Badmovies.org Forum

This week's blog post - my response to all the conspiracy theory memes about 9/11.  The title is simple:  "Dear Lord, Make It Stop . . . Please?"  As always, feel free to read and comment!




http://lewisliterarylair.blogspot.com/ (http://lewisliterarylair.blogspot.com/)

Thanks, Indy.

Every year since 2002 I dread my birthday, not because I'm getting older but because of the horror that was inflicted on a country and peeps I like on that day and the images are still vivid in my mind. I remember being angry at Bush 43 for sitting on his rear end and doing nothing while innocents were dying and I remember being angry at Muslims in general perverting a cause in the name of their prophet.

And don't get me started on the Truthers!

My life was never the same again after 9/11/2001 and it never will be.  :buggedout:

9/11 was a tragic event. As for conspiracies... People are still cooking conspiracies theories for the JKF assassination, Roswell, Paul McCartney died in the 1960's. It's never going to end.


My feelings about 9/11 is an act of war caused by Saudi Arabia but the current government refuse to fight because it's not good business.

I can believe there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll - I mean, how many people had to know?  Theoretically, as few as two or three. No more than a dozen, at most.

But something the scope of 9/11 - it's a cast of thousands.

Every once in a while the crazies get it right: Paul McCartney died in a car wreck and was replaced by a double. Truth is stranger than fiction.

The Beatles were deeply compromised early on by British intelligence through setups with women and sting operations with drugs, Brian Epstein's homosexuality also came ready-made for exploitation, and collectively the Beatles and the group's management could have faced severe penalties if prosecuted for everything from possession of controlled substances, to statutory rape, to homosexual offenses, and as well facing the simple humiliation of some of the covert films and still pictures that were taken of them as they went through the drug and sex-heavy life of rock stars: still something of a novelty in that era.

This was and is standard operating procedure in intelligence circles, the lifeblood of which is blackmail and coercion, plain and simple. If someone in entertainment, politics, business, sports, can be of use, or if their family members can be of use, you do your best to put them in a position to be useful, should the need ever arise. You set a Senator up with a woman or a man, deviant activity being best, take pictures, send a low-level operative to apologetically return the pictures to the Senator, explaining the Senator was in no way the intended target, the Senator happened into an operation that was being conducted, the Senator may absolutely rely on the discretion of the agency, and....for the rest of his career the Senator knows what someone has on him. Goes on non-stop in this world. Compared to a paranoid politicians getting the goods on the free love Beatles must've been like shooting fish in a barrel.   

As a result the Beatles had scant choice but to agree to be deeply infiltrated by MI6 and provided the perfect cover, with SIS operatives traveling internationally among the band and subsequently setting outsiders deep into the countercultural movement, thereby it making it easier to identify leftist-sympathizers who made attractive recruits for Soviet and East Bloc nations, to ferret out potentially violent revolutionaires, and in general to keep tabs on all concerned.

With the Beatles as the ultimate duck blind, it was almost too easy to learn whatever they wanted about persons within the counterculture, which was greatly feared by the establishment, similarly to how anarchists were in their own day.

And then Paul gets himself killed by driving recklessly and high. Like MI6 was going to let that opportunity dry up?

Enter "Faul" McCartney, a look-alike, no one much noticed, those who did were not in a position to speak out.

As I understand it the SIS then planted an insane-sounding "Paul is Dead" story through unimportant radio stations, largely in America, backed it up with pop culture clues so silly as to be laughed at, and by so doing discredited their own leak, and voila, fake McCartney, the Beatles halt concerts, a little time passes, and anyone trying to say Paul died and the man now claiming to be McCartney was an impostor was made to look ready-made for the tin foil legion. The duck blind stayed viable a few more years.

(Ever notice Mick Jagger traveled the world and never paid taxes? Celebrity entourages make excellent cover because so many people want to get close to them.)

So ANYWAY, the dude who married Linda and played in Wings, who did Oprah and who contributes to Green parties worldwide ain't the mop-top from Beatlemania. Scratch the surface, and look into it. The cover-up was so shaky it's a wonder it ever held at all.

Shrug.

^haha wtf Wings wrote brilliant songs that are clearly by the same person who wrote Beatles songs. Mcartney is one of the greatest songwriters of all time and it extends to things he records to this day. and he performs in the same manner.

