| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TimmyG wrote: |
thats a fair point.
my only problem here is the assertion that the film '9/11 press for truth' is our self-proclaimed ultimate representation is somewhat assumptive. and whats more I can't help but feel that the underlying motivation in making this comment, is fuelled by the view that 9/11 is best left alone and not investigated further.
There are many crazy theories put forward by people in 'the movement', personally I strongly disagree with many of them. If your frustration at the existance of the 'truth movement' is simply that excessive speculation is abundant and is also discrediting the victims of 9/11 then I fully understand. From my point of view I wish the movement would seriously cut down on over confident conclusions formed on inconclusive evidence.. yes.
In many ways it's unfortunate that the first alternative 9/11 documentary of high quality production and wide public assessibility (Loose Change) has become a trademark of the 9/11 truth movement. It's unfortunate because it does contain heavy speculation and draws its conclusions very confidently, when much of the evidence it sites is inconclusive. Sadly this is part of the reason it has been so successful. People want answers, and loose change provides them in an exciting manner. However, in the process it brings to the viewers attention, many pieces of compelling evidence which are contradictory to the official story and were most likely not known to the viewer previously. On watching Loose Change you have a choice, you can take note of the evidence for yourself, do your own reaserch and form your own opinion, or you can let yourself become angry at the parts which draw conclusion over-confidently, accept the official story and decide to dismiss any investigation into the truth. While you're at it you can agressively ridicule anyone casting doubt on the official story.
In some ways though... I can't help but sympathize with even the more gung-ho theorists. American mainstream politicial culture has been promoting this attitude for years! Look at 9/11.. what have we got? the biggest terrorist attack on America in history. What did the whitehouse say? 'lets not investigate it, that would take valueable resources away from punishing the purpertrators'. Then they/we went and attacked Iraq with 9/11 as the pretext. Can you really blame people for having slightly over active imaginations when the whitehouse and our mainstream media are so trigger-happy?
Yes. theories about holograms, missiles hitting the pentagon, calls being faked, towers being demolished shouldn't go uncontended. But is it right people voicing these theories should be met with such aggressive ridicule?
| Quote: | What this film has done for me, is made me realize that the loons of the "truth" movement have distracted many of us from realizing that a part of their "movement" are legitimate people, with legitimate questions for their government. Now if the vast majority of their questions have been answered through the Commission report and all the other information out there, than fine, but if the victim families of the 9/11 attacks feel that the vast majority of their questions have gone unanswered, to their satisfaction, than I say they have a right to the answers.
|
obsolutely, fair enough. the only divide I can see between myself and the poster of this quote is that they probably have more faith in establishment and government than I do. |
This is the most reasonable and mature response I have ever received in my entire time on this forum. Hence the reason to reply.
Timmy, I will say categorically if your movement was based entirely on your thoughts you would have my support.
Maybe, just maybe you guys should read fully what Timmy has said and revaluate your position.
You give me hope Timmy.
Regards stateofgrace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Having watched the film last night - if this site wishes to rephrase its demands for a re-investigation, to remove the words "authored or facilitated" and replace them with accusations of:
practical and political misjudgement to the point of incompetence
wilfully covering up that incompetence at the Commission and elsewhere
gleefully using 9/11 to justify an otherwise unacceptable political agends
then you'll have my support in an instant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cheers state of grace. i'm glad we might have reached some middle ground here.
Let me make it clear that i do still think that rogue elements of the us gov are responsible for 9/11. i think this simply because i find it to be the most logical explanation for all the co-incidences, given the context of the attacks, and the history of false flag terrorism.
i've just reached the stage where i think a more serious investigation needs to take place on our part, rather than jumping to conclusions on inconclusive evidence (i'm not saying this happens all the time and everyone does it, but many of us are guilty of doing this sometimes).
i do enjoy a good conspiracy theory. but 9/11 and whats going on in the world is too serious to induldge in the same way one might entertain ideas of illuminati, zionist control, reality manipulation and what not (not that i approve of any form of ridicule directed at anyone interested in these things. i find stuff like this very interesting. but there should be a line between 9/11 investigation/activism, and promotion of fringe theories like some of david ickes stuff etc). what's more it won't get us anywhere to draw conclusions in this way.
| Quote: |
Having watched the film last night - if this site wishes to rephrase its demands for a re-investigation, to remove the words "authored or facilitated" and replace them with accusations of:
practical and political misjudgement to the point of incompetence
wilfully covering up that incompetence at the Commission and elsewhere
gleefully using 9/11 to justify an otherwise unacceptable political agends
then you'll have my support in an instant |
right. good. i'm glad we've got this far.
for me the 'mission statement' as it stands is a good one. i personally think that this has most likely been organised by a rogue element of the military, with perhaps the discrete approval of 1 or 2 whitehouse officials and/or PNAC members.. the rest turning a blind eye in one way or another. Either way they are criminals if the evidence against them can not be otherwise refuted.
