MovieChat Forums > Why We Fight Discussion > COUNTER PROPAGANDA

COUNTER PROPAGANDA

posted 17 years ago by s_trangedays
50 replies | jump to latest

This is not a propaganda,but actualy a counter-propaganda movie.. this movie actually explains the real economic reason(s) behind why we have started ANY war after WWII...Of course most people are too patriotic and too sensible about this but basically ,it helps one see the reason why there is no gun registration in here, why we are tied to Isreal so tightly and why we want to "Liberate" middle east these days.
Smart moive , need open minded people,( or NOT SUITABLE FOR neo-cons)

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

Well, I see you've tasted the cool-aid and said it is good.

There is some valid information at the beginning of this movie, but by about 1/3rd of the way through, it becomes just another tirade against Bush, the Iraq war, American corporations, capitalism, and so on. It even dusts off the old far-left lie that using the A-bombs on Japan to end WW II was a war crime. If you agree with this point of view, you will love the movie.

It is very clever with using the words of conservative icons to paint a picture that would have the speakers (like IKE) rolling in their graves. And of course they can't answer back, can they?

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has screwed up the war on terror so badly that we are going to give up in pretty short order. This will lead to much more bloodshed than anything we have seen so far, the emergence of Iran as the major power in the ME, murder of most if not all Sunnis living in Iraq, an arms race on the part of the Sunni states who fear Iran & Shia Iraq, destruction of what is left of the Arab-Israeli peace process, and eventually, all out war which we will be dragged into (probably nuke as well due to Israel's capabilities).

Enjoy...

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

It is very clever with using the words of conservative icons to paint a picture that would have the speakers (like IKE) rolling in their graves. And of course they can't answer back, can they?
__________________________________________________________________________________

You are right that Dwight Eisenhower can't respond to other people speaking for him but keep in mind that both his son and his granddaughter also appeared in the documentary. If the documentary had been misrepresenting his beliefs than I doubt that they would have endorsed it by appearing in it.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<You are right that Dwight Eisenhower can't respond to other people speaking for him but keep in mind that both his son and his granddaughter also appeared in the documentary. If the documentary had been misrepresenting his beliefs than I doubt that they would have endorsed it by appearing in it. >>

This film, like any other, was put together from a lot of separate pieces. In their own contexts, I have no problems with what the family members say in this film - it is the degredation into the usual bashing of America, Capitalism, Corporations, the CIA, and the like that I had a problem with.

And I might add - at least two of Reagan's kids have vastly different political views than their father did.....don't know where IKE's kids really stand in relation to their father's beliefs.

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

whenever someone has the courage to address the social or political problems within America, there will always be someone to label it as "bashing" Its kind of like when your teachers made you do your homework it was just because they were being mean.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

So I take it you will agree that when the Republicans in Congress in the mid-1990s pointed out to all of us that it's a problem for the President to sexually abuse an employee, "sell" nights in the Lincoln Bedroom to donors, pardon people like Marc Rich, and seek to cover up a scandal envolving Whitewater, that was not bashing on the part of the Republicans?

Just wondering, because I've heard Democrats singing that song for quite a while.

And by the way, for the record, Clinton didn't deserve some of that. I think it was political "bashing" - pure and simple. Just like this movie.

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

I see your point. I dont think Id use the term "sexually abuse" though. Ms. Lewinski was an adult and the misdeed was consensual. Although I agree that some of what Clinton got was undeserved, I think when presidents misappropriate funds or involve themselves in a scandal, that is the risk they run. I think what frustrates a lot of democrats (or people in general) is that Clinton was impeached over an offense that was comparitively minor towards the impeachable offences that have been executed by the current president and vice president. Its shocking. On the one hand you have a sex scandal, which was the central issue in former president Clintons impeachment. On the other hand you have issues of unlawful war, deception of the mass public in terms of a link being made between Iraq and 911, issues of torture, issues of electoral tampering, issues of lying about wmd, issues of willfully exposing the identity of a CIA agent, and violations to the Constitution. These charges are huge! Maybe only a few are substantiated, maybe none, or maybe all of them. There should be an investigation.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

Well, I'm basically a moderate, and frankly, I like Clinton better than I like Bush in many ways. That being said, if you or I would have gotten caught having that kind of relationship, at work, with an employee, in particular a lower level employee, we would have been forced to resign. And remember that Clinton was not impeached for this, he was impeached for lying under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial. You or I would have gone to jail for doing that.

I think Bush has bumbled the Iraq war very badly. I'm glad he's almost out of office. You have made some charges that don't hold water, however:

<<unlawful war>> - wrong - Congress voted on this

<<deception of the mass public in terms of a link being made between Iraq and 911>> - again wrong - I've argued this with others on this board. Bush didn't say that. Prove me wrong.

<<issues of torture>> - this disturbs me - we should be looking into it. That being said, our enemy is dangerous, and I'm more concerned about Americans than I am about muslims who want us to "convert or die"

<<issues of electoral tampering>> only fringe leftwing nutcases believe this charge. Aren't you smarter than that? There is no evidence of this.

<<issues of lying about wmd>> I don't think Bush lied about this - I think he got bad intel. That being said, shame on him and his team for letting that happen.

<<issues of willfully exposing the identity of a CIA agent>> this is a red herring - Mrs Plame outed herself - everybody in Washington knew what she was doing, because she bragged about it. This was an attempt to stir up trouble on the part of Mrs Plame and her lowlife husband. That's the reason this one didn't go further. Do you really think the media would give Bush a pass on this if they had something?

<<violations to the Constitution>> - like what? To who's interpretation? Certainly not the Surpreme Court (and they don't always rule the way Bush wants them too, either)

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

You have made a good point about Clinton. I agree with you that it was indeed impeachable and improper conduct. There is no excuse for sexual harassment.

"<<unlawful war>> - wrong - Congress voted on this"

This does not mean it wasnt unlawful. The legal system extends beyond federal law. This was an action that was taken without the consent of the U.N. This is a breach of international law.

"<<deception of the mass public in terms of a link being made between Iraq and 911>> - again wrong - I've argued this with others on this board. Bush didn't say that. Prove me wrong."

I never said that Bush himself said these things. It was openly implied by the entire administration on numerous occaisions without actually using the words:
"Iraq caused 911" The link was implied over and over again by mentioning issues about Iraq and then Issues about 911. Many people within the military and within the general public believed and still believe there is a link because of these clever speeches. There are many examples of these implications. Here is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

Ill get to your other points a little later....

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

Torture is wrong. Not just in the case of Americans, but in any case for any reason. If we allow it only for a few of the worst muslim terrorists, where can we draw a line? The U.S. is the only remaining superpower and other countries follow its example. If we are willing to accept it in any situations we contribute to the slippery slope that will allow it to happen to Americans and people from other countries.

"<<issues of electoral tampering>> only fringe leftwing nutcases believe this charge. Aren't you smarter than that? There is no evidence of this."

I suggest you watch the documentary: "Unprecedented-2000 Presidential Elections"
among others. You will see on video people like reverend Willie Witing who had their names removed from the voting list because their names closely resembled the names of convicted felons (who were not allowed to vote). This is proof. These people are real, that is unless you think they are acting. Maybe its a left wing conspiracy. How do you feel about conspiracy theories bobben?

"<<issues of lying about wmd>> I don't think Bush lied about this - I think he got bad intel. That being said, shame on him and his team for letting that happen."

