BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 03:48 PM

Thermite can be used to very quickly destroy steel beams.

Froth, Canada does have an immigration policy. You have to apply for landed immigrant status to move here. To do that and secure such status you have to meet various educational and professional guidelines, relating to what kind of work you are able to contribute. Many people can't pass those guidelines. Some people get in as refugees, depending on the situation. It is certainly not the case that everyone gets in who wants to. I think our immigration policy is fairly similar to many other developed countries in the West, but we do take in more immigrants per capita than any other country in the G8. We can afford to, because we have a lot of land for the size of our population, and there is room to expand.

Your talk about the Queen's power over us is pointless. People here think very little about the Queen anymore. Who really controls Canada is the same as in your country. The big multinational financial interests control Canada. That means: the major corporations and the major banking houses. They are, of course, in collusion with the House of Windsor and the other royal houses in Europe and they also run the American government. They run just about every western government. Why? Because "money talks".

We are in the same hole you are in, except for one thing: we don't share a common border with Mexico!!! That's where it really hits you guys. People have to fly to get to Canada...or else they have to go all the way through the USA first...and why would they bother to do that when they can get work in California or Texas or Arizona? Any surprise why fewer Latin American illegal immigrants get across the Canadian border under those georaphical circumstances?

We're just geographically lucky, that's all! We've got the biggest buffer state in the world between us and the impoverished millions in Mexico and south of there. ;-) Too bad for you Yanks. Seems to me you deserve it though, because the USA stole California and the entire American Southwest from Mexico back in the 1800s. It's poetic justice for the Latinos to move back in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM

You're talking about the 'spire', Donuel. That is also, to me, the strangest thing I've seen in all those videos. The MASSIVE array of central support core columns that just seem to turn to dust and blow away, like chaff in a wind. Amazing. Could have been thermite wraps going off late, atomizing the steel. A freaky sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:53 PM

http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.html

A list of prominent people questioning 9/11. More added every day. The dam is breaking.

Let's see...yes balladeer, people need to be slapped upside the head intellectually from time to time. If the truth doesn't get through, then make them mad. Anything to get the blood flowing through the neurons. As far as 'quislings' the only one I see on this thread is Olesko. He's actually turned against his country and is arguing there's some validity to the terrorist govt's transparent lie about what happened on 9/11. The other defenders of the lie are just in denial, probably willful at this point since the evidence of govt involvement in the terrorism is so overwhelming.

As for the Canadians, they live at the sufference of the Queen of England and they don't even know it. What more can you say? They also have no immigration policy, which they boast about, but because of that lack of policy, Canada is used as a toilet stop for illegals on their way to the U.S. But then Canadians probably don't see it that way. They just think they're tolerant and advanced and all that.

Peace seems to want acknowledgement for some real or imagined contributions to something, so I hereby grant him full acknowledgement for whatever that undefined thing is. His use of the term 'colonialist' is interesting. The liberal left has been duped into thinking a one-world govt is the answer to everything, but to enter into that state of affairs, nations will have to be sacrificed. And that's a problem. The only protection against a tyrannical world govt is nationalism. Not expansive colonialism, but nationalism. I favor the U.S. bringing home all troops now and letting the world live in peace. Hardly a colonialist mindset. The TRUE colonialist mindset is the U.N. approach...an ever-expanding governmental agency that will absorb all nations.

Centralized/federalized govt is bad. Smaller govt is good. And hopefully this O'Donnell thing will now create a rush of people coming out with their opinions on 9/11. That could create a backlash against the wars of aggression and against the expanding, oppressive govt. About time. I hope it's not too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:44 PM

I was watching u tube 911 conspiracy videos last night
The strangest one showed isolated WTC steel beams seemingly turning to dust. (easy to fake video but I haven't seen that shot without the dust phenomenon yet)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:08 PM

Of course I'm biased, Ron. Everybody is biased in that sense.   Everyone has a natural tendency to believe in and back the values that were around them when they first came into this existence. They take it for granted.

However, growing up in 2 different countries does give a person a bit more awareness of possible options, I think. It's an eye-opener. You don't take stuff quite so much for granted after that. I totally supported the British empire traditions in my mind when I was a little boy. I was innocent, and they were my 'good guys'. By the time I became an adult I began to see that the British themselves had gone out aggressively into the world and done many of the sort of things I now criticize the USA for doing. They inflicted their way of life on other people for their own gain, caused a lot of bloodshed and exploitation, and pretended to be doing it for all kinds of very laudable reasons.

I am as sceptical of British intentions now as I am of American or Russian or Chinese intentions.

And I am fully aware that I am biased, and I even poke fun at it sometimes. It's the people who are completely unaware of their habitual biases that worry me. They can be dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:28 AM

"Well, that made me suspicious right away, because it went against my cultural grain, so I wasn't about to buy it."

