Interesting

[Cavs019 710]

http://www.livingstonemusic.net/pentagon.htm#Preloader

I doubt this is true, but an interesting take nonetheless. My buddies and I debated over this for a while during school, I'd like to hear some of your input.

[UMWhockey 0]

hummmmm

[Jason Harris 31]

What's interesting is it's presented in a way that makes either side hard to believe. In other words, all the questions they raise lead to a conclusion that would make us rather uncomfortable. I have another one in that vein. I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm just repeating what I heard.

I was watching Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago when Gore Vidal was on. He alluded to voting improprieties in Ohio. He suggested there is evidence these improprieties prevented Kerry from winning that state and, thus, the election. We've also read articles over the past four years that an after-the-fact recount would have given Gore Florida and the election. So, here’s what’s interesting:

In 2000, a high-ranking member of the Bush election committee (with the possible title of Chairwoman, I can't remember) was the Attorney General of Florida, a woman in charge of elections for the state. In 2004, a high-ranking member of the Bush election committee (with the possible title of Chairman) was the Attorney General of Ohio, and man in charge of elections for the state.

An amazing coincidence for you and your buddies to debate....

[kosydar 0]

In 2000, a high-ranking member of the Bush election committee (with the possible title of Chairwoman, I can't remember) was the Attorney General of Florida, a woman in charge of elections for the state.

Kathleen Harris? From what I remember, Ohio wasn't nearly as close.

[A_Steeves12 0]

wow i dont know what to think.

[sweetblazer 0]

So what I gathered was that it might opf actually been a missile that hit the pentagon and not an airplane... it would make sense to say it wasn't a missile because it might scare people to know that can happen, but I think the people responsible for shooting would have somehow got something out to claim responsablity for shooting the missile.

[hocckey77 0]

Yeah, our government has gone to sh*t. I actually believe this. I wanna be President just to see how bad stuff really is and try to fix it. Or I should just attempt a coup.

[Kirsch 1]

Yeah, I saw this video, and do you know how long it would take me, a person with very limited knowledge in photo/video editing, to hack up those images? Thiry minutes. Tops. Hell, I'm sure someone could make a video saying we attacked ourselves during Pearl Harbor. I'm no conservative, and as of late I'm not really much of a democrat, but this is pure hogwash.

[Tricky4L 0]

Yeah, I saw this video, and do you know how long it would take me, a person with very limited knowledge in photo/video editing, to hack up those images? Thiry minutes. Tops. Hell, I'm sure someone could make a video saying we attacked ourselves during Pearl Harbor. I'm no conservative, and as of late I'm not really much of a democrat, but this is pure hogwash.

But the pure dynamics of flying a plane at such a rate/height/speed don't really work out. Neither side points out definitive facts which is pretty damn harmful to the Nation as a whole. Another interesting topic/theory is one which suggests that the planes that were flown into the towers were not actually commercial jets but rather cargo planes that had distictive bulges that also produced a split second flash explosion right before the impact.

These are theories that need to be addressed head on rather than just brushed off as conspiracy theories (something Mr.Bush alluded to in his speech after the events of 9/11.) I'm not saying that these allegations are true but they are legit questions that should be answered throughly and not with a "just because" statement. If the media can address conspiracy theories of our past history then they should also address these same questions.

[cds 0]

What was this video trying to prove? At the start, they attempt to make arguments that the attack was by plane (but not a 757), then they use "eyewitness quotes" to say it was by missile, then near the end they say it was by plane again. Not a very convincing argument.

[kosydar 0]

Another interesting topic/theory is one which suggests that the planes that were flown into the towers were not actually commercial jets but rather cargo planes that had distictive bulges that also produced a split second flash explosion right before the impact. .

I'll bite. Why? I've heard so many conspiracy theories about 9/11 over the years, but I've yet to hear a reason why.

[Tricky4L 0]

You mean the reasoning behind the theories?

[Tricky4L 0]

What was this video trying to prove? At the start, they attempt to make arguments that the attack was by plane (but not a 757), then they use "eyewitness quotes" to say it was by missile, then near the end they say it was by plane again. Not a very convincing argument.

I think they were trying to establish more the point that what actually happend wasn't what was reported.

[kosydar 0]

Yes, in this case more specifically, why would someone (who?) fly cargo planes into the buildings? What happened to the commercial jets with all the passengers? I think its valuable to not accept everything that you hear from the media instantly, and realize that there are obvious biases. But at the same time, I don't understand theories like this at all.