Anyway, I'll say this about 9/11 conspiracy theories: our government did prior to 9/11 know and still does know events like this are possible. I remember listening to Howard Stern on 9/11 and him saying "we knew something like this was gonna happen".

There had been an attempted millenium bombing that was miraculously broken up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_millennium_attack_plots

and of course the USS Cole.

Our government did make an ostentatious lack of effort on either the foreign policy front ( we used to have a BASE in Saudi Arabia. wisely after 9/11 they closed it) or in terms of what we now know as homeland security.

It's not the same as saying they made it happen or even they let it happen but...

another example: my stepmother worked in tower 2 and got out alive. She and others in her office were taken to a warehouse or sorts that had been set up after the 93 attack (which she also lived through).

You can't help but ask why, if they thought enough to plan on this warehouse place for the possibility of a follow up, were they not pursuing prevention in other areas? Clearly they knew it was a possibility. thats pretty lame isn't it. we couldn't stop them from knocking your building down but we set up this...room like gee thanks

As human beings, we try to look for logical explanations for things that occur, cause and effect, action, reaction.  The problem comes is that life is often so random and chaotic that too many things happen without any apparent rhyme or reason.  As Mark Twain once said, "The difference between fiction and real life is that fiction has to make sense."  This, of course, goes against our need for everything to be wrapped up in neat, tiny boxes.  So, when something inexplicable or tragic happens, people want to look for some explanation that either a) makes sense to them or b) fits more in line with their world views.

After all, we don't want to believe, for example, that one loser ex-Marine could kill the President, so, obviously he had to have help.   And of course, nearly every celebrity who has tragically died young has to have some elaborate explanation behind it.  For instance Kurt Cobain didn't kill himself, he was murdered.  Ditto with Marilyn Monroe.  Bruce Lee taken down by an allergy?  No way, had to be a Chinese Mafia hit.  Oh, and Jimmy Hendrix didn't OD, his manager killed him; Elvis faked his own death because... reasons, and I've even had people try to tell me that Chris Benoit was framed.  Name any celeb who died young and you'll probably a conspiracy theory behind it.  (And for us regular folk, whenever we die "mysteriously" well, no one really cares, so we don't get elaborate alternative scenarios to explain our deaths.)  

As always, B-movies leads the way:

Super Mario Bros the movie predicted 9/11

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLw_Fm3tqg#)

I would compare that to Pearl Harbor:  Roosevelt knew an attack of some sort was coming and warned the troops on the ground - but he was NOT expecting an air attack, more like a large-scale sabotage operation.  Same way with the Towers: we knew they would be hit again after 1993, but no one expected they'd be hit with jumbo jets.

I'm not sure about Roosevelt. US Ships were attacked by German U-boats and the FBI found a Nazi spy network - way before Pearl Harbor. Oddly, with all that aggression from Germany, Roosevelt decided to move his fleet of ships to Hawaii in early 1941 and later in July, the US ceased oil exports to Japan. So I do think (strongly believe) Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Japan and was pushing Japan.

Please note: after Pearl Harbor, FDR speech was a declaration of war against Japan (only Japan!). On December 11, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA; than Congress issued a declaration of war against Germany and Italy later that same day.  I don't think FDR wanted to go to war in Europe. (Why? another topic I guess)


As for 9/11... well when we sit down and think about it, yeah this sort of thing was bound to happen. But we had no evidence that such a massive suicide attack was possible because it never happen before. And since the 1960's a Muslim hijacker would take the craft to a middle eastern nation and ransom the hostages.  On the other hand, American military did experience attacks from Kamikaze Pilots in WW2 so it's hard to believe that nobody was prepared for this type of an attack. And this is why we got so many conspiracy theories. The truth is, the 9/11 was made possible because of Bill Clinton's policies and Bush made no effort in changing them until after the 9/11 attack. (I know this should go to the *famous and annoying thread* but this is why Hillary Clinton should never be president.)

Actually, the Pacific Fleet was always stationed at Pearl.
FDR desperately wanted to get the USA in the war against Hitler - hence all his aid to the British - but public opinion just wasn't there.  He was going to try to make the case after declaring war on Japan, but then Hitler declared war and saved him the trouble.

