9/11 Conspiracy

**Roham** · 10-19-2006, 04:00 AM

I was at my friends house tonight and he typed 911 conspiracy into the youtube search engine. We spent at least an hour watching various clips.... Very interesting stuff. I've heard about these theories before but never really spent much time on them. Has anyone else seen some of these clips? If so, what are your thoughts on them? And one question I have is, why isn't there more talk about this? It seems no one really wants to even acknowledge it. The evidence is pretty straight forward in alot of aspects. If anyone is interested I will post the links of the specific clips I watched and found really well done. If there is even a chance that the government had something to do with it, shouldn't we get to the bottom of it right away?

**BigMacFU** · 10-19-2006, 07:46 AM

PLEASE TELL ME YOU'RE JOKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch the south park from last week and realize how dumb the question of whether our govt. wanted this to happen is.

My gosh, that's like Michael Moore, half the crap flying out of his mouth is BS always, but that's what sells, so write it well enough (and he's damn good as a writer) and you could convince just about anybody of anything. What's next, the holocaust, did it happen, really? Come on Roham.

**SmokinDVM** · 10-19-2006, 08:31 AM

Even I don't think this was a Gov. conspiracy. It illustrated how useless the present admin was/continues to be. They let it happen by ignoring warnings from the experts, which is still SOP for this group, but there is no way the Gov. could set up something like this without SOMEONE coming forward with something more than, "but look at the video". The size of this kind of operation would be huge, and too easily detectable. Heck, even the terrorists were discovered prior to 9/11, the evidence was just ignored.

**CoventryCat86** · 10-19-2006, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

Even I don't think this was a Gov. conspiracy. It illustrated how useless the present admin was/continues to be. They let it happen by ignoring warnings from the experts, which is still SOP for this group, but there is no way the Gov. could set up something like this without SOMEONE coming forward with something more than, "but look at the video". The size of this kind of operation would be huge, and too easily detectable. Heck, even the terrorists were discovered prior to 9/11, the evidence was just ignored.

Hmmm, so the Clinton administration didn't ignore warnings and evidence and just did a grand ole job with the whole terrorist threat, didn't they? Embassy bombings, USS Cole, WTC bombing in the mid 1990s, and that's just for starters. Now in defense of the inaction by the Clinton administration, the American public didn't have the stomach for it so I really don't lay the all of the blame at Clinton's feet. September 11, 2001 certainlly changed your average American's attitude on the terrorist threat but due to the ACTION of the Bush administration since then, there haven't been any further terrorist attacks on our soil correct, or did I forget something?

That's okay, the American public trusts Republicans more than Democrats to handle the terrorist threat so spin it all ya want Barry, but your nonsense is pretty much falling on deaf ears.

**Loudpipes78** · 10-19-2006, 09:54 AM

Watch last weeks South Park... it was their topic for the episode.

**SmokinDVM** · 10-19-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

Hmmm, so the Clinton administration didn't ignore warnings and evidence and just did a grand ole job with the whole terrorist threat, didn't they? Embassy bombings, USS Cole, WTC bombing in the mid 1990s, and that's just for starters. Now in defense of the inaction by the Clinton administration, the American public didn't have the stomach for it so I really don't lay the all of the blame at Clinton's feet. September 11, 2001 certainlly changed your average American's attitude on the terrorist threat but due to the ACTION of the Bush administration since then, there haven't been any further terrorist attacks on our soil correct, or did I forget something?

That's okay, the American public trusts Republicans more than Democrats to handle the terrorist threat so spin it all ya want Barry, but your nonsense is pretty much falling on deaf ears.

Total dead and injured due to terrorists during Clintons Presidency?

How many responsible criminals were jailed or killed during the Clinton Presidency?

How many DEAD AND WOUNDED U.S. SOLDIERS, and those we are supposed to be helping, during Dumbya's watch?

And, latest polls show Americans now trust that the Democrats will do a better job fighting terrorists, than the other party. Interesting.

'Nuff said.

**CoventryCat86** · 10-19-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

Total dead and injured due to terrorists during Clintons Presidency?

How many responsible criminals were jailed or killed during the Clinton Presidency?

