|
Post by lulu on May 15, 2006 0:10:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on May 15, 2006 1:15:07 GMT -5
Dear God... if the Bush administration had done this... I don't know how they'd sleep at night. I still don't think they'd play with people's lives like that. And the Empire State Building analogy is BS; my uncle was the Fire and Safety manager, and he pointed out that the Empire State building is rigid and made of concrete. The WTC's fire-resistance was worn out, AND the support beams melted and collapsed. This was also aided by the building being designed to "bend" with the wind. It's an earthquake damage-reducer. It's entirely possible that the Pentagon attack was engineered... but I have some faith in humanity that nobody would pull that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by lulu on May 15, 2006 1:34:37 GMT -5
Whether or not this is true, it's main purpose is to make us question authority. If we don't challenge authority then things like this are almost entirley plausible.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on May 15, 2006 1:55:36 GMT -5
Just a hard pill to swallow, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on May 15, 2006 2:25:20 GMT -5
Dear God... if the Bush administration had done this... I don't know how they'd sleep at night. Probably with great ease, politics love their power trips, its the whole reason they chose that career. This isnt the first conspiracy, this happens like every decade, a government offcial wants power and things happen. I for one dont know what to think untill I get indesputable proof, however I do know that it didnt go down like the government wants us to think.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on May 15, 2006 10:10:59 GMT -5
Well... I finished it this morning, and it is fairly convincing. I watched it more to say "Haha, you're WRONG!" than to see what it had to say ( ), and it won me over. I... I just don't know, though. I can't imagine anyone doing something like that.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on May 15, 2006 16:09:49 GMT -5
As if I needed even MORE reasons to hate my government. Why don't they show this to the general public? They must be able to do something with this. If they could prove this was the government's doing, there would be hell to pay for the Bush adminstration. Mass impeachments and subsequent removals, life sentences for the lot of them. We'd be out of Afghanistan, Iraq, hell all kinds of places. This... this is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on May 15, 2006 16:31:29 GMT -5
I watched about 10 minutes of it, realised it was stuff procaine and I argued about a lot to a hell of a lot of skepticism.
Least now the issue is getting some actual consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on May 15, 2006 16:40:17 GMT -5
meh.
What is the purpose behind questioning authority? What exactly do you expect you are going to achieve? Regardless of who's on top, you'll always be working for the man, and if/when you ever do make it on top you'll do whatever is in your power to stay there because it sucks below.
There isn't anything to question if you ask me.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on May 15, 2006 16:54:55 GMT -5
Hehe...
There is no good evidence that the US government was behind 9/11, and there probably never will be. That video is crap.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on May 15, 2006 17:25:16 GMT -5
meh. What is the purpose behind questioning authority? What exactly do you expect you are going to achieve? Regardless of who's on top, you'll always be working for the man, and if/when you ever do make it on top you'll do whatever is in your power to stay there because it sucks below. There isn't anything to question if you ask me. If you ask me, brainlessly questioning authority and brainlessly not doing so are as bad as the other. As for not questioning the government, hm... Get enough people on the same side, and a word becomes important. You may have heard of it. Impeachment.
|
|
|
Post by Britney on May 15, 2006 17:54:46 GMT -5
meh. What is the purpose behind questioning authority? What exactly do you expect you are going to achieve? Regardless of who's on top, you'll always be working for the man, and if/when you ever do make it on top you'll do whatever is in your power to stay there because it sucks below. There isn't anything to question if you ask me. If you ask me, brainlessly questioning authority and brainlessly not doing so are as bad as the other. As for not questioning the government, hm... Get enough people on the same side, and a word becomes important. You may have heard of it. Impeachment. And then what? Is impeachment of one leader going to make any difference? Is getting rid of one administration going to fix anything? Would getting rid of all the leaders in the world do anything to alleviate the corruption inherent with positions of power? Get rid of one corrupt leader and replace with another corrupt leader, is that what you're saying? Because that is all impeachment is going to accomplish. That is all questioning authority will accomplish. Doesn't seem like it accomplishes anything to me. Maybe you'll end up with a corrupt leader more favorable to your point of view, and your personal politics, for the time being atleast. But in the end, he'll always be as powerful and corrupt as the predecessor you impeached. He'll always be trying to maintain his position and authority by any means possible, such as shifting his political views to appeal to popular opinion. There is a reason why successful politicians are known for their double-dealing, and not their candor. It is because that is what it takes to become a successful politician, and that is what it takes to stay.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on May 15, 2006 18:09:31 GMT -5
Hehe... There is no good evidence that the US government was behind 9/11, and there probably never will be. That video is crap. Eh, I thought the same way, and the video was pretty convincing. I just hope it's not true.