Little Hawk, that one statement shows that you too are "brainwashed". Your comments are reflecting what you consider to be a better way of life due to your upbringing in Canada. It is a bias, just like the rest of us have to our homes. There is nothing different here. The folks from the UK speak with an air of superiority as well - it is cultural bias that none of us can esacpe from.

As for the U.S. being a superpower - yes it is. It is also a country that other nations seem to turn to for support as well. Yes, there are extremists like our current regime that feels it gives us carte blanche to be the boss of the world - but don't let you bias fool you into thinking that the entire country is like that. You aren't the only one who feels the way you do.

It should also be remembered that when we were known as isolationists, the world's view of us was just as bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:22 AM

Peace, don't let Froth get you upset. He/she is suffering as all of us can see from the ranting posts.   I love how he gets upset and starts using my surname as if that makes him tough. It is a well known move that troll use when they are unveiled as cowards. He/she would wet their pants if they came face to face with one of us in a real debate. The name "Froth" becomes so fitting!

Anyone that uses Rosie O'Donnell as a source of information has a warped sense or reality. Rosie has no more knowledge than any of us, but she has to build an audience in order to keep her career going. Celebrities as spokespeople serve a purpose - but star-struck people like Froth blur the fine line of reality and treat celebs like prophets.   I really hope Froth gets the help that he/she needs so that they can get back their grip on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:19 AM

Well, I simply already had a basis of comparison, Mick. I lived in Canada from age 1 to 10. It's a very different psychological upbringing, because the root assumptions about our country and its role in the world are radically different than in the USA. We don't see ourselves as the boss/mentor/example/policeman to everyone else, telling them how they shoud live. We see ourselves as one country among many, that's all...an association of relative equals in a large and varied world. We seek accomodation, not confrontation. We do not assume the mantle of "ruling superpower".

Then we moved to upstate New York when I was 10...because of what my father considered a business opportunity at the time.

So as a younger child I had been brought up in a society that still proudly considered itself part of the British tradition. To us Canadians the Redcoats were the "good guys" of history...just like our mounted police. Suddenly I find myself transplanted into a society where the Redcoats are the "bad guys" and are vilified constantly in history classes. I become acutely aware of this right from Grade 4 on, and it just keeps getting worse. Well, that made me suspicious right away, because it went against my cultural grain, so I wasn't about to buy it.

*(In all fairness, the American revolutionaries had quite legitimate reasons to pick a fight with Great Britain in the 1770s, and you can definitely argue for the rightness of their cause. On the other hand, many colonists sided with the British at the time. They were called "Loyalists" and many of them fled to Canada at the conclusion of that war. I grew up in a country that honoured the Loyalist tradition and that had remained somewhat suspicious of the American approach to things ever since the 1770s, and that had also been attacked by the USA in 1812-1814. None of that has been forgotten.)*

So I was a natural sceptic when it came to standard American rhetoric, because it had not been implanted in me since day one of my life, and it rubbed me the wrong way. I had seen something else first. However, I had to put up with it right through till I was 21...when I moved back to Canada. I fought it every inch of the way.

And that's just a brief explanation. There was a lot more to it than that. The entire time I was in the USA I felt like an alien living in a foreign land, and I deeply missed my own country which is every bit as free as the USA (if not more so) and which is a hell of a lot less inclined to go all over the world attacking other people (although we are not completely innocent in that regard...we used to be a satellite of Imperial England and its policies...we are now a satellite of corporate America and its policies...but we remain essentially far more liberal and far less aggressive internationally than America).

America nowadays is in the same position of hubris in the world that Great Britain was in, say, 1816 to 1914...it sees itself as the dominant conquering empire and greatest financial power of its time. So far. Someone else will come along and supplant America in that role presently. Someone always does. Maybe China.

That won't necessarily be so great either...but it is as inevitable as the changing of the seasons. Empires have their day and then it's over.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:27 AM

I finally understand, LH. Shit, I wish I had known this!!!! So being an expatriate kid from Canada gave you some unknown wisdom, and you had a genetic predisposition not to fall for the brainwashing that all the other kids fell for. Had I know this, I would have had my kids in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:58 AM

Thinking that the USA is far more important than the whole rest of the world put together is a little pill that all American kids are given right from the day they enter 1st Grade, Peace. They are told so again and again and again that they are living in "the greatest country on Earth" and that they have more freedom and liberty and goodness and truth than any other place on Earth. They are brainwashed to go out and help conquer the world, supposedly for its own good! They are constantly being psychologically prepared for the next war. You know how many of their presidents were former generals and military men and how much it helped them get elected that they were? Quite a few. That tells you something. I know about this brainwashing and ethnocentricity firsthand, cos I went to school mostly in the USA. Being an expatriate Canadian, however, I wasn't susceptible to the barrage of political programming directed at us young minds. I questioned what very few of the others did. I knew I was being manipulated. They didn't (although some of them were woken up quite a bit by the protest movement in the 60s).

