So what is the conspiracy?
-
Charlie_Strom — 15 years ago(August 30, 2010 07:12 AM)
Basically, it was very early into the campaign, and Tillman was very vocal about the dislike of the Administration, and was planning to write a book. His mother had an article in the SF Chronicle soon after his death, and thats when Anne Coulter went after the Tillman (she was heavily criticized). Of course, McChrystal and Company lied and or covered-up circumstances, because the whole Iraq WMD was a lieit was early, and the Tilman hero thing had to be sold to the American public to continue public support for a war that was already beginning head South on them after Abu-Gharib and Fallujah.
The cover-up revealed that members of Tillman's unit burned his body armor and uniform in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that he was killed by friendly fire, and their was evidence that he was probably "fragged" - shot at close range.
Army attorneys congratulated each other in emails for impeding criminal investigation as they concluded Tillman's death was the result of friendly fire, and that only administrative, or non-criminal, punishment was indicated.
It was a disgrace to a National Hero. Wont be the first time,for the military and it sure wont be the last. -
pawalsh — 15 years ago(August 30, 2010 04:40 PM)
Hey why is he a national hero? are you saying he's like George Washington or Abe Lincoln because he played football then joined the ArmyHe did what all Americans should of done after we were attackedsupport our countryI'm glad the true story came out of what happen to Mr. Tillmanbut to use his death to either support or disgrace the goverment or the Army is the last thing anybody should be doingthats why I'm very leery of these so called documentary films there always political one way or another. Mr Tillmans family is upset, there gonna grieve then accept his death. We have people killed everyday by drunk driversdrivers that had their drivers license taken away countless times but always get the 2nd, 3rd and 4th times to drive again risking people and there's never this much press about itto me thats worst then my unit accidently shooting me in a firefight with the enemy.
Mr Tillman joined to serve his country and died doing so he wasnt drafted or forced to go and I think he would be upset having a bunch of strangers or even his family members using his life to push their cause. It's a war not a conspiracy class 101. -
dmhyche — 15 years ago(September 01, 2010 11:34 PM)
Why is he a hero? Because young men do not join the military for the hell of it. Look at the demographics, they are all from lower income families and usually do it because they cannot afford the luxury to go off to college, or in some cases, even work a minimum wage job. He's a hero because he CHOSE to go and gave up millions of dollars. No other person I can think of that had enough gave it all up. Ideally, people should volunteer to fight for our country, as you say, but the Jeffersonian days like that are LONG gone. War is a BUSINESS now that preys on the poor kids from the day they enter high school. The fact that 9/11 and the war on terror is a farce and is no different than the Gulf of Tonkin makes the Tillman story all the more of a tragedy.
-
Bulletcatcher — 15 years ago(September 03, 2010 08:30 AM)
The
fact that 9/11 and the war on terror is a farce
and is no different than the Gulf of Tonkin makes the Tillman story all the more of a tragedy.
WTF? "Fact"? Do you have hard proof you can take to a courtroom and defend?
No?
Didn't think so.
Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis! -
Charlie_Strom — 15 years ago(September 09, 2010 06:03 AM)
WTF? "Fact"? Do you have hard proof you can take to a courtroom and defend?
No?
Didn't think so.
If they arent going to try the case, or admit Able Danger or any of the other smoking guns, of course, JACKASS.
do you really want to go there, son?- AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying. - Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown? - Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command? - Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"? - Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?
THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS - Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?
- Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)
FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS - What did officials know? How did they know it?
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th. - Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence. - Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration''s orde
- AWOL Chain of Command
-
JaffaCakes — 14 years ago(August 03, 2011 04:41 PM)
You forget one other thing.
They assasinated Osama Bin Laden so he wouldn't corroborate some of the stuff if he could have stood in a court of law.
I read all your points. Very interesting. Almost like connecting all the dots over this long saga.
I would have read it with humor, but I have doubts now. -
gayfordeniro — 13 years ago(May 06, 2012 05:08 PM)
As said already, the conspiracy was to exploit this death to beat the war drum. Then when it emerged to be friendly fire, it seems people washed their hands clean. I think the movie could've done more to investigate however, particularly by getting the officer that took the fall to point his finger.
I just want to say that posters like 'Charlie Strom' are no better than the government exploiters - he's using this case to prop up his own argument for wide-conspiracy. His claims are rubbish by the way - there are/were many famous people that were taken seriously when voicing their doubts about the legitimacy of the war, for example the people Tillman was reading, Chomsky etc. It would make more sense to kill these people surely. Why go to the effort to purposely kill Tillman, where if he came out against the war he would probably be smeared as 'extreme left' like others anyway. There are many other outrageous premises, such as the US Army has a secret 'friendly fire sniper division' as well.
