Smart Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 because if you refuse to back up your opinion with any sort of fact, then i'll be forced to assume that you have none and are just talking out your ass. 'MY' facts are those presented by the media, all of them, everything that piled up proves that we, as a country, we're the victims of an unprovoked attack, or several of similar nature occuring at or near the same time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Martin Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 Originally posted by Smart 'MY' facts are those presented by the media, all of them, everything that piled up proves that we, as a country, we're the victims of an unprovoked attack, or several of similar nature occuring at or near the same time... i would say that in other parts of the world the United States could have been seen as provoking the attacks. But more accuratley, attacks have happened through out the last decade but for the better part of the last one the current goverments objectives were more solidified about proving was billy lying about getting a blow job and other useless self serving capatilistic nazi type bullshit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 yeah GE but we're not here to argue the motives or provocation of the 'terrorists' we're arguing about wether the US Armed forces, in collusion with the ENTIRE bribe corrupted Legislative and Executive branches, assumably with the assistance of the Judicial branch, are involved in a 'cover-up' concerning the events at the pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, EST. so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 Originally posted by seeking innocence which is the exact point i made months ago when you argued with demo. and my point was that every time I came up with facts supporting my position that could not be refuted, suddenly the argument changed and all of my previously stated facts were assumed to be irrelevant based on this or that persons newest theory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 Originally posted by seeking innocence ]that is how you have an 'adult' 'political' discussion? AND... YES, that is EXACTLY how I have an ADULT political discussion. I argue until I realize that nobody's opinion is going to change and then I stop. I state my disagreement and then I walk away before it turns into something personal. I CAN deal with the concept that people exist that don't share my opinions AND bear them no malice... It was YOU, DEMO and all those other self-righteous kids that HAD to prove me wrong in order to prove the merit of your ideas to yourselves and others. Which seems more childish to me... I dunno... whatever man, I'm not tryin to get you all worked about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Martin Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 theres no way the pentegon was a cover up. a hijacked plane full of people slammed into it. if it hadn't we would know it by now. i think the cover up is the passenger jet that slammed into jamaica queens, nyc cause the "tail fell off" hell nahhh that shit was prolly blown out the sky by a bomb on the inside or shot down in error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fr8orade.homestead.com Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 I enjoyed reading this thread's arguments ... which is something that rarely happens when I read two or more people arguing on here. Smart - did you take a lot of logic courses in college? Or do you have a general interest in the subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 YES, that is EXACTLY how I have an ADULT political discussion. I argue until I realize that nobody's opinion is going to change and then I stop. I state my disagreement and then I walk away before it turns into something personal. I CAN deal with the concept that people exist that don't share my opinions AND bear them no malice... It was YOU, DEMO and all those other self-righteous kids that HAD to prove me wrong in order to prove the merit of your ideas to yourselves and others. Which seems more childish to me... you didnt argue any point, you told me i was wrong, and asked me (or anyone) to answer the questions you posed. i then asnwered them, you said i was wrong but refused to tell me why. that's being an adult? i wasnt concerned with proving you wrong, i wanted to know what exactly made ME wrong. you refuse to answer that. certainly if you KNOW im wrong, you must also know WHY. "childish" is not being able to admit that you are refuting my comments with your OPINION, and calling it fact. i never said i was right, i said that that is what i felt, and i presented the 'facts' i needed to come to such a possible conclusion. you keep telling me im wrong, but wont tell me why. that is childish. every time I came up with facts supporting my position that could not be refuted, suddenly the argument changed and all of my previously stated facts were assumed to be irrelevant based on this or that persons newest theory... actually, you offered very few facts, and just like with me, posed questions instead of answering his. he would then answer those