Two excellent books: THE NEW DEALER'S WAR: FDR AND THE WAR WITHIN WORLD WAR II by Thomas Fleming (he REALLY takes a wrecking ball to FDR's reputation as a war leader) and PEARL HARBOR: THE FINAL CHAPTER, written by the officer who led the investigation into the attacks during the war and interviewed all the principals, but didn't publish his book until 50 years later.  I may not have the title right; that one's in my library at school.

that's pretty sinister I mean his whole job is to protect the life and livelihood of Americans and hes deliberately putting them in danger. To do what: help communist China?

He knew that the Japanese were not going to pull out of China, and intercepted radio traffic indicated that they were planning some sort of attack.  Remember, China at that time was not Communist but under the rule of a Nationalist government that was a close ally of the USA.  Japan brutally invaded them in 1937 and killed over 300,000 civilians in the Rape of Nanking.  FDR believed that the survival of Western Civilization depended on the defeat of the fascist powers, and was trying to turn public opinion in the direction of intervention without much success.

   To his credit, he did send several warnings to Pearl Harbor, including one on the night before the attack marked WAR WARNING: URGENT that the two base commanders ignored.  But no one believed the Japanese capable of staging an air raid of that magnitude 4000 miles from their home islands.   One inside source later said: "FDR expected to get hit but not to get hurt."

a cynic might say he wanted to grow the state via military, couldn't convince any Americans to embrace empire and so he decided to force Japan's hand

A patriot might say he saved the world from fascist domination.   :teddyr:

The pacific fleet was moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in the early 1941.




If that was true then he should had declare war on Germany and Italy after the Pearl Harbor attack because Germany, Italy and Japan were already partners. That's why I have doubts that FDR wanted to go to war with Germany.



First I need to look into Thomas Fleming, there are too many so called historians that are too busy in rewriting American history for a political agenda.  


FDR moved the ships to Pearl Harbor to protect the Philippines from Japan.

@Indy, once again FDR did no such act in Europe. England was attacked several times before 1941...  

or a patriot might say what he did led to half a century of communist domination

Pearl Harbor was a permanent base, and at least some of the fleet was stationed there full time.  I can look and see as far as movements early in 1941, but it would have made sense, as the Philippines were still a U.S. protectorate at the time, to put the carriers there if they weren't there already.  Japan was committed to a policy of expansion, and the Philippines were in their path.

I'm not sure what you mean by Europe - yes, the war had been going on for awhile.  There was a strong isolationist sentiment in American to keep us out of it; FDR sent all the aid he could while pushing public opinion against Germany.  He loaned the British fifty of our older destroyers to help chase down German U-boats, instituted Lend-Lease, and encouraged American Naval aircraft to report the position of any German vessels they spotted to the British - a violation of neutrality, that, but he was worried about what might happen if England fell.  I don't have the hate  for FDR that many conservative Americans do, nor to I consider him a demigod like many on the left.  He was a guy who was dealt a very, very tough hand from the get-go, played it as well as he could, and won more than he lost.

As for the end results of the war - yes, the Communists won in the short term, but we did keep them out of Western Europe, and eventually rolled them back out of Eastern Europe.  China was beyond saving, I think, due to the corruption and incompetence of the nationalist government.

As for the slam about modern historians, I will say this much:  there are NO unbiased historians.  Such a creature never has and never will exist.  However, bias does not necessarily negate objectivity.  I read almost nothing but history, some of it well-written and well-researched, some not so much.  But the majority of the historians I have read do NOT play fast and loose with the facts and try to base their conclusions on where the facts take them.  It is a fun time to be a historian right now; research is easier than ever thanks to the web, and there is some excellent work being done.

he turned an economic downturn into a decade plus long recession, tricked the US into a war they didn't want part of and set the progressive govt we suffer from to this day on it's path.  He was basically an american Mussolini. In his defense that's what people wanted that whole 20th century vibe blech


yet it was okay to intervene on their behalf and drop bombs on Japanese citizens!


in Russia and Chine to the mass detriment of humanity. I follow some Russians on twitter they are obsessed with ww2 they think it absolves them of all the crimes they committed because they fought the fascists.  communism was exported all over the world. how many fascist governments existed?

there are communist parties to this day all over Europe in large part because we essentially gave them our seal of approval back then

every action has a reaction is all I'm saying

I don't really hate FDR but I believe he was one of the worst presidents we had ever had. And there is so much stuff about him that seemed to not make any sense or it was rewritten so it could make him look good. And there are too many Americans assumed FDR was the greatest president because he served 4 terms.

