "conspiracy theory" of WMD in Iraq. They themselves became tools of their own propaganda machine. The result of the current tragic situation in Iraq is a direct result of a reaction to a conspiracy theory. Tread slowly. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 07 - 01:22 PM Depleted Uranium at the pentagon: September 13, 2001: The federal EPA thanks them, and concurring with Dr. Moret and associates that there was radiation at the Pentagon. EPA even called them back two days later! Quoting from Dr. Moret's interview: "The EPA radiation expert for that region called back and said, 'Yup, the Pentagon crash rubble was radioactive, and we believe its depleted uranium, but were not worried about that. Its only harmful if its inhaled.' a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/323285.shtml">http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/323285.shtml I tend to believe Dr. Moret. This is the real deal. There may be some personal hit piece floating around on the internet concerning her, but her credentials are impressive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/323285.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11 From: GUEST Date: 03 Jan 07 - 10:44 PM David Lynch's website focusing on 9/11 art: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/030107_lynch_art.html |
