|
Post by 3onthetree on Feb 1, 2007 23:12:09 GMT -4
I don't know why I'm bothering but maybe just maybe they didn't want to discover canisters with made in the USA written all over the damn things. Maybe just maybe they would have been smart enough to repackage them. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it as a response. If they could carry out a huge evidence plant at the Pentagon, complete with DNA-matching mutilated remains, large chunks of engine, and bits complete with serial numbers, then they can probably manage to create a convincing "Iraqi chemical weapons program" of equal verisimilitude. I'm not sure why you bothered either. It doesn't matter about the packaging, the canisters were merely a metaphor, the fact is that just about all of Saddam's WMD's could be traced back to their point of origin, that'd be embarrassing wouldn't it. What's this about serial numbers, have they cross checked any 911 aircraft debris serial numbers against maintenance logs?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 2, 2007 2:17:50 GMT -4
If 9/11 really was a staged event to pave the way for the New World Order, then the total lack of WMDs in Iraq really undid a lot of the ‘good work’ that the conspirators strove so hard for. Think about it – if some WMDs had been found, then TPTB would be able to keep everyone in fear for many years by insinuating that they couldn’t be sure that all the weapons had been found – so you’d better play along with our plan, because Osama is out there somewhere hugging a big drum of sarin and laughing maniacally. It would have given them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted to. And yet, the opposite has happened – no WMDs, embarrassment for the architects of the war, and growing distrust amongst the people. So, given that planting WMDs would be much, much easier than faking the Pentagon debris, why wasn’t this done? This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to respond. Why wasn't it done? For the most obvious of reasons - they understood that, by this stage, it simply wouldn't need to be done. It was not going to prevent the continuation of their "project", and they knew that very well beforehand. 9/11 was planned and implemented to create a never-ending "War On Terror". The ideal war, if you happen to be a deranged megalomaniac, bent on global domination through acts of purely unprovoked aggression against foreign nations. And it also allows you to reform your own country - Homeland Security can gradually outlaw the freedoms of citizens to protect the nation from terrorism. Tighten the screws as you deem fit - another 9/11 would do the trick quite nicely. Terrorists are faceless enemies. They have no country of their own, but they are in every country. They could be anywhere - your neighbor could be one. Many nations also have been "proven" (by our government, of course) to "harbor" terrorists. These countries have been labelled "rogue" states, and are fair game to be attacked and conquered. They are later slated for "democratization", under the control and direction of the conquerers. Did WMD's need to be planted? No. It made for a great excuse (Excuse #1) to pound Iraq into submission and then search for the secretly hidden WMD's. By that time, it's purpose had already been achieved - Iraq was under our control. So while it gradually became very clear that the WMD's had somehow "disappeared", they redirected their focus into Excuse #2 - a hunt for Saddam - the evil tyrant who murdered incubator babies. Once he's scooped out of his hole, many people think it's "mission accomplished!". HOORAY! Our boys can come home now! Well, not really. Excuse #2 is toast, but now comes Excuse #3... The country is without a government, it's chaos and confusion. We can't leave now. We have to stay for as long as it takes to make this a democracy, American-style. We have to make this a safe place to live again. (Even though it's already safer than when we were just dropping bombs on them.) Let's pretend that they did plant WMD's and "found" them later on. What would have changed? Well, they wouldn't have needed to use the "Saddam" excuse, I must concede. But that really doesn't make phony WMD's a necessity. Enough people bought the Saddam excuse, anyway. We'd still be occupying Iraq, to rebuild the infrastructure, and to create a free, "democratic" Iraq (Excuse #3 would have become Excuse #2). Lying about WMD's didn't change anything. Some of the mass media sources cry foul. Some say it was wrong, but regretfully concede "We can't leave now. Not until we tidy up the mess we created, and turn it into a free democracy". A few scribes do say that we must immediately vacate the premises, but they are outnumbered by the group that advocates tidying up first. The war itself was a blatant violation of laws both domestic and international. Finding WMD's (planted or genuine) would not have changed that fact. It may have helped to "justify" the attack for some people. But so did the Saddam excuse. _____________________________________________________ 9/11, meanwhile, still remains their "ace up the sleeve". It can be played at any time, at any place. Fiendishly clever fanatics chopped America down to size. They can do it again, at any time, anywhere, and it could be tenfold more catastrophic than 9/11. And they didn't need to plant WMD's to keep on spewing this fable.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Feb 2, 2007 2:28:29 GMT -4
So plummeting approval ratings are all part of the plan for world domination, is that it?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 2, 2007 2:37:39 GMT -4
So plummeting approval ratings are all part of the plan for world domination, is that it? Irrelevant. Bush and his cronies wii be out of office soon. The "War On Terror" shall continue, ad infinitum - with the next stooge in office, and the next, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Feb 2, 2007 2:54:03 GMT -4
