Loose Change: 9/11 Conspiracy?

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Loose Change: 9/11 Conspiracy?
Author Message
flag FriedRys
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 6:49 Quote
brandyn16 wrote:
Claymore wrote:
It is sad to say, but it seems that you "secret government plot" weirdos are going to have to learn the hard way. If one day (hopefully never) your country gets attacked at the same level as the US did will you point the finger at your government and turn on your own country??? It is real easy for you people to sit back and point fingers when you have nothing to do with the event. it is easy to look at situations and make assumptions when all you do is remain nuetral and "peaceful"Thumbs Down . Then the ones who actually live here and do it.......well I guess there is no hope for you. This thread is pretty much pathetic.

actualy spn , there were canadians that died that there that day . the real trajedy (i know thats not spelt right) however, is the facts that so many canadians are dying over there fighting along side usa, and fighting for something that never happend. the goverment just wanted an excuse to invade another country that didnt conform to americas ways. plus, by staging the atacks , the goverment, got soem funding for there plan , and got an excuse, by blaming the attack on terrorists. and bush has all you americans believing some shitty story that you believe. that or, they used the HAARP thingy to implant the lies into your head , so you believe him , no matter how stuppid the ideas.
you so funny.:P
flag Claymore
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 8:10 Quote
brandyn16 wrote:
Claymore wrote:
It is sad to say, but it seems that you "secret government plot" weirdos are going to have to learn the hard way. If one day (hopefully never) your country gets attacked at the same level as the US did will you point the finger at your government and turn on your own country??? It is real easy for you people to sit back and point fingers when you have nothing to do with the event. it is easy to look at situations and make assumptions when all you do is remain nuetral and "peaceful"Thumbs Down . Then the ones who actually live here and do it.......well I guess there is no hope for you. This thread is pretty much pathetic.

actualy spn , there were canadians that died that there that day . the real trajedy (i know thats not spelt right) however, is the facts that so many canadians are dying over there fighting along side usa, and fighting for something that never happend. the goverment just wanted an excuse to invade another country that didnt conform to americas ways. plus, by staging the atacks , the goverment, got soem funding for there plan , and got an excuse, by blaming the attack on terrorists. and bush has all you americans believing some shitty story that you believe. that or, they used the HAARP thingy to implant the lies into your head , so you believe him , no matter how stuppid the ideas.

Oh, you should tell the media that you know what really happened!!!!!! Who would have thought a 15 year old in Canada has the real story. To many movies for you little fella!!! LOL
flag Claymore
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 8:12 Quote
brandyn16 wrote:
Claymore wrote:
It is sad to say, but it seems that you "secret government plot" weirdos are going to have to learn the hard way. If one day (hopefully never) your country gets attacked at the same level as the US did will you point the finger at your government and turn on your own country??? It is real easy for you people to sit back and point fingers when you have nothing to do with the event. it is easy to look at situations and make assumptions when all you do is remain nuetral and "peaceful"Thumbs Down . Then the ones who actually live here and do it.......well I guess there is no hope for you. This thread is pretty much pathetic.

actualy spn , there were canadians that died that there that day . the real trajedy (i know thats not spelt right) however, is the facts that so many canadians are dying over there fighting along side usa, and fighting for something that never happend. the goverment just wanted an excuse to invade another country that didnt conform to americas ways. plus, by staging the atacks , the goverment, got soem funding for there plan , and got an excuse, by blaming the attack on terrorists. and bush has all you americans believing some shitty story that you believe. that or, they used the HAARP thingy to implant the lies into your head , so you believe him , no matter how stuppid the ideas.

Canada still has troops in Iraq? Well, it is good to know that not everyone up there is a coward!!!! Maybe you guys are not that bad after all LOL!!!!:P
flag marty660
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 8:28 Quote
Claymore wrote:
Canada still has troops in Iraq? Well, it is good to know that not everyone up there is a coward!!!! Maybe you guys are not that bad after all LOL!!!!:P

Some of our boys wind up there on exchange programs, and JTF2 was deployed there a year or two ago for a hostage rescue. Of course we're in Iraq, just not "officially". And I'm quite certain JTF2 has done more then just hostage rescue.(Recommended read for you, one such as yourself might like JTF2).
We're not cowards at all. We're deployed in Kandahar Afghanistan, one of the most dangerous areas in the world. We've lost 100 troops there in total - percapita pretty darn bad when you compare our troop commitments and the fact we're not in Iraq on a large scale (small scale, like I said, but we don't have like a batallian there or anything). And our mission actually has lots of support, about 50/50, which is a good amount more then Iraq has in your own country.

