|
the government doesn't actually need public approval to declare a war like if the whole point is to make a bunch of money from a big war then public opinion is irrelevant
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:"Seems like something they'd do." is as reasonable a basis for belief as accepting the government's stance. The latter is something supported by all of the available evidence in addition to sound logic The former is based on a gut feeling Maybe look up the word "reasonable" in a dictionary because you don't seem to know what it means
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
raminasi posted:I don't think it's obvious that there'd have been enough public support for that war absent Bush's inflated approval rating generally and all the people pissed at Saddam for doing 9/11 specifically. I think that's my favorite thing about the inside job hypothesis: if Bush was inventing a terrorist attack so he could go after Saddam, he framed the wrong damned country. A bunch of Afghanistan-trained Saudis doing the attack doesn't give us any reason to invade Iraq, to the point that they had to do the whole WMD song and dance that still didn't get a bunch of allies on board. If he was the mastermind, he loving sucked at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I like the apparent presumption that nobody hates America enough to carry out terrorist acts against Americans of their own volition. This version of the theory seems to accept that, but then it asserts Arabs aren't smart enough to think up that plan and needed an old white man to tell them what to do, those poor dumb swarthy children *Crafty white leader goes on a six-month war against those dummies, gets glorious army trapped in a quagmire for 15 years, can't figure out how to get out*
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
An Afghan war even absent a 9/11 attack would probably have been a fairly easy sell. Afghanistan was politically isolated with no significant allies, they were definitely training terrorists and the country was run by a cartoonishly evil regime. Have some noise about the new threat to international stability and peace, bring up the history of AQ and their steadily increasing capabilities plus the massive opium fields and you probably have everything you need there to get an AUMF. There are very few people in Congress who don't get all swoony at the thought of using some of that sweet defence budget for realsies. The hawks would go for because USA! USA! and the less hawkish members could be brought on board with arguments from the humanitarian and drug interdiction angles. Also American foreign incursions in the previous decade or so had been limited to kicking the poo poo out of something then declaring victory and going home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Agreed, it's more branching into Iraq that would have been hard. The republicans had had allegedly wanted to invade Iraq for ten years at the time of 9/11, so it was probably going to happen somehow, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
You are all a bunch of neck beard tin foil hats. The government has no reason to lie to us about this, and we already got the bastard who did this deed. If you believe anything but the official story, you are not better than those truther losers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUYya6bPGw&t=109s Don't let these truthers shake your deeply held convictions about what you know to be true. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Do you also only believe medical doctors who think that AIDS is a curse from God and dismiss the dumb eggheads who think otherwise? As long as you can find some dissenting voices, no matter how marginal, there can be no certainty, right? The dean of engineering and head of aerospace research at Princeton believed in telekinesis, I guess that is now a respectable theory?
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Toothy McBeard posted:You are all a bunch of neck beard tin foil hats. Your mask is slipping, Troothy! You're supposed to be a Concerned Friend looking for help debunking this, remember? Stay in character.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
As a structural engineer, the most I dabble in 9/11 conspiracy is entertaining the idea that the Bush administration knew the attack was impending and either massively bungled their reaction to it, or let it happen because they thought it wouldn't be so bad or could benefit politically from it. None of the nonsense about controlled demolition or horizontal thermite or holograms or whatever is possible, much less plausible, and the NIST/ASCE reports about the failure mechanism of the WTC buildings and the Pentagon are reasonable and fit with my understanding of local failure and progressive collapse. All A&E911T proves is that there's a lot of cranks out there with engineering degrees who think their expertise in designing circuitboards makes them the brain genius of all science. The Chairman fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I think that's my favorite thing about the inside job hypothesis: if Bush was inventing a terrorist attack so he could go after Saddam, he framed the wrong damned country. A bunch of Afghanistan-trained Saudis doing the attack doesn't give us any reason to invade Iraq, to the point that they had to do the whole WMD song and dance that still didn't get a bunch of allies on board. If he was the mastermind, he loving sucked at it. we had to orchestrate a complex and byzantine plot to fool the canny american public, and then depend on the american public's ignorance to blame the wrong country Toothy McBeard posted:You are all a bunch of neck beard tin foil hats. lol that the last time you tried this bad gimmick you hosed up so bad that you whined to FYAD and got immediately kicked out
