American Intellectualism...

[Crissa]

Here's one leading presidential candidate...

And here's the recent book the guy is referring to...

-Crissa

[Josh_Kablack]

Er, um, no offense here, but what exactly is that lunatic "leading" in?

[User3]

That isn't actually Brownback's blog. It's a "supporter". It appears to be parody, but I honestly can't tell for sure--the guy could seriously just be crazy.

[Nihlin]

1180330605[/unixtime]]That isn't actually Brownback's blog. It's a "supporter". It appears to be parody, but I honestly can't tell for sure--the guy could seriously just be crazy.

That blog is either epic trolling or epic failure. Actually, it might be both...

Edit: looking over the rest of the blog, I'm going with "epic fail."

[User3]

Considering the majority of 9/11 CTists.. why are you surprised that someone can post somethingso dumb?

[User3]

ET: Misisng modifier


Majority of 9/11 CTists are AMericans

[Username17]

I'm almost positive that isn't true. Not proportionally, and certainly not absolutely. In the US there is a very strong emotional card that gets played any time anyone talks about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, where 343 Firefighters died in fire and so on and so forth.

In the rest of the world, people look at it a little more dispassionately, and the fact that Muhammed Atta had his flight school paid for by Henry Kissinger and the US has a History of arranging Attacks on its own people to gain
Causus Beli on countries that it wanted to invade.

Seriously, 9/11 is awfully suspicious in that absolutely every person confirmed to have been involved in it was paid cash money by the Bush administration's loyal compatriots. It looks an awful lot like Reagan's October Surprise.

Basically, the only place where the United States has any credibility is the United States. Everywhere else, the whole thing stinks like a dead possum. We may never know who knew what and when they knew it. But it isn't like it's not Public Knowledge that Bush Jr. was supplying money and weapons to the Taliban even in 2001.

Noone likes to hear that their family and friends were set on fire by their own government in order to push through unpopular legislation. But hey, their family and friends were set on fire, the people who did it used funds from the American government, and the government responded by ramming through unpopular legislation. Proving causality at that point is basically meaningless.

The only possible argument against there being a 9/11 conspiracy is that the Bush administration is so fvcking incompetent that they seriously didn't notice that financing and training a group of terrorists in the United States might eventually lead to attacks in the United States by terrorists. And I find that kind of hard to believe.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

There are many september 11 conspiracies but I have three favourites.

1) I recall the early news coverage involving sightings of interceptor jets fairly consistant with the failed flight believed to be heading to the white house having been shot down, the later stuff about such things dropped that and became contradictory, unlikely and inconsistant at best. Then this ludicrous "oh they made a mobile phone call as they rushed the cockpit with a trolley to crash their own plane" story turned up.

2) September the 11th used to be an aniversery of something else which definitely was part of an American government conspiracy, in Chile, in 1973, I'm pretty sure more people died in that one too...

3) Bush says an excuse for his failure to stop it "no one could have imagined". He clearly never saw the pilot episode of a certain XFiles spin off... where they covered it pretty damn closely, only the CIA did it...

Anyway, not that there aren't PILES of, really, really, wierd, often laughable, shit around september 11.

But not much is more darkly hilarious than the pretty remarkably high chance that they actually run conspiratorial policy based on actual aired episodes of failed made for TV X-File spin offs.

[MrWaeseL]

HEY GUYS DID YOU SEE THAT LOOSE CHANGE VIDEO I THINK IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!

[Username17]

But not much is more darkly hilarious than the pretty remarkably high chance that they actually run conspiratorial policy based on actual aired episodes of failed made for TV X-File spin offs.

The worst part is that there's actually a mechanism for that. FOX news has a number of people who work for the Bush administration, directly or indirectly. It's not just Tony Snow, it's also Carl Cameron, chief political correspondant for FOX who's also an advisor and hatchetman for Bush.

So there are people working for FOX who advise Bush on strategy, policy, and diplomacy. It's entirely possible that one of them turned a Lone Gunman script over to the administration as an idea worth pursuing.

----

But considering how long they were bribing and training Muhammed Atta before 9/11 - I think the most likely answer is an information leak the other way. FOX guys talking to each other and talking "hypotheticals" giving each other ideas that people out of the loop eventually put into TV shows. The Bush administration's contempt for the American people and the world is epic, but I doubt that people were sitting on that script for the ten years that they were sitting on Atta.

Of course, stupider things have happened.