He did end prohibition though which in a sense does make him the greatest president ever

Prohibition was going to end regardless who was president. And I believe Prohibition was a necessary evil so when it was repealed the American people and liqueur companies would accept the regulations.

Lester - I understand, with your Libertarian philosophy, why you despise FDR (and just about every other President in American history, for that matter).
But the idea that Roosevelt inherited a minor economic hiccup and turned it into the Great Depression simply doesn't hold up under the facts.

When he took office in 1933, he inherited a country on the brink of collapse and revolution.  It's easy for us to forget today, but between 1929 and 1940, worldwide, 27 democratic governments collapsed and were replaced with fascism or communism or some other form of dictatorship.  Officially, unemployment was at 25%, unofficially, probably closer to 30-35%.  6000 banks had collapsed nationwide, carrying the majority of their depositors' savings with them.  There was literal starvation in the streets of many major cities.  125,000 lost jobs a week.  It was the worst economic panic in the history of the country, and there was no sign anything was getting better.

Some of the stuff Roosevelt did just flat WORKED.  The Emergency Banking Act, which created FDIC, cut bank failures by over 90% and restored faith in the Financial System.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act saved tens of thousands of American farmers from going under.  The Works Progress Administration created a huge amount of jobs - some were busy-work, but others did remarkable and worthwhile things, creating buildings and monuments that still stand today - like the Art Deco masterpiece that is Fair Park in Dallas. 

MOST of all, and this is incredibly important - FDR restored the confidence of the American people.  Sometimes the intangibles mean something, and Roosevelt made the people believe in their government again.  They believed in HIM.  I can remember during my senior year in high school, hearing a senior citizen say: "There's only been one President in my lifetime who gave a d**n about the little guy, and that was Franklin Roosevelt."

Was it true?  Maybe, maybe not.  Roosevelt was an aristocrat, and like all politicians, a very adept liar.  I don't agree with all he did, and I certainly don't fall for the old liberal saw that "the New Deal ended the Depression." That it certainly did NOT.  But  it did make the Depression much more tolerable, and gave the people a sense of hope and optimism that Hoover never did.  That's why I think FDR was a great President.

As for your comments about communism - there were ALREADY communist parties all over Europe in the 1930's, well before the war started.  Frankly, capitalism had the suckiest decade in its history at that time, and communism SEEMED like an appealing alternative, especially since the Soviet Union under Stalin did a great job of masking its atrocities and portraying itself as a worker's paradise.

Yes, we could have stayed out of World War 2.  What would have been the result?  Either the fascists or the communists would have won, and ALL of Europe would have been under their banner, which means we would eventually have had to fight for our own survival against one or the other of the most evil philosophies of all time.  Not to mention Hitler, win or lose, would most likely have had time to complete the Holocaust, and the Jewish race in Europe would have been completely exterminated, along with the gypsies and many other minority groups that he considered "untermenschen."

I know your philosophy is to stay out of everything, pretty much, but some evils need to be crushed.  Fascism was one, Stalinism was the other.  We couldn't take down both at once, but we eventually eliminated both.

Indy - my philosophy is more based on not getting carried away with superlatives and "arc of history" type nationalist fervor. Roosevelt, Lincoln, Reagan and others were just people doing jobs. We pay their salaries they aren't sun Gods.

I get the argument about the holocaust. I'm not an anti semite or like some kind of ghoul.

I just really think the 20th century mentality is dangerous and look at the ridiculous body count of that era. it's staggering. I think this century is going to go in the opposite direction towards more decentralization. It's happening already. Who would listen to a "fireside chat" from Hillary or Trump or even Jill Stein

I understand that and respect it.  I am of the old Thomas Carlyle school of thought, that "Great men make history."
Some American Presidents have been nothing more than bureaucrats who shuffled through the job and accomplished little.
Others changed the world, for good or bad.  I find them to be fascinating because most of them were ordinary citizens who found their way into an extraordinarily difficult job and used it to make a mark that endures for generations.

I guess I am the sort that needs heroes. . .  or at least wants them!  :cheers:

bah

Odd... so why are you against Trump? Or maybe we should save it on the other thread...

Short answer - I find him utterly despicable and devoid of character.

:lookingup:

He had his share.
Loved your blog post Indy. How anyone could believe any human was capable of planning a sophisticated, ingenious stunt like that...and not have his lackeys gum up the works is beyond me.