 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nicholas
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 373
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:57 am Post subject: Which Lie To Believe? CIA destroys non-existent evidence |
 |
|
(Original includes links to cites.)
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20071208163121510
Writing in TIME magazine, former CIA agent and occasional "conspiracy theory" debunker, Robert Baer, concedes that 9/11 skeptics seem all the more credible after the CIA admits destruction of key evidence. Full-time debunker Gerald Posner also sees a cover-up.
The most important document in the official mythology of September 11th, The 9/11 Commission Report, is based largely on the reported statements of three prisoners: Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zubaydah. (...)
The 9/11 Commission asked to see Mohamed and other prisoners, and was denied. The only evidence of his existence provided to the Commission was in the form of printed English-language transcripts of interrogations supposedly held at the Guantanamo prison. Videotapes were said not to exist. (...) Ernest May, one of the architects of the Report, admitted in a May 2005 memoir that the Commission never had full confidence that the words were truly theirs.
We learned this week that CIA videotapes of at least some of these supposed interrogations -- the tapes which were previously said not to have existed -- are now said to have been destroyed in 2005. (...)
(See more or less the same article but with comments possible at link below -- kicking off a new blog at Visibility 911.)
http://visibility911.com/nicholas/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The news program I was watching last night quoted a CIA official as saying the commission never asked to see the tapes and that they waited to destroy them until the commission investigation was over.
The whole thing is ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keenan
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Location: N. California
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like more obvious misdirection to me. Instead of directing people to the shortest path of 9/11 truth - the high-tech, physical, smoking gun evidence of the WTC demolitions, the missing Boeing at the Pentagon, and all the other physical facts that disprove that low-tech fanatic muslim suicide hijackers carried out the attacks - Robert Baer is, in a trojan horse kind of way, simply laying out more bread crumbs on a very long and windy trail to Patsystan and the mythical Evil Muslim Terrorist backstory, "away from the terrorists themselves," while putting out the red herring that the CIA's destruction of irrelevant and bogus evidence points to a "cover-up". Yea, thanks Robert. You just keep people going on those wild goose chases to the crazy little town of Jihadiville, why don't ya?
The CENTRAL PART OF THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY - the myth of the Evil Muslim Terrorists - is what underpins the fraudulent War on Terror which is just a PR name for the Zionist/Anglo-American genocide project against the Muslim world, mainly to benefit Israel, while looting the US Treasury of Trillions of dollars. A limited hangout exposure of 9/11 which leaves untouched this crucial aspect of the False Flag element, even by those who claim to be fighting for 9/11 truth, does little to bring us any closer to justice and peace. In a lilttle over a year from now, Aipac-funded Hillary (or whom ever is selected to be our next pup...er...president) may try to appease the anger of the masses by blaming 9/11 on the Bush Administration with some sort of limited hangout story about how "those irresponsible and incompetent Bush administration appointees let those evil bastard terrorists through and covered it up on purpose." All while initiating bombing against Iran or whatever other muslim countries our Puppet in Chief's backers order her/him to attack, cuz, "there's still those evil bastard terrorists out there to deal with," thus, leaving in place the Real Terrorist Network and continuing with the Muslim genocide project, which was the main purpose of 9/11 to begin with. In other words, if we settle for this limited hangout that props up the myth of the Evil Muslim Terrorists, it won't change nothin'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
funhouse1970
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I heard Robert Baer on AJ the other day. He's like a Peter Lance with "credibility," that is his words carry some gravity with MSM viewers. He's a spin-meister and ultimately an apologist for his imperial masters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoraemi
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: -- |
|
|
Keenan:
| Quote: | | "...a very long and windy trail to Patsystan and the mythical Evil Muslim Terrorist backstory, "away from the terrorists themselves," while putting out the red herring that the CIA's destruction of irrelevant and bogus evidence points to a "cover-up". Yea, thanks Robert. You just keep people going on those wild goose chases to the crazy little town of Jihadiville, why don't ya? |
The problem with this kind of analysis is that it takes a very large and complex reality, and turns it into a stick figure cartoon.
We have to deal with the reality of bin Laden and his organization (and/or whoever those 19 guys were) without pretending they didn't exist. To do so just basically tosses your credibility out the car window.
