bachanon Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I'm increasingly concerned about the significance of 9/11. I'd like to have your opinions on the following link. I consider myself a conservative and find many things in this video that arouse my concern.link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I'm increasingly concerned about the significance of 9/11. I'd like to have your opinions on the following link. I consider myself a conservative and find many things in this video that arouse my concern.linkThe link didn't work for me but I read the review.I've been thinking this way since it happened, and before it happened. I remember the speech Bush gave right after, and how he sort of choked on the words "new laws were needed but no civil liberties would be violated" or something like that. It sounded obvious to me that he was lying. It's impossible to prove and people are very resistant to believe something like this is possible.It's hard to research these things and still maintain a positive attitude. It's also very hard and time consuming to separate the truth from fiction and then to put all of the pieces together. There's a lot of eye-opening stuff out there in that same vein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I'm increasingly concerned about the significance of 9/11. I'd like to have your opinions on the following link. I consider myself a conservative and find many things in this video that arouse my concern.linkI don't really have time to go through the whole thing. A lot of it (at least the first few minutes) seems to be legit...on the other hand, a lot of it also seems like it roots back to the original bombings of the WTC...and a lot of it is just circumstantial or seemingly unrelated.I get the sense that even though the idea had been thought up before in various think tanks, there have been a whole lot of ideas thought up. The odds that one of the many convoluted ideas could become reality are pretty high. That doesn't mean that every single threat that is conceived in any given brainstorming session should immediately be addressed.And then it happened, and of course they said that nobody had conceived of it. What'd you expect of them? To say "oops...my bad"? Wasn't going to happen...regardless of who was in office or what the circumstances were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 if the link does not work, do a search on google for "loose change". i want to know everyone's opinion on this documentary.....regardless of your political affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 downloading and about twenty minutes into it...already have a creepy feeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CE_ugh Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 downloading and about twenty minutes into it...already have a creepy feelingWasn't this the plot of the first episode of the failed X-files spinoff "The Lone Rangers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 They were called "The Lone Gunmen". I actually downloaded & watched this video about a year ago. I don't remember the content, but I do remember being bothered by it. I'll go back and watch again tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Very interesting and entertaining video. Its not so well done, several things in the video are incorrect. I do however applaud the people that made it because it encourages thought and examination. I remember 9/11 for i was on a diverted plane that day I was shocked by something like that happening on American soil, but what shocked me most was the response of the leadership and military. i know things have changed since i sailed the Artic and Atlantic in an SSBN, but they should not have changed this much....... At first knowlege of an attack on this scale....the DEFCON level should have been changed and the President should have been moved to a secure location.....nuclear forces should have been put on highest alert....airforce bombers should have been loaded and moved "flushed" the TACAMO planes should have been launched,,,NORAD should have been securing the locations of every aircraft in flight/military or otherwise.....i can go on and on but i think you get the point....... For any strategic folks out there i have a question......... Has the SIOP changed so much that bumblings like this are able to occur? If the answer is yes, then i am very scared! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CE_ugh Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Ive always thought the plane crash in penn. was fishy. When a JAL flight crashed head on into a mountainside at full speed, killing all 500 or so on board; huge chunks of the plane remained. Shanksville was just a big hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Very interesting and entertaining video. Its not so well done, several things in the video are incorrect. I do however applaud the people that made it because it encourages thought and examination. I remember 9/11 for i was on a diverted plane that day I was shocked by something like that happening on American soil, but what shocked me most was the response of the leadership and military. i know things have changed since i sailed the Artic and Atlantic in an SSBN, but they should not have changed this much.......At first knowlege of an attack on this scale....the DEFCON level should have been changed and the President should have been moved to a secure location.....nuclear forces should have been put on highest alert....airforce bombers should have been loaded and moved "flushed" the TACAMO planes should have been launched,,,NORAD should have been securing the locations of every aircraft in flight/military or otherwise.....i can go on and on but i think you get the point....... For any strategic folks out there i have a question......... Has the SIOP changed so much that bumblings like this are able to occur? If the answer is yes, then i am very scared! You know, it does seem that the response was pretty mediocre. DEFCON should definitely have changed, but alerting nuclear forces was hardly necessary, and I think that was pretty clear. If it were some kind of organized attack by any nation against which we would have to resort to the use of weapons-of-last-resort, I think we'd have been seeing an actual military invasion. When people fly planes into buildings, that's a pretty good indication to me that their force stregnth is limited and that they're just trying to maximize damage before certain and deadly reprisal can take place. I remember having heard