|
|
|
Post by gumby on May 15, 2006 18:35:10 GMT -5
there MAY be something to it. But it may be a bunch of random unrelated coincidences. You never know. Yeah, mostly coincidences arent usually ACTUALLY coincidences. But sometimes they are, so really its not enough proof. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on May 15, 2006 18:59:07 GMT -5
And then what? Is impeachment of one leader going to make any difference? Is getting rid of one administration going to fix anything? Would getting rid of all the leaders in the world do anything to alleviate the corruption inherent with positions of power? Get rid of one corrupt leader and replace with another corrupt leader, is that what you're saying? Because that is all impeachment is going to accomplish. That is all questioning authority will accomplish. Doesn't seem like it accomplishes anything to me. Maybe you'll end up with a corrupt leader more favorable to your point of view, and your personal politics, for the time being atleast. But in the end, he'll always be as powerful and corrupt as the predecessor you impeached. He'll always be trying to maintain his position and authority by any means possible, such as shifting his political views to appeal to popular opinion. There is a reason why successful politicians are known for their double-dealing, and not their candor. It is because that is what it takes to become a successful politician, and that is what it takes to stay. You seem to have less confidence in government than most people who question authority, and still you do not. That's odd. Anyway, I think impeachment is actually quite powerful. Sure, the next leader might be corrupt, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that (s)he'd think a bit more about the possible consequences of his/her actions than the precedesor for the very reason you mentioned, once you get power you tend to want to keep it. If our leaders see that they aren't invincible and we actually CAN do something about them, they might think twice about being corrupt. They know better than anyone that this nation, while mostly filled of mindless sheep, does have a large group of people who will catch on to inaccuracies, false information, and the like. And once they get their message out to the masses, then the mindless sheep wake up for just long enough to get rid of the current government and watch over the beginning of a new one (then reverting back to ignorance of the situation normally). Impeachment is more of a deterrent than an actual weapon when combatting corruption. Since we refuse to use it (except in the case of problems in the private lives of our leaders... because clearly stopping sex outside of marriage is more crucial to making sure the government is in line than stopping the overt destruction of the principals our nation was founded on...) people like the Bush Regime... ahem, Adminstration... can do bad things without having to worry. If we impeached a few of the top leaders (as putting Deadeye Dick in place of Dubya doesn't help anyone) the new ones might think twice about doing corrupt things, at least for a while. This is the reason Jefferson said that to keep America true to itself there should be a revolution every 20-30 years or so, to make sure the people in power don't get too comfy.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on May 15, 2006 19:48:56 GMT -5
Well... I finished it this morning, and it is fairly convincing. I watched it more to say "Haha, you're WRONG!" than to see what it had to say ( ), and it won me over. I... I just don't know, though. I can't imagine anyone doing something like that. If you cant imagine anyone doing something like that, you'd only have to fly a few thousand miles to find a country who are less capable of covering up their mistakes. These guys are polititions, they deal with statistics, not people. What is 2000 deaths on a peice of paper compiared to the billions of dollers the econemy has made in things like arms deals needed for the war in iraq. There are plenty more ways to make money off a war than oil...
