John McCain biopic

[Amomynous]

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.

And the way I see it, those who see the events of 9/11 as the hand of some vast conspiracy fail the test of emotional intelligence. They are caught up in the speculative agendas of those who have real reason to have you believe in a conspiracy and ignore many important and almost incontrovertible facts, messy as those facts may be.

There are two small children in the small town in which I live whose mother was killed in the pentagon attack, and it bothers me to see those who use her death to promote their own twisted political agenda. And make no mistake, those on both the "right" and the "left" (both moderate and extreme) are doing this.

[dendro]

"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."

First benefit-the shock effect of the visual images of those two towers crashing down one after the other in a highly dramatic manner. Ideal for mythmaking and social control.

Second-destruction of evidence.

Third-vastly increased death toll (see first benefit). Death is an end in itself for the military industry, and the numbers impress the public sufficiently to cause them to endorse military action. See "PEARl HARBOR".

Jet fuel is not much different than kerosene, or from charcoal lighter for that matter.

I don't know how many people jumped from the buildings. I doubt they were counted. Certainly, if they were trapped by flames and smoke, they may have jumped to avoid death by flame or suffocation. Some may have been terrified and panicked beyond belief, and freaked out. But you have seen the photos of people standing in the hole made by the crash of the jet? No flames there. The firefighters in the building reported that the flames were extinguishable. However, I have not said there were no flames or smoke, that would be silly. There was flame, just not enuff to bring down two steel frame skyscrapers at the speed of freefall within minutes of each other.

Amom:

"There are two small children in the small town in which I live whose mother was killed in the pentagon attack, and it bothers me to see those who use her death to promote their own twisted political agenda."

It bothers all of us. But it was a public event, and is spun as the justification for war, so the events of 9/11 will be discussed endlessly, from now on. I don't see why they shouldn't be discussed. Personally, I admit to a "twisted political agenda", as you term it. I want to know the truth, I want to punish the perps, and I want to STOP THE WAR. Does that offend you?

I'd be interested to hear your "messy facts" that neatly explain the events of 9/11.

"And the way I see it, those who see the events of 9/11 as the hand of some vast conspiracy fail the test of emotional intelligence."

Why emotional intelligence? How does one's "emotional intelligence" (not sure what this term means, actually) relate to which explanation of the events of 9/11 he chooses to believe or disbelieve?

Which explanation of the events conforms best with "emotional intelligence"?  

I wonder what sort of arguments were (or would have been) used by military apologists in 1942 to attack those (few) who dared to say that Pearl Harbor was engineered by Roosevelt. Were they also termed "emotionally unintelligent"?

Here's a "messy fact" for you. Roosevelt engineered Pearl Harbor, and lied about it.

[laughingwillow]

I guess I disagree on your analysis of the gubmit's hand in bringing down the towers. Jets crashing into Amerikkan skyscrapers after being hyjacked by terrorists would have been all the impetus the gubmit needed to carry out Its latest dirty deeds, imo. I think the gubmit would have benefited more by the towers staying up after the attack. (Amerikkan resiliance/craftsmanship and all.) A coordinated attack on amerikkan soil that made our leaders look like a bunch of bumbling bafoons. You think thats what They wanted?

If'n the neocoms are that damnable smart, I doubt they would risk getting caught adding explosives just to take the towers all the way down. It makes no sense, imo. Especially after setting up their biggest patsy yet, Osamma, with blame for the attack. Too much risk of the entire plan being discovered with too little payoff, imo.

Just what "evidence" at the towers crash site needed to be destroyed by our gubmit. den?

Btw, If'n I remember correctly, the nation was in a state of shock long before the towers came all the way down that day. The attacks alone brought the country to a stand still.

Nobody benefited from the towers coming down except for the terrorists, imo.

lw

[laughingwillow]

I just found this quote from den while searching for the link provided in a post....

But as we have seen, the mentally sound also are capable of committing crimes against humanity.

....................

I disagree, for the most part. Unfortunately that which passes for "mentally sound" has been denigrated over time to include atrocious actions by supposedly civilized peeps. Rationalizing away bad behavior seems to be a hallmark of current, mentally sound majority.

lw

[dendro]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm

I agree with your assessment of "mentally sound".

The evidence destroyed was primarily the evidence of demolition.  The remains were quickly shipped to China by a demolition contractor. Important and potentially incriminating financial and intelligence data was also destroyed.

"A coordinated attack on amerikkan soil that made our leaders look like a bunch of bumbling bafoons. You think thats what They wanted?"

No, and that's not what they got. They got a coordinated attack on American soil that (when they acted like cowboys and swore immediate and drastic retribution) made our leaders look like strong, capable patriots. Pretty much the way the majority of voters thinks of them to this day.