Bin Laden and co. had all sorts of ties to numerous intelligence services, particularly Pakistani and Saudi (the two big "allies" of Washington at this time in the middle east -- that's suspicious, if not incriminating given the obvious cover up, which by the way, is proven in more ways than I care to name), and this evidence has been valuable at exposing numerous lies.
Exposing lies is how you get traction. Although this is psychological warfare, so the deck is stacked against us getting any traction. That's not news.
| Quote: | | The CENTRAL PART OF THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY - the myth of the Evil Muslim Terrorists - is what underpins the fraudulent War on Terror which is just a PR name for the Zionist/Anglo-American genocide project against the Muslim world, mainly to benefit Israel, while looting the US Treasury of Trillions of dollars. |
But that doesn't mean there aren't, and weren't, any "terrorists." Their motives, and particular actions are relevant. To believe otherwise is the height of counterproductive.
| Quote: | | A limited hangout exposure of 9/11 which leaves untouched this crucial aspect of the False Flag element, even by those who claim to be fighting for 9/11 truth, does little to bring us any closer to justice and peace. |
It's awakened a majority of the population, who now are thinking high treason, as reflected in the last Scripps poll. To allow attacks against the country is treason. Covering it up is obstruction of justice. I hear a lot of endless bickering about esoteric structural engineering points, but I seldom hear these two most crucial legal concepts coming from "truthers." Treason, and obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice was sufficient to impeach Clinton. It's sufficient to impeach any of them.
To make this charge you need evidence of wrongdoing. Ignoring it all, because you say it's irrelevant, is not something I'm interested in entertaining.
| Quote: |
"In a lilttle over a year from now, Aipac-funded Hillary (or whom ever is selected to be our next pup...er...president) may try to appease the anger of the masses by blaming 9/11 on the Bush Administration with some sort of limited hangout story about how "those irresponsible and incompetent Bush administration appointees let those evil bastard terrorists through and covered it up on purpose." |
Clinton won't mention it. Period. Bill was just as responsible for the planning and execution as is Bush. It was Clinton who repeatedly refused to extradite Bin Laden or to approve an attack on him. Clinton's CIA allowed the alleged skyjackers into the country. It's a very tangled web, and bipartisan. This will not go anywhere under Hillary. (And I suppose if you didn't know about this aspect then you would falsely believe that the demolition is all that's important, ignoring Clinton's role in the attacks.)
| Quote: | "All while initiating bombing against Iran or whatever other muslim countries our Puppet in Chief's backers order her/him to attack, cuz, "there's still those evil bastard terrorists out there to deal with," thus, leaving in place the Real Terrorist Network and continuing with the Muslim genocide project, which was the main purpose of 9/11 to begin with. In other words, if we settle for this limited hangout that props up the myth of the Evil Muslim Terrorists, it won't change nothin'."
|
You've gotten the motive wrong.
Read this:
The Hidden Holocaust--Our Civilizational Crisis PART 2: EXPORTING DEMOCRACY
Nafeez Ahmed
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2007/12/hidden-holocaust-our-civilizational.html
And you keep saying that the terrorists are unimportant even irrelevant to 9/11. Apart from a handful of rabid, extremist "truthers" this argument ain't gonna fly in the real world. You have a blinkered view, and I find it ... irrelevant.
Dismissal of boatloads of the government's evidence seems childish, like a toddler flailing away at Godzilla.
Know your audience.
Like it or not, you have to back up what you say with evidence (or regular people won't accept your arguments). In order to do so, you must challenge the government's evidence from a position of superior knowledge, not from hiding your head in the sand pretending none of it matters.
That's pretty much all I have to say on this.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Real Truther
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, jdrm, I think Keenan is right on the money. Instead of repeating all the valid points he made I will leave it at that and ask people to judge for themselves what they think is going on here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keenan
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 111
Location: N. California
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: -- |
|
|
| johndoraemi wrote: | Keenan:
| Quote: | | "...a very long and windy trail to Patsystan and the mythical Evil Muslim Terrorist backstory, "away from the terrorists themselves," while putting out the red herring that the CIA's destruction of irrelevant and bogus evidence points to a "cover-up". Yea, thanks Robert. You just keep people going on those wild goose chases to the crazy little town of Jihadiville, why don't ya? |
The problem with this kind of analysis is that it takes a very large and complex reality, and turns it into a stick figure cartoon.
