Reply With Quote
Props for being the first one with an alternative theory.
It is reasonable, and indeed well-do ented in official papers, as well as in readily available non-fiction books by people like Bob Woodward, that the neoconservative movement was angling for an invasion of Iraq well before Bush entered the White House for various geopolitical and strategic reasons, that they realized that such an attack would be unsupportable absent an acute causus belli, that several key figures from the neoconservative movement ended up in the Bush Administration up to and including the Vice President, that the U.S. government all but ignored Al-Qaeda during Bush's first eight months in office, and that when 9/11 happened the key figures decided it was as close to a causus belli against Iraq as they were going to get.
It didn't fit into their plans all that great, since the attackers were not Iraqis, and were part of a terrorist organization that was opposed to the secular government of Saddam Hussein, but they were Arab Muslims, and Americans were angry and looking for retribution, so it was close enough.
Props for being the first one with an alternative theory.
The one thing I do appreciate is your sense of humor.
The difference between you and others is your motivation. You have a general distrust for authority, especially when that authority has shown itself to be corrupt. You are open to the idea that they are capable of anything.
That is not a bad thing.
You are intellectually curious, have real questions, and are looking for answers. You don't necessarily have the background to answer them yourself.
Neither is that a bad thing.
I don't even get too irritated with mouse's posts, since he obviously is just screwing around with everyone. He does these really elaborate gags over a long period of time to get a rise out of people, for example, his whole "Mavs Fan" routine which lasted several years. "9/11 Truther" is just another character.
Where I get indignant is where a dishonest person tries to manipulate the curiosity of a non-technical layman by copying and pasting a whole bunch of pseudo-scientific bull that can trick the layman into thinking there is something to the conspiracy theory. It is so obviously bull to someone who has a technical background, yet I see how easily it can deceive somebody who doesn't deal with these concepts all the time.
It gets ridiculous when the same con man asks questions about why certain "evidence" is missing, when that is evidence is not in fact missing, and can be located with five minutes of research at most.
So eventually, it gets kind of old posting the same debunking over and over again from the same basic principles over and over again, as the same bull artist flings a few more strands of spaghetti against the wall to see if they stick, crossing his fingers hoping he can stir up confusion, and I just have to call a spade a spade: Nbadan is a liar.
He is not unique in being a liar; the tactics of the 9/11 Truther are very similar to that of the creation scientist. They both spew pseudo-science. They both appeal primarily to the non-technical person. They both prey on preconceived notions of what people want to believe. They both are motivated by ideology and don't really care about the facts, because swaying people to their ideology is the higher purpose.
The admin's enemies are instability, and threats to American supremacy.
Yes, they really believed they could go into Iraq and fashion a democracy that would cause peace and democracy to spread throughout the Middle East. The neocon idea was that the Middle East was the greatest remaining source of instability on the globe, and that American might could change that.
Bush did not really want to go into Afghanistan. Tony Blair convinced him that since the Taliban were harboring Osama bin Laden, who after all was the one responsible for the terrorist attacks, that they should be first in line.
And, there were some, who, say, used to be CEO's of particular corporations, that saw a way to make a lot of money regardless of how things panned out.
It is astounding how simple this is, and how hard it is for the CTers to grasp.
If you don't mind, I will shamelessly copy and paste this. heh, it will save me from having to re-type something similar.
See the thing is that when you even get close to cornering CTers on their bull-puckey, they will squirm and resort to ad hominem, then complain that you are "setting the rules of the debate" by not letting them get out of answering honest questions. If that doesn't work they simply pooh-pooh the questions and THEN go on and post pages of copied and pasted conspiracy crap.
Their goal is NOT to find the truth, but to spread the word of their religion to as many potential converts as possible.
Once you understant THAT, their actions and words make a lot more sense.
Absent any real theories backed by the use of the scientific method, the 'official' 911 story is nothing but a conspiracy theory. What gets me is that I've seen this type of 'sheeple' behavior too many times before, especially when it concerned the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein before Gulf War 2. Almost all the posters who believed the administration’s claims then about the Iraqi immanent threat, Al-Queda links, and WMDs are falling into the non-CT group today, save maybe one or two new clones.
And like in pre-Iraq war 2003, when they were calling me a conspiracy theorist for claiming that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD capacity, was not a immanent threat to the U.S., and had no verifiable Al-Queda links, all which we know are true now, I am confident that eventually in time the truth regarding 911 will come out and I will be proven right again. And then like now, the posters who were calling me a conspiracy theorist for being right about doubting the official story of 911, will simply disappear, regulate themselves to the club again, or simply change their screen names once more to protect their gullibility.
Oh, and one last thing, debating should be about building coalitions based on the ideas that you are presenting and the way they are presented. Claiming some sort of premature ideological victory before anything is presented, or trying to form generalizations about your opponenets in order to catagorize them as weak-minded, or whichever sub-group makes you feel intellectually superior, actually says more about you than it does about them.
This from a poster who characterizes those who disagree with him as "sheeple."
Forget all the Bush bashing, and Tin foil for one second, what is a person out of curiosity wanted to ask a question about 9/11, what kind of response would he, or she, get in this topic?
So you actually had a theory back then.And like in pre-Iraq war 2003, when they were calling me a conspiracy theorist for claiming that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD capacity, was not a immanent threat to the U.S., and had no verifiable Al-Queda links
Bravo.
As someone who claimed the exact same thing and was proven just as right with regards to Saddam, I ask you once again what you think really happened. You will never convince anyone of your opinion/theory/viewpoint if you never actually state it. You did with Saddam, why can't you now?
Would you like a link to the thread for full alternative 9/11 theories?
Sincerely,
a "new" clone
A rare moment of honesty.
Puh-lease. There is a big difference between asking honest questions about 9-11, and simply using confirmation bias to see only the things that re-inforce your preconceived notions.
I urge anybody to read the link above. It is a good way to get some perspective on the "truth" movement.
If anyone truly believes that this administration would not go to any lengths to get thier war they are lying to themselves.
Another brainless partisan lets his guard down.
Bush and Cheney must have done it because you believe they would go to any lengths to start a war, including killing thousands of innocent Americans in New York and Washington.
Corroborating evidence is unnecessary; you take it as a matter of faith.
It's not enough to say they manipulated the public's reaction to the attacks to sell their war, because that is just not quite evil enough.
bumpski
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
