Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Even if you don't believe the government had anything to do with the attacks, their is no denying the government took advantage of a bad situation to expand their powers using fear to pass laws they knew would never pass otherwise.

As for basing an entire arguement around Bin Laden admiting it, theres a few flaws with that arguement. The first being that he that he repeated denied over and over again that he had nothing to do with the attacks. He did admit to it yes, but why did it take him so long to come around and finally admit to it? And why did he deny it for so long? Secondly all his videos are always poor quality and you can't always be sure its really him in all of them. Then lastly is bin ladens ties with the US government. And while most people say he is no longer working with the US government, his previous involvement always brings up a slight about of doubt of to where his loyalties really are. So your full proof arguement is on a bit of shaky ground.

Originally Posted by Alric

Even if you don't believe the government had anything to do with the attacks, their is no denying the government took advantage of a bad situation to expand their powers using fear to pass laws they knew would never pass otherwise.

As for basing an entire arguement around Bin Laden admiting it, theres a few flaws with that arguement. The first being that he that he repeated denied over and over again that he had nothing to do with the attacks. He did admit to it yes, but why did it take him so long to come around and finally admit to it? And why did he deny it for so long? Secondly all his videos are always poor quality and you can't always be sure its really him in all of them. Then lastly is bin ladens ties with the US government. And while most people say he is no longer working with the US government, his previous involvement always brings up a slight about of doubt of to where his loyalties really are. So your full proof arguement is on a bit of shaky ground.

All the conspiracy theories are on shaky ground, not Osama bin Laden's confession.

Is it possible that the administration passed all those laws to protect America, and not for oil money? Nothing will get a president thrown out faster than incompetency leading to another attack. Not everyone in power is evil.

The US government had ties with Hussein, too. And I'm pretty sure Osama bin Laden is more loyal to his fantical muslim friends than the US government. Remember, everyone hates us.

Personally (and I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it's just an honest observation), I don't think the "Osama Bin Laden" that confessed to the tower attacks (in the somewhat grainy, yellowish video) looks much like the Osama Bin Laden that we've seen on every video, since that one - unless he lost a good 50 lbs and got a nose job, that is. (I dunno, maybe its just the video, or the heavier clothes, or the difference in the beard?)

Now, I'm not accusing the Administration (or anyone else, for that matter) of staging that confession, but I gotta be honest: It makes me wonder.


Bin Laden 1: (The Confession)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FVe...elated&search=

Bin Laden 2: (In this one, notice, there is no confession. The attacks are praised, but not taken responsibility for)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dls5JTD-uG0

...But on a lighter note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR2jX...elated&search=


[EDIT: Just found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp9gZ...elated&search= ]
And if anyone hasn't heard the song "Tell the Truth, by Mos Def and Immortal Technique, that is linked to, beneath the video, you should. I've heard the song before, but that's the first time I've seen the video. I love that they actually wrote out the lyrics.]

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Remember, everyone hates us.

That type of thinking doesn't make it ok to pass freedom-limiting laws that are absurd to say the least. Being able to throw anyone in jail without a court hearing, simply because there is (questionable) suspicion that the person might possibly be involved with some mid eastern country? That's abuse of power and taking advantage of a situation in my opinion.

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

That type of thinking doesn't make it ok to pass freedom-limiting laws that are absurd to say the least. Being able to throw anyone in jail without a court hearing, simply because there is (questionable) suspicion that the person might possibly be involved with some mid eastern country? That's abuse of power and taking advantage of a situation in my opinion.

The people we throw in jail are not citizens of the United States. They are not entitled to the rights and freedoms we provide.

It doesn't happen like you are saying it. They dont throw anybody who has ties with the mid-east in jail. If that were the case, my father would be in jail. What does the administration have to gain from throwing innocent people in jail?

I will concede that the Patriot Act is a little excessive, but it was created with good intentions. The terrorists who attacked us lived here. Mainly, it was just a homeland security boost.

They can arrest and detain ANYONE without any evidence or a lawyer for an indeterminate amount of time for whatever reason they deem a 'threat', not just non-citizens. Even if it were just non-citizens that way of thinking is based around fear and clearly flawed on so many levels it's disturbing. It starts there and pretty soon you'll have announcements daily updating people of what they arbitrarily consider 'threats' to the status quo.

Here's a glimpse of where this way of thinking takes you...

*playing repeatedly from loud speakers setup throughout the city*
Attention: Please inform your nearest PSTO (Patriot Security Threat Officer) of any suspicious behavior and get free consumer credits for you and your family! Because a concerned citizen... is a good citizen!

Threat # 3456654332
Walking opposite of traffic on the sidewalk.

Threat # 3456654333
Standing on the wrong side of the escalator

Threat # 3456654334
Sighing in public

Threat # 3456655335
Illegal trafficing of an emotion chip to a minor

Threat # 3456654336
Display of emotion in emotion-free zone

Etc...

Remember:The road to hell is paved in good intentions....

I'm sure Hitler's homeland security changes were also done in good intentions, it doesn't make them right. It would be wise to stop defending such obvious lapses in judgement.