---

A lot of the conspiracy theories revolve around whether bombs were separately set in the WTC towers. I don't think we'll ever know for sure and I also don't really care. The only really important thing is:

• Everyone who was involved at any level with the September 11th attacks was trained and paid by high-ranking loyalists of the Republican party of the United States.
  
  
• The United States has a history of perpetrating attacks on its own in order to develope causus beli.
  
  
• The Republican party used the attacks as a causus beli on a nation which is confirmed to have had nothing whatever to do with those attacks.

Really, what's the simplest explanation? That the Bush administration is so stupid that they funded Bin Laden and Atta for years without knowing that they were using those funds to develope an attack against the American people? Or that the Bush administration is so cynical that they believed that they would benefit from paying Bin Laden and Atta to kill thousands of American people?

Honestly, which is worse?

-Username17

[User3]

I actually vote stupid on this one. Yeah, they gave money ot terrorists. We've been doing that for a long, long time. I don't think they expected the WTC attack, though obviously they decided to exploit it.

[User3]

1180593123[/unixtime]]I'm almost positive that isn't true. Not proportionally, and certainly not absolutely. In the US there is a very strong emotional card that gets played any time anyone talks about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, where 343 Firefighters died in fire and so on and so forth.

In the rest of the world, people look at it a little more dispassionately, and the fact that Muhammed Atta had his flight school paid for by Henry Kissinger and the US has a History of arranging Attacks on its own people to gain
Causus Beli on countries that it wanted to invade.

Seriously, 9/11 is awfully suspicious in that absolutely every person confirmed to have been involved in it was paid cash money by the Bush administration's loyal compatriots. It looks an awful lot like Reagan's October Surprise.

Basically, the only place where the United States has any credibility is the United States. Everywhere else, the whole thing stinks like a dead possum. We may never know who knew what and when they knew it. But it isn't like it's not Public Knowledge that Bush Jr. was supplying money and weapons to the Taliban even in 2001.

Noone likes to hear that their family and friends were set on fire by their own government in order to push through unpopular legislation. But hey, their family and friends were set on fire, the people who did it used funds from the American government, and the government responded by ramming through unpopular legislation. Proving causality at that point is basically meaningless.

The only possible argument against there being a 9/11 conspiracy is that the Bush administration is so fvcking incompetent that they seriously didn't notice that financing and training a group of terrorists in the United States might eventually lead to attacks in the United States by terrorists. And I find that kind of hard to believe.

-Username17

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between the idea that a few people had ulterior motivations for the stupid shit they did and the insane Loose Change style "9/11 truther" bullshit with controlled demolitions and remote-controlled planes and The Jews that makes up the vast majority of conspiracy theorizing on the subject. The former is at least somewhat plausible, if lacking in any real evidence, while the latter is so retarded that if I was into conspiracy theories myself I'd suspect people like Dylan Avery of being secretly employed by the government to discredit conspiracy theorists. It is undoubtedly the second that was being referred to originally.

There's a very natural human tendency to perceive patterns and purpose where none exists. Most obviously, it makes people believe that natural events are the work of some god. More subtly, it makes people think that the actions of their fellow humans are the product of some secret plan, but in most cases this is just as wrong as the other. In reality, people act in all sorts of stupid, irrational, virtually random ways, and are really bad at planning or keeping secrets. Even Marinus van der Lubbe was concluded to have probably acted alone in the final analysis. I have no trouble thinking that the Bush administration was just that stupid, while I do have difficulty believing they could have done even the smallest of the 9/11 conspiracies without fucking it up and leaking it to the public. They can't even keep their plans against Iran secret, and plenty of people approve of that sort of thing. Even if the conspiracy only required five or so people and just consisted of purposefully failing to do anything about the danger, do you really think that not one of them would have freaked out and gone public at something so blatantly treasonous? Everything I've seen indicates the Bush admin believes their own bullshit, and the very same elements that give 9/11 conspiracies such strong emotional resonance make it essentially impossible for them to justify it to themselves as being in the best interest of America. Also, you don't help your argument's credibility by referencing the October Surprise conspiracy theory, all the evidence for which has been fairly thoroughly debunked to my knowledge.

[Judging__Eagle]

Honestly, one's worse than the other and neither is better than the other.

[Username17]

Also, you don't help your argument's credibility by referencing the October Surprise conspiracy theory, all the evidence for which has been fairly thoroughly debunked to my knowledge.

It is a matter of congressional record that the CIA facilitated the sales of guns to Iran and death squads in Nicaragua, financed by importing cocaine into the United States.

That's not a wild-eyed conspiracy theory or anything, the people involved were actually forced to go before congress and there's a fascinating document about it called the Kerry report.

