Everything You Always Wanted to Learn About 9-11
And discovered on the internet. Terrific site on all the things you can "learn" from the 9-11 Deniers, like this:
When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.
posted by Pat @ 3:11 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
"The Iraq war was a planned outcome of the 9-11 attacks, and predicated on purposely falsified information, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm. "
That one got the biggest laugh from me.
Better yet, the government staged an attack to justify war on Iraq and yet apparently didn't think to actually blame the attack on Iraqis!
So instead of making some hijackers Iraqi or building in a paper trail to Baghdad, they decided instead to blame 9/11 on a bunch of Saudis based in Afghanistan...so they could then make up an ultra-lame WMD story in order to somehow draw Iraq into the 9/11 picture.
Then they sent Powell to the UN with cartoons of weapons labs, invaded Iraq didn't even think to plant the WMD they went in for.
I mean c'mon people - would you have done it differently?
That's what was so brilliant about the plan - it was so stupid nobody would suspect they did it on purpose.
It's the scooby-doo theory, "It's just so crazy it might work!"
O'Reilly called Fetzer a bunch of names and yelled over him. That's not winning, that's LOSING the debate! Obviously, O'reilly can't debate Fetzer or anyone else from st911.org, so he must resort to childish namecalling and yelling.
Ya, "fair and balanced."
What, now you're trying to prove that Saddam was behind 9/11?
Make up your mind already!
In regards to the 9/11 conspiracies and conspiracies in general, you wouldn't have any of those but we do for following reasons:
1. The federal government has a long history of lying to the people especially in regards to war, reasons for war, and events that have been used to justify war. (See the Johnson tapes in regards to Vietnam, WMDs and Iraq, etc, etc.)The majority of wars we have fought have been for national interests which more often than not equate to corporate interests. Just war theories are often used to sell war to the American public when in reality political realist interests are the reason for war.
2. If events, such as 9/11, OKC, JFK,etc that do take place left no room for any questions.
3. If the government provided reasonable, factual, scientifically proven answers to such questions.
4. Leave no questions, and have no conspiratorial dicussions. Very plain and simple. But if those questions were answered truthfully, some people would still doubt the answers due to the dishonest track record of said government.
An observation:
Twelve people have posted on this thread.
Three of them are 911coverup, swingdangler, and realist06.
Twelve people have posted on this thread.
Three of them are 911coverup, swingdangler, and realist06.
I think I'm getting a clue.
I think I'm getting a clue.
My clue's pointing this way.
1. The federal government has a long history of lying to the people especially in regards to war
Followed by two examples that date back all of forty years. I guess in your historically ignorant mind that is a "long history".
2. If events, such as 9/11, OKC, JFK,etc that do take place left no room for any questions.
3. If the government provided reasonable, factual, scientifically proven answers to such questions.
There is no doubt (reasonable anyway) that McVeigh did the Murrah building and Oswald was the lone gunman. People who believe otherwise also probably think we never landed on the moon.
The majority of wars we have fought have been for national interests which more often than not equate to corporate interests. Just war theories are often used to sell war to the American public when in reality political realist interests are the reason for war.
For some reason you seem to think realistic = corporate. The greatest war ever fought wasn't fought for corporate interests. Nor was Vietnam. Or the American Revolution. Or the War of 1812. Or the American Civil War.
There's really only a handful of "wars" (technically we've only fought five wars, and none for corporate interests) that America fought that could even be weakly linked to any type of corporate reasoning.
i'm trying to prove that the bush administration indeedy have attempted to connect the 9/11 attacks to iraq.
It's rather retarded of you to try and prove something that we already know. Thanks for the effort though.
Whether they tried to tie the two was never in question. The point that was being made is that if the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq, and if they also carried out the attacks on 9/11, then they would have simply made the hijackers Iraqi. Instead, they tried to make some weak connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda that even their strong supporters were skeptical of. That's beyond idiotic. Only a moron like you could come up with such a plan.
Followed by two examples that date back all of forty years. I guess in your historically ignorant mind that is a "long history".
Well certainly I could go into each and every example, but I don't have time to write a book. Perhaps you should study U.S. history yourself instead of the textbook version your high school taught you. Once again you display your ignorance of debate and arguement by labeling my mind as ignorant without addressing the facts. Nice attacking the character fallacy without addressing the issue. Pitty.
There is no doubt (reasonable anyway) that McVeigh did the Murrah building and Oswald was the lone gunman. People who believe otherwise also probably think we never landed on the moon.
Apparenlty you have not studied the final goverment verdict on JFK. Try reading the House Select Assassinations Committee final report on JFK and exactly what the Justice Department did about it. After doing so, then you can come back and modify your statement.
Make sure you also view eyewitness statements, including police authorities and local news broadcasts after the OKC bombing. Then you can explain to me how dear Timmy was able to place additional explosive devices in the Murrah Federal building without detection.
By trying to link moon landings with conspiracy you commit a classic arguement fallacy of complex question by linking two items that are unrelated. Is my supposed ignorant mind still a question? Somehow I doubt that.
There's really only a handful of "wars" (technically we've only fought five wars, and none for corporate interests) that America fought that could even be weakly linked to any type of corporate reasoning.
Shawn I would encourage to study who funded the Nazi party in Germany prior to and during the war and then you can decide for yourself not if but which corporations benefited from that war. You also qualify by arguement with your statement as well. Thanks!
You know, the good thing about arguing from a position of ignorance (the way Swing Dangler does) is that you never have to worry about feeling dumb. For those of us who actually bother to educate ourselves, the possibility always exists of being wrong, or discovering that you've made a silly mistake. On the other hand, for those who bask in ignorance there is no worry of such an occurrence, since the ability to absorb new knowledge would be required in order for them to realize that they were wrong. Ironically enough, only those capable of absorbing new information need worry about discovering their own mistakes, whereas those who shut their minds to all knowledge will always feel secure that they can do no wrong.
Alex! What is up bro!
You know, the good thing about arguing from a position of ignorance (the way Swing Dangler does) is that you never have to worry about feeling dumb.
Come on man I thought we were better friends than that. Why call me ingorant, man? I mean I just laid out a great position, provided the reason for my position, and allowed others to respond to that position by educating themselves on the history of particular events. I have primary source material on hand to support both statements regarding JFK, and OKC. If you want a Christmas gift, I can give you the location of said information.
Peace and may Bush be upon you!;)
Post a Comment
<< Home