Lifelong Republican goes CT

"Right wing conservatives would probably say "it’ll be a cold day in hell" before one of their own portrayed President Bush as a fascist and a bold-faced liar about the 9/11 attacks and his motives behind the Iraq war.

But that’s just what Jim Hanson of Columbus, Ohio, a longtime Republican and former district campaign manager for Richard Nixon, thinks of our bible-toting, gun slinging President.

(...)

A registered Republican for more than 50 years, Hanson claims he has no "axe to grind" with the GOP, but after spending three years researching the events surrounding 9/11, he is convinced the government is either complicit in the attacks or had prior knowledge.

"They needed something big, something to instill fear into the American people," said Hanson. "The WTC attacks was their Pearl Harbor and I’m positive it didn’t occur the way the Bush administration claims. I’ve concluded the story lacks credibility and makes little sense."

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050208.htm

Go check out the American Free Press. Those nuts think Hillary Clinton framed OJ. They think David Koresh was a martyr, and that McVeigh was framed.

that because a life long Republican is now a true believer betrays something that few CT'er are willing to admit. That they are politically motivated. IOW, if Gore was President on 9/11, the 9/11 "movement" would be filled with Freepers.

however, as I have learned more about 9/11, it has actually made me less partisan, believe it or not. That is, while clearly the Bush administration and Republicans are obscenely using 9/11 for maximum political benefit, the Democrats are cravenly supporting the official 9/11 story for fear of exposing the truth about terrorism and for fear of being labeled a CTists.

The fact is, my research on 9/11 has made me disgusted with both political parties. And I suspect this Republican who turned against 9/11 feels the same way. It is far too simple and naive to label all 9/11 skepticism as being politically motivated.

So you are insinuating that I'm "politically motivated"? Ask me about Bill Clinton and Mena Arkansas. The problem goes beyond the two parties and their wedge issues. Most of the democrats around here are afraid to voice a dissent.Lots to be lost..maybe your job. I'm lucky. I'm self employed.

There's too much to lose to betray your own party(Democratic) and be outspoken on this issue. Party activists run away from this issue.

a Republican buying into the 9/11 CT's makes the CT case stronger are political motivated.

If that fits you than you can assume I'm insinuating that you're "politically motivated."

It is comforting that a bit of common sense and objectivity doesn't just belong to those of a certain political persuasion.There are those of all political stripes that know that 911 represents something much bigger than political partisanship.

If a Republican is willing to go against his own party and suspect more sinister motives behind 9/11, than clearly what this person is doing goes beyond partisanship.

And how on earth can you extrapolate from what this Republican is thinking to the poster here and say they are politically motivated? That makes no sense.

What is your deal anyway, LARED?

Do you completely buy the official 9/11 story? If so, why are you wasting so much of your time here?

I am merely pointing out that if a person believes because a Republican now buys into the 9/11 hokum the case for a 9/11 conspiracy becomes stronger; it is based on a politically motivated framing of the issue.

If you suspect that John Doe commited a crime. And then you get to hear that the cousin of John Doe believes the same thing, then you find this interesting, because his cousin is closer too him. And if you hear that his brother believes the same thing, it´s more interesting still.

Hanson is not a cousin or brother of any suspect, but he´s a long time profiled Republican, and so you get a bit of the same thing.

By YOUR framing, you say the "9/11 hokum" is politically motivated. And then if we point out a Republican who also suspects there is more to 9/11 as evidence that political motivations are not at play here, you say this proves your point.

That is circular logic, and you are only convincing yourself of your reasoning.

Demodewd and I said that we are NOT motivated by partisanship here, and still you ignore that.

And I'm still wondering why you spend so much time here if you think this is all "hokum".

a right winger is wrong, UNLESS it is clear that he is right. For example : The "suicide" of Terrance Yeakey. ( This is related to the Oklahoma bombing.)

"The official report said "Suicide," and anyone who believes an ANFO bomb destroyed Murrah and the other surrounding buildings will believe this. According to the report, Terry slashed himself eleven times on both forearms before cutting his own throat twice near the jugular vein. Then, apparently seeking even a more private place to die, he crawled another mile of rough terrain away from his car and climbed a fence, before shooting himself in the head with a small caliber revolver. What appeared to be rope burns on his neck, handcuff bruises to his wrists, and muddy grass imbedded in his slash wounds strongly indicated that he had some help in traversing this final distance."
http://www.patshannan.com/yeakey.html

Hansen isn't a "right wing kook". He doesn't contribute to American free Press. This is poor, bolo.

McVeigh was framed but also was complicit.

I don't follow the plane hitting the Pentagon arguments very much. Does anyone have details of the rivets and liana vines arguments he's making, the photos involved, and have these particular points been debunked or not?

the piece of debris that is being discussed here :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x10744

never heard about this liana vine thing. I've heard about the rivets, but this liana vine arguments sounds bogus. It's kind of crazy to think that they would plant wreckage in the first place but then also that they would leave an identifying piece of foliage on the piece? Silly. Furthermore, I have seen pictures of this piece of wreckage but there is no clear evidence of vines on there. So I'm not sure what the guy is talking about. He may be a disinfo agent.