|
Actually, John, it is the government and their media cohorts who have taken a stick figure cartoon and attempted to turn it into a very large and complex reality in people's minds. Have you seen the BBC's Power of Nightmares?
| johndoraemi wrote: |
We have to deal with the reality of bin Laden and his organization (and/or whoever those 19 guys were) without pretending they didn't exist. To do so just basically tosses your credibility out the car window.
|
Oh, so you still think bin Laden and 19 fanatical muslims carried out 9/11? Which bin Laden? The fat dark one, or the tall skinny one? The one who said he didn't do 9/11? The one who was mistranslated? Which 19 fanatics? The 6 who are still alive in the Middle East? The ones who did cocaine and went to strip clubs? The one who left two different rental cars at two different airports and tried to learn flying lessons on the way to the airport? Let's see...credibility? Like the credibility of someone who proposes that fuel tanks brought down the 3 WTC towers? That's a good one, John.
| johndoraemi wrote: |
But that doesn't mean there aren't, and weren't, any "terrorists." Their motives, and particular actions are relevant. To believe otherwise is the height of counterproductive.
|
Oh, I didn't say there aren't, and weren't any terrorists. The question is "which" terrorists are relevant? The fake terrorists, or the real terrorists? Personally, I worry more about the Real Terrorist Network that in running our government and that of key US allies.
| johndoraemi wrote: | | Quote: | | A limited hangout exposure of 9/11 which leaves untouched this crucial aspect of the False Flag element, even by those who claim to be fighting for 9/11 truth, does little to bring us any closer to justice and peace. |
It's awakened a majority of the population, who now are thinking high treason, as reflected in the last Scripps poll... |
Um, no it hasn't. The majority of the population did not say there was high treason, they simply believe that warnings were ignored. That's hardly an indication that the majority of the population are "awakened" to 9/11 truth. Recent polls suggest that less then 50% support impeachment, but mostly for lying about Iraq. Sorry, but your contention that if the population were to simply know that warnings were ignored is enough to stir them up and storm the Palace to demand justice, well, just look around.
IF, HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION EVENTUALLY FINDS OUT THAT THESE MUTHAFUCKAHS ACTUALLY ORCHESTRATED 9/11 THEMSELVES AND PLANTED EXPLOSIVES IN THE WTC, ETC., WHILE BLAMING IT ON A FALSE ENEMY, THAT MAY BRING ABOUT AN AWAKENING.
| johndoraemi wrote: | Obstruction of justice was sufficient to impeach Clinton. It's sufficient to impeach any of them.
|
Not a very good example. The pressure to impeach Clinton did not come from an angry population. It came from the right wing political operatives and their congressional henchmen. Besides, Clinton's worst crimes - the bombing of Yugoslavia and the million dead Iraqi's, among other crimes - went unpunished.
| johndoraemi wrote: | | Clinton won't mention it. Period. Bill was just as responsible for the planning and execution as is Bush. |
Do you have any evidence for this?
| johndoraemi wrote: | | It was Clinton who repeatedly refused to extradite Bin Laden or to approve an attack on him. |
But what does that have to do with 9/11? Oh, that's right, you still think bin Laden did it. I guess you also believe bin Laden did the false flag attacks against the US embassies and USS Cole as well, huh?
| johndoraemi wrote: | Clinton's CIA allowed the alleged skyjackers into the country. It's a very tangled web, and bipartisan. This will not go anywhere under Hillary. (And I suppose if you didn't know about this aspect then you would falsely believe that the demolition is all that's important, ignoring Clinton's role in the attacks.)
|
And I suppose if you didn't know about the false flag aspect of these attacks and the construction of the mythical Evil Fanatical Muslim Terrorist backstory you would falsely believe that the wild goose chase to Patsystan is all that's important, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 couldn't have been carrried out by low-tech fanatical muslim terrorists. Yea, I guess we should just forget about the shortest path to 9/11 truth like who could have wired the WTC with explosives, who Larry Silverstein works with and is connected to, who ran security at...yea, let's just ignore those who were the closest to the action and continue chasing after those who the government tells us to chase after.
| johndoraemi wrote: |
And you keep saying that the terrorists are unimportant even irrelevant to 9/11. Apart from a handful of rabid, extremist "truthers" this argument ain't gonna fly in the real world. You have a blinkered view, and I find it ... irrelevant.