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Toothy McBeard posted:You are all a bunch of neck beard tin foil hats. Then produce some goddamn evidence to the contrary (YouTube isn't evidence) or shut the gently caress up and drive into a bridge abutment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Toothy McBeard posted:You are all a bunch of neck beard tin foil hats. Lmao you were amazingly transparent from the beginning. Try harder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
The Chairman posted:As a structural engineer, the most I dabble in 9/11 conspiracy is entertaining the idea that the Bush administration knew the attack was impending and either massively bungled their reaction to it, or let it happen because they thought it wouldn't be so bad or could benefit politically from it. None of the nonsense about controlled demolition or horizontal thermite or holograms or whatever is possible, much less plausible, and the NIST/ASCE reports about the failure mechanism of the WTC buildings and the Pentagon are reasonable and fit with my understanding of local failure and progressive collapse. My first semester in engineering school, I had a class where we spent most of the semester doing the math on various engineering failures, like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge or that Turkish wedding where the catwalks collapsed. We spent a significant chunk of time on 9/11. Later, after I bailed on engineering and went to film school, I had a documentary professor who was hardcore into truther bullshit and Fahrenheit 9/11. When some people called him out on claiming that there was no footage of a plane hitting the pentagon, he doubled down and told everyone that whatever they'd seen was doctored to put wings on a missile, and pictures of airplane wheels in the rubble were photoshopped. I went into the physics of why you don't need jet fuel to melt steel beams for poo poo to collapse--he just crossed his arms, looked across my entire class, and said, "You all just disagree because you think Michael Moore is fat." In all the years since, I don't think I've seen a truther argument ever really make it past that level of discourse. The mental gymnastics and willful ignorance it takes to maintain the "everyone else is sheeple" fantasy never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a truther movie though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a truther movie though? Not when a normal person watches it, no
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:our government is ridiculously bad at keeping poo poo under wraps tho. we even know about all the crazy LSD/psychic soldier experiments from the 1960's. and like every coup ever pulled off. we know that the CIA funded death squads in nicaragua. And we know about that kind of stuff because of evidence. Documentation, witnesses, etc. We should always be skeptical about our government, but making specific assertions with no evidence is not smart. Robotnik Nudes posted:You only know about the ones you hear about. So the absence of evidence becomes evidence. Great. Robotnik Nudes posted:"Seems like something they'd do." is as reasonable a basis for belief as accepting the government's stance. I really hope you never get jury duty. Prester Jane posted:Finding a single person willing to die for their cause in cold blood is actually pretty damned hard, finding 19 such indivuals is even harder. Not that his opinion was gold or anything, but I remember on 9/11 or the day after, a CNN anchor was talking to Tom Clancy of all people and she asked how was it possible to pull it off (and it was pretty clear she was talking about it from an operational standpoint). Clancy told her what anyone who flies commercial knows, that taking over the planes wasn't a big deal at all. The hard part, as you said, was getting 19 guys willing to do it. And then he pointed out that religion was just about the only way to accomplish that. smoke sumthin bitch posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40719743 That's just a long term marketing stunt for Children of Men.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You can also argue, with no way to be proven wrong, that the planes were abducted by Trafalmadorian aliens who indoctrinated the crews into believing they were hired operatives used by the CIA to stage attacks under false identities as Muslim radicals. Needlessly complicated plots in place of ones that are much simpler without sacrificing explanatory power, as well as unfalsifiable premises, are the two main pillars of quackery. Keep in mind that I'm just responding to the idea that "it couldn't have been an inside job because the Bush administration was too inept." There are plenty of reasons to reject "inside job"; I simply contend that this isn't one of them because we have no reason to assume they would have had to plan it themselves (if they had initiated the whole thing, which they didn't really). But I can think of reasons why they'd hire someone outside if they're hell bent on going through