Jingus Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 It wasn't that thread. TSM hates my computer anytime I try to Search something, so I can't find it myself without hours and hours of schlogging thru old threads. It was called "flight of the bumble planes" or something similar.
2GOLD Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 I love how some of the same people who claim Bush came up with this master conspiracy cover-up plan are the same ones who claim Bush couldn't tie his shoes in the morning without supervision. He's either one or the other people. Either amazingly intellgient and able to convince the military to allow him to destroy part of the Pentagon and was able to form this elaborate cover up plot to fly two planes into the towers. OR he is a moron who needs more directions to cross the road than the chicken. I questioned but most of the theories go under this crazed assumption that the Pentagon is just another building when it's not even remotely close to just another building.
Slickster Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 Please don't force me to hunt down that ancient thread where I shredded a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don't like wasting that kind of energy these days. Unless you were going by the name Justice aswell as Jingus, you didn't shred shit. I read the whole thread and i'm still leaning towards that it was in fact a plane. And thusly I appear! There's another one, a 7-pager I believe just before this that Jingus had more involvement in. And the idea that Bush somehow planned it in the, oh, 8 months he was in office is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If he had this all planned so that he could go into Iraq, then why attack Afganistan first? For what reason, what logic? Because the Taliban was an easier target and Afghanistan a better base of Mideastern operations from which to move troops into the area? Also, if you're going by the 'everything from 9/11 on has been predetermined' route, then it would logically make sense to ravage Afghanistan and create more enemies, thereby further fueling insurgency and anti-American sentiment. Remember, the goal (according to this strategy) is for Republicans to gain political dominance by striking fear in the hearts of the American people by presenting a near-infinite number of bogeymen. To destabilize the region creates more people willing to fight the insurgency, which perpetuates the threat of terror, which keeps Bush's policies looking strong, which keeps Republicans in power. It's tough to be a war President if you have no enemies to fight.
Justice Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 Please don't force me to hunt down that ancient thread where I shredded a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don't like wasting that kind of energy these days. Unless you were going by the name Justice aswell as Jingus, you didn't shred shit. I read the whole thread and i'm still leaning towards that it was in fact a plane. And thusly I appear! There's another one, a 7-pager I believe just before this that Jingus had more involvement in. And the idea that Bush somehow planned it in the, oh, 8 months he was in office is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If he had this all planned so that he could go into Iraq, then why attack Afganistan first? For what reason, what logic? Because the Taliban was an easier target and Afghanistan a better base of Mideastern operations from which to move troops into the area? Also, if you're going by the 'everything from 9/11 on has been predetermined' route, then it would logically make sense to ravage Afghanistan and create more enemies, thereby further fueling insurgency and anti-American sentiment. Remember, the goal (according to this strategy) is for Republicans to gain political dominance by striking fear in the hearts of the American people by presenting a near-infinite number of bogeymen. To destabilize the region creates more people willing to fight the insurgency, which perpetuates the threat of terror, which keeps Bush's policies looking strong, which keeps Republicans in power. It's tough to be a war President if you have no enemies to fight. If he planned it as such, why waste resources on Afganistan, though? Afganistan is on the other side of Iran, making it a shitty shitty staging point for anything. Just simply invading Iraq outright makes more sense. Invading IRaq would have done everything Afganistan did without any problem. If anything, Afganistan is a huge extra step. It just doesn't make sense.
Carnival Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 ok then, must have been wrong thread. As far as Bush planning the whole thing....I never said I think thats what happened. I said it's a possibility. I just found it funny how Afganistan's chief export is now opium after we freed them. And how we are fully funding biulding a pipeline for oil accross the entire country of afganistan. I also find it funny that just because the government says that we aren't stealing their oil, people believe it. The reason for going to afganistan in the first place is chase the scapegoat Osama. Then Bush and the US Government would have a place and cheap labor to grow their drugs. To fund secret government projects or something. Then Bush goes to Iraq to get Saddam and steal all his oil. Meanwhile on the other side of Afganistan we are planning to build a pipeline to steal oil from another country(i don't remember who). This whole time fooling 55% of america into thinking america is defending itself when in reality america is raping countries of thier goods and policing the globe. Again it's just some crackpot conspiracy theory.........