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:39 AM

As to your remark: it's the last of your posts I will read. You juat ain't worth it. Your egocentric and ethnocentric shit defies logic. It is not the United States of America that stands to lose the most. It's the whole damned world that stands to lose. You sound like another colonialist worrying only about what happens to YOUR country. Idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:04 AM

Fuck you, froth. You talk about people here being so inferior to you. Look, prickface, if you had the sense God gave a turnip, you wouldn't alienate the people who might be inclined to agree with you. It's assholes like you who make us look like fucking lunatics. YOU are as much the fucking problem as are the damned Neocons. Stop being so goddamned self-righteous. And fuck yourself while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:04 PM

"My country will be destroyed because you supported an obviously criminal regime."

This kind of accusation goes way beyond acceptable debate language, Froth. Clearly you're feeling upset and helpless and frustrated with the political process, but do you really think suggesting your fellow debaters are quislings will help you get your points across?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:41 PM

Thank you. Thank you for the accolades. I don't recall you blowing me 2-3 years ago Peace. Could be that it was all in your head.

Olesko once again avoids the obvious. Dick Cheney exhibited criminal demeanor before, during and after the crime. He stood to gain, he had motivation, access, means, etc. The public record alone can convict him of taking part in 9/11. You 9/11 truth deniers are a sad lot. You have enabled the trigger man of 9/11 to assume the commandant's seat for the upcoming nuking of Iran. History will revile you. My country will be destroyed because you supported an obviously criminal regine.

O'DONNELL: ...I'm saying that in America we are fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations one of them is this one. And you know what, go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our country because it's frightening. It's frightening.

HASSELBECK: So you think we're being brainwashed as a whole country? I think not. I think it's a media

O'DONNELL: Democracy is threatened in a way it hasn't been in 200 years and if America doesn't stand up we're in big trouble.

HASSELBECK: Do you believe that the government had anything to do with the attack of 9/11? Do you believe in a conspiracy in terms of the attack of 9/11?

O'DONNELL: No. But I do believe the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven. World Trade Center one and Two got hit by plains. Seven, miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.

HASSELBECK: And who do you think is responsible for that?

O'DONNELL: I have no idea. But to say that we don't know it was imploded, that there was implosion in the demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the film. Get a physics expert here from Yale, from Harvard. Pick the school. It defies reason.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11710

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM

"What's the goal, to see who can be the most gutless, or the most moronic?"

Congratulations Froth, you win!


"a third grader playing DA for a Day would consider the points I made sufficient for an indictment"

Which is probably why the rest of us have learned that your points don't add up. You just don't have the guts to admit you are living a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 02:00 PM

BTW, I was blowin' the whistle on this on Mudcat two/three years ago. Fuck you again.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

Tell you what: If he doesn't nuke Iran will you please piss off? You just hit my shit list, and from now on NO civility at all from me. Fuck you, shitforbrains.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:46 PM

Oh, is this a popularity contest? What's the goal, to see who can be the most gutless, or the most moronic? You folks would make it a hard choice. Dick Cheney is guilty (a third grader playing DA for a Day would consider the points I made sufficient for an indictment), yet you can't even answer the fucking question. And the answer is SO obvious that your reluctance to acknowledge Cheney and Rumsfeld did 9/11 must be due to cowardice. You want to quibble over bullshit speculative issues and ignore the blood-smeared murderer glaring straight into your eyes. So I retract the moron designation but I have to stick with gutless. And if I had to pick a winner in that category, it would be a hard, hard choice. Cheney's getting ready to nuke Iran, so fuck your civility. You either get on the blower to your representatives and tell them to stop the war, or the world of Anglo-America is going to be dead in 5 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:32 AM

Froth:

I wish to offer a word of avvice--unsolicited.

Basically, I enjoy the posts you make. I have read amny of them before, because I happen to think there is an attempt to take over governments, people, economies. This is not news to me. My looking into it goes back over twenty years. I do not care who thinks I'm crazy. Hell, I AM crazy. I will and do argue with Ron, Spaw, Ebbie, Don Firth (sometimes LH) and a few other people about it. But I also happen to respect them and their views. I think they are wrong. They think the same of my views. However, not you or anyone else is going to refer to them as morons simply because no one rose to your post. In short words, shove THAT up yer ass. Keep that in mind, boychik.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:08 AM

Froth sees a guy shift from one foot to another and immediately knows this is just a cover because he doesn't want to scratch in public and in reality the guy has the clap......and crabs! Having both of these means he is sexually active so Froth knows he is also HIV positive and when the dude clears his throat, Froth figures it to be a bad cough and assumes he is in full blown aids. And when the sun comes out from behind a cloud it makes the guy sneeze so Froth now has proof that this character is trying to infect the entire city!!!!

