Half a story is a whole lie! (1 Viewer)

[shadow7]

That's the premise of this site. It's huge.....take your time. Check out current news, the editor's blog and dozens of important editorials....for starters.

http://tvnewslies.org

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

INTERESTING SITE, THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT YOUR GOING TO JUST HEAR THE GOP DISCIPLES SAY "IT'S JUST A LEFT WING SITE" AND WON'T READ NOTHING TO CONFRONT IT WITH FACTS AND SUBSTANCE AND YET WILL DEEM THEMSELVES WITH FACT AND SUBTANCE WHEN THE lEFTIST DISCIPLES WON'T RECIPROCATE THEIR URLS--WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL YOU LEFTISTS AND RIGHTISTS AND THE GAMES YOU PLAY...........

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's the premise of this site. It's huge.....take your time. Check out current news, the editor's blog and dozens of important editorials....for starters.

http://tvnewslies.org

LMFAO Go peddle your wears somewhere else, can a mod please place this in the conspiracy theories section.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You for the war in IRAQ? Then what's your excuse not to enlist, to go as a private contractor or emplyee thereof, a humanitarian aid, etc. Walk the walk, those who talk--your words are just refuse.

Do I have to play for the White Sox to want them to win the world series? Should Thomas Jefferson not supported the revolution too? Because he didn't fight in it? How's this we'll make a deal if you don't support the war then you have to have fought in it too.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

You see shadow, Trajan gave the exact response of no reply--avoidance and a cop-out for him not being in Iraq--a yellow sunshine patriot. Nothing new.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

This is spam... it should actually be removed

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Strikes me as some anarchist website... But in the end it's spam so shuffle this crap on out the door

 

[chosendudenyc]

You see shadow, Trajan gave the exact response of no reply--avoidance and a cop-out for him not being in Iraq--a yellow sunshine patriot. Nothing new.

I agree Patriot. It does seem Trajan doesn't display words that would defend his perceptions on good days and assumptions typically. Bold heedless statements can get you so far. But, those types of statements has elected many within public office. Of course, Trajan isn't me so public office may be out of his league.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

Nice find! Navy Seal, you're spot on.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You see shadow, Trajan gave the exact response of no reply--avoidance and a cop-out for him not being in Iraq--a yellow sunshine patriot. Nothing new.

You want a reply you conspiracy theorist aluminum hat wearing whack job? I've got the standard reply that I give to all of the conspiracy theorists on this site. From the pages of "Political Ideologies Their Origins and Impact 8th ed.," by Leon P. Baradat:

Just as the pluralist must be understood as distinct from elite theorists, care must be taken that the elite theorists are not confused with those who espouse conspiratorial theories. Conspiratorialists are phobic about politics. They believe that someone, usually a small group of unseen people, are secretly and diabolically controlling things from behind the scenes. Among the suspected master manipulators are communists, international bankers, Jews, and satan worshipers. The various militant civilian milititia groups around the country that have come to prominence since the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City are deeply embroiled in conspiratorial suspicions. They see the federal government as a sinister culprit, constantly maneuvering to deny innocent patriots their liberties.

In the 1960s, Pulitizer Prize winning historian Richard Hofstadter analyzed the conspiratorial approach to politics, referring to it as the "paranoid style." While Holfstadter concedes in his book, the Paranoid Style in Ameican Politics, that some secret planning accompanies virtually every political movement, the paranoid style imagines a plot of colossal proportions affecting millions and the threatening the very nation itself. Using isolated facts together with a curious leap in imagination to prove to their own satisfaction the existence of the conspiracy, persons asserting the paranoid style mentally catapult from the "undeniable to the unbelievable," as Hofstadter puts it. They are convined that their imagined opponent is totally evil and that their own motives are pure, but often misunderstood. Public rejection of their point of view is often interpreted as persecution, and so their stance becomes increasingly militant as they see their situation becoming more and more hopeless.

The suggestion that the nation, or indeed the world, is controlled by such secret and evil power is frequently found very attractive. It brushes aside the immense complexity of modern politics and substitutes for it a very simple scenario. If people can believe that they are manipulated by unkown uncontrollable forces, they can escape any responsibility for understanding or solving social problems. Politics is thus reduced to a very simple equation. There is a single source of our difficulties, and if only we can get at the source and root it out all will be well.