questions, which you are refering to him as 'changing the subject.' in all actuality, it was you that kept changing the subject. when that failed, you started to simply insult him and act as if he was so completely off base that he didnt even deserve an answer. a tactic you seem to be refer to often. "'MY' facts are those presented by the media, all of them, everything that piled up proves that we, as a country, we're the victims of an unprovoked attack, or several of similar nature occuring at or near the same time..." well, my facts also come from the media, so were not gonna get any place here. i never stated that we werent attacked, i stated that there was something very fishy about the pentagon 'attack.' the rest of theory i created just to give you a plausible explanation, i never stated i believed it to be fact, only that i had enough facts to make it a possibility.. this situation is like a murder trial, and the governments story has to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. do those pictures, back up, beyond a shadow of doubt, the story the government has given us? i dont think so, i offered very logical, important, questions in relation to that, you offered nothing but telling me it didnt matter (??!!) and that i was wrong. dude, I'm saying, it's on YOU to prove this, there is a 'generally accepted theory' about this that I'm willing to accept, I'm not trying to convince you that We're ALL right, I'm trying to tell you that you might be wrong... i never claimed i was right. you told me i was wrong, i asked you to explain how you KNEW i was wrong. i never once claimed you were wrong, i was just trying to answer your question and offer a possible scenario. we're arguing about wether the US Armed forces, in collusion with the ENTIRE bribe corrupted Legislative and Executive branches, assumably with the assistance of the Judicial branch, are involved in a 'cover-up' concerning the events at the pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, EST. one word, JFK. im not saying that a plane did not fly into the pentagon, im saying that there is enough doubt on the subject, to warrent further investigation. all i wanted from you, was to explain to me how you knew i was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Martin Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 and next week on crossfire........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapo wc Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 i must admit that pentagon site was interesting. I'd expected to see chunks of the plane all over the place. But I still dont think its a conspiracy. I mean people had family that died on that plane right? And also isnt there tape of Bin Laden saying how he had attacked the pentagon, etc? And this was supposed to be a mass attack, if you were going to attack America wouldnt the Pentagon be a prime target? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 ok, let's clear this up AGAIN, I'm arguing that the reported plane crash involving the pentagon on Sept.11 WAS IN FACT part of a terrorist plot perpetrated by Al Quaida and NOT fabricated or staged in ANY way by the US Government OR media and I'd back off that 'in ANY way' crack in half a second, BUT... These arguments don't start as Whoever against me, they start with Them/You against the mainstream media reports... OR Them in support of the alternative media reports... My position has been, and continues to be, that we are getting, for the most part, the FULL and TRUE story. EVEN THOUGH, I am a FAR more radical thinker than typical viewers of CNN,FOXnews, or MSNBC if we MUST pigeonhole my beliefs, I am willing to be the 'conservative' for the sake of argument... BUT... I will say that MANY years before Oliver Stone, I thought that the Cubans and/or the Mafia had a heavy hand in JFK's murder... HOWEVER... Now it's 9/11... where is today's Lee Harvey Oswald? Where is today's Jack Ruby? Where IS your smoking gun? These things do not occur in a vacuum! Perhaps you weren't interested in the Ollie North hearing but I was psyched to have recently gotten C-Span. I grew up around political columnists, I have paid accute attention to how these things work since I was younger than I knew what I was really doing... I questioned news reports delivered by Walter Kronkite... I'm not unfamiliar with the concept of governmet 'hush'. I'm fully aware of the warning signs and I'm saying that, so far, there are ABSOLUTELY NONE supporting your theory... you can attach motive to a crime that you can't prove happened... The government's story does NOT need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ala a murder case. The government is not on trial. If you're willing to presuppose the idea that the entire government and media are corrupt then it's not worth my time arguing about it because nothing I say can be based upon 'facts' that you are willing to accept as true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 Originally posted by Smart The government's story does NOT need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ala a murder case. The government is not on trial. instead of editing this out, I'd rather issue a