You think he got bad intel? I suggest you watch the documentary: "Uncovered, The Truth About the Iraq War" Pay close attention to the credentials of the people being interviewed like the weapons inspectors. If you mean that he got bad intel from members of his own administration then I feel that this is possible because I cant prove anything to the contrary but coloring Bush as just an innocent patsy to the lies of his own administration seems extremely unlikely to me.

More to come...

[–] danalangdon 17 years ago

I'm sitting here watching this movie right now. I can't honestly see how you would think this ISN'T a propoganda movie. Of course it is! Like all movies of this caliber it is meant to sway public opinion. It is made to prove of point.

What is happening in Iraq is horrible- but let's be honest-We've done ALOT worse things than this. Our weapon deals have caused horrible tragedies like one country trying to completely annihilate another country. We should be talking more about how we cause fights as opposed to why we fight.

And again, WMD is always why I thought we went. I was never confused about why we were there. Why is everyone else? Because he called Saddam a Terrorist? Maybe that's because he was one. Anyone who kills off family members and tries to destroy a whole race of people- don't you think that's a terrorist?

Not arguing that Bush is right- I was for Mccain :0)- just stating that I can't understand how you can sit here and say this is not a propaganda movie.

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

And finally:

"Mrs Plame outed herself - everybody in Washington knew what she was doing, because she bragged about it. This was an attempt to stir up trouble on the part of Mrs Plame and her lowlife husband."

If she had outed herself why was Mr Libbey found guilty of four out of five charges of the investigation on March 6th 2007? Why call mr. Wilson a "lowlife?"
He is a retired U.S. diplomat! He is the one that published an article entitled "What I didnt find in Africa." Do you have any evidence he was wrong or any evidence of criminal behaviour on his part that I am not aware of?

"<<violations to the Constitution>> - like what? To who's interpretation?"

This is the 4rth ammenment:

" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Wiretapping, clearly violates this ammendment. It is not an ambiguous art piece. Its a very clearly stated piece of legislation. George Bush has a few friends sitting on the Supreme Court.

[–] flyingflyn 17 years ago

<<issues of lying about wmd>> I don't think Bush lied about this - I think he got bad intel. That being said, shame on him and his team for letting that happen.

Here's a link for the doc dommyboysinjapan mentioned, "Uncovered, The Truth About the Iraq War":

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7371253996117324045&q=%22Uncovered%2C+The+Truth+About+the+Iraq+War%22

It's now well established that the white house lied. The Downing Street Memo, the niger yellow cake forgeries etc. It's all very very sad.

You cant say the war was an honest mistake, not anymore, not in 2007. The "bad intel" was just half truths and outright fabrications. "He and his team" didn't get fooled, he and his team fooled all the rest.

"I no longer know who I am and I feel like the ghost of a total stranger."

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<It's now well established that the white house lied. The Downing Street Memo, the niger yellow cake forgeries etc. >>

No, it's very much a matter of opinion. But facts are never very important to the far left if they don't support their view of the world.

Nice try, though.

There are nutcases out there who say there is "proof" that Bush was behind 9/11. Are you one of those too?

[–] flyingflyn 17 years ago

No, it's very much a matter of opinion. But facts are never very important to the far left if they don't support their view of the world.

Nice try, though.

Nowadays everybodys got an oppinion and a scientologist's can go on tv giving medical advice, but we still have experts and we should listen to those experts and take them into account as we shape our view of the world.

Facts are not important to the far left? I dont see our point. Robert Greenwald's documentary (Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War) doesnt have any leftist bloggers or activist's or hippies. It consists on intelligence and defense officials, foreign service experts, and U.N. weapons inspectors, including a former CIA director. It's very damning of the current US administration to see those intel officials debunk the points Colin Powel used in his UN presentation. When you look at the facts it's beyond naive to still think it was all just an honest mistake. I presume you see this is an important issue atleast. With all due respect, the facts don't support your view of this issue.

The documentary is from the year 2004, so if I remember correctly it doesnt mention the Downing Street Memo. The leaked memo describes a meeting (23 July 2002) among United Kingdom Labour government, defense and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war—including direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. The most controversial paragraph is a report of a recent visit to Washington by head of the Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_street_memo

"The intelligence and fact's were being fixed around the policy." Your comment?

Please address the points I made.

There are plenty of things that are debatable. For excample when should the US pull out of Iraq. That is a very complicated issue and I myself confess that I still dont know enought to give a good oppinion. The historical issue of the run up to war, that on the other hand seems very clear. The facts are in. The neo-cons desperately wanted regime change in Iraq (regime change in Iraq had been a US policy since the 90's) and false claims of WMD and ties to Al Qaida were used as a pretext. The weapons inpections were working at the time and there was no imminent threat what so ever. Saying otherwise is frankly rewriting history. There was no casus belli.

Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7371253996117324045&q=%22Uncovered%2C+The+Truth+About+the+Iraq+War%22

"I no longer know who I am and I feel like the ghost of a total stranger."

[–] flyingflyn 17 years ago

This is a bit off topic, but as a european who follows the american political discourse quite a bit, I'm concerned by the increased polarization of the whole country.

Looking at the debates on many internet message boards, it appears to me that there's more than just a difference of oppinion between the supporters of the two political parties, there's also genuine hatred. To a citizen of a country which is led by a unity government that consist's of two of the three major parties, this seems disturbing.

As an outsider I mainly sympatice with the liberal side - this is because I can agree with their vision of foreign policy as opposed to the foreign policy of the neo-conservative Bush administration. The rising popularity of republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems to indicate that many conservatives are now in disagreenment with the neocon policy. Many, so I have read, have realized that the republican party was hijacked by a group of extremeist's in the form of neo-con Cheney administration.

I think that the reason why many americans still to this day think that invading Iraq was a good thing can be explained a lot by party loyalty, not loyalty to neo-con ideology. People should consider that neoconservatism as an ideology has nothing to do with real conservatism. Neoconservatism is purely a foreign policy and military doctrine. The funniest thing is that some neo-cons are former socialist's. It's about spreading american hegemony on the grand chess board of geopolitics through extreemly aggressive foreign policy. These goals are expressed very openly in the declarations published by the neoconservative thinktank "Project for the New American Century". Among the signees of these papers were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Dick Cheney.

The threat of terrorism, although real, is a helpfull tool in selling the policy. To the public and the media the neo-cons claim they are very serious about fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. This is ofcourse ridiculous, because the invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism absolutely enormously in the middle east. It has caused an immense increase in antiamerican sentiments not just on the region but globally, thus also increasing the threat of another terrorist attack on american soil.

On 9/11 the whole world expressed solidarity towards the US. In big cities all over the arab world, Teheran Iran for excample, there were mass gatherings of people with candles showing their grief publicly. All this good will, the whole will to co-operate was crushed instantly when the US invaded Iraq.

BTW. anyone who's interested in what neoconservatism is about, how it started out in the 50's and so on, do check out the excellent three part BBC documentary: "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear". It's a few years old but still very relevant. It's on googlevideo I think.

"I no longer know who I am and I feel like the ghost of a total stranger."

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

Id just like to say that you are very well informed. I completely agree with everything you have posted. Im looking forward to checking out the documentary you mentioned "The Rise of the Politics of Fear".

[–] huttis 17 years ago

Might be old news but the documentary can be watched here:http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/power_of_nightmares.htm

"Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain." -Friedrich v. Schiller

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<Many, so I have read, have realized that the republican party was hijacked by a group of extremeist's in the form of neo-con Cheney administration.>>

Oh, please. Do you really believe that drivel?

