911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

Also, 'happy' and 'prepared' are not interchangeable in this context. It would be similar to a woman being 'prepared' to have an abortion. But would never be 'happy' about it.

Sorry, missed this earlier.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/happy

Note entry number 2. In the context of my point happy/prepared/willing are all appropriate terms. They'd also be appropriate discussing an unwanted abortion.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Well I must say that some of points raised have been thought provoking and made me do some research on some of it.
While there have been some good arguments put forward, I still think it was a terrorist attack.
There may have been some cover-ups, more due to the state of readiness to deal with such a horrific event and the ineptness before and after such an event, imo. But as I said, thought provoking.

I wonder how much the war (or both wars) have cost to date in lives lost and financially. Big cost, not much return. Not sure whether $1 trillion is so relevant or was it to stop the Chinese "industrial expansion"

Reuters puts the cost at between $3.7 and $4.4 trillion (the Whitehouse has it at $1.3trillion) We'll never know the full cost in lives I suspect.

 

[Rosy]

Fair enough. I'm amazed that some of the facts I've posted could have that effect on you, but there you go.

At least you admit to not caring about getting a balanced viewpoint to form your opinion. Good on you for that.

I don't necessarily think, and going by others comments I'm not alone, that your "facts" are as balanced as you suggest.

 

[Willo]

Reuters puts the cost at between $3.7 and $4.4 trillion (the Whitehouse has it at $1.3trillion) We'll never know the full cost in lives I suspect.

Thanks for that Knighters, I found another estimate and modified my post above.

Yeah, who knows mate? Certainly could also be the US wouldn't have been too happy to have Afghanistan as the new Saudi Arabia.

Here's a good article including compelling evidence that the US deliberately invented events and suppressed evidence regarding the supposed attack on US warships by North Vietnamese torpedo boats - otherwise known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964). The US, under Lyndon Johnson, used this as a platform to invade Vietnam, an action which eventually cost millions of innocent people their lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics/02tonkin.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&

Surely since then Senate Oversight Committees have evolved, whether they get all the facts is another thing.

 

[Disco08]

I don't necessarily think, and going by others comments I'm not alone, that your "facts" are as balanced as you suggest.

Facts are facts. It's the way they're interpreted that is open to being unbalanced.

Are you saying you think I've been dishonest in the way I've presented them?

 

[Disco08]

Surely since then Senate Oversight Committees have evolved, whether they get all the facts is another thing.

Sorry, not sure what you mean here mate.

 

[Willo]

Sorry, not sure what you mean here mate.

50 years after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, you'd imagine that the Senate Oversight Committee for Intelligence would be across such ploys these days. That is, if they have all the facts presented to them.
See USSSCI here

Probably not fool proof but might have some relevance.

 

[Disco08]

Yeah for sure. I tried to find something on the 2002/03 controversy mentioned on that page but no luck. Any ideas?

 

[AngryAnt]

2. "Grainy videos and nutty attention seekers"? This clearly shows the irrationality and incredulity that hinders any real discourse in search of 9/11 truth.

Let me try and explain something to all of you who are so scornful of people questioning the OR. An event the magnitude on 9/11 absolutely demands the most thorough, truthful and transparent inqury. The 9/11 commission was so far from that that even its own co-chairmen complained about the process and restrictions placed upon them. Not only that but the report that was tabled has been questioned by thousands of experts in numerous fields. This doesn't mean they're nutty attention seekers. It means that they've read something so plainly wrong in their opinion that they've been compelled to register objection. It also doesn't mean that they believe in or profess to have knowledge of a wider US government conspiracy. What they are saying by raising their concerns is that the 9/11 commission report is erroneous in the specific area they are referring to. The obvious upshot of this is that where error exists it needs to be corrected. This is where the call for a proper inquiry is born, not from baseless conjecture about a broader conspiracy. Yes there are people insisting a conspiracy exists who base that on some far out theories. There are also those who distort the truth to suit their agenda. That doesn't however represent the majority of people who actively support a proper inquiry, which is something I think a few of you need to keep in mind.

Incredulity is good word for much of this thread.

Let me ask you this Disco - what is your opinion of the Moon Landing conspiracy theories?

 

[Disco08]

Not sure of the exact theories, but reckon the event was probably a hoax mate. Not that concerned though.

Any thoughts on my post at all?

 

[scottyturnerscurse]

$1 trillion worth of deposits is quite significant. I didn't read the links to all the uncovered documents but it's an interesting angle I'd never come accross. Good on wikileaks for digging it up.

And how's that going? Not a single US company has bid on any mining project in Afghanistan. The Chinese, Indians, Turks and a Canadian firm have got them all. Also, no-one has extracted anything significant because, surprise surprise, it's not cost-effective. The Russians knew this. It's all their surveying that showed what was under the ground. They didn't touch it. Wasn't worth the effort.

Anyway, I might head back to the Post thread.

 

[Disco08]

Cool. Thanks for dropping by. ;D

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If you're interested then ae911truth.org, st911.org, firefightersfor911truth.org and pilotsfor911truth.org are good places to start.

....and there's the rub. When people are looking for a balanced view you point them exclusively to truthers websites as good places to start.

That's like pointing someone who is interested in the evolution/ID debate to AiG.

 

[tigertim]

And how's that going? Not a single US company has bid on any mining project in Afghanistan. The Chinese, Indians, Turks and a Canadian firm have got them all. Also, no-one has extracted anything significant because, surprise surprise, it's not cost-effective. The Russians knew this. It's all their surveying that showed what was under the ground. They didn't touch it. Wasn't worth the effort.

Anyway, I might head back to the Post thread.

Humph, apologist! Get outta here! ;D

 

[Disco08]

....and there's the rub. When people are looking for a balanced view you point them exclusively to truthers websites as good places to start.

That's like pointing someone who is interested in the evolution/ID debate to AiG.

No it's not.

Rosy has obviously seen plenty of apologist material hence the suggestion of those sites for a bit of balance. They're also far from some of your typical conspiracy sites.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

No it's not.

Rosy has obviously seen plenty of apologist material hence the suggestion of those sites for a bit of balance. They're also far from some of your typical conspiracy sites.

In your opinion.

 

[Disco08]

Well no. Does AIG have thousands of credble experts backing their assertions?

If you mean the webpages perhaps you can say why they're just like other conspiracy sites.

Antman after a quick look I'm sold on the authenticity of the lunar landings.

 

[Rosy]

Rosy has obviously seen plenty of apologist material hence the suggestion of those sites for a bit of balance. They're also far from some of your typical conspiracy sites.

No I haven't really. Only what I've come across as a result of this thread. To me an apologist site I'd be interested in would give balance by including how some of the perceived facts they're challenging could be possible rather than think they have all the answers. Is that how the sites you linked to are different? If so I might check them out sometime. I have no interest in reading about lack of planes, pilot capabilities, grey windows or dead bodies. I read a statement yesterday where Boeing said the plane involved wasn't able to be flown remotely. Can't find it now unfortunately.

It seems to me some need to question for the sake of it and I don't see the benefit of that. The moon landing is another example. Next we'll be hearing the Govt blew up the shuttle...after all an undamaged journal and some live creatures survived it.

 

[tigersnake]

I've seen the film. Is the book that much more educational?

Bloody oath it is Disco, gets right into the nitty gritty, brilliant book.

 

[brigadiertiger]

So in the end we are all in agreeance it was a conspiracy. :whistle