Slickster Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 I love how some of the same people who claim Bush came up with this master conspiracy cover-up plan are the same ones who claim Bush couldn't tie his shoes in the morning without supervision. He's either one or the other people. Either amazingly intellgient and able to convince the military to allow him to destroy part of the Pentagon and was able to form this elaborate cover up plot to fly two planes into the towers. OR he is a moron who needs more directions to cross the road than the chicken. Straw-man argument. Is it not possible that Bush himself may not be all that smart but he is surrounded by some brilliant minds? Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz clearly know the score, having signed the PNAC declaration on 9/11/00. Let's face it: planned or not, 9/11 has provided Bush's presidency with a direction, provided the man himself with an image as a war president, and has ensured political wins for countless Republican officeholders at all levels of government who have taken up the causes of 'homeland security' for their constituencies. The 'war on terror' has provided Bush's administration with a way to improve the government's powers to spy on its citizens and to create a stronger Secret Service that is more trusted by Americans (in the name of the Department of Homeland Security). Terror is portrayed today as the Soviets were depicted during Reagan: an all-purpose, omnipotent bogeyman lurking in the shadows ready to strike at any given moment. It can only be combated through ill-defined 'resolve,' unceasing alertness, and strict toeing of the Republican party line. Only a traitor would do otherwise.
Carnival Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 If he planned it as such, why waste resources on Afganistan, though? Afganistan is on the other side of Iran, making it a shitty shitty staging point for anything. Just simply invading Iraq outright makes more sense. Invading IRaq would have done everything Afganistan did without any problem. If anything, Afganistan is a huge extra step. It just doesn't make sense. The obvious extra step was Iraq. Bush went after terror in Afganistan. that should have ended the war right there. There was NO reason to go to Iraq. If we invaded Iraq for the reason Bush claims we did, then why haven't we invaded North Korea? They don't have anything we can profit from that's why.
Jingus Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 scapegoat Osama. Those two words don't go together. How fucking dumb are you? OSAMA DID IT. He planned the attacks. He funded them. He said so. He confessed. He BRAGGED ABOUT IT. There's your smoking gun right fucking there. What more proof do you need?!
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 Jingus, it's not worth arguing with these people. Just hope they don't breed and spread their stupidity.
Carnival Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 scapegoat Osama. Those two words don't go together. How fucking dumb are you? OSAMA DID IT. He planned the attacks. He funded them. He said so. He confessed. He BRAGGED ABOUT IT. There's your smoking gun right fucking there. What more proof do you need?! can you fucking read??? I said I DO NOT beleive this! I was just explaining why some people may think the theory is real. As far as Bush planning the whole thing....I never said I think thats what happened. I said it's a possibility. To fund secret government projects or something. You think i would expand on this...if i believed this theory. Again just explaining. Again it's just some crackpot conspiracy theory......... READ THOSE AGAIN JINGUS AND CRUMB YOU 2 FUCKIN RETARDS! Again I do not personally think BUSH planned everything. I'm just not discounting it completely, until i'm fully informed on the situation, which i am not.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 That's really funny coming from the guy that couldn't fathom the terrorists using fake names.
Carnival Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 That's really funny coming from the guy that couldn't fathom the terrorists using fake names. There were no Islamic like names on the flight lists. (At least thats what I've read, I could be wrong) I doubt they could have faked their identity as "John Smith" or some shit. Thats what i meant. And how is that dumber than not being able to comprehend english like yourself? Also thats coming from the guy who thinks Low-ki's gimmick in ROH is a shoot. And the same guy who thought Batista said "Fuck" on a commercial that was televised on Network TV. Miss-Hearing him is one thing, common sense is another.
The Czech Republic Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 There were no Islamic like names on the flight lists. (At least thats what I've read, I could be wrong) I doubt they could have faked their identity as "John Smith" or some shit. Yeah that'd be like a Syrian guy going by "Danny Thomas," or a Lebanese guy named "Jamie Farr."
Carnival Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 There were no Islamic like names on the flight lists. (At least thats what I've read, I could be wrong) I doubt they could have faked their identity as "John Smith" or some shit. Yeah that'd be like a Syrian guy going by "Danny Thomas," or a Lebanese guy named "Jamie Farr." Like I said, it's not a confirmed fact, it's just what i read. I would be happy if someone could disprove it. I'm sure it isn't too hard.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 That's really funny coming from the guy that couldn't fathom the terrorists using fake names. There were no Islamic like names on the flight lists. (At least thats what I've read, I could be wrong) I doubt they could have faked their identity as "John Smith" or some shit. Thats what i meant. And how is that dumber than not being able to comprehend english like yourself? Also thats coming from the guy who thinks Low-ki's gimmick in ROH is a shoot. And the same guy who thought Batista said "Fuck" on a commercial that was televised on Network TV. Miss-Hearing him is one thing, common sense is another. Yeah just keep flame baiting there.