Bush had his reasons for going into Iraq. I don't agree with much of what he did. But all of this conspiracy nonsense is just that - nonsense.

How will Bush be remembered? Depends on what happens in Iraq. If Iraq ends up, within the next 10 years, as a real democracy, and it creates some stability in the ME, Bush will be hailed as a hero, and will be considered a visionary who stuck to his guns because he knew he was right. If Iraq goes down the tubes, and falls into the hands of the Islamo-fascists, Bush will rank right up there with Jimmy Carter as one of the worst presidents in history. How's it going to come out?

I don't know.

EITHER DO YOU.

I do remember what the far left said about Reagan, fairly constantly, while he was in office. History has shown that Reagan was right about many things that the left thought he was wrong about at the time.

And then there is FDR. This Republican thinks that Democrat was the greatest president of the 20th Century, because he broke the law and kept the Brits alive until we entered WW II. There were lots of stupid Republicans in Congress at the time (and some Democrats too) that thought Hitler would just go away if he wasn't bothered.

So go ahead and believe the likes of George Soros, Alec Baldwin, and Rosie O Donnel if you like. Enjoy. But don't lecture me on how I'm an idiot because I don't believe everything spewed out on far left propaganda "documentaries".

[–] FuzzyWzhe 17 years ago

Many, so I have read, have realized that the republican party was hijacked by a group of extremeist's in the form of neo-con Cheney administration.

Oh, please. Do you really believe that drivel?

Do you know who Ron Paul is?

Please, spend a few minutes watching him on Youtube. Here's a good link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA

That's the Republican party *I* support.

How will Bush be remembered? Depends on what happens in Iraq. If Iraq ends up, within the next 10 years, as a real democracy, and it creates some stability in the ME, Bush will be hailed as a hero, and will be considered a visionary who stuck to his guns because he knew he was right. If Iraq goes down the tubes, and falls into the hands of the Islamo-fascists, Bush will rank right up there with Jimmy Carter as one of the worst presidents in history. How's it going to come out?

I don't know.

EITHER DO YOU.

People who know the Middle East, do know. What you don't understand is what the Middle East was, it was once the Ottoman Empire. It broke up early in the 20th century and Britain arbitrarily created countries by drawing lines on a map. They are all fake countries there.

There are stronger ties between ethnic groups than nations there. That's why binLaden was up in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets even though he's a Saudi Arabian. It's not uncommon at all for people to cross borders there. How many Americans would go to Canada by simply volunteering, not even joining an armed service, to fight off an invader? It happens in the Middle East all the time.

The people of the Middle East regard the United States as villains at this point. Even if the US does have good intentions, most Middle Easterners will not do what the US government wants them to do. Anybody we support they reject.

Iran is slowly becoming a democracy. If we just leave it alone, it will become a democracy. Ever talk to an Iranian? Before you is a communications device you can use to do just that. Why don't you make use of it? Find out what they think.

Iraq is lost cause. I'm not certain if we just have really incompetent leaders or if they actually planned to make this expensive mess, but I know democracy isn't showing up anytime soon. The people of Iraq are tired. They just want stability at this point - you would too if you had to deal with war for 5 years. This is true of the vast majority of Americans who are complacent, lazy, and have already lost their Democracy and they are so lazy, they don't even realize it.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<How many Americans would go to Canada by simply volunteering, not even joining an armed service, to fight off an invader?>>

Typical far left viewpoint. Before our entry into WW II, Americans were in China helping them fight the Japanese (remember the Flying Tigers?), and also helping the RAF against the Nazis. I know you think that Americans are the true evil in the world - but you can't ignore history and still be honest.

Ron Paul is a nutcase, similar to Ralph Nader. He's a spoiler, and like Nader, he will help the people he most wants to defeat. In case you don't realize it -if Nader would not have run in in 2000, Gore would have been elected. There is no doubt about that - the election in 2000 was VERY close, and you know damn well that Nader voters would have gone with Gore instead of Bush had Nader not run. That would have made all the difference.

I agree with you that the great people of Iran will eventually throw off their Islamofascist leaders - that country is more secular than most in the ME. We can thank Jimmy Carter for the enslavement of the Iranian people (and France as well, since they protected Kommeni and helped him get back to Iran to take over).

You may be right that Iraq is a lost cause - but I wouldn't count out the Iraqis just yet. As I've said many times - I think that Bush bungled the Iraq war badly. The difference between us - I hope that we are successful in Iraq. You don't.

<<This is true of the vast majority of Americans who are complacent, lazy, and have already lost their Democracy and they are so lazy, they don't even realize it. >>

That fact that you are allowed to spew your far left, anti American drivel is proof that you are wrong about this. If things were like you say they are here in America, you would be rotting in a gulag somewhere. NUTCASE.

[–] ChknSoupForDaFanboysSoul 17 years ago

We can thank Jimmy Carter for the enslavement of the Iranian people (and France as well, since they protected Kommeni and helped him get back to Iran to take over).

The documentary is critical of these types of things with US foreign policy. I guess you agree when its a Democrat in office.

That fact that you are allowed to spew your far left, anti American drivel is proof that you are wrong about this. If things were like you say they are here in America, you would be rotting in a gulag somewhere. NUTCASE.

I agree that the poster that this response was directed towards, did exaggerate when they said we already lost our democracy, but I think the real point is that an erroding of the Democracy, however minor or apparently justified, is taking place. This type of response to a liberal who is critical of the government is a non sequitor. The fact that the liberal is allowed to make the argument without being tossed in jail (i.e. has freedom of speech), does not mean that everything is fine and dandy in the US. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this is the year 2010 and a democrat is in the white house. You are a republican and and don't like some of the administrations policies. We are arguing online about these issues and I end my argument with, "You should be lucky you are allowed to say those things. Soldiers have died so that you can speak bad about your government." How absurd would that sound? It's been happening a lot the last 7 years. As if freedom of speech belonged to Republicans and it was theirs to give to us. In this particular instance, you had a little reason to bring it up, but very often its a total non sequitor and a huge pet pieve of mine. By the way, he said, Democracy, not freedom of speech.

It seems that to not be classified as anti American, the only standard we can hold ourselves to is to be better than the worst human rights abusers. Wanting to hold ourselves to an even higher standard, or saying anything bad about our policies, is anti-american. That's far right drivel.

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

Flyingflyn, you seem to have a good handle on the political situation. Do you feel there was any cover up involving the events of 911? Just curious.

[–] FuzzyWzhe 17 years ago

Flyingflyn, you seem to have a good handle on the political situation. Do you feel there was any cover up involving the events of 911? Just curious.

I do.

WTC7 fell too quickly. If you know any physics, you can calculate the acceleration in freefall of a building that had absolutely no support. Do it. You'll find that building collapsed very quickly, as quickly as a building under controlled demolition.

Ever seen a map of the WTC plaza? WTC 1 & 2 fell, which no surprise really. But building 3,4,5 and 6 all stood. Building 6 is between 1 and 7. 6 sustained considerable damage and still stood. WTC7 was across the street from the WTC plaza. You can see that here:

http://yesss.freeshell.org/t/gx/_wtcmap.jpg

There are other strange things, for example, WTC7 was reported to have fallen 20 by the BBC - 20 minutes before it collapses. The BBC has no explanation for this, and it was reported in 2 reports, one of which was timestamped. The BBC claimed they have lost the original tapes, but in this day and age, nearly everything is recorded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNhbsJ81Q4&mode=related&search=

Who told the BBC that WTC7 had collapsed 20 minuted before it did? How did they properly guess WTC7 would collapse, when there were a total of 7 buildings, and 7 was the furthest away from 1&2? 3 was right next to 1 and 2, yet it stood.

