Smoke screen? 9/11 AGAIN... - Page 2

PerryLogan · 28th October 2006, 04:39 PM

The LIHOP theory just falls apart from any angle. I would cite the fact that, when they told him the news, Bush sat there stunned.

There you go. If Bush or his people had known the attacks were coming, they'd have been prepared. They would have prepped their guy so as to make him look good--not lame.

Incompetence clearly provides the best explanation for 9/11.

T.A.M. · 28th October 2006, 04:49 PM

Coming from my background in the medical profession, I wish to ask if the following comparison is fair.

Once a drug has been around for a while, its patent runs out, and it is then picked up by a mass producing "Generic" firm, which then makes the drug for next to nothing and sells it for a little more.

Is the same true of military expendature on old technology. I mean how much profit do the defense contractors make off mass producing the same old cheap guns and weaponry used in the Iraq war, compared with, lets say, the amount they could make off the development, production, and then selling of new, intelligent weaponry???

TAM

Oliver · 29th October 2006, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Nero

* John Major was the British Prime Minister who lost his postion to Tony Blair in 1997 (Note four years prior to 911)
* You stated that Tony Blair was/is a chairperson for the Caryle Group (WRONG), and was able to gain some personal benefit from 911.

So it is true that Major is a chairperson for Carlyle?

cloudshipsrule · 29th October 2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment?

Show me a government that has no corruption!

I think the system checks and balances put in place by those (James Madison, et al) who drafted documents like the Federalist Papers and the constitution help keep the level of corruption in the US government low compared to the VAST majority of governments in the world.

Not to say I don't think there are greedy bastards elected-in-place that look out for themselves more than their country, but I think given a different system, the level of corruption would be much worse.

Oliver · 29th October 2006, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Abooga

What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment?

Maybe I should start a poll about this.

Or is it too much of a hot potato issue?

I started a thread about the corruption conspiracy:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66763

Polaris · 29th October 2006, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by geggy

Besides the rising cost of oil price, what about the massive increase in military spending that benefits the military industrial complex such as KBR and it's subsidiaries? The unprecedented power for bush and his administration?

Read a book about Abraham Lincoln's administration sometime. Or Nixon for that matter.

TruthSeeker1234 · 29th October 2006, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by PerryLogan

I think the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory suffers from the same logical defect as the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" story, to wit: even if the leaders knew an attack was coming, there would be no reason to let it happen.

If the administration knew about the attacks, they could have looked like heroes by stopping the attacks. They could still use the threat of terrorism to further their political agenda (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.), so there is no bonus in letting the attacks actually occur.

Similarly, if Roosevelt had really known about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he would have scrambled our planes, beat back the attack, and looked like a hero. That would work much better than letting us get clobbered. And we would still be at war with Japan.

So saying they let it happens makes no sense. Why would they want to look like chumps, when they could look like heroes?

Perry, you're thinking like a normal person. Politicians are not normal people. The government benefited far more from Pearl Harbor, and from 9/11, than they ever would have if either attack would have been "defended".

The politicians do not want to "look like heroes". They want to expand their power, and increase the amount of wealth extracted from the productive citizens. "Failure" is always much better at accomplishing these goals than is "success". 9/11 led to Afghanistan, Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, takeover of airport security, the Patriot Act, etc. No way could "success" have led to all that.

Consider hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as another example. The government would have "looked like heroes" if FEMA would have responded quickly and effectively. Instead they "failed" and got a $10 billion increase.

stateofgrace · 29th October 2006, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Perry, you're thinking like a normal person. Politicians are not normal people. The government benefited far more from Pearl Harbor, and from 9/11, than they ever would have if either attack would have been "defended".

The politicians do not want to "look like heroes". They want to expand their power, and increase the amount of wealth extracted from the productive citizens. "Failure" is always much better at accomplishing these goals than is "success". 9/11 led to Afghanistan, Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, takeover of airport security, the Patriot Act, etc. No way could "success" have led to all that.

Consider hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as another example. The government would have "looked like heroes" if FEMA would have responded quickly and effectively. Instead they "failed" and got a $10 billion increase.

Really?

from this very thread.

Quote:

Geggy have you any idea how much the attacks of 911 cost the US?

No neither have many people but it is extremely high. The World TRADE centers were destroyed, they housed many financial institutes. Entire networks that were in place to do business transactions were wiped out. The airlines were grounded for days and airline transport was disrupted for many months to come. The stock market and financial markets nose dived, wiping millions off share values. Depending on where you read some people put the cost of the actual attack as high as $95bn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...786326,00.html
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_m...D50011,00.html

Add to this cost of the Afghanistan Champaign, the Iraq war and improvements in homeland security. This as been put at $386 billion since 2001.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf

Do you honestly see revenue from an oil pipe line matching this? Some shady military deal raking it all back in.

It has cost the US close to $500 billion. Can you show me the end result of all this expenditure please? Show me this masive revenue the US has gained by the investment of $500 billion.

This is just the US; heaven only knows how high the figure would be if you were to look at the losses suffered by Americas allies as well.

Show me the return TS.

Nero · 30th October 2006, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

So it is true that Major is a chairperson for Carlyle?