|
Actually John, most 9/11 truthers are MIHOPers - i.e., aware of the False Flag aspect of the attack. It is a minority of truthers who continue to prop up the ridiculous backstory of the 19 Jihidis with their plastic knives and boxcutters, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I suspect that some of those people are rabid, extremist muslim/Arab haters, or at least are having difficulty overcoming their psychological denial. It's amazing, though, that some of the most irrational among us are convinced that its everyone else who is irrational...but it's understandable, you can't really understand when you are in denial until you break out of it...
| johndoraemi wrote: | Dismissal of boatloads of the government's evidence seems childish, like a toddler flailing away at Godzilla.
|
"boatloads of the government's bullshi...I mean, evidence." Wow. So, you are even more gullible than the 9/11 Commissioners who admitted that even THEY didn't really believe in the government's evidence, which is supposedly from these 3 jihadis held at government torture camps, and which is supposedly the most important evidence of the whole 9/11 attack? Wow.
So, let me get this straight, John:
You not only believe in the government's claim that fire could have brought down the WTC buildings but,
You also believe in the government's claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and,
You also believe that the cell phone calls were real and,
You also believe that bin Laden and his rag tag group of 19 fanatical plastic knife and box cutter wielding muslims pulled off 9/11 and,
You also believe in all the "boatloads of the government's evidence" allegedly obtained at torture camps...that even the 9/11 Commissioners don't believe...
I just have to ask you , John: WHAT ON EARTH MAKES YOU THINK THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?
| johndoraemi wrote: | | Like it or not, you have to back up what you say with evidence (or regular people won't accept your arguments). In order to do so, you must challenge the government's evidence from a position of superior knowledge, not from hiding your head in the sand pretending none of it matters. |
 You're a riot, John! Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrisc
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:04 am Post subject: The Hidden Holocaust--Our Civilizational Crisis |
|
|
Yeah, it's very good, and the first part, it's shame that there is no audio online of the meeting he did, which appears to have covered more ground but I guess not in so much detail, on this:
| Quote: | The Hidden Holocaust - Our Civilizational Crisis
2007: global food shortages cause riots (FAO)
2008: global banking collapse (Arlington Institute)
2011: world oil reserves critically depleted (Independent)
2015: climate change point-of-no-return (Guardian)
2025: two-thirds of world in water shortage (BBC)
2100: Earth uninhabitable (UN)
The crisis of the planet Earth is so profound that all of our lives will be caught up in it.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385315.html?c=on |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoraemi
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: yeah yeah |
|
|
| Quote: | | "Actually, jdrm, I think Keenan is right on the money. " |
Actually, RT, I think you ARE Keenan, and that having the other name is a good way of remaining on 911blogger. If you've ever disagreed with him, you can point it out...
Anyway, I don't have time or inclination to indulge you.
How's that FOIA coming?
Oh, that could actually produce some "real" truth. Best to ignore.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casseia
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: yeah yeah |
|
|
| johndoraemi wrote: |
Actually, RT, I think you ARE Keenan, and that having the other name is a good way of remaining on 911blogger. If you've ever disagreed with him, you can point it out... |
Oh, I get it now. JDRM *is* RT -- JDRM has just expressed exactly the kind of shill-duggery RT likes to accuse others of.
And my conclusion has an equally rock-solid basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Real Truther
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, JDRM, whatever you say. Thanks for the heads up "Keenan"!
No problem, RT!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoraemi
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
More of Keenan's childish knee jerking. Completely unexpected!
| Quote: | | Oh, so you still think bin Laden and 19 fanatical muslims carried out 9/11? |
That's not what I said. Bin Laden was not an independent actor. If you don't understand that, you make all sorts of assumptions and leaps that get embarassing after a while.
| Quote: | | Which bin Laden? The fat dark one, or the tall skinny one? The one who said he didn't do 9/11? The one who was mistranslated? |
It turns out there was no "fat dark one" at all. I'm sure you know this, since I put it in your face several times, yet you continue to pretend this is all brand new to you.
| Quote: | | Which 19 fanatics? The 6 who are still alive in the Middle East? |
We don't have the full story. I do not believe that 6 turned out "alive," and that there was a question of the actual identity of only a couple of them. This doesn't seem a strong enough lead to discredit the entire OCT. Why don't you write it up with some serious research and convince me?
| Quote: | | The ones who did cocaine and went to strip clubs? The one who left two different rental cars at two different airports and tried to learn flying lessons on the way to the airport? |
This is the kind of "evidence" you use to convince people that the 9/11 story has problems? No one ever said they learned flying on the way to the airport. All that was mentioned was that flight manuals were retrieved from autos. That does not strike me as particularly supportive of your claim.