retraction... DUH, I realize, this whole thread puts the government and the media 'on trial'... I just find their story exceedingly plauseable... In this case, I'm not an advocate, I'm a judge, as we all should be... I have delivered my judgement of this situation, I can not be swayed by these arguments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 bottom line, when looking at those pictures, you believe 100% that that damage was caused by a plane, and the fact that there is no visible wreckage, that the damage itself is 'suspect', and that there are inconcistencies in the governemnts story, doesnt make you even consider the idea, that perhaps we've been mislead for god knows what reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beardo Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 i havent really kept up with the story but im super into conspiracy theory and have a feeling a bomb blew up the pentagon. could someone prove to me that a plane crashed into it, rather than a bomb blowing it up, please. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 bottom line I belive 95% that those pictures are true and unaltered. I'm familiar with the concept of military crime scenes being cordoned off FOREVER and news blackouts. I think that it's entirely reasonable to assume that a civilian took that picture AND that civilians weren't allowed on site for at least 8 hours following the 'accident'. I also do not doubt the efficiency or determination of the military to clean up and assess their situation. I do not find it unreasonable that the government censors pictures that MAY POTENTIALLY reveal our weaknesses to ANY enemy worldwide... I'm saying, those pictures were obviously taken AFTER clearance was given by the government. I have enough faith in our government to beieve that they are capable of a convincing cover-up. HOWEVER, where are the pictures that come immediately after the explosion that disprove the story? Where are the witnesses that say different? Name ONE person that can honestly say "I was there and it wasn't a plane"... one factor that will NEVER be eliminated from political life is the 'press leak'... where are they? Even the alternative press is basing their stories on speculation instead of solid testimony... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 I can't believe you two guys killed a whole page arguing without noticing what kind of misunderstanding was going on. Seeking, Smart originally asked you for a SPECIFIC theory on why the Pentagon incident may not have been a plane, what was being covered up, and how those covering up could have benefited - not in general, but specifically benefited from the difference between what really happened and what we all heard happened. There's no question that terrorists flew 2 planes into the WTC and knocked it down. There's no question a third plane was hijacked and either crashed or was shot down. So the government already has the ammo to launch a shady, ulterior-motive war on terrorism, civil liberties, and threats to its oil supply. The SPECIFIC question is, why would the government, on short notice (an hour or so after the WTC crashes), make a fourth hijacked plane vanish, blow a hole in its own Pentagon, and claim it was the site of the fourth plane attack? I believe that's all Smart wanted to know in the first place. Your answer (and subsequent defenses of it) was more general in nature and never addressed the Pentagon incident specifically (who, what, how, why). I agree the government is shady and not all conspiracy theories can be dismissed. I just see no evidence, or even a plausible reason why, a plane didn't hit the Pentagon that morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Martin Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 I belive that the passenger jet that fell out of the sky and burned part of a jamaica queens neigborhood was a terrorist attack and was covered up in order to protect the allready fragile and multibillion dollar bailed out airline industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KING BLING Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 read it if you want........ The crash in Pennsylvania-The plane was shot down. Governor Ridge, who was very close to becoming vice president during the presidential race, sees it as his duty to his president to go along with the government’s story. He is rewarded for his loyalty before and after Sept. 11th by being placed in a high profile cabinet position. *The Pentagon- Bombed either by our government or by a terrorist truck bomb. Pentagon uses the focus on WTC airplane crash by creating a plane story of their own. This is to bring itself into the spotlight during a time where Americans can either begin to think (us) or act (psycho republican avengers and the media who loves them). The attacks that did happen are only accented by this "tragedy" in Washington DC. This puts into everyone’s head "if the main building for the military can be bombed, we all are in danger." Military spending is increased by $35 Billion dollars, bloating closer to $400 Billion dollars total every few years. We "leak" papers that site 7, old cold war enemies as new