Military Drills

[karkarinus]

I'm not denying that the sites all state that the drills did happen, but in my post I have tried to allude to another reason why they say they happened. Sensationalism? Not in most cases, as we have recorded interviews with people. But WHY do these official bodies tell us this? Was it actually leaked information, or do they deliberately leak it to - and I quote myself - "convince Joe Public that they hadn't been off playing golf while there was a tangible threat to public security looming" ?

[Alanador]

Thanks for the above information karkarinus. So then a third attack has to figure into the equation. I wish I had paid more attention in math during probability coverage. The number itself though seems abstract to me personally, especially if we must figure in that all three attacks had drills. Where did you find that report? Are there more like it? And to Peregrine and Theta, if the only debate you can have is one where the president himself comes in a tells you what happens, well you see my point I guess. :) No official is going to find his or her way into this thread an explain things to us. Does that mean we can't talk about what can be gathered as evidence in crimes? Also karkarinus, are you from Madrid? Is it true that building which was attacked burned for over 5 days and didn't collapse? And as for our government taking our saftey seriously, what about the southern boarder? I dont care about immigration, but make 'em pass through check points...how do we know terrorists aren't getting in the same way...of course they are! Mixing this issue of boarder control with immigration only makes it harder to defend what is a vast desert of pointless entry. Yes I did hear about the madrid bombings, but mostly in reference to it's structure burning for six days and not collapsing, used as a reference point in a video. But bombs and planes make two different impacts and I am no structural engineer. There is a report I am trying to get my hands on, by the longest standing structural committe of engineers, though I think I may get lost in the jargon. I'm checking your links as I finish this. Truthfully that is the first odd fact I've heard of the bombing in Madrid, but I'll be talking a look to learn about it, thanks.

 

Peregrine, I'd check out that link but I get a 404 on it.

[karkarinus]

I got to that NATO article from here: http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia.php?id_noticia=16447

 

 

 

To be honest most of what they say seems more anarchic, although under the guise of "peace, man" which often go hand-in-hand anyway. If you don't speak Spanish, you can search English pages for "Madrid bombing" e.g. www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/madrid.bombing/ and if you do, just look for "11m".

 

 

 

I can't believe, however, that news of the Madrid bombing hasn't reached you. It was far more serious than 7-7. And it was 2 years ago!

[Peregrine]

Jeez, for some well educated people you dont retain what you read long. I didn't say anything about what these facts imply.

 

If that's not your reason, then why did you post it? Especially in the debates section, which is hardly the place for "hey, look at this weird coincidence". And like it or not, that's what the facts imply... if it isn't a coincidence or a reporting error, then it's a government conspiracy to murder thousands.

 

 

2.Why? Who knows. I didn't even say it was any one thing and even offered the olive branch that it could indicate espionage and be no fault of the governments involved, to avoid this rhetoric. That seems digestable, but I personally have no idea, and since I have no way of accessing Top Secret Documents I can't give you what you appear to be after. Thank goodness you weren't in any position of authority during Watergate, there would never have been an investigation.

 

Think again. Watergate is completely different there, you have a clear "why" involved. Theft of campaign information from a political rival makes perfect sense. 9/11 conspiracies don't... there is no reason for the government to murder thousands and cause massive economic damage. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from it, so it makes the whole conspiracy idea look absurd. Conspiracies don't exist just for the sake of having a conspiracy, they have goals in mind.

 

You don't need top secret documents to answer the question... I'm not asking for proof of the conspiracy or its goals, just a reasonable suggestion of what those goals might be.

 

3.I have no idea the total network of influence that a goverment has, or all the tools available at their disposal, nor do I know if any government is even 'behind' anything.

 

The government couldn't keep Clinton's affair secret. Are you really trying to suggest that it would be easier to find people willing to lie about a government's mass murder of its own citizens than a president's sex life?

 

In short you seem to be critical of 'theorists' but are in fact the exact polar opposite and just as hard to reach.