Seriously Froth....Go have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up. Hang a "Vacancy" sign on your forehead and perhaps someone will give you a brain to use that actually works.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM

Oh that Rosie, she sure gets stuff stirred up ....

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 02:24 AM

"The ANSWER, you gutless morons, is that you would JAIL a suspect like Cheney and prosecute him for a MILLION death sentences.

First, your question was rhetorical, and therefore required no answer.

Second, do the words 'fuck off' mean something to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:17 AM

Yes, Froth, I would have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a number of others in that admininstration arrested at this point, charged with treason, terrorism, and major war crimes, and put on trial. After that...well, that would be up to the tribunal.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 11:58 PM

What?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 11:22 PM

The ANSWER, you gutless morons, is that you would JAIL a suspect like Cheney and prosecute him for a MILLION death sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 06:33 PM

Little Hawk, as I read what you wrote, a lot of the details started coming back to me. I recall being glued to the radio (big console jobber with "magic eye tuner;" I was 10 when Pearl Harbor occurred) during the battle of the Coral Sea (lost the carrier Lexington) in May, '42, then the battle of Midway about a month later. Turning point.

Life Magazine. Every week, 10¢ a copy, big format, lots of pictures!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 04:19 PM

I agree entirely with all that, Don. ;-)

As to the provocations FDR employed against Japan in '41, I believe there were basically 2 really serious ones.

1. He cut off their supplies of American scrap metal...quite serious, because they needed that to build their warships and other equipment.

2. He cut off their overseas oil sources! This was the decisive move, and it absolutely guaranteed that the Japanese would go to war against Britain, America, and Holland (Free Dutch forces)...their objective, to secure the huge oilfields in the Dutch East Indies. Without that oil their military machine would grind to a halt in about one year, and it was inconceivable that they would allow this to happen when they had already committed the resources of the nation to a major war in China. There was no going back for the Japanese at that point, because it is not in their national character to just give up, surrender, and go home. They would fight. No doubt about it.

The only questions were, how soon would they fight? And how would they go about launching their initial attacks? And how effective would those attacks be?

I think that the USA badly underestimated the abilities of the Japanese Navy and its aircraft...so the early going was very, very tough indeed until the Japanese ran out of luck at Midway. After that it was still tough going, but the end result was inevitable. The Brits also badly underestimated their Japanese foes, and took a pounding from them. The Japanese had the world's finest navy in 1941, its finest aircraft carrier squadrons, its best torpedoes, its best naval fighter plane by far, its most rigorously trained personnel...and a cadre of battle-hardened veterans from the war in China. They were utterly deadly in 1941-42, and the American Navy had to play catchup. Assisted by breaking the Japanese code, they were able to ambush Yamamoto's carriers at Midway and score an incredible victory. After that they ground the Japanese down island by island.

By early 1943 the US Navy had become the best in the world, eclipsing the forces of Japan, and its aircraft carrier forces had become unrivalled, and still are to this day.

Admiral Yamamoto, who had gone to University in the USA, had told the Japanese Army government that if he was ordered to use the Navy to fight the USA he could run wild for 6 months to a year...after that he could guarantee nothing. It turned out to be about 6 months. His gloomy assessment was dramatically confirmed at Midway. The man was given a miserable job to do by people far less wise and prescient than himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

Little Hawk, I wasn't trying to imply that you were passing on the canard about FDR knowingly allowing that Pearl Harbor attack (some people maintaining that he knew exactly when and where it was going to happen, right down to the serial numbers on the tails of the Japanese planes [if any]). And I'm aware that you're very knowledgeable about WWII and if I have any questions about the subject, I know you're the person to ask.

Calling on my young memory of the times, I heard a lot of people (my father included) who, somewhat appalled at what the Japanese were doing in China, and regarding them as nearly as dangerous as Germany was in Europe—ambitions to conquer the world—were glad when the United States stopped selling scrap metal to Japan to be made into weapons to use on other countries. There may have been a lot of other things that pissed Japan off at the U. S., but as I recall, at the time, this was considered to be a biggy. There may have been other "provocations" (you're probably more up on that than I am), but not everyone in the U. S. was indifferent to what was going on in Europe and Asia.

What has me grinding my teeth is when neo-cons try to draw a parallel between Roosevelt's seeing the necessity of getting the United States involved in the war to try to stop the Axis cancer from growing and engulfing the world, and Bush's preemptively invading another country that was not the base for al Qaeda and terrorist attacks in general;   in fact, Bush and his cohorts knew perfectly well that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden hated each other's guts. Al Quada's activity such as the attack on the World Trade Center was a criminal act, not an act of war, and should have been responded to as such.

