George W Bush Practically Admits 9/11 was a 'Conspiracy' Plot - Latest Interview

reply to post by mekhanics


The first attack was a conspiracy, the hijackers conspired to bomb multiple targets.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.

reply to post by Ghost375


Try the ufo&alien board. There are plenty of open-minded people there and plenty of diehard closed minded people there. People don't care about evidence and won't even look at it. I know if someone gives me a government website(especially nasa) i don't bother. Well once in a great while I do just to pass time. If I want real information I head elsewhere(off the beaten path).

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
MANY pilots, engineers/architects, cops, firefighters, a general of intelligence DO SEE problems with the official story and I doubt they are "hardely educated" whatever the heck that is supposed to mean anyway.

Agreed but how many pilots, engineers, cops, firefighters, etc have stayed out of the debate in this sense? Or how many have been dismissed by the OS nonbelievers as "in on it" or "they don't see it" or "they are sheep".

I hope I dotted every "i" and capitalised every "I" so you won't pick on my spelling, since you don't care about anything else apparently.

Except 'capitalised' you are good; unless you are British, then by all means, you did well. In all seriousness, a well conveyed message can win an argument. Being sidetracked by grammar or spelling can really take away from valid points made. That is the down-side of written debate and from the Internet; where people who call out grammar are called "Nazis".

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by mekhanics

 

The first attack was a conspiracy, the hijackers conspired to bomb multiple targets.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.

Good call. A different post might dive into just who conspired. We all know where those lines are drawn and like I said, a different post. But in this context, you are absolutely correct. President Bush's word usage (not always the best we know) of 'conspiracy' is not incorrect nor an implication of guilt as assumed by the OP.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by mekhanics

 

The first attack was a conspiracy, the hijackers conspired to bomb multiple targets.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.

Good call. A different post might dive into just who conspired. We all know where those lines are drawn and like I said, a different post. But in this context, you are absolutely correct. President Bush's word usage (not always the best we know) of 'conspiracy' is not incorrect nor an implication of guilt as assumed by the OP.

Yes.

I think he meant conspiracy as far as it being a well orchestrated event with multiple people filling multiple roles Vs a lone crackpot.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Try the ufo&alien board. There are plenty of open-minded people there and plenty of diehard closed minded people there. People don't care about evidence and won't even look at it. I know if someone gives me a government website(especially nasa) i don't bother. Well once in a great while I do just to pass time. If I want real information I head elsewhere(off the beaten path).

I know eh? People should really open their minds, go and see the evidence, whether it be NASA, or even Wikipedia. There are many good people on that board, but some still ignore all logic, and refuse to accept that a little space man might actually just be a rock, or that a UFO could actually be a weather balloon.

Its really on every board that members need to think more broadly, not everything is a conspiracy, the government is not always bad, and not all UFOs are actually extraterrestial life, George Bush isn't always a bad speaker.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
MANY pilots, engineers/architects, cops, firefighters, a general of intelligence DO SEE problems with the official story and I doubt they are "hardely educated" whatever the heck that is supposed to mean anyway.

Agreed but how many pilots, engineers, cops, firefighters, etc have stayed out of the debate in this sense? Or how many have been dismissed by the OS nonbelievers as "in on it" or "they don't see it" or "they are sheep".

I don't think any high profile person wants to risk destroying their career knowing full well they will lose, not because they are wrong, but because the noise factor created by the msm is simply too obnoxious.

reply to post by Ghost375

The problem I see on these forums is not people's level of intelligence.

Intelligence is a fluctuating thing. The person I was before (with my conspiracy views) was, relatively speaking, rather unintelligent. Mostly because his views were marred by an underdeveloped cognitive capacity for critical thinking.

I don't think anyone here is inherently unintelligent. But there are plenty of people here who, unbeknownst to them, hold stupid views due to their own shoddy critical thinking abilities.

I also recognize (and I don't mean to toot my own horn, I'm merely pointing out a fact) that this is because many people here have day jobs. They're not consistent readers, and probably haven't exercised their reasoning abilities. This is because popular conspiracy literature, simply put, isn't very rigorous, and thus leaves much to be hoped for in honing ones cognitive abilities. Rather, philosophy, psychology, and the sciences, are the main areas where this happens.

People who are skeptical of the "evidence" that has been adduced, are skeptical because they have learned to weigh information in a more scientific manner. Probabilistically speaking, human error occurs far more often than conspiracy. Therefore, it's likely that the official explanation - which attributes the events to error on part of the FBI and CIA - is the correct one. Furthermore, all the evidence is far to hefty to be ignored, simply because a guy flung dust into the air and another guy had ripped jeans without lacerations. That's simply selective thinking. It's biased, it ignores the vast amount of evidence for the authenticity of the event (and I'm referring to those who believe it was staged with actors) in favor of strange pictures..

It's the fact that they take certain stances, while absolutely refusing to see the other side's perspective.

I agree. But thats something which comes with intellectual growth. There are more than one reason for why people hold dogmatically to their views, but the most common is egotism, mixed with a cognitive immaturity to recognize the subtly of the opposing argument.

Both stupid and smart people do it on ATS.

True, but I want to point out that my "uneducated" comment referred to a certain class of posters. The hyper-educated, or the "smart", can be just as guilty of this, albeit, in different ways. They tend to defend views that are less unorthodox, but being ardent patrons of that view, they refuse to budge from it. I can do this sometimes myself. Though, I try to stay open minded enough to assess the evidence as rationally as I can.

People here need to be more adaptable in their beliefs. On a site where you'd expect open-minded people, you instead find extremely closed minded people. Having unorthodox beliefs doesn't make someone open-minded. Listening to others who disagree with you is what open-mindedness is about.

