Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

A conspiracy is a plan by more than one person to commit an act in the future. Not sure about the Russain mafia comment.

I will ask again, please tell me who covered it up, and how they kept all those people quiet?

As far as liberal media, what I meant is it used to be Walter Cronkite signing off, and now it is nothing but FOX news and the latest horror and bloodshed. I am in no way stating that the media is not controlled (Clear Channel) but I do not think the government has them in thier pocket, it is the other way around.



[edit on 2-4-2007 by esdad71]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Are you suggesting there's a "liberal media"? If so I'm going to have to conclude that you're a biased republican, because there's no such thing as a liberal media, and in my experience only pliticlaly biased people jump to that sort of Left/Right conclussion.

I'm not Republican by any means, and I'm pretty socially liberal.

And the media most definitely does slant liberal, almost overwhelmingly. Fox News would be the big and obvious exception.

Originally posted by esdad71
I will ask again, please tell me who covered it up, and how they kept all those people quiet?

Again, you are basing this question on faulty logic:

1. "All" those people? Do some research on compartmentalized operations. You ASSUME that there were thousands involved and I suggest that that many people were not necessary. You also assume that the majority KNEW they were involved. May I present the case of the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 early... The reporter was probably just being fed an AP wire article. So, she would possibly be part of the conspiracy BUT she would not have known that as she was "just doing her job".

2. Who covered it up? Well, just look at the list of people that helped make evidence unaccessible, came out quickly with the perpetrators, came out very quickly with the collapse mechanisms even BEFORE they saw any evidence, the 9/11 comission ADMITTING that their report was flawed by limited access and flat out lies, look at the list of people that were dishonest with them...

HELL, I am not going to box myself into a single "theory", I just know that ALL government reports on this event are flawed and do not account for almost anything that happened that day.

Who sold US the war? The entire US media. The same people who sell US every war.

Who gives Glenn Beck a home on national TV prime time? CNN

I edited/updated that post, please reread.



[edit on 2-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I'm not Republican by any means, and I'm pretty socially liberal.

I thought you were a self-proclaimed Libertarian?

Originally posted by Pootie
I thought you were a self-proclaimed Libertarian?

Uh... yeah? I am. Libertarians are pretty socially liberal. Hence the whole legalizing drugs and prostitution thing.

How do you know all the government reports are flawed? How do you know this was not compartmentalized? How would they, the shadow government you imply, shut up all of those people? You will not stand on a specific theory because you want a way out of each arguement you begin. That is a piss poor way to handle anything but it does allow you to save face and get itrate at any moment and leave.

I have factual evidence that can back up what I state. I do not post something unless I have hard evidence. I have 'theorized' before and was slammed, and it will not happen again.

I mean, is there anyone lining up to back her up. I don't even think Steve Jones would touch this....

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Who sold US the war? The entire US media. The same people who sell US every war.

That's your opinion, but I don't agree. I don't think the media had anything to do with it.

The government pushed for the war. The people were initially behind it.

Public support (especially liberal support) of the war dropped big time afterwards, and the liberal slant of the media began to reflect that.

Who gives Glenn Beck a home on national TV prime time? CNN

Glenn Beck is a rarity, though. That's like saying Alan Colmes is proof that Fox News is liberal, when we both know it isn't.

Originally posted by esdad71
A conspiracy is a plan by more than one person to commit an act in the future. Not sure about the Russain mafia comment.

I will ask again, please tell me who covered it up, and how they kept all those people quiet?

As far as liberal media, what I meant is it used to be Walter Cronkite signing off, and now it is nothing but FOX news and the latest horror and bloodshed. I am in no way stating that the media is not controlled (Clear Channel) but I do not think the government has them in thier pocket, it is the other way around.

extremely wrong. the CIA controls the media, directly even, at times. ever since 1963.

how many people do you need to be in on it? what if it was only the billionaires. that would be about four hundred americans. if you want to add in millionaires, and beef up the ranks of your evil army, you have FOUR MILLION to add.

how many people could four million millionaires, and four hundred billionaires buy?

if you said, ALL OF THEM, you'd be guessing well, but wrong.

let's just let them buy two people each.

that's a pretty friggin' big fascist army of unlimited power, in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by esdad71
There is no way to hide an operation that large, a conspiracy is a few people.

Flight 93 was 6 people max.
1. Cheney- gave the order
2. Mineta
3. Mystery Navy personnel
4. Flight control with f-16
5. F-16 pilots

It took less than half a dozen people to pull that off.

Nope, Esdad, don't you know you have to include the entire Kean Commission, the entire Bush administration, every FEMA employee, every NORAD employee, every FBI employee, etc. etc...

Aren't you one of the people using that kind of logic to say that thousands and thousands of people would've had to have been involved to bring down the towers, rather than a few small groups working different angles?

Edit to add, I just saw you bring up compartmentalization in another post above, and then in the very next sentence suggest you would still have to shut tons of people up. How? What are you thinking? If things have been compartmentalized, and everything is on a need-to-know basis only, why is anyone going to suspect anything when they would've had even less information than we do?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by bsbray11]

There are corporations that control most of what goes on, and you can see it by looking back at marketing in the last 30 years or so. What I am stating is that big business is becoming larger than the goverment, and where the government used to call the final shots, that has changed. The CIA I believe is a shell of what it was when it comes to control. I think there is something else behind them now.

However, most large corporations too a big hit after 9/11, unemployment skyrocketed and it looked like a very bleak fininacial outlook. Why would the government wnat that unless they would install martial law then, which they did not do. THere are too many things that could and should have been done if there was an NWO coming.

Originally posted by esdad71
THere are too many things that could and should have been done if there was an NWO coming.

The only way you can pretend to know this is by making up a NWO in your head and pretending you know everything about it.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by Pootie
I thought you were a self-proclaimed Libertarian?

Uh... yeah? I am. Libertarians are pretty socially liberal. Hence the whole legalizing drugs and prostitution thing.

"Your rights end where my nose begins is "socially liberal"? Tell me... how do Libertarians feel about most/any social programs...

Sorry... you can PM me,

The fires were flush with the floors. Not even NIST supports the pancake theory.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by esdad71
THere are too many things that could and should have been done if there was an NWO coming.

See here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by esdad71
How do you know all the government reports are flawed?

There are hundreds of threads here pointing out errors in computer models, real models, false testimony, retracted theories, limited access to limited evidence, "Tweaked" models, failure of physical models to fail, time line errors, lies from DoD, flight path errors...

But you have read ALL OF THIS BEFORE... YOU ARE JUST TRYING YOUR SAME CIRCLE JERK GAME.

Originally posted by esdad71
You will not stand on a specific theory because you want a way out of each arguement you begin. That is a piss poor way to handle anything but it does allow you to save face and get itrate at any moment and leave.

WRONG. I will stand behind a theory when one is SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. Unlike yourself, I will not just accept the governments story line because PM and NOVA "agree" (which they do not but whatever). WHICH official story do you believe in?

Pancake
Zipper "clips"
Sagging Trusses
Cantaliever Truss

Which IS the "Official Story" You believe in?

Originally posted by esdad71
I have factual evidence that can back up what I state.

No... you repeat what the NIST, FEMA, etc. ASSERT... this is NOT FACT. Just because they said it you call it FACT. YOU NEED to take some science classes and LEARN THE DEFINITION OF FACT.

Originally posted by esdad71
I do not post something unless I have hard evidence.

See above. Replace the word "fact" with "hard evidence".

Originally posted by esdad71
I mean, is there anyone lining up to back her up.

It does not matter... if she gets people talking who have not been exposed to this material previously her goal was achieved. You know that. It scares THE CRAP out of many "official story believers" and that is why this thread is FULL OF PERSONAL ATTACKS on Rosie instead of talking about the subject.

You are transparent.

Originally posted by Pootie
"Your rights end where my nose begins is "socially liberal"?

Socially liberal, yes. Fiscally, no. Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and fiscally/economically conservative.

Libertarians are left-wing on some things and right-wing on others. In general, though, yeah, they're pretty socially liberal. They're just against government interference or dependency.

Tell me... how do Libertarians feel about most/any social programs...

Against it. That would be the anti-government and fiscally conservative aspect.


Anyway, this is way off topic. My point was, I'm no blindly allegiant right-wing Republican, and I still think the media is left slanted.

Only when they need to be (to maintain credibility), or when they're allowed to be (the ones that are left biased that is). They sell the wars (all that matters is getting in there), and then when public support wanes they chastize it (note the lag time). End of story.

AND, even if they were slanted socially liberal, why dont they chastize the tax/inflation system that's a complete detriment to society, and is the primary engine of the imperial war machine??

[edit on 2-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

There are 3 reasons for my belief in the official story.

1. Intel failures led to 9/11
2. Flight 93
3. Flight 587

The US was attacked when again when flight 587 was knocked out of the sky. Please research the link to Reid. There is video that shows an explosion, and then the plane crashing, but you never hear about it.

The government could have moved but it was big business, the airliners, and the suppliers to the airliners and the business deals that would not get done that supressed that. Big Business. To me that is not our government, but the ones who charge 2.50 for a coffee, 27.00 for a printed t-shirt and 19 % interest on a credit card.

The government is no longer needed, and that was the point of 9/11 to me. If martial law was wanted, they would have easily blamed 587 on terrorists and we would be living in a different world. I mean, it was too perfect. Blowing up over the neighborhood of those who died on 9/11. You could not write a better script. Can you imagine the outcry and the giving up of anything by each citizen if that had happened?

Once Big Business is done with the US, bankrupting everyone and the Federal Reserve crumbling, they will leave us like they left Europe after WW2. I think next time they are going to SOuth AMerica. Sorry for the rant, jsut an opinion.

Originally posted by esdad71
The US was attacked when again when flight 587 was knocked out of the sky. Please research the link to Reid. There is video that shows an explosion, and then the plane crashing, but you never hear about it.

Well what if I say the explosion was a critical internal failure and they covered it up so that airliners wouldn't take another hard hit economically so soon after 9/11? I think that's a much more plausible theory, unless you have more info to back your current position.