John Major became a member of the Carlyle Group’s European Advisory Board in 1998, and was appointed Chairman of Carlyle Europe in May 2001, standing down in August 2004.

Note of caution, the above info is from Wikipedia, but I have no reason to doubt it

And not a word from Geggy, re little "mistake".

Nero

Larry Lovage · 30th October 2006, 06:02 AM

Sorry, is Carlyle Group some kind of new Bilderberg?

In addition to the signficant economic worries, the entire logic of the conspiracy theory behind 9/11 falls down on the basic origin of it. I saw a new film called Oil Smoke and Mirrors which starts off as an interesting examination of the possibility of Peak Oil - ie that we've found and extracted the maximum amount of oil from the Earth, and that the amount of oil available for use will start declining. Then at roughly the half way point the movie says,

It is universally accepted by the mainstream media that the War against Terror is a battle between rational Secularism and religious extremism.
*fade out*
*fade in*
There are other views, however.

However interesting the various talking heads were up to that point, immediately my BS meter went off. Because only CT-inspired documentaries make baseless statements as an article of faith like this. And the leading Peak Oil proponent started talking about his suspicions about 9/11. His theory, however - that in order to gain control of Iraq's substantial oil fields before all the oil ran out, America staged the 9/11 terrorist attack and then used that as a pretext to invade - suddenly made you doubt the value of his Peak Oil research. I haven't seen the film further than his assertion that six of the 19 hijackers "are still alive and well". So does everything he says come straight off Internet conspiracy sites? Because I believed in Peak Oil!

But my point is this: America gave Saddam arms and supported him in his war against Iran. If it's the oil they wanted, then they would have remained friends with him. As it is, for the second time in two decades they destroyed or forced the destruction of millions of barrels of the very stuff they were trying to save, replaced a tyrranical but secular and stable government, with an unstable system fundamentally undermined by religious differences, the end result of which could easily mean the loss of all oil input from that region altogether!

It's so facile to claim that because the oil price went up, then oil barons automatically become richer. Every thing that has happened - 9/11 itself, the Iraq war and finally the sheer increase in usage of fossil fuels will do nothing except put the price of oil up. And it's a sad fact, but it's true - that no American politician expects to keep his office if he puts the price of petrol up.

The Bushes did not become Presidents and governers to do stupid things to put the price of oil up and "increase their profits" (push their customers into Prius cars is all that that has achieved). They essentially became oil barons in order to become Presidents and Governers.

29th October 2006, 08:03 AM	#46
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,169	Originally Posted by geggy Besides the rising cost of oil price, what about the massive increase in military spending that benefits the military industrial complex such as KBR and it's subsidiaries? The unprecedented power for bush and his administration? Read a book about Abraham Lincoln's administration sometime. Or Nixon for that matter.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,169	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

29th October 2006, 08:31 AM	#47
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Originally Posted by PerryLogan I think the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory suffers from the same logical defect as the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" story, to wit: even if the leaders knew an attack was coming, there would be no reason to let it happen. If the administration knew about the attacks, they could have looked like heroes by stopping the attacks. They could still use the threat of terrorism to further their political agenda (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.), so there is no bonus in letting the attacks actually occur. Similarly, if Roosevelt had really known about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he would have scrambled our planes, beat back the attack, and looked like a hero. That would work much better than letting us get clobbered. And we would still be at war with Japan. So saying they let it happens makes no sense. Why would they want to look like chumps, when they could look like heroes? Perry, you're thinking like a normal person. Politicians are not normal people. The government benefited far more from Pearl Harbor, and from 9/11, than they ever would have if either attack would have been "defended". The politicians do not want to "look like heroes". They want to expand their power, and increase the amount of wealth extracted from the productive citizens. "Failure" is always much better at accomplishing these goals than is "success". 9/11 led to Afghanistan, Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, takeover of airport security, the Patriot Act, etc. No way could "success" have led to all that. Consider hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as another example. The government would have "looked like heroes" if FEMA would have responded quickly and effectively. Instead they "failed" and got a $10 billion increase.
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Last edited by TruthSeeker1234; 29th October 2006 at 08:34 AM.

30th October 2006, 01:55 AM	#49
Nero Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 145	Originally Posted by Oliver So it is true that Major is a chairperson for Carlyle? John Major became a member of the Carlyle Group’s European Advisory Board in 1998, and was appointed Chairman of Carlyle Europe in May 2001, standing down in August 2004. Note of caution, the above info is from Wikipedia, but I have no reason to doubt it And not a word from Geggy, re little "mistake". Nero
Nero Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 145

