jump to last post 1-42 of 42 discussions (133 posts)

Loose Change WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY AND OUR GOVERNMENT??/

  1. AEvans profile image66
    AEvansposted 8 years ago

    "Cold War Baby" had written an article on this documentary and interesting enough there is an abundance of fact and truth to what happened post 09/11 , what is disgusting is that our government killed our own people. If you get the time please review the video as it is an
    1:29 minutes long however it is worth watching.

    1. June 2000 Terrorist Manual released.
    2. Oct 24,2000 simulation of Boeing crashing into building..
    3. Norad plans excercise on jet being flown into the pentagon
    4.07/04/2001  OSAMA  wanted recieves medical  attention in Dubai
    5. July 24,2001 Silverstein leases second trade center  3.5 billion dollar insurance policy signed 6 weeks before 09/11 on trade center that specifically covers acts of terror..

    6. All of these and more are backed up by facts with articles, you tell me what you think as I have always known our government was corrupt, however this is the worse thing a president that WE entrusted with our government and lives could do, Bush killed his own people!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM

  2. Make  Money profile image68
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    I watched Loose Change 1st edition and a pile more on this topic.  There is just too much evidence to ignore this.

    Have you seen this short video about a Canadian with testicular fortitude.  They won't be fooled in Montreal.

    1. AEvans profile image66
      AEvansposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I couldn't agree with you more and I will also watch this documentary and give you a follow up
      as our government is corrupt.sad

  3. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    There is too much evidence to ignore this - but I think you are giving Mr. Bush too much credit sad

  4. Shil1978 profile image87
    Shil1978posted 8 years ago

    Woah - what are we talking about here? "Inside Job?" Mark - have you seen this, and if so, what do you make of it? I've always rubbished 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      There is so much disinformation around almost everyone rubbishes them.

      I haven't watched that particular film all the way through, but I am familiar with the idea that 9/11 was a set up.

      There are some glaring issues, not least of which how the plane that crashed into the Pentagon managed to vaporize and leave almost no trace and do very little damage.

      This is what the Pentagon looked like after a Boeing 757 supposedly crashed into it. Do me a favor lol. A Boeing 757 weighs 100 tons, and it could barely knock a wall down? And they managed to identify the hijackers using DNA testing. lol big_smile

      http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg

      But it was a good excuse to invade Iraq. If you just remember your government (and church) (and banks) thinks you are stupid it all makes sense.

      1. AEvans profile image66
        AEvansposted 8 years ago in reply to this
  5. Nickny79 profile image73
    Nickny79posted 8 years ago

    "There is an abundance of fact and truth."  Sounds suspicious.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      We're in agreement, for once. Sounds ridiculous to me. Actually, it was little green men from Mars.

  6. AEvans profile image66
    AEvansposted 8 years ago

    What really happened to the passengers on Flight 93, do our Country murder them?
    A Tomahawk through the Pentagon? Their were over 200 passengers on flight 93...
    I am trying to gather all of this information as it is quite informative as I cannot discredit the entire documentatry.smile

  7. profile image0
    jjrubioposted 8 years ago

    that is some scary stuff. It doesn't shock me that something like that could happen. Since the government has always been the type to keep us in the dark about secrets and even world news. Think about it. What we see on the news is NEVER as serious sounding as it should be. They make light of the most tragic stories and goings on in other parts of the world. We don't live in a F'n bubble but yet the US News acts like we are 5 year olds and they are the parent keeping us from hearing the adult conversations.

    If you don't beleive me watch the SPANISH CHANNEL NEWS...they tell you everything thats happening in the world and leave no details spared. the only problem some people may have is not understanding spanish.

    My suggestion: Go buy Rosetta stone and watch the damn spanish channel if you want to know truth in the news....cause our news ain't gonna tell us crap.

  8. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    AEvans - Watch this film: Zeitgeist The full movie

    @ Mike - I know you don't want to watch it because it explains how religion has a part in this too. But you can skip that and watch about 9/11 and the international banks. although I recommend you watch all of it.

    1. AEvans profile image66
      AEvansposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I certainly will watch this  and coming from you I am certain that it provides more knowledge and insight.smile

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Just scary and the sort of thing you realize you already knew after watching it sad

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Fascinating video!

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        It certainly makes you think and has some pretty compelling arguments. Depressing too unfortunately.

