Topic: 9/11 conspiracy question??

[Max]

I'm going to start this off from The Opie and Anthony Show here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSIkH2e28c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLleIgJuvO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Eur0b73pk

Do the hosts make a valid point?? or full of BS.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

Let me start by saying that I don't fully believe in either version of the 9/11 issue.

As far as these interviews go,  it's Two-Fold scenario.

Points they make about the phone calls are good, but don't really disprove anything, other then the fact that it wasn't the classic Black suit, Black Sunglasses, Ear-piece "company" man doing the hijacking.  They prove the the crashes weren't faked, but what does that really prove.

The point about "How could a government that's so bumbling pull-off such a huge conspiracy" is misleading.   A. When applied to a case like this, people are made to think that the whole scenario would take thousands of people to pull off.  It wouldn't. It probably could be pulled off with anywhere from 50 - 100 people.  Which leads me to point B.
B. Thinking that 50 - 100 people is too many for any project to stay covert is just wrong.  The NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, Local Cops have thousands and thousands of people that work undercover and covert to some degree, and even more that aren't undercover.  Yet you don't have agents covers being blown all the time.  Look how big of a deal the Valerie Plame case was.  Would it be such a big deal if things like that happened all the time.  I know the circumstances of her "outing" was what made the case special, but if this kind of thing happened all the time it would have been a lot easier to cover the trail and pull-off then it was.

The whole argument about not reading books was detrimental to both sides in this argument.  The fact that each side wasn't interested in what books the other side chose to present evidence from and rely on showed a level of overall ignorance.

The host's point about some foreign countries and/or factions in those countries not liking the U.S. is a big one.  This is a true fact.  Many Americans(USA'ers for all you in S.America) didn't or don't realize what kind of presence the country may or may not have abroad.  It's one of the downsides of being geographically isolated - Foreign policy and it's effects aren't right in your face for easy analysis. If it was, 9/11 may not have been such a surprise to so many people. It's not the 1940's anymore - French chicks aren't lined up in the streets to greet the boys and the tanks nowadays. Remember how the U.S.A. was born?  Well, the U.S. has now become what Great Britain was at that time.  Nobody said that being on top was supposed to be easy. And the fact is PERCEIVED AS INTRUSIVE foreign policy, whether it is or not, can bring out the worst or best, depending on what side you're on, in other countries. These points heavily raise the chance that 9/11 was a terrorist attack, and not some set-up from the inside.

HOWEVER, one glaring point for the other team is the PINAC report which mentioned the Govt. needing some kind of event like this to further selected foreign policy goals. This in itself points to, not necessarily compliance or involvement, but an allowance for the event to occur. People might say "Well, do you think they'd sacrifice 2,500 - 3,000 lives just for global political leverage?". I say come on people, we're talking about CEO types here.  Anything less then millions in the numbers columns they don't bat eyelashes at.

As far as my two cents go, I trust my local and state government, my wife, and my family(well some of them) and that's fine with me; concerning this issue, I'd don't trust the facts from either side.  Too many unanswered questions, too much commercial profiteering, and too much to gain on a global scale.  One person I do feel for is George Bush.  Like Art, he was never my guy, but he won twice, and now everybody, especially many people that voted for him, loves to bash this guy.

[Max]

excellent post, many many great points.

[EvB]

FWIW - which on this topic may not be much - here is my sense of how it went down:

There were people in our government who SHOULD have paid better attention before the fact.  Picking and choosing what to pay attention to in the stream of maybes, hoaxes, empty threats, plans that never come to fruition, and so forth is HARD.  However, that is what they are supposed to do and they screwed up, big time.  There were also policies of our government which "we" (as the US) knew damened well were pissing people off.  We could have done things differently, and still had most of what we needed and wanted.  Such is collective arrogance & ignorance.

Digressive allegory:  You live on land that abuts a national park.  In that park are bears and wolves. Some of those bears and wolves  REALLY don't like you, justly or not. You're not sure which are which most of the time and besides - you realize they perform a necessary function that benefits you (whatever that may be)  Do you:

A) Blow away most of the bears & wolves and upset the balance of your area so completely as to now have MORE critters ready to tear you to pieces and more, you've screwed your own resources.

B) Do as you damned well please because this is YOUR land and it abuts NATIONAL land which you have a right to as a citizen without thought about the other citizens - including the bears and wolves?

C) Do you FEED the damned bears and wolves and create a false sense of friendship or control without regard to how the bears and wolves may view it?

D) Recognize that bears are bears and wolves are wolves - and entitled to be so - and interfere with them as little as possible, making sure they have the space to be the bears and wolves they are while still using the park in a responsible manner (hard because it takes thought and preparation and maybe even some sacrifice on your part, but doable if you're not stupid and selfish) all the while recognizing that bears and wolves will sometimes be vicious, no matter how hard you try, and be cautious - willing to take out rogue or rabid bears or wolves selectively when it become necessary BECAUSE THEY DIRECTLY THREATEN YOU AND YOURS EVEN WHEN YOU DO YOUR BEST TO LEAVE THEM IN PEACE?

After the fact, (and this is where my sense of outrage and total disgust comes in as opposed to anger at incompetence - which I also feel) more time and effort was spent on spin doctoring to fulfill Bush & Company's (and that's not a party-line statement, the company is huge!) frustrated agendas than in paying actual attention to how and why this tragedy occurred and what could actually be done about it.

We've been consistently lied too about the after-the-facts, our heats and minds have been played - and the beat goes on. 

Makes me wanna puke.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

Well said. The possible major failing, IMO, of the BushII presidency, may not be it's actions as much as the "elaborate" and ongoing deceptions used to carry out the actions, and the resulting damage it has done to a nations trust in it's government, not just for the U.S. but for many nations and govts. globally.

As for the question about Bears and Wolves - Can you get some kind of oil outta Bear and/or Wolf fats?