John McCain biopic

[laughingwillow]

den: I'm guessing if he had anything to say on the matters at hand, he'd say it. I'm not sure everyone agrees that the military was on stand down or that the wtc didn't burn to the ground.

As far as the torture goes, I imagine there would be outward signs mental or emotional defects by now that would have precluded him from getting where he at. I know his detractors tried to go that route already.

SHow me someone else to respect, eh?

lw

[dendro]

lw, I know that not everyone agrees that the towers were bombed down, or that the military stood down. Personally, I'm pretty sure McCain knows the truth.

BTW, I'm not implying that his war imprisonment resulted in any form of mental illness on his part. He may be mentally sound after all. But as we have seen, the mentally sound also are capable of committing crimes against humanity.

For myself, the events of 9/11 are a sort of a watershed. Those who think that the Towers "burned down", or that the military was trying its best to stop the attacks, in my view fail the test for functional intelligence.



edit: O, and someone to respect? That's a hard one. I assume you mean someone on the public stage or in political life?

Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, UK MP George Galloway, plenty more, really anyone willing to speak and act out against the neocons and their agenda.

[laughingwillow]

quote den:  For myself, the events of 9/11 are a sort of a watershed. Those who think that the Towers "burned down", or that the military was trying its best to stop the attacks, in my view fail the test for functional intelligence.

Then I guess you can call me functionally unintelligent, as I'm not privy to enough information to do more than speculate on the matters mentioned, imo.

The military's unability to act in a timely fahion could have been due to gross incompetence, arrogance, denial or a host of other reasons short of intentional treason. I see enough viable, documented reasons to consider shrub a war criminal without having to get into speculation.  

Am I entitled to some sort of disability payments now?

lw

[dendro]

no disability payments, sorry ...

but we're making a nice labor camp for you, with happy folks making wonderful things for the good of all  

Seriously, you have seen the videos of the towers going down, and you doubt that they were demolished by explosives? Personally, I consider you to be reasonably intelligent (hey, you liked my book enuff to read it, thanks for that!).  I think if you were to study the incident carefully, you would be convinced the towers were bombed, as well as the pentagon.

[dendro]

here's a link to a decent recent synopsis page on the 9/11-WTC question:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm

plenty more available, of course...

[senorsalvia]

Though I have nadda to add..  I must say I really like this thread. :shock: ...  Lw leadin the choir for IMHO a guy not unlike several hundred other POW's ..   (don't see his incarceration as anything heroic , nor agree that it somehow indicates a particular strength of character)..  Then Den rings in with assertions that would make any conspiracy nut salivate....   As the venerable Don King would say:::   ONLY IN AMERIKKKA :wink:  :wink:   --------  senorsal

[laughingwillow]

Shit. Bring those other pow's up for election and I'll vote for them too.

To be honest, I'd really rather vote for a woman to lead this country. Almost any woman. Except Conde.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some reading to do. Thanks for the link, den.

lw

[psilocyberin]

lw, we'll pull you up in an h ur for some air   :wink:

McCain, he's the one who eulogized Pat Tillman at the dead GI's funeral, after being killed by his own troops in Affy-guh-NIS-tan.

Now that the truth has been published, that Tillman was not killed by the enemy after all while being a big hero, and that the Army lied about it to everyone, is McCain speaking out and demanding accountability for the liars? No, McCain is silent.

And don't you think he knows that those WTC towers didn't "burn down", or that the military was ordered to stand down on 9/11?

You know, some people can get thru a horror like prison camp by means of an obsessive fixation of some kind. Such an experience doesn't automatically result in a person plumbing the depths of their soul, or the arrival at any kind of truth..

It is stuff like this that got the majority of the Democrats to question Kerry. You have been Karl Rove-ed (my new word) into voicing a strawman argument against the political agenda of a candidate which has nothing to do with the current affairs, personal fortitude and general compassion for the well-being of America, and everything to do with character defamation through non-sequitir points and a personal front to appear as though you keep up with current events.
No candidate is perfect, no one candidate will house every salient point you feel is congruent with American wellbeing. I am  Libertarian, do I vote Libertarian.... No, because come election time I have to decide who is the lesser of two evils. America is Americanized, we want a pretty president, anything close enough to be good enough to be on American Idol. It doesnt matter to 80% of the American population what Bush says, it is how he says it, which is astoundingly backwards. People are sheep, voting for whatever placates to the lowest common denominator of thought per their agenda. They are willing to accept anything which agrees and promotes their agenda without ever questioning or ratifying it, and are the first to jump on any speculation of character flaw to defend their political intelligence and candidate.
Am I a republican?....no, Do I like John McCain and his agenda?.... NO. Do I see the first logical, non-extremist to emerge without an agenda handed to him?.... yes.

[senorsalvia]

While you have adequately described some of the variable salient points whilst waxing somewhat philosophical; dare I ask you to deliniate, nay to elucidate which candidate/statesman/racconteur/or 'ner do well that you find likely to be somehow pulled out of the political morass and cast in the light of reality as being even halfway worthy of consideration?------senorsal??/

[laughingwillow]

Here, here, sal.

