Author Topic: 9/11> a discussion  (Read 28865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tet

  • you love it
  • r00t@week4paug.net
  • In the Band
  • ****
  • Posts: 7013
  • Karma: 458
  • Gender: Male
    • week4paug.net
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2006, 11:22:26 PM »
i just don't buy a conspiracy theory, and i buy em on anything else (Roswell, JFK, MLK...  you name it...)

too many people involved, and it just doesn't make sense. 

/my $0.02

What about if I said that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by Al Gore?

well, he did invent the intercablewebs...  as well as pants... :beers:
"We want you to be happy"
-Phish

Offline susep

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 10364
  • Karma: 607
  • Gender: Male
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2006, 12:38:29 AM »
Yea, I agree, Phan. A conspiracy would have required a cover-up from everyone on every level of government to the media. So were the other hijacked planes (the one that crashed in Pennsylvania and the one that tore through the Pentagon) part of the conspiracy?

It would appear so yes they were.  About the cover-up definitely far reaching.  Do a search on the Project for the New American Century>a right wing think tank w/ members Rummy, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Cheney, and other Bush cabinet members.  They believed/theorized that only a direct external threat could mobilize the American people towards justification of imminent military action. 

Here is one of their blueprints:

3June1997
William Kristol, one of the founders and leaders of PNAC. [Source: Public domain] 
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank formed in the spring of 1997, issues its statement of principles. PNAC’s stated aims are:
 to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”
 to achieve “a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad
 to “increase defense spending significantly
 to challenge “regimes hostile to US interests and values
 to “accept America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” [Project for the New American Century, 6/3/1997] The Statement of Principles is significant, because it is signed by a group who will become “a roll call of today’s Bush inner circle.” [Guardian, 2/26/2003] ABC’s Ted Koppel will later say PNAC’s ideas have “been called a secret blueprint for US global domination.” [ABC News, 3/5/2003]

on a related note:

Oct.1997
Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publishes a book in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any possible adversary from controlling that region. He notes, “The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” He predicts that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious Central Asian strategy can not be implemented “except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [Brzezinski, 1997, pp. 24-25, 210-11]

Then 1 year before 9/11 PNAC issued this:
a strategy document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” for George W. Bush’s team before the 2000 Presidential election. The document was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor Jeb Bush (Bush’s brother), and future Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. [Project for the New American Century, 9/2000 ]
 The document outlines a “blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”
 PNAC states further: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
 PNAC calls for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the Internet, and the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and other countries.
 It also mentions that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

Remember the anthrax attacks towards the 2 senators who were dragging down the Bush led doctrine, The Patriot Act?

However, PNAC complains that thes changes are likely to take a long time, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/12/2003] Notably, while Cheney commissioned this plan (along with other future key leaders of the Bush administration), he defends Bush’s position of maintaining Clinton’s policy not to attack Iraq during an NBC interview in the midst of the 2000 presidential campaign, asserting that the US should not act as though “we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments.” [Washington Post, 1/12/2002] A British member of Parliament will later say of the report: “This is a blueprint for US world domination—a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.” [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 9/7/2002] Both PNAC and its strategy plan for Bush are almost virtually ignored by the media until a few weeks before the start of the Iraq war (see February-March 20, 2003).
People involved in the 2000 PNAC report (from top left): Vice President Cheney, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, and author Eliot Cohen. [Source: Public domain] 

And was all the mounting evidence that a bunch of religious fanatics plotted the event just fabricated? And not one whistleblower has come foward? I respect your opinions, susep, and am glad this forum welcoms free thought, but I just don't buy the conspiracy theory. I'm a born skeptic, but this theory has too many holes.

Of course 9/11 made it easier for the war hawks to invade Iraq, but that doesn't mean they orchestrated a mass killing of their own people. What do a few people in the government have to gain from more oil if it means killing thousands of innocent Americans? France and Russia have first rights to oil in Iraq. The U.S. doesn't.

The Soviet Union collapses in 1991, creating several new nations in Central Asia. Major US oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell, and Enron, directly invest billions in these Central Asian nations, bribing heads of state to secure equity rights in the huge oil reserves in these regions. The oil companies commit to $35 billion in future direct investments in Kazakhstan. It is believed at the time that these oil fields will have an estimated $6 trillion potential value. US companies own approximately 75 percent of the rights. These companies, however, face the problem of having to pay exorbitant prices to Russia for use of the Russian pipelines to get the oil out. [New Yorker, 7/9/2001; Asia Times, 1/26/2002]

Now there is a new pipeline in Afghanistan bypassing the Russians. :wink:

Summary: A background history of the Bush administration and their fanaticism.