This is what I think. I am not telling you have to subscribe to this belief. I do not have 100% conclusive proof that this is what happened. But i do think this it is most probably not far from the truth and members of the whitehouse most certainly deserve to be suspects given the evidence i have seen.
if this is a simple case of incompetance, it is the most amazing co-incidence of (ultimately beneficial) failures in history.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So why was there such a wish by the government NOT to have an enquiry in the first place. Why was the 9/11 Commission such a farce? There is nothing new that has come to light in the last few years so a demand for another enquiry implies there has been a cover-up. Do you think this government will accept that?! A full and proper investigation would have the power to acquire documents/videos and insist on anyone they deem pertinent to the enquiry to testify under oath. They would be able to call on independent expert testimony (not government lackeys) as well as actually pay attention to eyewitnesses, particularly firemen. That scenario would inevitably show it was an inside job. This US government will NEVER allow that to happen! The first step is to get rid of Bush at the ballot box, assuming he isn't going to rig another election, and then campaign for a PROPER enquiry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | Hi Ignatz, hope the hangover aint as bad as mine 
|
Six cups of tea and a huge caff fry-up sorted it  I wrote quite a lot of increasingly drunken notes while watching, but in the cold light of day they're mostly gibberish. One thing that struck me several times was Bush's total lack of grip when under pressure. I've always thought he was nothing but a puppet who has a good swagger, and the film confirmed it in spades. Sitting in that school on 9/11 he looked like a little boy lost. I doubt if he's made a single real decision in all his time in the White House.
| Bongo Brian wrote: |
..... we would hope that the truth (whatever that may be) would be exposed by the further investigation and that the issues surrounding the obvious initial cover up are exposed.
|
I fear it will be a long wait. This US administration will not let it happen unless somebody major comes out with well-documented evidence. Somebody with a grievance, a Colin Powell type figure maybe. A new Democrat president might conceivably do it, but they'll be inheriting all manner of baggage. Best of luck though, I'd love to see it happen, and done all fair+square.
Anyhoo, I fear I need to go and shout at spiv over on the general forum. He's being very obtuse.Where's the caps lock key? Ah yes
All the best Bongo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: |
This conversation is 'running away' from the initial reason I opened this thread. (Please refer to my first post). The issue here is whether the families of the victims have been provided with the answers they deserve. |
Fair enough. Can you summarize the questions they have asked? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Timmy G,
The middle ground is there and I personally would meet you on it and shake hands with you. You have a very good handle on this and a good understanding of why we object.
So why do I object to these conspiracy theories?
Do I do it because I love Bush? Do I do it because I believe all I am told by the US Government and support them? Or maybe because I am a shill who is blissfully unaware of the worlds injustices. Maybe I fully support the war in Iraq and the mounting death toll, or maybe I am just one of lives sheep who dream walks though it all and cannot see the dreadful way our entire planet is going?
The answer is NO.
I object because they are clouding the issue, they are burying the very real questions that we all deserve an answer to.
The truth movement carries with it the LC loonies, the CD, the missiles, the bombs, the fake phone calls etc.
This baggage simply destroys your genuine questions, they make a mockery of this movement. For every time you demand answers to your genuine questions, up pops an LCer who mocks this event.
So I fight, I fight on any level and with any means possible.
Why do I fight?
For exactly the same reasons you do, I fight for the truth. I fight for the very real, unanswered questions that need to be answered. For as long as the they remain unanswered, the longer the real truth is kept from us.
I want answers, did Pakistan finance the hijackers? Did Saudi Arabia? Why after all the warning why did the US not act? Why did it all happen?
My questions will never be answered so long as the conspirators bury it in bombs, missiles, etc.
It as been pointed out the truth movement’s house is in disarray, it will remain so as long as you carry around with you these outrageous theories. They are your hot potato that is burning you. You need to drop them and concentrate on lobbying for the real truth.
If you don’t, then I will continue to fight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | | Quote: | | Fair enough. Can you summarize the questions they have asked? |
aggle-rithm, if you watch 911 Press for Truth, the issues that have been whitewashed / covered up are all described in detail.
Regards, |
I watched it, but didn't hear much in the way of questions posed by the victim's families, other than the fact that they had questions that weren't answered. Can you summarize what these questions are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | So why was there such a wish by the government NOT to have an enquiry in the first place. Why was the 9/11 Commission such a farce? There is nothing new that has come to light in the last few years so a demand for another enquiry implies there has been a cover-up. Do you think this government will accept that?! A full and proper investigation would have the power to acquire documents/videos and insist on anyone they deem pertinent to the enquiry to testify under oath. They would be able to call on independent expert testimony (not government lackeys) as well as actually pay attention to eyewitnesses, particularly firemen. That scenario would inevitably show it was an inside job. This US government will NEVER allow that to happen! The first step is to get rid of Bush at the ballot box, assuming he isn't going to rig another election, and then campaign for a PROPER enquiry. |
Just to enlighten British participants who may not be familiar with the US Presidency --
Bush is serving his second and last term. He will be out of office when the next President is sworn in January, 2009.
Often, the sitting Vice President runs for President when his boss leaves office, but Cheney's health issues may prevent him from being a viable candidate.
The other way for a president to leave office is to be impeached by the House, and then have the impeachment confirmed by the Senate. Two presidents have been impeached, but that impeachment was never confirmed in either case.
In one case (Nixon) the president was compelled to resign under overwhelming pressure.
One more thing: The idea of Bush and co. being brought to justice and sent to prison is unlikely. Even if he is removed from office or resigns, his successor, who was handpicked by the president, will simply pardon him. That's what happened when Nixon resigned.
So, what if the vice-president is brought to justice first? The Constitution allows a vacancy in the Vice Presidency to be filled by the President without an election. This is also what happened with Nixon, whose vice president Spiro Agnew resigned before he did, and was replaced by Nixon's friend Gerald Ford, who pardoned Nixon when he became president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