I'm even up for including the 'ner-do-wells and racconteurs. Mas, put them at the top of the list!

lw

[psilocyberin]

like I said before, anything to stop Frist from even making it out of the gate. It is sad that I have to use my vote as a tool of defense.

[dendro]

ahem...all I'm saying about McCain's past is, being a POW doesn't automatically make a man into a moral giant, or even a moral average joe. There are many accomodations that one can make to prison camp without becoming the Buddha.

But psilocyberin is right, this isn't about McCain's past. His current actions are neocon. I see his current role as a sort of gatekeeper, for propaganda purposes . "Look, McCain is not part of the Bush admin, and is a presidential hopeful who will someday oppose a Bush son in an election race, and even HE supports W in (insert latest lie here). We can trust McCain's voice of reason."

I'm simply saying, "No, we can't".

[laughingwillow]

Yeah, den... I read your book and dug it to boot, man.

I've been reading from the provided link. Thanks again. I've seen a lot of that info already and am still not convinced.

First off, on the issue of the pentagon strike..... I've seen the footage and it would appear as a missile hit the wall. (But complete detonation doesn't seem likely, or I'm guessing there would have been more damage. Anyway, I'm willing to concede the fact that a missile hit the pantagon. And I can see many reasons why the gubmint would want that fact covered up short of them facilitating the attack.

As for the demolition fo the wtc towers..... I can imagine the impact of a jet laden with fuel to cause explisions post impact. And I'm guessing I'm not the only one who has watched charcoal on the grill appear to go out, smoke for awhile and then burst back into flames? Again, just to play the devil's advocate this time, lets say there were more explosives planted at the towers bases. Let's say the attack was orchestrated with that by air. Does this necessarily point to complicity by the U$ gubmint? I don't see how any reasonable person could hold the gubmint accountable for more than covering up the real nature/sophistication of the terrorists acts in question by the evidence presented. And that's a far cry for holding the gubmit (tacitly) responsible for the attacks.

lw

[dendro]

lw:

"Yeah, den... I read your book and dug it to boot, man."

that totally rocks brah, tanks for that!  

So I hear you saying that  any guv "complicity" in the events of 9/11 may be limited to obfuscating and covering up the facts (for some logical and important "gubmint" reasons?)? Fair enuff, so would you care to opine about the ID of the actual perps? Somehow, I doubt the supposed and alleged "Arab hijackers" also orchestrated a non-commercial jet attack on the pentagon.  So, who?

I think the fact that WTC 7 was clearly demolished by placed charges to be sufficient evidence that bombs could have also been placed in the towers prior to the day's events, and the buildings brought down in the same manner as number 7. A viewing of the slo-mo video footage of the tower collapses also clearly shows lines of explosions bursting out of the tower external walls FAR BELOW the level of the first "collapsing truss floors" to be a clear indicator of placed charges. Another of course is the sheer speed with which the towers descended, and yet further, by the fact that the building was effectively turned to dust during the collapse (highly unlikely if the collapse was due to mechanical forces only). Prior to the event, Giuliani was told the towers were going to go down, but the rescue and fire workers were not told, and perished in the buildings. Again, why did they know the towers were going down just then? If not with  government complicity, then how could Giuliani get away with this stuff?

And of course, just prior to the collapses, we see the basement explosions, indicated by the expulsion of smokes and concussions (measured on seismograph readings) and apparent loud noises.

I can't think of any reasons why burning kerosene would have caused further explosions in the buildings long after the crashes themselves. Barbecues may flame up again (as the bricks themselves, with their self-contained flammable agents, begin to burn on their own), but they don't explode. BTW, the whole point of charcoal is to keep burning, unlike office buildings with limited fuel supplies. Seen any other steel-frame buildings burn down? Also, the fires in the towers were not large, and as the link I gave indicates, there is evidence that a "smudge fire" was used at the pentagon to give the impression of a large blaze, not borne out by the subsequent building damage. A smudge fire could also have been pre-placed in the towers to exagerate the volume of fire in the buildings for the cameras, done all the time in Hollywood. The firefighters in the buildings reported limited burning, to be easily controlled.

And without government complicity, we have only the ridiculous "incompetence theory" to explain the military stand down.

And how to explain the obvious nonchalance of the secret service guarding the prez at Booker Elementary, unless they knew already that the prez was not a target??

I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, but I am satisfied by the evidence that the official version put forward by the gubmint is a lie, which to me is the main issue to remember. But if not complicit, why the lies and coverups? What are Cheney and Rumsfeld (who both btw played key and pivotal roles in the day's events and the obfuscations immediately following) hiding?

[laughingwillow]

Good question, man. What are they hiding? Gross incompetence that allowed them in the end to perp their done deal in iraq, maybe?

As for the charges placed in the towers....... I fail to see how the gubmit would benefit from the towers coming all the way down when they already had terrorists doing a needed (in a neocom way) dirty deed by running planes into the towers.

Btw, you ever see those charcoal towers used to light coals? The structure isn't flamable, but given the proper mix of fuel and oxygen, quickly burns everything inside. (Is jet fuel really kerosene?)

Btw2: If'n the initial flames were as controlled and minimal as stated above, what caused all of those people to jump t their certain deaths rather than remain in the building?

lw