US Politics Thread

[the AntiPusher]

Trump's doctor has confirmed it was a bullet wound. He was also checked out at the local ER. Trump's doctor is not the most reliable, but I don't now how you rope the entire ED of a local hospital into silence, if it wasn't a bullet wound.

Hmmm very suspicious.. there hasnt been any official news agencies that vetted the bullet wound Hmm

 

[Moxie]

Hmmm very suspicious.. there hasnt been any official news agencies that vetted the bullet wound Hmm

Why is it suspicious? Because an AR-15 should have done more damage? There are close up pictures of the wound. It's looks like a hole. Now, in fairness, I have tried to google those pictures again, and I can't find them.

But what are you positing? That Trump didn't get shot in the ear?

 

[britbox]

I lived through it, and the long aftermath. But what matters to me is that Front casually rewrites what happened. And then won't defend his claims. I'll say again: if someone wanted to "stage" it, they could have gone with something simpler. Basically, Bin Laden and his people didn't know it would go so "well" for them. The 9/11 Commission published an extensive report. Those who believe in conspiracies will already doubt the source. But, again, they prefer to believe that, so it's self-fulfilling.

@britbox said this: "You haven't asked me any questions other than how complicated it was to "stage" it. I'd suggest far less complicated than the official narrative... In this inferno that melted steel, caused a surrounding building to collapse (reported by the BBC while it was still standing behind them), passports fluttered to the ground with the details of the attackers... It's beyond ridiculous, sorry."

It's perfectly easy to photoshop such a video together. I'd challenge BB to tell me he saw it in "real time." The outer buildings came down later. As to the passports, two of the hijackers passports were recovered from the wreckage of Flight 93, the one that went down in Pennsylvania. Not from the WTC. There were also various bits of luggage, etc. Things did survive intact. But there was also a verbal record of what happened on that flight. If Britbox finds it suspicious that those passports survived intact, I would suggest they were also unnecessary. They would have been identified by the flight logs.

I didn't watch the video in realtime (have seen it since). However, it's never been disputed as a far as authenticity - just a bunch of excuses attached to it - i.e. the BBC reporters heard from CNN that it might fall down and made a mistake.... blah, blah, blah.

There was a passport at the WTC so maybe you'll want to revisit that. Yes, it was unneccessary to identify the attackers - the point was that it was still intact while steel buildings were melting, and the aircraft it was in exploded according to the official account. Anyway, we won't find common ground on this, so there isn't a whole lot of point pursuing it for either of us.

I only entered this thread to state a case that malevolent actions within government aren't uncommon and the cattle (us) are expendable. That's why I showed the declassified Northwoods document. It wasn't smoke and mirrors, just an example. @Fiero425 showed a bunch of others. We've already discussed on other threads about Government experiments on their own populace - ones which are declassified and acknowledged. I know you're heavily invested in one of the parties and get the sensitivity. And this isn't a dig at the United States specifically - the British (as in the establishment) are masters at it.

 

[Moxie]

I didn't watch the video in realtime (have seen it since). However, it's never been disputed as a far as authenticity - just a bunch of excuses attached to it - i.e. the BBC reporters heard from CNN that it might fall down and made a mistake.... blah, blah, blah.

Which building are you talking about? Since you only saw it post facto, it could totally be a photoshop. There was a lot of confusion later in that day, as well. The answer is not ¨blah, blah, blah,"

There was a passport at the WTC so maybe you'll want to revisit that. Yes, it was unneccessary to identify the attackers - the point was that it was still intact while steel buildings were melting, and the aircraft it was in exploded according to the official account. Anyway, we won't find common ground on this, so there isn't a whole lot of point pursuing it for either of us.

Agreed. We'll never find common ground. I appreciate that you recognize that it was not necessary to identify the attackers, as they were identifiable.

I only entered this thread to state a case that malovelent actions within government aren't uncommon and the cattle (us) are expendable. That's why I showed the declassified Northwoods document. It wasn't smoke and mirrors, just an example. @Fiero425 showed a bunch of others. We've already discussed on other threads about Government experiments on their own populace - ones which are declassified and acknowledged. I know you're heavily invested in one of the parties and get the sensitivity. And this isn't a dig at the United States specifically - the British (as in the establishment) are masters at it.