|
|
|
Post by Britney on May 15, 2006 21:15:57 GMT -5
And then what? Is impeachment of one leader going to make any difference? Is getting rid of one administration going to fix anything? Would getting rid of all the leaders in the world do anything to alleviate the corruption inherent with positions of power? Get rid of one corrupt leader and replace with another corrupt leader, is that what you're saying? Because that is all impeachment is going to accomplish. That is all questioning authority will accomplish. Doesn't seem like it accomplishes anything to me. Maybe you'll end up with a corrupt leader more favorable to your point of view, and your personal politics, for the time being atleast. But in the end, he'll always be as powerful and corrupt as the predecessor you impeached. He'll always be trying to maintain his position and authority by any means possible, such as shifting his political views to appeal to popular opinion. There is a reason why successful politicians are known for their double-dealing, and not their candor. It is because that is what it takes to become a successful politician, and that is what it takes to stay. You seem to have less confidence in government than most people who question authority, and still you do not. That's odd. Anyway, I think impeachment is actually quite powerful. Sure, the next leader might be corrupt, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that (s)he'd think a bit more about the possible consequences of his/her actions than the precedesor for the very reason you mentioned, once you get power you tend to want to keep it. If our leaders see that they aren't invincible and we actually CAN do something about them, they might think twice about being corrupt. They know better than anyone that this nation, while mostly filled of mindless sheep, does have a large group of people who will catch on to inaccuracies, false information, and the like. And once they get their message out to the masses, then the mindless sheep wake up for just long enough to get rid of the current government and watch over the beginning of a new one (then reverting back to ignorance of the situation normally). Impeachment is more of a deterrent than an actual weapon when combatting corruption. Since we refuse to use it (except in the case of problems in the private lives of our leaders... because clearly stopping sex outside of marriage is more crucial to making sure the government is in line than stopping the overt destruction of the principals our nation was founded on...) people like the Bush Regime... ahem, Adminstration... can do bad things without having to worry. If we impeached a few of the top leaders (as putting Deadeye in place of Dubya doesn't help anyone) the new ones might think twice about doing corrupt things, at least for a while. This is the reason Jefferson said that to keep America true to itself there should be a revolution every 20-30 years or so, to make sure the people in power don't get too comfy. So you impeach the guy and install someone new. Maybe he'll think twice about disappointing those who impeached the last guy in office... atleast for a little while. But as everyone knows, it is virtually impossible that all members of the impeachment support group will agree on all other political aspects as well. Sooner or later, but inevitably, you will be marginalized once again. You allude to Clinton in your response regarding impeachment - look at Clinton now. He parades around with Bush Senior. Why do you think he does this? Anything to do with the notion that he wants to remain in the limelight? Perhaps, because through his presidency, he came to realize that he enjoys addressing the American people? Perhaps even (of course, to a lesser extent than his own selfish fulfillment) to help his wife politically? And what about Bush Senior for that matter? Why is he still wading in the limelight? Impeachment or term limits don't neccesarily mark the end to one's political power. The way I see it, this entire topic can be generalized down to the instinct of "once on top remain on top"; "once in power remain in power". Everything the U.S. does now, whether to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, negotiate with China, etc., it does in attempt to preserve its own power up at the top. When you get down to the nitty gritty, everything the leaders do, whether to shift their own opinions to appeal to the masses, putting friends and associates in high places, etc., is done to preserve their own power up at the top. Corporations do the same thing to stay in business, through buying out competitors, outsourcing employees, etc. You aren't going to get rid of this problem through protest, impeachment, or boycotts. While you may oust someone out of office or business, you haven't gotten rid of the conditions that caused those specific actors (and anyone put in their same position) to act out of their own self interest to remain there, and you haven't prevented this from continuing in future. Such is the nature of living in an inescapable social hierarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on May 15, 2006 23:13:04 GMT -5
