snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Spook Central

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 19 March 2007, 09:18 PM
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Jay View Post
Opinion does not equal evidence. We are asking for evidence, not opinion...

None of your quotes contain direct criticisms of the content of the 9/11 report. It's funny that after posting the OP two days ago, all you can come up with is empty rhetoric. One would think that since you are so certain of government involvement in 9/11, you must be having reliable references ready
I already said it's not involvement, but -I think- looking the other way.

Can I provide evidence? How? I didn't post the OP because I agree with it, look at the thread title. My post was more of a "check this out." I haven't decided what I think, because I'd like to see more about it.

Why do I have to back up any of my opinions? I don't think the government orchestrated Sept. 11th, I'll say again, but I do think they could have prevented it. Tell me how I can prove that?

Quote:
None of your quotes contain direct criticisms of the content of the 9/11 report...
  • Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, said "There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11."[4]
  • In a 2004 article entitled, 'Whitewash as Public Service: How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation,' Harpers Magazine writer Benjamin DeMott stated, "The plain, sad reality I report this following four full days studying the work is that The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation . . . At the core of all these failures lies a deep wariness of earnest, well-informed public debate."[5]
  • The report did not include the testimony of Former CIA director George Tenet to the Commission in January of 2004 in which he said that in a July, 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda. Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton stated that they had not been told about the meeting. But the Boston Globe reported that "it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet."[10], [11]
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 26 March 2007, 10:23 PM
Wizywyg
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ana Ng View Post
Via ONTD, I saw this blog post from Rosie. I personally have always wondered about the collapse of WTC 7, which I know is not a popular opinion here. The post:





[/INDENT]I always get afraid for her that those harpies on The View are gonna kick her off for voicing her opinion...


sorry to jump in on this late, but Rosie is getting chastized by the media on this and so has Charlie Sheen.

Not to make you understand, but just to direct people to the reports that are already available for you to peruse, than to rely all of your information on those that are just being used as "mouthpieces" for a movement who claims to be looking for the truth, but have relied totally on lies


NIST : Preliminary Report WTC 7

There is nothing questionable about the Salomon Building Collapse once you get all your information. A good paper to put things into perspective is also this one:
WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 "Truth Movement"
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 26 March 2007, 10:43 PM
Ana Ng Ana Ng is offline
 
Join Date: 16 August 2000
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 14,351
Default

But again, I don't think the subject of what happened on Sept. 11th overall has been sufficiently independently investigated. I don't believe the government perpetrated the attacks. I do believe with a fair amount of certainty they could have been stopped. Whether it was just idiocy or deliberate failure to act, I don't know.

I've always thought the collapse of WTC 7 was weird but it's not my point. I posted Rosie's blog because I thought it was interesting that she'd said something so controversial and not-mainstream.

This current administration:
1.) Lied about foreknowledge of the impending devastation from Hurricane Katrina;
2.) Attempted to fake a connection to loose nukes to go to war;
3.) Deliberately outed a CIA agent, her cover company, her whole network of contacts, and jeopardized decades of groundwork for revenge;
4.) Attacked a country for no reason and subsequently lost over 3,000 American soldiers, the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis, plunged the entire region into worse turmoil, and ran our military into the ground.

Are these things related to Sept. 11th? Not necessarily. But I believe they show a pattern of irresponsibility and lack of concern for human life that don't make it too difficult for me to believe they bungled protecting us on that day.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 26 March 2007, 11:19 PM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ana Ng View Post
But again, I don't think the subject of what happened on Sept. 11th overall has been sufficiently independently investigated. I don't believe the government perpetrated the attacks. I do believe with a fair amount of certainty they could have been stopped. Whether it was just idiocy or deliberate failure to act, I don't know.

I've always thought the collapse of WTC 7 was weird but it's not my point. I posted Rosie's blog because I thought it was interesting that she'd said something so controversial and not-mainstream.

This current administration:
1.) Lied about foreknowledge of the impending devastation from Hurricane Katrina;
2.) Attempted to fake a connection to loose nukes to go to war;
3.) Deliberately outed a CIA agent, her cover company, her whole network of contacts, and jeopardized decades of groundwork for revenge;
4.) Attacked a country for no reason and subsequently lost over 3,000 American soldiers, the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis, plunged the entire region into worse turmoil, and ran our military into the ground.