Trying to compare Bush with Roosevelt is like trying to compare a yapping jackal with a lion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:43 PM

Greater minds than mine weighed in on the PNAC proposal.

Great statesmen like Danny Qualye signed the PNAC mission statement document as if it were the new US Constitution.

In many ways it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:36 PM

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html

The main intent behind invading Afghanistan was to build pipelines to China...oil and natural gas. One of the pipeline projects was headed by former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown. I believe this is now the largest natural gas pipeline in the world. Pumping in fuel to make China the most powerful economy in the world.

Let me go over the Cheney situation again. Pretend you're a prosecutor looking for a suspect in the 9/11 murders, and this information comes to your attention:

1) A document was produced a year before 9/11. The PNAC document. It lays out a new middle-east strategy calling for warfare and says a Pearl Harbor like event will be needed to get Americans behind the plan.

2) That PNAC document is on the desks of Dick Cheney, members of the Bush family and others.

3) Dick Cheney refuses to cooperate with investigators who want records of his Energy Task Force meetings. It later comes out that those meetings re-drew the map of who would own what in the Iraqi oil fields...someday.

4) June 1, 2001, control of NORAD is handed over to the Dept of Defense. NORAD has been under military control since it was set up a half century before.

5) On the morning of 9/11, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta observes Dick Cheney monitoring air activity, and he hears Cheney issue override orders regarding one of the hijacked planes. He testifies to this before congress.

6) After the attacks, control of NORAD is given back to the military.

7) When congress demands an immediate investigation into 9/11, Dick Cheney says there WILL be another attack if the administration is "distracted" by an investigation.

8) Flight control tapes and records are shredded, thousands of gag orders are issued by the Executive Branch.

If you were a prosecutor, what would you infer about Dick Cheney? If you were on a grand jury, would you vote to charge him for complicity in 9/11? Be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:08 AM

I recall reading it in any number of different sources over the last few years, Ebbie. I mean there were a whole bunch of them. Danged if I recall specifically who and when, it's just part of the general background I'm familiar with by now about that war, only I do recall this: it wasn't Bin Laden that I am quoting. ("a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs") ;-) It was various American sources, I believe. And it might have been some British sources as well, but I'm not sure. The Afghans were offered a deal which it was felt they could not refuse. They refused.

I'll see if I can find one of those sources maybe tomorrow sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:13 AM

The source may be 'Bin Laden, la verité interdite' by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. (I didn't know that, but Mr Google is my friend.)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:02 AM

Little Hawk, would you please give your source for your 6:26 post?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:10 PM

Please, Don. I am NOT blaming FDR for starting WWII!!! Jesus Murphy. If I were to assign blame for starting WWII, I would blame Adolf Hitler for it. He should have left Poland alone. Secondarily, I would blame the Japanese for a lengthy and totally irresponsible policy of engaging in aggression in East Asia, starting with their first incursions into Korea, expanding into war with China, invading mainland China, and finally attacking the USA, Britain and the Dutch East Indies. Thirdly, I would blame Mussolini, for various other illegal acts of aggression. THAT's who I blame for WWII, not FDR.

I am simply saying that FDR wanted very much to get the USA into that war ASAP, primarily to defeat Germany, and to do that he needed to somehow get Japan to attack the USA first because he had an isolationist Congress and public who did not want to get into any foreign war.

So FDR deliberately created a situation where the Japanese definitely would attack America, and he knew it, as did the American military...the only thing they weren't quite sure of (I would assume) was exactly how, where, and when the Japanese would make the initial attacks. They were expecting it to come anytime from late November '41. They knew the Phillipines would get hit for sure. They may not have been so sure about Hawaii.

I am fully aware that Kimmel never got the radar report, because it never got past a minor officer who thought it was a flight of B-17s from California. I was not implying that it was deliberately according to plan that that happened. It was simply a misjudgement by a minor officer.

I was saying, however, that Roosevelt needed a major provocation to get his public and Congress onside for getting into a world war...and he got it. This was very helpful to Roosevelt's overall gameplan.

I am not in any way opposed to Roosevelt's economic and social policies, I think he did a great job with the New Deal. I am not in principle opposed to him finding a way to go to war with Germany and Japan in '41, even if it involved pushing one of them into attacking first, because I think he basically did what needed to be done at the time.

I was simply raising examples of what may or may not be fortuitious when one wants to get one's public in a mood for war. My example was not meant as a heavy moral judgement against FDR.

In Bush's case, he also got his major provocation...but not by the armed forces of a foreign country! It was by a small secret group of conspirators (either foreign...or homegrown...or both), and it is totally illegitimate to attack any foreign country because of a criminal act by a small independently acting group or organization of conspirators.