I have written about the odd habits of the alleged ringleaders.
The problem is -- that doesn't mean they weren't involved. It's an anomaly, but not one that eliminates them completely from suspicion.
If you were more interested in learning than in attacking, you might realize this stuff. But, you're not. So, you come off as an arrogant little punk.
| Quote: | | Let's see...credibility? Like the credibility of someone who proposes that fuel tanks brought down the 3 WTC towers? That's a good one, John. |
Yes, but that's not what I said either. It's so wonderfully easy to argue when you don't have to quote your opponent or respond to anything they actually say, idiot.
| Quote: | | "Oh, I didn't say there aren't, and weren't any terrorists. The question is "which" terrorists are relevant? The fake terrorists, or the real terrorists? Personally, I worry more about the Real Terrorist Network that in running our government and that of key US allies." |
Well, then how do you know who is actually working for them and who is not?
You make these big bold statements, but you don't have much solid reasoning to back up what you say. Osama bin Laden was receiving money from CIA connected organizations for twenty years. Does that make him a "real" terrorist or a "fake" terrorist?
You (and your doppleganger RT) seem to think you know everything about these "fake" terrorists, and that they couldn't have had anything to do with the attacks. You are very cock sure of yourselves on that.
Bullshit.
We don't know what happened, who exactly did what on those planes and other quite central details. Your blustering sarcasm doesn't impress me, and I am not intimidated by your arrogant speculations.
| Quote: |
"It's awakened a majority of the population, who now are thinking high treason, as reflected in the last Scripps poll..."
Um, no it hasn't. The majority of the population did not say there was high treason, they simply believe that warnings were ignored.
|
The Poll asked:
" How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings."
That's treason. When you show people the breadth and scope of the warnings they actually had, it is very damning. If you don't think this poll is worthwhile ... there's no kind way to address your intelligence.
This is a good development, an improvement.
| Quote: |
"That's hardly an indication that the majority of the population are "awakened" to 9/11 truth. Recent polls suggest that less then 50% support impeachment, but mostly for lying about Iraq. Sorry, but your contention that if the population were to simply know that warnings were ignored is enough to stir them up and storm the Palace to demand justice, well, just look around." |
Well perhaps that's because we don't have a "movement" worth a damn to lead the charge. People need an outlet to direct their outrage.
This disjointed infighting lacks appeal. The MSM has crippled us. The Fetzer disinformation machine has sabotaged it.
| Quote: | | "IF, HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION EVENTUALLY FINDS OUT THAT THESE MUTHAFUCKAHS ACTUALLY ORCHESTRATED 9/11 THEMSELVES AND PLANTED EXPLOSIVES IN THE WTC, ETC., WHILE BLAMING IT ON A FALSE ENEMY, THAT MAY BRING ABOUT AN AWAKENING." |
There's already an awakening. You just want to minimize its relevance.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Obstruction of justice was sufficient to impeach Clinton. It's sufficient to impeach any of them. |
Not a very good example. The pressure to impeach Clinton did not come from an angry population. It came from the right wing political operatives and their congressional henchmen. |
That's an odd way of saying congress impeaches. The people don't. No shit.
I get annoyed with the likes of you and RT because you refuse to see what's right in front of your face. We have a proven crime (obstruction of justice, to take one example). We say person X did this on this day, and it's a violation of y law. Thus, a crime has taken place, and we can seek to make a prosecutable case out of this.
This would naturally lead to more disclosures and more testimony that named US government officials were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
YOU say: "That's patsystanic evil muslim hijacker bullshit, nonsense. Building 7! Building 7! Building 7!"
And you have the brass ones to question my credibility?
| Quote: | "It was Clinton who repeatedly refused to extradite Bin Laden or to approve an attack on him."
