Babe Ruth Posted August 19, 2012 #1426 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Oh yes Raptor, I'm guilty as sin--definitely am skewed against the government. I side with Jefferson on that question--government is a necessary evil. At least in theory, governance is necessary to enforce the rights of individuals, to protect rights, should some other person infringe upon another's rights. I'm all for it. No anarchist here sir, I'm in favor of the rule of law. Good laws enforced fairly will lead to a stable and good society. So when government sins, I object. You may not, but I do object to government crimes, even though they have been happening since I was a boy, and considering that I'm aware of probably only a wee number of total government crimes. So I'm over that part. Even though government crimes are common, I still object and criticize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 19, 2012 #1427 Share Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) Oh yes Raptor, I'm guilty as sin--definitely am skewed against the government. I side with Jefferson on that question--government is a necessary evil. At least in theory, governance is necessary to enforce the rights of individuals, to protect rights, should some other person infringe upon another's rights. I'm all for it. No anarchist here sir, I'm in favor of the rule of law. Good laws enforced fairly will lead to a stable and good society. So when government sins, I object. You may not, but I do object to government crimes, even though they have been happening since I was a boy, and considering that I'm aware of probably only a wee number of total government crimes. So I'm over that part. Even though government crimes are common, I still object and criticize. I think most rational, feeling, caring people would object. But you're dancing nicely around the issue. I think we all know what the issue is here, but perhaps you would put forth how this government crimes issue relates to 9-11-01, as you see it (i.e., the issue). Edited August 19, 2012 by MID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted August 19, 2012 #1428 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The government's tendency to tell lies. To make things up, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted August 19, 2012 #1429 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Oh yes Raptor, I'm guilty as sin--definitely am skewed against the government. I side with Jefferson on that question--government is a necessary evil. At least in theory, governance is necessary to enforce the rights of individuals, to protect rights, should some other person infringe upon another's rights. I'm all for it. No anarchist here sir, I'm in favor of the rule of law. Good laws enforced fairly will lead to a stable and good society. So when government sins, I object. You may not, but I do object to government crimes, even though they have been happening since I was a boy, and considering that I'm aware of probably only a wee number of total government crimes. So I'm over that part. Even though government crimes are common, I still object and criticize. Quit dancing around the issue. Show me where I stated I condone government criminal activities. I merely showed your BIAS. Which stems from your way of thinking that the Government acts criminally ALL THE TIME. Stop putting words into my mouth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 19, 2012 #1430 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The government's tendency to tell lies. To make things up, nothing more. Oh...OK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted August 19, 2012 #1431 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The government's tendency to tell lies. To make things up, nothing more. Show us precisely where the government lied about 9/11? Don't just use the "government's tendancy to lie" as a blanket statement. It just makes you look ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 19, 2012 #1432 Share Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) The government's tendency to tell lies. To make things up, nothing more. You seem to forget that there are those who support the official explanation who are not government employees. Edited August 19, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted August 19, 2012 #1433 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Of course we all knew your opinions were biased in the first place. Nothing new to most of us. RB, you and most everyone else here knows this but let me repeat it anyway. All governments lie. It's part of the process of being a government. There is no such thing as complete honesty in government but no government can come even close to being the pathological liars BR claims the US government is and stay in business. Likewise, all governments partake in illegal activities. That also is part of the process of being a government and no government can stay in business without doing so. Apparently BR lives in some idealistic world where the government should be above such things but it's a big bad world out there and you've got to be big & bad to survive. And that means lying and partaking in illegal activities as required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackofalltrades Posted August 19, 2012 #1434 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Apparently BR lives in some idealistic world where the government should be above such things but it's a big bad world out there and you've got to be big & bad to survive. And that means lying and partaking in illegal activities as required. The government should be above such things ! Otherwise they are nothing more than HYPOCRITES, when they condemn ANY criminal for doing the exact same thing they do, for example drug dealing, murder gun running and a whole lot more As the old saying goes "lead by example" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted August 20, 2012 #1435 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Otherwise they are nothing more than HYPOCRITES, when they condemn ANY criminal for doing the exact same thing they do, for example drug dealing, I never said they weren't but, again, that applies to all governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 20, 2012 #1436 Share Posted August 20, 2012 RB, you and most everyone else here knows this but let me repeat it anyway. All governments lie. It's part of the process of being a government. There is no such thing as complete honesty in government but no government can come even close to being the pathological liars BR claims the US government is and stay in business. Likewise, all governments partake in illegal activities. That also is part of the process of being a government and no government can stay in business without doing so. Apparently BR lives in some idealistic world where the government should be above such things but it's a big bad world out there and you've got to be big & bad to survive. And that means lying and partaking in illegal activities as required. Without a doubt. (That governments lie, I mean). Also, I don't think it should be forgottent that governments, if not absolutely incompetent, often make fairly considerable :blush: :blush: ups, and one way in which they do quite often lie is to cover up for that, not necessarily because they're trying to cover up for the fact that they did something criminal. Therefore, I do tend toward the idea that while there undoubtedly were coverups by the Govt. on this issue, and that they almost certainly did conspire against the whole truth coming out, that was more in order to cover up their errors and overlooking of warnings that they got. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted August 20, 2012 #1437 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Without a doubt. (That governments lie, I mean). Also, I don't think it should be forgottent that governments, if not absolutely incompetent, often make fairly considerable :blush: :blush: ups, and one way in which they do quite often lie is to cover up for that, not necessarily because they're trying to cover up for the fact that they did something criminal. Therefore, I do tend toward the idea that while there undoubtedly were coverups by the Govt. on this issue, and that they almost certainly did conspire against the whole truth coming out, that was more in order to cover up their errors and overlooking of warnings that they got. Oh, yeah, big time. The truth came out on that, at least in part, but that was one huge bollix from start to finish. Unfortunately the intelligence community is collectively learning disabled and is still screwing up most bodaciously. It would be nice if they'd actually talk to each other now and then but that seems to be too much effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted August 20, 2012 #1438 Share Posted August 20, 2012 where do people get the notion that the US government is incompetent? maybe it is because the paradigm they believe in is not based on reality, so anything that does not fit into their paradigm or make sense to them they write off as stupidity. the US government is currently head of the most powerful empire the world has ever seen yet people call them incompetent, god knows what they would accomplish if they put their minds to it /sarc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted August 20, 2012 #1439 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) Show us precisely where the government lied about 9/11? Don't just use the "government's tendancy to lie" as a blanket statement. It just makes you look ignorant. the conclusion of the 911 commission report was "911 was a failure of imagination".did they fail to imagine that transforming event as the 911 commission report stated (headed by Philip Zelikow) hmm, well let's go back to 1999 two years before 911 and see what that same philip zelikow wrote along with the head of the CIA and others as published by "Foreign Affairs" on the Council on Foreign Relations website. "Imagining the Transforming Event" http://www.hks.harva...nsforming Event you'll see that they did imagine the event, it even "imagines" the destruction of the world trade centre and how the aftermath would affect society and government. a bit curious don't you think. seems more of a blueprint than a warning to me. how will those that claim "government incompetence" reconcile the above god-like genius imaginings with their claims of "incompetence". will they shape their facts from their beliefs? or will they shape their beliefs from the facts? Edited August 20, 2012 by Little Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 20, 2012 #1440 Share Posted August 20, 2012 where do people get the notion that the US government is incompetent? perhaps because of all the accumulated evidence from the last, oh, pick an era of your choice, the last 50 years, say, (or probably much further than that), whereas the only "evidence" of their supposed ruthless efficiency has been this supposed enormous cover-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 20, 2012 #1441 Share Posted August 20, 2012 And their ruthless efficiency didn't even extend to the wars that this was supposedly designed to be a justification for, did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted August 20, 2012 #1442 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) Show us precisely where the government lied about 9/11? Don't just use the "government's tendancy to lie" as a blanket statement. It just makes you look ignorant. Egads Raptor! The government lied in saying that jetfuel and gravity brought down the towers. The government lied in saying that Shanksville had a passenger carrying Boeing crash there. It lied about flight 77 and ALL the cell phone calls that could not have taken place. And Lord knows it lied with much of the testimony presented before the 911 Commission. I understand that in your conscious mind you do not approve of government crimes. Yet by the position you have chosen on this particular subject, whether you understand it or not, you have chosen to come down on the side of the government fable, the official narrative. Of course you may be selective, saying for example that you believe Element A of the official narrative, but you don't believe in Element B. That is certainly fair enough, but in the end reason requires that both A & B make up the official narrative, and if either part is invalid, then the entire narrative is invalid. Edited August 20, 2012 by Babe Ruth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted August 20, 2012 #1443 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) And their ruthless efficiency didn't even extend to the wars that this was supposedly designed to be a justification for, did it? so you are saying they should make someone like you a five star general and sack all the other generals for incompetence because they only conquered several countries in 10 years. Edited August 20, 2012 by Little Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted August 20, 2012 #1444 Share Posted August 20, 2012 replies, as promised..... I'm curious as to what you mean by the military should have "went into action and took control of the situation"...how exactly would they do this? I didn't say...'should have' ....I think that they DID go into action and take control. How would they do this?......just like they did (according to my speculation on 9/11).....by a process of elimination find out what Airliners were being hijacked, then take them to a place, by remote-control... where they could be shot down, thereby removing the danger of the airliners being used to hit more prime targets....