with it. And the contractor thing is no more complicated than what actually happened. Put my scenario and what really happened on flowcharts without naming individuals, and you might even find they look pretty close to being the same. Given the starting point of assuming, for the sake of argument, that it was an inside job, Occam's Razor even favors my scenario from the point of view of the Bush people: certainly "inside job; they contracted it out" is simpler and easier than "inside job; they planned the whole thing." It also gives them only one person outside the inner circle who knows what's really going on. Illuminti posted:Sorry I got you confused with Robotnik Nudes who seems to be making the point you were putting forward, but not as a hypothetical. See above. I'm not REALLY assuming Bush hired anyone; it's just "for the sake of argument, if it was an inside job." Of course the contractor doesn't indoctrinate anyone. He's there to find people already disposed to do something like this, recruit them for this particular job, and organize things. In fact, the impossibility of administration people doing this part of the job themselves requires them to hire someone. And, as I've said before, someone actually did that in real life. VitalSigns posted:Okay but then that's just the official story down to radical fundamentalist Muslim terrorists trained by Al Qaeda doing a suicide attack on US civilian and military targets except I guess one secretive contractor sent AQ an anonymous email with the plan? And that's yet another reason other than "inept" to discount "inside job." I mean, yeah, the United States government has been known to poo poo the bed in some pretty shocking ways when secrets have made their way into the public, but this would be miles and miles and miles beyond any of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
"The ENTIRE government planned and executed 9/11 with bombs and poo poo" "Bush admin planned and executed 9/11" "Bush admin and the intelligence community knew but didnt do anything so they could use 9/11" "Bush used super secret double agent to make 9/11 happen so they could use 9/11" Next thing is probably some outlandish thing like "the policies of bush senior and other presidents in the past ultimately caused 9/11 unintentionally but they benefit from 9/11 still".
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Of course it is a much more complex scenario. Instead of involving a group of motivated individuals carrying out an ideological attack, who were overlooked by the security apparatus due to its deficiencies, you now have this - A network of US government agents infiltrating the already existing group with a motivation (and not really contributing any causal factor that wasn't already present among the members, but that is without relevance at this point) to allow them to carry out this attack, which was then either overlooked by the security apparatus by accident (just because some people in the CIA were tasked with hiring Osama doesn't mean the rest of the intelligence community knew), or was swept under the carpet in a massive cover up that was liable to get blown by somebody (in the case more people than just the operatives were let in on the details, and the attacks were purposefully allowed to happen by the many security institutions that could have identified the threat). In all scenarios this plan involves more steps, more people, more "dice rolls" going the right way - in short, the inclusion of US operatives creates new opportunities for the whole structure to collapse without improving upon our understanding of anything since the people who did the attack had their own reasons and resources to do so, and we know that for a fact, we had known that since at least the 1990s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Of course it is a much more complex scenario. Instead of involving a group of motivated individuals carrying out an ideological attack, who were overlooked by the security apparatus due to its deficiencies, you now have this - A network of US government agents infiltrating the already existing group with a motivation (and not really contributing any causal factor that wasn't already present among the members, but that is without relevance at this point) to allow them to carry out this attack, which was then either overlooked by the security apparatus by accident (just because some people in the CIA were tasked with hiring Osama doesn't mean the rest of the intelligence community knew), or was swept under the carpet in a massive cover up that was liable to get blown by somebody (in the case more people than just the operatives were let in on the details, and the attacks were purposefully allowed to happen by the many security institutions that could have identified the threat). how about all that AND thermite scenario just so the gov can go "look a legitimate terror group did this" and use super secret double agents "testimony" of "their time as al qaida terrorist" oh man i gotta smoke some weed and take some speed cause i be woke as poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
I actually remember some proto-truther stuff I heard in the time before Loose Change and its ilk really solidified the basic theories. They were around-the-edges conspiracies, rather than ones that tried to say the main "guys hijack planes and crash them into buildings" concept was wrong. People who thought Flight 93 was shot down and the passenger revolt was a cover story, people who thought some other group like the Northern Alliance did the attack and framed al-Qaeda to get us to take out the Taliban, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