    3. AEvans profile image66
      AEvansposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Mark, It is interesting however I haven't had a chance to get all the way through it , I don't however believe that the apostels were constellations, nor that Jesus is the (sun) as he was the son of God. But as always I will complete the movie and give my feedback, thanks for sharing.smile

  9. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 8 years ago

    The third building (Building 7) was not hit but somehow managed to catch fire and collapse. Unless I've missed it, there's never been any explanation of that?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Like Ralph said - it was little green men from Mars....... smile

  10. countrywomen profile image61
    countrywomenposted 8 years ago

    Right at the time when these 911 conspiracy theories were floating around there was a third theory that the Bush Govt was aware of the modus operandi (through intelligence) and based on the subsequent acts of omission and commission should be held accountable. Hence that theory suggested that the attack was carried out by al qaeda but the government's approach should be considered as abetting(will we ever know the whole truth?). mad

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      ]

      We will know the truth in  2026. 25 years being the time frame for declassification of gov documents I believe. smile

      1. countrywomen profile image61
        countrywomenposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        If somebody indeed is found to be involved in wrong doing in 2026 then is there a limitation within what time period they should be tried and also does Presidential acts carry any immunity against such trials?

  11. William F. Torpey profile image83
    William F. Torpeyposted 8 years ago

    In response to the question posed on this thread: It's not our country that's the problem, and it's not the government we now have, it's the government we had on 9/11 (the government we had up until Jan. 20.) The problem, it seems, is that no one wants to question anything that happened before Jan. 20 -- but it's apparently OK to question every little thing our incumbent president does or doesn't do. I guess we should forgive and forget those who left our economic system in shambles (the Bush Administration and the military-industrial complex) but make the new Administration pay for it. We don't need conspiracy theories, we need thorough investigations.

  12. maven101 profile image75
    maven101posted 8 years ago

    Rather than bashing Bush, or blaming America, which I am getting sick and tired of, lets apply some logic to the question of culpability for 911...

    Some one mentioned that Silverstein, the new owner at the time, had included a " terrorist attack " clause to his building insurance...has everyone forgotten what happened to the towers in 1993..? But of course he would want that clause in there.

    I know a little about explosives, and the idea that there was not enough damage to the Pentagon is absurd. The Pentagon is not your ordinary building. Since the Cold War there have been ongoing strengthening and compartmentalization of that complex. Equally absurd is the assumption of a Tomahawk being loosed on the Pentagon. Do you really believe that a commissioned U.S. Naval Officer would give such an order..? And keep it secret..? Ridiculous...It takes an entire naval shipload of officers and men to effect such a delivery...

    Someone has asked the question " did the US government murder the passengers " that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon..? We have cell phone records of those doomed people reaching out to their friends and family just prior to the crash. We have forensic records ( PHOTOS ), DNA, personal luggage, and hundreds of eye witness reports that indeed, a very large aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, being tracked by dozens of certified aircraft controllers.

    These planes were not crashed by Irishmen or little green men from Mars...no, they were purposely flown into their targets by fanatical terrorists driven by their take on Islam...and most were Saudis...

    Do you really think the Bush Administration could cover up an event as large and far flung as 911 all these years..? I don't think so....

    1. profile image0
      issues veritasposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Maven

      I agree with you that Bush didn't overtly cause 911 but lets look at it from a different perspective.

      First, you have to see a comparison between 911 and Pearl Harbor.
      At Pearl Harbor it was definitely, Japanese manned Japanese bombers that attacked Pearl Harbor.

      It was also true that 911 was caused by Islamic Extremist Terrorists.

      The perspective is one of opportunity, in both of these incidents there was intelligence that these attacks were going to happen. Did the government know about them and let them happen or was the government so incompetent that it happened even though they knew about it.

      For Pearl Harbor, a simple message could have been issued to go on the alert. With the war in Europe and China already in progress, there was no reason for the military on Pearl to take a Sunday off.

      Shifting forward to 911, Norad was totally useless as was the White House. In addition, what the hell do they do at Andrews Air Force Base?  Was the big threat that the country was prepared for the missiles and bombers from the USSR?

      Are the NSA, CIA and the FBI only competent in the movies?
      Do we even know today for a fact what was the real target of the fourth terrorist plane?

      From my perspective I only see three governmental actions about 911.

      1. Incompetence
      2. Conspiracy
      3. Opportunity

      again, my viewpoint, just analyzing.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      1. maven101 profile image75
        maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Issues,

        I agree with the incompetence, not conspiracy or its companion, opportunity. Sometimes incompetence can appear to be planned, especially if the government is involved. Ever gone into a government agency, say Social Security Administration, and try to get an answer to something ?? I swear they put you on hold just to tee you off, but no, they didn't plan to do that, they are just working out of the lower end of the gene pool....