Yet the very simplicity of such theories makes them suspect. It stretches credulity beyond rational limits to suggest that a few masterminds could, without our knowing it, be pulling the strings that make the rest dance like puppets. No less bizarre is the belief that the federal government has somehow become the tool of megalomaniacs whose mission is to enslave the hapless citizenry. To some people, however, believing in an evil force is preferable to coming to grips with the complexities of reality, and accepting such fantasies represents the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility so necessary to a successful democracy.

Furthermore; how do you figure that pointing out the fact that Thomas Jefferson didn't serve in the revolutionary war is a cop out? FDR never served in the military so was it wrong for him to support WW2? Abraham Lincoln never served in a war should he not have supported the civil war? Is it your honest assertion that in order to support the war you have to fight in the war? That's the biggest load of ****ing bullshit I've ever heard, this is a volunteer army it's not as if by me not being in the military that someone else has to go in my stead, if there was a draft I would serve but I'm not going to drop out of college to join the military when the main reason I would join the military is to get my college payed for in the first place. If you really want to know I'm going for my bachelors's in IR and Poli Sci and then signing up so I can start my career as an officer and have my graduate school payed for by the service. But as for your bullshit I have plenty a friends who are serving right ****ing now including a few people on this site and you ask them which they prefer; someone not serving who supports their mission or someone who's not serving and is protesting their mission?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I agree Patriot. It does seem Trajan doesn't display words that would defend his perceptions on good days and assumptions typically. Bold heedless statements can get you so far. But, those types of statements has elected many within public office. Of course, Trajan isn't me so public office may be out of his league.

Any debate, any subject, anyone, anytime, think you can hang? Bring it on skippy.

 

[chosendudenyc]

You want a reply you conspiracy theorist aluminum hat wearing whack job? I've got the standard reply that I give to all of the conspiracy theorists on this site. From the pages of "Political Ideologies Their Origins and Impact 8th ed.," by Leon P. Baradat:



Furthermore; how do you figure that pointing out the fact that Thomas Jefferson didn't serve in the revolutionary war is a cop out? FDR never served in the military so was it wrong for him to support WW2? Abraham Lincoln never served in a war should he not have supported the civil war? Is it your honest assertion that in order to support the war you have to fight in the war? That's the biggest load of ****ing bullshit I've ever heard, this is a volunteer army it's not as if by me not being in the military that someone else has to go in my stead, if there was a draft I would serve but I'm not going to drop out of college to join the military when the main reason I would join the military is to get my college payed for in the first place. If you really want to know I'm going for my bachelors's in IR and Poli Sci and then signing up so I can start my career as an officer and have my graduate school payed for by the service. But as for your bullshit I have plenty a friends who are serving right ****ing now including a few people on this site and you ask them which they prefer; someone not serving who supports their mission or someone who's not serving and is protesting their mission?

What a surprise.... More words in quotes, not his mind you, that only proves his limitations of emphasis. You should follow my lead and allow your perceptions and point of views to steer while, knowledge and some form of intelligence impartially, drives your political dementia toward the direction of redemption. Pretend it's a car-pool situation and your little friend singing to Biggie Smalls, is Navy Pride. He also needs some form of redemption.

 

[chosendudenyc]

Any debate, any subject, anyone, anytime, think you can hang? Bring it on skippy.

Much like an attractive and Liberal female you cannot handle the ride!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What a surprise.... More words in quotes, not his mind you, that only proves his limitations of emphasis. You should follow my lead and allow your perceptions and point of views to steer while, knowledge and some form of intelligence impartially, drives your political dementia toward the direction of redemption. Pretend it's a car-pool situation and your little friend singing to Biggie Smalls, is Navy Pride. He also needs some form of redemption.

WTF does this even mean? Try establishing some lucidity in your little rants, or at the very least have a point any point.

 

[chosendudenyc]

WTF does this even mean? Try establishing some lucidity in your little rants, or at the very least have a point any point.

I see where the slacker in you flourishes. Rants are for naive Americans like yourself, blinded by partial dispositions. I'm still waiting for you to display words that are your own; no quotes just your words.

