Bush said on Bourque Newswatch , " USA does not torture." so there we have it not to worry. Thank G.W.
Not to worry? Have you heard any of the OTHER shit he has said? 
The world would be quite a boring place without Bush.
Hello folks!
Speaking of Bush,
I thought this might be an interesting documentary, made in America, that was posted in Google Video recently.
“Spare Change” documentary on Google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change
http://video.google.com/ Google Video, very cool!
I’m reluctant to press on anylink from someone whos avatar is dog getting there funk on.
Man that video is persuasive. The most persuasive part to me is the 7 black boxes that didn’t make it but the passport that did and the hole in the Pentagon.
Sure if you want to trust popular mechanics that right wing fanatical rag!
actually, yea, i would label popular mechanics as people who would be tied in with the assholes who are purportedly involved with the 911 conspiracy.
every second cover article in pop mech. is some sort of laser ray gun system thats ‘revolutionaizing the modern battlefield’ or some 50 billion dollar stealth navy ship thats just maade for kicking ass in the modern battlefield.
i have to go to bed, but im gonna let the two articles posted here fight each other in my head for a bit before i lay in with an opinion…
[quote]
As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.[/quote]
from the pop mech article … ^^^
Coyote’s Law:
When the same set of facts can be explained equally well by
- A massive conspiracy coordinated without a single leak between hundreds or even thousands of people
-OR -
- Sustained stupidity and/or incompetence
Assume stupidity.
cf. Occam’s Razor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor
Yes, Bush and company are idiots. But if 9/11 is a conspiracy, then it’s a pretty third-rate one. Why not make the hijackers Iraqi? Why were they Saudi? How inconvenient is that? Man, it would have been a slam-dunk if they were Iraqi. Then the “Saddam is responsible for 9/11” meme would have been easier to spread.
I have two funny things that involve Bush:
-
Go to Google.com or .ca — Type in [size=18][/size]Failure — Click I’m feeling Lucky And look at what you get!
[quote]With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn’t worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.
But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style “yellow journalism” with its cover story about 9/11. PM’s senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled “Debunking 9/11 Lies” which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.
“Conspiracy theories can’t stand up to the hard facts,” the cover reads. “After an in-depth investigation, PM answers with the truth,” it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn’t answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?[/quote]
fromhttp://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?1911S
Also:
http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/org.opn.lists.knet-oregon/2005-February/000191.html
[size=24]I FUCKING KNEW THAT NAME WAS FAMILIAR!!![/size]
9/11 conspiracy theories = Creationism.
There is no scientific method, nor proof, nor debate. It’s all “hey, take a look at this photo! It proves the pentagon was hit by a missile!” When it’s pointed out that the hole was created by the landing gear, or some other reasonable explanation, the consipracy guys attack the source.
It’s exactly like the creationists, when you point out something to them, they attack you as god-hating.
There is no conspiracy, there is no fact or omission that can’t be reasonably explained, scientifically.
If the conspiracy theorists still think that there isn’t a reasonable explanation for 9/11, then they just refuse to read the explanations.
Honestly, does anybody really believe that a conspiracy of this size would be that easy to cover up? Especially by the bumbling idiots of the Bush administration? These are the people who can’t keep 3 or 4 people quiet (cf. Scooter Libby) on a minor conspiracy, and you think they could keep 3 or 4 thousand people quiet on a major conspiracy?
Yes, the Bush administration is guilty of a lot of things, but think about this: if they were going to “plan” 9/11, why would they make it so akward? Why not make it look like Saddam did it?
So here’s my challenge: find something that proves that there was a conspiracy, and not merely incompetence.
Here are some reasonable questions:
911independentcommission.org/questions.html
But even they don’t think there is a conspiracy, it’s all about Bush & Company’s stupidity, omissions, incompetence. Not conspiracy.
Any crazy conspiracy explanation, in the end, will just be full of holes. That’s the bottom line.
Think of any crazy explanation for 9/11, that doesn’t follow the generally accepted Al Qaeda explanation, and it’s really easy to poke big holes in it.
Remember, the Bush administration initially tried like hell to convince everybody that Iraq was responsible, but even they had to face the facts.
So, what exactly is inaccurate in the PM article?
I’m just hoping that the next US administration is a lot more forthcoming with regards to the gaps in the public knowledge of 9-11, but I’m guessing its already been shredded and re-shredded and …http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0507-10.htm… maybe dumped in different trash-cans all over a large facility.
100 people can keep a secret…
The whole Scooter Libby thing wasnt a matter of keeping a secret between 3 or 4 people either, was it ?
Wasnt it more about some dipshits making an incredibly stupid political move to discredit Joe Wilsons anti-iraq-war viewpoint, and then federal investigators who WERE PISSED OFF AND LOOKING AFTER ONE OF THEIR OWN WHO HAD BEEN SOLD UP THE RIVER GOT TASKED WITH THE JOB OF FINDIGN OUT HOW IT HAPPENED ended up doing their job and flipping all of the smaller fish (save judith miller of the nyt, etc. ) and ending up holding Libby by the short and curlies??
The 9-11 thing is a lot different. Look at the assholes tasked with the job of finding out how it happend. Look at how much STILL HASNT BEEN UNREDACTED or whatever the word is from the 9-11 comission report… ooh, lets put Henry fuckin Kissinger in charge of it. He’s a real honest chap, no ties to the neoconservative movement or being buddy buddy with bush administrations past, present… future?
fuckit man, if im jumping to conclusions in hoping that the people that I THINK are responsible for this are shot in the face, and it turns out to be wrong and it was really Atta et al, IM NOT GONNA LOOSE ANY SLEEP.’
these assholes have been driving the entire world in the wrong direction for the past 30 years anyway.
You’ll get absolutely no argument from me that Bush and his neo-cons are the worst thing that’s happened to this planet since Stalin (was going to use the other dictator, but hey, let’s not Godwin).
But hating Bush and saying he destroyed the towers are two different things.
Bush didn’t destroy the towers, Al-Qeada did.
Bush failed in protecting the US, failed in the follow-up (where is Osama?), failed in the economy, the environment, failed everything.
But he didn’t blow up those towers to justify a war, that’s all. He used 9/11 as justification for a lot of things, sure, but the conspiracy theories are just a lot of tin-foil hat-ism. They just don’t follow any kind of logic.
Dunno if you guys read Juan Cole, but I read his blog pretty much every day. It has to be the most reasonable and balanced stuff that I’ve seen over the past few years.
[quote=“BigThumb”]
[quote]With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn’t worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.
But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style “yellow journalism” with its cover story about 9/11. PM’s senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled “Debunking 9/11 Lies” which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.
“Conspiracy theories can’t stand up to the hard facts,” the cover reads. “After an in-depth investigation, PM answers with the truth,” it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn’t answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?[/quote]
fromhttp://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?1911S
Also:
http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/org.opn.lists.knet-oregon/2005-February/000191.html[/quote]
This is another classic example of a straw man attack. When you can’t refute the evidence, try to discredit the presenter.
I’m not sure it’s a straw man, but what exactly is inaccurate in the PM article?
I mean, even Fox news is right once in a while 