 

I'm critical of them for good reason, because the majority of them are complete morons who ignore facts and common sense in a desperate effort to find either some great plan and order in the universe, or a reason to hate their government.

 

I do not agree with folks you seem to categorize me with, which is also close minded. The truth within this arguement is that these 2 facts are irrefutable, and can be verified by doing some of your own research. I stated pretty clearly that the thread was supposed to be absent of this conjecture...I asked if it was coincidence, if you are insulted or frightened by my curiosity then you are too easily offeneded.

 

Then why did you post them? The only reason for posting facts like that in the debate section is to imply that they have some relevance. "Hey, weird coincidence" is not a debate. "Hey, weird coincidence, look what it implies" is.

 

==============================

And to Peregrine and Theta, if the only debate you can have is one where the president himself comes in a tells you what happens, well you see my point I guess.

 

No, I just want a reason that actually makes sense. Right now, you have some facts that show an interesting coincidence. Drawing any conclusion from it leads to three options... either it's a meaningless coincidence and there's no point in debating it, the sources are mistaken, or there is a massive conspiracy.

 

I will not accept the conspiracy option until someone at least proposes a motive that actually makes sense.

No official is going to find his or her way into this thread an explain things to us. Does that mean we can't talk about what can be gathered as evidence in crimes?

 

And again, you claim you aren't implying government involvement in the attacks, but you call these coincidences "evidence in a crime". If they truly are coincidences, and you aren't presenting them as conspiracy evidence, there isn't a crime.

 

 

Peregrine, I'd check out that link but I get a 404 on it.

 

Try it again. For some weird reason the forum was mangling the link text, so I changed it to a different copy of the same article.

[loveme4whoiam]

It was reported pretty well here in the UK, I don't know about in America.

 

My apologies Theta, I was referring to the TV news coverage, which this story surely deserved considering its ramifications.

 

there is no reason for the government to murder thousands and cause massive economic damage. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from it,

 

Not strictly true, as Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran will testify.

 

But you make a good point Peregrine, how could a government that has been time and again proven to be inept at every level of government keep such a conspiracy a secret? That is what blows it for me with pretty much all conspiracies, including this one. It's not in the realms of "The royal family are space reptiles", but it does lack any factuall evidence proving a relationship. I'm not going to try to tear you down Alanador, since you presented your argument in a decent way, compared to some people I've debated with.

[Alanador]

Look Peregrine, you can take the chip off your shoulder. My goal in posting this was to learn more, and I just did with Karakrinus' posts, which shed further illumination on the subject..again not from a theorists site but mainstream media (can't believe that one slipped by), your dead post is to prison planet, run by Alex Jones, who mixes his politics with religion...I seperate the two and therefore find most of his suppositions unrelateable. (Quickly moving off religion). Not one of the links I posted is a link to anything other than mainstream media, if he has the same link does it discredit my own use of it, or it's validty? And again, do I have a responsibility as the thread starter to prove a case here? I'm looking for knowledge...I'll say it one more time (and again if i have to)...I don't know what happened...but I want to know...and to know I have to gather as much fact that can be verified by multiple sources as I can. This is not the only thing I research, I am not a conspiracy theorist but I see the same thing you do, these facts, being true, compel me to ask more questions...does that make me some kind of a nut? You said yourself if these facts are true they are interesting, well guess what, they're true. But we cannot base a supposition of just this information alone. What other facts are there that can be verified? Do you have facts that dismiss these? Or is that your opinion? Here's a start, was there any gain from these incidents? Who gained?

[Peregrine]

there is no reason for the government to murder thousands and cause massive economic damage. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from it,

 

Not strictly true, as Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran will testify.

 

But we didn't need the attacks to start those wars. The governments we attacked were clearly evil, so that alone would've been enough justification. As unpopular as the war is now, I can hardly imagine it being worse if Bush had just said "Saddam is evil, we're going to finish the job and take him out". If the government wanted the war badly enough to kill thousands of its own citizens, they could've just started it anyway.