X23 youre going to absurd lengths to justify a hypothetical and I'm starting to think you believe more of it than you're letting on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Bush did 9/11 because it rhymes and works well with a lot of other phrases. That's obviously the most important proof you can have!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Of course it is a much more complex scenario. Instead of involving a group of motivated individuals carrying out an ideological attack, who were overlooked by the security apparatus due to its deficiencies, you now have this - A network of US government agents infiltrating the already existing group with a motivation (and not really contributing any causal factor that wasn't already present among the members, but that is without relevance at this point) to allow them to carry out this attack, which was then either overlooked by the security apparatus by accident (just because some people in the CIA were tasked with hiring Osama doesn't mean the rest of the intelligence community knew), or was swept under the carpet in a massive cover up that was liable to get blown by somebody (in the case more people than just the operatives were let in on the details, and the attacks were purposefully allowed to happen by the many security institutions that could have identified the threat). I guess that on my side of this, I'm not insisting strongly enough on staying focused, because people are arguing against things I'm not saying, and, honestly, I think it's my fault. Not being sarcastic. I'll outline my thing here, stripped down to the bare essentials, and then I'll stop because I don't have anything more to say about it. 1. In real life, I accept the official version of the events. Case closed. 2. A few folks have argued that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job because the Bush administration was too inept to carry it out. 3. In response to 2: For the sake of argument, assuming it was an inside job, I don't think there's any reason to assume that Bush insiders would have had to be the ones to plan it. They could have hired someone. One benefit of this would be that the contractor would be someone who could gain the trust of potential hijackers and recruit them. Another benefit would be that among the people actively moving the plans forward, you would have only one person with any kind of connection to the United States, and that connection would be very, very, very unofficial and, hopefully, well hidden. Just take your time and find the right person. No hurry. 4. In fact, from the Bush administration's point of view, hiring a contractor would, overall, present fewer problems and expose them to less risk than planning it themselves. 5. There's no "network of US government agents." The contractor might hire helpers to identify and recruit potential hijackers, but the helpers have no connection to the US and, in fact, they have no clue that anything or anyone American is involved at all. Ideally, they're true believers. And the recruiters in this scenario can operate in much the same way real-life recruiters did and, I assume, continue to do. 6. They do, in fact, have to "contribute a causal factor" because if the goal is 9/11-style attacks, Bush and his buddies aren't going to get anywhere just sitting around hoping some guys will haul off and fly planes into big buildings on their own initiative. Doing that, they're not likely to get much except more guys blowing themselves up in public places. That's horrific enough, but it's not 9/11. 7. If the whole scheme is brought down in some way before the attacks, the Bush administration has minimal exposure. They certainly have a lot less exposure than they would under a "Bush planned it all" scenario. And with that, I'm out of this one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:X23 youre going to absurd lengths to justify a hypothetical and I'm starting to think you believe more of it than you're letting on. I just said, in essence, that if you're going with "Bush did it," I think that contracting it out seems more likely to me than planning it themselves. That's the crux of it. And really, I'm puzzled as to why that has to be so controversial or weird unless I just did a profoundly poor job of explaining myself. I'm willing to admit that that's possible. But yeah, I got sucked into talking about it a whole lot more than it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
I have a very good proof that Bush Hid The Facts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Secret Agent X23 posted:
Secret Agent X23 posted:The contractor might hire helpers to identify and recruit potential hijackers That's a network of government agents. Secret Agent X23 posted:but the helpers have no connection to the US and, in fact, they have no clue that anything or anyone American is involved at all. Secret Agent X23 posted:Ideally, they're true believers. And the recruiters in this scenario can operate in much the same way real-life recruiters did and, I assume, continue to do. Before we start I know you say you don't believe this but the scenario you are suggesting is not plausible. This is not a way for an inept george bush to get around having to plan it himself. Who provides material support for your super Agent? Who pays him? You think the CIA NSA aren't following this guy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Listen it's simple: Roses are red Osama's in heaven George W Bush Did 9/11 It rhymes, so that makes it true. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