So you don't think that the death toll was a significant contributor to the success of the military recrujiting effort, or the quick rollover of congress on the vote to empower the president to war? If so, I disagree.

PLus, there is the propaganda effect of building a new "Freedom Tower" on the site, and turning it into a memorial for the "War on Terror".

Not to mention the simple fact that private businessmen made a profit off insurance from the destruction of an obsolete building.

Why not ask, "Why was WTC 7 demolished?".

[laughingwillow]

quote from serendipity site:  This article by Cheryl Seal mostly accepts the official story as a premise, that on September 11th four Boeing jets were hijacked by Arab terrorists and that these four planes crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, but she argues plausibly that, if so, high officials in the Bush administration must have known in advance what the Arabs were planning, but, knowing what was likely to happen, stood aside, allowed it to happen, and then took advantage of it in order to further their aims. She shows that *if* we accept the official story then George W. Bush, as commander-in-chief responsible for decisions made in the event of America being under attack, is also responsible for allowing the September 11th attacks to occur. Thus either the official story is false or George W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

quote detail from above: but she argues plausibly that, if so, high officials in the Bush administration must have known in advance what the Arabs were planning, but, knowing what was likely to happen, stood aside, allowed it to happen, and then took advantage of it in order to further their aims.

....................

Imo, the author is making quite a leap above. And it appears to be a blatant effort to make the known facts meet her conclusions.
 
I believe Shrub knew in advance that the radicals were planning an attack on the US. However, I highly doubt He had enough specifics on time, place and means. Its also easy to imagine the neocons WISHING for a terrorist attack in order to further Their twisted adjenda. But that's a far cry from having their pulse on the international terrorist community, or worse yet, them working in unison with the terrorist factions to pull off the attacks, or even doing it themself, as speculated by another serendipity author.

I've now read a bunch of the info linked above, den. The authors seem to stray into conjecture and wild speculation, giving me the impression that the truth of the matters at hand prolly fall somewhere between the official accounts and that of the conspiracy theorists.

lw

[dendro]

cool, at least you did some reading on the subject.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that elements of the US guv couldn't be in tune with the pulse of the terrorist community. Seems obvvious to me.

Also, I have to ask, if the Secret Service was not briefed about the actual targets of that day, why did they take no action, as required by their job description and mission statement, to protect either the president or the elementary school and community where he was visiting?

And of course, why no military defense of the US?

[laughingwillow]

quote den: Also, I have to ask, if the Secret Service was not briefed about the actual targets of that day, why did they take no action, as required by their job description and mission statement, to protect either the president or the elementary school and community where he was visiting?

Again, I have to say the above strays ver' far into speculation. It makes no logical sense to me for the agency in charge of protecting the prez to base their job performance on a terrorist attack of which they had knowledge. After all, I imagine there are countless lesser threats to a president that they would be expected address regardless of terror alert status. Or maybe I miss your point.

I also fail to see how it is obvious that our gubmit would have detailed knowledge of an impending attack. Clinton's advisors seemed certain something big was being planned. And it sounds like they passed that info onto shrub. SOmeone dropped the ball, that's for sure. But I remember flying pre 9-11 and security was lax for the most part. I believe the commercial airline industry would have been tightened up much quicker if'n the country wasn't ruled by the almighty dollar.

lw

[dendro]

lw:

"Again, I have to say the above strays ver' far into speculation. It makes no logical sense to me for the agency in charge of protecting the prez to base their job performance on a terrorist attack of which they had knowledge. After all, I imagine there are countless lesser threats to a president that they would be expected address regardless of terror alert status. Or maybe I miss your point. "

OK, let me restate for clarification. The country was under major attack. The prez' location was public knowledge, and he was at risk, as was the school and community. The secret service did not move the president for a very long time. Why?

I understood your comment about the "pulse of the int'l terror community" to mean that you think that US intel wouldn't have had the knowledge and means to pull off such an attack. But I see you were focusing on knowledge of the details of this specific attack. I won't quibble as to whether or not the Intel community's participation was obvious, or not. What I meant was, the intel community was in a perfect position to know. Especially if they were participants. I don't see any reason to believe that they could not have been, or were NOT, involved. The circumstantial evidence that many were "in the loop" on this affair is substantial-I think of the lack of military defense, and the failure of the SS to move the prez from the school in a timely manner.

Again, I do not see why it is so impossible for US intel to have been involved, or why Mossad would not have been involved, or even other groups.  Why could US intel have not been involved? They could have been. They certainly had the knowledge to successfully participate in such an operation.  You may not agree that they did participate, but again, I see no reason to believe that they did NOT participate, and certainly not on the basis that they lacked sufficient data or expertise to do so.