30th October 2006, 06:02 AM	#50
Larry Lovage Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 220	Sorry, is Carlyle Group some kind of new Bilderberg? In addition to the signficant economic worries, the entire logic of the conspiracy theory behind 9/11 falls down on the basic origin of it. I saw a new film called Oil Smoke and Mirrors which starts off as an interesting examination of the possibility of Peak Oil - ie that we've found and extracted the maximum amount of oil from the Earth, and that the amount of oil available for use will start declining. Then at roughly the half way point the movie says, It is universally accepted by the mainstream media that the War against Terror is a battle between rational Secularism and religious extremism. fade out fade in There are other views, however. However interesting the various talking heads were up to that point, immediately my BS meter went off. Because only CT-inspired documentaries make baseless statements as an article of faith like this. And the leading Peak Oil proponent started talking about his suspicions about 9/11. His theory, however - that in order to gain control of Iraq's substantial oil fields before all the oil ran out, America staged the 9/11 terrorist attack and then used that as a pretext to invade - suddenly made you doubt the value of his Peak Oil research. I haven't seen the film further than his assertion that six of the 19 hijackers "are still alive and well". So does everything he says come straight off Internet conspiracy sites? Because I believed in Peak Oil! But my point is this: America gave Saddam arms and supported him in his war against Iran. If it's the oil they wanted, then they would have remained friends with him. As it is, for the second time in two decades they destroyed or forced the destruction of millions of barrels of the very stuff they were trying to save, replaced a tyrranical but secular and stable government, with an unstable system fundamentally undermined by religious differences, the end result of which could easily mean the loss of all oil input from that region altogether! It's so facile to claim that because the oil price went up, then oil barons automatically become richer. Every thing that has happened - 9/11 itself, the Iraq war and finally the sheer increase in usage of fossil fuels will do nothing except put the price of oil up. And it's a sad fact, but it's true - that no American politician expects to keep his office if he puts the price of petrol up. The Bushes did not become Presidents and governers to do stupid things to put the price of oil up and "increase their profits" (push their customers into Prius cars is all that that has achieved). They essentially became oil barons in order to become Presidents and Governers.
Larry Lovage Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 220

28th October 2006, 04:39 PM	#41
PerryLogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In the earth's deep core Posts: 980	The LIHOP theory just falls apart from any angle. I would cite the fact that, when they told him the news, Bush sat there stunned. There you go. If Bush or his people had known the attacks were coming, they'd have been prepared. They would have prepped their guy so as to make him look good--not lame. Incompetence clearly provides the best explanation for 9/11.

28th October 2006, 04:49 PM	#42
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Coming from my background in the medical profession, I wish to ask if the following comparison is fair. Once a drug has been around for a while, its patent runs out, and it is then picked up by a mass producing "Generic" firm, which then makes the drug for next to nothing and sells it for a little more. Is the same true of military expendature on old technology. I mean how much profit do the defense contractors make off mass producing the same old cheap guns and weaponry used in the Iraq war, compared with, lets say, the amount they could make off the development, production, and then selling of new, intelligent weaponry??? TAM

29th October 2006, 05:33 AM	#43
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Nero * John Major was the British Prime Minister who lost his postion to Tony Blair in 1997 (Note four years prior to 911) * You stated that Tony Blair was/is a chairperson for the Caryle Group (WRONG), and was able to gain some personal benefit from 911. So it is true that Major is a chairperson for Carlyle?

29th October 2006, 06:14 AM	#44
cloudshipsrule Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,171	Quote: What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment? Show me a government that has no corruption! I think the system checks and balances put in place by those (James Madison, et al) who drafted documents like the Federalist Papers and the constitution help keep the level of corruption in the US government low compared to the VAST majority of governments in the world. Not to say I don't think there are greedy bastards elected-in-place that look out for themselves more than their country, but I think given a different system, the level of corruption would be much worse.

29th October 2006, 07:41 AM	#45
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Abooga What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment? Maybe I should start a poll about this. Or is it too much of a hot potato issue? I started a thread about the corruption conspiracy: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66763

29th October 2006, 08:40 AM	#48
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Perry, you're thinking like a normal person. Politicians are not normal people. The government benefited far more from Pearl Harbor, and from 9/11, than they ever would have if either attack would have been "defended". The politicians do not want to "look like heroes". They want to expand their power, and increase the amount of wealth extracted from the productive citizens. "Failure" is always much better at accomplishing these goals than is "success". 9/11 led to Afghanistan, Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, takeover of airport security, the Patriot Act, etc. No way could "success" have led to all that. Consider hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as another example. The government would have "looked like heroes" if FEMA would have responded quickly and effectively. Instead they "failed" and got a $10 billion increase. Really? from this very thread. Quote: Geggy have you any idea how much the attacks of 911 cost the US? No neither have many people but it is extremely high. The World TRADE centers were destroyed, they housed many financial institutes. Entire networks that were in place to do business transactions were wiped out. The airlines were grounded for days and airline transport was disrupted for many months to come. The stock market and financial markets nose dived, wiping millions off share values. Depending on where you read some people put the cost of the actual attack as high as $95bn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...786326,00.html http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_m...D50011,00.html Add to this cost of the Afghanistan Champaign, the Iraq war and improvements in homeland security. This as been put at $386 billion since 2001. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf Do you honestly see revenue from an oil pipe line matching this? Some shady military deal raking it all back in. It has cost the US close to $500 billion. Can you show me the end result of all this expenditure please? Show me this masive revenue the US has gained by the investment of $500 billion. This is just the US; heaven only knows how high the figure would be if you were to look at the losses suffered by Americas allies as well. Show me the return TS.