 

===================================

 

My goal in posting this was to learn more, and I just did with Karakrinus' posts, which shed further illumination on the subject..again not from a theorists site but mainstream media (can't believe that one slipped by)

 

Learn what? That coincidences happen? That's the only thing you're going to learn unless you start going into conspiracy theories.

 

your dead post is to prison planet, run by Alex Jones, who mixes his politics with religion...I seperate the two and therefore find most of his suppositions unrelateable. (Quickly moving off religion). Not one of the links I posted is a link to anything other than mainstream media, if he has the same link does it discredit my own use of it, or it's validty?

 

Funny that you rush to discredit prison planet, considering I found it by looking through your links. You posted a link to a video/article that had a link to the page I posted. Of course your article called it "wargames", when it was really just evactuation practice for an office building.

 

But in any case, it's an exact copy of a Yahoo new article that's been posted many different places.

 

===================================

I don't know what happened...

 

Religious fanatics murdered thousands of people out of devotion to their sick and twisted ideology. That's all.

 

This is not the only thing I research, I am not a conspiracy theorist but I see the same thing you do, these facts, being true, compel me to ask more questions...does that make me some kind of a nut?

 

Yes, it does. The only reason you'd want to investigate more is if you think those facts actually mean anything (and a government conspiracy is the only possible meaning). And if you think there's a government conspiracy behind the attacks, you are a nut (in polite terms).

You said yourself if these facts are true they are interesting, well guess what, they're true. But we cannot base a supposition of just this information alone. What other facts are there that can be verified? Do you have facts that dismiss these? Or is that your opinion?

 

The burden of proof is on you to produce a valid alternate theory, if you wish to dispute the official story. The facts behind the attacks have been published in countless other places, I don't need to re-post them all for you.

[Alanador]

Because the video is an interview with the British Official that was in charge of the excersise from BBC, as requested by Theta...The link I entered was the result of a yahoo video search (google is good too lately) and that was where it should have taken you, believe me I knew I was in for it when I found out he was the only one who had it. Becuase his site serves that file exclusivley at the moment does that mean because he sponsors it I must ascribe to his philosophies? Does it mean that the interview would be inadmissable as evidence. No he made those statements in a public forum, and they can be used as evidence.

[Peregrine]

Because the video is an interview with the British Official that was in charge of the excersise from BBC, as requested by Theta...The link I entered was the result of a yahoo video search (google is good to lately) and that was where it should have taken you, belive me I knew I was in for it when I found out he was the only one who had it. Becuase his site serves that file exclusivley at the moment does that mean because he sponsors it I must ascribe to his philosophies?

 

No, I'm just saying you have no business complaining that I posted a link to a file hosted there, when you did the exact same thing. Especially when I found the file by reading your link. You're the one trying to discredit information based on the site hosting it, not me.

[karkarinus]

But we didn't need the attacks to start those wars. The governments we attacked were clearly evil, so that alone would've been enough justification. As unpopular as the war is now, I can hardly imagine it being worse if Bush had just said "Saddam is evil, we're going to finish the job and take him out". If the government wanted the war badly enough to kill thousands of its own citizens, they could've just started it anyway.

 

 

 

I do think that if Bush had just gone ahead and popped a cap in Saddam's a.s.s. then he would have had far less support from people like - for example - me. Not that I am in favour of the war, or of Bush or any of the others - I am merely presenting the part of me, and of many others around the world that looks at Ben Laden and thinks "Blow the f***er away for what he did!" Even so we've got Hollywood actors and such like up on there soap-boxes preaching against the foul deeds of G.W. Bush - imagine if Georgie-Boy had made the first move!

 

I can't help but think that Bush is on a power trip and is probably actually enjoying it, but what would you have done? Turned the other cheek after he's just smacked you on both, and then kicked you in the nuts? And then did it to your mates too!