I don't think one bad action proves them all. Or even many. But I do appreciate your responding to me earnestly. My position is not because I'm "heavily invested" as a Democrat. My position is that I'm heavily invested in logic. I think it's worth thinking through them, and not just buying into what the internet can spoon feed us. Such as the vaccine question, which you said was a "conspiracy" that I propagated. I only debated it here. Debate is different from buying into. I've never found the argument against to be that compelling, v. the alternative. I still don't. It doesn't mean that I'm selling a conspiracy. I'm sure you can make the distinction.

 

[britbox]

Which building are you talking about? Since you only saw it post facto, it could totally be a photoshop. There was a lot of confusion later in that day, as well. The answer is not ¨blah, blah, blah,"

Agreed. We'll never find common ground. I appreciate that you recognize that it was not necessary to identify the attackers, as they were identifiable.

I don't think one bad action proves them all. Or even many. But I do appreciate your responding to me earnestly. My position is not because I'm "heavily invested" as a Democrat. My position is that I'm heavily invested in logic. I think it's worth thinking through them, and not just buying into what the internet can spoon feed us. Such as the vaccine question, which you said was a "conspiracy" that I propagated. I only debated it here. Debate is different from buying into. I've never found the argument against to be that compelling, v. the alternative. I still don't. It doesn't mean that I'm selling a conspiracy. I'm sure you can make the distinction.

Building 7

 

[Front242]

It's really hard to know what you want. You've been hoping that someone would replace Biden for ages, since you think he's unfit.

You do understand that it's not a "usurping" of Democracy, what has taken place. It was not merely a cabal of powerful Democrats that forced Joe bow out. It was an increasing groundswell from the Democratic electorate, as well. Things have changed in recent weeks, and the support is just not there for Biden's candidacy, and I'm talking about all Democrats, by-and-large. Elon Musk has an agenda. I really don't give his opinion any weight.
'

That wasn't Elon Musk's post. He just replied to it. What you've just witnessed IS NOT democracy.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Why is it suspicious? Because an AR-15 should have done more damage? There are close up pictures of the wound. It's looks like a hole. Now, in fairness, I have tried to google those pictures again, and I can't find them.

But what are you positing? That Trump didn't get shot in the ear?

Do you have the picture of the hole in his ear? If it was a hole there's had to be reconstructive cartilage unless the man is a lizard. Just show something..most people want to be fair about it my friend but it's like an unsolved mystery we WITNESSED live on television.

 

[the AntiPusher]

That wasn't Elon Musk's post. He just replied to it. What you've just witnessed IS NOT democracy.

Pro choice Act reversal and numerous rights that has been taken away from the US citizens by the GOP will be the "trump card" for lack of a better word

 

[Moxie]

Building 7

The BBC clarifies this, HERE.

On the day, there was much concern that other buildings were going to collapse. It's possible she had heard that it had before it did. Because otherwise, what? The BBC was in on it? They got the word from whomever it was that was really in charge of the conspiracy, and then they accidentally let the cat out of the bag? Again, human error makes more sense.

I do think it's rather disingenuous of you to mention it twice without ever mentioning that the BBC has explained it. It only took 2 seconds to find the BBC's position, so I find it hard to believe that you've never seen it. If you were curious, you certainly would have. At least question things, right? I object to showing only one side, just because it supports your position.

 

[Moxie]

Do you have the picture of the hole in his ear? If it was a hole there's had to be reconstructive cartilage unless the man is a lizard. Just show something..most people want to be fair about it my friend but it's like an unsolved mystery we WITNESSED live on television.

I don't know that it was a "hole," but here is a picture of the wound, from Politico, which is considered "left-leaning," I believe. This article says that it nicked the cartilage at the top of his ear, so not a "hole," per se. But you would think it would take a notch out, if not corrected by plastic surgery. Or, maybe it was just lightly grazed and will heal, though that was a fair amount of blood.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/20/trump-shooting-doctor-letter-00169963

 

[britbox]

The BBC clarifies this, HERE.