I read, trannies are becoming more conservative Trajan. Perhaps, if a woman with individuality and a freed mind is a bit much for you to handle, a tranny could be a serious alternative.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I see where the slacker in you flourishes. Rants are for naive Americans like yourself, blinded by partial dispositions. I'm still waiting for you to display words that are your own; no quotes just your words.

Oh I'm a naive American now? So what does that make you believing unsubstantiated bullshit off of these conspiracy sites? You see I get my education in politics from an a-credited college whereas you get yours off of the internet. Conspiracy theorists run around the internet learning made up facts and connecting imaginary dots and then you come on boards like this where you think your ideas are so novel and unheard of when in reality they are ****ing retarted and you get laughed off the site within days.

I read, trannies are becoming more conservative Trajan. Perhaps, if a woman with individuality and a freed mind is a bit much for you to handle, a tranny could be a serious alternative.

Ooo that one stung . . . . about as bad as my **** after I ****ed your mother without a rubber. Tell that ****ing slut she gave me the clap and I want reimbursment for the pennicilun I had to buy.

 

[chosendudenyc]

Oh I'm a naive American now? So what does that make you believing unsubstantiated bullshit off of these conspiracy sites? You see I get my education in politics from an a-credited college whereas you get yours off of the internet. Conspiracy theorists run around the internet learning made up facts and connecting imaginary dots and then you come on boards like this where you think your ideas are so novel and unheard of when in reality they are ****ing retarted and you get laughed off the site within days.



Ooo that one stung . . . . about as bad as my **** after I ****ed your mother without a rubber. Tell that ****ing slut she gave me the clap and I want reimbursment for the pennicilun I had to buy.

Yes, you are naive. If you are some what educated, why continue to quote from others and not use that education in forming your own individual point of views?

It's too easy to quote from links about Feberalism for example, but to own personal individual perceptions and theories no one can take from you, should be a more profound exploration. Please, explore my young friend.

Until, I feel you are ready for my ride, I will continue to show concern within words you display.

You must learn being rude and heedless when someone extends a friendly hand will not be without some form of punishment.

I sense, you couldn't handle my mom's ride neither, so stick to being my political apprentice; you may learn elements in becoming what I will be. A potential great oratory of truth, equality, Americanism, and change.


BTW, attending a prestigious college doesn't dictate you are intelligent nor something of profound-ment. It just means you are receiving a higher education.

Education is what that individual person dictates. Nothing more.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, you are naive. If you are some what educated, why continue to quote from others and not use that education in forming your own individual point of views?

It's too easy to quote from links about Feberalism for example, but to own personal individual perceptions and theories no one can take from you, should be a more profound exploration. Please, explore my young friend.

Until, I feel you are ready for my ride, I will continue to show concern within words you display.

You must learn being rude and heedless when someone extends a friendly hand will not be without some form of punishment.

I sense, you couldn't handle my mom's ride neither, so stick to being my political apprentice; you may learn elements in becoming what I will be. A potential great oratory of truth, equality, Americanism, and change.


BTW, attending a prestigious college doesn't dictate you are intelligent nor something of profound-ment. It just means you are receiving a higher education.

Education is what that individual person dictates. Nothing more.

Again do you actually have a point or are you just trolling. Using quotes from scholarly works could hardly be considered to be a sign of naivety it's more like a sign of being well read and learned.

Anywho it was you sir who started in with the insults when you suggested that I might want to try having sex with a transvestite I was merely responding in kind.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Good to see this thread is rolling along in exactly the direction I thought. Trajan i'm with you. a conspiracy website of who donnits and bad goverment coverups.....

 

[ashurbanipal]

Conspiratorialists are phobic about politics. They believe that someone, usually a small group of unseen people, are secretly and diabolically controlling things from behind the scenes.

Being that this is at least logically possible, we'd need some support to conclude that conspiratorialists are phobic about politics.

Among the suspected master manipulators are communists, international bankers, Jews, and satan worshipers. The various militant civilian milititia groups around the country that have come to prominence since the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City are deeply embroiled in conspiratorial suspicions. They see the federal government as a sinister culprit, constantly maneuvering to deny innocent patriots their liberties.

This is certainly correct, but by dismissing the most bizarre and least likely conspiracy theories, we do not dismiss all conspiracy theories.