[Tricky4L 0]

I think the cargo jet theory implies that there were members of the government involved in the attacks. The question of what happend to the jets with the passengers should and will be the underlying and number one question associated with any such theories and even within the most hardcore conspiracy groups, there is nothing more than an "I don't know" answer. As I said before I think there are inconsistancies on both sides of this issue and unfortunatly this issue gets turned into back and forth politics that exploit the lost lives of over 3,000.

[hattrick74 0]

i find it very interesting (scary) how politics have gone down the drain in the past 10 years. i cant wait for the loser of the next election democrat or republican to claim fraud. why cant people just face the fact that you cant win everything, and instead of complaining about it, fix whats wrong with the party you are in so you can win the next time. I am affraid to see what america will be like in 20 years. my poor kids.

[kevinbelt 0]

What's interesting is it's presented in a way that makes either side hard to believe. In other words, all the questions they raise lead to a conclusion that would make us rather uncomfortable. I have another one in that vein. I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm just repeating what I heard.

I was watching Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago when Gore Vidal was on. He alluded to voting improprieties in Ohio. He suggested there is evidence these improprieties prevented Kerry from winning that state and, thus, the election. We've also read articles over the past four years that an after-the-fact recount would have given Gore Florida and the election. So, here’s what’s interesting:

In 2000, a high-ranking member of the Bush election committee (with the possible title of Chairwoman, I can't remember) was the Attorney General of Florida, a woman in charge of elections for the state. In 2004, a high-ranking member of the Bush election committee (with the possible title of Chairman) was the Attorney General of Ohio, and man in charge of elections for the state.

An amazing coincidence for you and your buddies to debate....

the recount conducted by the new york times found bush to have won florida. i think usa today's did as well.

i'd like to hear what evidence vidal has for the ohio improprieties claim. pretty much everyone i know, myself included, voted in ohio with no problems, and my old boss is an elections official, and i haven't heard anything fishy from him.

i think vidal is mostly wishful thinking.

if you're looking for ohio conspiracy theories, you're best off with computer fraud. most of our counties switched to computerized polling this past year, and nearly all used diebold machines. the ceo of diebold is one of bush's most effective fundraisers. computerized voting machines leave no paper trail...

it's all bullshit, though. bush won both elections, like it or not. (for the record, i'm in the latter category.)

-k

[kevinbelt 0]

i find it very interesting (scary) how politics have gone down the drain in the past 10 years. i cant wait for the loser of the next election democrat or republican to claim fraud. why cant people just face the fact that you cant win everything, and instead of complaining about it, fix whats wrong with the party you are in so you can win the next time. I am affraid to see what america will be like in 20 years. my poor kids.

you must be very young if you think this is a recent development.

-k

[Chadd 916]

What's interesting is it's presented in a way that makes either side hard to believe. In other words, all the questions they raise lead to a conclusion that would make us rather uncomfortable. I have another one in that vein. I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm just repeating what I heard.

I was watching Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago when Gore Vidal was on. He alluded to voting improprieties in Ohio. He suggested there is evidence these improprieties prevented Kerry from winning that state and, thus, the election. We've also read articles over the past four years that an after-the-fact recount would have given Gore Florida and the election. So, here’s what’s interesting:

In 2000, a high-ranking member of the Bush election committee (with the possible title of Chairwoman, I can't remember) was the Attorney General of Florida, a woman in charge of elections for the state. In 2004, a high-ranking member of the Bush election committee (with the possible title of Chairman) was the Attorney General of Ohio, and man in charge of elections for the state.

An amazing coincidence for you and your buddies to debate....

Bill Maher jumped the shark a couple years ago. Now he's just a bitter hack who likes to bully people he doesn't agree with as there was never a real debate on his show. It's a shame because I liked his show when it first started.

It's easier for people like Vidal and/or Maher to make accusations without any specifics. That way that can make it seem like the Republicans cheated without ever actually saying anything they have to prove or get sued for making.

The Democratic party still refuses to believe the American people want Bush and his cronies in power. They seem utterly incapable of admitting their agenda wasn't as appealing to the masses as Bush's agenda is/was. Personally, I think we need a new national moderate party because the wackos on both sides are ruining the country.

[Jason Harris 31]

Personally, I think we need a new national moderate party because the wackos on both sides are ruining the country.

I remember in my Poli Sci courses in college it was presented that multi-party systems can be debilitating because of the need to constantly make coalitions. However, I'm beginning to think the two party system is just as debilitating because our poiticians too often vote the party line to keep allegiances, presumably as a means to keep their jobs.