But what does that have to do with 9/11? Oh, that's right, you still think bin Laden did it. I guess you also believe bin Laden did the false flag attacks against the US embassies and USS Cole as well, huh?"
|
There you go again -- telling me what I believe, ignoring relevant reality about bin Laden, and then -- with no evidence whatsoever -- clearing bin Laden of any involvement in those other bombings. It's so easy to argue when you don't have to back up a single fucking word you say, hey Keen?
| Quote: |
And I suppose if you didn't know about the false flag aspect of these attacks and the construction of the mythical Evil Fanatical Muslim Terrorist backstory you would falsely believe that the wild goose chase to Patsystan is all that's important, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 couldn't have been carrried out by low-tech fanatical muslim terrorists. |
Says you. It's pointless talking to you, obviously. You repeat paragraph after paragraph of the same shit you shovel on every other thread.
Saying it and proving it are two different things.
I know in your head whatever comes out your mouth is God's honest truth. The real world doesn't give a shit. This is junior high school level waste of time. If you think you're so knowledgeable about 9/11, go write a serious piece of research. Oh, I forgot, you and RT don't do that.
| Quote: | | "Yea, I guess we should just forget about the shortest path to 9/11 truth like who could have wired the WTC with explosives, who Larry Silverstein works with and is connected to, who ran security at...yea, let's just ignore those who were the closest to the action and continue chasing after those who the government tells us to chase after." |
Yeah the government wants me to chase after Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld. You're a real scintillating debater, Keen.
Do you have anything to add about those topics you mentioned? No? Ever written anything except message board rants in your life?
| Quote: | | "Actually John, most 9/11 truthers are MIHOPers - i.e., aware of the False Flag aspect of the attack. It is a minority of truthers who continue to prop up the ridiculous backstory of the 19 Jihidis with their plastic knives and boxcutters, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. " |
The only problem is that the "ridiculous backstory" isn't so ridiculous. It's disputed, that's all. There is not enough evidence to show what happened, which is the "safe" way of stating that the government's story is unproven.
Your story is just as unproven.
That's just basic reality. When you wake from your delusion (probably not going to happen) you'd see that you were wagering, betting, guessing on numerous "facts" that were some version of likely/not likely, but you really couldn't prove it.
That's not a crime.
When you accuse everyone else in the world who doesn't accept your conjecture as proof of being some kind of agent/shill, you're just plain dishonest. Smell what you're shoveling. Back up what you say. Admit when you can't prove something, and tone down your arrogance. (I do not expect this, so you can just move on to the next attack.)
| Quote: | | "I suspect that some of those people are rabid, extremist muslim/Arab haters, or at least are having difficulty overcoming their psychological denial." |
The racism card! You've got to be fucking kidding me. If in doubt, dig deep, pull out the old standby.
| Quote: | | It's amazing, though, that some of the most irrational among us are convinced that its everyone else who is irrational...but it's understandable, you can't really understand when you are in denial until you break out of it... |
Does this one really need comment?
| Quote: | | "boatloads of the government's bullshi...I mean, evidence." Wow. So, you are even more gullible than the 9/11 Commissioners who admitted that even THEY didn't really believe in the government's evidence, which is supposedly from these 3 jihadis held at government torture camps, and which is supposedly the most important evidence of the whole 9/11 attack? Wow. |
But I never specified what I was referring to. Was that a straw man, Keenan? Can I get a ruling here?
Here is a boatload of evidence that I don't have time to go through. What I've seen is daunting. There's of course the two big reports, full of stuff that most people can't refute. We have been lucky enough to show some claims in the 911 report are lies, and numerous ommissions are glaring. That's our case, for the most part. We can prove a cover up, and that they are obstructing justice.
Well here's the big put words in your opponent's mouth finale of the rant. Very classy. What have you got?
| Quote: |
You not only believe in the government's claim that fire could have brought down the WTC buildings but, |
The government claims that fire DID bring down the buildings.
I never made such a claim.
0 for 1
| Quote: | You also believe in the government's claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and,
|
I never made that claim anywhere.
0 for 2
| Quote: | You also believe that the cell phone calls were real and,
|
Never made that claim either. You sure don't pay much attention, Keen. Are you learning disabled?
0 for 3
| Quote: | | "You also believe that bin Laden and his rag tag group of 19 fanatical plastic knife and box cutter wielding muslims pulled off 9/11 and," |
Never made that claim either. Is English your first language? Let me go slow here. We (as in YOU and I) aren't quite sure what happened on those planes. I'm okay with that. You think (due to remote viewing?) you have it all figured out. I find you delusional and juvenile.
