T Nation

Lone Gunman -Aired on 3/4/2001

The Lone Gunman series (X-Files spin-off)
Pilot Episode - that was aired March 4, 2001 on FOX network.

The series is coming out on DVD, but I haven’t looked into whether this episode will be included. You’ll see why.

3MB segment from the show.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/lonegunmanpilot.wmv

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
The Lone Gunman series (X-Files spin-off)
Pilot Episode - that was aired March 4, 2001 on FOX network.

The series is coming out on DVD, but I haven’t looked into whether this episode will be included. You’ll see why.

3MB segment from the show.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/lonegunmanpilot.wmv[/quote]

Ok that’s just beyond fucking creepy. I don’t even know what to say in response to that.

Is your premise that people in the Bush administration watched Fox, and then launched a plan to crash the planes into the WTC? Or did some FOX writer have access to secret Bush plans that were already in the works?

You are a real piece of work, JTF. If you didn’t actually believe the snake-oil you peddle, it would be funny.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are a real piece of work, JTF. If you didn’t actually believe the snake-oil you peddle, it would be funny.[/quote]

Regardless of what you think or what opinion you hold, you have to admit that this whole premise being played out like that months before the WTC tragedy is a creepy coincidence. I don’t see anywhere that JTF wrote that this is what he thinks happened. Why do some of you get your shirts ruffled anytime someone isn’t posting something that simply praises Bush? Why would you assume this had anything to do with Bush?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regardless of what you think or what opinion you hold, you have to admit that this whole premise being played out like that months before the WTC tragedy is a creepy coincidence. I don’t see anywhere that JTF wrote that this is what he thinks happened. Why do some of you get your shirts ruffled anytime someone isn’t posting something that simply praises Bush? Why would you assume this had anything to do with Bush?
[/quote]

If you juxtapose this post against JTF’s entire body of work, You would be hard pressed not to think he believes that Bush, or Israel was waching this particular pilot, and had a collective brainstorm.

Is that even how you spell juxtapose? So much for the big words.

Regardless of what JTF has posted in the past(though I believe that if he is trying to connect this in anyway with 9/11 then he’s obviously been huffing glue)It is a very strange coincidence.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Is your premise that people in the Bush administration watched Fox, and then launched a plan to crash the planes into the WTC? Or did some FOX writer have access to secret Bush plans that were already in the works?[/quote]

[quote]doogie wrote:
Is your premise that people in the Bush administration watched Fox, and then launched a plan to crash the planes into the WTC? Or did some FOX writer have access to secret Bush plans that were already in the works?[/quote]

Truthfully I don’t know what to think in that way. I do think it would have been pretty dumb to design a plot around a show that was already aired… on second thought ; )

Considering how many times you heard people in the government saying, “we could never have imagined this scenerio” crap, it certainly makes you go, hmmmm?

I will say this, the fact that it was aired on FOX makes it doubly creepy.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Regardless of what you think or what opinion you hold, you have to admit that this whole premise being played out like that months before the WTC tragedy is a creepy coincidence. I don’t see anywhere that JTF wrote that this is what he thinks happened. Why do some of you get your shirts ruffled anytime someone isn’t posting something that simply praises Bush? Why would you assume this had anything to do with Bush?

If you juxtapose this post against JTF’s entire body of work, You would be hard pressed not to think he believes that Bush, or Israel was waching this particular pilot, and had a collective brainstorm.

Is that even how you spell juxtapose? So much for the big words.
[/quote]

You notice I did leave my opinion out of this post as ProfX pointed out.

You certainly also know I don’t believe the official story surrounding 9/11. Not because I’m willing to believe anything I read but because I (along with millions of others) have legitimate questions.

If a government is willing to lie and fabricate intelligence to start a war to remove one guy from power but at the same time destroy entire cities and kill tens of thousands of people you would see 9/11 nothing more than a tool to garner public support.

Most people have no idea of what happened or didn’t happen on that day other than what they’ve always been told.

Just on the surface of the war on terrorism, we went to get bin Laden for 9/11 and ended up in Iraq looking for WMD’s that were never there… and bin Ladens’ still free?! I bet most people plan their vacations much better than that!

JTF,

“If a government is willing to lie and fabricate intelligence to start a war to remove one guy from power but at the same time destroy entire cities and kill tens of thousands of people you would see 9/11 nothing more than a tool to garner public support.”