7 in all likelihood was actually intentionally taken down. Again if you do the physics, it seems quite probable. In order for it to collapse as quickly as it did, the support column would have to be completely blown out.

I'm an engineer, and I have no doubts about WTC7. 1&2 don't even enter my thoughts, because of the damage they received and it's just too complicated without a good model which I don't have access to. 7, though - that's not difficult. It's the smoking gun.

I don't know how it was done, absolutely no idea how it could have been done, but the only conclusion I can come to is that 7 really was intentionally destroyed and this is not a pleasant conclusion to come to. It means my government is corrupt to the core, and that it's personally dangerous for me to discuss it.

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

I was already aware of all the facts you have mentioned. I've been on these boards for a while now and had done a years worth of personal research (not scientific as some of the debunkers like to point out). You are preaching to the choir. I've done some reading of many of the debunking sites too. My feeling is quite simply that the conspiracists have better evidence to support their position. The evidence given by the official theory has been proven false as in the case of FEMA's pancake theory, been inconsistent with the known facts as in the case of the 911 Commission Report, and has been disproportionate as is the case of the NIST report dedicating 10,000 pages to WTC 1 and 2 (only up until the collapse sequence is initiated) and as of yet no final report on building 7. Then there is the low quality video of the left handed man resembling UBL which is exhibited as the strongest piece of evidence to support the official theory.

Then comes all the circumstantial evidence and witness testimony on the part of those who suspect a government cover up, many of whom are scholars, politicians, and members of the victims families. I don't claim to know for certain that there was a cover up but I certainly supect that this is the case. The movement is growing. You are not alone.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

Hmmm...

Well, as far as I'm concerned, anybody who thinks WTC 1 and 2 are an "inside job" just aren't worth talking to. I don't know all the facts about WTC 7, but I suspect that if they were part of the WTC complex, the structure was connected somehow - foundation, basement, or whatever. I can't prove that was the case, and I'm not an engineer anyway. In earthquakes and tornados, you often have buildings destroyed right next to buildings untouched - I know those are "natural" events, but who knows what the makeup of the ground was under those buildings, or how much they were attached, or what flaws there might have been in their construction?

That being said - I'm very interested in knowing why you would think our government would want to knock down WTC 7. If it wasn't breached, they wouldn't have to worry about people getting in and finding anything the government wouldn't want them to. So what's the deal? Since it's obvious that WTC 1 and 2 were not "inside jobs" - why would our government want to add to the mess by knocking down WTC 7 themselves? Now if it were one of the UN buildings, I might understand (that was a joke).

All I see at this point is blind hatred of the GOP from the far left, and basically the same thing against the "secular progressives" from the far right. Both the far left and the far right are stupid and self-serving, IMHO. Luckily for us, American's normally go with the middle.

And please don't post a far left/anarchist/anti-capitals website for your answer - I've looked at enough of those and every one I've seen so far is just a lot of nonsense. I won't wade though them. I just want to know what you think.

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

"Well, as far as I'm concerned, anybody who thinks WTC 1 and 2 are an "inside job" just aren't worth talking to"

I understand your feeling. The very thought of this seems ludicrous. When I was first introduced to the "idea" of the towers being cds, I had watched a lot of documentaries that were recommended by a friend. I still couldnt believe it. After being somewhat intrigued by their arguements, I set out on the internet. You can download the full FEMA report, and even the 911 Commission report on the internet. Ive read parts of both. Its all there, as well as all the debunking sites which puport to thoroughly debunk all the claims. I didnt start seriously reading and studying with any preconceived notions other than "I just have to know if this is true or not". At the time I just assumed I (and all the ctists) were just wrong and had fully expected that after reading all the debunking sites, they would thoroughly debunk any notion of a MIHOP situation. I was again very surprised that I was wrong.

As for WTC 7 I am convinced that it was a cd. As for the twin towers, I can honestly say that Im not sure if they were demolished (as the extreme temperatures found at ground zero would suggest) or if they fell solely due to fire and structural damage (as the mainstream information/propaganda would suggest). As for why it got demolished, I can think of three reasons.
1) It could have been where a control system had been set up to guide the airplanes into the twin towers. This theory does not require that there were any explosives in WTC 1 and 2. It could be argued that the plan was only to fly the planes into the two buildings. The collapse due to fire and damage could then be a very unexpected and unplanned consequence.
2) There are rumors of gold having been stored in the building that went missing.
3) "Notable Seven World Trade Center government tenants included the CIA, Department of Defense, IRS, Secret Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission." <wikipedia>
Several major investigations including the Enron scandal were being conducted from WTC 7. Many valuable and incriminating pieces of evidence were conveniently lost. The Enron Scandal was suspected to be government sponsored.

I understand your feelings that a lot of the ctist thinking stems toward enmitity toward the Bush administration as opposed to solid evidence. Certainly there are a lot of people who are disappointed with the overall leadership of the Bush administration and its decisions and handling of the war. I really have to say, though, that when I look at the numbers, and positions of many of the people within the Truth Movement I know that it is really not about party affiliation or a witch-hunt. If you really look at the people themselves and the evidence (or arguements) that they introduce, you will understand that it isnt about hatred or being partisan. They are very genuine, and highly intelligent people. The more radical ctists often get much more media exposure simply because its a great way to discredit the movement.

"I just want to know what you think"

Thank you for listening to my opinion, even if you dont agree.

1) I cant be sure of any specific theory. That would require a truly unbiassed and exhaustive investigation.
2) Other people who purport to be 100% certain one way or the other are simply overconfident. Someone must be wrong and there is indeed valid arguements for ctist as well as mainstream (or official) positions.
3) I believe the better evidence that I have seen (or read) would suggest that there is some sort of cover up.
4) I need to do much more reading on this subject. I believe it would be wise for everyone to read the official reports, Richard Clark's book, Michael Ruppert's book, David Ray Griffin's book, Steven Jones' book, and Popular Mechanic's book as well as all the debunking sites before forming a solid opinion. I havent read all these books yet. I think everyone who has questions or wants to champion any theory shoud read these books and reports first.
5) I dont think all people (or even most) who suspect a cover up are crazy or paranoid. This position is childish.
6) I don't think all people (or even most) who support the official theory are somehow involved or naive. This position is childish.
7) I think there needs to be more public debate on television and in the mass media. I dont believe that shedding huge amounts of light on any given issue will serve to further confuse the general public. The truth will eventually come out. If there was a cover up it will eventually become exposed. If all the ctists merely cling to notions based on bad science, this is sure to come out as well.
8) I know that the 911 Commission Report was not a good or unbiassed investigation. I think there should be a knew investigation.

What do you think?

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

Thanks for the very thoughtful message.

I don't have a problem with more investigations. I think that would be a good thing.

I have a big problem with conspiracy theories in general, frankly. I don't think that human beings can pull that kind of stuff off. Somebody always gets caught, or talks. That being said - no matter how many investigations happen, there will always be people out there who want to believe the conspiracy. A good example is the JFK murder. Most people I know believe that this was a conspiracy, and I used to agree. What changed my mind? The Peter Jennings report on the event, using computer modeling. I think the computer modeling along with the other evidence we have proves that Oswald acted alone on that day.