Claymore the difference is that we fight when we feel it's necessary, not for the oil corporations. (Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL :lolSmile .
flag brandyn16
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 9:08 Quote
Claymore wrote:
brandyn16 wrote:
Claymore wrote:
It is sad to say, but it seems that you "secret government plot" weirdos are going to have to learn the hard way. If one day (hopefully never) your country gets attacked at the same level as the US did will you point the finger at your government and turn on your own country??? It is real easy for you people to sit back and point fingers when you have nothing to do with the event. it is easy to look at situations and make assumptions when all you do is remain nuetral and "peaceful"Thumbs Down . Then the ones who actually live here and do it.......well I guess there is no hope for you. This thread is pretty much pathetic.

actualy spn , there were canadians that died that there that day . the real trajedy (i know thats not spelt right) however, is the facts that so many canadians are dying over there fighting along side usa, and fighting for something that never happend. the goverment just wanted an excuse to invade another country that didnt conform to americas ways. plus, by staging the atacks , the goverment, got soem funding for there plan , and got an excuse, by blaming the attack on terrorists. and bush has all you americans believing some shitty story that you believe. that or, they used the HAARP thingy to implant the lies into your head , so you believe him , no matter how stuppid the ideas.

Oh, you should tell the media that you know what really happened!!!!!! Who would have thought a 15 year old in Canada has the real story. To many movies for you little fella!!! LOL

ok , did you actualy WATCH the loose chage video?? i watch the thing start to finish . and besides , if i started spouting of to the media , the cia would send hitmen to assisenate my whole family , or just come and get me, because i know to much . duh
flag Claymore
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 10:16 Quote
[Quote="marty660"]
Claymore wrote:
Canada still has troops in Iraq? Well, it is good to know that not everyone up there is a coward!!!! Maybe you guys are not that bad after all LOL!!!!:P

Some of our boys wind up there on exchange programs, and JTF2 was deployed there a year or two ago for a hostage rescue. Of course we're in Iraq, just not "officially". And I'm quite certain JTF2 has done more then just hostage rescue.(Recommended read for you, one such as yourself might like JTF2).
We're not cowards at all. We're deployed in Kandahar Afghanistan, one of the most dangerous areas in the world. We've lost 100 troops there in total - percapita pretty darn bad when you compare our troop commitments and the fact we're not in Iraq on a large scale (small scale, like I said, but we don't have like a batallian there or anything). And our mission actually has lots of support, about 50/50, which is a good amount more then Iraq has in your own country.

Claymore the difference is that we fight when we feel it's necessary, not for the oil corporations. (Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL :lolSmile .[/Quote]

You must be talking about someone besides the US on that comment. We never participated in Operation iraqi liberation....sorry.
flag Claymore
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 10:17 Quote
brandyn16 wrote:
Claymore wrote:
brandyn16 wrote:


actualy spn , there were canadians that died that there that day . the real trajedy (i know thats not spelt right) however, is the facts that so many canadians are dying over there fighting along side usa, and fighting for something that never happend. the goverment just wanted an excuse to invade another country that didnt conform to americas ways. plus, by staging the atacks , the goverment, got soem funding for there plan , and got an excuse, by blaming the attack on terrorists. and bush has all you americans believing some shitty story that you believe. that or, they used the HAARP thingy to implant the lies into your head , so you believe him , no matter how stuppid the ideas.

Oh, you should tell the media that you know what really happened!!!!!! Who would have thought a 15 year old in Canada has the real story. To many movies for you little fella!!! LOL

ok , did you actualy WATCH the loose chage video?? i watch the thing start to finish . and besides , if i started spouting of to the media , the cia would send hitmen to assisenate my whole family , or just come and get me, because i know to much . duh


If you just explain to them that you are not sure who you are, but you do know that your last name is Bourne and you think you are part of treadstone I am sure it will all work out!!!
flag marty660
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 11:54 Quote
[Quote="Claymore"]
marty660 wrote:
Claymore wrote:
Canada still has troops in Iraq? Well, it is good to know that not everyone up there is a coward!!!! Maybe you guys are not that bad after all LOL!!!!:P

Some of our boys wind up there on exchange programs, and JTF2 was deployed there a year or two ago for a hostage rescue. Of course we're in Iraq, just not "officially". And I'm quite certain JTF2 has done more then just hostage rescue.(Recommended read for you, one such as yourself might like JTF2).
We're not cowards at all. We're deployed in Kandahar Afghanistan, one of the most dangerous areas in the world. We've lost 100 troops there in total - percapita pretty darn bad when you compare our troop commitments and the fact we're not in Iraq on a large scale (small scale, like I said, but we don't have like a batallian there or anything). And our mission actually has lots of support, about 50/50, which is a good amount more then Iraq has in your own country.