This, of course, assumes the ultimate in bad faith among the leaders.

The claim is: Bush let happen - or purposely engineered, your text isn’t clear - 9/11 to galvanize public opinion in order to get support for invading Iraq.

So Bush permitted the greatest atrocity on American soil and thousands of lives to be lost just so he could take Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox one step further?

To which, I have to ask: are you serious?

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Regardless of what you think or what opinion you hold, you have to admit that this whole premise being played out like that months before the WTC tragedy is a creepy coincidence. I don’t see anywhere that JTF wrote that this is what he thinks happened. Why do some of you get your shirts ruffled anytime someone isn’t posting something that simply praises Bush? Why would you assume this had anything to do with Bush?

If you juxtapose this post against JTF’s entire body of work, You would be hard pressed not to think he believes that Bush, or Israel was waching this particular pilot, and had a collective brainstorm.

Is that even how you spell juxtapose? So much for the big words.

You notice I did leave my opinion out of this post as ProfX pointed out.

You certainly also know I don’t believe the official story surrounding 9/11. Not because I’m willing to believe anything I read but because I (along with millions of others) have legitimate questions.

If a government is willing to lie and fabricate intelligence to start a war to remove one guy from power but at the same time destroy entire cities and kill tens of thousands of people you would see 9/11 nothing more than a tool to garner public support.

Most people have no idea of what happened or didn’t happen on that day other than what they’ve always been told.

Just on the surface of the war on terrorism, we went to get bin Laden for 9/11 and ended up in Iraq looking for WMD’s that were never there… and bin Ladens’ still free?! I bet most people plan their vacations much better than that![/quote]

The kid makes a lot of sense. Certainly what he says in his last paragraph can’t be disputed. As to what happened on 9/11, while I severely doubt any government would attack its own people on such a massive scale, it’s something we should not discount 100% . In all things, we have to keep an open mind, and not accept slavishly what those in power tell us, like Rainjack does.

Good one deano -

But you really need to work on your delivery. Throwing in a back-handed comment as you leave…that’s a real gem.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
If a government is willing to lie and fabricate intelligence to start a war to remove one guy from power but at the same time destroy entire cities and kill tens of thousands of people you would see 9/11 nothing more than a tool to garner public support.
[/quote]

What “entire cities” have been destroyed? Name one.

Second, implicit in your reasoning is that Bush equates American lives with Iraqi lives. I strongly question that assumption. 3,000 innocent American lives, to most people, are worth multiples of that of aggressive citizens from 3rd world countries.

Finally, your equation is too simplistic. It is not just about an equating of lives. Anyone who would have thought that out would have factored in the effect on the economy (which was already staggering). As a first term president, that would have been Bush’s biggest threat (and indeed was his biggest threat) to his place in history that a second term can bring.

Going into the economics further, large corporations (related to Bush or not) risked an overall net loss from a 9/11 attack, even with military weaponary being used. Since much of their holdings are going to be in stocks and other securities, a severely downsized market would have resulted in losses in the millions. Sure, weapons contractors may eventually make that money back. Even if we conceded that Bush acted in the interests of his friends (which I do not), those friends could have gained by simply pushing for passage of a large defense bill, which carries much less risk, yet retains an equally sizeable award.

Most people do not know why the sky is blue, but that does not mean that the reason it occurs is any less factual. Most people have no idea of what happens with a lot of things other than by what they’ve been told. Have you ever done experiments on why your microwave works?

You’re also setting up the question/implication so it can’t be defended. You’re asking the government to prove a negative, something which can’t be done. The government can never prove that it didn’t do something. Even if it gave you ever document it ever created, you could always come back by saying that it didn’t give you the mythical document or that it was done without creating them.

You seem to know a lot about this. Prove to me you didn’t have a connection. You simply can’t do it. That’s why conspiracy theories continue to exist.

I’m not parading this thing around like it was perfectly contemplated or executed, but your analogy completly fails. Vacation are short term plans with little margin for variance (since there are relatively few variables). Fighting a battle is nowhere near as simple.