How many DEAD AND WOUNDED U.S. SOLDIERS, and those we are supposed to be helping, during Dumbya's watch?

And, latest polls show Americans now trust that the Democrats will do a better job fighting terrorists, than the other party. Interesting.

'Nuff said.

Your "questions" don't really mean anything. What's more important is that there haven't been any additional terrorists attacks in this country since we decided to get serious with them which as I mentioned earlier even if Clinton wanted to, a majority of the American people didn't have the stomach for at the time.

The "latest poll" results do surprise me. I wonder what would make people change their minds from just as recently as two weeks ago? It doesn't any sense to me because nothing has happened in the last couple of weeks on the terrorism front to explain this complete reversal.

And once again, is there REALLY any need for the "Dumbya" name calling Barry?

**drew_goring** · 10-19-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Roham

I was at my friends house tonight and he typed 911 conspiracy into the youtube search engine. We spent at least an hour watching various clips.... Very interesting stuff. I've heard about these theories before but never really spent much time on them. Has anyone else seen some of these clips? If so, what are your thoughts on them? And one question I have is, why isn't there more talk about this? It seems no one really wants to even acknowledge it. The evidence is pretty straight forward in alot of aspects. If anyone is interested I will post the links of the specific clips I watched and found really well done. If there is even a chance that the government had something to do with it, shouldn't we get to the bottom of it right away?

If you buy into that loose change crap, here is a site that debunks ALL of it... linky

There isn't much talk about them because it was put out by a couple of retards. They make you think it is straightforward open and shut case.

But yeah, go to www.mrtwig.net and dload episode 1009. Very funny if anything.

**BigMacFU** · 10-19-2006, 11:22 AM

Bill, Barry, before this goes south fast. Here's what's up:

Clinton was asked if he wanted Osama when he was in custody and Clinton said no. So, in that way, Clinton is responsible for all that happened at the hands of Osama and his group, 9/11's blood is on his hands.

Bush, since sending troops to Iraq has quite a bit of blood on his hands too.

So, like George and I have been saying, quit clinging to parties and throwing around the bi-partisan rhetoric.

The surveys say that people believe the republicans can keep people safer, heck, they've been known as pro-military/defense since Lincoln's days. The other surveys say regardless of party, people really don't like the Bush administration.

There, now you both have it your way, so let's not post anything else here that's going to turn into another communist/democrat thread.

**Roham** · 10-19-2006, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

PLEASE TELL ME YOU'RE JOKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch the south park from last week and realize how dumb the question of whether our govt. wanted this to happen is.

My gosh, that's like Michael Moore, half the crap flying out of his mouth is BS always, but that's what sells, so write it well enough (and he's damn good as a writer) and you could convince just about anybody of anything. What's next, the holocaust, did it happen, really? Come on Roham.

I just wanted to know everyone else's thoughts on this, as well as take some tension away from the other heated arguments going on in this politics forum

But seems I just threw some more fuel on the fire,

I watched that southpark episode last night too. I love southpark

**CoventryCat86** · 10-19-2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

Bill, Barry, before this goes south fast. Here's what's up:

Clinton was asked if he wanted Osama when he was in custody and Clinton said no. So, in that way, Clinton is responsible for all that happened at the hands of Osama and his group, 9/11's blood is on his hands.

Bush, since sending troops to Iraq has quite a bit of blood on his hands too.

So, like George and I have been saying, quit clinging to parties and throwing around the bi-partisan rhetoric.

The surveys say that people believe the republicans can keep people safer, heck, they've been known as pro-military/defense since Lincoln's days. The other surveys say regardless of party, people really don't like the Bush administration.

There, now you both have it your way, so let's not post anything else here that's going to turn into another communist/democrat thread.

Well your interpretation of "what"s up" is a very nice opinion and that's great for you but I really don't think your coca cola moderating is doing any good if anything, probably just the opposite. Quite frankly, I find your conclusion about Clinton being responsible for September 11th to be a ridiculous reach and far more inflamatory than anything that Barry and I have posted in this thread. Speaking of which, I've got to agree with Barry and take issue with your statement highlighted in bold that is absolutely not true. Barry's 100% right, the latest polls show that the American people think the Democrats in Congress would do a better job of dealing with terrorism.

