BS: Building What? 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM

Bin Laden is no longer in Waziristan whatever. He is working for BP as a safety inspector.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 05:01 PM

"...the same folks who told you there WERE WMD's there, also told you the 'official' story of 9/11,...

No, that's not the case. "During the same administration" does NOT equal "the same folks". Bush and Cheney & Wolfowitz are far different than the members of the 9/11 committee.

and "Loose Change" was 2 kids with an agenda and a pre-conceived outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 05:33 PM

Incidentally, let's make that 'mucUs', not mucis. Assaults mine eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 08:32 PM

Let's make beautiful mucus together.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 12:16 PM

Tenet testified before a public hearing of the Sept. 11 Commission investigating 9/11, that he did not meet with Bush in August 2001, the month before the September 11 attacks. The same evening after the hearings, a CIA spokesman corrected Tenet's testimony, stating that Tenet did indeed meet with Bush twice in August.[17] Tenet in his memoir writes of his memorable visit to Bush at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, August 2001.[18]
>>>>From me:"...the same folks who told you there WERE WMD's there, also told you the 'official' story of 9/11,..."

From Bill: No, that's not the case. "During the same administration" does NOT equal "the same folks". Bush and Cheney & Wolfowitz are far different than the members of the 9/11 committee.<<<<<


John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."[19] Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."[20]

Taken from here..

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 08:18 PM

That doesn't say very much, actually...even IF it were true.

a "decision not to tell the truth about what happened." does not signify that they KNEW the whole 'truth'. It could mean that the vague phrase.."...some level of the government, at some point in time …" merely indicated an attempt to cover up "someone's" inefficiency or slow response. NOTHING in that phrase asserts or indicates any knowlege of or participation in planning the attacks...or even in any significant cover-up.

   You have to be VERY careful what you read into remarks that are (currently) inserted at the bottom of an article of an editable Wiki. If those sentences you quote were that significant AND true, at least one of the 23,217 conspiracy theorists would have done something more with it.....

What's that you say? You are going Googling to find out? Have fun...

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 03:53 AM

Noooooo...I've worked out your George W. Bill... ;0)

I'll write out a thousand times "I believe *everything* any Government tells me"

Course, it won't make a blind bit of difference, but hey, it might make you feel better....

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:28 AM

MY George W.??? not hardly... *I* wouldn't believe ol' George if he stated "the sun rose this morning". I wouldn't even believe him if claimed to BE part of a plot. His administration had nothing to do with 9/11...but they sure USED it to fuel their other agendas and vendettas.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:38 AM

Popular Mechanics or Science did not successfully answer all the questions that were posed by 911. They did a kind of spin as most popular magazines do who owe their allegiance to those pulling the strings.

As to full reportage on 911, yes it is possible to keep facts hidden for years because it involves more than just Bush or the GOP. The Pentagon has never been forthcoming
in its facts to the American public. Look how they tried to keep pictures of bodies off of the news media. The reasons for going into Iraq were successfully hidden also.

Now, there is research that JFK was killed by organized crime in Texas. This is not popular in the news however. Check out Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron's book, "Ultimate Sacrifice".

It is possible that the answers to 911 are not fully known and will not be because there is
a vested interest in keeping it alive to justify foreign invasions into places like Afghanistan.
The Taliban, (odious as they are) did not create 911. But the "boys must have their toys" and the generals have to be given something to do.

So now it's fashionable to call people who want the real truth about this incident
"conspiracy theorists". The question remains, who are the real conspiracy theorists
and are they in the present administration?

The facts need to come out before there can be a true assessment of what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:58 AM

*sigh*.... and how will you determine if and when "the facts" have come out? There are as many JFK theories as 9/11 theories.

I rather imagine that if Lee Oswald had lived and made a full confession the HE was the only plotter, there would still be doubters.

....as I have said before, there are those who still believe the "100 MPG carburetor" is being hidden, because obviously, we don't HAVE it.
There's nothing one can say to the reasoning that says: "I'll know 'the truth' when it conforms to my suspicions."

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 12:11 PM

So, Bill, how do *you* know the *truth* then?

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 12:53 PM

What I 'accept' is the clearest explanations I can find that do not seem contradictory and do not require complex, unproven speculation.

Most/many 9/11 conspiracy theories have been traced back to Stephen Jones, whose data gathering is random and self-serving. (all posted and explained before)
These theories are de facto assertions, and assertions require the asserter to provide convincing evidence, not just circular reasoning using 'facts' which are often just-plain-wrong.

(and yes, I HAVE read the purported 'evidence' in detail, and also the careful refutations of those faux evidence fueled theories. Many of those I debate with have NOT tried to absorb any facts which do not support their suspicions)

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Stu
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:38 PM

The principle of parsimony fledged and fled this nest a long time ago. In fact, it was probably never here in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM

Parsimony.
1. The quality of being careful with money or resources.
2. The quality or state of being stingy.
3. Economy in the use of means to an end.

Yep, and moreover the Parsees probably had a hand in it since they are Zoroastrians.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: LadyJean
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:44 PM

Forgive me, I should have said Bush administration, not Republicans.

Most of my family were Republicans, including two politicians. But they were PROGRESSIVES! My mom was green before it was cool to be green. My dad began my history lessons when I was 3, telling me stories about what he considered great moments in our nation's past. When we got to the Scopes trial, the heroes of that story, according to him, were Scopes and Darrow. Dad used to watch The 700 Club and laugh at the idea that people still talked that way in the 20th century.
Mom was screamingly pro choice, and she saw no reason why gays shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us.

This is not my parents' Republican party. I wish it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:54 PM

Hmmm, where are all the mucis love songs and ballads?

Lady JEan has grat parents. I just wrote in another thread that as the pendulum of power swings even the most divergent groups can switch their characteristics over time.

The Repulbican party began its largest shift right with Goldwater, who now would be too liberal to be elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM

Lets build a mudcat cafe 2 blocks from ground 0.
We can sing where have all the muslims gone,
oh well its getting late.

Subject: RE: BS: Building What? 9/11
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 10:16 PM

QUOTE
So now it's fashionable to call people who want the real truth about this incident
"conspiracy theorists".
UNQUOTE

Pardon me! "people who want the real truth about ANYTHING" do not need to mindlessly repeat intellectual garbage, and do not NEED to rant on about 'conspiracy theories' - you offend me Sir!