Therefore I do make a heavy moral judgement against the Bush administration for attacking Afghanistan, and later Iraq. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have ever attacked the USA, and they should not have been attacked by the USA.

I was recounting the WWII story simply as an analogy on what governments can and may do to get a public in a war mood, that's all.

Don, I am a nut on WWII history. I never subscribed to any such silly myth such as the one you quote about Kimmel.

By the way, there's an interesting twist to the Japanese diplomatic mission in Washington on Dec 7. They had received a lengthy message from Tokyo, by wireless, which they were supposed to translate and give to the American ambassador, very shortly prior to the scheduled time of the first attacks hitting Pearl Harbor. It was in code. Their office staff had such a hard time transcribing the coded message that they were unable to deliver the message on time. They were only able to present it to the American ambassador after Pearl had already been hit. The message was essentially an ultimatum, amounting to a declaration of war. This would technically make the attack NOT a sneak attack (as the Japanese reasoned it). This was their idea of saving face. As it turned out, the Japanese ambassador was totally humiliated. He had failed to deliver the message on time, thus disgracing himself and his country. I'm not saying that this in any way justified the Japanese or excused what they did, I'm just saying it's an interesting insight into their complex notions of honor.

The Americans wouldn't have given a damn anyway if they'd got the ultimatum an hour or so before the attack or even a day before. ;-) They'd have been just as mad as ever about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:33 PM

Blaming FDR for starting World War II is a favorite sport of those who hated his domestic policies (the "New Deal," and imposing regulations on businesses that had run the country into a major depression by operating solely on the basis of runaway greed). In fact, it is such a popular sport that even those who favored FDR's reforms seem to believe the allegations. And that's all they are:   allegations. No proof, beyond merely having heard the allegations so many times that they may seem to true by "virtue" of repetition alone. Little Hawk, as a student of World War II, you might want to take a look at this web site. Clicky. Among other things, it contains the following item:

MYTH : The Opana Point Radar reported the Japanese attack 1 hour before the planes arrived over the harbor, but Adm. Kimmel refused to do anything about it.

FACT: Pvts. Eliot and Lockard were manning the radar at Opana Point. They noticed a large blip on the scope and call in to the as-yet not fully functional Fighter Information Center. Pvt. McDonald took the call and located the sole officer at the Center and asked him to call the operators back. Lt. Kermit Tyler, having ending his first tour of training at the newly established Fighter Control Center, received the report and, thinking it was a flight of B-17s due in from the mainland, told the operators to "forget it." The report went no higher than that. Interestingly enough, the new radars tracked the planes coming and going, but the Army did not tell the Navy about this pointer to the Japanese carriers until the 8th, a fact which quite possibly saved our carriers.

There are only a few people who were actually involved in either the sighting or the establishment of the Fighter Information Center. Privates Lockard and Elliot were at Opana Point, Pvt. McDonald and Lt. Tyler were in the FIC. Other "interested parties" were Col. Bergquist, who with Col. Tindal established the FIC, and Cmdr. Taylor, USN, who was in Hawaii to teach the Navy how to use radar (and was on "loan" to the Army for the same purpose on Dec. 7th.) All of their testimonies are now vailable. Links to relevant documents.

By the way, I was pretty young at the time, but old enough to have a good idea of what was in the news. There was a Japanese diplomatic party in Washington, D. C. at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. It was essentially a kamikazi mission. Their purpose was to lull the American government into "diplomacy mode" and divert attention from the coming sucker-punch.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:26 PM

It depends on whether they created the situation...or simply facilitated it, Ebbie, but here's why it was Afghanistan.

The USA had been negotiating with the Taliban in the summer of 2001 and had offered them (off the record) this choice: "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs". Over what? Over the fact that the USA wanted to move in American contractors to build a major oil pipeline through Afghanistan in order to move oil from the Caspian region through to the Indian Ocean. The Taliban said "No". They refused to cooperate. That was when the decision was made to invade Afghanistan. From that point on it was necessary to create media coverage that would motivate the American people to support an unprovoked war on Afghanistan. Various stories had been in the media already, like the destruction of those ancient Buddhist statues and the mistreatment of Afghan women, but none of those stories were big enough to get the American people to back a war. Something much bigger was needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:52 PM

Question: IF the US government created/allowed the WTC disaster, why didn't they blame Saddam from the start? Why have Saudi hijackers? The Saudis are our 'friends'- why risk that friendship?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:37 PM

"I do wonder what the outcome would have been if we shot down all the planes before they hit their targets?"