        Yeah, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other alphabet soup agencies are that incompetent....they hardly speak to each other...the most valuable assets to have in Washington are secrets...secrets equal power... they don't need conspiracy...they have enough incompetent folks working these agencies to make sure we will get it wrong, or too late to do anything about it...

        Not sure of your implication re NORAD and Andrews AFB in relation to 911. Neither has the mission or capability to prevent a civilian attack on US infrastructure. Their eyes and mission are global. Did you expect jets to be scrambled to intercept and destroy civilian aircraft ??

        1. profile image0
          issues veritasposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Maven,

          I do expect a military base to be armed and ready to protect the country from all threats not protected by any other agency.

          Civilian attack, terrorists are not civilians.
          Times have changed since the collapse of the USSR and the US didn't change the game plan for protecting the country from the creeps that threaten us. Of course NORAD will still be needed for threats from China but Homeland Security is not up to the job of protecting us from terrorists. BTW, even if the 911 was all civilians and they were just trying to do something non military, say damaging a building with a stolen plane. Assume, that they could get some monetary benefit out of destroying the WTC and had a plan where they would bailout an not die. Who then other than the military could handle the situation? In the 911 scenario, it was a federal responsibility from the beginning and the only enforcement that would have worked would have to include military action. Whether it is the National Guard or the Military shouldn't be an issue. The fact is that Andrews Air Force Base shouldn't just exist as a VIP shuttle service. The way that you describe the NORAD and Civilian scenario gives me a picture of the baseball game. During the game our team is on the field, the batter hits the ball and it goes to somewhere between the infield and the outfield. The ball is hit so that it went up several hundreds of feet and it was up there long enough to hang. This hang time enabled the entire outfield and the infield players to get to the ball together, but no one called to catch the ball because no one knew which one of them was responsible to catch that ball. So the ball hits the ground without being caught. The team failed because they didn't have a strategy for the circumstances involved in that play.




          911 didn't recognize any agency boundaries and neither should the defense of our country. Police and Firefighters don't take the weekend off, so why should military bases?

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      LOL

      A hundred tons crashed into it and vaporized? What is the Pentagon made of? Unobtanium?

      lol

      An Aircraft is not an explosive. But as you know so much about explosives - why not watch the twin towers come down and tell me that was not controlled demolition.

      Oh, sorry - America is beyond reproach and would never consider doing anything underhand....

      1. maven101 profile image75
        maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

        An aircraft, carrying tons of jet fuel, is most definitely a flying bomb...and why the sarcasm..?

        1. Eric Graudins profile image59
          Eric Graudinsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Please look at http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/gua … ow-hot.htm

          There are detailed calculations which assume perfect conditions for combustion of jet fuel.
          The conclusion is that it was impossible for such damage to have been caused by the explosive effects of the jet fuel.

          If what you say is correct, can you please share your explosive expertise and point out where the above analysis is in error?

          Thanks,
          Eric G.

          1. maven101 profile image75
            maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Eric..

            My " explosive expertise " as you stated is confined to my training and experience in the Marine Corps during the 60's....I know what explosives can and cannot do...Are you saying that the pentagon was not hit by a large aircraft loaded with jet fuel..?

            What do you think happened..? Someone put a fertilizer bomb against the Pentagon..?
            Why would you want to believe that something that so obviously happened did not happen..?  Believe me, government is not that smart...

            1. Eric Graudins profile image59
              Eric Graudinsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              My apologies. I was obviously reading too much into your comment about "knowing a little about explosives", and was seeking your opinion on the WTC collapse.

              And no, I don't think that someone put a fertilizer bomb against the Pentagon.

              I'm told that a large aircraft hit the Pentagon. I don't know for a fact whether it did or not.
              However, I DO know for a fact that not everything that Governments tell us is true.

              I don't know whether we are being told the truth in this case.

              1. maven101 profile image75
                maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                I most definitely applaud skepticism, especially when it comes to government...Thomas Jefferson has said : " Government will take what ever you allow...what you allow is what you teach "....Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.....
                But when confronted with such obvious facts, I, for the life of me, cannot understand why folks continue to blame America with absurd conspiracy theories...Am I to deny that 254 eye witnesses all lied..? People outside the Pentagon reported seeing this aircraft, down low, buzzing their homes, and the resultant explosion when it hit the Pentagon...What does one need..? A news conference from Jane Fonda affirming that a commercial jet crashed into the Pentagon....?