On the day, there was much concern that other buildings were going to collapse. It's possible she had heard that it had before it did. Because otherwise, what? The BBC was in on it? They got the word from whomever it was that was really in charge of the conspiracy, and then they accidentally let the cat out of the bag? Again, human error makes more sense.

I do think it's rather disingenuous of you to mention it twice without ever mentioning that the BBC has explained it. It only took 2 seconds to find the BBC's position, so I find it hard to believe that you've never seen it. If you were curious, you certainly would have. At least question things, right? I object to showing only one side, just because it supports your position.

I know the BBC's explanation... it's been out there a long time. But at least we walked on from the video being a hoax. Baby steps. it only took 2 seconds for you to search for it, as it would have done for you to know a passport was found at the WTC. I'm aware of all the "debunking". I'm long (very long) past believing the BBC as being an impartial source. The BBC is no more impartial than RT.

 

[Moxie]

I know the BBC's explanation... it's been out there a long time. But at least we walked on from the video being a hoax. Baby steps. it only took 2 seconds for you to search for it, as it would have done for you to know a passport was found at the WTC. I'm aware of all the "debunking". I'm long (very long) past believing the BBC as being an impartial source. The BBC is no more impartial than RT.

If you knew there were explanations, why didn't you expose them? I find that to be in poor form, in terms of debate.

I believe I've addressed the passports, and I thought we'd moved on.from them. Some things were recovered intact, and we didn't need the passports to prove who the hijackers were. Even you said that. You're going over old ground.

Does it matter if the BBC is impartial? Respond to my questions such as: do you think the BBC knew ahead of time? Do you think they were involved? That's what you're implying. What you don't say is what you think the actual conspiracy was, if it wasn't "just" a plot by Bin Landin on the US. Who hatched it? How'd they do it? Why? I have laid out a lot of ways that a plot beyond the one we know about is complicated. You don't really address that. IMO, you don't really have a counter-argument worth a fig, or you'd make it.

 

[britbox]

If you knew there were explanations, why didn't you expose them? I find that to be in poor form, in terms of debate.

I believe I've addressed the passports, and I thought we'd moved on.from them. Some things were recovered intact, and we didn't need the passports to prove who the hijackers were. Even you said that. You're going over old ground.

Does it matter if the BBC is impartial? Respond to my questions such as: do you think the BBC knew ahead of time? Do you think they were involved? That's what you're implying. What you don't say is what you think the actual conspiracy was, if it wasn't "just" a plot by Bin Landin on the US. Who hatched it? How'd they do it? Why? I have laid out a lot of ways that a plot beyond the one we know about is complicated. You don't really address that. IMO, you don't really have a counter-argument worth a fig, or you'd make it.

I paraphrased the BBC's explanation in the original post... and no - you didn't address passports - you implied the passports were at the other sites conveniently leaving out the WTC passport. With your self-professed logic explanations, maybe you can explain how a building and aircraft are essentially incinerated in a red hot inferno but a paper passport within both of them remains intact.

What's the conspiracy? As usual it's Problem-Reaction-Solution. What was the outcome? A middle-east invasion and the chipping further away at the American rights embedded in the constitution. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress... and then you started the attacking Iraq... All the usual blueprint propaganda... WMDs, Butcher of _______ (fill in the space - Baghdad, Damascus, Tripoli, Moscow), Killing own people, Killing women and children.... Same old, same old.

There is an oligarchy above perceived Government. Presidents and PMs have stated this on the record. One day (I Hope) you too will tire of the lies.

 

[Moxie]

I paraphrased the BBC's explanation in the original post...

You said only this: "In this inferno that melted steel, caused a surrounding building to collapse (reported by the BBC while it was still standing behind them)..." Which mentions nothing about the BBC's explanation.

and no - you didn't address passports - you implied the passports were at the other sites conveniently leaving out the WTC passport.

