9/11 truth movement topic

[armagdn03]

I think what some may be trying to say without getting the point across as eloquently as they would like, is that in not voting they are participating in a form of conscientious objection.

Abstaining from the vote, is an action that is to some degree "I feel that I am not being heard so what is my incentive?"

I don't think mathematical reasoning can be adapted to all situations, and to call someones choice childish, is in itself childish even when preceded with "almost". Again, why do we fight each other to arrive at the same goal?

If you would like to apply reason to this, then when was the last time harsh words resulted in an overall positive outcome?

Name calling? guys, these are serious issues that need serious discussion from serious people, not slander.

I think I'm getting old, cant remember history class as well as I used to be able to,
was Gandhi almost childish?

[erickdt]

that is just it i don't know if my vote is really being counted for because these "traditional lever machines" are closed source machines instead of open source. only a few people know how these machines operates and only a few have access to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBI33kOiKc

I think it's pretty likely that there are an equal ammount of people out there that know how to rig the lever machines as there is for computer based machines. I for one think that you ought to be able to log onto a government website cast your vote, print out your reciept on your home printer and then you're done. If you get caught hacking the system that would constitute treason which can be punishable by death or at the very least life in jail.

[Cap-Z-ro]

Hello all,

I'm newly registered but have been reading for a week or 2.

I'm a patent holder myself but not in this field - but have interest, ideas, and boxless theories of my own which combined with others may possibly amount to something.

I'm also a firm believer in open sourcing free energy technology, if only for reasons of personal security...



To get back to topic - I have done a goodly amount of research and have found Bush ties to the company collecting and tabulating electronic votes - thats the game there.

In furtherance - it makes no matter who you vote for, they all serve their global controllers.

Politics is just a construct for people to focus their attention on somehow 'fixing' - while the thieves are carrying the cash out the back door.

Check out how many presidents are genetically connected - this thing goes very deep and far back.

I recommend a viewing of infowars.com for starters - the site's owner Alex Jones is a bit bombastic, but truthful - as evidenced by the unchallenged charges he's made against elected officials of high office.

Actually I'm surprised he wasn't "suicided" by now - with the things he says.

By voting we essentially make ourselves enablers to criminal acts committed with our endorsement.

Do not believe a word of what I just wrote - look for yourselves.

Regards,

Don


*Edited for stupidity

[mikestocks2006]

Sinse this thread is navigating in the election/and election fraud waters, here are some bits for your enjoyment:

? Gahanna, Ohio, 4,258 voters supposedly cast an electronic ballot for George Bush while only 260 voted for John Kerry. While it is vaguely possible that over 94% of voters in the precinct supported George W. Bush, it is a hard number to believe considering that only 638 voters were counted at the polling center.

Over the past few years, Republicans have fought to prevent any type of paper trail through electronic voting. Despite printable ATM type receipts being a reasonable fail-safe, Republicans and corporations such as Diebold fought hard and eventually won the battle against a verifiable voting system.?

Hundrends more ?incidents? across the nation:

http://vote2004.eriposte.com/

Let's not even touch the 2000 elections and the winning margin of few thousand votes.....

?nough said.

Back to OU

[shruggedatlas]

Back to the original topic.  I want to approach it from another angle.  I understand that there are questions about the official story, but I am curious if anyone can come up with what the thinking behind the conspiracy was, and do it in a way that makes some kind of rational sense before the fact. Rolling Stone magazine describes the following as a possible conversation:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!