---

Remember, Oliver North didn't physically transport drugs, he:

Mr. North, then on the National Security Council staff at the White House, and other senior officials created a privatized contra network that attracted drug traffickers looking for cover for their operations, then turned a blind eye to repeated reports of drug smuggling related to the contras, and actively worked with known drug smugglers such as Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega to assist the contras. The report cited former Drug Enforcement Administration head John Lawn testifying that Mr. North himself had prematurely leaked a DEA undercover operation, jeopardizing agents' lives, for political advantage in an upcoming Congressional vote on aid to the contras (p.121).

Reagan went on national TV to say that he never sold arms to Iran. Then when that became untenable, he changed his story that he did sell arms to Iran, but not very many, and that those arms weren't part of a deal for hostages. But honestly, Reagan's credibility is zero and his lies as transparent as glass.

Yes. He sold weapons to Iran for hostages as part of a deal to undermine the previous president. Yes, he sabotaged his own nation's drug enforcement policy in order to finance a murderous group of right-wing terrorists in Central America. And yes, he did manage to keep it a secret from most of the United States for about six years.

Hell, a lot of people don't believe it happened to this day even though the official investigation concluded that it did.

-Username17

[User3]

You're conflating the Iran-Contra affair and the October surprise theory. That arms were traded for hostages is a well established fact that I'm not disputing. The October Surprise conspiracy theory, however, claims that Reagen made a deal with Iran to not release the hostages until after the election in exchange for weapons. Assorted people have claimed to be witnesses to the secret meetings where this was worked out, but their stories contradict themselves, each other, and observable reality. In particular, unless several key people have learnt how to be in multiple places at once, all the major "witnesses" are liars. Now, just because the vast majority of the evidence has been shown to be pure fabrication doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does mean we can't reasonably believe it did until some real evidence is presented.

The funny thing is that it isn't even much worse than what we know was actually done, but that is fairly typical of conspiracy theories. One of the things that most annoy me about them is that they tend to distract from things we know are really happening, making those with legitimate criticisms easier to dismiss.

[Crissa]

Sen. Brownback OP-eds in the NYTimes.

Unfortunately, they lock their op-eds behind a subscription wall. He does say, as a measure of excuse, that it's unavoidable that issues won't be covered with the proper amount of subtlety and nuance they require...

But since most of you won't be able to read that, I've got another link for you - here's an American interviewed by a Free Press for a Free People, who's having trouble with scientists because they say his ideas don't work.

-Crissa

[User3]

... Re: Frank, PhoneLobster

I find myself disappointed. Seriously, I thought you were bright. Instead, you buy into the twoofer lies, hook line and sinker.

While it is very true the Bush adm. used 9/11 to create a memetic virus and used it to invade Iraq, that does not mean he caused it.

And as for paid off? NIST is Independent. The link between Cherkoff Micheal adn Ben is false. LOose CHange is so debunked it's funny and any otehr claim? Gone. (Granted, Google doesn't make you believe it but.. )

Seriously, you should not let your hatred and bias sway waht you think is real. It is an sterlign example of confirmation bias.

... of course,if you doubt me, I'll point you here:

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.ph ... ][br]Aside from 9/11 debates, it's got links that will back me up. Or whatever.


Re Crissa:

Some people are idiots. This is not limited to America, honestly.

--Tokorona.

[Crissa]

Tõk, did you read Frank's links or posts before comparing his comments to the loose change video?

The video says there's no planes, which is stupid. There's video of planes striking, and debris from the impacts. None of Frank's comments say the disaster didn't happen, Jews didn't die in the buildings, or any of the other asshattery that your link debunks.

There's no reason to believe there were bombs, or the buildings were hit with demolition charges. Thousands of pounds of jet fuel are more than enough to do the damage needed. ...One only needs to look at how buildings of these types have collapsed in the past or fuel-air explosions have done damage to know that no bombs were needed.

But the fact that US monies and support have gone to terrorists? How could you deny that?

The Taliban was a US friend until 9/11 - and even on that day, they denounced the act against the US.

Just because I did not like the Taliban before 9/11 doesn't mean Bush wasn't buddies with them. He was.

-Crissa

[User3]

I invite you to post that stuff on that link. To put it plainly, teh US funded OBL In teh 80's to fight the Soviet Union, then cut all funding.

If you are going to seriously argue that is current funding I don't think I can explain without you thinking I'm deluded.

(Incidently, the US funded the Northern Alliance and Mujadeen. Not the Taliban.)