In the 1960s, Pulitizer Prize winning historian Richard Hofstadter analyzed the conspiratorial approach to politics, referring to it as the "paranoid style." While Holfstadter concedes in his book, the Paranoid Style in Ameican Politics, that some secret planning accompanies virtually every political movement, the paranoid style imagines a plot of colossal proportions affecting millions and the threatening the very nation itself.

Whoa there nelly! Not all conspiracies amount to this. We know from history that conspiracies are common. Most often, they have nothing to do with a direct intent to destroy a country or a people. Most often, they have to do with the simple implementation of an ideology which the conspirators believe to be in the best interests of some group to whom they are loyal.

The Nazi takeover in Germany in the early 1930's is a prime example--it could rightly be called a conspiracy. A large group of people made secret plans and executed them, rising rapidly to power and then, in accord with both the hidden and public elements of their agenda, they proceeded to wage war and commit genocide. But for whatever reason, we typically don't think of this as a conspiracy that worked. Yet it had all the elements of one--attempted coups, secret meetings, encoded messages, clandestine recruiting, ambitious attempts at controlling the media, etc.

Why we don't think of this as a conspiracy is probably open to debate, but it appears to me that there's a curious sort of circularity in most people's reasoning about conspiracies combined with a strange kind of equivocation. Conspiracies are supposed to be things for which there is no evidence. The minute someone comes up with evidence for a conspiracy, it must by definition not be a conspiracy. Going back once more to Germany--the minute the Beer Hall Putsch happened, the entire Nazi movement was de-conspiratized. Why should that be, though? It's because people simply don't understand what a conspiracy is or how it takes place.

Let's consider the supposed media conspiracy--it's quite obvious to anyone who looks that there is one. But how would it work? Would there be clandestine meetings? Secret plans among a corporate elite? You bet! Those clandestine meetings are called industry group meetings, and if you think they aren't clandestine, just try showing up at one. My industry--retail grocery--has such meetings all the time. You have to know the right people to get in. And we discuss all kinds of things that the average person would never guess about the retail grocery industry. We talk about how to keep wages artificially low, and we have agreements across many different companies to do just that. We talk about how to maintain a certain price level--and we have agreements across many different companies to certain price standards. We talk about how to prevent competition from starting up, and we agree to use our purchasing clout to keep suppliers from supplying start-up chains. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.

The thing is, these meetings are entirely routine. No one walking into one would get the idea that there was anything wrong or bad going on. And this is, I think, the rub--for it to be a "conspiracy," we'd have to think that something evil was happening. Well, it is--it's right in front of everyone's face, but because it's normative behavior, no one pays any attention to it--it's not a conspiracy, it's an industry meeting. We're not making secret plans, we're just sticking to the meeting agenda.

All industries have them. There are meetings across industries (what do you think the Chamber of Commerce is? What do you think businesspeople's associations are?) as well. They're all conspiracies in every sense of the word. They just lack that sort of romantic back-room masonic-handshake mystique that most people think would be definitive of a conspiracy.

So, a group of execs in the media industry meets to discuss business. They come up with certain agreements. That's a media conspiracy.

Using isolated facts together with a curious leap in imagination to prove to their own satisfaction the existence of the conspiracy, persons asserting the paranoid style mentally catapult from the "undeniable to the unbelievable," as Hofstadter puts it. They are convined that their imagined opponent is totally evil and that their own motives are pure, but often misunderstood. Public rejection of their point of view is often interpreted as persecution, and so their stance becomes increasingly militant as they see their situation becoming more and more hopeless.

And here's an example of what I'm talking about--why do we need all this evil motivation language for there to be a conspiracy? Why not just self interest and a desire to keep some actions and plans secret?

The suggestion that the nation, or indeed the world, is controlled by such secret and evil power is frequently found very attractive. It brushes aside the immense complexity of modern politics and substitutes for it a very simple scenario. If people can believe that they are manipulated by unkown uncontrollable forces, they can escape any responsibility for understanding or solving social problems. Politics is thus reduced to a very simple equation. There is a single source of our difficulties, and if only we can get at the source and root it out all will be well.

Again, he's attacking one of the most implausible conspiracy theories, and then seeming to imply that all conspiracy theories are thereby dismissed.