« Last Edit: June 19, 2006, 12:50:21 AM by susep73 »

Offline birdman

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 7596
  • Karma: 553
  • We'll help you party down!
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2006, 06:17:46 AM »
ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell, and Enron
  BP=British Patroleum...is the UK in on this too?  How about Spain...Train Bombs=demiliterization in the MiddleEast.  Doesnt sound too likely to me...As much as I hate Bush/Cheney, its just too much to believe.
  Though I do love a good conspiracy :banana:
Paug FTMFW!

Offline jephrey

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4694
  • Karma: 357
  • Gender: Male
  • Finch
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2006, 09:26:01 AM »
I also don't believe the conspiracy.  Nor do I believe we're in the middle east for oil.  I'm not saying we haven't been mislead one way or another, but the conspiracy is too much, and really oil feels pretty secondary at this point.  Car manufacturers are leaning hybrid and E85, the price of oil is high (meaning we haven't seen any benefit oil-wise by sticking our noses in the middle east), and the long-term future of vehicles is not in oil.  As you, these are my opinions.

Jephrey
There are 10 types of people in this world.  Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Offline susep

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 10364
  • Karma: 607
  • Gender: Male
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2006, 12:18:58 PM »
I also don't believe the conspiracy.  Nor do I believe we're in the middle east for oil.   I'm not saying we haven't been mislead one way or another, but the conspiracy is too much, and really oil feels pretty secondary at this point.  Car manufacturers are leaning hybrid and E85, the price of oil is high (meaning we haven't seen any benefit oil-wise by sticking our noses in the middle east), and the long-term future of vehicles is not in oil.  As you, these are my opinions.

Jephrey


Why are we in the mid-east?

The Looming Peak Oil Crisis as a Pretext for 9/11/01
Of the many possible and apparent motives that insiders in the U.S. government-military-corporate nexus had for committing the crimes of 9/11/01, that of Peak Oil is the most controversial in the 9/11 Truth Movement. 'Peak Oil' is the point at in time at which maximum global oil production is reached. It is shorthand for the observation that the curve of expanding consumption of petroleum will soon collide with the curve of decreasing availability, necessitating a dramatic, and perhaps catastrophically sudden, shift away from the petroleum-based economy. The idea that Peak Oil was a motive for the 9/11/01 attack is supported by the way the Bush Administration exploited the attack to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq. By controlling the extraction and distribution of oil in these regions and intimidating other still-sovereign neighboring states, the Peak Oil crisis could be hidden from American consumers for a few more years, while profiteers of the oil and war economies reap obscene profits.

Offline flow00

  • Reading The Book...
  • *
  • Posts: 1584
  • Karma: 147
  • Gender: Male
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2006, 12:37:05 PM »
Again, how does a group of government insiders benefit from crashing planes into symbols of capalitsm and killing innocent Americans just to justify a war in the middle east for oil? If money is the incentive, don't you think the insiders would have anticipated an economic downturn as Americans believe they are under attack by religious fanatics? You think those people are so ruthless that they'd kill thousands of Americans for OIL? I don't even believe we're in the middle east because of oil. I think a bunch of naive war hawks thought they were on a mission to purge violence and terrorism from the middle east. It's the same reason Tony Blair comitted his troops. Is Blair a part of the conspiracy too? I dislike the choices our government has made as much as the next person, but the conspiracy theory ignores reason and evidence. Think about it. The cost of war, beefed up security and the downturn in our economy outweighs by a million to 1 the benefits of getting our hands on a little oil. Let's accept the fact that some people hate Americans so much they are willing to kill us by any means. Maybe a more thoughtful debate should center on why Americans are hated so much. But quite frankly, I'm sick to death of the whole subject. Too many people tend to view the world in black and white -- either we're the best country in the world or we're a bunch of money-obsessed crazies. Poor decisions are made. They don't always reflect evil.

Offline Hicks

  • IKKULUS
  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Karma: 1360
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2006, 12:54:15 PM »
Again, how does a group of government insiders benefit from crashing planes into symbols of capalitsm and killing innocent Americans just to justify a war in the middle east for oil?

Uhhh. . . Have you been paying attention to anything the last five years?  I'm not going to get into the conspiracy aspect, but the fact is that Bush and Co. have benefitted HUGELY from 9/11.  Bush had some of the highest approval numbers in history after the attacks, and he was able to hoodwink us into an unnecessary war because a majority of the traumatized public trusted that he was trying to bring those that perpetrated the attack to justice.  Since we are now in an endless "war on terror", he can use this as justification to do just about anything he wants, including outing CIA agents, and looting our treasury. 

If money is the incentive, don't you think the insiders would have anticipated an economic downturn as Americans believe they are under attack by religious fanatics?