        2. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I thought this comment was deserving of sarcasm:


          For several reason:

          1. An aircraft is not an explosive.
          2. A Boeing 757 weighs 100 tons. That is 224,000 pounds in American money.
          3. A Boeing 757 has a wing span of 124 ft 10 inches
          4. The Pentagon is an ordinary building. Whatever your "faith" is in the US government to build a building that can withstand the impact of 224,000 pounds of metal traveling at several hundred miles an hour is touching, but worth a little sarcasm alone.
          5. You apparently know about as much about explosives as I do, which is not saying much.

          But I do not need to know much about explosives to say that no Boeing 757 crashed head on into the Pentagon.

          1. maven101 profile image75
            maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not at all impressed with ad hominem ... much less by self-confirming facts which have zero relevance in this discussion...

            You know nothing about my experience with explosives, which I have stated in another response, was confined to my training and experience with explosives during my tour of duty in the Marine Corps during the 60's...you may be an expert on how to make a great macaroni and cheese dinner, which was an excellent Hub by the way, but don't put me in your frame of reference...

            Please tell me, in your unbiased opinion, what exactly did hit the Pentagon that day..? A Tomahawk missile..? Or maybe a meteorite, space junk, or God himself, smiting the evil military industrial complex..?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Whatever it was - it was not a Boeing 757.

              But according to you that is "absurd."

              Based on what exactly? You saw the photos of the Pentagon. You really think it could survive a direct hit by 224,000 lbs of metal? That vaporized? Yet left DNA evidence of the attackers? lol



              When you use the word "absurd" that implies a skill and knowledge level. Rather than faith in your government and news-bringers to tell you the truth, lol

              Glad you like the Macaroni and Cheese smile

              1. maven101 profile image75
                maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Great recipe...the wine was my favorite part...

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      As I recall warnings from an FBI agent in Arizona about suspicious people taking pilot lessons were ignored by higher ups in the agency. Also, there was rivalry and lack of communication between CIA and FBI which contributed to the government's inaction.

  13. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    No steel frame building in history has fallen from fire. Except 3 in NY on 9/11.
    See this image (if it works):
    http://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-content … /cctv1.jpg
    This the recent building fire in china did not fall.

    1. maven101 profile image75
      maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      And no steel frame building has ever been hit with two fully fueled aircraft in history...what do you think happened..? Someone snuck in there, laid charges, and set them off by cell phone..? Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the FDNY knows how to look for trace..? Jet fuel explosions are quite different from  commercial grade explosives....

      1. Make  Money profile image68
        Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Maven the 3rd building, building 7 was not even hit by a plane but it also fell on 9/11.  Due to fire?  The fire in all 3 WTO buildings were nothing like the fire in the photo that knolyourself posted, but it didn't fall.

        Regarding the Pentagon the curvature in this photo is much too small for a 757.
        Source: Pentagon attack Debris Piece 9/11
        http://911review.org/_webimages/noplane/Pentagon1.JPG

        This CNN news report was Only Aired Once About the Pentagon

        Reporter describes 'cruise missile' hitting the Pentagon

  14. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    On 9/10 the day before 9/11 Rumsfeld announce 2.3 trillion dollars is missing from the Penatgon:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg
    On 9/11 - of the massive size of the Pentagon comprising six sides, an airplance crashes into the finance department, destroying all pentagon financial records by fire.

  15. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    Never really heard that it was question of a plane or not. Only as to what kind of plane or missle. Notice there are no pictures ever released, except the one which doen't show anything, even though there were surveilance cameras all over the place, on the bridges and in gas stations, all confiscated by the FBI.

  16. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    Well I was in a bomb disposal unit in the army for a awhile, but only the unit clerk. l'm not that crazy. I was to record the turnings of the screws at a safe distance.

    1. maven101 profile image75
      maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I hear you...Some guys actually lived for the challenge, unfortunately, some died...

  17. SparklingJewel profile image62
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    I distinctly remember seeing a video of the plane heading into the Pentagon on the news. It was taken from somewhere a ways away, but it was very clear what was happening.

    and as far as the Twin Towers going down, I watched an extensive documentary on PBS that was written and produced in cooperation with the architect that designed the buildings. Because of their design, the impact of the plane created the heat that created the dominoe effect collapse of the floors.

    Utterly horrendous...the guy really felt bad...and of course figured out how to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. The years after it happened, he was still having bad dreams about it all.

    1. maven101 profile image75
      maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Finally, a voice of reason....

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      At last something on which we agree!

  18. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    PBS? I rmember a story on PBS which proved Clinton commited the Whitewater realestate scam. Lot of innuendo presented as facts.
    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  19. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    I believe Maven and others who say there was no conspiracy are correct.  Please.  Sorry, but there simply isn't that much 'control' in the world, as much as we fear it or would like it to explain things that are unfathomable.