A better comparison would be to a defense on a football field. It has an idea about tendencies, what the offense has done in the past, which weapons are the biggest threat, etc. Yet no matter how well one plans, the offense has the upper hand because they are on the active side, not the reactive side. Sure, the defense does take some proactive measures (maybe they throw a blitz), but there is no guarantee that these will work - there is only a higher percentage of success if the offense remains consistent with its prior actions. At the same time, blitzing can leave you exposed somewhere else, which the offense can then expose.

My point is, this is not like planning a course of action, but more about planning a method of thinking, reacting, readjusting, adapting, and re-reacting.

And another thing, it’s not like the Bush administration is the only one who didn’t get the estimates right. I bet the people who are first in line to scream about incorrect assumptions, yourself included, were at the front of the line screaming about the tens of thousands of Americans we would lose before we reached Saddam’s doorstep. People predicted months of battling before we reached Bagdahd.

You’re using today as a baseline for determining whether the plan was correct, when, in fact, you should be using the knowledge that was available at the time plans were made to determine success.

Going back to the defense analogy - let’s say you’ve got a team that runs the ball 75% of the time. You plan on the run. Suddenly next game, they come out and PASS 90% of the time on you. They passed 6x’s more than you prepared for. Now, if you give up more passing yards than normal it does not mean you made a mistake because your team probably did wonderfully against the run.

The campaign into Bagdahd could be seen as the running game. Everyone thought that all of the action would be there, and, judging from '91 and subsequent actions, that was the most logical assumption. Sure, we planned for the pass (post-war), but not as much as we should have. Is that a failure of planning if you never had any indication it was going to occur? No. How could you plan for something that you had no reason to assume would occur? Sure, we practiced the pass, but we didn’t expect them to come out thowing as much as they did.

Long post longer, your assumptions and analogies simply do not hold up. You can over-simplify anything and throw out all sorts of accusations, but that’s all they are.

Your case is not stronger on simply because the other side has not made theirs. It only appears to be stronger.

Okay, I should know better, but this sounds equivalent to legislating from the bench!!!

[quote]vroom wrote:
If you juxtapose this post against JTF’s entire body of work…

Okay, I should know better, but this sounds equivalent to legislating from the bench!!![/quote]

Two totally different things, vroom. At least everywhere but Grayland.

[quote]Cory089 wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
If a government is willing to lie and fabricate intelligence to start a war to remove one guy from power but at the same time destroy entire cities and kill tens of thousands of people you would see 9/11 nothing more than a tool to garner public support.

What “entire cities” have been destroyed? Name one.

Second, implicit in your reasoning is that Bush equates American lives with Iraqi lives. I strongly question that assumption. 3,000 innocent American lives, to most people, are worth multiples of that of aggressive citizens from 3rd world countries.

Finally, your equation is too simplistic. It is not just about an equating of lives. Anyone who would have thought that out would have factored in the effect on the economy (which was already staggering). As a first term president, that would have been Bush’s biggest threat (and indeed was his biggest threat) to his place in history that a second term can bring.

Going into the economics further, large corporations (related to Bush or not) risked an overall net loss from a 9/11 attack, even with military weaponary being used. Since much of their holdings are going to be in stocks and other securities, a severely downsized market would have resulted in losses in the millions. Sure, weapons contractors may eventually make that money back. Even if we conceded that Bush acted in the interests of his friends (which I do not), those friends could have gained by simply pushing for passage of a large defense bill, which carries much less risk, yet retains an equally sizeable award.

Most people have no idea of what happened or didn’t happen on that day other than what they’ve always been told.

Most people do not know why the sky is blue, but that does not mean that the reason it occurs is any less factual. Most people have no idea of what happens with a lot of things other than by what they’ve been told. Have you ever done experiments on why your microwave works?

You’re also setting up the question/implication so it can’t be defended. You’re asking the government to prove a negative, something which can’t be done. The government can never prove that it didn’t do something. Even if it gave you ever document it ever created, you could always come back by saying that it didn’t give you the mythical document or that it was done without creating them.

You seem to know a lot about this. Prove to me you didn’t have a connection. You simply can’t do it. That’s why conspiracy theories continue to exist.

I bet most people plan their vacations much better than that!

I’m not parading this thing around like it was perfectly contemplated or executed, but your analogy completly fails. Vacation are short term plans with little margin for variance (since there are relatively few variables). Fighting a battle is nowhere near as simple.