They do not care about the state of the American economy at large, but rather they care about their own bottom line (i.e. record profits for the oil industry).

You think those people are so ruthless that they'd kill thousands of Americans for OIL?

Yes, and they have, about 2500 and counting, not to mention over 100,000 innocent Iraqis.


I don't even believe we're in the middle east because of oil.

Then why are we there?  Even the Bush administration admits that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and there is evidence that they knew the charges of WMDs were trumped up before we invaded.

I think a bunch of naive war hawks thought they were on a mission to purge violence and terrorism from the middle east. It's the same reason Tony Blair comitted his troops. Is Blair a part of the conspiracy too?

Yes, and they aren't that naive, they knew exactly what they were doing.

I dislike the choices our government has made as much as the next person, but the conspiracy theory ignores reason and evidence. Think about it. The cost of war, beefed up security and the downturn in our economy outweighs by a million to 1 the benefits of getting our hands on a little oil.

Iraq has TONS of oil.  Again, oil companies have made RECORD profits, that's record profits for any business in the history of the Earth, in the last two years.

Let's accept the fact that some people hate Americans so much they are willing to kill us by any means. Maybe a more thoughtful debate should center on why Americans are hated so much. But quite frankly, I'm sick to death of the whole subject. Too many people tend to view the world in black and white -- either we're the best country in the world or we're a bunch of money-obsessed crazies. Poor decisions are made. They don't always reflect evil.

I'll say it again, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11!!!  Sorry if you're sick of the subject but we're in a heap of trouble over there and it ain't going away anytime soon ("that's something for future presidents to decide").   The real question is, what's the solution?  I can't really advocate cutting and running, because that will only further destablize an already dangerous situation.  But make no mistake we are making more enemies by our presence in Iraq with the daily killing of civilians.  It's an awful mess when you get right down to it, and the fact of the matter is that it all could have been avoided. 


Oh yeah Al Gore never said he "invented the internet", that's some straight Republican propaganda, don't fall for that BS!!!!!

« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 12:18:06 PM by Hicks »
Quote from: Trey Anastasio
But, I don't think our fans do happily lap it up, I think they go online and talk about how it was a bad show.

Offline shoreline99

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 5407
  • Karma: 539
  • Gender: Male
  • shocked and persuaded my soul to ignite
    • My List
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2006, 03:33:31 PM »
9/11 happened. It was real, a terrorist act. i lost an old girlfriend in the towers, i had to hear her voice again at the moussaui trial and it put me in a funk all over again. Our FD and rescue equipment were sent down as far as Yonkers to cover calls and I spent the entire day wondering what the hell was going to happen while doing my job. I saw the smoke and the F-16's circling manhattan every 20 minutes. I saw Pataki's helicopter fly 200 feet above our heads with air force jets circling it. It was a bad day. That was no controlled demolition any more than the floods in New Orleans after Katrina were a result of the government blowing up the levees.

However, i think that some of these movies are interesting. Flight 93 plays more like a documentary and, while i am not an oliver stone fan, it will be interesting to see the reviews of his movie as well. I think they have been done tastefully. Too soon? maybe. But they also made propaganda movies about Pearl Harbor in WWII. The problem here lies in the fact that the media has too much power in today's society, but that's another story.

I am not a fan of the conspiracy theorists. This is not Wag the Dog. I think that the farther away from NYC, Washington and PA you are, the easier it is to pretend it didn't happen. Living here and knowing people who died [as well as some who narrowly escaped] puts it in perspective. I purposely chose not to go in and work the pile because i didn't want to live with the emotional and physical baggage i knew came with it.

end of my thoughts on this matter.



« Last Edit: June 19, 2006, 03:36:13 PM by shoreline99 »
You're entitled to your opinion but I'm going to laugh at it.

Offline sophist

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 19141
  • Karma: 957
  • Gender: Male
  • Warning: contains ergot
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2006, 05:36:58 PM »
Quote
Bush had some of the highest approval numbers in history after the attacks, and he was able to hoodwink us into an unnecessary war because a majority of the traumatized public trusted that he was trying to bring those that perpetrated the attack to justice.  Since we are now in an endless "war on terror", he can use this as justification to do just about anything he wants, including outing CIA agents, and looting our treasury.
(cough) clinton, weapons, sex scandal (cough)
war -> good approvel
wasn't just bush my friend.  Almost EVERY president would do the same thing.  I'm not defending bushie, but lets be logical in our judgement. 

Quote
They do not care about the state of the American economy at large, but rather they care about their own bottom line (i.e. record profits for the oil industry).

oil companies make 7 cents on the dollar (avg amt)
microsoft makes 45 cents on the dollar
IBM makes 30 cents on the dollar
Toys R US makes 21 cents on the dollar

so its not that much.  The problem is the number of refineres, not the oil companies.  But, I don't want to pollute the environment anymore, so I'm fine with the high gas prices. 