And the conspiracy for US to attack its WTC, i'm not going to say much, but more of his arguments go like this: there's doubt about some fact (usually due to an official's quote/statement, press coverage - which are always reliable)+ there was intent to go to war = conspiracy. You don't have to consider the idea for very long to see it's outrageous; you need a smart and incredibly well-organised group, including CIA, governemnt officials at multiple levels, multiple governments, multiple nations giving efficient and water-tight information and all beleiving the means are worth the ends. There'd be whistleblowers with the dubious moral grounds - there was with the Tillman case for example. And if this operation occured, why couldn't the same individuals put together even a tiny bit of water tight evidence proving Iraq was in on it?
Charlie Strom et al, go away. -
Calabashe — 13 years ago(May 09, 2012 12:22 AM)
The film was based on Mary Tillman's book,
"Boots on the Ground Before Dusk"
. She led the 'family's' investigations and took them as far as she could. To come up with any solid conclusion would have been speculation and accusation without solid proof.
Pat Sr. has said publicly he believes there are 3 possible scenarios but he never went into detail on camera. I'm guessing the 3 are:- An accidental friendly fire incident.
- A personal case of jealousy and revenge.
- A political assassination.
As a personal friend of Pat's, I never completely let go the third but that's strictly opinion. I'm most disturbed by a missing drone recording of the event.
Noam Chomsky was one of many authors Pat read. You rarely saw him without a book at hand. It is true politically Pat did generally lean Left. IMHO, He and Kevin enlisting proves the patriotism is not the sole property of the Right.
Ret General Kensinger (the fall guy) did participate in the film and told what he knew.
I don't know anything about the other cases you cite so I'll not comment but THX for your thoughts.
-
gayfordeniro — 13 years ago(May 09, 2012 01:30 AM)
A personal friend of Pat's?
Does it anger you to see individuals speculate about these events to meet their agenda, and then push that onto others?
Questions do need answering in this case, but that's as far as we should go (and the documentary has gone). -
Calabashe — 13 years ago(May 09, 2012 02:07 AM)
Does it anger you to see individuals speculate about these events to meet their agenda, and then push that onto others?
Yes it did. It angered the family too. I can safely say that without betraying any trust. There was a time when Mary spoke publicly and privately of 'real Pat' not the media 'super hero' of or the fantasy version Jon Krakaur created in his near fairytale, never mind the recruitment tool the administration/military wanted US to believe.
Pat was a very honest dude. Party because of his poker face - LOL - He really didn't have one. If he told something less than truth - you could tell immediately so he never did, 'cept of course the none-of-your-business questions. Point being Pat was a man who just didn't deserve to be buried in lies.
That was one of the reasons the family agreed to the film and was allowed great say in it's content. It was an honest story of a man more humble than one might suspect regardless of the 'primal animal' let out on the gridiron. It was of the Pat I knew. The family wanted to take back 'real Pat'. I think they did it. -
Charlie_Strom — 15 years ago(September 10, 2010 02:49 AM)
I always wondered what the f#%k are people deluding themselves into protecting? American honor? Patriotism?
A lot of those in denial about 9/11 face the crucial questionif our government has killed others abroad, why wouldnt they sacrifice American lives, here?
Many thought Tillman would be ashamed that his career was politically manipulated. I think he'd be ashamed at the lack of courage by many Americans to not challenge the administration that led them down the tortuous path of war. On this Sept 11th, many should look back and ask themselves Will we allow a Patriot Act again? Allow a Congress to be bullied into a war without proof of WMD, etc. -
Bulletcatcher — 15 years ago(September 13, 2010 05:32 AM)
So, take your stack of internet printouts and go to court.
Good luck with that.
You have zero (0) hard evidence of anything even hinting at US government complicity in the attacks by Al Qaeda. Nothing.
You allude to nothing but circumstantial things. That won't hold water in a court of law.
Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis! -
Charlie_Strom — 15 years ago(February 02, 2011 01:18 AM)
.
"You have zero (0) hard evidence of anything even hinting at US government complicity in the attacks by Al Qaeda. Nothing. "
I think "bulletcatcher" is a very appropriate name.
LOL at the "pride" of the comment. Were going to kill people and have soldiers die for absolutely NOTHING but the wealth of those above us, and i for one, am very, very proud of that.
pathetic. No wonder were in two wars. -
-
shurbanm — 14 years ago(August 13, 2011 06:16 AM)
erm.
you must have missed the last 10 years.
All the supposed hijackers were Saudis.
We invaded Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 911 with the justification of Saddam harboring WMDs.
No WMDs, No 911 involvement.
Does that clarify it for you?
Can take to courtroom and prosecute not defend!
Capice?
Didn't think so