Another example is the Moon landing. I still know people who say that the Moon landing was faked in some warehouse someplace. I know it's BS, because my father worked on parts of that program, as well as many of his friends. But I just can't convince the folks I've conversed with on the net who think it was all fake.

I work for a Fortune 50 company. I hired in as an hourly tech - I built hardware on the production floor. Many of the other hourly folks (in particular the older ones) told me that I should never trust management. They also told me that in order to get into management you HAD to be a Mason, and that the illuminadi really running company (and the country). Well - I've been in Management for years now, and know many managers who are at the Directory and VP level. These stories I used to hear were, of course, all bunk - but I still see the illuminadi nonsense on the web today. I used to spend a lot of time on the old Yahoo message boards (may they rest in peace), and used to get into arguments about that one all the time. Great fun. My grandfather was pretty high up in the Masons (he was a Shriner) - I met most of his buddies from that organization. They were about as dangerous as the Rotary Club.

So, while I know that there are many publications on the web and elsewhere about the WTC question, and the Pentagon "cover up" as well, I just am not going to waste a lot of time reading through all of them. I like to look at publications that don't have a political axe to grind from either side of the fence, and these are few and far between. The best thing I've read on the WTC question is the Popular Mechanics article.

I think it's bad to over simplify things, but it's also bad to muddy up waters with a log of conjecture. I know what the radical Muslim community wants to do - I can see what they are saying in a variety of places, and I understand their position. Right now, they aren't strong enough to hurt the USA in a mortal fashion, but they can cause us a lot of grief in somewhat isolated ways. With the likes of Iran and Pakistan having or working on Nuke capability, that is going to change in the future. We need to have a presence in the ME, and Iraq is the best strategic place for this to be. Is it fair? No. Is it totally self serving for the USA? Not really. If we are out of action, other countries had better be worried. If you don't think we need to worry, take a look at the history of Islam and it's expansion starting in the 600s.

The radical left in this country would like me to ignore the known threat of radical Islam, and instead believe that the greater evil in the world is George Bush. Of course, they have no real proof of what they are saying about Bush - they just expect you to believe it based on extremely biased propaganda pieces like this movie. Sorry - but I'm not buying it.

One parting shot. I've argued with folks on the old Yahoo boards about Hugo Chavez many a time. The far left belief is that Hugo Chavez is of higher moral stock than George Bush, or almost any Republican. Look at what our pal Hugo has been doing in the past few months, culminating in the events of yesterday.

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

You are one of the few people I've seen on these boards who actually doesnt cringe at the thought of a new investigation. I can certainly appreciate that.

I realize that not all conspiracies are true just because a group of people have suspicions. It would, of course, be equally fair to say that some conspiracies do happen from time to time. In any given society, whether Capitalist or not, there will always be some kind of struggle, greed will always exist. Just to assume that most conspiracies dont really exist is similar (if not the same) as saying that all organized criminal ventures always occur in a way that is never hidden from the public. I find it naive to think this way. Of course conspiracies sometimes happen. They are well documented throughout history. Im not talking about the contraversial ones either. The real question is which ones are legitimate and which ones are simply manifestations of hatred, prejudice, paranoia, partisanship, etc. To discern this, one really needs to look at the evidence and the group of people that subscribe to the theory, and the possible interests of the theorists. Most of all, one needs to study the purported evidence. As for the JFK debate, I've watched quite a few documentaries and find it really hard to believe that it was even possible for Oswald to have acted alone. I havent seen "Beyond Conspiracy" yet. I'm going to watch it as soon as I can find it online. My mind remains open on this subject.

I looked at the moon landing contraversy by watching a couple of documentaries and I just didnt feel the evidence was there to support a conspiracy. When you take pictures of anything, any number of small anomalies can appear on the photos for a number of reasons.

As for the Illuminati or NWO, I really dont believe in all that either. I'm well aware that wealthy, powerful people sometimes walk in the same circles and talk to each other and exchange ideas. I'm also aware that wealthy people and major corporations have a larger influence on the decisions that are made by politicians than do lower socio-economic groups. This is common sense. I dont happen to believe the war in Iraq is about stealing oil, or opium, or about issuing in a New World Order. I think its about securing the economic resources of the U.S. in order to ensure that it doesnt lose its superpower status, as well as a genuine dream (fantasy) about using war to spread democracy and freedom to the world. The idea is a noble one. The problem is that all this war is producing and will continue to result in more terrorism than ever before. If you think young impressionable extremists in these countries were prone to anti American sentiment before, how much more willing to die for Allah, will they be after being occupied by the U.S. and seeing their own people including many children and civilians killed in awful ways. As for 911, I see the leaders of the U.S. fighting all these massive wars for almost 4 years now with no end in sight and I wonder about all the collateral damage. How many U.S. soldiors have been tortured or killed now for this freedom agenda? How many millions of Muslims have been tortured or killed? I have to wonder to what lengths would the administration go to push their freedom agenda. Would they actually allow an attack on their own homeland if they honestly believed it would create the needed support to transform the ME? Would they actually stage one? I find that last one really hard to believe but I have to say that I dont know the answers to these questions.

I realize that terrorism is real and its a dire problem. My belief is that all these wars are not solving the problem. My fear is that the wars in both Afganistan and especially in Iraq are making the problem much worse.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

Some good points.

The issue of how to deal with the Islamic fundamentalists and the terrorists that they employ is a really difficult one.

I don't really believe that the people at the top of Al Queda are really "true believers" per say...I think that OBL and his second in command, for example, are interested in power, now just spreading Islam. I also think that leaders of Saudi Arabia and other countries don't really buy the religion part of this as much either - I believe the House of Saud needs something to keep their power structure in place, and while it is somewhat of a tight rope that they are walking on, they are probably taking the easier path for themselves by promoting their religion.

Once you get below that level, I think there are a whole lot of pretty mixed up "true believers" out there. There's not much doubt that the handling of the war in Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afganistan) has swelled the numbers of these "true believers". This is not a good thing. This is the main thing keeping us from success in Iraq.

Bush's invasion of Afganistan after 9/11 was, IMHO, exactly the right thing to do at the time. It did two things:

1. It showed governments around the world that we would not tolerate open hosting of terrorists by any government.

2. It initially rallied most of the world into this struggle.

We've lost much of the power of number 2 due to the bungling of the Iraq war.

Number 1 still holds some water, but it is being tested right now by Iran. And since things have not gone well in Iraq, the USA will be very reluctant to do anything about Iran, even though we have proof that they are killing US troops in Iraq with the IUDs, and even though we know they are working on development of Atomic bombs.

So, what's the answer? What we are trying to do in Iraq is obviously not working - we can disagree about motives for why we are there - but the fact is that we are there, and getting a democracy started there isn't getting any traction.

My main worry is still the Nuke issue. While North Korea has nukes now, and that is a worry, I'm not nearly as concerned about that as I am about Iran having nukes, or Pakistan having nukes. Kim is a nut, but he's not signing up for suicide right now. I don't think the current leaders of Pakistan have their finger on the button either. Iran is another matter. Of course, some of what they are spewing over there is designed for the masses in Iran - (and it's not working, if you look at the polls over there).

We need to keep a cool head now, and be realistic about the situation. As bad as Bush is, if we get another leader like Jimmy Carter in place, Iran will get nukes, and they will use them on Israel and others. They won't do it openly. But they will do it. This worries me.