The wreckage is curious since it doesn't match perfectly with any known part of a 757.

MY best guess is some sort of smaller drone plane painted to look like a AA jet hit the Pentagon, perhaps even a cruise missile painted to look like a AA jet.

This site is a really good overview of the Pentagon hit.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com

I agree the liana vine thing is a real stretch. I'm just curious if it's unique to him or some popular theory I somehow missed.

There actually was a lot of debris, from other pictures I've seen, and that one piece of debris somehow got famous as the only piece.

I'll check out the link you mentioned one of these days, but I have one real problem with any Pentagon hitting theory. Let's say you assume MIHOP. Why would the MIHOPers risk sending anything into the Pentagon but something that looks exactly the size and shape of a 757, because of the chances of getting caught? Think about it. The second WTC hit was at 9:03, the Pentagon hit at 9:37. The Pentagon was right by a busy highway, with all kinds of buildings around. The Pentagon was an extremely obvious target. Anyone could have taken a videocamera and filmed the whole thing. In fact, I'm surprised no one did. There was a lot of time for someone to even go home, grab a videocamera, and get to the Pentagon and wait for a hit, if one lived in the vicinity. I think even C-SPAN had a camera pointed at the Capitol Dome by that point, just it case it got hit. Sure, there were some stationary surveillance cameras that had their film taken away, but with so many potential witnesses and vantage points there's no way one could have guaranteed one got all the film, not to mention the possibility of a lucky still photograph that caught a clear shot of the plane (or whatever it was).

In fact, I understand the video from the hotel that was seized was actually watched by some people in the hotel before it was seized. It would be interesting to find those people and find out what they recollect.

Yet, on the other hand, there are strange things, like the amazing 360 turn to hit the one strongly reinforced and unoccupied section of the Pentagon, or the confiscation of video footage within five minutes of the attack. So I don't come to any conclusions, especially since I haven't really looked at the whole issue as closely as many people have.

doesn't square very well with a Boeing 757-- the hole and impact area is too small, the inner damage is odd, some witnesses described a smaller plane and the security camera video the Pentagon released just complicates things.

As to why they would lie, I don't think we can know exactly what the planners had in mind. Clearly they are not being truthful about other aspects of 9/11. As the day went on, saying flight 77 hit the Pentagon may have been the simplest explanation for them, even if it wasn't true. Your points are well-taken but I just don't think we know enough to say that the planners were worried about someone random taking a movie of the incident. It seems doubtful someone random would get high quality film of the hit. And even if a movie showed up with a smaller plane hitting the Pentagon, perhaps they would just make up some story about another hijacked plane. Or the FBI would confiscate that as well.

The bottom line is that many people think there is something very strange about the Pentagon hit, and I tend to think this as well because of the physical evidence.

i cant help but wonder how the fuck does the pentagon's roof-line appear to be collapsed,if you look down the roof's edge you'll see a broken line...why?? also,the timer on the photo's showed the following days date. why?? our investigators can find wallets but couldnt find the black boxes.why?.:hi: :hi: :dem:

There are strange things, very strange things. But I'm in no position to judge them. For instance, I thought I followed the whole light pole information, but then I saw some other info about that relating to wind turbulence that made the analysis I'd read moot. So I leave this kind of thing to the engineer types.

And I do think if it wasn't the Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, it had to have been something looking exactly like it. No way could one use a cruise missile or small fighter or something that different when you have a busy superhighway right there.

paul.. have you checked the eric bart site out? http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/
He subscribes to a plane substitute but look alike theory. I believe it's a good analysis and the best I've found.. so far.

I've seen that before and I'm using a picture from there that shows exactly how the plane came in by looking at the light poles that fell down.

But someone here sent me this link recently and I probably like this the best of the plane-Pentagon sites, as the guy there seems more open minded than most:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/attack.html

The wreckage is curious since it doesn't match perfectly with any known part of a 757.

How in the world can you know that? Seeing that one photo of a beat up misshaped piece of fuselage you feel there is enough information to state it is not from any known part of a 757?

American jets, and haven't found an exact match to what is on a AA Boeing 757. It's about small details with the shape of the letter and the rivets, I'll try to look up the analysis later tonight.

Basically, the only place that letter could be from is that "n" at the end of the "American", but the letter on the debris doesn't really look like the TOP of an "n"-- it doesn't have the little nub sticking up at the left.

There is more analysis here:
http://www.rense.com/general31/CONFIRM.htm

as well as other sites I don't have time to find now.

Good fit to me. The fitting of the pic could be too big or too small, and the nub could be behind the twisted piece of metal.

I haven't read much in this forum before and I am not familiar with this abbreviation.

CT = Conspiracy Theory

That was too easy! I was thinking more specific to 9/11.

I guess in this forum that phrase is used more often than the others!

Thanks, John Doe II!

mm

i'm new here..:hi: :dem: :thumbsup:

Check out this site: Democraticunderground.com (Unofficial) information Glossary

Welcome to DU!

:hi: Make7

its fabulous...all i need to know can now be found with a keystroke... thanks make7
:hi: :hi: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: