I hear lots of conspiracy theories from the left... and some of them have to do with the notion that our gov't is actively trying to "control" us.. which isn't far from the truth. The difference is HOW they are doing it.

The notion that 911 was done by our gov't is dumb. The government did not set up 911, there is no MONEY in it. Government is all about dollars. Other people say they did it so we would get the patriot act passed so we give up our rights. I believe it is necessary to watch over some communications because that is why we havn't been hit again. A government can definitely misuse their power, and the patriot act was signed in good faith. If used correctly, the patriot act can be a positive, whether or not that will happen is a different story.

Its actually the CREDIT CARD companies, banks, and the major corporations that are running the country. They are pushing for everyone to get a credit card or invest money so they acquire interest. All of the interest added up is a TON of money, which in turn they use to buy off gov't officials to get things put in place so they can make MORE money. Money is what is driving this society, its not power or control.. right now it is ALL ABOUT MONEY

What is happening is not a SUDDEN takeover, but a generational one. Back in the 60's, the hippies had a MASSIVE political say... people cared about their government generally, and that is why it was so successful. The Government is relying on MATERIALISM... they want you to worry about how you look, dress, what kind of car you drive, etc... that way you only worry about yourself, and as long as you "get yours", you wont care about what is going on. People watch shows like "my sweet 16" who have $30,000 parties, when what they really need is to be locked up in a closet all day and slapped to get a dose of reality. It has already begun with the MTV generation. Major corporations are using celebrities, who have a MASSIVE sway on the young and frail public, to tell them to buy things. The kids go buy it, and think everything is okay.

The same system is going to be used when slowly but surely the chip will be worked into our society. You will have an implanted chip, and EVERYONE will be on CREDIT. That means EVERYONE pays interest, a MAJOR WIN for the banks and companies, who HATE currency. They are trying to eliminate currency altogether. The companies will go to the desperate celebrities, such a Paris Hilton.. who will go on the commercial for the "new chip" and say "that's hot"... which will make the chip fashionable. All the kids will want the chip in turn. There will even be discounts and benefits for paying with the chip, just to lure you into getting it. Many people think the chip is the "mark of the beast", and i have to partially agree. But once you get the chip, you will be nothing more than a corporate puppet, and they will know where you go and where you are at all times.

The thing is, they won't try to sell it to today's public, they will wait for the next generation, or the next, when kids dont care anymore. Its sad but its such a true reality. To sum it up, The government is selling the kids and public materialism so they in turn can make the money to make changes in the government to make MORE money.

I hear lots of conspiracy theories from the left...

yeah, like the right doesn't have any conspiracy theories ... elect a dem and they will take your guns away or Hillary is satan or ... if you let one set of gays get married your children will turn gay. NAH -- those aren't conspiracy theories -- LOL.

now, your premise of controlling the polulace through credit debt ... not gonna happen cause we're only a few years away from not having jobs. No jobs = no credit = no debt.

Decka,

What you are describing is capitalism, then you are mistaking capitalism as a conspiracy to get people under the thumb of the evil corporation types and big government. Then there is the bit that material wealth somehow makes a person heartless.

NOW, the thing with credit cards and the latest fashions and the 'I just have to get the latest gadget' thing is that one is always empowered to say no. Just one word, unequivacally "NO!" People are given 18 years to grow up and have an inkling of the consequences of one's actions. Whether it's doing drugs, gambling or racking up massive credit card debts. People are in control of their lives and are free to be wise or foolish. As far as credit companies are concerned, of COURSE they are going to advertise and try to push people into borrowing money from them. That is how THEY make money. It's up to the individual to be smart enough to spend their money wisely. The government can't and shoudn't be stopping people from running their own lives. The thing with a free capitalistic society is that with choice come responsibility.

".... Hillary is satan ...."

Who knew??

.... Hillary is satan ...."

Who knew??

*raises hand

What you are describing is capitalism, then you are mistaking capitalism as a conspiracy to get people under the thumb of the evil corporation types and big government. Then there is the bit that material wealth somehow makes a person heartless.

No however time and again it is shown that many of these men have far more power than they should and they use it to overthrow American values.

"I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all the wealth is aggregated into a few hands and the republic is destroyed." - Lincoln

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
--Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906

Hate power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."
--President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." --Eisenhower

"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done...Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."
-TEDDY ROOSEVELT, 1910

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams

Lungdop Philing: "yeah, like the right doesn't have any conspiracy theories ... elect a dem and they will take your guns away or Hillary is satan or ... if you let one set of gays get married your children will turn gay. NAH -- those aren't conspiracy theories -- LOL."

*******
Conspiracy - "A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design"
Those things you listed are not conspiracy theories. They don't describe the sinister actions of a group.
An example of a conspiracy theory would be that jews knew about 9/11 ahead of time.

Government is all about dollars.

Undeniably correct.......especially in regards to uber-capitalist governments like the one in the U.S.

The notion that 911 was done by our gov't is dumb.

It was done not by our government, but by people who were angry with our government. The Bush government, however, DID know about the planned attack, and allowed it to take place as planned. That much is known beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The government did not set up 911, there is no MONEY in it.

You could NOT be more wrong. There are megaBILLIONS to be made in controlling the Iraq oil supply.

The movers and shakers at the PNAC have known this for many years, and have (in writing!) been pushing for a reason to wage war on Iraq LONG before the attacks of 9/11 took place..........they were simply waiting for their ReichStag fire to be arranged, so as to have a good excuse.

The 9/11 attacks provided (along with a submissive and compliant mainstream Media aiding the administration in pushing its lies) that excuse.

As for the - "there's no MONEY in it" - assertion, well...the facts speak for themselves------------

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exxon Mobil’s first quarter earnings shoot up
By JUSTIN BLUM
The Washington Post --April 29, 2005

WASHINGTON — As consumers struggle with record high gasoline prices, Exxon Mobil Corp. announced Thursday that its revenue totaled more than $82 billion in the first three months of the year.

The world’s largest publicly traded oil company boosted its profit by 44 percent, to $7.86 billion, from the same quarter a year ago. That left Exxon with a cash hoard of $30 billion.

Other oil companies’ profits are surging as well, leaving them with piles of cash. "There’s an embarrassment of riches now that is unavoidable," said Lawrence Goldstein, president of the New York-based Petroleum Industry Research Foundation Inc.

The Bush government, however, DID know about the planned attack, and allowed it to take place as planned. That much is known beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I find that very hard to believe - care to back it up with some evidence?

I find that very hard to believe

Of course you do. The indoctrination process is wonderfully efficient.

Good little sheep can not imagine their kindly, godly leaders perpetrating anything dishonest or disreputable.

care to back it up with some evidence?

I have posted it here dozens of times.

Look here --------http://www.copvcia.com/

Of course you do. The indoctrination process is wonderfully efficient.

Apparently it is if it's reached Denmark.

The Bush government, however, DID know about the planned attack, and allowed it to take place as planned. That much is known beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's great when conspiracy theories become fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The movers and shakers at the PNAC have known this for many years, and have (in writing!) been pushing for a reason to wage war on Iraq LONG before the attacks of 9/11 took place..........they were simply waiting for their ReichStag fire to be arranged, so as to have a good excuse.

Anybody who had an opinion about invading Iraq for the past 20 years is in on the plot too no doubt. People are allowed to have opinions and push their opinions. This is neither shady nor any kind of crime. The opinions of the PNAC were clearly in the public domain.

I have posted it here dozens of times.

And yet there are millions everywhere, even many on this board whom you confront daily, that don't believe you. Why do you think that is?

For me personally, it isn't a complete disbelief that something like that could happen, for that is simple to fathom. The true perpetrator is the disbelief that it would happen. For the government to be inactive in stopping a terrorist plot, then having to rack up billions upon billions of dollars ever graciously in debt, conduct military operations abroad for years, and face the myriad other tasks that have been undertaken since, then proceed to "get away with it."

There are plenty of journalists, politicians, and other figureheads of society that, regardless of your objections to the idea, do not fancy Bush. Bush narrowly won the election, faces criticisms over policies and scandals often, has poll numbers at their lowest; you think that if the case were solid enough, they wouldn't be "shouting it from the hilltops" any which way they could right now? You can claim that there is a cover-up, a conspiracy, or some other hindrance that is keeping the truth from coming out, but the reality is that you are standing on a two-legged stool. It appears the greatest enemy of "superstition" on these boards is practicing his own form of it.

"The notion that 911 was done by our gov't is dumb. The government did not set up 911, there is no MONEY in it...."



Oh, REALLY? (Or should that be O'Reilly?)



No money in 9-11? Well. oil be damned!



:(




http://www.whatsmells.com/

It's great when conspiracy theories become fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. What like 19 novice pilots pulling amazing manuvers and avoiding the worlds most militarily advanced anti-aircraft systems to destroy 2 of the tallest buildings in the world armed only with box cutters?

Your idea of conspiracy theory seems to be grossly lopsided....

It's great when conspiracy theories become fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There was no *conspiracy*, because there was no need for one.

They did it right out in the open.

The incredible stupidity and complacency (which, when combined, make it virtually impossible for Joe SixPack to believe his leaders would do anything so despicable and callous) of the American Public are what made it possible to be pulled off.

There are plenty of journalists, politicians, and other figureheads of society that, regardless of your objections to the idea, do not fancy Bush. Bush narrowly won the election, faces criticisms over policies and scandals often, has poll numbers at their lowest; you think that if the case were solid enough, they wouldn't be "shouting it from the hilltops" any which way they could right now?

There ARE quite a few journalists and researchers **shouting it from the rooftops**.

But they gain no traction, they make no headway in their exposing of the 9/11 perpetrators, because the American Public at large refuses to listen........and as long as public sentiment remains on the side of the powers-that-be, the political regime in power can get away with ANYTHING they want.

Evakian, do you realize that --even at this late date-- there are STILL many millions of people in the U.S. absolutely convinced that Saddam Hussein had a hand in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.....?!?!?!?!?!

Evakian, do you realize that...

I do indeed. Some of that group even hold office, terrifying eh?

What like 19 novice pilots pulling amazing manuvers and avoiding the worlds most militarily advanced anti-aircraft systems to destroy 2 of the tallest buildings in the world armed only with box cutters?


Three pilots and no amazing maneuvers. Not to mention that U.S. cities aren't exactly ringed with anti-aircraft guns and SAM sites.

The Pentagon is.

In Europe here at the time,there was a lot put into the story that Isreali Intelligence 'Mosad',were in New York,watching the movements of some of the 9/11 attackers,and that they had a van with cameras lined up with the Twin Towers PRIOR to the attack,but were disturbed,when somebody got suspicious of them and called the kops.That one has never really been followed up,also just what did happen to the plane that came down in Penn.was it shot down by USAF.

also just what did happen to the plane that came down in Penn.was it shot down by USAF.

Doesn't seem likely. I think if the USAF had managed to shoot down one of the planes on 9/11, the govt would be only too glad to announce that.

".... Hillary is satan ...."

Who knew??

I knew. I thought everyone knew.

What like 19 novice pilots pulling amazing manuvers and avoiding the worlds most militarily advanced anti-aircraft systems to destroy 2 of the tallest buildings in the world armed only with box cutters?

Your idea of conspiracy theory seems to be grossly lopsided....


The terrorists pilots pulled no amazing manuevers. They didn't have to land the planes but simply steer them for a few minutes. They didn't have to avoid the most militail advanced anti-aircraft systems because those systems were never deployed against them. They were able to take over the planes with box cutters because they were the only ones on board with box cutters. Have you ever seen or used a box cutter? It is very effective and is the weapon of choice for many gang members.

The entire theory that Bush allowed 9/11 and invaded Iraq for the oil falls flat on its face when you look at the facts.

If it was all about the oil Bush would have done better by making a secret deal with Hussein to see that the U.N. sanctions were lifted in return for Iraq selling the U.S. oil at a good rate. As it is, oil production in Iraq is lower than it was before the war, even with sanctions, we are spending billions on a war, the U.S. economy was in a shambles and set back years by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

The invasion of Iraq was wrong for many reasons, the major one being the fact that we replaced a secular ruler with what will inevitably be a religious leadership but it was not ever about oil.

If it was all about the oil Bush would have done better by making a secret deal with Hussein to see that the U.N. sanctions were lifted in return for Iraq selling the U.S. oil at a good rate.

A few questions so that position can be examined thoroughly:
Would the companies in charge of supplying the military forces have made money off no war? Would Bush be able to lift those sanctions? Would Bush be able to get away with a secret deal with Hussein? Would it be better to get a better deal from Hussein, or get the oil on our own terms with a disheveled Islamic republic?

The notion that 911 was done by our gov't is dumb. The government did not set up 911, there is no MONEY in it. Government is all about dollars. Yeah the conspiracy theory that 19 arab hijackers, armed only with boxcutters, under orders from a cave dwelling mastermind who "hates freedom" is far move realistic...

You are deluded about the "money in it for the government". The government doesn't care about money because it can always take more from the taxpayers. It is the corporations who have bought and sold all of our politicians who get rich from government mismanagement.