This is not something I "conveniently left out." I don't have at hand the same details that you do, because I haven't spent the past 23 years pouring over conspiracy videos on the internet.

With your self-professed logic explanations, maybe you can explain how a building and aircraft are essentially incinerated in a red hot inferno but a paper passport within both of them remains intact.

It's not my job to explain it. I thought we both agreed that the passports weren't needed to identify the hijackers, eventually. But you also ignore that when the planes hit, and when the buildings came down didn't happen at the same time. When the planes hit, plenty of debris and artifacts came down, before the towers fell. Obviously, other random things survived, as well. They don't get the same press. Perhaps they're in the 9/11 Commission Report. Some bodies were recovered, some body parts, some DNA, and some was never recovered. That's luck of the draw. Same with artifacts.

What's the conspiracy? As usual it's Problem-Reaction-Solution. What was the outcome? A middle-east invasion and the chipping further away at the American rights embedded in the constitution. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress... and then you started the attacking Iraq... All the usual blueprint propaganda... WMDs, Butcher of _______ (fill in the space - Baghdad, Damascus, Tripoli, Moscow), Killing own people, Killing women and children.... Same old, same old.

There is an oligarchy above perceived Government. Presidents and PMs have stated this on the record. One day (I Hope) you too will tire of the lies.

I have to call bullshit on your reverse-engineering the conspiracy based on a deeper conspiracy. That's very self-fulfilling. And convenient. It also doesn't address direct questions, yes, of logic, that I have. You've used two small things to prove your point. A video, that the BBC has explained. (And I've asked you if the BBC was in on it, in your opinion, if you find that video in any way evidential.) And passports that survived. When lots of weird little things survived. Papers did survive. They flew out, and people found them. Wallets, and the bills inside them survived under the towers, too. I don't believe that either of us is capable of addressing, in terms of engineering or physics why things went exactly the way they did. But others with expertise have.

As I have said, surely the dark forces could have come up with something less elaborate for the same outcome that you think they were looking for. You'd have to have had a lot of people involved to pull it off, and I don't believe no one talks. So you don't agree with Front that the buildings were detonated? Or do you? Was the Cabal just behind the hijackers, and hoping for the "best?" Who was behind the hijackers? You could answer these questions, if you're so convinced.

 

[britbox]

You quoted what I said about the BBC's explanation a few posts up.

I didn't watch the video in realtime (have seen it since). However, it's never been disputed as a far as authenticity - just a bunch of excuses attached to it - i.e. the BBC reporters heard from CNN that it might fall down and made a mistake.... blah, blah, blah.

Pay attention.

It didn't take 23 years to know a passport was found at the WTC. You knew about the others, why not that one? Not that it matters a huge lot. Just the curiosity of how it would survive the inferno.

What's self-fulfilling? World Events all transpire from conspiracies. Look up the definition. Your "version" of events also revolves around a conspiracy. I'm sorry - I don't buy the one you're buying.

You think I'm basing my reasoning on those two highlighted facts? Of course not - but like I said in the intitial post, it's pointless putting a whole dossier of stuff together because of past experience. The two things I've showed you - that the video was not a hoax and a passport was found at the WTC were both things you didn't believe originally. I'm not going any further for the reasons outlined - and to quote you - "It's not my job". Keep swallowing the snake oil from your favourite Rhodes Scholar snake oil sales rep. They'll tell you the truth... honest!

 

[Moxie]

I'm more than happy to move on from this. You believe what you want to, and won't address the illogic of it. You think I believe what I want. We'll never agree.

 

[shawnbm]

Well, I did say something about how it would be interesting to watch what unfolds in the election and recent events have not disappointed. Now it looks like we have a majority of the people in the Democrat party coalescing around the VP. I wonder if there will be the date in September as was being bantered about a few weeks ago. It seems she is passively firing one towards the Israeli prime minister with respect to his addressing a joint session of Congress coming up by going to an event in Indiana. As expected, she is going to be more overtly in sync with the more progressive wing of the party.

 

[Front242]

 

[Front242]

 

[Front242]