"Seems like something they'd do." sounds like something a Blue Lives Matter type shithead would say to justify shooting of an unarmed Black Person, bceause "something they'd do" is a crime that they are being killed to prevent. And I think something that promotes the idea of 9/11 couldn't have been done by anyone but Illuminati Zionist Agents is admitting to yourself guys who lives in caves that haven't invented razers can possibly destroy two symbols of American Economic and Engineering might.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:
I said I was out, but God help me, I'll allow myself one more quick one because I think there might be something to be done with this. Let me turn it around: Do you think an inept George Bush planning it himself is a plausible way for him to avoid hiring a contractor? Because if we're comparing levels of plausibility, if you want to call it that, I'm still on board with liking contractor more than DIY. A lot of your objections to contractor apply equally to DIY. Either way, you have to have someone out there recruiting guys and organizing them. Either way, you have the same likelihood of CIA watching a lot of the guys who may become involved. Either way, you have to get money to your operatives and your hijackers. I mean, I don't see a problem with disagreeing on that point, but I'm just asking to make sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Secret Agent X23 posted:And that's yet another reason other than "inept" to discount "inside job." I mean, yeah, the United States government has been known to poo poo the bed in some pretty shocking ways when secrets have made their way into the public, but this would be miles and miles and miles beyond any of that. No "the Bush Administration is too inept" is not countered by "okay what if I imagine Bush somehow had control over a super-ept organization which agreed with him completely but was totally insulated from his bumbling, an organization which I can claim is arbitrarily as capable as is wanted/needed for any conspiracy theory, and is undetectable and unknowable because again I can just claim they're as capable as they need to be to maintain total secrecy". E: Also Bush forgot to hire any of those competent people to plant the WMDs that he knew weren't in Iraq in this scenario. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Secret Agent X23 posted:I said I was out, but God help me, I'll allow myself one more quick one because I think there might be something to be done with this. Let me turn it around: Do you think an inept George Bush planning it himself is a plausible way for him to avoid hiring a contractor? I get what you are trying to say. if you already believe 911 was an inside job and if you think Bush is completely inept wouldn't hiring a outside contractor be away for him to get around his ineptness and secretly organise 911. What you are missing is that 1. You are assuming Bush's ineptness does not apply to his hiring of a super secret contractor. 2. That only Bush and a couple of other people would be in on this and one of them is presumably being a spook who knows this super secret freelancer. 3. That the president/vice president and or the other conspirators can meet this super secret freelancer without anyone knowing 4. That the freelancer is completely trustworthy and won't tell anyone else. 5. That Bush has some way of making sure he actually does it and doesn't just take the money. He can't get the CIA involved, too many people for your scenario. 6. That this freelancer, whilst recruiting jihadists doesn't pick up any other country's radar. 7. That the CIA don't think it's weird that some non jihadist is going around recruiting jihadists 8. That the jihadists don't think it's weird that some non jihadist is suddenly planning a huge terror attack. You literally cannot plan this scenario with Bush and a few guys. More people will inevitably be involved and so the conspiracy becomes more likely to come out. So is Bush's ineptness a good argument against 911 being an inside job? Yes, because there is no scenario where he could shield himself from his ineptness, even your make believe super agent one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Listen it's simple: 2/10 PLEASE SEE ME AFTER CLASS
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I get what you are trying to say. if you already believe 911 was an inside job and if you think Bush is completely inept wouldn't hiring a outside contractor be away for him to get around his ineptness and secretly organise 911. Yes, that first perfectly formulates what I'm trying to say. For the numbered points: 1. It's not completely unreasonable to think he would know his limitations. Barring that, that someone in his inner circle would talk him into hiring someone. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but really, one would expect Dick Cheney to set him straight if necessary: "Dude, really. You're not capable of doing this. Trust me." (If I'm being honest, I think it's easy to picture someone else coming up with the idea, and, possibly, just maybe, Bush himself just being out of the loop altogether. But there's no need for the discussion to go there.) 2-8. DIY has all of those same problems because you still need someone out in the field who knows the score organizing things. A contractor, or super-secret agent, if you will. There's no getting around that. The big difference in the two approaches is not whether you give the contractor some control, but how much. I say give him more and insulate yourself better from the plot. So yes, I do think you have a credible argument against "inside job." But I don't see that you've given DIY the advantage over contractor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