It doesn't matter about the packaging, the canisters were merely a metaphor, the fact is that just about all of Saddam's WMD's could be traced back to their point of origin, that'd be embarrassing wouldn't it. How would you trace a substance in an unmarked container? What method would you use to determine the origin of a sample of methylphosphonyl difluoride? Or even simpler precursors like phosgene or sodium fluoride? If TPTB wanted to plant evidence, they could do so in a way that would not be traceable back to US WMD stocks, it really isn't that difficult. You can't tell me that they could fake 757 debris complete with DNA samples but couldn't fake a covert WMD program. It wouldn't have to be industrial scale, a one-room lab could produce enough sarin in a week to kill tens of thousands of people. Again, let me point out how useful this would have been to the conspiracy. So why didn't they do it? What's this about serial numbers, have they cross checked any 911 aircraft debris serial numbers against maintenance logs? As I understand it, there was a partial reconstruction done in a warehouse, and the serial numbers were logged. I recall reading a thread on JREF that quoted an FBI spokeman saying this. Of course, it now occurs to me that saying that the FBI has the serial numbers isn't going to help, really, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Feb 2, 2007 3:08:13 GMT -4
Let's pretend that they did plant WMD's and "found" them later on. What would have changed? Well, they wouldn't have needed to use the "Saddam" excuse, I must concede. But that really doesn't make phony WMD's a necessity. Enough people bought the Saddam excuse, anyway. We'd still be occupying Iraq, to rebuild the infrastructure, and to create a free, "democratic" Iraq (Excuse #3 would have become Excuse #2). Lying about WMD's didn't change anything. Some of the mass media sources cry foul. Some say it was wrong, but regretfully concede "We can't leave now. Not until we tidy up the mess we created, and turn it into a free democracy". A few scribes do say that we must immediately vacate the premises, but they are outnumbered by the group that advocates tidying up first. I completely disagree with this. The lack of WMDs is very relevant, for the reason I stated - if any had been 'found', then the implication that there were more out there unaccounted for could be used to prop up support for the war in Iraq almost indefinitely. Claiming that the lack of WMDs didn't change anything is disingenuous at best. It has caused large numbers of people to question what they were told by the authorities, which is the last thing any self respecting global conspiracy would want to allow. You say that it's 'irrelevant' because Bush will not be in power for much longer. Excuse me? I thought that the Conspiracy was bigger than any administration. The New World Order still needs to have a hold on people's fears regardless of which figurehead is in the Whitehouse, surely?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 2, 2007 4:15:30 GMT -4
I completely disagree with this. The lack of WMDs is very relevant, for the reason I stated - if any had been 'found', then the implication that there were more out there unaccounted for could be used to prop up support for the war in Iraq almost indefinitely. The war doesn't need WMD's as an excuse to continue on and on. Nor does it need Saddam. Since his capture, the "insurgents" have provided us with an enemy to fight, and has gone on for over three years now, with absolutely no end in sight. Claiming that the lack of WMDs didn't change anything is disingenuous at best. It has caused large numbers of people to question what they were told by the authorities, which is the last thing any self respecting global conspiracy would want to allow. They still blame it on "faulty intelligence", not deliberate lies. Some people buy that rubbish, some don't. But as long as enough kids buy it, recruiters will be able to meet their enlistment quotas. And what about our current troops, in Iraq or elsewhere? How many have gone AWOL, or resigned, or refused to report, specifically because they believe they were lied to about WMD's? I haven't heard of anyone. WMD's weren't found, but Saddam was turfed. Bin Laden wasn't found, but the Taliban were turfed. And if we attack Iran, nukes won't be found, but another deranged fanatic will be turfed. Why worry about lying when enough people still believe you to "keep on fightin' for your country"? What would soldiers in Iraq say to you? That they're over there to defend our country, to establish peace, or something along those lines. Not finding WMD's doesn't matter to them. If you tell them they were lied to about WMD's, do you think any of them will go AWOL, or resign, or refuse to report for duty? You say that it's 'irrelevant' because Bush will not be in power for much longer. Excuse me? I thought that the Conspiracy was bigger than any administration. The New World Order still needs to have a hold on people's fears regardless of which figurehead is in the Whitehouse, surely? You miss my point. I said the War On Terror shall still continue, regardless of Bush leaving. What's irrelevant are the "plummeting approval ratings" you implied that I considered to be "part of the plan for world domination".
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 2, 2007 5:22:52 GMT -4
They're not meeting their enlistment quotas and haven't been for years. It doesn't take much research to find that out.
The longer this goes on, the harder it will be for them to meet their quotas. My boyfriend, who might reasonably have reenlisted had it not been for the illegal nature of the war, will not be doing so.
