Hey, thanks for merging the threads, Glenn. And thanks to Thomas for all of those great links!
Frankly, I didn't find the Snopes link very convincing. First of all, they are relying on Rumsfield's statements to make their case? Oh, please!! Now there's a fair and impartial source.
And here's a comment in the Snopes link about those of us who believe there was, indeed, a conspiracy with respect to the events of 9/11:
"This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."
I don't know of anyone who is "happy" about the fact that we have a bunch of Nazis who strong-armed their way into a presidency that wasn't earned, who created a major catastrophe so that many, many American lives were lost, who were immediately hell-bent on shredding the constitution and throwing away our freedoms, who then declared war on other parts of the world, who have alienated us from the rest of the world, and who are not only a menace to the American people but to the world at large--all so that they can make a lot of money. How is
that supposed to make any of us "happy"???
When Bush first stole the election right before our very eyes, I was in absolute shock. I couldn't believe he was getting away with that. I mean, it's not like our country hasn't rigged elections in other countries before, but it was certainly the first time I had ever seen it happen in this country. I had a neighbor at the time who was 80 years old, and the two of us used to talk about the political situation in the U.S. We couldn't get over the fact that the Bush Administration seemed so confident and cocky, and how fast they were moving once in office. However, the more Bush spoke in front of the cameras (without a prepared speech), the more the public began to view him as a complete dufus. His ratings dropped dramatically. Also, facts were surfacing about the fact that Bush did not really win the election after all. Then 9/11 happened, and everything changed. He stepped forward as the puppet of his father's old regime, appearing to be some type of "leader" at a time of crisis. My neighbor had fought in WWII and had lived through the first McCarthy era. It was appalling how all of the freedoms that so many men and women gave life and limb for were being arbitrarily tossed aside by Bush & Co., as though they had no meaning at all. Then we watched in horror as Ashcroft immediately put through the U.S. Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc., and even tried to implement Operation TIPS. The New McCarthyism had emerged in this country, and it's been growing ever since.
When 9/11 happened, the first question I asked myself was the same question I would ask with any crime that has been committed: Who stands to benefit the most? Osama? Yes, somewhat. Bush & Co.? Absolutely, and more than anyone else. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that something like this has been used to further one party's agenda. Believe me, I wish I was wrong and that someone would come along and prove me wrong, but so far that hasn't happened. Quite the contrary. The more information that is revealed about Bush and 9/11, the more I am convinced that the men who surround him, in concert with others, were somehow responsible for that tragedy. I don't think Bush himself was responsible, as he's too stupid. But I definitely think the men who surround him were involved. Sometimes I think that maybe it was just a "happy accident" in their eyes and that they had nothing to do with it. But then I look at the facts again, and that just doesn't fit. There's something very disturbing about all of this.
At first I thought I was maybe jumping to conclusions because I was reading Robert Ludlum's
The Prometheus Deception when 9/11 occurred. Anthrax attacks, etc. But the reality is far worse and much more frightening than any piece of fiction. :eek2:
The other night while researching information on Hitler for another thread, I stumbled upon this bit of info.:
After Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933, he moved quickly to turn Germany into a one-party dictatorship and to organize the police power necessary to enforce Nazi policies. He persuaded his Cabinet to declare a state of emergency and end individual freedoms, including freedom of press, speech, and assembly. Individuals lost the right to privacy, which meant that officials could read people's mail, listen in on telephone conversations, and search private homes without a warrant. Hitler also relied on terror to achieve his goals.
Gee, sound familiar? :eek2:
With respect to the "Pentagon Strike" video, I agree that the words flash across the screen a little too quickly. In fact, I have had to watch it a few times in order to read all of it. I even clicked on the "Website" button on the bottom righthand corner of the screen in one shot, which brought up this page:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm
Here are some quotes from that site:
According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the above described "smart missile guidance system."
The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 ?C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft.
Well, if that's the official story, then why is it that metal reinforcing inside the Pentagon didn't melt? You can see from the pictures of the inside, there's all kinds of metal hanging from the ceiling and on the floor. And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down? It just doesn't add up.
As it happens, a correspondent had an interesting encounter on a train. In his own words:
"I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man's story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact."
"He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn't id the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall)."
Or it could have been "launched" by another plane.
And we come back to the idea that it is extremely likely that a plane that had onboard smart missile guidance system that can literally turn corners and hit the target with such precision that it is amazing was used.
And we consider this carefully and the only answer that presents itself as obvious is that of the necessity for precision.
And theorizing that precision was a major concern - precision of the type that can hit an exact window on a designated floor and do an exact and designated amount of damage - we realize that LIMITING the damage to a specific and pre-designated area was the major concern.
... you can be assured that hitting the Pentagon would very likely be seen as essential to divert attention AWAY from individuals within our own military organizations as possible conspirators. Once you have a good handle on the disinformation and COINTELPRO machines, you will understand why a strike against the Pentagon was important not only for the ALIBI, but for the EMOTIONAL IMPACT on the public. After all, if the buildings that represent not only our status in the world, but also our ability to maintain that status - i.e. our military organization - are hit by terrorists, then the emotional reaction of the people will naturally be that we not only have a right to strike back with all our power, but also that we MUST. They will also not look at the possibility of a "home conspiracy" because - after all - the Pentagon WAS a target, right?!
The information on that page was very good. However, whenever I followed some of the links provided in that story, it led me to some information that was pretty "out there," in my opinion, and I didn't care for all of the information. There are true conspiracies that do take place, and then there are conspiracies that paranoid people seem to invent. And some of those links led to the latter, IMO. I think some of it was what Bossel had referred to, such as New World Order, etc.
As I read some of that stuff, all I could think was, Hmmm ... somebody hasn't been taking their medication! I mean, that stuff was really "out there!" :eek2:
But I absolutely loved the links Thomas provided, especially the last one. I spent an entire evening reading those. And here is the question asked in the last link, and that I still ask myself today:
AND, the question is.... The automatic response to all this goes to the fate of the actual aircraft & occupants ? the real mystery, in all this. Raw guestimation is the only response available, for the moment. The planes and occupants are gone; in some fashion. Did the aircraft actually take off? Who can be certain? If they did, where did they go? What of the people?
Seriously, what happened to all of the people who boarded Flight 77? Where did they and their plane go? While I don't believe it crashed into the Pentagon, I would sure as hell like to know where it did go. :eek2: Anyone else have any ideas or thoughts on this matter? Or do most or all of you believe that there was no conspiracy or coverup at all?
Also, in one of the links Thomas provided, it mentioned the possibility that there were detonations set off in the bottom of the WTC towers. That was my first feeling when I watched those towers collapse. Many years ago, I witnessed a controlled demolition of a downtown building. Explosives were planted in the basement, and the area was roped off for about two blocks. If done properlly, the building will collapse, one layer at a time. If not, bricks and debris can fly outwards for quite a distance, injuring anyone nearby. The way the twin towers collapsed was exactly like a controlled, detonated demolition properly done. Afterwards, I was told that they collapsed due to the heat from the fuel of the planes and that the steel melted from the heat, so I scrapped that idea, thinking, Well, what do I know? I'm certainly no expert. But then when I was reading one of those links, it talked about the very thing I originally suspected! Hmmm ...
:souka:
