The Spanish-American War was devised by elite wealthy businessmen.

[Jara sang]

Is this something that is generally well known? I was talking to somebody yesterday who is a member of the Metropolitan Club in D.C. and he told me that the entire war was planned out within the chambers of that club, not by government officials but by wealthy businessmen. William Randolph Hearst, Roosevelt and others basically planned the entire war out from start to finish. If this is true, why is something like MIHOP or LIHOP so far-fetched? Seems like it would be our governments modus operandi.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. Zinn - People's history of the United States...

great resource. I'm off to work, or I'd fill you in.

I hadn't heard about that club, I'd like to hear more!

[bryant69]

2. The war was the creation of the yellow dog press

but did they actually plant the explosives?

At any rate the issue isn't whether LIHOP/MIHOP is so far-fetched, it's whether or not the proof you have assembled to prove it is credible. And in my opinion it's not. Particularly since the most frequent argument in favor of LIHOP/MIHOP is "Look, Bush is a bastard - so why can't you believe in LIHOP/MIHOP?"

I'm not disputing whether Bush is a bastard - I believe him capable of all kinds of bad stuff - but without proof for any specific bastardly conduct, the mere assertion of bastardness isn't proof.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jara sang]

3. The same could be said about the U.S. response after the attacks.

What proof did we have that Al Queda perpetrated these events? There was no investigation to speak of and the evidence was destroyed. One thing was certain, the press was blaming it on Arabs very early on.

[bryant69]

5. Ah the old prove that al-Qaeda did it argument ?

Good turnaround.

Of course once I go to pull out sources suggesting al-Qaeda did it you immediately dispute such sources as being official government sources, and since your argument is that the government (literally thousands of people, if not tens of thousands) worked together to put one over on the American people, such evidence is naturally inadmissable.

Plus of course it keeps the ball in my court, another advantage.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[MadHound]

6. Yes, the war was a drummed up fake,

Hearst and his cronies wanted to make money, and what better way than a war:eyes: Many reputable historians acknowledge this as fact, and the current debate among academia is whether the Maine explosion was either an accident or deliberate.

As far as LIHOP/MIHOP of 911, well friend if you would actually do some reading and thinking you would realize that we're not pushing LIHOP/MIHOP because we think Bush is a bastard. We're pushing it because the "official" story simply doesn't add up, and there is lots of evidence that indicates other forces were in play than the offical story. Too much for me to go into details here now, but we have an entire forum devoted to this subject, and there have been a few intelligent books published on the subject, perhaps you should do some research before making such a blanket statement.

But let me ask you one question regarding those events. How can not just one, not just two, but three steel structures, all damaged in different places, in different ways, defy the odds and not only become the first steel structures in history to collapse, supposedly because of fire? Not only that, but in addition, all three collapse virtually straight down into their footprint? Please, try to come up with a logical answer to that one. And I think that your journey to find those answers will take you to places where you never thought you would go.

And remember, this administrations playbook, PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" states at the end that all of their pipe dreams depend on one thing happening, a Pearl Harbor type event. Gee, rather convienent, maybe too convienent.

[bryant69]

7. I hate it when people call me friend

How patronizing can you get?

At any rate I'm not a structural engineer, so independent of myself I have no way of knowing why steel would collapse in those circumstances. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me - but really I'm not qualified to know one way or the other. The only way to make a guess is to look at what experts say - some experts say one thing, most say another.

[MadHound]

8. Excuse me for trying to inject a little civility and courtesy here

My pardon, I'm from the midwest, where we greet total strangers as friends, and try to be courteous, polite and civil. Next time you want me to address you as "asshole"? Get over yourself.

I find it rather amusing that you blow off LIHOP/MIHOP theories as somehow being less credible than the official story, but as you admit, you haven't done your research, nor are you an expert in any relevant field. So how did you come to your conclusion, faith in the government and corporate media:eyes: That's funny, for I find those two institutions some of the least credible around, especially since both entities benefitted greatly from 911. The Bushco government got the war for oil and empire that it wanted, while the media raked in profits not just for the media alone, but also for the arms dealers and war profiteers who control the media.

Rather friend you should go out and do your own research on this topic. In my previous post I gave you some places to start, and the means to get started. I suggest you go from there, and see where they take you. As the old saying goes, "If you don't have an open mind, are you certain you still have one". Also, remember that all of the people who didn't believe the official story about the Kennedy assasination were labeled as crackpots and kooks, suffering ridicule and persecution both at the hands of the media and the public at large. Yet low and behold, through diligence, hard work and perserverence they were duly rewarded in 1979 when the government officially declared that the Kennedy assasination was indeed a conspiracy.

[bryant69]

9. One clarification

I am not an expert, but I have researched this information a couple of times. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I hadn't researched it.

I researched it and came up with a different answer than you.

Sorry to have been unclear.

[MadHound]

10. So then you CAN answer my questions above!

Like how did three different buildings, damaged in three different areas, in three different ways, all defying the long odds, collapsed virtually into their own footprint? Or how did these three different buildings again defied the odds, and became the first steel structures to collapse due to fire? Now that you have clarified yourself and have done the research, I'm real curious as to what your answers are. Thanks.

[bryant69]

11. Well

My understanding is that it has something to do with extreme heat - you say fire as if this were a normal fire -these were three planes that had just taken off, they were full of fuel, and that fuel is pretty explosive - It created conditions of extreme heat. For quite a little while

Now one for you - how can the Bush Administration be so stupid and so brilliant at the same time? The logistics of covering up this faking of an explosive attack on the United states truely stagger the mind. And yet they completely fail to plan for victory in Iraq and they are reduced to the most childish tactics against Joe Wilson and Cindy Sheehan.