potential threats. We begin researching a new technology: battle field ready nuclear weapons. *Terrorists- Though it is likely true, the government refuses to provide evidence of Osama's guilt. The Videotape released to the public has newsmen talking over much of the content, making it virtually impossible for any outside interpreter to understand except for the government sub-titles on the bottom. Even so, it has no date and is illogically ordered (suspicious). Any talking about the WTC could be easily after the WTC, when everyone was talkig about it. On NBC, Tom Brokaw (I THINK, it has been a while since I thought about this piece) is one of these announcers. After Sept 11th, he exclaims to George Bush "Any thing you need of me Mr. President, I am prepared" (in so many words, if challenged I will look it up in detail). We hold captured terrorists without lawyers in Guantanamo bay, violating a multitude of laws against the U.S. Constitution, The UN Bill of Universal Human Rights, and the Geneva Convention *Taliban- An oppressive government, but one we helped to put into place (with George Bush Sr.'s help). They ask on the world stage for America to show us some small evidence that Osama committed these crimes. Basic extradition law involves this. We begin bombing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 cracked, it would be impossible for anyone to give a specific reason why the government might be lying to us about the pentagon. i was simply stating that the pictures showed discrepencies, and then at his request, i gave a possible scenario, and 'facts' to back up the 'possabilites.' he told me i was wrong, i asked him to tell me how my 'possible' scenario, was just flat out wrong. what 'proof' did he have that i was wrong? i never said that the government was lying, just that i felt it was incredibly suspect. smart, all of those pictures were taken by army personel, not civilians. why have we never seen any pictures of the plane hitting the building? am i to believe that the government doesnt have cameras set up to monitor the perimiter of the building? the only fool, is the one who denies the possability of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iCEBERG Posted March 16, 2002 Share Posted March 16, 2002 i didnt read any of the responses. but i believe it was a truck bomb at the pentagon, and they shot down the other plane. the government wouldnt be too quick to say that they shot down a commercial aircraft, for whatever reason. an the truck bomb was a good opportunity to say.... you get me point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted March 18, 2002 Share Posted March 18, 2002 and yet another disputed plane crash i always love the political bickering.. what about the plane that crashed off nyc the day afetr 9/11.. (or maybe 2-3 days after) it crashed during take off from i think, la guardia the tale of the plane just fell the fuck off. the NTSB cannot find a cause for this the company that built the planes has checked all the other planes of that model and cannot find a similar defect.. was this plane bombed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiberoptical Posted March 18, 2002 Share Posted March 18, 2002 I am not about to wade thru all of those to bring out a few points on this subject..in general.. I read somewhere that the whole concept of it NOT BEING a plane...is a tactic of disinformation, and that when the debate gets heated enough, photos captured by high up government peoples and cameras will be released..thus dis-crediting all of thosew researching this and making the "no plane conspiracies" seem like a load of shit , and give lettle relevance to whatever other aspects these people are looking into. Sounds pretty right on target to me.,.. I do specifically hearing about a truck bomb exploding somewhere in Washington..never to hear it again???? Either way, I think that there is way, way more going on than anyone in the major media is looking at...We are now in a whole "NEW WORLD"..they say this all of the time..only they forget the word, ORDER.. ... Now terrorism being an act of theater..for attention, to bring an issue to debate, and or reach some type of political gain...so that being the case....what did the "Al Queda" gain? What did Osama Bin Laden gain? nothing. What did the US elite gain? A whole bunch. New Laws to restrict US citzens freedoms...new laws to prevent any opposition to what the govt. is doing...and a GREEN LIGHT for the mighty war machine to go out and whopp some godamn ass wherever any who don't bend over and smile for the US..... Afghanistan is the one of the top 5 worlds largest HEROIN ssuppliers...and the TALBIAHN stopped the practice. Certain people did not like this...we need the dope flowing to pay for certain things...kinda like the whole Contra's in the 80's.,....we use drug money and payoffs to fund certain BLACK operations...Watch how HEROIN comes in tons and tons and tons to the US now....more than ever...it is a system. And watch how we will now establish US bases in the area...for multi purposed reasons...oil, drugs, power....etc... It is way bigger picture...WW3 is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.