oldschool CxC

Monday, April 02, 2007

Any responses from anyone to Marvin Bush?
Interesting article on Marvin Bush.

For those non-conspiracy theorists ... uh, doesn't this seem unusual?
This article in Counterpunch points out the irony, and how badly Clinton would've gotten it if his brother's company was in charge of security at WTC on 9/11...

More food for thought, IMO.

(You guys know I think Bush was in on the gig. That's why for me it's not a coverup type of 'Oh My God' discovery, it's more of 'aha, another piece to stick into the puzzle.
What started me off was
a) the strange falling of the towers, looking like a planned demolition
b) president sitting stupidly for minutes
c) no jets scrambling in response
d) mysterious flight 93 'take-down' (IMO)
e) grabbing the tapes of the Pentagon missile hit (agents were grabbing tapes WITHIN 10 MINUTES of the attack!)

There's a lot of other stuff that makes me EXTREMELY DUBIOUS of this not being an inside job, but a-e was a solid enough start...)

But in America, some of us like to believe our Monarchy has noble values...

12 Comments:

Blogger Samuel said...

Just from a casual interest it seems to me what you listed isn't strong evidence to support your claim of conspiricy. here are two of the more perplexing ones to me.

a) there was nothing strange there. engineers have proven why those buildings fell the way they did. there is even a documentary that covers this on the discovery channel (in on it?). unless everyone else is in on this one too, this is proven to be an accurate representation of how those towers would eventually fall when struck by aircraft.

d) what is so mysterious as the passangers on the plane calling their loved ones and planning to attempt a takeover of the plane? passangers on the plane knew about the other attacks and figured it was their only chance. are you saying the folks who lost family members were in on this too?

And at what point would security at the towers have anything to do with stopping the planes?

Clinton would have got critized more harshly? Are you saying Bush hasn't been called out? What are you saying?

I'm trying to stay open minded but I'm totally lost on this post.

3:38 PM  
Blogger Sony said...

Sam, an open mind does the devil's work. Once you close it off you can cite randomness in a continuing haze of confirmation bias

4:02 PM  
Blogger Erik said...

No further comment.

9:08 AM  
Blogger REkz said...

Sam, thanks for your response.

a) there's actually quite a lot of disagreement on why the WTC fell. Here's a listing of arguments. I haven't checked this list, but I do see that a number of Physics and Engineering professors disagreed that the towers would fall from plane attacks.

The argument that the buildings collapsed from internal explosions has been put forward from numerous sources.

d) Passengers on the planes being able to call is somewhat unusual, but not indicative of any conspiracy, IMO.
However all the black boxes 'vanishing' from these plane crashes is more puzzling. Most likely, the black boxes were retrieved and are top secret, and I want to know why.

Security at the towers has nothing to do w/the planes, but a lot to do with the possible placement of bombs weeks prior.

Clinton was clearly grilled far more harshly for lying under oath about his 'sex scandal' (which IMO was contrived anyway) than Bush has been for his pushing false evidence re: Iraq's WMD's, giving out Valerie Plame's ID, voter fraud in Ohio & Florida, violating the Geneva Convention w/pre-emptive attack, torturing civilians in Iraq and secret prisons, violating civil rights in Cuban prisons, not acting quickly for New Orleans calamity, giving billion $'s of 'no-bid contracts' to Haliburton, going AWOL as a youth, etc etc.

My point is there are so many VALID areas Bush could be impeached on, vs Clinton getting impeached for nothing significant IMO.

Is what I just said REALLY that unclear?

12:08 PM  
Blogger A. said...

who's Trippin

3:57 PM  
Blogger A. said...

can someone make a joke out of the phrase "bathed in impermissible taint."

3:58 PM  
Blogger A. said...