Quote
Iraq has TONS of oil.  Again, oil companies have made RECORD profits, that's record profits for any business in the history of the Earth, in the last two years.
the majority of "profit" goes to the middle east, this is due to laws that were created during the 40's.
Can we talk about the Dead?  I'd love to talk about the fucking Grateful Dead, for once, can we please discuss the Grateful FUCKING Dead!?!?!?!

Offline sophist

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 19141
  • Karma: 957
  • Gender: Male
  • Warning: contains ergot
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2006, 05:41:04 PM »
one more thought, as a libertarian I see politics from a 3rd party perspective, so as a result it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when it comes to dems and pubs.
But I still dig the folks at the paug.  thanks for the good convos
Can we talk about the Dead?  I'd love to talk about the fucking Grateful Dead, for once, can we please discuss the Grateful FUCKING Dead!?!?!?!

Offline fauxpaxfauxreal

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 10432
  • Karma: 6
  • Gender: Male
  • Dreems. Dreme Dream Dreeme. All I have to do...
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2006, 05:41:16 PM »
And, actually, most of the Oil that we use that doesn't come from America, comes from Canada.

Our use of oil comes from these major contributors.

1.)U.S.
2.)Canada
3.)Venezuela (Or Argentina...I confuse them)
4.)The Middle East

But yeah, The Middle East is where all the oil is....

Offline sophist

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 19141
  • Karma: 957
  • Gender: Male
  • Warning: contains ergot
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2006, 05:42:38 PM »
very valid point
I knew you were useful  :wink:  :-P
Can we talk about the Dead?  I'd love to talk about the fucking Grateful Dead, for once, can we please discuss the Grateful FUCKING Dead!?!?!?!

Offline jephrey

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4694
  • Karma: 357
  • Gender: Male
  • Finch
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2006, 05:53:17 PM »
Quote
Oh yeah Al Gore never said he "invented the internet", that's some straight Republican propaganda, don't fall for that BS!!!!!

where did this come from?  Did someone in here mention it?  And I saw the tape of his comments on "inventing the internet"  and in general, he did say that.  But it was taken out of context.  As an employee of Microsoft (I think), he did have something to do with the birth of the internet, and that's obviously what he meant.  Bush is taken literally or out of context as much as Gore is (if not more), I don't know why this is such an issue?  It was from something like 6 years ago?

True that the Oil companies only earn 7cents to the dollar, but they're able to work with such larger amounts of money, that their profits are monumental.  It's not the turnaround of Microsoft or whatever, but the bottom line profit number is huge.  I think that changing that to 5 or 6 cents on the dollar would decrease the consumer cost, as well as keep them on top of the profit scale as far as the bottom line goes.  So yes, the gas companies are evil, even if they're making less on the dollar than other industries.

and I'll also agree with the obvious reality that the cost of war is much higher than any oil profit could bring, and not only the president, but everyone who voted for the war were aware of that, and that at best, the thought of more available oil, is ALWAYS a thought on everyone's mind, but not a reason to go to war.

Jephrey





There are 10 types of people in this world.  Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Offline tet

  • you love it
  • r00t@week4paug.net
  • In the Band
  • ****
  • Posts: 7013
  • Karma: 458
  • Gender: Male
    • week4paug.net
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2006, 05:57:51 PM »
i just don't buy a conspiracy theory, and i buy em on anything else (Roswell, JFK, MLK...  you name it...)

too many people involved, and it just doesn't make sense. 

/my %body%.02

What about if I said that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by Al Gore?

well, he did invent the intercablewebs...  as well as pants... :beers:
Quote
Oh yeah Al Gore never said he "invented the internet", that's some straight Republican propaganda, don't fall for that BS!!!!!
here did this come from?  Did someone in here mention it?
faux did, then me ;)
"We want you to be happy"
-Phish

Offline Hicks

  • IKKULUS
  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Karma: 1360
Re: 9/11> a discussion
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2006, 06:07:33 PM »
Here's exactly what he said:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

That's hardly claiming that he "invented" it.  I will agree that his phrasing is not the best, he probably should have said something like "I took the initiative in helping create the Internet.", because that's clearly what he meant. 

Anyway it pisses me off when I hear Republican talking points repeated by folks that I know are intelligent and thoughtful, it just goes to show how much influence the media has on our perception of things. 
« Last Edit: June 19, 2006, 06:09:06 PM by ikki »
Quote from: Trey Anastasio
But, I don't think our fans do happily lap it up, I think they go online and talk about how it was a bad show.