(after the terrorists success hitting the Twin Towers) Who would make all these myriad, instant decisions? What specific, real time information did they have to make these decisions? I don't know details like this...but logic says that people working in Defence ARE trained to make instant/quick decisions when their country is under attack. As for specific info to base their decisions on.....it couldn't have been easy with the Vigilant Guardian exercise going on....and transponders on hijacked planes being switched off?....but from Primary Radar returns and making positive identifications on planes that WEREN'T being hijacked...I expect they could figure it out reasonably fast... (AFTER flight 175 hit the 2nd tower) Fact is, not even the ATC folks knew what was happening, and it was their airspace, their aircraft. so they say..... Did you expect fighters to just launch on their own without clearance from FAA and military folks, to charge around willy-nilly looking for jetliners to shoot down? of course not....but it would make sense that the military, under such serious circumstances would have their own frequencies to communicate on. I wouldn't be surprised if the regular ATC people were kept out of the loop...? How do you take control of a situation that no one has a handle on? you see...this is where it all gets silly......to try and make out that NO ONE had a handle on the situation. (after flight 175 hit) How do you mount a defense against a threat you can't locate? Remember, these attacks all happened relatively quickly, it wasn't until the 2nd WTC impact that (most) folks realized it was an attack. Soon thereafter they declared "ATC Zero", which takes some time to decide, then much longer to implement. Fighters were getting generated, some were launched sans weapons. By then, the crashes were over. I understand that this is the Official Position on the events of that day....that it was all too confusing and all too quick. BUT...I think the US was better defended than this on 9/11...and that after flight 175 hit it's target...by radar returns and communications with airliners that were NOT hijacked....the necessary targets (flights 93 and 77) could be identified and dealt with. This instant defense you demand just doesn't happen instantly with a peacetime military posture. That you can't "buy" it simply means you won't accept the reality of a peacetime defense posture, and the specific steps it takes to increase that posture. I'm sorry..?....what is the point of Defence....if it isn't to defend? 'Peacetime military posture' has got nothing to do with it...you are either ready to defend your country or you aren't... So no....I don't accept what you refer to as 'peacetime defence posture'....if that means that the US wasn't ready and able to defend itself in the event of a surprise attack.... As you might remember I think the terrorists chose the day when the Vigilant Guardian exercise was going on to buy some time.. in the initial confusion...to hit targets. They managed to get the Twin Towers...but I don't htink they got anything else...from the air. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted August 20, 2012 #1445 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Bee, how quickly do you think the MoD would have reacted had this happened in England? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 20, 2012 #1446 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) The government lied in saying that jetfuel and gravity brought down the towers. Apparently, fires and impact damage were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings and you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary. The government lied in saying that Shanksville had a passenger carrying Boeing crash there. Apparently, the government didn't lie because United Airlines, operator of United 93, Coroner Wally Miller, recovery work crews, and others at the crash site of United 93, along with photos of United 93, confirm that the aircraft was the airframe of United 93. It lied about flight 77 and ALL the cell phone calls that could not have taken place. Apparently, records have been produced proving that such calls did occur and the cell phone record shows that the cell phone calls were made when United 93 was at 5000 feet, not 30,000 feet. Most phone calls were from Airfones, not cell phones, and records for those calls have been provided as well. And Lord knows it lied with much of the testimony presented before the 911 Commission. Many of those confirming the official story have no ties to the government nor are the airlines government agencies. It is rather silly for you to talk about government lies when you use references from 9/11 CT websites that are notorious for lying. Edited August 20, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted August 20, 2012 #1447 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) so we are back to this old how can you know argument? how about posting some evidence please as to why you believe in what you do. well if you're really interested, there is my thread that I did on 9/11...with bits and bobs of 'evidence'... http://www.unexplain...1 I'm not satisfied with what I said about the Pentagon on my thread...but I am satisfied with what I said about Directed Energy Weapons being used to bring down WTCs 1, 2 and 7 (for the sake of safety of the whole area) And about flight 93 being shot down. More up to date on what I think MIGHT have happened at the Pentagon can be seen in posts 137 + 140....here... http://www.unexplain...c=219063&st=135 The Pentagon on 9/11 is the most confusing and controversial part of it all.... Unless you believe the Official Account, of course.... Anyway...hope all the above helps.... . Edited August 20, 2012 by bee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted August 20, 2012 #1448 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Sky, theres a video on WTC7 on fire before it collapsed so it was not a controlled demo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted August 20, 2012 #1449 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Bee, how quickly do you think the MoD would have reacted had this happened in England? I don't know.....as such an attack from the air....with multiple hijacked planes hasn't happened here... But I would expect their (MODs) reactions to be on a par with America's Defence organisations.... Surely the main business of defence....is to defend...? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 20, 2012 #1450 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Sky, theres a video on WTC7 on fire before it collapsed so it was not a controlled demo And, there was massive impiact damage to WTC 7 on the south side of the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now