Are you really asserting that the government would put me in Guantanamo for J-walking? And don't think we are afraid of these people.

The people in Guantanamo deserve to be there. In fact, if we are talking about citizens of the US, they should be tried and put to death for treason.

Still, I believe the Patriot Act is excessive, along with having the stupidest name ever given.

What's to stop them? They have every right to do whatever they please now. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely...

By the way, alot of those people are there without sufficient evidence or cause and later released...Not that you care because they aren't citizens anyway, right? Say Wha? Not american = subhuman?

They should give a shirt to those people saying, "I (heart) The Patriot Act", and the back reading, "I got wrongfully arrested, extradited, and tortured for treason, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

Just to get one thing straight... the Patriot Act applies to everyone in this country. Citizen or not, legal or not.

Here's one example of the abuse of power onto a Asian American citizen.

Here's a quote from this link which talks about legislators criticizing the Patriot Act:

Jafar "Jeff" Siddiqui, a Seattle real estate broker who emigrated from Pakistan 30 years ago, told committee members about a Hindu college roommate who once was hauled into a Pakistani prison without any explanation. The government simply cited safety and security, saying his friend was perceived as a threat.


He said his friend was held for a long time, then released -- again without any explanation. Siddiqui argued that tenuous links to terrorism should not be enough to jail people indefinitely without charging them with any crime.

Here's another quote taken from Wikipedia:

Wrongful accusations under the Act

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faces 20 years in jail. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]
FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16]

Need any more examples?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I will concede that the Patriot Act is a little excessive, but it was created with good intentions. The terrorists who attacked us lived here. Mainly, it was just a homeland security boost.

Yeah, and you are too blind to know the difference between a security boost and an unconstitutional abuse of power. Here's a hint: it's the latter.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Is it possible that the administration passed all those laws to protect America, and not for oil money? Nothing will get a president thrown out faster than incompetency leading to another attack. Not everyone in power is evil.

Your wrong on both accounts. Its not for oil and its not for our protection. Its about expanding the size and power of the government. Governments always try to expand their power and influance, and always try to gain more control over people. In this case they passed all the laws to gain more power over us.

If you don't believe that, all you have to do is look at the actual laws passed. Things like the Patriot Act is almost never used against terrorists, its nearly always used in criminal cases. Thats all fine and good except it was sold to the people as being needed for terrorists not for criminals. And is just an example of how they took advantage of the attack to shove laws down the throats of scared americans.

Originally Posted by Alric

Your wrong on both accounts. Its not for oil and its not for our protection. Its about expanding the size and power of the government. Governments always try to expand their power and influance, and always try to gain more control over people. In this case they passed all the laws to gain more power over us.

If you don't believe that, all you have to do is look at the actual laws passed. Things like the Patriot Act is almost never used against terrorists, its nearly always used in criminal cases. Thats all fine and good except it was sold to the people as being needed for terrorists not for criminals. And is just an example of how they took advantage of the attack to shove laws down the throats of scared americans.

The beauty of American government is that no President can experience the long term benefits of his actions. George Bush and his administration have nothing to gain from making our government bigger and controlling its people. There will probably be a Democrat in the office next term anyway, who will change all this.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

The beauty of American government is that no President can experience the long term benefits of his actions. George Bush and his administration have nothing to gain from making our government bigger and controlling its people.

That is funny! HAHAHA! HAHAHA! HahaHahahalliburton.

-

And many other economic interests, like the Huge oil-pipeline all the way across Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Neruo

That is funny! HAHAHA! HAHAHA! HahaHahahalliburton.

-

And many other economic interests, like the Huge oil-pipeline all the way across Afghanistan.

I was refering to the Patriot Act.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I was refering to the Patriot Act.

Yes I knew..

Okay, I didn't read everything.

Still, you don't think the patriot act is an extremely useful tool for a government to control it's citizen? You couldn't run a fascist 21th century empire without something like the patriot act.

So generally speaking, patriot act like things are bad, mkay?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

The beauty of American government is that no President can experience the long term benefits of his actions. George Bush and his administration have nothing to gain from making our government bigger and controlling its people. There will probably be a Democrat in the office next term anyway, who will change all this.

There is so many flaws with that statement I don't know where to start. Please allow me to educate you in US government 101.

1. Laws are passed by congress not the executive branch of the government(which the president is in charge of). Wars can also only be declared by congress not by the president.

2. Congress has no term limits on how long they can stay in office.

3. Democrats are for even bigger government that republicans. Meaning if they are elected they will try to pass even more laws not less.

4. We have two large parties made up of people working togather toward common goals.

So what does this mean? Congress shoved laws(such as the patriot act) down your throat to try to expand their own future powers as they can be continue being relected for as long as they keep winning votes. The president starting expanding his powers(such as the illegal wire taps) for his own short term gain. Both congress and the president also expand the powers of their offices as even after they leave people of their party can continue their work, working towards the same goals. Also this is the same type of crap governments always try to pull and being a democrat or a republican have nothing to do with it. If anything republicans are 'supposed' to be the party of small government, which they no longer are.