I refer you to post #26. The lists I posted are just the tip. Again, there are many qualified, credentialed people that are dubious of the official story. Just do some research and you will see. I’ve already some for you now you do the rest for yourself. It’s there right in front of you, but you just don’t want to see.
Reasonable Doubt.
Yes, I know. But a lot of people believe dumb things, so volume alone doesn’t matter.
Been there, done it, got the t-shirt. You think I’ve never seen any of this stuff before? I think we’ve had the September 11th debate in here three times this week alone.
I left this out of my list. A lot of these people are lazy, and this is a nice example. 
And why is that?
Try me. :rolleyes:
Where did all these 9/11 truthers come from lately? Did someone post a Twitter saying “Come to the SDMB if you want to get your ass spanked in an argument!” The regular posters here eat debate for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If you want to come in here to argue something that has been thoroughly, thoroughly debunked and your best argument is to accuse others of fallacies you’re in for a rough ride.
Ok, was the 9/11 Commission’s report entirely true and accurate? No. It was written by third parties who had to gather evidence and come to a conclusion. Did they get everything right? Probably not. This does not equal a cover up.
Think about cover ups for a moment. It was pointed out in the wreck thread that Bill Clinton couldn’t keep something secret that happened in his private office (arguably the most private office in the country) with only one other person present. Yet somehow, Bush and cronies pull off the biggest terrorism hoax in history and no single person amongst the thousands who would have had to be involved has told anyone about it?
If something is known by more than two people it is not a secret. At some point in time, one of the people who planted the tons of thermite in the WTC would have talked. The Army guy who “piloted” the missile into the Pentagon would have talked. The Jewish bankers who were forewarned of 9/11 would have gotten even more money hungry (you know those Jews :rolleyes:) and would have talked. Unless of course the government murdered them all. And since they were already willing to murder all those people on the four flights, why would they have any problem killing off all the patsies who put the pieces in place? It’s all part of the great game, right? Somewhere the government has some cold-blooded assassin who has killed off everyone in the know about the real 9/11 story and has made it convincingly look like accidents, natural causes, etc. I mean, they have to be killing the people because otherwise one of them would have talked. One of them would have ran out of money or got in trouble with the law or wanted to impress a girl or something that would make them talk. And the only way to keep them silent is to prevent them from speaking by putting them in the ground. And of course everyone is now keeping silent because mass murder committed by the government is something we would never want to talk about lest we be the next victim.
And what was the goal of this massive conspiracy anyhow? Because right now America is in the toilet. Sure, Iraq got knocked over and Afghanistan got pounded into relative submission but that oil pipeline that was supposed to be built still isn’t there, eight years later. The New World Order that the PNAC promised us just isn’t here. So the government can do all this secret shit and cause all this devastation to get the ball rolling but when it comes to accomplishing their actual nefarious goals it would seem they’ve completely fallen asleep at the switch.
Let me make this clear: if you can prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush Admin or the Jews or the Illuminati, you will be rich and famous. Anyone who can expose corruption that deep will immediately become a national celebrity and hero. The black helicopters won’t be able to get you because reporters will be lined up around the block for interviews. The government’s efficient murdering squad can’t be everywhere at once and even if they were you could just take reasonable precautions to make sure that if anything did happen to you after you revealed the truth it would just make your case that much stronger.
Consider this as well: most of the liberal minded posters here fucking hate the Bush administration. If we could pin the greatest conspiracy of all time on the SOB we would have by now and we’d be on our way to the White House with torches and pitchforks. Nobody here is going to hold back when it comes to exposing and publicizing the misdeeds of Bush’s administration. That is, unless we’re all in on it too!
Now if you’ll excuse me I have to carry on spreading the Bush administration’s/Zionist fascist pig dog lackeys of the Crusader regime’s/Illuminati’s version of “The Truth” or else the aliens from Zeta Reticuli are going to probe me again.
(No offense intended to any actual Jewish people for my generalizations in paragraph 4. “Blame the Jews” is a stupid stereotype and I just want to show that relying on stupid stereotypes does not make an argument stronger in any way. I do not actually believe that Jewish people are inherently more money hungry than anyone else and I know there were plenty of Jewish victims of 9/11. I hope the satirical nature of my comment is evident.)
Dude, I have already “tried you” but you seem to already have you mind made and nothing, facts or not, nothing is going to shake you out of your world view.: shakes head:
***What does Bill Clinton not being able to keep a secret have to do with the color of the moon? Just because he couldn’t doesn’t mean that others can’t.
It is a myth that you have to have hundreds or thousands
of people in on a conspiracy. What that myth implies is that the neocon cabal sat a thousand people in a room and said, “We are about to commit the most heinous, attrocious act of terrorism in the history of the U.S. We are intentionally going to murder a bunch of citizens to further our goal of being the world’s only superpower (PNAC).”