The Chairman posted:As a structural engineer, the most I dabble in 9/11 conspiracy is entertaining the idea that the Bush administration knew the attack was impending and either massively bungled their reaction to it, or let it happen because they thought it wouldn't be so bad or could benefit politically from it. None of the nonsense about controlled demolition or horizontal thermite or holograms or whatever is possible, much less plausible, and the NIST/ASCE reports about the failure mechanism of the WTC buildings and the Pentagon are reasonable and fit with my understanding of local failure and progressive collapse. This describes me fairly aptly, ignoring the "is an engineer" part. How much loose change does this mean I have?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Secret Agent X23 posted:
Regardless of if it's DIY or Hire a contractor, which are functionally the same thing,the points still stand, neither scenario is plausible or removes the fact that Bush and his team were bloody useless. You're basically just writing fan fiction now, it's a pointless argument. Your argument is that maybe Bush/Cheney are just competent enough to know their limitations and hire, with no traceable contact, a mythical super agent willing to carry out a massive terrorist attack with no support from anyone and without ever contacting anyone connected to Bush again. It's a worthless hypothetical because it could never happen in reality. If the moon landing was faked I think the way Kennedy would have done it is to contact a scientist he has never met (before he was president) and tell him to begin a 20 year operation to force NASA to film the landings with Stanley Kubrick. And never ever speak to him again. That is as reasonable and pointless as what you are saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Regardless of if it's DIY or Hire a contractor, which are functionally the same thing,the points still stand, neither scenario is plausible or removes the fact that Bush and his team were bloody useless. No contact? No support? I didn't say that. If I implied it, I didn't mean to. Just that if you give the guy more autonomy, it cuts down on the amount of contact needed, which is safer. No matter, though. You're right that it's a pointless argument. It's also a pointless argument as to whether Keith Moon or John Bonham was the better drummer, but oh, boy, I could tell you stories of some knock-down, drag-out arguments I've heard over that one. I can tell you, though, they sure were amusing to me as a listener.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
That just moves the conspiracy theory one step out without resolving the original problem. Bush/Cheney were too inept to succeed anything, but somehow they were able to recruit/vet a theoretical hypercompetent guy who could not only put together the whole conspiracy in perfect secrecy but also keep anyone from knowing they even exist because they can be assumed to be as competent as necessary for the conspiracy theory to work, and this supercontractor only did this one thing and nothing else so he couldn't be detected any other way and his wizard competence wasn't evident in anything else the administration did. And every year that goes by with no one finding out about his existence just makes him retroactively more competent in order to fit the theory. You may as well say Bush wished 9/11 into being on a magic lamp which he quietly dropped overboard after he landed on the USS Lincoln, can't rule that out either. E: Illuminti posted:If the moon landing was faked I think the way Kennedy would have done it is to contact a scientist he has never met (before he was president) and tell him to begin a 20 year operation to force NASA to film the landings with Stanley Kubrick. And never ever speak to him again. That is as reasonable and pointless as what you are saying. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That just moves the conspiracy theory one step out without resolving the original problem. My statement is this: From the point of view of someone who believes it was an inside job, it would be more likely for Bush and pals to contract the job out than to do it themselves. If you're not saying, straight up, that you think DIY would have been better than contractor, then the bottom line is that you and I don't really have a disagreement. You don't have to agree that it was an inside job. This is just hypothetical from that point of view. Now, earlier, it was a mistake on my part not to keep my replies focused on things that directly addressed that statement. But what I just said is the thing. And yes, as mentioned before, it's a silly argument to begin with. But arguing with people on the internet about anything at all is silly, so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 07:44
|
|