Forums | MacLife

I find myself stunned people will suspend disbelief in the case of say for instance, a movie like 'Mission:Impossible.X' where various tricks and double crosses are perpetrated to acheive the desired ends, and yet vehemently reject similar scenarios in the news.

Baffling.

Well, in a fictional story the tricks and double-crosses always work out because there's no real person to rub their chin and say "Wait a tick...something not quite right here..."

Maybe one of these, perhaps:
http://www.bcpl.net/~lmoskowi/HolmesQuo … ction.html

I've seen enough out of this gang to know that whatever is promoted as 'fact' or 'truth' is decidedly NOT either factual or truthful. That alone is enough for me.

I leave it to you to unscramble all the reasons why this or that can or can't be POSSIBLE. EVERYTHING is possible. ANYTHING is possible.

Except accurate assessments from this administration. I don't need to know the usual suspects of 'who, what, when, where, how or why.' All I need is an 'official' statement. Then, that points my compass in the other direction.

Works more often than not.
--------
This just happens to be 1/4 of the story of the last 5 years of U.S. history. A headline summing up the last 5 years might read:

"How Four Airplanes Crashing Killed the United States"

That day, and that event has been the guiding rationale and raison d'etre for every policy by the gov't since. A whole inept Cabinet level was created to 'correct' intel failures, etc. Homeland Security paid for limos to the poker/sex at the Watergate. And I should believe a fairytale about hero's barging the cockpit and "Let's Roll"?

No question needs more verification. imho.

Somehow, I'm not at all assured that the 9/11 commission investigation nor conclusions based on that investigation are reliable. (So far,) you are free to disagree.

Last edited by blank kludge (2006-05-08 6:20 pm)

Chickenhawk wrote:

See, the problem with a cover up is that, unless everybody involved has something to lose from the information going public, one of the underling's conciences will finally catch up with them. If UA 93 had been shot down, then there would be a number of military people involved which would have none of the political motivations that would have driven the bush admin to cover it up. So, what sounds more likely--the passengers revolted, storming the cockpit, which then the terrorists either flew it into the ground, or it was shot down by the military, with no evidence of explosives on the wreckage, drove its self into the ground, and then there was a cover up to protect the bush admin politically? Get back to me on that.

I appreciate your point of view as someone who is training to be a scientist. As someone who has lived with family working at the DOD or as civillian contractors with top secret clearance or served in the military though, that is flat out wrong. If it was true, we'd never have any secrets. There would never be any technology developed that wasnt known to all enemies before it was finished. Think about it, the way commands filter through the military and other government security matters have built in ways to preserve secrecy.

You have the wreckage? That's a federal offense.

StaticAge wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

See, the problem with a cover up is that, unless everybody involved has something to lose from the information going public, one of the underling's conciences will finally catch up with them. If UA 93 had been shot down, then there would be a number of military people involved which would have none of the political motivations that would have driven the bush admin to cover it up. So, what sounds more likely--the passengers revolted, storming the cockpit, which then the terrorists either flew it into the ground, or it was shot down by the military, with no evidence of explosives on the wreckage, drove its self into the ground, and then there was a cover up to protect the bush admin politically? Get back to me on that.

I appreciate your point of view as someone who is training to be a scientist. As someone who has lived with family working at the DOD or as civillian contractors with top secret clearance or served in the military though, that is flat out wrong. If it was true, we'd never have any secrets. There would never be any technology developed that wasnt known to all enemies before it was finished. Think about it, the way commands filter through the military and other government security matters have built in ways to preserve secrecy.

So why did mark felt tell on nixon?

Chickenhawk wrote:

So why did mark felt tell on nixon?

Why would one example that supports your claim counter the multitude of secrets that ARE kept secret?

Chickenhawk wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

So why did mark felt tell on nixon?

Why would one example that supports your claim counter the multitude of secrets that ARE kept secret?

Because we're talking about a coverup, not a military secret.

Surely you wouldn't claim that every attempted "coverup" fails?

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

blank kludge wrote:

Jeebus

Ya don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.
Don't follow leaders
Watch yer parking meters
The pumps don't work cuz the vandals took the handles.

??

Bob Dylan lyrics.

That still doesn't tell me the point he was trying to make.

Let me try again.

??

Oath wrote:

resedit wrote:

I would not be surprised if it was brought down by USAF - though if that was the case, then as horrible as it sounds, we should have been told.

I don't think it was brought down by USAF though.

But if it was - I can understand why it was.

For the most part I am with Res here I think it is very likely that the USAF did bring it down. On some level it was a
very logical thing to do but as a Goverment how do you fess up to that? Answer: You dont even try.

umm, res said he didn't think it was shot down by the usaf. He just said he wouldn't be suprised if it was. Big difference.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Oath wrote:

resedit wrote:

I would not be surprised if it was brought down by USAF - though if that was the case, then as horrible as it sounds, we should have been told.

I don't think it was brought down by USAF though.

But if it was - I can understand why it was.

For the most part I am with Res here I think it is very likely that the USAF did bring it down. On some level it was a
very logical thing to do but as a Goverment how do you fess up to that? Answer: You dont even try.

umm, res said he didn't think it was shot down by the usaf. He just said he wouldn't be suprised if it was. Big difference.

Sorry if I wasent clear I the mostily was to imply I agree with premise I did notice he didnt think it happened like that.

blank kludge wrote:

Except accurate assessments from this administration. I don't need to know the usual suspects of 'who, what, when, where, how or why.' All I need is an 'official' statement. Then, that points my compass in the other direction.

Works more often than not.

So I suppose being open minded is a bit out of the question then eh?