Yet the very simplicity of such theories makes them suspect. It stretches credulity beyond rational limits to suggest that a few masterminds could, without our knowing it, be pulling the strings that make the rest dance like puppets. No less bizarre is the belief that the federal government has somehow become the tool of megalomaniacs whose mission is to enslave the hapless citizenry. To some people, however, believing in an evil force is preferable to coming to grips with the complexities of reality, and accepting such fantasies represents the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility so necessary to a successful democracy.

Well, a few people in any organization do pull the strings that make the rest of us dance...to an extent. Who doubts that a relatively small group of individuals, say, less than 500 people, more or less determine the course of American politics at any one given time? Give me the Prez, the Vice-Prez, the cabinet, the Senate, and some senior representatives, and you have the people who are more or less in charge, in the broad strokes. Do they control the fine detail? Of course not. It's worth asking if they need to. Do they all get along? Of course not. It's worth asking if they have to on certain points in order to simply survive.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Being that this is at least logically possible, we'd need some support to conclude that conspiratorialists are phobic about politics.



This is certainly correct, but by dismissing the most bizarre and least likely conspiracy theories, we do not dismiss all conspiracy theories.



Whoa there nelly! Not all conspiracies amount to this. We know from history that conspiracies are common. Most often, they have nothing to do with a direct intent to destroy a country or a people. Most often, they have to do with the simple implementation of an ideology which the conspirators believe to be in the best interests of some group to whom they are loyal.

The Nazi takeover in Germany in the early 1930's is a prime example--it could rightly be called a conspiracy. A large group of people made secret plans and executed them, rising rapidly to power and then, in accord with both the hidden and public elements of their agenda, they proceeded to wage war and commit genocide. But for whatever reason, we typically don't think of this as a conspiracy that worked. Yet it had all the elements of one--attempted coups, secret meetings, encoded messages, clandestine recruiting, ambitious attempts at controlling the media, etc.

Why we don't think of this as a conspiracy is probably open to debate, but it appears to me that there's a curious sort of circularity in most people's reasoning about conspiracies combined with a strange kind of equivocation. Conspiracies are supposed to be things for which there is no evidence. The minute someone comes up with evidence for a conspiracy, it must by definition not be a conspiracy. Going back once more to Germany--the minute the Beer Hall Putsch happened, the entire Nazi movement was de-conspiratized. Why should that be, though? It's because people simply don't understand what a conspiracy is or how it takes place.

Let's consider the supposed media conspiracy--it's quite obvious to anyone who looks that there is one. But how would it work? Would there be clandestine meetings? Secret plans among a corporate elite? You bet! Those clandestine meetings are called industry group meetings, and if you think they aren't clandestine, just try showing up at one. My industry--retail grocery--has such meetings all the time. You have to know the right people to get in. And we discuss all kinds of things that the average person would never guess about the retail grocery industry. We talk about how to keep wages artificially low, and we have agreements across many different companies to do just that. We talk about how to maintain a certain price level--and we have agreements across many different companies to certain price standards. We talk about how to prevent competition from starting up, and we agree to use our purchasing clout to keep suppliers from supplying start-up chains. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.

The thing is, these meetings are entirely routine. No one walking into one would get the idea that there was anything wrong or bad going on. And this is, I think, the rub--for it to be a "conspiracy," we'd have to think that something evil was happening. Well, it is--it's right in front of everyone's face, but because it's normative behavior, no one pays any attention to it--it's not a conspiracy, it's an industry meeting. We're not making secret plans, we're just sticking to the meeting agenda.

All industries have them. There are meetings across industries (what do you think the Chamber of Commerce is? What do you think businesspeople's associations are?) as well. They're all conspiracies in every sense of the word. They just lack that sort of romantic back-room masonic-handshake mystique that most people think would be definitive of a conspiracy.

So, a group of execs in the media industry meets to discuss business. They come up with certain agreements. That's a media conspiracy.



And here's an example of what I'm talking about--why do we need all this evil motivation language for there to be a conspiracy? Why not just self interest and a desire to keep some actions and plans secret?



Again, he's attacking one of the most implausible conspiracy theories, and then seeming to imply that all conspiracy theories are thereby dismissed.



Well, a few people in any organization do pull the strings that make the rest of us dance...to an extent. Who doubts that a relatively small group of individuals, say, less than 500 people, more or less determine the course of American politics at any one given time? Give me the Prez, the Vice-Prez, the cabinet, the Senate, and some senior representatives, and you have the people who are more or less in charge, in the broad strokes. Do they control the fine detail? Of course not. It's worth asking if they need to. Do they all get along? Of course not. It's worth asking if they have to on certain points in order to simply survive.