My full disclosure is during college I was pretty much down the middle with rightest leanings; now at 42, I"m pretty much down the middle with leftist leanings. There's no doubt, however, that there are issues in which I'm staunchly in the conservatives' camp, while other issues in which I'm staunchly in the liberals' camp.

And that's my point. I'm not voting along the party's line. I'll study an issue and come to my own conclusion about what might be the best solution. I would suspect that deep down our own politicians may do the same thing, but I fear they too often ignore the obvious solution because it would cause them to cross the party's opinion.

[kevinbelt 0]

I remember in my Poli Sci courses in college it was presented that multi-party systems can be debilitating because of the need to constantly make coalitions. However, I'm beginning to think the two party system is just as debilitating because our poiticians too often vote the party line to keep allegiances, presumably as a means to keep their jobs.

you were educated in usa/uk/canada, weren't you?

it's standard dogma, post ww2, for english-speakers to say coalition politics is debilitating. they'll say that germany's multiparty system during weimar led to the rise of the nazis, etc.

it's bullsh*t. coalition politics was my specialization in my major, and i would have written my phd dissertation on it if i wasn't rejected from all the grad schools i applied to. (bitterness remains.) the fact of the matter is, if you look at all the world's democracies, nearly all of the successful ones are multiparty coalition systems. two-party systems are the exception, not the rule, and successful two-party democracies are pretty much limited to the uk (although even that's not a two-party system anymore), the usa, canada in theory (although fragmentation has led to a bunch of parties), and australia. spain and greece are close. the rest are multiparties, and it's not like these countries are having problems. germany, the netherlands, sweden - all among the best-performing in any category.

the genius of the coalition system is precisely that nobody in power can vote the party line. if you want to stay in power, you have to compromise with your partners. not coincidentally, coalition countries are the most moderate.

sorry for rambling. it's just i haven't talked about this since my rejection letters came in february. i'm remembering why i loved this stuff in the first place.

-k

[OTHockey96 0]

i hate politics, so i don't have any comment on the rest of the conversation, but about 9/11, i can tell u that i live twenty minutes down i-95 from the pentagon, my dad worked at the pentagon during 9/11, and so do many of my friends dads. two kids at my h.s. lost parents in the whole mess, and my class was maybe the first in the whole school to hear about what was going on at about 10:00 am. two of my freinds fathers saw the plane hit the building personally, the video footage of the crash from the pentagon security cams was messed with on the movie, because i've seen it multiple times before and you can see its an airliner going into the building. as for the plane not throwing any jet wash onto i-95, i've never really heard anything, but i do know, again from my friends father who saw it happen, that the jet hit the light poles in the pentagon parking lot as it came in. wreckage, it was there, burried in the depths of the building, but it wouln't have been discernable after crashing into a building built like the pentagon at the speeds it was going, and then after being burned by the jet fuel for like three days. the website raises some good questions, but mostly its just for people who like to hear a good conspiracy theory.

[hocckey77 0]

I am affraid to see what america will be like in 20 years. my poor kids.

Me too.

If I ever think about running for president and win, I'll be like Stalin and "purge" the gov. Just to get rid of all this conspriacy, and I doubt I'd hide stuff from the public.

[Cavs019 710]

Most kids dislike W. because of what their parents tell them or because its the cool thing these days to say "Bush is an idiot." I myself am a democrat, but it bothers me when kids say "Bush sucks" with my response being "why," only to hear things like "he choked on a pretzel" or "he can't speak well."

[Tricky4L 0]

Most kids dislike W. because of what their parents tell them or because its the cool thing these days to say "Bush is an idiot." I myself am a democrat, but it bothers me when kids say "Bush sucks" with my response being "why," only to hear things like "he choked on a pretzel" or "he can't speak well."

Yea this is a common problem today that is totally out of control. Then generation of now is based more of commentary than on fact. The people who simply say Bush sucks are as ignorant as the people who say that we should support him because he's the president. Many celebrities are becoming a harmful part of the political process more than ever when they have so much potential to inform rather than mislead.

I think America has a long way to go when it comes to practicing democracy. I still can't wrap my mind around the concept of having to sign loyalty oaths to get into certain campaign events and having prewritten questions asked in "debates" when in the UK they can have a show that puts party leaders in the hot seat while the public asks anything! Seeing a canidate struggle on the spot to answer questions that are on the mind of everyone... that is something we here in the states need to take note of. A reporter can say "you have blood on your hands Mr.Prime Minister do you plan to resign." but the traveling press with the president has certain rules about questions they can and can't ask.