    Reasons on our side it happened?  Incompetence, yeah.  Wasn't the Bush Admin. known for that?  But also simply because until recently, such an attack was an unthinkable event.

    I was in New York on 9/11, and it was complete chaos--Ground Zero was like a gray war zone and burning until something like December--I remember because I went by it every night and it was smoldering & red.  You cannot tell me even a bad U.S. president or government would cause that kind of damage to our own people and to our own city.

    Then there was this friend of mine who a year or so later went to gawk at the site as a tourist and came back saying she never thought it occurred at all, based on the fact they'd mostly cleaned it up and it "just didn't look like it."  lol.  Oh, did I say her husband wanted her to see a psychologist based on that observation?

    What are we getting from this when we formulate such theories?

    1. profile image0
      pgrundyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you. I think that what we get from conspiracy theories is a way to save face and salvage some hope of control.

      If bad things happen due to secret networks of evil geniuses that leaves us feeling a wee bit more important than if bad things happen due to human error, incompetence, greed, lack of foresight, or worse, because life can be randomly horrible, violent, and cruel. If we make disaster personal at least we can feel like we matter--we were important enough to be plotted against by evil geniuses, weren't we? Thinking this way also leaves open some element of possible control because, if evil geniuses are responsible then there is an obvious solution: Find and stop the evil geniuses.

      If on the other hand life is just randomly horrible and messed up, we're screwed.

      I think Bin Laden got lucky that day and that's about as far as it goes, although I do think our own military shot down the plane that didn't make it. If it didn't, we have a really bad military--and we don't have a really bad military. So I think they managed to shoot one of the planes down and invented an inspiring cover story.

  20. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 8 years ago

    Yet there was a conspiracy, of one sort or another. If it was not human it was physical - materials secretly conspired to melt below their melting point and/or to ignore applied mechanics. Building 7, the one everyone ignores, had no reason to fall. None.

    The Pentagon doesn't bother me that much. Not too many people get to live there, while millions of us live/work in towers every day.

  21. Shil1978 profile image87
    Shil1978posted 8 years ago

    One can't quite understand the tangile gains if indeed it was an inside job. What was sought to be gained from doing it?

  22. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    For One:
    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11998
    Needn't read the whole article, just the first para answers the question.
    And this is just a few companies.
    And then there was the oil and Iran and Israel and Afganistan and on.

  23. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    Bernie Madeoff didn't conspire with himself and others to rip off 50 billion. Just incompetence.

  24. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 8 years ago

    Who's talking about Madoff? That's not a 9/11 conspiracy theory, that's just your standard con job. That's what you get when you gut the financial regulatory system.

  25. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 8 years ago

    Pam - It's hard to do, but try to ignore everything except Building 7 - the one that went on fire and 'fell down' - if and only if you can explain that (and I'm a non-conspiracist physicist who can't explain it) then dismiss all the rest as conspiracy theory. I hate this stuff, but can't dismiss it.

    1. profile image0
      pgrundyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Well, if you think it looks weird, I have to take it seriously. You're a lot smarter about this stuff than I am. I don't know enough about building 7 to talk about it intelligently. Off hand I can't see why a building that catches on fire WOULDN'T fall down, but I promise to look at it and come back and if I'm wrong I'll say so. smile

      I just find the whole conspiracy mindset annoying. There's something very, I don't know--irresponsible about it. Like, I can't be held responsible for anything because evil geniuses are controlling the world. That stuff is all over the internet. Why read? Why think? Why do anything? The evil geniuses will always win. Just buy the conspiracy, put your brain permanently in park.

      I have a hard time seeing George Bush as an evil genius. Evil maybe, but not a genius.

      1. countrywomen profile image61
        countrywomenposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Yes even I find it difficult that a conspiracy of this magnitude can be pulled off. Much similar to moon landing or UFO's. Anyway when these 911 conspiracy theories were floating around there was a third theory that the Bush Govt was aware of the modus operandi (through actionable intelligence). The report suggested that the government agencies were aware of the Florida flight school and other pertaining intelligence info(and that FBI was onto it). But then it could be that either the government was aware but didn't take any action or the government was aware and let it take its own course. Hence incompetence could be inferred but whether it was a genuine lapse or there is a sinister motive behind the lapse needs to be ascertained. I myself don't like believing in lots of these conspiracy theories which are based on lots of assumptions.

      2. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I agree about conspiracy theories in general. And in this case I don't get involved in discussions about who or why because without the resources for serious investigation all the talk is just hot air. But no, steel frame buildings don't fall down through fire, because steel doesn't burn and it doesn't melt at these temperatures.