I completely agree. If you want to solve something, you have to look deeper than individual people. You have to change the structure of our culture at it's core, which is no easy feat.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on May 16, 2006 0:21:17 GMT -5
Well... I finished it this morning, and it is fairly convincing. I watched it more to say "Haha, you're WRONG!" than to see what it had to say ( ), and it won me over. I... I just don't know, though. I can't imagine anyone doing something like that. If you cant imagine anyone doing something like that, you'd only have to fly a few thousand miles to find a country who are less capable of covering up their mistakes. These guys are polititions, they deal with statistics, not people. What is 2000 deaths on a peice of paper compiared to the billions of dollers the econemy has made in things like arms deals needed for the war in iraq. There are plenty more ways to make money off a war than oil... Call me an idiot, call me naive, but I refuse to believe that George W. Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. But if he did... he'd better pay. And more than just an impeachment. Lying to a jury got Clinton an impeachment; lying to the country, and the world, ought to warrant a nice stay in prison.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on May 16, 2006 2:43:06 GMT -5
Call me an idiot, call me naive, but I refuse to believe that George W. Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. But if he did... he'd better pay. And more than just an impeachment. Lying to a jury got Clinton an impeachment; lying to the country, and the world, ought to warrant a nice stay in prison. Guantanamo Bay ought to do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on May 16, 2006 7:53:17 GMT -5
If you cant imagine anyone doing something like that, you'd only have to fly a few thousand miles to find a country who are less capable of covering up their mistakes. These guys are polititions, they deal with statistics, not people. What is 2000 deaths on a peice of paper compiared to the billions of dollers the econemy has made in things like arms deals needed for the war in iraq. There are plenty more ways to make money off a war than oil... Call me an idiot, call me naive, but I refuse to believe that George W. Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. But if he did... he'd better pay. And more than just an impeachment. Lying to a jury got Clinton an impeachment; lying to the country, and the world, ought to warrant a nice stay in prison. Why do you refuse to believe? I'm not a bush hater, I dont run around like the average person saying "omg bush suxorz, wat teh noob". But if you think its impossible for this attack to be orchestrated by your own government then your not and idiot and your not nieve, your brainwashed. Now I'm not saying that they did orchestrate it because frankly there isnt a smoking gun to prove it, but there is a possibilty it happened no matter how big or small, there still remains a possiblity. A nice stay in prison? If this could be proven, the key players of the bush government would be put on death row for high treason...
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on May 16, 2006 13:33:42 GMT -5
Well, I don't refuse... I guess I just don't want to. It means everything, including the pretext for invading Afghanistan (which I thought was right), was a lie... and that's... that's pretty big.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on May 16, 2006 14:31:22 GMT -5
I've heard many conspiracy arguements about all sorts of things, but this one seems sound and seems to back up its statements. I'm not the type to accuse the government of such things, but this has certainly changed my view. I'm not saying I beleive everything the video said, but I'm no longer on any side of the 9/11 conspiracy arguement. Thanks for posting this
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on May 16, 2006 22:41:52 GMT -5
Well, I don't refuse... I guess I just don't want to. It means everything, including the pretext for invading Afghanistan (which I thought was right), was a lie... and that's... that's pretty big. What about the war on Iraq, bush blatently lied about that, dont get me wrong, I think the Iraq war is a good idea, free a country from a dictator and set up peice and a democracy... However bush lied to get the support to invade Iraq and since then has done the worst job imaginable. As always say, I'm not against bush I'm just being realisitic. Realisticaly, the Iraq war was for money, a poletition gaining power, who would have guessed it. And no I'm not talking specificaly about oil.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on May 17, 2006 0:15:59 GMT -5
Looks like a flashy propaganda film that only gives bits of information taken out of context and leaves out key points of information to prove their point due to the lack of factual information. 14 fighter jets protecting the United States? Don't think so. Not to mention that 3 F-16 fighters being 180 nautical miles away would really have very little effect, already airborne they could get within striking distance in a little over 6 minuets and 6 seconds. Seems like the numbers are ignored.
|
|