Well this would have been clearer I suppose if it was taken into context of the enitire chapter of the book from which I gleamed the information from. You see the chapter was on the liberal Democratic process and how it functions; in this section the author was differentiating between the pluralist, the elite theorist, and the conspiracy theorist. Of course there are conspiracies out there IE the Mafia, however, in the context described here a conspiracy theorist refers to those people who believe that our government is secretly controlled by some diabolical set of conspirators ie the illuminati, the tri-lateral commission, Jews etc etc.

Maybe this will help with the disambiguation:

Pluralism - A decision-making process in which the people's interests are represented by various interest groups; governmental policy is a compromise between the competing interests of those groups.

Elite Theorism - A theory suggesting that the political system is controlled by a relatively small number of people who head important interest groups.

Conspiratorial Theory - The theory that a small group of powerful people is secretly controlling political and economic events in a country.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Well, I agree that those kinds of conspiracy theories are rather less plausible--though let's make some exception for the trilateral commission. The TC isn't in complete control of politics around the world, but they have some influence, they do get together regularly and make plans, and those plans aren't made public. But I do not think they are actually in control of every last detail of government the way someone like Jim Marrs or David Icke would make them out to be.

However, when we're talking about a conspiracy to, say, commit and cover up 9/11 or to control the mainstream media in America, limiting access to certain information, we aren't talking about that kind of conspiracy. We're talking about something that is much more plausible and that has enough public aspects for us to see plainly that something weird is happening.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, I agree that those kinds of conspiracy theories are rather less plausible--though let's make some exception for the trilateral commission. The TC isn't in complete control of politics around the world, but they have some influence, they do get together regularly and make plans, and those plans aren't made public. But I do not think they are actually in control of every last detail of government the way someone like Jim Marrs or David Icke would make them out to be.

However, when we're talking about a conspiracy to, say, commit and cover up 9/11 or to control the mainstream media in America, limiting access to certain information, we aren't talking about that kind of conspiracy. We're talking about something that is much more plausible and that has enough public aspects for us to see plainly that something weird is happening.

It's not at all plausible for the amount of people who would have to be involved there is no way it would be able to be kept a secret think about it these people would have to control the executive branch, most of the congress and definately the 9-11 Commisssion, and the media, not to mention, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence, the Pentagon, and a vast array of foriegn intel agencies including MI-6 and the Mossad, as well as, air traffic control, the FAA, the Demolition teams who planted the explosives, and FEMA; furthermore, as Bin-Laden has taken credit for the attack they would have to control al-Qaeda itself. This is exactly the type of conspiracy on a massive scale that is being discussed in the section I presented. I'm sorry it is simply not believable and stretches credulity way past a reasonable point.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It's not at all plausible for the amount of people who would have to be involved

Depends on the scenario we're considering. The executive branch does control a significant number of the entities you mention below.

there is no way it would be able to be kept a secret

Well, I think this is entirely correct--and lo and behold, it's not so big a secret. Several people have come forward as whistle-blowers; they just don't get much "air-time." There are plenty of implausibilities in the official version as well--if there weren't, why would anyone need to write books and articles to try to explain them?

This is the same point that Noam Chomsky made--he said that in such a conspiracy, someone would come forward and say that something went on that day, or in the weeks prior, that didn't add up. Of course, he meant us to take it that since no one has come forward, the conspiracy idea is bogus. But this premise is incorrect--there have been several people directly involved in 9/11 that have come forward to explain that they were given strange instructions, or that information they had received was at odds with the official version.

think about it these people would have to control the executive branch

Well, here I'm going to go through the whole list and we'll see what we can find. I'm not sure that control of the executive branch would have been necessary, but it certainly would have been very desirable. But if it was a conspiracy among people high up in the Bush administration, controlling the executive branch should be very easy.

most of the congress

However, this one I don't get--why would they need to "control" most of the congress? The type of control that would be needed would not be the type of control a person executes over a machine they are operating. This is, I think, how most people believe a conspiracy must operate. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is another far more common type of control. Consider carefully this example: Suppose I walk up to a guy at a bar and without a word I clug him in the jaw and then I stand there waiting for him to recover. What is his most likely reaction? By far, the most likely reaction is that he or one of his friends will hit me back. This is predictable, and because it is predictable, I have executed a type of control over him.