Claymore the difference is that we fight when we feel it's necessary, not for the oil corporations. (Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL :lolSmile .[/Quote]

You must be talking about someone besides the US on that comment. We never participated in Operation iraqi liberation....sorry.

[L=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_aspects]
Read the first line.[/L] It was orignally called "Operation Iraqi Liberation" then was changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom because of obvious criticisms.
flag Claymore
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 12:00 Quote
Not calling you a liar, but you are going to have to bring better proof than a web site that anyone can alter.
flag marty660
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 12:04 Quote
Claymore wrote:
Not calling you a liar, but you are going to have to bring better proof than a web site that anyone can alter.

It used to be on the news and stuff, I can remember.
The stuff for the Iraq war is pretty valid on Wikipedia, really tight controls, not anyone can alter, only people who are proven to be genuine editors.

From back in 2003: http://media.www.thehilltoponline.com/media/storage/paper590/news/2003/08/22/NationWorld/Operation.Iraqi.Liberationthe.Name.That.Didnt.Make.The.Cut-451885.shtml

There's a ton more you just need to go digging, lots of seedy bullsh*t sites comment on it but also alot of genuine, accurate sources too.


EDIT: Actually I just found the mother of all sources, the White Houses actual site, on that: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html I'm pretty sure it's in the very first paragraph.
flag Claymore
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 13:40 Quote
marty660 wrote:
Claymore wrote:
Not calling you a liar, but you are going to have to bring better proof than a web site that anyone can alter.

It used to be on the news and stuff, I can remember.
The stuff for the Iraq war is pretty valid on Wikipedia, really tight controls, not anyone can alter, only people who are proven to be genuine editors.

From back in 2003: http://media.www.thehilltoponline.com/media/storage/paper590/news/2003/08/22/NationWorld/Operation.Iraqi.Liberationthe.Name.That.Didnt.Make.The.Cut-451885.shtml

There's a ton more you just need to go digging, lots of seedy bullsh*t sites comment on it but also alot of genuine, accurate sources too.


EDIT: Actually I just found the mother of all sources, the White Houses actual site, on that: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html I'm pretty sure it's in the very first paragraph.

Good source on that last one. However, it does not explain it. Maybe that is what the British military is calling their operations. Anyways, the name does not matter. I am sure they changed it to keep the fruit loop left morons from pointing oit that it spels oil every 5 minutes. Look at us though, man we are raking in the oil from Iraq. Our gas prices are really low. For everyone who says we are doing it for the oil I will ask....AGAIN.....have you been over there and seen what is REALLY going on? I know some of you have said before that first hand experience over there does not matter and is not true fact unlike the little u tube videos and fruit cake web sites. Sorry
flag marty660
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 13:58 Quote
Claymore wrote:
marty660 wrote:
Claymore wrote:
Not calling you a liar, but you are going to have to bring better proof than a web site that anyone can alter.

It used to be on the news and stuff, I can remember.
The stuff for the Iraq war is pretty valid on Wikipedia, really tight controls, not anyone can alter, only people who are proven to be genuine editors.

From back in 2003: http://media.www.thehilltoponline.com/media/storage/paper590/news/2003/08/22/NationWorld/Operation.Iraqi.Liberationthe.Name.That.Didnt.Make.The.Cut-451885.shtml

There's a ton more you just need to go digging, lots of seedy bullsh*t sites comment on it but also alot of genuine, accurate sources too.


EDIT: Actually I just found the mother of all sources, the White Houses actual site, on that: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html I'm pretty sure it's in the very first paragraph.