        I've seen a few high towers "destroyed" by arson (the contractors withheld payment from the labour force who eventually struck back!) The fabric burned for three days, at the end of which there was a blackened concrete shell. They tested it, declared it structuraly sound, cleaned it up and refitted it. That's why they use steel & concrete.

        1. maven101 profile image75
          maven101posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Paraglider...Check out SparklingJewel's comment a couple days ago ( page 3 or 4 )..

          1. SparklingJewel profile image62
            SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            It was at the top of page three on this thread. It truly was a very good documentary. The Twin Towers were a new and unique design, hence had never been tested..hence it never occurred such a thing that happened could/would happen.
            But like I said previously...I remember the animated video they showed of what occurred, and it was literally a dominoe effect (a topdown version). something about the heat from the fuel explosion going up(or maybe kept out of the stairwells...not sure?) the stairwells, and the continually added weight of the floors collapsing upon each other, brought the whole thing down.
            How can we find that documentary...look for it on the PBS site archives?

            1. Paraglider profile image89
              Paragliderposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              And Building 7? The one that wasn't hit. The one that collapsed vertically? As I've said repeatedly, I'm not interested in who or why, because it cannot be ascertained. But how? How did building 7 collapse?

              Don't confuse heat with temperature. A warm bath holds far more heat than a boiling kettle. But the kettle will scald you. Burning jet fuel won't melt steel. Even if you burn a ton of the stuff. Loads of heat, but too low a temperature. So?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                I think you are wasting your time. This is about faith. Faith that the government wouldn't do such a thing - or are too stupid.

                And faith that the front men politicians actually run the government lol

                They will accept that there are brains out there that can put a man on the moon, but they won't accept that the really clever ones never come to the public attention. No amount of facts will change their views. sad

                It doesn't matter that building 7 fell down all on it's own. They have faith. lol

                1. BDazzler profile image78
                  BDazzlerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm with Livelonger I don't have the faith that they could pull it off.   But I do think they could and would cover it up.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think the politicians who are the government could pull it off either.

                    But they are not the government..............

  26. TheMoneyGuy profile image70
    TheMoneyGuyposted 8 years ago

    Madooff was a genius.  I wish I had the money to invest with him.

    Let's just say no one has figured out how to repatriate billions of dollars tax free until now.  Let's see who insured his fund?  AIG perhaps.

    Where does all that tax payer money go.  To hedge funds to pay off on the policies they bought to hedge against loses.

    What is not taxed.  Insurance payouts on theft and fraud.

    Conspiracy, no conspiracy just one guy who realized he could make a lot of rich people a lot of money and avoid taxes at the same time and all it would cost him is 22 months maximum.

    TMG

  27. TheMoneyGuy profile image70
    TheMoneyGuyposted 8 years ago

    Now if you are rich how much would you pay a guy like that.

    TMG

  28. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "Madooff was a genius."
    Think you are right. He made a lot of people a lot of money, and for the others
    who didn't cash in he gave the illusion that they were making a lot of money.
    And he could have kept it going if it were not for the whole financial system collasping.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Now the genius is going to the Big House for 150 years. I guess he had 30 or so good years and may last another 15 or 20 in the slammer.

  29. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "The evil geniuses will always win."
    Maybe the problem is there are no evil geniuses. They don't intend to do evil.
    Maybe the biggest conspiracy theory is that evil people know they are doing evil, which justifys doing evil things to combat evil, and there is no reason these people do what they do, not our fault, they are just evil. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

    1. Misha profile image73
      Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      You have the point Knol. smile
      And BTW, forcefully taking money from rich (robbery=evil) to fight poverty (presumably bigger evil) falls under same category lol

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Misha, there you go again, calling taxation voted by our elected representatives "robbery." You should check Websters for current definitions of "taxation" and "robbery" and "evil." I guess what you're saying is that you think taxes are too high. Many agree.

        1. Misha profile image73
          Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph, you still did not answer my question on another thread wink

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, what thread and what question? There are only so many hours in the day. My wife is on my case to do a bunch of jobs around the house!

            1. Misha profile image73
              Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Repeating it here for your convenience smile

              Do you think it is fair to force somebody to pay for other people stupid actions consequences?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Not sure what "consequences or stupid actions" you are talking about or what government payments you are referring to. If you are referring to health insurance, the answer is yes, I do believe in helping to pay for people who need treatment for cancer, injuries in car accidents. However, 40 million people don't have health insurance. If you're referring to unemployment benefits paid to people who are laid off or involuntarily unemployed the answer is yes. Unemployment compensation dates back the 1935, and has been a very successful social insurance program which tides people over periods of unemployment while they are looking for work and it has a counter-cyclical economic effect which helps prevent or modivy recessions. If you are referring to Social Security, the answer is yes, I do believe in Social Security. It was also adopted in 1935 and has been supported by both parties because it provides minimal income in retirement which most people supplement with private savings. If you mean workers compensation, the answer is yes. Workers compensation is another social insurance program which compensates workers for on-the-job injuries and illnesses. Employers support the program because it shields them from liability lawsuits for unsafe conditions in their workplaces. None of the payments through these social insurance programs pay people for their "stupid actions."