Now, with regard to congress: In the aftermath of the attacks, the majority of people believe that we have been attacked by foreign terrorists who managed to slip past our intelligence net because that net was hampered in certain critical ways. How is a Republican Congress going to react to that belief? Of course, they will pass the Homeland Security act and the Patriot act. They'll do this absent any direct control--it's just necessary to manipulate what people believe, and to do that, it's only necessary to manipulate what information they receive. It's that simple--and this requires a fairly small cadre of people.

and definately the 9-11 Commisssion

Didn't Bush/Cheney appoint the 9-11 commission?

and the media

This would undoubtedly be the most complicated part--they simply couldn't control the media entirely. They could contact the heads of the most powerful media organizations, however, and offer them significant lucre to play along. One thing that is particularly telling IMO is that my overseas friends tell me that the foreign media is much more open to the idea that there was a conspiracy than the media here seems to be.

not to mention, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence, the Pentagon

Again, total control of those agencies would not be necessary. I'm not sure why control of the NSA would be necessary at all. A few contacts high enough up in the CIA would be more than sufficient (See Mike Ruppert's analysis of the money trail between Wall Street and the CIA for some very interesting information here). And it would only be necessary to control a few people at the FBI--you wouldn't even need to control the director so long as whoever was in charge of investigating foreign terrorists on our soil was on board. Again, see Mike Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon for some very interesting information on this.

and a vast array of foriegn intel agencies including MI-6 and the Mossad

I don't know why controlling those agencies would be necessary at all. The Mossad, along with a host of other foreign intelligence agencies, gave us a number of specific warnings which we ignored. It's not like those agencies have a direct line to the American public.

as well as, air traffic control, the FAA

Again, full scale control would hardly be necessary. It's now fairly well known that there were a number of exercises that had been scheduled to run on that day that gave the FAA considerable difficulty in figuring out what was going on.

the Demolition teams who planted the explosives

I am not convinced that the buildings were brought down by anything other than the airplanes. I would admit that many conspiracy theorists believe that explosives were used, and there is some evidence that this is the case, but I don't think we'll ever know for sure. But would a demolition team necessarily be so hard to come up with?

and FEMA

Why would that be necessary?

furthermore, as Bin-Laden has taken credit for the attack they would have to control al-Qaeda itself

Again, why Al-Qaeda? Why not just Bin Laden himself?

This is exactly the type of conspiracy on a massive scale that is being discussed in the section I presented. I'm sorry it is simply not believable and stretches credulity way past a reasonable point.

Well, if we're talking about controlling every last member of every organization you mention, of course that's absurd. But I don't see that as necessary at all. It's really only necessary to control or bring on board a few people at the top or in key positions, and then keep everyone else in the dark. Keep in mind that Bush and Cheney control the executive branch in its day-to-day dealings, and can give any number of orders to people lower down the chain that they don't have to explain. The same goes for the FBI, the CIA, etc. etc.--the directors of those organizations exercise the type of control you're talking about.

Now, to bring it back around to control of the media--a vast conspiracy of everyone who works for every news organization in America is not needed. A more ho-hum conspiracy of people at the top dictating to their underlings what they may and may not report is enough. And there are plenty of instances where direct evidence of this happening have come out--that website documents a few of them.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I am not convinced that the buildings were brought down by anything other than the airplanes. I would admit that many conspiracy theorists believe that explosives were used, and there is some evidence that this is the case, but I don't think we'll ever know for sure. But would a demolition team necessarily be so hard to come up with?

There is fabricated evidence images takencompletely to the nth degree in legitimacy. As for a demo team... Admittedly I am not a demo expert, but I have seen what it takes to actually precision drop a building. And I don't see anyway possible that amount of wires and explosives could have been mounted on main supporting beams with directional charges throughout a 100 story skyscraper without anyone knowing it. Buildings are taken a quarter that size and it takes these teams months to set everything in place. I just can't believe anyone could even entertain things like this. Chomsky says or does anything possible to cast as much scrutiny and disgust at this country as possible. I think most people take him for what he is.