There was plenty of money in it. You obviously haven't even bothers to take a cursory look into what happened on 9-11. Theres was hundreds of millions of dollars of stack "sold short" on airlines and others in the days preceeding 9-11. Far more then usual. Yet even though you can only buy and sell stock by revealing your ID there has been no real investigation into who was selling short on 9-11.

You also seem to forget the profitable (for bumbling corporations) war going on that 9/11 was used to justify.

The entire theory that Bush allowed 9/11 and invaded Iraq for the oil falls flat on its face when you look at the facts.

It had nothing to do with oil and nothing to do with money, letting 9-11 happen. It was all about the pursuit and grasping of power.

Do you think this is a conspiracy nap.

Do you think this is a conspiracy nap.

----------

Yes.

Not to mention that U.S. cities aren't exactly ringed with anti-aircraft guns and SAM sites.yeah but the pentagon? gimmie a break...

The only afterthought I had about 9/11,was that alQuida didnt attack before,I went thru JFK about 10 years ago,had the slappiest security I ever saw,couldnt believe it.If the Gov are to take some blame,it has to be,they didnt see it coming.

The terrorists pilots pulled no amazing manuevers.


?!?!?!?

Every person --who has any direct knowledge of flying in general and of what it takes to pilot a jet airliner-- that I have ever heard give their opinion on the matter is in 100% diametric oppposition to that view.

Every person --who has any direct knowledge of flying in general and of what it takes to pilot a jet airliner-- that I have ever heard give their opinion on the matter is in 100% diametric oppposition to that view.

Really, well put me down as being in absolute disagreement with those people (and before you ask - I have a degree in aerospace engineering). I'm not even sure where you're seeing these incredible manuevers - both of the planes that hit the WTC banked in at a slight angle in level flight. They quite obviously were not pulling huge Gs. And frankly commercial airliners aren't even capable of such manuevers. Flight 93 did quite a manuever, I'll grant you that one.

?!?!?!?

Every person --who has any direct knowledge of flying in general and of what it takes to pilot a jet airliner-- that I have ever heard give their opinion on the matter is in 100% diametric oppposition to that view.
================================================== ======

Low altitude manuevers can be quite interesting, when you know that you do not have to recover.

9/11 is a bit strange.

AQ pull off the most outrageous stunt imaginable & then nothing for the past 4 years - not even the type of low tech attack that you'd think they'd have no problem doing.

9/11 caught the national attention in the way that a suicide bomber in a mall in anytown USA wouldn't, although such an attack would equally terrorize the nation. Makes you wonder if those conspiracy theories have any merit. Like there being no evidence a plane hit the pentagon & cell phones don't work from planes at 30,000 feet.

cell phones don't work from planes at 30,000 feet.

They work, you're just not allowed to use them under current law. Besides, they didn't call using cell phones, they called using the airphones frequently found hanging on the seat in front of you.

Those are not conspiracy theories, Drew. Those are facts that can be proven or disproven. A conspiracy theory is the idea that Bush let the 9-11 attacks happen. What's allowing the theories to proliferate is the apparent disinclination of the Bush Administration to prove or disprove the facts.

9/11 is a bit strange.

AQ pull off the most outrageous stunt imaginable & then nothing for the past 4 years - not even the type of low tech attack that you'd think they'd have no problem doing.

9/11 caught the national attention in the way that a suicide bomber in a mall in anytown USA wouldn't, although such an attack would equally terrorize the nation. Makes you wonder if those conspiracy theories have any merit. Like there being no evidence a plane hit the pentagon & cell phones don't work from planes at 30,000 feet.

Is that really you Drew??? LOL

Or how about the pristine passport that just happens to flutter to earth to be conveniently picked up for identifying the hijackers?

Or how about the fact our government claims 9/11 was so cleverly planned that they had no idea it was coming yet these masterminds are sloppy enough to leave all the plans and training manuals on the front seat of a rented car at Logan airport?

I won't mention the pentagon (shoot, just did) -- that's like striking a hornets nest.

They work, you're just not allowed to use them under current law. Besides, they didn't call using cell phones, they called using the airphones frequently found hanging on the seat in front of you.

They work about 0.001% of the time. Many of the calls were supposedly from cellphones.

The most disturbing part is the lack of evidence that a plane struck the pentagon. Everything says that no plane hit the pentagon.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Every person --who has any direct knowledge of flying in general and of what it takes to pilot a jet airliner-- that I have ever heard give their opinion on the matter is in 100% diametric oppposition to that view.

Really, well put me down as being in absolute disagreement with those people ..............(((((then))))))).............Flight 93 did quite a manuever, I'll grant you that one.