Good source on that last one. However, it does not explain it. Maybe that is what the British military is calling their operations. Anyways, the name does not matter. I am sure they changed it to keep the fruit loop left morons from pointing oit that it spels oil every 5 minutes. Look at us though, man we are raking in the oil from Iraq. Our gas prices are really low. For everyone who says we are doing it for the oil I will ask....AGAIN.....have you been over there and seen what is REALLY going on? I know some of you have said before that first hand experience over there does not matter and is not true fact unlike the little u tube videos and fruit cake web sites. Sorry

I have no clue what's going on there. Nor do I believe what I'm told, especially not those youtube videos (which I never visit by the way) or "fruit cake web sites". I base my opinion on a few basic facts:
- You guys invaded because there was solid proof there were WMD's, and when there were none, it became a war to "liberate" the Iraqi People.
- Iraq's now unstable and in a civil war. Substantial proof of this.
- 4000+ American casualties, for what amounts to very little
- Pretty much the whole world hates you guys now.
- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, in the least, except that Osama was pissed that the Saudi's wanted the Marines over his terrorshits to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq.

The OIL allusion was because it's kind of ironic, considering that oil is what's commonly associated with the invasion. It was an American name and was immediately changed after they realized what they had done. Whether that's what it was about is certainly up for further debate, I'm not sure personally, but I do know the whole thing is bogus/for someone's interests. Do a background check on Cheney and Rumsfeld and decide for yourself.
flag Claymore
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 14:37 Quote
- You guys invaded because there was solid proof there were WMD's, and when there were none, it became a war to "liberate" the Iraqi People.
- Iraq's now unstable and in a civil war. Substantial proof of this. A civil war is not happening in Iraq. It cam eclose but never happened. Look up the definition of civil war
- 4000+ American casualties, for what amounts to very little very little? All you can go on is what the media reports and that is 99% violence. - Pretty much the whole world hates you guys now. Who cares. Wining a popularity contest does not get missions accomplished
- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, if there was no terrorist ties and activities going on in Iraq then the war would have been over after we crushed the official army

There was no WMDs in Iraq when we invaded!!?? Well, I would hope not with as much time as NATO and the US gave them to get rid of them.
flag gibson19
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 14:40 Quote
marty660 wrote:
- Pretty much the whole world hates you guys now.

Until we stop protecting them... Then they complain about how we never help them Rolleyes
flag gibson19
Posted: Sep 17, 2008 at 14:47 Quote
This kinda fits in... But if you believe life is rainbows, bubblegum farts and no terrorists don't bother reading... It's an essay I wrote last year...

[Quoten]The Patriot Act
Governments have played a major role in peoples’ lives since the dawn of civilization, but how necessary are they? Some government agencies are unseen forces, protecting citizens day to day from crimes and threats to their safety. Recently, a critical terrorism issue has plagued the United States with devastating attacks and war. Terrorism has become a prominent factor in the shaping of the world lately. In attempts to stop these terrorists, America has even gone to the extreme of war. The only other way to cease these acts of terror is to take pre-emptive measures in gathering intelligence to halt individuals who are supporting the terrorist cause. The Patriot Act of 2001 states that the government can use their technology for surveillance purposes in order to stop terrorism before it begins. However, this is a controversial topic to many, because they feel it invades their constitutional rights. Despite this so called invasion of liberties, the Patriot Act is an excellent example of our Executive Branch protecting the Country.

To protect the nation of America from further terrorist attacks, Congress passed a Bill known as the “Patriot Act”. This Bill provides a better means for terrorist prevention agencies, such as Homeland Security and the FBI, to communicate with each other more efficiently. Before the act most terrorism intelligence was extremely limited as to who could see it. The FBI intelligence officers and their criminal investigators could not share crucial information with each other even if they were working the same case just down the hall. Tom Ridge of the Allegheny County Emergency Operations Center said “Our ability to fight terrorism was inhibited by the inability to coordinate within our own government” (Ridge). This new co-operation in the government allows federal agencies to collect vital information, to communicate with other agencies and to then execute a plan to stop the terrorist activity. This means that government agencies can listen in on an individual’s phone calls as well as use other means to gather information about someone suspect of being linked to terrorist cells. However some may argue there is a price to pay for this protection.

The Bill of Right’s states that peoples’ home, papers and effects are “Protected against unreasonable searches and seizures… and no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause” (US Const, Amend IV). Is it so unreasonable to have your phone tapped and cause a minor inconvenience to yourself then to let terrorists plan another 9/11. It goes on to say that a warrant must also be specific as to where and what the authorities are looking for. When for instance an FBI agent listens in on a person’s phone call that person’s right to privacy is broken. Is it okay for government to use their technology for spying on American citizens? “We have begun to see the reality of a surveillance society Orwell fictionalized in his novel 1984” (Steinhardt). Many critics say that if the American citizens do not fight this mass surveillance that there will most certainly be no end to it. America would be “Constantly susceptible to being trapped by data errors or misinterpretations, illegal use of information by rouge government works – or perhaps most insidiously, expanded legal use’s of information for all new kinds of purposes” (Stanley and Steinhardt)