Carnival Posted May 3, 2005 Report Posted May 3, 2005 Yeah just keep flame baiting there. oh and you totally didn't provoke it either. besides isn't that what you were doing. You weren't commenting on the topic. You simply came in here to insult someone. definition of flamebaiting
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted May 3, 2005 Report Posted May 3, 2005 Actually I was giving advice to Jungus. Namely that there's no point to argue with conspiracy kooks because he'll just end up pissed off at the end of the day. This thread completely proves that as Stephen Joseph has easily destroyed most of the claims and the facts don't phase the conspiracy theory types.
Carnival Posted May 3, 2005 Report Posted May 3, 2005 Actually I was giving advice to Jungus. Namely that there's no point to argue with conspiracy kooks because he'll just end up pissed off at the end of the day. This thread completely proves that as Stephen Joseph has easily destroyed most of the claims and the facts don't phase the conspiracy theory types. I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut. And i would gladly admit when someone has swayed my views of the situation. I'm sure that will happen. Like I said, I don't know all the facts on this situation. So if you could contribute something that could prove my "guesses" wrong, then please do and I will consider them. And I appologize for being a dick. Now on with the conspiracies! or lack thereof.
The Czech Republic Posted May 3, 2005 Report Posted May 3, 2005 There were no Islamic like names on the flight lists. (At least thats what I've read, I could be wrong) I doubt they could have faked their identity as "John Smith" or some shit. Yeah that'd be like a Syrian guy going by "Danny Thomas," or a Lebanese guy named "Jamie Farr." Like I said, it's not a confirmed fact, it's just what i read. I would be happy if someone could disprove it. I'm sure it isn't too hard. Did you get my point, though?
Carnival Posted May 3, 2005 Report Posted May 3, 2005 There were no Islamic like names on the flight lists. (At least thats what I've read, I could be wrong) I doubt they could have faked their identity as "John Smith" or some shit. Yeah that'd be like a Syrian guy going by "Danny Thomas," or a Lebanese guy named "Jamie Farr." Like I said, it's not a confirmed fact, it's just what i read. I would be happy if someone could disprove it. I'm sure it isn't too hard. Did you get my point, though? Ya I understand, they don't always have certain "types" of names. I see your point.
Jingus Posted May 3, 2005 Report Posted May 3, 2005 Box cutters are sharp. I have nothing else to add.
Art Sandusky Posted May 3, 2005 Author Report Posted May 3, 2005 There's nothing wrong with figuring out how a fantasy situation would play out and saying why people think they way they do in a neutral manner. Not everything has to be combatitive (I think I just invented a word). That said, it'd be awfully stupid to not attack the scapegoats in such a plot first. The public would never buy it if we'd gone for Iraq first. We obviously would have to go after those who had been identified as responsible before anyone else. I've always said Bush was deceptively intelligent, his only shortcoming being an incredible ability to fuck up the verbalizations of his ideas a lot. Even then, "a lot" is 2% of the time. I personally want to see a college dropout President one day, or one who just plain graduated high school. There's no educational requirements, after all. If they illustrate a better grasp of things and better ideas than the "educated" ones, I'm all for whoever it is.
Red Baron Posted May 3, 2005 Report Posted May 3, 2005 Sooner or later Arnold will become president and everything will be all-right. (Steroids become legal...baseball is saved.)
Carnival Posted May 3, 2005 Report Posted May 3, 2005 There's nothing wrong with figuring out how a fantasy situation would play out and saying why people think they way they do in a neutral manner. Not everything has to be combatitive Funny how nobody else gets this.
Slickster Posted May 4, 2005 Report Posted May 4, 2005 I like how everything I've said has been no-sold.
Carnival Posted May 4, 2005 Report Posted May 4, 2005 I like how everything I've said has been no-sold. cuz what you said was 100% right. nobody can agrue that.
Jingus Posted May 4, 2005 Report Posted May 4, 2005 I usually get no-sold in CE, so I viciously continue the cycle on others whenever possible. QUOTE (Kotzenjunge @ May 3 2005, 01:42 AM) There's nothing wrong with figuring out how a fantasy situation would play out and saying why people think they way they do in a neutral manner. Not everything has to be combatitive Funny how nobody else gets this. I do get it. But you didn't say "What if Bush was behind it?" You said "I believe Bush might've been behind it". There's a world of difference between the two statements. Oh, it took me for-goddamn-ever to find it, but here is the conspiracy thread I mentioned. And here's another one I forgot about.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now