[MadHound]

13. Interesting, but unlikely

First off, your explanation doesn't cover what happened to WTC 7, which also collapsed straight down.

As for the fires, well let us take a close look at them. They were started by jet fuel, which burns at aprox. 800-900 F. The melting point for structural steel is between 2200 and 2500 F, and the temperature at which steel just begins to weaken is set between 1100 and 1500 F. These figures are common knowledge, you can look them up in any book dealing with metal working.

In addition, all of those steel braces were covered with heat and fire resistant materials, a spray on material. In addition, as per NYC fire codes, the drapery, carpeting, dry wall and most other basic building materials within the structures were composed of fire retardant materials. Plus, per eye-witness accounts, the sprinkler system was working at full capacity. This means that the conditions inside either tower were not optimum for a fire to wreak havoc. Besides, we saw that on the South tower, half the fuel dissapated on the outside in a fireball when the plane struck the tower.

Oh, and one more piece of interesting information. One can hear on the tapes of the firefighters who were in the Towers the firemen on the scene, in both towers, calling for only three hoses each to put out the fires. Three hoses. I was a volunteer fire fighter for a number of years, and I don't care if you're calling for four inch lines, if you're only calling for three lines to fight a fire, that means that you're dealing with a relatively mild fire, one that isn't raging out of control, and certainly not one that has the heat and ferocity to weaken structural steel.

And again, how did these three buildings, damaged in three different ways, all defy the odds, physics, and the science of destruction to collapse virtually straight down into their own footprint? If it is such a common thing for buildings to go down like that, then why the need for demolition experts?

Sorry friend, I don't buy it. These are just a few of the issues surrounding 911 that don't fit with the official story. You may wish to keep on believing the official story if you wish, but I have an inquiring mind, and I gave up fairy tales long ago.

[bryant69]

14. Well, friend, you believe your fairy tale and I'll believe mine

I noticed you ignored my question - good call, since there's no easy answer to it.

[MadHound]

15. Beg pardon, I thought that the answer was obvious

Bush himself was probably not in the loop, at least not the important parts. As for as the rest of the administration pulling off a cover-up, well that's easy, a person here, a person there, much like what happened with the Kennedy assasination.

But back to answering questions, and you haven't answered mine. Do you have any answers for my questions? Or are you just hoping that all of these tough questions somehow go away? Sorry, but they won't. Too much is at stake here and people will keep asking the tough questions until they die or answers come forth.

So again, how did these buildings perform the impossible feat of falling virtually straight down into their own footprint? How did all of these building, each of which had a fire that was controlable, become the first steel structures in history to collapse supposedly due to fire? Inquiring minds do wish to know.

[bryant69]

16. I did answer that question, friend.

You just didn't agree with my answer, friend, as I gathered you wouldn't.

But I find your answer to my question no less satisfactory than my answer towards yours.

Oh well.

[bryant69]

17. Dupe

Sorry

[MadHound]

18. Sorry you find fault with my answer

But I was still an infant during the Kennedy assasination, thus it was impossible for me to be in on the cover up. But I keep pointing out the Kennedy assasination to you because it WAS a conspiracy, one that has been successful in covering up the true perpetrators of that crime to this day. Thus, if one group can pull off a successful conspiracy involving the murder of the President, then it is possible to pull off a LIHOP/MIHOP conspiracy.

And your answer to at least one of my questions was "extreme heat". I pointed out that such an scenario was highly unlikely, given the physics involved, and the eye witness reports. Therefore, I must ask you again, how did three buildings, all damaged in different ways, at different times, with different objects somehow manage to defy the laws of physics and fall virtually straight down into their own footprint? As I demonstrated upthread, it couldn't have been "extreme heat" since it couldn't have gotten hot enough to weaken structural steel, much less melt it. Any reasonable answer would be much appreciated.

Oh, by the by, jet fuel isn't "pretty explosive" Jet fuel isn't like gasoline with a low flash point(-40F) Jet fuel has a high flash point and a high vapor density, which is why gasoline is referred to as a "flameable liquid" as opposed to jet fuel being a "combustible liquid" In other words this means that while gasoline can explode easily in a fire, jet fuel is much less likely to explode, and much more likely to burn, and remember it only burns at a temp of 800-900F, much below the point where structural steel weakens.

So again, answers would be appreciated, especially if you can explain then in a scientific matter. For that is exactly the one thing that hasn't been done, the application of solid science to the "official story" And once you start doing that friend, the "official story" starts falling apart.

[bryant69]

20. I think we are at an impasse

Oh well. Guess I'll have to go back and get that physics degree after all.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[MadHound]

21. From this end is looks like the one at an impasse is you

And that you're out of answers.

And indeed, perhaps you should start looking for them. Just don't be suprised that the more answers you find out, the less you believe the "official story" Cheers!

[wli]

4. the US is apparently "famous" for false flag attacks n/t

[long_green]

12. Read "The Politics of War" by Walter Karp

which examines not only how we got into the S/A war but also WW1. It may depress you to see how little has changed in this country.

[Judi Lynn]

19. Undoubtedly your memory of the Operation Northwoods scheme

is still fresh. It was startling when James Bamford shared what he had discovered after ages of trying, in U.S. gummint documents through FOIA.

April 30, 2001

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts
for Cuba Invasion in 1962

In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

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

Gotta have wars going in order to keep the war industry "healthy."

It's also the best way to keep the American public scattered, unfocused, and unable to concentrate well enough to create a substantial resistance.