Here's one example http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

**SmokinDVM** · 10-19-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

Spin, spin, spin, spin...

The "latest poll" results do surprise me. I wonder what would make people change their minds from just as recently as two weeks ago? It doesn't any sense to me because nothing has happened in the last couple of weeks on the terrorism front to explain this complete reversal.

And once again, is there REALLY any need for the "Dumbya" name calling Barry?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608080005
And more recently...

Democrats now outdistance Republicans on every single issue that could decide voters’ choices come Nov. 7. In addition to winning—for the first time in the NEWSWEEK poll—on the question of which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror (44 to 37 percent) and moral values (42 percent to 36 percent), the Democrats now inspire more trust than the GOP on handling Iraq (47 to 34); the economy (53 to 31); health care (57 to 24); federal spending and the deficit (53 to 29); gas and oil prices (56 to 23); and immigration (43 to 34).

LINK

As far as dumbya goes, if it continues to get a rise out of you, I'll keep using it.

BTW,
This is my last post to this thread, I wouldn't want to piss off any more of the "natives".

bigpoppapuff · 10-19-2006, 11:53 AM

i'll keep calling him "dumbya","shrub",and sometimes,i've referred to him as "useless piece of shit"....

makes me feel good...

bigpoppapuff · 10-19-2006, 11:55 AM

"failed leader" has a nice ring to it,as well...

**drew_goring** · 10-19-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

Clinton was asked if he wanted Osama when he was in custody and Clinton said no.

That is interesting. What were the circumstances of this? Whas Osama known as a terrorist at the time? Sorry, I am very ignorant when it comes to American politics.

**BigMacFU** · 10-19-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by drew_goring

That is interesting. What were the circumstances of this? Whas Osama known as a terrorist at the time? Sorry, I am very ignorant when it comes to American politics.

It was after the '96 WTC bombing, so yes.

As for my coca-cola monitoring and inflammatory statements, it's simply to say both sides have blood on their hands so if this is going to turn into a thread about who's got the most blood on their hands then I pre-empted it so that everybody could just shut up. I'm not looking for everybody to play nice, I'm looking for everybody to just shut up about politics. 9/11 being a conspiracy has nothing to do with SERIOUS party politics. So, to start seriously arguing party politics in a thread as ridiculous as this one is stupid.

**SmokinDVM** · 10-19-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

It was after the '96 WTC bombing, so yes.

As for my coca-cola monitoring and inflammatory statements, it's simply to say both sides have blood on their hands so if this is going to turn into a thread about who's got the most blood on their hands then I pre-empted it so that everybody could just shut up. I'm not looking for everybody to play nice, I'm looking for everybody to just shut up about politics. 9/11 being a conspiracy has nothing to do with SERIOUS party politics. So, to start seriously arguing party politics in a thread as ridiculous as this one is stupid.

OK, I'm sorry, but I can't let this go uncorrected.

The WTC Bombing was in 1993. Perps were jailed.

The Sudan offered OBL to the Saudi's, who refused to take him. He was NEVER offered to Clinton.

OK, now I'm out of here.

**CoventryCat86** · 10-19-2006, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

As far as dumbya goes, if it continues to get a rise out of you, I'll keep using it.

First off, it doesn't get a "rise" out of me, it makes you look immature with your constant namecalling as has been pointed out to you before. It also significantly reduces the credibility of any argument that you're trying to make which most times are pretty weak in the first place.

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

BTW,
This is my last post to this thread

Okay, who here is NOT surprised that this statement wound up being pure bullshit?

**CoventryCat86** · 10-19-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by bigpoppapuff

"failed leader" has a nice ring to it,as well...

No, that's pretty much reserved for those who have been impeached, Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton or resigned because they knew they'd be impeached (Richard Nixon).

**CoventryCat86** · 10-19-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

9/11 being a conspiracy has nothing to do with SERIOUS party politics. So, to start seriously arguing party politics in a thread as ridiculous as this one is stupid.

I agree with you 100% Sean but the hate filled, left wing zealot Barry has never been able to help himself in cases like this which is stupid as you so correctly stated.