Let me try my hand at rebutting, just as an exercise:

Clinton was clearly grilled far more harshly for lying under oath about his 'sex scandal' (which IMO was contrived anyway) then
Bush has been for his pushing false evidence re: Iraq's WMD's,

[the evidence was believed to be truthful at the time, even if there was a strong top down confirmation bias in the intelligence agencies]

giving out Valerie Plame's ID, .
[her husbands claims were not consistent with aforementioned intelligence. even if they turned out to be true. and Bush didn't do it.


voter fraud in Ohio & Florida,.
[so what if his brother was gubnor there, that doesn't mean anything, the scrub list, ummmm.. an honest mistake what do you want, perfection? just because Katherine Harris worked for bush doesn't prove anything either.. i suppose next you will talk about the wrong news calls based on exit polls (VNS goofed), and the preppy riot, i don't think anything is illegal about that..

violating the Geneva Convention w/pre-emptive attack,.
um I think post 9/11 is a new era or something. things are different now. are you with us or against us?

torturing civilians in Iraq and secret prisons,.
things are different now. Abu grahib was an isolated incident involving a few bad guards, just because their techniques might have been similar with known intelligence gathering techniques that the subcontracting (?) intelligence agencies may also use means nothing. Besides, this isn't in the US so different rules apply. What, do you want another 9/11?

violating civil rights in Cuban prisons,
don't know this one, see above. are you sure it is the us doing the torturing? and what is torture exactly. times are different now.

not acting quickly for New Orleans calamity,
It was a state not federal issue and the Nat'l guard was stretched kind of thin right then.. Just like no one could have predicted an attack on the WTC, who could have known that the levees would bust? He wasn't at that meeting. oh he was? he didn't remember.

giving billion $'s of 'no-bid contracts' to Haliburton,.
It's not like you are trying to contract a simple task. Few companies could undertake such a massive logistical project, don't you want to use one with a known history and close ties to the military? just because veep Dick worked for them and may have a few options stashed aside doesn't prove anything. Next you'll say there is something wrong with them moving to Dubai. Duh, middle east, that's where the oil is. They are an oil company.

going AWOL as a youth, etc etc.
he had bigger things in his future than going to the 'Nam. You know, bad things happened to the kids that went over there.

4:30 PM  
Blogger Erik said...

can someone make a joke out of the phrase "bathed in impermissible taint."

You ever watch Mr. Show? One episode had a guy with the best taint in the porn business: "It's insane this guy's taint!"

5:02 PM  
Blogger A. said...

I suppose you also want to know why those tapes of the firemen in the towers were repressed too. It was out of respect for their families. (did they all come out? I think just portions) IIRC they said they thought they could put the fire out
Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

and that they heard explosions. They were mistaken in the first case, I think the second was exploding tanks of fuel in the basement for backup generators. psssh.. conspiracy theories.

8:31 PM  
Blogger A. said...

rebuttals for a alot of the collapse theories
ok I'll stop now.. sorry for the flood just been messing around and linking stuff as I read it.

8:58 PM  
Blogger Samuel said...

Is what I just said REALLY that unclear?

Yes.

Maybe I just don't get how you seem to find the truth by through speculation.

9:43 AM  
Blogger REkz said...

Sam, thanks for your comment.

> Maybe I just don't get how you seem to find the truth by through speculation.

Gotcha. Well, when I studied US History way back at UCSD '92, the teachers made a few points I had to learn:
a) we never really know history, we just know people's interpretation of reported events
b) history is told by the winners
c) often more accurate explanations of events don't 'come out' until years have passed and people either 'break' from holding info for so long, or the guilty are dead.

But when people are pressured via research, ie impeachment proceedings and subpoenas, some truths will come out faster!

And there is a lot of BS around the 9/11 event. There are a lot of signs of intelligence manipulation, blowing up the buildings, and more. The coverup story isn't even that solid, you can now find many books quoting the same info -- that there is deliberately falsified info all around the event.

It's a 'wag the dog' phenomena, and most Americans are too content to care -- and the implication of the event could be far broader than we know. Some political scientists call 9/11 a 'cold coup' where American military overthrew the US government, in fact.

I invite you to look deeper and dispute me on the points I (and now A) outlined.

I'm not saying any of this with anger or resentment, but out of the invitation to have a dialogue on these topics.

There are so many interesting historical events that people are incorrectly informed about -- and intentionally, for instance, Bikini Island nuclear test victims, significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether USA knew about Pearl Harbor before the attack, Tuskegee experiments, and more.

I was blown away in college when I learned about a lot of these 'coverups'.

A, thanks for the slurry of links and commentary. Impressive linking, bro!

I'm following up, takes awhile.

1:17 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home