So, what is it then? I don't understand the direct contradiction in your comments.

Were people who were NOT among the same group of terrorists flying Flight 93?!?!

Frogger claimed that --"The terrorists pilots pulled no amazing manuevers.".

You seem to agree with and bolster that statement, but then you go on to say --"Flight 93 did quite a manuever, I'll grant you that one"

Completely contradictory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As to whether or not the maneuvering of the pilot's was ""not amazing"", let's hear from a real 757 pilot -----------

A senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11 made the following statement:

“Regarding flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the twin towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those (professional pilots with thousands of hours of flight training, men who fly 757's for a living) who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I believe that an actual 757 pilot has a bit more creedence than you or Frogger in assessing whether or not the maneuvers the terrorists made on 9/11 were **amazing** or not. He not only says they were amazing, but that it is beyond human comprehansion how a rookie flyer (iow, a person that had the small amount of training the terrorists were said to have had) could have pulled off such a maneuver at all.

A conspiracy theory is the idea that Bush let the 9-11 attacks happen. What's allowing the theories to proliferate is the apparent disinclination of the Bush Administration to prove or disprove the facts. A conspiracy theory is what the Bush admin promoted. That 19 hijackers armed with boxcutters and commanded by a cave dweller who "hates freedom"...A conspiracy theory is any and all explainations of the events of Sept 11. or any other major event.
Like there being no evidence a plane hit the pentagonI still don't buy the no plane pentagon thing. Saw a picture online of a lightpole that showed signifigant damage.

So, what is it then? I don't understand the direct contradiction in your comments.

Completely contradictory.

Flight 93 was the plane that corkscrewed into the ground in Pennsylvania. Make sense?

I believe that an actual 757 pilot has a bit more creedence than you or Frogger in assessing whether or not the maneuvers the terrorists made on 9/11 were **amazing** or not. He not only says they were amazing, but that it is beyond human comprehansion how a rookie flyer (iow, a person that had the small amount of training the terrorists were said to have had) could have pulled off such a maneuver at all.

I'm beginning to think it's amazing anyone pulled off such a maneuver, then. One might wonder why in the hell a professional pilot (if that is the assumption here) would do such a complicated maneuver seemingly so likely to fail when he could just line it up and fly straight in. So basically we have an unnamed pilot discussing maneuvers that we don't even know happened, that wouldn't make sense under any circumstances, and which seem to contradict what we all saw on TV, which was a plane flying into the towers at a gentle bank. If you find that more convincing, fine.

They work about 0.001% of the time. Many of the calls were supposedly from cellphones.

If they only work .001% of the time why was the FAA considering allowing cellphones to be used in airplanes? That doesn't make much sense.

The most disturbing part is the lack of evidence that a plane struck the pentagon. Everything says that no plane hit the pentagon.

Right, except for all of the evidence of the plane hitting the pentagon.

ahhh, lionel your usually up on things like this...

++++++++++++++++++++
Air France Will Test In-Flight Cell Phone Use
By W. Gardner

Another step towards the use of cell phones on aircraft was announced Tuesday as OnAir said Air France will receive an Airbus plane fitted with GSM gear early next year.

An Airbus A318 single-aisle plane fitted with the service will be used to conduct a six-month commercial test of the European-developed GSM mobile phone standard. OnAir, an airbus-SITA partnership, said the trial will be conducted on short-haul flights in Europe and to and from North African destinations. SITA provides flight-focused applications in communications and IT infrastructure.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060405/tc_cmp/184428641;_ylt=A86.I1j1zjREQjsAdglFr7sF;_ylu=X3oDM TA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

It's my understnding that cell phone technology on 9/11 did not allow for calls to be made above 8,000 ft. IOW -- it was impossible.

But since then, companies are (or have) developed technology that allows higher alltitude connections.

ahhh, lionel your usually up on things like this...



Well, you can't win them all. Regardless, since the 9/11 hijackees were using the airphones, not cellphones, it's largely irrelevant.

On the note of cell phones, most don't work up high because they cant accurately get a signal. However, if you have a satellite phone, or a service with very very strong signals, you can get them to work. They dont let you use them on airplanes because of the small EM emmisssions just from them being on. However, this is all moot anyway, and I cant help but feel that I've just wasted a few seconds of my life...c'est la vie.

Regardless, since the 9/11 hijackees were using the airphones, not cellphones, it's largely irrelevant.Ummm...actually it ssaid they used both then failed to say which was which. However all of the cell phone calls (except possible flight 93) would have been impossible.