                Now, if you are talking about taking my money to pay for George Bush's stupid actions such as recklessly and needlessly invading Iraq, I completely agree with you. And I resent the incredible overspending by the Defense Department which is influenced by defense contractors. I resent seeing my money used to keep thousands of people in prison for minor drug crimes and other non-violent offenses. I resent any wasteful government spending of the taxpayer's money. Our system is far from perfect, but as Churchill said "Democracy is the worst possible system.....except for all the others."

                1. RKHenry profile image77
                  RKHenryposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  Defense contracts issued to Dick Cheney's construction companies and oil reserves.

                2. profile image0
                  Leta Sposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you.  Very well stated.  smile

                3. Misha profile image73
                  Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  Ralph, why are you dodging it? I am asking a very simple question, that requires a very simple answer - yes or no. Can you give a one word answer instead of typing the whole page without answering?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    Misha, I don't accept the premise in your "When did you quit beating your wife question." But if you insist on a one word answer it is "NO."

        2. BDazzler profile image78
          BDazzlerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Quite correct, if they were truly freely elected.  The robbery, is, of course, from the fixed elections where the winners who are delcared aren't really the representatives of the people ...  Of course that would never happen here ... well it's not that way in Chicago where it is truly equal, after all the dead and the cartoon characters have as much right to representation as everybody else ...

          Seriously, do you honestly believe that a vast number of elections are not fixed?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            That depends on what you mean by "fixed." I do see a need for campaign finance and lobbying reform. In my opinion elections should be financed by the government. But, no, I don't agree that a "vast number of elections are fixed." I do agree that there is way too much money sloshing around in Washington and in our state capitols.

          2. Misha profile image73
            Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            David, I am afraid the problem is not only in the fixed elections. People do elect those who majority wants. See the last elections. In fact, majority will vote to the office anybody who promises to them the bigger share of collective wealth... That is not my thought though, I will try to attribute it properly when I recall where I read this...

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      There was plenty of evil in the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Tenet-Gonzales, et al, administration, but it didn't include faking or intentionally allowing the 9-11 attacks.

  30. profile image0
    SirDentposted 8 years ago

    The biggest problem with these theories is that none of them were mentioned before the fact.

    After careful consideration and searching suddenly everything is know? Talk of good intelligence reports then suddenly the CIA is giving bad intelligence on Iraq? It is just way too easy and simple.

    1. EYEAM4ANARCHY profile image92
      EYEAM4ANARCHYposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      The CIA was giving intelligence that would justify going into Iraq.

    2. countrywomen profile image61
      countrywomenposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      SirDent- Every day CIA/FBI and so on receive lots of intelligence reports which are not made public due to national security issues(along with the general public even the terrorists may come to know hence it makes sense not to reveal it "before the fact"). It is only when an incident occurs and the intelligence that wasn't acted upon then these theories surface. Even Bill clinton didn't take down Osama Bin Laden when they had actionable intelligence(this is another known fact which surfaced after the "missed" opportunity).

  31. EYEAM4ANARCHY profile image92
    EYEAM4ANARCHYposted 8 years ago

    They knew it was coming and they let it happen, because it gave them their "Pearl Harbor." They were holding meetings planning the Invasion of Iraq later in the afternoon on Sept. 11th.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I bet you believe in the Tooth Fairy as well.

      1. EYEAM4ANARCHY profile image92
        EYEAM4ANARCHYposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        The idea that your parents would never trick you into believing a fake story sounds more like your bag.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          As a matter of fact, I don't recall my parents ever tricking me into believing a fake story. So what's your point?  I have no doubt that Bush and Cheney had designs on Iraq before 9-11 and that 9-11 gave them a pretext, or as you put it a "Pearl Harbor." I don't believe they "knew it was coming and let it happen." If you believe that you'll believe most any bullshit that's floating arournd cyberspace.

          1. Shil1978 profile image87
            Shil1978posted 8 years ago in reply to this

            They may have had designs on Iraq, but then why didn't they just accuse Saddam of being the mastermind behind 9/11 and go to war with Iraq immediately. Its not as if there is compelling evidence against Osama Bin Laden. So, if they'd accused Saddam instead - things would've been a lot easier. If oil was the reason - that was the logical thing to do.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Well, they weren't brazen or dumb enough to accuse Saddam Hussein of being responsible for 9-11. They simply used the argument that he was tied to Al Qaida, and that one of his people had met in Prague with a Bin Laden agent and that there were Al Qaida in Iraq. This was one of Bush's arguments justifying the crazy invasion. The main one was, of course, the threat from Iraq's non-existent WMD.

    2. Shil1978 profile image87
      Shil1978posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      What's your source?

  32. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "The CIA was giving intelligence that would justify going into Iraq."
    Exactly called 'stovepiping', known to people paying attention as it was happening. This is a proven conspiracy theory.

  33. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    " but it didn't include faking or intentionally allowing the 9-11 attacks."
    You can fake a war that resulted in from 600,000 to a million killed, but you can't fake or allow 9/11? How about the 'Gulf of Tonkin'? 3 million killed in Vietnam.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      9-11 and the Gulf of Tonkin both were used as excuses for needless wars. But the Gulf of Tonkin attack never occurred. Johnson and McNamara lied. 9-11 did occur, and Bush and Cheney lied even more than Johnson, but not about intentionally allowing or actually causing 9-11. Their lies were about Saddam Hussein's ties to Al Qaida and thus to 9-11 and about Iraq's WMD threat to the U.S. and our little Middle East "ally," Israel.

  34. cobraski profile image55
    cobraskiposted 8 years ago

    Where there is opportunity, those in power will use it to gain whatever is needed to accomplish what it is they want.

  35. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    Sorry, Misha--but it's a child's question if made that simple.

    LOL!  Now do the dishes.  smile

  36. Misha profile image73
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Well, I probably am a child, cause I have a definite answer for myself. Actually I think if you don't you are messed up quite a bit smile

    Still waiting for simple answer from Ralph smile

  37. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    He's not heavy, he's my brother...or some such thing, you know, Misha...

    Give me complexity or give me death...or something like that...

    And something about value investing principles....where long term analysis usually out gains short term assessments...  yeah..

    How was that for explanation?  wink

    And Ralph is probably eating dinner or something in Michigan.

  38. Misha profile image73
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    LOL you lost me completely. smile

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah...  I guess it was slightly meant to, lol.  You don't want a complex answer, so--that simplicity doesn't suffice?

      And...you are an ESL case anyway--I know how ya'll are, smile, as was a former boyfriend of mine.

      So!  Nyet (about all I remember, ha!).  It's just NOT FAIR!  Ohhhhh.   


      LOL?  smile

  39. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    Oh!  Harrishaw (I never learned Cyrillic..so that is phonetically attempted in English--meaning very well or something similar).  And I remember the word for drugstore--  something like Abteka.  LOL

    See--I'll bet you find this funny.

  40. Misha profile image73
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    LOL that was cute smile And actually recognizable, all words smile

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      So I never make fun of ESL cases...I know what it would be like.  I even tutored a little ESL, smile

      Do you know a Russian and/or Georgian pop song that goes something like, "so if a girl is young, pretty and singing in the kitchen...something...something...watch out...something...?"  About a girl who is married who runs off to Moscow, I believe..I used to know it in Russian verbally, but wow!  What you forget when you are not longer with someone.

  41. livelonger profile image88
    livelongerposted 8 years ago

    Although you can certainly question the motives of the US government, I tend to doubt their competence in pulling off anything nearly that complex...and not have a single leak among the hundreds/thousands that would have to be involved.

    I thought Maddox summed it all pretty well (link - I have no affiliation with his site, and he doesn't run ads on his site).

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      That's a good one!

    2. BDazzler profile image78
      BDazzlerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      LL good points ...

      If there was a cover up it wasn't in orchestrating 9/11, it was about not seeing it coming, and covering their collective tails.  What if a missle did hit the pentagon? You think they wouldn't want to cover up that a terrorist stole a US Missle and used it on a US target?

      Building 7?

      It is common for terrorists to set up  two sets of traps, one to hit the civilians and one to hit the first responders.

      I think that in addtion to the planes, the terrorist gained access to the WTC buildings (including building 7) and planted bombs. (But not in cooperation with the administration, either Bush or Clinton's)  They rammed the planes into the buidlings, waited for the first responders to get inside and then hit the detonator.

  42. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago
    1. Make  Money profile image68
      Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      For those that are still in denial this video should be proof positive for you that there were explosives planted in the World Trade Center buildings.  Most of the world believes what the old lady at the end of this video says.

 
working