And, in fact, there is someone--an officer--who is very publicly refusing to serve. However, the court is very publicly refusing to hear arguments on the legality of the war, presumably because they'd lose the case if they did. (Actually, he spoke at a college a mile or less away from me last night.)
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 2, 2007 11:05:47 GMT -4
Thanks turbonium
You made some good points. I hope you post more stuff on this thread. I'm a bit busy now and I can't post as often as I want to.
david Rocky
(I had to open a new account because my old one was having "Technical problems" and I wasn't able to post anything about half the time.)
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 2, 2007 11:19:16 GMT -4
Alright Rocky, you like videos? Well, here's one for you to watch, since you apparently have time for hours of other videos (considering the number of videos you've provided, I assume you've watched all of them). (warning: coarse language. If this violates forum rules, Mods let me know.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVTKoPK7gaQ&NRObjective? No. But as mentioned before, objectivity isn't the real issue. It's simply having a realistic view of the world. Indeed, it seems that for 9/11 CTers, it just isn't satisfying that something crude and small like an act of terrorism can have such a large impact on a nation like the United States. It's not like it's a new thing! There have been many terrorist acts in the past committed against America. Do CTers just ignore all this when it comes to 9/11? Does it not occur to them that the acts would get bigger and bigger, with the big plan to be to attack the WTCs and the Pentagon?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 2, 2007 12:07:47 GMT -4
They do have a way of putting things, direct, blunt, and so true. We have waded through countless hours of CT videos so I would hope they give this a look. (hey...objectivity...) Of note, watch the collapses. Note how NOTHING goes up and out in the debris plume. It is the building collapse that is pulling the dust plume down in the center. But you don't see that in a still shot, which this point always uses as visual evidence. Also, the video of the firse collapse, note the dust plume oriented strongly in the camera's direction. The top of the building fell over, and the collapse was far from "symmetrical". Thanks GL...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 2, 2007 12:15:53 GMT -4
Turbonium, you're a fool. And much as you would like to think so, President Bush is not. If 9/11 had been staged as part of a "master plan" then WMD evidence would have been found in Iraq. The possibility of exposure of fake WMD evidence is much, much more remote than uncovering evidence that 9/11 was staged. Any administration willing to stage the incredibly risky 9/11 (especially with one of the byzantine plots favored by hoax believers) would have had an easy time faking WMD evidence in Iraq. It would have drasticly improved the image of the War on Terror and the President and made an ongoing conflict, which you claim is the object, all the easier to maintain.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 2, 2007 13:03:03 GMT -4
So plummeting approval ratings are all part of the plan for world domination, is that it? Irrelevant. Bush and his cronies wii be out of office soon. The "War On Terror" shall continue, ad infinitum - with the next stooge in office, and the next, and so on. Oddly, I'm inclined to agree on this point. Don't get used to it, Turbonium, I disagree so much with most of what you say that I don't even read most of your posts. I read elsewhere, and links to military-related news articles are a big topic. The military is suffering greatly from a variety of equipment issues. Trucks and armor are short, and we're selling the old Humvees to the Iraqi police and military. The "surge" is going to require about 48,000 troops, total, since the 21K are just the front line troops. The others will "probably" be operating out of Kuwait, so they are not even part of the count - it's a numbers game. The "next stooge" is going to inherit the wars in Irag and Afghanistan, no doubt. The "taxandspendliberaldemocrats" will likely win, since Bush and Company have run the GOP's reputation into the ground, and even offended many of the Republicans. But you wouldn't want to play chess without taking turns, would you? Game playing requires turn taking. That way you can get the joy of forcing your opponents to do things that benefit you. Like raising taxes to fix the economy, enlarging the military, maybe even starting a draft, all in the name of not being "weak on terror." I expect that we will get hit with terrorism on our own soil again before 2010, and the president will "have to" respond.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 2, 2007 13:06:20 GMT -4
That said, I still don't think the court-appointed president or his team had anything to do with 9/11, other than having a plan already in place to take advantage of it. The neocon plan only required the actions we've seen in Iraq. Afghanistan was just a side issue.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Feb 2, 2007 13:44:39 GMT -4
So plummeting approval ratings are all part of the plan for world domination, is that it? Irrelevant. Bush and his cronies wii be out of office soon. The "War On Terror" shall continue, ad infinitum - with the next stooge in office, and the next, and so on. So the entirety of the Big Bad US Government (tm) is in cahoots to take over the world through this manufactured "War on Terror"? I think I'd like to see some evidence of this. On second thought, no, I wouldn't. It's all a moot point, anyway, because it relies on your supposition that the Big Bad US Government orchestrated the events of 9/11, a hypothesis which is completely unsupported. Before you start speculating about motive, it would certainly be prudent to support the basis of your argument.
|
|