Couldn't agree more.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Or in the context given: a source of guidance or inspiration; such as ATS proclaims to provide. This isn't denying ignorance. I welcome dissent and opposition. I may be critical of it and will tear it apart (not meaning I am right, meaning I will dissect the information presented; since context for you is hard to grasp)

Really ! And what do you base that assumption on ? Jealousy and fear that the world is a scary place because the morons you vote for are truly inbred ?

reply to post by Ghost375

Dude, that's just stupid

I agree. And I'm glad I didn't say it.

Originally posted by randyvs
Really ! And what do you base that assumption on ? Jealousy and fear that the world is a scary place because the morons you vote for are truly inbred ?

I suppose this will be the last of my replies to you, since you don't want a valid debate or discussion. The world is indeed a scary place; never denied that and it is something I teach my two boys everyday. I also teach them that despite how scary it is, never stop believing that there is more good than evil.

There are morons no matter where you look; elected or not. So what the hell are you getting at? Be coherent.

reply to post by salainen

What makes you think I believe the official story? I

What makes you think I said anything about the official story ? Talk about ignorance.
That's pathetic.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I suppose this will be the last of my replies to you, since you don't want a valid debate or discussion.

See the thing is guy there is no valid discussion about this particular topic.
Your side of it is a disgrace. and that's how I treat it.

But I'm all broken up about that being your last response to me.

Originally posted by randyvs
What makes you think I said anything about the official story ? Talk about ignorance.
That's pathetic.

Maybe this...

Originally posted by randyvs
You should be a Christian with that kind of awesome faith
I know for sure your name would be in the book of life.
So why waste such faith on such a twit as GWB ?
Unbelievable !

You don't seem to be following the thread here. Starting to think there is a troll going around...

reply to post by salainen


What in the G-D hell are you talk'n about

Originally posted by salainen

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Try the ufo&alien board. There are plenty of open-minded people there and plenty of diehard closed minded people there. People don't care about evidence and won't even look at it. I know if someone gives me a government website(especially nasa) i don't bother. Well once in a great while I do just to pass time. If I want real information I head elsewhere(off the beaten path).

I know eh? People should really open their minds, go and see the evidence, whether it be NASA, or even Wikipedia. There are many good people on that board, but some still ignore all logic, and refuse to accept that a little space man might actually just be a rock, or that a UFO could actually be a weather balloon.

Its really on every board that members need to think more broadly, not everything is a conspiracy, the government is not always bad, and not all UFOs are actually extraterrestial life, George Bush isn't always a bad speaker.

If you want my opinion I have not met many honest long term skeptics. Skeptic means "I am too afraid to look at the evidence" or "I don't have the time and interest to do so". Thats ok though, especially if you earn your paycheck that way.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by salainen

 

What in the G-D hell are you talk'n about

god hell? Yeah, my suspicions were correct, randyvs is a troll

ATS is becoming quite a sad place these days

Although must admit the "Shooting at MIT (And continued events in Boston 18-19 April)" thread was very good. Probably the best ATS thread I've participated in.

There has always been a battle when it comes to 9/11. On one side we have evidence that certain people possibly knew what was going to happen and with that these very same people were business partners with high positions of power in todays world, not just in the USA but in the Middle East also. On the other hand, we have the very same people condemning the attack apart from one of the business partners who was labelled a terrorist and blamed for it.

With that they are telling people not to be ridiculous when it comes to conspiracies and covering up critical evidence which could blow the top off this issue. The reason why we cannot get to the bottom of it is because the plan was perfect. We are never meant to get to the bottom of it and until people wake up, they will just keep running off to the banks while they organise more of these atrocities. The proof just doesn't lie in 9/11, it lies in the events which followed also.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Notice all the mocking emoticons and the overall derisive tone??? That's randys defense mechanism. Since he can't debate you intellectually, that is, intelligently address each of your points (as would be expected in a university classroom) he will resort to what he knows will grant him some safety. He'll beat around the bush, give a kick here and there in the form of some irrelevant reference to some "incontestable proof" (in his mind), and then finish it off with a comment that really means "you're an idiot".

That's the type of calibre dialogue you can expect from randy, which is why I've trained myself not to reply to him, or people like him.

In any case, I appreciate what you're doing here, I appreciate the sincerity you're showing, and despite the cynicism and mordancy of those you make your appeals, I personally think it's symbolically important nonetheless (and judging from your posts so far, your sons are fortunate to have such a level headed father).

There is nothing more cruel in this world than the incoherency of the fanatic. It reminds me of that tale in Doestevskys Crime and Punishment, where the drunken cart driver beats his defenseless pony for the fun of it. Meanwhile, the crowd that gathers round, instead of condemning his cruel idiocy, cheer him on! The moral of the story is this: emotion is fine and dandy when contained by reason. Hitting a horse when you're drunk is unreasonable, because what you're causing - horrific pain to the horse, is being done for the satisfaction of an idiotic emotional drive. Similarly (on a lesser scale, of course), deriding an opponent in conversation might make you "feel better", but you lose quite a lot in the process: such as the ability to think clearly under duress; inuring yourself to a practice that is socially frowned upon; and worst of all, it's an attack on the very principle of truth.

Much more could be said about this, and I would like to say more, but I think I've pressed my point enough.

George W. Bush admitted nothing in this video. His wife turned towards him as any normal person would when listening to someone else speak. As I said before, she turned before the "it" word CONSPIRACY was mentioned. She did not make any special face, and Bushes correcting himself most likely had nothing to do with what this thread assumes it does.

That this thread turned into a conversation about the quality of the reason people show here at least shows that there are those here who care enough to defend it's importance.

reply to post by salainen


I'm gonna ask you again to explain what in the stead of the stupid accusations, G-D hell you're talk'n about ?