that the VP was quickly moved to a secure location, but I like the way that the President had the courage to not go into hiding...it was a very Reaganesque move, and something that is quite necessary when fighting people with symbolic mentalities. It comes across as a very powerful stance as opposed to the weak stance that is created when someone goes into hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 let me state, for the record, that i realize that there are several assumptions made on several of the "issues" in this video. the maker of this documentary is attempting to paint a picture with half truths and assumptions; however, there are a few things that bother me. for instance, the fact that certain stocks were traded at a level 500% higher than normal activity days before 9/11; the claim that certain suicide hijackers are actually still alive; the claim that there were no body or plane parts found at the pentagon, these kind of issues i'd like to know more about. i do not fall for sensationalist dogma, in fact it usually annoys me.if my buddy had not bribed me with heineken, i would not have watched this video to begin with. now that i have, i would like to know more. your opinions are appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Funny that the terrorists haven't struck again. Does that mean that they're happy with Bush's actions?What's terrifying is that his approval rating by the American public has hit an all-time low, and that even his fellow Republicans have distanced themselves. I have a terrible feeling that something very bad is going to happen soon. It serves to unite the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 You know, it does seem that the response was pretty mediocre. DEFCON should definitely have changed, but alerting nuclear forces was hardly necessary, and I think that was pretty clear. If it were some kind of organized attack by any nation against which we would have to resort to the use of weapons-of-last-resort, I think we'd have been seeing an actual military invasion. When people fly planes into buildings, that's a pretty good indication to me that their force stregnth is limited and that they're just trying to maximize damage before certain and deadly reprisal can take place.I remember having heard that the VP was quickly moved to a secure location, but I like the way that the President had the courage to not go into hiding...it was a very Reaganesque move, and something that is quite necessary when fighting people with symbolic mentalities. It comes across as a very powerful stance as opposed to the weak stance that is created when someone goes into hiding. Hey Niche.... when the DEFCON level has been changed, many things happen. Moving leadership to secure locations and alert nuclear and strategic forces etc etc etc. Changing the DEFCON status puts into play a pre-planned set of responses. Reason for this is to ensure the swiftest and most deadly possible response to an attack. What happened to Cheney being moved pretty much without a say in the matter to a secure location should have also happened to the president, along with high ranking members of the presidential cabinet. This ensures the survivability of civilian command and control.We did not follow our own play book in this case and i wonder why? Did you know the Australians-British and French did? They did as we taught them to do in a situation such as this, and we didnt. I think someone really needs to look into it. In the old days, meaning 1994 and earlier , once it had been determined that terrorist and terrorism was behind an attack on this scale, the SIOP wpuld have called for an all out massive strike against strategic targets in countries that sponsor terrorism. It would not have been an attack that needed to be planned for, because the scenario and response was already planned out, in most cases years in advance! As i said before, i can go on and on, but i think you guys/gals are getting the point....... Our respone to the situation on that day needs to be looked into. I would be curious to know what the hell happened and why it was allowed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Hey Niche.... when the DEFCON level has been changed, many things happen. Moving leadership to secure locations and alert nuclear and strategic forces etc etc etc. Changing the DEFCON status puts into play a pre-planned set of responses. Reason for this is to ensure the swiftest and most deadly possible response to an attack. What happened to Cheney being moved pretty much without a say in the matter to a secure location should have also happened to the president, along with high ranking members of the presidential cabinet. This ensures the survivability of civilian command and control.We did not follow our own play book in this case and i wonder why? Did you know the Australians-British and French did? They did as we taught them to do in a situation such as this, and we didnt. I think someone really needs to look into it.In the old days, meaning 1994 and earlier , once it had been determined that terrorist and terrorism was behind an attack on this scale, the SIOP wpuld have called for an all out massive strike against strategic targets in countries that sponsor terrorism. It would not have been an attack that needed to be planned for, because the scenario and response was already planned out, in most cases years in advance! As i said before, i can go on and on, but i think you guys/gals are getting the point....... Our respone to the situation on that day needs to be looked into. I would be curious to know what the hell happened and why it was allowed to happen. Well I agree with you that the military response should have been immediate and that certain defensive actions should have been immediately undertaken...but I don't blame Bush (and it would have had to have been his sole decision) for not going into hiding. On some issues, we have to be flexible. There is no such thing as a bright-line one-size-fits-all policy to military strategy. Why can't the commander-in-chief say "we're going to go by the book except on this one issue" if its more prudent to go that route? The way I understand it, Cheney is kept very close at hand and well-informed. I've heard him debate on television before...he's a bright guy. If Bush was killed, Cheney would have stepped in and come to the forefront. I just don't see the big deal. After all, as an Army Ranger who I dearly respect once told me, "you can't lead from the rear!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.