BigBallinStalin wrote: _sabotage_ wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:1. I don't believe that the government is incompetent, I just believe that their competence revolves around their own interests, and that their interests aren't tied to the peoples.
2. Didn't need tens of thousands, needed a few. All they had to do was let a threat take form and add a few touches.
3. The NYTimes released info on the 6 warnings Bush received, and yet this thread states that anyone who thinks Bush had advanced knowledge is a conspiracist.
4. It's not a select few, it's millions of people and many major media has reported great doubts on the official story internationally, though seldom in the US.
5. CIA provided Bush with six warnings, FBI reports that they were impeded from doing their job, DoD were the folks saying it was a hoax to deflect attention from Saddam.
And yes, my position remains that until the laws of physics are changed to fit the scenario, then reality will just have to do.
If I only led creationist books and refused to read science books--cuz they're propaganda, then the "evidence" of creationism would seem strong, wouldn't it?
Have you read The New Pearl Harbour? How about Shock Doctrine? I never said I haven't read any books about the official account, I just choose not to read any more. Have you read any of the literature pointing to an inside job?
Again, this thread holds the simple premise that Bush having advanced knowledge is a conspiracy theory, and yet him receiving six warnings has been verified.
So what's your take, you seem to enjoy taking a dig at mine.
The underlined reminds me of the problem with The Day of Deceit, which makes similar claims about FDR being aware of an attack on Pearl Harbor and allowing it to happen. I'm not too interested in this conversation, so I'll make it short. Basically, there's a time-lag in intelligence reports--from the moment the intelligence (and not the raw information) is produced and when the relevant decision-makers actually read it--or some watered-down version. Then there's a range of reports which state contradictory claims, so there's an uncertainty about what may happen. But the conspiracy theorist can ignore this uncertainty and that time-gap at the time of the decision-maker by only referring to 20% of that range of intelligence reports. They can make it seem like the decision-maker knew what would happen because the CT simply failed to mention the other 80% of the reports and their conflicting warnings/concerns.
So, if either Shock Doctrine or The New Pearl Harbour make the underlined claim, then my above concerns are valid. This would require cross-referencing the various intelligence reports which were made available to the president at that time. Hopefully, the FOIA and that process would allow for such a time-consuming endeavor. I would not be surprised if either book did similar research to The Day of Deceit's, thus have failed in supporting the claim that Bush received six warnings. Perhaps, Bush received six warnings, but each one was vague, and the authors neglected to mention the other 20 or so warnings pointing to other places other than NY and were referring to different means (trucks, instead of airplanes). Maybe you can comment on these concerns of mine, and how those books handle that issue.
I think I have mentioned a few times before, but the report of the 6 warnings is from the New York Times (7 according to other sources), written three months ago after the warnings were finally released and the correlating testimony of senior members of the White House and Pentagon staff of the time.
Of course the rag isn't well respected, neither are the BBC, the Washington Post, CBC, Scientific America, Harper's or other media outlets.
Nor are the professors at Berkeley, OSU, Perdue, Penn State, U of T, Stanford and more than 300 other universities who have challenged the official account.
Nor does the testimony of more than a hundred on site firefighters matter.
I guess the 9/11 commissioners don't matter as well, since the co-chairmen say they were obstructed by the White House and CIA.
Nor do the victims' families matter, since more than 70% of their questions have been ignored and unanswered.
Nor do the witnesses who gave testimony at the 9/11 commission matter, since anything that fell outside the official story was discarded, and they were then gagged.
Nor do whistle blowers matter, since they only sacrificed their careers to come forward.
Nor do the 2,000 plus scientists, military personnel and engineers matter, since they are only staking their credibility on it.
Nor do foreign politicians and intel agencies matter, since they contradict the story.
Nor do physics or investigative technique apply. Nor does it matter that the president refused to speak under oath. Nor does it matter that extreme amounts of money were gained through 9/11. That the WTC security was run by Bush's cousin, that NORAD and NMCC failed for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th times in their history all on the same day, that the missile defense systems of both the White house and Pentagon failed. That even more than an hour after the first hijacking we still couldn't do anything about the fourth. That 3 buildings got hit and four fell. That the owner of the buildings claimed he "pulled" one.
The only thing that matters is that a Bush staffer says it was legit, of course that another quit and says Bush was complicit doesn't matter. I should ignore all these things and read the works of a guy who was instrumental in the war in Iraq.
Interesting ideas you have there. That we should ignore the past, present and future of the event and focus on something that we can't prove. Usually when all the evidence points away from a conclusion, we tend to look at the direction it points, but in this case, it's such a small thing really, why bother?
And BTW, the Shock Doctrine is a book on economic policies and The New Pearl Habour is a book of testimony and scientific analysis.