Also, even if bin Laden, Zawahiri and others were involved, does not mean that ISI CIA and Mossad weren't involved. There's an unstated categorical claim in your blustering gibberish that implies bin Laden and his crew couldn't have wittingly or not participated in a larger intelligence operation. That is false on its face, and I'm here to clear it up for you, because obviously you just don't get it.
Just as in the Jihad against the Soviets, Jihadis were brought in to the US through Jedda Saudi Arabia, EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T QUALIFIED TO ENTER THE US BY THE EXISTING RULES -- this same pattern happened again with some number of the alleged hijackers. This pattern is not to be dismissed or discounted, but rather INVESTIGATED (something you and RT have no interest in).
But, you were in the middle of your ignorant attack...
| Quote: | | You also believe in all the "boatloads of the government's evidence" allegedly obtained at torture camps...that even the 9/11 Commissioners don't believe... |
Again, you have no interest in honest debate whatsoever. Straw man. Not what I said.
0 for 5!
| Quote: |
I just have to ask you , John: WHAT ON EARTH MAKES YOU THINK THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB? |
Hint -- it ain't idiots like you.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's better to just write and essay and post it, than to waste time on a discussion forum explaining the basics to people, like why saying that BinLaden doesn't exist makes us look stupid, etc.
The more time spent on nonsense, the more time they get away with things like the Violent Radicalization Act and other atrocities.
Even sending an email to congressperson is more productive than arguing with people who might be personas for all we know.
Here's an email you can send --
* Action Alert: Telecom Immunity Showdown in the Senate!
Almost two years ago, EFF filed suit against AT&T for its
illegal participation in a massive digital dragnet of
Americans' private communications. In recent months, the
Bush Administration has been pressuring Congress to
immunize telecommunications companies against this
litigation.
Just a few months ago, immunity seemed like a forgone
conclusion. But last month, outcry from thousands of
concerned citizens like you changed the tide, when the
Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that didn't let
lawbreaking telecoms off the hook.
Unfortunately, a previously-reported version of the bill
that grants telecom immunity will be presented to the
Senate extremely early on Monday morning. This vote is our
chance to strip immunity from the bill. If you care about
holding corporations accountable for lawbreaking and
preserving privacy rights, now is the time to take action:
http://www.eff.org/showdown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
imgstacke
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 407
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thanks for the Heads Up Victronix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Real Truther
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 230
Location: Northeast US
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Here is a boatload of evidence that I don't have time to go through. What I've seen is daunting. There's of course the two big reports, full of stuff that most people can't refute. |
Here's one of my favorite pieces of evidence from that particular (boat)load...
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PE00102.html
See, it's an ID card that says ALHAZMI on it, which means either that the OCT version of the hijacking is correct in every way OR that evidence was planted in order to make it appear that way. I wonder what most truthers think of such evidence? I mean, it's also a "fact" that Satam Al Suqami's passport made it out of the fireball and onto the streets of New York, right, JDRM?
In fact, that entire (boat)load you linked to JDRM, is a list of "evidence" presented at the Moussaoui trial. As real researchers like David Griffin have pointed out, the Moussaoui trial actually helped to put the lie to Ted Olson's claim that his wife called him from the "doomed flight 77":
| Quote: | In the first edition, I challenged this claim on the basis of evidence from American Airlines that their Boeing 757 (which is what Flight 77 was) had no onboard phones. After publishing the book, however, I became worried, because of some new evidence, that that statement from American Airlines, made in 2004, had referred only to their 757s at that time -- that their 757s in 2001 may well have had onboard phones. So I published a retraction, saying that the claim was uncertain.
That retraction, however, evoked new evidence, including a statement made by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson, therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.
However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.”
This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the DOJ’s former solicitor general, saying in effect that the two calls that he reported had never happened. The implication is that unless Ted Olson had, like Deena Burnett, been duped, he had lied. Although this should have produced front-page headlines, it has thus far not been reported by any mainstream publication. http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49982 |
I guess people who spend more time attacking people online than they do reading the work of the best 9/11 researchers are more concerned with giving the appearance of knowing what they are talking about than actually knowing what they are talking about. Dig on, JDRM!
ps. Hi Keenan! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