Another thing that worries me - bending over backwards for the islamo fascists in western countries. I know this isn't politically correct - but these people need to be watched. Closely. Check out the article in last month's Vanity Fair about the tapes that were made in mosques around London over the past few years. Very scary - and we know a lot of that nonsense is going on now in this country, and in France, and in Germany, and in Spain, and in Italy.

Thoughts....

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

I certainly agree with you that the issue of nuclear weapons is very complex and sensitive. We do need to be realistic about this situation. I would hope that in any future situation with Iran (or North Korea for that matter) war would not be used as a tool to disarm a country. There are now five or six non NPT countries that have nuclear weapons. I dont think war should even be contemplated. There should be economic sanctions and political pressure on these nations to disarm. If there were to be a very real "announced threat" of nuclear war on behalf of these countries then of course that would be a different situation.

"1. It showed governments around the world that we would not tolerate open hosting of terrorists by any government."

I cant argue with you on this point. It definately demonstrated to other countries that the United States was dead serious in its stand against terrorists. Theres no doubt about that. I just wonder if the U.S. had been a little hasty with waging its war. Did the U.S. administration really take the time to explore all their options before going to war?

"Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid its impending retaliation. President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as insincere. On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.[10] This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient. It was not until October 14, 2001, seven days after war had broken out, that the Taliban openly offered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if they were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.[11]

The UN Security Council did not authorize use of force in the initial conflict and deployment of US troops in Afghanistan by any new resolution. The Security Council has, however, authorized the International Security Assistance Force to use force in its mission of securing the country." <wikipedia>

I think the Afganistan war was hasty, so I wonder if a more diplomatic solution could have been found. As for the Iraq war... I basically agree with Noam Chomsky and all the others who follow.

I will say that the U.S. needs to be very careful how and when they pull out their troops in Iraq. Since a good exit strategy was never really provided to begin with, there needs to be a very solid and well crafted exit strategy put into place. I think it was a mistake to replace "the Powell Doctrine" with the more agressive (and I think wreckless) policies of the current administration led by the neoconservatives.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<"Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid its impending retaliation. President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as insincere. On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.[10] This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient. It was not until October 14, 2001, seven days after war had broken out, that the Taliban openly offered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if they were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.[11]>>

I have a hard time believing this one. Isn't Bin Laden Mullah Omar's son in law??????

Depending on the "Islamic Court" - they might consider 9/11 to be justified.

That reminds me a little too much of Japan's offer to end WW II with a "truce". People on this board have used that issue to say we were wrong to ask for a full surrender, and that we were wrong to drop nukes on Japan. I think some of the victims of Imperial Japan (people in Nan King, for example), might have had a problem with Tojo and the other "real" leaders of Imperial Japan staying in power. You do know that some of these hard liners wanted to keep up the fight even after the first bomb was dropped......

I don't think we should attack Iran at this point. I think it would be counter productive for a number of reasons - not the least of which is that the majority of Iranian people dislike the clerics that are running their country. A growing number of them dislike their current president, and have demonstrated against him. As bad as the Shaw was, he did promote an educated secular society. And yes, I do know that they had that kind of society, by in large, before he took over. The important point, I believe, is that the Iranian government doesn't have the hearts and minds of it's people. Iranians will eventually get tired of this nonsense and do something about it. My biggest worry is that it will take too long.

I don't think sanctions are going to work with Iran's current government. I think that, if they aren't very good at hiding what they are doing from the intelligence community, Israel will take out their capability. The US will try to restrain them from doing that, just as we restrained them from attacking Iraq during the gulf war, and just as we restrained them from overrunning Lebanon last year.

Let's say that Israel doesn't take them out. Then what?

Here's my suggestion, and I would use the same process with any other "rogue" state that is able to come up with a Nuke capability. I would tell them the following:

"Go ahead and build whatever you want, BUT - if a Nuke goes off in New York, or LA, or London, or St Louis, or anywhere in our country or one of our close allies - Iran and every other rogue state with nuke capability will lose their largest city in like fashion".

Is this fair? Probably not. I don't care. It would probably be effective at keeping us from being attacked. At the end of the day, I care much more about my family and friends than I do about some scumbag in Tehran who wants to kill us. Like I said above - I hope that the Iranian people put a stop to this before it comes to anything bad - but I don't think we should be willing to die waiting on that...

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

"I have a hard time believing this one. Isn't Bin Laden Mullah Omar's son in law??????"

Why is the information hard to believe? There is no confirmation that UBL is (or was) Mullah Omar's son. Its just an unconfirmed rumour much like the rumours of UBL's death. Even if it were true, how would that make the information difficult to believe? Even in the official story it is believed that UBL had been ostricized by his entire family. It is a well known fact that the Bush administration had been doing business deals with the Binladen corporation, and often met with these members of UBL's family to do business. It was moderates from the Taliban, not Mullah Omar, himself that had reportedly met with the American embassy. Under the threat of being attacked by the most powerful country in the world, is it really hard to believe that some moderates within the Taliban had met with the American embassy and were indeed willing to at least try to convince Mullah Omar to give up UBL?

From the events of 911 (Sept 11th) to the start of the war (October 7th) not even a full month had transpired. How long did it take the Bush administration to confirm that it was UBL who was reponsible for 911? My point is there didnt seem to be a strong focus on the negotiations of extraditing UBL. Im not totally convinced that with a little more time and effort the Taliban couldnt have been convinced to extradite UBL, thus avoiding armed conflict.

"Go ahead and build whatever you want, BUT - if a Nuke goes off in New York, or LA, or London, or St Louis, or anywhere in our country or one of our close allies - Iran and every other rogue state with nuke capability will lose their largest city in like fashion".

I'm not at all opposed to this suggestion. Proposing dire consequences in the event any nuclear weapons are used is a very powerful preventative measure. I think this would work much better than declaring war on every nation that is supected to one day have nuclear capability (which could in theory represent hundreds of countries).

[–] huttis 17 years ago

Several major investigations including the Enron scandal were being conducted from WTC 7. Many valuable and incriminating pieces of evidence were conveniently lost. The Enron Scandal was suspected to be government sponsored.

The Enron scandal indeed was a huge and complex and really messy one, and in all probability, lots of it will remain unknown forever, and the possible connection to wtc7 is disturbing. Remember that Ken Lay was GWB's energy advisor (or somethng similar) at some point, later Bush denied that he even knew the guy.

There is a document called Enron: The smartest guys in the room, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413845/, watch it if you want to know more about that, it's very informative and explains a lot of what happened in California for example. Sorry for being so late, I just read this thread today...

"Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain." -Friedrich v. Schiller

[–] FuzzyWzhe 17 years ago

Well, as far as I'm concerned, anybody who thinks WTC 1 and 2 are an "inside job" just aren't worth talking to. I don't know all the facts about WTC 7, but I suspect that if they were part of the WTC complex, the structure was connected somehow - foundation, basement, or whatever.

Don't even pay attention to 1 and 2. It's pointless to do it.

WTC 7 is the one you want to investigate, because that has the most unusual circumstances.

The BBC reported it collapsed 20 minutes before it did.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztvvgT0P2E

Notice they have no explanation of how they did this. They lost the tapes supposedly, but in the age of recording, it was recorded. They reported it in two different reports, one of which was timestamped.

There were 3 buildings that were about the same size as WTC 7 which were all either closer to about the same distance from 1 & 2. They are:

The Merrill Lynch building which is 51 stories
The Deutsche Bank Building stood which is is 40 floors
The NY Telephone Building which is 40 floors

WTC7 was 47 stories tall

Look at where all the buildings were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building_7_highlighted%29.jpg

It's difficult to question the collapse of 1&2 - they sustained SERIOUS damage, but 7 did not. Have you seen any evidence it did? Any pictures at all? Any video?