-- Tokorona

[PhoneLobster]

I find myself disappointed. Seriously, I thought you were bright. Instead, you buy into the twoofer lies, hook line and sinker.

Oh honestly, I haven't even SEEN the thing and only barely know of it.

I reach the conclusions I have over september 11 based on two things. (and might I add the conclusion is basically just that the whole thing wiffs to high heaven...)

1) History

2) What we know as facts

So anyway ... 1) The US actually has a history of doing this shit, no really, from the fricking war with Mexico onwards. Helioleftists like myself actually know that. And there's a reason I mentioned Chile, the coincidental date AND ties with the current administration, its policies and the sort of batshit paranoid conspiracy the US pulls as part of its regular doing of business.

and 2) We KNOW Bush was warned repeatedly.

We know the various intelligence agencies knew a lot.

We know he did nothing to stop it, arguably far less than he could have and less than Clinton did.

We know the entire Bush administration did some REALLY freakish shit on and around the day.

We know Cheney went a bit nuts and pretty much pulled a petty little cuope in the bunker.

We know to this day that what the Bush administration is prepared to say about is ridiculously obtuse and contradictory.

We know that their stated policy was to drag America into war any way they could.

We know Bush was in desperate states in the polls.

We know that the Bush administration had been previously planning to pull a similar trick by trying to setup Saddam with a captured pilot scenario, dumped that and then gee, what "fell" into their laps.

So the conclusion is easy, it requires no elders of fricking Zion or remote control planes, or timed explosives, or faked pentagon crashes or tinfoil hats.

There is a very big chance that Bush and CO had a fair idea that this, or something a lot like it was going to happen when or around when it did, and they saw it as an opportunity and let it happen.

And thats all we can say about it, its very possible that is how it went down. Not to say its certain, just you know, the credibility strain on any other explanation is about the same or worse.

See the thing is its SO damn credible, and predictable an action by the US that despite the administrations attempts to claim no one had ever predicted anything like it not only HAD proffesionals predicted it for them but it was fricking ON TV.

Now if you don't believe that then why don't we talk about what we KNOW Bush was trying to pull in Venezuala around a similar time period...

Chavez FTW!

[Crissa]

When did the US stop funding or interacting with terrorists?

I know it's hard to prove a negative, but...

...While the flow of rocket launchers faded, the monies and contacts never seem to have stopped. There's articles now about the US funding wackos from Saudi Arabia again just on the off chance they might be anti-Iran or anti-Sadr or anti-AlQueda without actually checking if they're really our friends.

This is rather the same way that people 'gave money to terrorists' through charities - because who really knows if that student fund trained a terrorist or not.

However, the US government doesn't have the excuse of not knowing - it's the largest government in the world, with the largest army and police forces. They can't just pretend not to know when they totally do and can know.

And right-wing asshats are always cooking up crazy stuff.

-Crissa

[User3]

Arguments to Incredulty noted.No, seriously. Both of your arguments are "Well, I think it makes no sense, so it doesn't!"

So, I invite you to post your theories on the link I indicated. Where people know a bit more than I do. I'm bowing out.


-- Tokorona.

[PhoneLobster]

Precisely what part of the following sequence don't you understand?

These guys have a long established history of doing this kind of thing.

They actually SAID they were going to something a lot like this to use as a pretext for their latest set of entirely open maniacal plans.

They get warned that something very similar but to their minds even better is going to happen.

They spectacularly fail to stop it.

Their original entirely public maniacal plans proceed at full tilt without breaking step.

What more do you want? This is infact LESS complex and mysterious than most of their more openly established stupidity over the last few CENTURIES of history, or indeed the actual known personal political careers of half the administration...

[User3]

I said I bowed out. I do not debate CT anywhere but JREF. This is a bit of a cowardly move on my part, but I like retaining my sanity.

[Crissa]

The problem, Tõk, isn't that anyone here thinks there's a conspiracy. Well, there was, but really no Americans said 'go do this' or can be proven to have.

The thing is that the right-wing has no reason to actually succeed at defending against terrorist acts. This means they do things - like approving foreign aid for the Taliban in 2001, ignoring warnings about Saudi nationals, etc.

Al-Queda isn't their enemy. The decided goals of Brownback, Bush, and Bin Laden are all the same - personal riches atop a theocracy.

Go ahead, take this stuff back to rhe other board and see if it gets debunked. But it won't.

-Crissa

PS: Who's set the most bombs in the US in the last twenty years? Are they the FBI's current 'most dangerous' threats to the US?

I'll give you a hint: The answer to the second question is 'no', and foriegn terrorists aren't the answer to either.