Again, if the SS knew the day's targets, they knew the prez was not at risk, and that they did not have to hurry him out of the school for safety reasons. Cuz there was no danger!

here's a link to Web Tarpley's latest pages regarding the demolition of the buildings:

http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

[dendro]

lw, can you link me to the article by Cheryl Seal that you quote from above? I don't know where on that site her paper is.

Ahh, I see, this is it:

http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/seal01.htm

Altho available on the serendipity site, this is not a page linked on the pages I offered. I had not read it, and don't necessarily endorse it. I haven't explored this site, as I followed a link just to the article I posted. The paper I linked, I liked.

I really don't endorse this writer's (Seal's) conclusions. I believe elements in the Bush admin, DOD Pentagon, NORAD, FEMA and other key groups participated knowingly and willfully in the attacks, along with agents of foreign governments.

[laughingwillow]

I still can't help but think that the gubmit comes out smelling WAY better by foiling any terrorist attack than they do by allowing it to happen or even orchestrating the action.

Occam's razor makes be wonder if'n there may be a few slices and dices of reality remaining in between the official version and the radical U$ gubmitt attack on the US peeps as described above in your last post.

I don't think the neocoms are as messed up as you do, even though I believe they have plenty of well documented abuses of power of an impeachable or even criminal nature. I see no reason to get into speculation concerning thsi bunch.

This is a MASSIVE cover-up if true, brawh. Massive.

lw

[Amomynous]

Amom:

"There are two small children in the small town in which I live whose mother was killed in the pentagon attack, and it bothers me to see those who use her death to promote their own twisted political agenda."

It bothers all of us. But it was a public event, and is spun as the justification for war, so the events of 9/11 will be discussed endlessly, from now on.

Absolutely. And it's being used by the left to sow fear and terror too, but of a different enemy. Same shit, different day.

(Be afraid! Be afraid! The Evil is outside! It's Us against Them! Fnord!)

I'd be interested to hear your "messy facts" that neatly explain the events of 9/11.

Well, as an example, many of the more paranoid fear mongers claim that no jet hit the pentagon, that -- in fact -- a missile was fired at it, probably by our own government to generate fear and hatred (how's that for irony?). This ignores the messy fact that there really was a plane hijacked from Dulles, and some fairly public figures were aboard, such as the CEO of a publicly-traded hi-tech NoVA company. A missing airplane and the passengers aboard comprise a pretty messy fact if you ask me.

Why emotional intelligence? How does one's "emotional intelligence" (not sure what this term means, actually) relate to which explanation of the events of 9/11 he chooses to believe or disbelieve?

Well, if one let's oneself get whipped up into a froth about the events (fear and hatred), one gets focused on the outward situation and misses the fact that situation is ultimately a distraction, a drama, an entertainment. If you really want to understand the situation on a deeper level (beyond the disputed "facts" of the occurrence), one needs to look inside, towards ones own heart. If one focuses outwardly, one ultimately learns nothing beyond the sports-scores of some contrived Archetypal melodrama.

But to understand that requires a level of self-knowledge lacking and discouraged by the people on the right and left who are creating the myth.

Here's a "messy fact" for you. Roosevelt engineered Pearl Harbor, and lied about it.

So? Believe it or not, Roosevelt and all of his cronies are dead, and the "government" as a static thing-in-itself does not exist. If you're trying to say that one group of people could engineer a disaster because another group of people did over 60 years ago... perhaps, but forgive me if I don't find this particularly insightful.

[dendro]

lw:

"I still can't help but think that the gubmit comes out smelling WAY better by foiling any terrorist attack than they do by allowing it to happen or even orchestrating the action."

mebbe so--IF their goal was to come out smelling great. But if the goal was to invade Afffy and Irraqqy (and Syria and Iran and Petrolistan and Poppystan and...), then mebbe they wanted a dramatic demolition and high death toll, even if they don't look too good. And I don't think you can discount the possiblity of important occult purposes for the destruction as well.

Most Amurrikkans are happy so long as they are shooting at someone. They have already forgotten most of the "mistakes" made pre-9/11. Witness the lack of interest in the so-called "Downing St. Memo", ignored by the congress and press for the last month. Who cares?, let's watch the "Duke" Wayne flik, yeah!

"Occam's razor makes be wonder if'n there may be a few slices and dices of reality remaining in between the official version and the radical U$ gubmitt attack on the US peeps as described above in your last post. "

again, mebbe so, but would you care to parse it? I can't see many slices, so feel free to show me...

"I don't think the neocoms are as messed up as you do, even though I believe they have plenty of well documented abuses of power of an impeachable or even criminal nature. I see no reason to get into speculation concerning thsi bunch. "

fair enuff, we disagree. I don't really need to speculate, becuz I see stacks and heaps of evidence pointing in their direction, over the last 50 years. I recommend you read some books about the Bush crime family, involved in every dirty deal for fifty years or more. That's a lot of dirty! I do think if you investigate the Bush crime family, you will understand why I put nothing past them.