Obviously, you can’t do that and make it work. It is done by a small, closed, tightnit group who have the reins of power in their hands. They figure out what needs to be done and what people they will need to do different parts of it. It’s called “compartmentalizing”. You hire a mercenary of middle eastern descent, tell him to go to the middle east and recruit young student jihadists, but you don’t tell him why you want him to do this. When your Merc has assembled his jihadists a simple call to immigrations telling them to let these people through. Immigration is not told why. You give the commander of NORAD a stand down order and he does it because it an order from a superior, but you don’t tell him why he is to stand down.
That’s the formula. If you have the power, like the neocons did, you are able to pull the required strings from behind the curtain.
a
What is “the official story” and what parts of it do you think are inaccurate? Be specific.
No one at that high a level has been able to keep their deepest secrets secret. Here’s the thing about conspiracy theories:
They assume that some shadowy someone (or group of someones), somewhere is in control and capable of keeping everything vewy vewy quiet; distracting with the left hand while operating with the right. Thing is, we live in a country where the workings of the slimiest man in government are now out in the open because a true believer got disillusioned and wrote a book. Where the head of the FBI was outed as a cross dresser. Where the most dangerous terrorist of our time was revealed as a CIA operative. Yet there are those who think that we can successfully hide secret organizations that meet on islands and flash “devil horns” at each other? Hide all proof of alien landings? Cover up the fakery of a moon landing? Come on! We can’t even keep the selling of a senate seat quiet.
There is no secret so well kept that it will not eventually find the light.
As to the OP: The amount of word gaming (there is no NAFTA Superhighway, I-35 was always a Superhighway), argument to necessity at the expense of representation (one article said it’s going to happen because we need it, so all the naysayers are behind the times), and then there’s the spin that NAFTA was just dandy. This says there’s a larger plan.
This the spin I’ve seen. And for me it all points to making the public’s influence more and more irrelevant.
Ultimately I see it as attempting to pitch a tent by connecting its supports to each other instead of the ground. Instant freefall.
There is very little likelihood of a North American Union unless Mexico is able to cure some of its more disastrous issues. The kidnapping as a cottage industry, the murky politics, the economy that has flailed for decades, the graft and most importantly (in US eyes) the immigration issue…all of these things need to be corrected before we entertain the notion of a NAU, not after. I disagree strongly with politicians who say that the NAU would cure these ills. There’s too much for us to lose and not enough to gain to get into the black hole that is Mexican domestic policy.
Mate, you’ve just claimed that the evil conspiracy was able to warn numerous people, get several planes ready to go for hijacking (which definitely ain’t standard) with no one noticing, including the pilots and mechanics who deal with the on a daily basis, and expert pilots to guide them, and people to plant explosives all over the completely open-to-the-public towers.
Yeah, thousand people sounds about right. not to mention all thsoe who would blab to their wives.
Interesting that person who started this thread isn’t interested in arguing about his original premise, but instead would rather focus on 9/11 trutherism.
Why start a thread about the North American Union if you don’t want to talk about the North American Union? If you want to argue about 9/11 there’s another perfectly good thread you can post in.
… then why are you asking us??? Because we’re not authorities, and therefore, more believeable? And the less of an authority somebody is, the more believable?
It’s like homeopathic logic!
It makes about as much sense as annexing Canada would.
The people of Texas put a quash on the highway, and Mexico doesn’t have the infrastructure to have a lot of transport by trucks, most of their freight is done by train.
Have you ever heard of any government conspiracy that involved the government secretly planning to give up its power to somebody else? Because that’s what a North American Union would be. There are three countries now - so at least two of them would lose power in a proposed union.
And we’ve already called top bunk.
European Union
Doesn’t quite meet the idea of “conspiracy” though, does it?
That was no secret conspiracy.
And all member countries are still autonomous.
Well the word conspiracy is loaded. The plebes who are unaware of political movements often feel like the victims of a conspiracy when it comes around.
Conspiracy is normal politics by normal means.
Yes, surprisingly, your lack of facts has not overwhelmed me. I was hoping you’d at least tell me what I was afraid of, but instead, you proceeded straight to the final namecalling stage.
What’s the official story? The 911 commission is the official which says that it was done by terrorist and terrorist alone. But you already know that.
As far as what parts I think are inaccurate, Again, I’m going to state this one more time…it’s called “reasonable doubt”. This is common place in courts. When two equally credentialled forensic specialists give differing opinions on the same evidence it will potentially raise doubts in the jury’s mind. This can return a verdict of not guilty or innocent. Once again, I refer you to the O.J. trial. If that doesn’t work for you then watch Law and Order.
I’m not saying it was or was not a conspiracy. I’m saying that there enough conflicting interpretations of the same evidence by equally qualified experts (#26) to raise reasonable doubt.