However there is another side fighting this controversy. These people justify the technicalities the act has produced by explaining how safe it has kept us in the midst of a war on terror. It is difficult to battle terrorists so it is essential that the government uses every tool in its belt to protect the citizens of its country. This is because protection agencies “Have to get it right millions of times a week, whereas the terrorists only have to get it right once” (Ridge). Surely if this act was not all that bad there would have been more than a 98% vote for it in the Senate. It was John Locke’s, the man whose beliefs inspired the United States Constitution ideas that the end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve freedom. This belief was known as ‘Ordered Liberty’ and was kept in constant consideration when the forefathers laid out the blueprints for this country. If one was to look at the specifics of the Patriot Act they would realize that it “Does not allow for investigations of individuals solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment of the constitution” (Ashcroft). The process for closely monitoring an individual is still a tedious one, but now this information is more available to others so that anti-terrorist groups can “Connect the dots” (Ryan). Contrary to popular beliefs, “The Act does not allow Federal Law Enforcement free and unchecked access to libraries, bookstores, or any other businesses” (Ryan). The Act has many sections put into it in order to keep it from being misused. Section 223 states that citizens who feel they have been willfully violated can seek reparations from the government. This proves that the government in no way had any thoughts of using this Act for non terrorist activity.

The ultimate test of a law is often seen as whether or not the law honors or degrades liberty. The fundamental principle of the Patriot Act is apparent, to promote safety and freedom. Therefore it is obviously something that will benefit the nation. The constitution was made as a compromise between freedom and security. In order to protect people from crime and threats to their safety, the government should become more involved. Why would the government put this law into effect if they thought it was not going to be advantageous to the people?

With over 7500 miles of land bordering Canada and Mexico and approximately 95,000 of shoreline and navigable waters, it is a daunting task to maintain National Security. More than 400 million people cross land borders every year, each of which could be a potential terrorist. The sheer volume of traffic in the United States make it near impossible to monitor even a small fraction of it, reinforcing the need for better tools to spot possible terrorist activities. Since the
Act was put in place, the government has dismantled terrorist cells in Detroit, Seattle, Portland, Tampa, Northern Virginia, and Buffalo as well as disrupted many weapon building plots in some major cities. In two years there were charges place on 286 individuals with links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Of those 286, 155 have secured convictions or guilty pleas. Among other things, the government has also shut down several terrorist affiliated charities, stopped more than two hundred million dollars from funding terrorist groups, and deported over 500 individuals with links to the September eleven attacks (Ashcroft). Most people forget that there is much more compelling evidence in what is not seen or heard of. There has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since the act was put in place. If you consider the bloodshed outside of the US due to terrorism, it is reassuring to see how safe we have maintained since the 9/11 attacks. It is no coincidence that we have not been attacked after implementing the Patriot Act. Rather, our ability to cease and contain minor issues before they become major threats has increased. Federal agencies can now isolate individual instances that may not be detrimental in the short run but major tragedies in the long run. So far “The Patriot Act has enabled us to make quiet, steady progress in the war on terror” (Ashcroft).

The Iyman Faris case is an excellent example of the Patriot Acts’ immense power to stop terrorism. Faris was a naturalized citizen who was a trailer truck driver. Agents using the Patriot Act learned that he had met with senior Al Qaeda operatives where he was as to build a weapon that might damage railways and bridges in the US. They also found out that he had traveled to New York to scout out potential terrorist targets. At this point the federal agencies stepped in and arrested Faris. He was charged with providing material support to Al Qaeda and conspiracy for providing terrorist organizations possible US targets. The FBI even used him as a double agent to take down more terrorists.

The question the people of America must answer is would they rather be protected from terrorism or have a slight possibility that a government agency might hear part of their phone call to grandma. There are only a few ways that the government can keep us safe from terrorism and the Patriot Act is a major player in the security of the nation because “the federal government cannot micro-manage the protection of individual Americans” (Ridge). The Patriot Act is not meant to affect individuals’ privacy, but to protect their lives from fanatical people who will kill innocent people to prove their point. Without this act who know what kinds of unthinkable horrors could have occurred. This whole topic is just proof of how much people need government in their lives to survive in this seemingly messed up world they live in.

[/Quoten]

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.013707
Mobile Version of Website