It fell very quickly too, almost at the speed of freefall. This is remarkable, you'd only expect to see this if the entire support column was destroyed at the same time. It's just odd, you'd expect resistance as the building collapsed, aren't you surprised it didn't tip over? After all, the damage was not symmetrical, yet the collapse was. Isn't that strange? There's no official explanation for why this happened.

As I said, the only one that needs to be investigated is #7. That's the one that would be easiest to prove. Prove that it was destroyed intentionally and then it makes sense to spend time and energy to question 1 & 2. If you can prove 7 did collapse because of 1 & 2, then you don't need to even think of 1 & 2, since if it collapsed without controlled demolition, certainly 1 and 2 could have as well.

And don't forget, there's Operation Northwoods too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

We're just luck that the president didn't implement that, although could have. If we have a different president, it may have been implemented. What sort of president do we have today? One that brought us into Iraq over weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Al Qaeda. Why are we still in Iraq? To nation build - wasn't that something President Bush said he would never do when he was running in 2000 for President?

Do you think President GW Bush would have signed off on Operation Northwoods? I think it's certainly possible. You decide for yourself. I don't like nation building, or interventionism, or deficit spending, or large government. I'm a CLASSICAL Republican. I'm tainted, I strongly do not like this president or administration.

That being said - I'm very interested in knowing why you would think our government would want to knock down WTC 7. If it wasn't breached,

Read about what WTC7 contained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC7

"At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq. ft. (64% of the building) including floors 28–45. Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft). Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft), and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft). The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group, Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared floor #25 with the IRS. Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as well as the bottom 6 floors and part of floor #7."

Keep in mind that this was right after the stock market popped. Do you remeber it took years before the government was pressured into prosecuting Enron? Do you remember Enron was part of the secret talks at the White House to determine our Energy Policy?

I think it's possible that there was some very funny stuff going on in the stockmarket. Today I'm certain there is. Right now, homebuilders are doing amazingly well, despite the fact that we have the WORST housing market in 20 years. How is that? I know for a fact our government is currently lying about inflation, the health of the economy, and the stability of the dollar.

So, the government may have destroyed WTC7 to destroy evidence. Evidence of what? I can't say for certain, it's been destroyed.

I realize this is far from conclusive, but it's something to think about anyhow.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<I think it's possible that there was some very funny stuff going on in the stockmarket. Today I'm certain there is. Right now, homebuilders are doing amazingly well, despite the fact that we have the WORST housing market in 20 years. How is that? I know for a fact our government is currently lying about inflation, the health of the economy, and the stability of the dollar.>>

Oh, good Lord. I'm just speechless.

Of course, if I ask for proof of your rather far out comments, I'll get more links to whacko far left web sites. Been there, done that. Not doing it again. If there was a real story, the legitimate news organizations of the world would have it out in a flash. And if you think that the press in the USA is trying to protect Bush, you really are nuts.

If you want to believe this nonsense - that is your right. I've got some advice for you. Go join the DNC, and help them push this "thinking". The GOP needs all the help they can get in 2008.

[–] dommyboysinjapan 17 years ago

"And if you think that the press in the USA is trying to protect Bush, you really are nuts."

Its not a matter of the press trying to protect Bush. I'm sure you are referring to the fact that (other than FOX) the major networks are highly critical of Bush and his decisions. This does not mean that there are certain areas that are off limits to report on in terms of the Bush administration. It is a well known fact that the major news networks are all controlled by major corporations that dictate what can and cant be reported. It is no coincidence that there has been very few, if any, major news stories regarding the conspiracy theories. I did happen to see a debate between Popular Mechanics and the makers of Loose Change. These film makers are young, inexperienced at film making, and not scholars. I'm looking forward to seeing the debates between dr. Steven Jones and other scientists that disagree with his findings, or debates with Barrie Zwicker, dr. David Ray Griffin, or dr. Robert Bowman, etc.

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

I don't buy the argument that the Corporate owners of news media outlets control content of news reports.

It's kind of like saying that the management of company I work at tries to control the way products are designed at the detail level.

Basically - media companies are out to make money, and they will allow the experts in the news organizations to do their job. If they get into issue where there are public complaints that affect advertisers (like the issues going on with Rosie recently) - then the corp might step in - but it's got to be something like that. If there is a news story out there which has FACTS rather than conjecture behind them, it's going to get reported.

[–] Fangs78 17 years ago

Funny how when you don't have proper counter-points in a discussion (granted...this isn't a proper discussion any more) you can just say : "I don't buy that.", "I ignore those points." or "I don't agree with anything this documentary says that opposes my views."...

When someone makes a point, and you CAN'T argue against it. You should align your view with that point, so the discussion can continue. That is what a discussion is all about. Saying "I don't agree because I'm not a leftie.", destroys the discussion. And makes you never agree on anything.

This goes for both sides btw, but you are the person actively saying "I disqualify your view, because it is not my view." the most.

(I know the quotes aren't real quotes said by you, but rather examples of what I perceive is your tactic when posting.)

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<When someone makes a point, and you CAN'T argue against it. You should align your view with that point, so the discussion can continue>>

That will stop discussion, and give victory to the person making the outlandish claim.

All this skulldugery that the far left like to believe our Corporations and Government are part of deserves scant attention, to be sure, and I am in my rights to say anything I want to about that (at least until the far left really takes over and gives "political correctness" the power of law. At that point I guess I get thrown in jail).

When I hear the whackos out there saying that "911 was an inside job" - I tend to just dismiss it - you are correct about that. It's not that I don't have reasons for this - and I've posted articles like the Popular Mechanics study on the subject before, for example. But since it takes no critical thinking to believe such nonsense, I'll not cast pearls before swine on a regular basis. Life is too short.

[–] FuzzyWzhe 17 years ago

All this skulldugery that the far left like to believe our Corporations and Government are part of deserves scant attention, to be sure, and I am in my rights to say anything I want to about that

I'm not on the far left by any measure, but it's pretty clear that the media does censor viewpoints.

Ever heard Scott Ritter? He's the former UN weapons inspector of Iraq, who was an American, a lifelong Republican, and an ex marine who stated flat out before the Iraq war that Bush and his gang was lying.

Don't remember him being plastered all over the networks before the Iraq war? It's because he wasn't.

Anybody who thinks that "left" and "right" are the divisions in the political spectrum is a naive child, and that's most of the country today. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Both are promoters of large government, both spend money like there is no tomorrow, both like to nation build and go to war. Only rhetoric differs.

If Gore had been president, and went to war against Iraq to save the people of Iraq from a mean dictator, "the left" would have been completely in favor of it and "the right" would have opposed it at every opportunity - which is exactly what the scenario was during Bosnia.

People blindly align themselves with a party, not policies. The United States populace has a very uneducated and naive view of the world. There's no large free media here, you'd know that if you read foreign papers. You can find out more about the United States reading Asia Times than you can watching television or reading any major US newspaper.

In front of you is the most powerful communications device ever invented. Why don't you use it?

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<Ever heard Scott Ritter? He's the former UN weapons inspector of Iraq, who was an American, a lifelong Republican, and an ex marine who stated flat out before the Iraq war that Bush and his gang was lying.

Don't remember him being plastered all over the networks before the Iraq war? It's because he wasn't.>>

Scott Ritter got a lot of coverage. I remember it well.