"This is a MASSIVE cover-up if true, brawh. Massive. "

Absotootly, bro. It's what they do. My perspective is perhaps augmented by the fact that my Dad was a top FBI guy, '40's to '70's, and was involved in the coverups of the murders of JFK, RFK, Marylin, and the cleanup of the Watts riots and the Black civil rights groups and PAC's, among many other things. Remember CoIntelPro? Yeah. There is a huge industry of cover- and cleanup guys out there. It doesn't take that many people at the top to engineer the acts and know the facts, then the attack dogs follow with murder and intimidation. Seems to work well for them.

Amom:

"Absolutely. And it's being used by the left to sow fear and terror too, but of a different enemy. Same shit, different day. "

true. But as of now, the 9/11 Truth Movement is not trying to terrorize anyone, unless you believe that calling for an independent prosecutor is a form of terror. And one of the goals is to stop the wars, which I feel would DECREASE the terror load considerably.

"Well, as an example, many of the more paranoid fear mongers claim that no jet hit the pentagon, that -- in fact -- a missile was fired at it, probably by our own government to generate fear and hatred (how's that for irony?). This ignores the messy fact that there really was a plane hijacked from Dulles, and some fairly public figures were aboard, such as the CEO of a publicly-traded hi-tech NoVA company. A missing airplane and the passengers aboard comprise a pretty messy fact if you ask me. "

Messy, yes, in terms of life lost. But disposing of a planeload of people is not that hard, or messy. How does fifty miles offshore in the Atlantic sound? Clean enuff?

"Well, if one let's oneself get whipped up into a froth about the events (fear and hatred), one gets focused on the outward situation and misses the fact that situation is ultimately a distraction, a drama, an entertainment. If you really want to understand the situation on a deeper level (beyond the disputed "facts" of the occurrence), one needs to look inside, towards ones own heart. If one focuses outwardly, one ultimately learns nothing beyond the sports-scores of some contrived Archetypal melodrama. But to understand that requires a level of self-knowledge lacking and discouraged by the people on the right and left who are creating the myth. "

OK, fair enuff, I agree. Altho I don't see where I have posted anything whipped up or frothy, or fear-laden for that matter. I'm just pointing out that a crime has been committed, and a nation led to war on the basis of lies. In the interest of world peace and justice, these things need to be dealt with in a legal manner, and the criminals brought to account.

Perhaps your idea fits better in The Mountain? Here in The World, us less-enlightened types discuss world events and politics. Altho, I do believe that even enlightened beings have an interest, perhaps a duty, to be aware of the goings on around them, and to participate in an enlightened manner, to bring about peace and safety for all. For example, I may know that, in reality, I am Shiva. But I am also currently a finite, mortal being who embodies a portion of Shiva, and I interact with others of my self, and with the environment, in time and space. I would hope that I would accordingly attempt to bring the wisdom of the Cosmic Supreme Lord to bear on finite and temporal situations, for the benefit of all. While I understand the Gita (death and suffering are illusory), I also understand the Bodhisattva (continue to work for enlightenment for all). Personally, I just want to save the children.

"So? Believe it or not, Roosevelt and all of his cronies are dead, and the "government" as a static thing-in-itself does not exist. If you're trying to say that one group of people could engineer a disaster because another group of people did over 60 years ago... perhaps, but forgive me if I don't find this particularly insightful"

Yes, this does show that it is possible for governments and leaders to lie about their mass murders, in case there are any doubts. Examples too numerous to count. These are the messy facts that give rise to the understanding that they cannot be trusted. And while I agree that the government, as "ding an sich", does not exist, the spiritual descendants of Roosevelt are still in control of our society, so their spirit persists, as do their acts of murder and tyranny.

[Amomynous]

Messy, yes, in terms of life lost. But disposing of a planeload of people is not that hard, or messy. How does fifty miles offshore in the Atlantic sound? Clean enuff?

I just don't follow this. Why would one hijack a plane, dispose of it in the Atlantic, and shoot the pentagon with a missle? Wouldn't it be much easier (and less likely to be found out) to just fly the plane into the pentagon to begin with?

[laughingwillow]

Amom: Thanks for slicing that last one concerning the pentagon attack  for me.

den: I've read most of the bush family history from the prospective of the opposition. (The prolly true prospective, if'n you ask me.) A couple of radical friends have been sending me literature for a couple of decades now. But IU still say there are enough documented cases of shrub's executive branch excesses to impeach or jail for was crimes. Why speculate?

lw