Are these things related to Sept. 11th? Not necessarily. But I believe they show a pattern of irresponsibility and lack of concern for human life that don't make it too difficult for me to believe they bungled protecting us on that day.
One thing which joins all these events is that they are all essentially juvenile (ie: consisting of things my 5 year old would do - lies, confusing the issue, using unrelated events to justify getting their own way) and reactive (ie:they all happen after the event).

In order for the 9/11 events to be based on conspiracy there needs to be an element of planning and foresight - not a strong point if the Iraq reconstruction is any indicator.

Now as to the issue of whether there is a cover-up of a "failure to protect" I would agree that that is more consistent with the US adminstration's behaviour (and the UK and Australia for that matter) but again it requires an active decision to try and obfuscate and implement that obfuscation on a very broad scale. And it also requires some competence in doing so. Consider that the whole "they are importing uranium" story was pretty much blown within a few weeks of its disclosure. And it is pretty clear that there are and were no existing WMD (despite sad attempts to dress up old Iran-Iraq War munitions as 'proof').

In the end for me it comes down to Occam's razor - which is the simpler explanation - 1. that the building fell down for structural reasons because it was on fire and had been affected by a whacking great explosive force close by - or 2. that in the midst of the chaos and the madness that was that day, that a planned and concerted effort to bring down a specific building as launched and then very effectively covered up.

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 30 March 2007, 05:14 AM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Quote:
Why do I have to back up any of my opinions?
You don't, but until you do there is no reason to take them any more seriously then "I like beef" or "Dragons are real!" or "George Bush is a lizard monster" (100pts).

So you think the government could have stopped 9/11 but chose not to for.. Some reason.. Fine, great.. But without any proof, or honestly any real logical reasoning to "why" they would go to all that trouble and take that immense risk (not to mention the heartless destruction of thousands of lives) its a meaningless thought, nothing more.

You don't have to "prove" anything, if somebody could "prove" that "the government" was behind 9/11 in any way odds are they'd either be dead or be famous and have brought the current administration, most of the CIA and FBI and thousands of other participents in the plan to their knees and thrown in jail.. Since your obviously not dead, and the latter has not happened, I do not expect "proof".

What I, and I imagine others, do expect when you propose something highly unlikely is some kind of evidence, or at least some kind of logical reasoning as to how and why all this would have been done, in other words, more then just "I believe this but cannot back it up in any way.. Why aren't you taking me seriously?!"

The 9/11 conspiracies are, to me, even dumber then the moon landing conspiracies, the Roswell conspiricies and the JFK conspiricies.. Those others would involve far fewer individuals then the 9/11 thing would, be far easier to perform, and cost far fewer lives/destruction.

Every conspiracy has some level of "sense" to it, if it didn't it wouldn't exist at all, but where we move beyond all that is when people actualy have to sit down and present actual evidence as to why it could have happened the way they claim, thats the difference between "Unicorns are running the country" and "The US may have been lead into Iraq under false pretenses.. Here's why I think that [incert various arguments used in the past]". Neither is truly "proven", however one has evidence presented (to be accepted or not is another issue) and the other is total fantasy..

And since we all know there were no lies involved in Iraq its clear that Unicorns are running the country secretly and have been for the last seventy years.. Which really makes sense once you think about it.

-MB
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 30 March 2007, 01:52 PM
Algae's Avatar
Algae Algae is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2002
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 4,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
You don't, but until you do there is no reason to take them any more seriously then "I like beef" or "Dragons are real!" or "George Bush is a lizard monster" (100pts).

-MB
Penn & Teller's Bullshit! Right? I just watched that last night for the first time. What an awesome show!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 30 March 2007, 02:54 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Quote:
Penn & Teller's Bullshit! Right? I just watched that last night for the first time. What an awesome show!
Well.. Technically they were quoting an author who was actually mentioned here on snopes, but yea effectivly your correct.

Its a great show, highly biased in its presentation at least, but mostly (it would seem) factual in terms of the arguments they present.

-MB
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04 April 2007, 01:45 PM
Rebochan's Avatar
Rebochan Rebochan is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 11,611
Default

Popular Mechanics posted a pretty thorough discussion of her comments.

As for Rosie's response?

Quote:
read the whole thing
i still believe explosives were used to bring down wtc7
I would also like to add that reading her blog suddenly makes those MySpace glurges we dissect look like Shakespeare.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.