Yeah, that is one to ponder, Ron. It's unlikely that action would have been taken though, until at least one plane had deliberately struck a target and it was realized by the military what was going on. I mean, look, I wouldn't shoot down a hijacked airliner until I had very strong reasons to believe that it was the ONLY course of action possible to prevent many more lives being lost than just those on that airplane. However, suppose it had been done. Suppose they had shot down all those airliners...or all except one of them.

I think the outcome would have been absolute shock and horror on the part of the whole country at the loss of civilian life (which would have certainly included anger at the US military for possibly "jumping the gun")...that it would, however, very soon have been blamed on Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda...that public anger would have then have mostly shifted to them as the guilty parties...and that the attack on Afghanistan would have gone forward in exactly the same way as it did. And later the attack on Iraq as well.

No appreciable difference to foreign policy, but a more than appreciable difference to the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and almost 3,000 dead Americans who would not have died on that day.

A preferable result, in other words, but still not too good on the whole.

Mind you, I think they had other reasons to knock down the WTC (financial reasons), and I think they had reasons to have as big and publicly shocking an event as possible, something that could be seen on live TV. You can't do that nearly as effectively by just shooting down some airliners.

It's like...suppose (just for the sake of argument) that the Americans on Dec 7 '41 had intercepted the oncoming Japanese carrier force (or its aircraft in the air) and destroyed them before they had a chance to hit Pearl Harbour? What if? Would it have worked as well as a psychological motivator to mobilize an entire nation as the historical Japanese attack on the harbour and the spectacular sinking of the Arizona and those other ships did?

Hell no. You need a real sense of damage to get people damn angry. That requires suffering a very visible surprise attack by someone and taking significant losses. FDR needed that report from that radar station on Oahu to be ignored or discounted when they saw the Japanese planes coming in! I'm not saying that necessarily proves it was planned that way...I'm just pointing out how these events work psychologically, and what is required to enrage an entire nation and make them forget about anything except striking back.

The Neocons had a more difficult proposition on their hands than FDR in '41. He knew he could provoke another nation-state into striking the first blow militarily...but there was no way that the USA could get Afghanistan or Iraq to attack the USA like that. It was not even logistically possible. So they had a more subtle problem on their hands if they wanted a war, and it required the existence of shadowy undercover killers to do it (whether or not they were foreign or domestic-based). If Osama didn't exist, they would have had to invent him... ;-) If Saddam didn't exist, they might have had to invent him too. Ditto for Ahmadinejad.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:33 PM

Would that member speaking through many Guest hats please come clean? What the hell are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:43 PM

So what. I have heard with my own ears the recording of the emergency band radios with the fire chief asking, "Shall we pull it?"... and another voice responded "Yes pull it now!". WTC 7 then fell in its footprint.

Obviously the authorities knew what they were doing and are far more qualified than you or I in dealing with a disaster scene.

There is nothing wrong with yearning for the truth but demanding the truth at all costs, is costly.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:36 PM

By the way, while I never like playing "what if" games, I do wonder what the outcome would have been if we shot down all the planes before they hit their targets?   I can imagine there would have been an outcry against killing innocent civilians during a hijacking.   Previous to 9/11, our policies were not really clear - and post 9/11 they have become and incredible attack on our freedoms in a vain attempt to correct mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:32 PM

Little Hawk, I do get your drift - but I also think that comment can have a negative effect on those that do try to search for the truth and look at both sides. It also becomes an easy answer to negate a person who has come to some sort of conclusion after a lot of searching.

I don't think any of us, except for maybe Froth, have closed our minds to any option.

As for Cheney & crew, perhaps they are more calculating than I give them credit for - but they are still human beings, and they have shown flaws. I sincerely doubt that Dead Eye Dick Cheney could pull this off when he can't even shoot a gun properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:25 PM

Ron, I keep getting the sense that you are missing my philosophical drift and thereby missing my point. I am suggesting that most people are in denial all the time, regardless of whether or they believe the government OR the conspiracy theorists. I am suggesting that most people would rather cover up their extreme lack of real knowledge of what is going on with an outer facade of certainty and a strong opinion. I am suggesting that it has always been that way and probably always will be.

To put it simply: most people would be absolutely terrified to admit to themselves or others how little they really know, so they spend their whole lives pontificating and grandstanding about stuff as if they did know, because that makes them feel a lot more secure.

I've been watching people do it ever since I was a little kid, and it's a sorry thing to see.

As for Cheney and his friends, Ron...I doubt that they are as inept as you think (except in the sense of moral ineptitude).

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM

"Would you say you're being open-minded on this topic?"

Absolutely.   Could you say the same thing after immediately referring to "debunk" sites as government plants? You may not be able to grasp this, but you have shown all of us that you have a preconceived notion and deny anything that is counter.