<<Anybody who thinks that "left" and "right" are the divisions in the political spectrum is a naive child, and that's most of the country today. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Both are promoters of large government, both spend money like there is no tomorrow, both like to nation build and go to war. Only rhetoric differs.

If Gore had been president, and went to war against Iraq to save the people of Iraq from a mean dictator, "the left" would have been completely in favor of it and "the right" would have opposed it at every opportunity - which is exactly what the scenario was during Bosnia.>>

We actually have some common ground here - I tend to agree to a point.

One place where I really differ from the far left or the far right is motive. I believe that, for the most part, and irrespective of party or political view, our leaders have tried to do what they feel is good for this country. I don't believe the "Bush is Evil" line from the far left, any more than I believed the "Clinton is Evil" nonsense which came from the far right when he was President. But such is politics, and this is not new, either. Read about some of the things that were said about Lincoln by both parties. (and no, I'm not comparing Lincoln to Bush).

I think we have made a lot of errors in Iraq, but I believe that our hearts were in the right place. And while the USA has done some bad things in the past, it's pretty well overshadowed by the good that we have done, IMHO. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be better - but what it does mean to me is that the "blame America first" crowd (theres many on this board) are mostly idiots.

[–] FuzzyWzhe 17 years ago

Oh, good Lord. I'm just speechless.

Of course, if I ask for proof of your rather far out comments, I'll get more links to whacko far left web sites. Been there, done that. Not doing it again. If there was a real story, the legitimate news organizations of the world would have it out in a flash. And if you think that the press in the USA is trying to protect Bush, you really are nuts.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Fannie Mae, which controls about 1 trillion dollars of mortgage debt hasn't made an earnings report to the SEC for 3 years now.

If you don't know economics there's not much point in talking about historical home valuations, the housing market before the great depression, Franklin Raines, Toll Brothers, or anything else. There's in less point in talking about Retail sales, stock buybacks using debt to do it to incrase P/E ratios, the actual inflation numbers, why gold and oil have both trippled in price, etc. There is even less point in discussing the Carter Doctrine, the Reagan Corrolary, and the agreement with OPEC to price oil exclusively in dollars to create the PetroDollar, Iraq, Iran, and Venezeuela breaking this agreement and coming up as 3 countries we suddenly have huge problems with, etc.

This isn't something I can (or even want to) throw into a little post and I don't feel like being compared to Chicken Little. You'll see just how stable our economy is soon enough. I'm already out of the dollar.

[–] aikon101 17 years ago

ok...
<<unlawful war>> right. See WMDS...

<<MWDS>> Bush didn't "lie". What he did do was pressure the cia and defense department into giving him exactly what he wanted on Iraq, even if it was shotty intelligence (which he could later bury behind the bad intelligence excuse). I heard an interview on NPR when the war first started with a CIA oprative who said that basically, if your intel was not on Iraq WMDs and proof of there existance, "they didn't want to hear it" (and thats a REAL quote)

<<Clinton>> Whatever... he got a BJ from an intern. Bush has killed thousands of American soldiers so that defense contractors can profit from arms manufacturing and reconstruction.

Think of this please... before we entered Iraq had anyone ever heard of an Iraq terrorist? Nope. Because of the vacuum of power left by dethroning Sadaam, terrism is now rampant in that area, and in fact with half the country in anarchy it is much easier to traffic in wmds than before...

The worst thing we could be is ignorant of our own flaws.

[–] mykungfuistrong 15 years ago

To "sclvr" - You're wrong. Period. You seem to have willfully bought into a number of deceptions, and are remaining happilly oblivious when people try to question and reveal a nuanced and embedded process which has infiltrated the entire system in our country. It's all interwoven, and will continue to be so as long as people are more interested in money than values. And sidetracking the argument into particular presidencies or left vs. right is missing the point. At least ATTEMPT to open your mind and take in some new information will you?

[–] FuzzyWzhe 17 years ago

it becomes just another tirade against Bush, the Iraq war, American corporations, capitalism

Capitalism isn't state funded.

Bush and his gang are not capitalists. Haliburton, an OIL exploration company getting money from the government to erect buildings is not an example of capitalism.

Capitalism I think is great, but there's very little of today in the United States.

[–] sljones44 17 years ago

"Well, I see you've tasted the cool-aid and said it is good. "

yeah, the kool-aid called "goddamn common sense!"

"The nation is faced with one of the most corporate-orientated anti-consumer Congresses in our history."
-Ralph Nader

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

LOL - more than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for Bush getting into the White House. The race was so close, that if Nader had not been running, Gore would have taken it. Easily.

[–] forglory 17 years ago

Hi! I live in Turkey and I closely watch developments in Iraq. I read all this stuff that you wrote and I can see your point. However, you and your opponents are looking at the problem one-sided. The fact is that we have a war going out in Iraq. What were the motives? Some will claim "war on terror", some "American imperialism". I think its not the problem of the US only. It is the problem of the whole world. Perception of threat is the problem. We still think the same way as we used to think in the Cold War days. Preemtive strikes. If we don't strike now, they will surely do. It is true for all countries in the world. True, the US went to Iraq for resources and to get hold on Middle East, but it is also true that US went there to eliminate even slightest possiblity of Iraq having WMD and breeding terrorists. I am sure that if you substitute US with let's say China/Russia/UK/France/Germany, in short, any other state they would have done the same. UN has become a useless organization inapt to solve international conflicts and imbalances of power.

It may be, though improbable, that US went to Iraq to spread democracy and freedom, but US is not doing a damn thing about cultivating love for freedom and democracy. They do only fighting and scaring. American people should understand that "freedom" is a very controversial word. What is the value of freedom in the US that you have? The more money you have, more free you are. If you don't have money, you are not free at all.

The world doesn't have to be universally free in an American sense. People have to understand the meaning of liberty and its implications and determine their own fate. Freedom cannot be given, imposed. It can only be reached by self-determination in Wilson's words.

IMHO, all problems in todays world including terrorism, AIDS and all other related problems arise from POVERTY. Poor countries are more prone to authoritarian regimes. Poor people can be easily subverted to terrorism and they can be easily recruited by terrorist groups offering money. Poverty has brought many infectious diceases. When you are poor and have no money for proper medical care, you have a higher chance to get sick. When you have no money, how are you going to get educated???

The bad thing of war is, that it makes more evil people than it can take away. –
Immanuel Kant

Dear George, peace and prosperity cannot be enforced, it must be cultivated; freedom can not be given, it is in the nature of human beings and they must first realize that they are free in order to value and understand the meaning of liberty. (c) Me

[–] sclvr 17 years ago

<<American people should understand that "freedom" is a very controversial word. What is the value of freedom in the US that you have? The more money you have, more free you are. If you don't have money, you are not free at all.>>

I completely disagree with that comment. Most people who came to this country came with little more than the shirt on their back. The freedom here allowed them to better themselves economically. Sometimes it took a generation or two - case in point is the Irish - lots of poor Irish people came here in the 1850s and lived in slums. Life was hard here, but the freedom that they enjoyed helped them to pull themselves out of it. Where are the Irish slums now? Gone - and most of the decendants of the poor Irish are now middle class Americans.

I have learned from the Iraq situation that you can't push freedom on people who care nothing for it, or prefer to live under the slavemaster of Islamic fundamentalism. I don't like our young people getting killed for the good of people who don't want our help, and frankly, don't deserve it. Sounds harsh, I know - and I would not have said that a year ago.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]