A better comparison would be to a defense on a football field. It has an idea about tendencies, what the offense has done in the past, which weapons are the biggest threat, etc. Yet no matter how well one plans, the offense has the upper hand because they are on the active side, not the reactive side. Sure, the defense does take some proactive measures (maybe they throw a blitz), but there is no guarantee that these will work - there is only a higher percentage of success if the offense remains consistent with its prior actions. At the same time, blitzing can leave you exposed somewhere else, which the offense can then expose.

My point is, this is not like planning a course of action, but more about planning a method of thinking, reacting, readjusting, adapting, and re-reacting.

And another thing, it’s not like the Bush administration is the only one who didn’t get the estimates right. I bet the people who are first in line to scream about incorrect assumptions, yourself included, were at the front of the line screaming about the tens of thousands of Americans we would lose before we reached Saddam’s doorstep. People predicted months of battling before we reached Bagdahd.

You’re using today as a baseline for determining whether the plan was correct, when, in fact, you should be using the knowledge that was available at the time plans were made to determine success.

Going back to the defense analogy - let’s say you’ve got a team that runs the ball 75% of the time. You plan on the run. Suddenly next game, they come out and PASS 90% of the time on you. They passed 6x’s more than you prepared for. Now, if you give up more passing yards than normal it does not mean you made a mistake because your team probably did wonderfully against the run.

The campaign into Bagdahd could be seen as the running game. Everyone thought that all of the action would be there, and, judging from '91 and subsequent actions, that was the most logical assumption. Sure, we planned for the pass (post-war), but not as much as we should have. Is that a failure of planning if you never had any indication it was going to occur? No. How could you plan for something that you had no reason to assume would occur? Sure, we practiced the pass, but we didn’t expect them to come out thowing as much as they did.

Long post longer, your assumptions and analogies simply do not hold up. You can over-simplify anything and throw out all sorts of accusations, but that’s all they are.

Your case is not stronger on simply because the other side has not made theirs. It only appears to be stronger.[/quote]

Interesting analogy comparing the invasion of Iraq to a football defense. But as the US was the aggressor, shouldn’t they be the offense? They are invading. They call the plays. Actually, their offense has been about as successful as the Colts` was the other night. I guess that makes George Bush Peyton Manning- up until 'Mission Accomplished he had 48 touchdown passes, but after that the insurgents (led by Mohamed Al-Zarqhawi and the NE linebackers ) and Rumsfeld the much-vaunted recieving corps dropping all those passes.

PS Go Eagles.
PSS I’m taking the piss.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Truthfully I don’t know what to think in that way. I do think it would have been pretty dumb to design a plot around a show that was already aired… on second thought ; )

Considering how many times you heard people in the government saying, “we could never have imagined this scenerio” crap, it certainly makes you go, hmmmm?

I will say this, the fact that it was aired on FOX makes it doubly creepy.

[/quote]

There is also the Tom Clancy novel ‘Debt of Honor’, written years ago, where a grief-stricken Japanese commercial pilot crashes his 747 into the Capitol, killing almost all of the US government. And the idea of using a plane as a weapon has been around since about 1944 (kamikaze pilots trying to sink Allied warships.
Maybe we should attack the Japanese for coming up with the idea. They certainly had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did. lol

Rainjack,

I’m sure you realize I’m just poking fun, but just in case, I figured I’d state it before someone else jumps in and gets all offended.

Anyhow…

Isn’t legislating from the bench drawing conclusions (writing law) without support from the constitution or other appropriate authority?

So yes, there are differences, but at the same time parallels. If you want to get technical being parallel is not the same as being equal, but, y’know, it might be congruent or something.

Let me consult my dictionary and get back to you…

Can someone post a link (an official Fox link) that shows it did indeed air this show on television? This has propaganda written all over it! If you do a search on it, the info you do find on it is all propaganda and conspiracy crap…

[quote]Mack wrote:
Can someone post a link (an official Fox link) that shows it did indeed air this show on television? This has propaganda written all over it! If you do a search on it, the info you do find on it is all propaganda and conspiracy crap…[/quote]

I remember seeing it. I was a fan of X-Files for a while until “Moulder…sp?” died. After that, it was pure shit. I didn’t think of it again until this post, however. You think they grabbed all of the actors to redo a scene of a show that was cancelled years ago? It amazes me how some people will go for the most far-fetched ideas instead of dealing with what has the most likely chance of occurrence.