NORAD? That is an example of our ineptitude. The failure of the FAA to get timely notification to NORAD to interecept shows one of our weaknesses.   Dick Cheney was involved in the war games that were taking place that day, but there is no credible evidence showing that he had, or could have done anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:34 PM

Frorth,

The nice thing about 'the establishment' is that damned near ANYone can be said to speak for it. So when one person gets caught talkin' shit--hey, another can come along and say, "Uh, he doesn't speak for us." Then someone else takes the piss. Very convenient.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

But you never know where the tipping point will be, Little Hawk. All a person can do is pound away on the facts and hope that people wake up one by one. Someday one of those folks might make the difference.

The establishment is terrified now. Openly lying on TV. Saying the WTC towers were nothing but a steel skin and a bunch of 6-inch floors inside. "And what happened that day is, when that melted, that went down, and it became like potato chips...." lol. Morons can't even remember it's called the pancake theory, not the potato chip theory. (Hey! It just occurred to me the govt's admitting to a "theory" of the collapse).

It's a battle for the minds of the viewers, and the establishment has now resorted to BLATANT falsehoods. And if they would tell a lie like that (about the structure of the WTC towers), what other lies would they tell?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

"Not knowing is scary. It's easier just to be in denial all the time and imagine that you DO know what's going on, because you heard it on the News and the guys that read the News wouldn't repeat a lie, would they?"

It depends on who you think is in denial.   I could easily say that conspiracy theorists are in denial.

It is easy to relate to a fanciful story if that can relieve you of your fears, or make your worst fears come true.   Sometimes it is hard to accept reality, and that is when we start blindly looking for answers that fit our preconceived notions.

As for the news, I've worked in the industry and I know better than to believe what I hear on the news.   Yes, they do report back lies when given to them - but the better journalists check their sources and look for a second source to verify.

You are wrong when you say that they read what they are told to read. No news network that I've ever been in has that ability to fake a story in the fashion that has been suggested. There are too many different news organizations and thousands of reporters that would need to be "in" on the fix. You just do not realize how many people are involved in preparing a story for air.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM

"Being liberal and keeping an open mind does not mean you follow a dogmatic principle such as you are doing."

Seems you're following the dogma with your "debunk" sites, WDFU. Would you say you're being open-minded on this topic?

Let's see...the govt agent part...some of the "hijackers" roomed with an FBI agent, some airport guards testified that they were told a group of the men were agents, etc. Lots of testimony I'd have to dig up. Lost that on my other hard drive. But this information has been around for SO LONG.

Tell you what...explain to me what was going on with Cheney, NORAD and Mineta, and I'll do the searches on the govt-agent stuff again. But FIRST you people need to come to grips with Dick Cheney and NORAD. That situation is the capper. It removes the zombie's head and makes all further discussion unnecessary. So tell me what was going on there and then we'll get to the agent stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

It is possible, Ron, that some of the existing conspiracy theories have been covertly invented BY the government as deliberate misinformation simply to distract people...as you say...and to help discredit all other conspiracy theories merely by association. ;-) Man, I wouldn't past it past some clever Black Ops people to lay a few false trails just to muddy the waters.

I still think Dick Cheney and some other high-ups in the administration were probably in on it, however. I think Giuliani probably was too. and Rumsfeld. I think Bush himself was at least partially in the dark as to what was going on...if not wholly so. In any case, what happened allowed those guys, Bush included, to set in motion exactly the international events they had been planning on for quite a number of years. It was so fortuitous for the planners of the PNAC that I find it hard to believe that they didn't have a hand in making it happen.

This is my opinion. I wouldn't claim to have proof. I'm in no position to have proof, and I know no way of determining if or when the media and government are telling me the truth about anything.

I am aware how completely powerless I am to determine if or when they are telling me the truth or not. Maybe a lot of other people are not aware of their powerlessness in that respect, and they cover their vulnerability over with a sense of certainty. I wonder? I fully expect to die and never find out for sure if they were telling the truth or not, just like I'll never find out for sure the whole truth about the Kennedy assassination either. Or about most things like that.

I accept the fact that I'm not going to ever know the whole truth, although (like anyone) I very much want to. I don't like it much, but I face it and I accept it. How many people do? How many people's absolute certainty about this or that...their loud and strong opinions...are an instinctive psychological defence reaction to the fact that in truth they don't know what's going on and they are never going to. Not knowing is scary. It's easier just to be in denial all the time and imagine that you DO know what's going on, because you heard it on the News and the guys that read the News wouldn't repeat a lie, would they?

Oh yes, they would. They could. And they frequently do (whether they know it or not). They read what they're told to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:58 PM

BeardedBruce - they were "trained" in the U.S. to be pilots. In this poor fools mind that makes them "trained U.S. agents". He is playing spin doctor with words.

By the way, if he offers you a glass of Kool-aid, I would advise to pass.